Howard,
Thanks for your comments.
I hope you will have taken the opportunity to familiarise yourself with
the background to this matter - particularly in respect of the numerical
coordination that is found to exist between Gen.1:1, the Lord's Name,
Rev.13:18, and certain fundamental properties of number per se. There
are powerful arguments (voiced in my writings) for believing that these
associations can neither reasonably be ascribed to chance nor to human
contrivance; it therefore follows that they are there by supernatural
agency, and are intended to accomplish some significant purpose.
It was with these facts in mind that I sought to challenge Dave's
suggestion that the 'iota' that is now found (as a subscript) associated
with the final letter of the second word of John 1:1 might not have been
present when John actually penned his gospel. So what is really being
discussed is whether the Greek of this verse has 51 or 52 letters and,
accordingly, whether the verse sum is 3617 or 3627. It is important to
note that the three numerical features which fall into place when the
iota is included are independent of one another, viz the reflective
factors, the numerical geometry, and the evaluation of e from within the
verse. In respect of each of these, a powerful numerical bonding with
Gen.1:1 is also established and the phenomena are immediately seen to be
just another facet of the Grand Scheme. None of these things happen if
the iota is omitted.
These being the circumstances, I have suggested that it is reasonable
that we accept the numerical findings as ratifying the presence of the
said iota subscript in all texts as we find them today. Indeed, it is
pertinent to ask why this should ever have been questioned given that
the scholarship of centuries has concluded that it must be there?!
Regards,
Vernon
Howard J. Van Till wrote:
>
> Vernon writes:
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > Thank you for the additional information. We could be arguing at some
> > length about whether or not iota appeared at the end of the second word
> > John actually wrote c100AD. In the circumstances, therefore, the
> > decisive argument in favour of it being there is the numerical one,
> > thus:
> >
> > 1) Gen.1:1 and John 1:1 are textually parallel.
> > 2) Gen.1:1 = 2701 = 37 x 73; John 1:1 (with iota) = 3627 = 39 x 93;
> > John 1:1 (without iota) = 3617 (prime)
> >
> > Comment: the reflective factors in each case suggest a purposeful
> > numerical link.
> >
> > 3) Gen.1:1 = 2701 = 73rd triangular number; Gen.1:1 + John 1:1 (with
> > iota) = 2701 + 3627 = 6328 = 112th triangular number.
> >
> > Comment: John 1:1 may be realised as a numerical trapezium which
> > functions perfectly as a a plinth for Gen.1:1. Without the iota, no
> > trapezium, and no plinth.
> >
> > 4) John 1:1 (with iota) yields e when the formula (as used in Gene.1:1
> > to yield pi) is applied; John 1:1 (without iota) spoils the pattern.
> >
> > I suggest that in the absence of direct knowledge vis-a-vis John's
> > original, or his intention, these numerical facts must be decisive.
>
> So here's the deal:
>
> 1. Certain texts are said to demonstrate their divinely inspired character
> by the way in which they generate interesting numbers.
>
> 2. But there is uncertainty concerning the particular characters that
> comprise the text. Choices must, therefore be made.
>
> 3. Choice "A" generates interesting numbers. Choice "B" does not.
>
> 4. Therefore it is self-evident that choice "A" is the correct one.
>
> 5. Thus it has been decisively demonstrated that the Bible is divinely
> inspired.
>
> With this kind of methodological flexibility, "success" seems assured.
>
> Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 12 2001 - 16:59:12 EDT