Let me therefore begin with the matter of methodology. I believe I have
followed the time-honoured traditions of the pioneering scientist.
Realising that the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek documents upon
which our Bible translations are based may be fairly read as sets of
numbers, and following some existing leads, I became interested in
evidences of what appeared to be a second channel of communication
running parallel with the Scriptural text; I found, in particular, that
the opening words of the Bible (in the Hebrew) and the Creator's name
(in the Greek) were linked numerically, and rested upon an absolute and
unique structure of two- and three- dimensional numerical geometries: I
further discovered that accompanying these were many other features of
interest - including symbolic associations with portions of the wider
biblical text.
These empirical findings strongly pointed to purposeful design, and that
raised the questions, Who was their author? and What was his purpose? In
relation to Genesis 1:1, I therefore had to consider whether it was
possible that a man - albeit an exceedingly clever man - living before
1000 BC could have overcome the problems of (a) discovering a suitably
imposing mathematical structure upon which to base such a project, (b)
mapping an intelligible and challenging verse of Hebrew onto it, and (c)
anticipating a development that was to occur many centuries later, viz
the use of Hebrew letters as numerals. Then, in relation to the Creator,
'Jesus Christ', to consider the fact that the Greek forms of both name
and title were in use long before the Incarnation (as revealed in the
Septuagint and elsewhere) - this creating a situation that required
another considerable feat of anticipation if one were looking only for a
human author.
These being the circumstances, the only logical conclusion appeared to
be that the observed phenomena were the work of a supernatural being!
Believing God to be sovereign, I further reasoned that they must be
attributable to Him (for who else would want to elevate the opening
words of His Book in such a remarkable manner?). Being familiar with the
biblical text, with creation-evolution issues, and with the direction in
which the world was moving, I also saw that it made a great deal of
sense.
I therefore offer the following Theory of Divine Intent in defence of my
claims:
The proposition that the Creator would want to underwrite the truth of a
statement that He foresaw would, one day, be flatly denied or
watered-down by the majority of he world's 'wise men' seems eminently
reasonable. There can be little doubt that the authority of the Bible as
a whole rests ultimately upon the authority of its opening verse, 'In
the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' (Genesis 1:1).
Taken at face-value, these are the received words of a sovereign God for
whom nothing is impossible; a God more than capable of creating all
things ex nihilo in six literal days some six thousand years ago. Yet,
the sad fact is that over the centuries - and particularly in our own -
all kinds of reasons have been advanced for casting doubt upon this
unique miracle. Many of our scientists and intellectuals have preferred
an explanation of origins that requires neither the involvement of God
nor any appeal to the miraculous. Though still officially designated
'theory', there is little doubt that the concept of evolution has itself
evolved into hard fact as far as the establishment and the media are
concerned. Indeed, it has become an essential peg supporting a host of
other theories and speculations.
God has already promised to deal with such people (see, for example,
Isaiah 29:9-24, and Psalm 2). Of the many methods at His disposal, He
has chosen to reaffirm the words of Gen.1:1 in a unique and wonderful
manner, and thus confound 'the wise'. It is interesting and instructive
to analyse His method: clearly, to carry any weight in an intellectual
world largely hostile to His message the validating principle would need
to satisfy at least three important criteria, viz
(1) it would need to be universal in its scope, i.e. be completely
independent of language, of intellect, of time, and of place;
(2) it would need to appeal strictly to self-evident truth and logical
argument, i.e. no step of faith would be required to grasp its import;
(3) it would need to be decisive, i.e. leave no room for doubt that the
Creator is its Author.
Only the language of number can fulfil these exacting requirements! But
how can the words of an ancient language lead uniquely to a meaningful
set of numbers? By what generally-acceptable method can this first and
crucial step be accomplished? By the simple device of causing letters to
function also as numerals! And by what means can such numbers acquire a
generally-acknowledged significance? Simply by taking a prominent and
absolute number structure as a basis, and guiding the development of
vocabulary, syntax, and semantics to achieve coincidence with it!
Whether or not we believe that God plays such an active role in the
affairs of men, we must squarely face the implications of the empirical
evidence. And let us not overlook the fact that the principal object of
our attention - Genesis 1:1 - is both a challenging and
strategically-placed verse. It is indeed difficult to avoid the
conclusion that these are all carefully coordinated features of
purposeful design intended to meet the demands of a pressing human
situation.
James had asked:
> How do you objectively justify your methodology for (a) determining >these divinely intended geometries (i.e. how did God inform you that >they were to be found in this way?) and (b) interpreting the >significance of the geometries?
>
>On what basis do you conclude (a) that they were incorporated by the >Creator and (b) that He intended them to serve some serious purpose?
James, what you have not acknowledged (and it is no fault of yours for
as it stands my website makes little of them) are the symbolic aspects
of these geometries, and I believe the answers to many of your questions
lie here. Undoubtedly, the most potent symbolism relates to the text of
Revelation 13 where the reader is given important information concerning
aspects of spiritual reality and the nature of 'end time' life, and is
introduced to the fascinating number, 666. Let me briefly summarise the
salient points:
(A) An 'unholy' trinity is defined (vv 4-9, 11-12) comprising dragon
(Satan), first beast (the Antichrist) and second beast (the False
Prophet).
(B) The second beast - and, by association, each of the others - is
linked with the number 666 (v 18). Since God is in control of these
developments, we infer that this number has been specifically ordained
by Him.
(C) God hands over power to this trio for a period of 42 months (or 1260
days).and the world experiences a time of apostasy and great wickedness.
During this period His chosen ones are severely persecuted.
(D) An offer of wisdom is made to 'him that hath understanding'; he is
simply required to apply the principles of gematria to a name and,
apparently, identify the second beast.
Who will turn down the offer of wisdom? Let us therefore begin in the
most obvious place by examining the attributes of 666.
(a) As a denary object its appearance is arresting - this based on the
repetition of the first perfect number, 6.
(b) In factored form, 666 = 2x3x3x37, or (6+6+6)x37.
(c) The number is triangular (the 36th, or 6x6th); however, it is not
merely triangular but uniquely so in that all its features are
triangular. Indeed, 666 epitomises numerical geometry.
(d) It possesses textual links with two other NT numbers, viz 153 and
276, which also happen to be triangular.
Features (c) and (d) are treated in my website paper 'The Second Edge'
in which I demonstrate that the structure of Genesis 1:1 may be deduced
from these New Testament data.
Here, then, is clear justification for my claim that numerical geometry
(triangularity in particular), and the reading of Hebrew and Greek words
as numbers, are God-given principles of Scriptural exegesis. But in
addition, we have a clear hint that 37 and its multiples are likely to
be significant players in this endeavour. In respect of Genesis 1:1, we
find the 73rd triangle (= 2701) expressed as a symmetrical composite of
triangles: the 37th (=703) central to a trio of 36ths (=666).
Intriguingly, the 37th derives from the two final Hebrew words meaning
"...and the earth." (which, of course, includes us!). The picture
therefore accurately mirrors the prophecy of Revelation 13: mankind in
the grip of the unholy trinity. What potent symbolism we find here! -
and so timely, as we witness the world rapidly reverting to a pre-flood
/ pre-Babel condition!
(Note: to view this picture, please access Fig.14 of my website paper 'A
Sure Foundation').
Now, regarding 'the message' conveyed by these findings. Many people are
atheists, while many who consider themselves theists are unwilling to
accept the plain language of the Scriptures and the fact of His overall
control of world events. The message to such people is already in place,
viz "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The
numerical phenomena which are now seen to be firmly attached to this
assertion are intended to bring home the reality of these truths. We
read in Romans 1:20 that those who reject God are without excuse. Here,
it seems, is a further act of grace designed to save reluctant souls.
The evidence is largely open, pictorial and direct; it therefore has
little in common with gnosticism.
Finally, concerning Muslim claims in respect of the Koran. The Koran
contains no phenomena of the type and quality addressed here.
James had asked:
>Wouldn't you agree that had the wording of Genesis 1:1 been different, >equally fascinating mathematical 'miracles' might well be found - given >sufficient imagination?
>
>Where do we find God teaching us that transliteration and geometrical >analysis yields evidence for, or proof of, the inspiration of >Scripture?
>
>When did God lay down this rule for the evaluation of what purports to >be written revelation?
>
>Why should geometrical significance imply theological significance?
>
>Muslims claim the same sort of numerical 'miracles' as support for the >inspiration of the Koran. Why is it a valid procedure for Christians >but not for Muslims?
>
>Isn't what you have to say an old error (gnosticism) in a new hat? Is >this 'message' from God clearly communicated to all, or only those 'in >the know'?
With kind regards,
Vernon.