Thank you for your detailed and helpful reply to my earlier post.
Loren Haarsma wrote:
> The idea of hidden numerical codes in the biblical text poses some
> theological problems. However, I will pass over those for now.
I would be interested to know what they are.
> In my earlier post, I mentioned the possibility that we can sometimes > see a pattern when
none is really there. To investigate whether one > is seeing a true
pattern or a false
pattern, there are certain tests > which must be performed. There are
at least two tests which
you must > perform for your hypothesis.
>
> 1) You performed many mathematical manipulations on the text before > you found those
particular codes/coincidences which you cite. > Consider the entire set
of all possible
mathematical manipulations > which you have tried. Quantitatively, how
large is that set?
Given > the vast size of all possible manipulations which you have tried
--- > or would have
eventually tried --- mathematically, how many of your > coincidences
and/or codes could you
*expect* to have found? This is a > difficult calculation. ("Counting
arguments" are
notoriously > difficult mathematical proofs.) But it must be done in
order to > establish your
claim.
>
> 2) Perform the same sets of mathematical manipulations on other > randomly chosen texts (both
Hebrew and non-Hebrew). Work just as hard > --- even harder --- trying
to find similar
coincidences and/or codes > in these other texts as you did in the
original text. Do you find
> just as many coincidences and/or codes in these other texts as you did > in the original
text?
Whilst accepting this sound advice, I see yet more compelling evidence
of design in these biblical number sequences and with it, a shorter
route to the testing of my hypothesis. In keeping with your alliterative
trio of design criteria - pattern, probability and pay-off - I shall
refer to the principles underlying this evidence as 'parallelism'. Let
me explain: a gifted author, writing in a language - all of whose
letters having, historically, a numerical dimension (e.g. Hebrew or
Greek) - may set out to engage in two-channel communication with his
readers - the 'message proper' in one, and some meaningful sequence of
numbers in the other. To convince the alert reader of the fact he may,
for example, (a) invest a significant word, or sequence of words, with
some apposite numerics or, (b) establish links between the numbers which
undergird two or more prominent and related items of text.
Evidence of such a demanding undertaking would suggest that the
writer's motives were serious and - if the text dealt with matters of
fundamental significance - even vitally important. In these
circumstances it would be reasonable to infer that the information in
this auxiliary channel had been provided, (a) to uniquely identify the
author of the text, (b) to provide empirical evidence of his abilities
and, (c) to substantiate textual statements which might be disbelieved,
misunderstood, or purposely manipulated to satisfy some demand of the
moment. It would be wrong to assume that the author had necessarily
'watermarked' the whole of his text or, if he had, that the reader would
be able to understand every facet of it.
Here are some instances of parallelism (as here defined) drawn from the
biblical text:
1) The Lord's name and title as they appear in New Testament (and
Septuagint - c.300 BC) Greek - nominative case - have the values 888 and
1480, respectively; their HCF is 296 (or 8 x 37) - this number,
appropriately, being the value of 'the earth.' in the Hebrew of Genesis
1:1.
2) Under division by this factor, the ratio 888:1480 reduces to 3:5,
i.e. precisely that of the sides of the 'mercy seat' (Exodus 25:17) - a
term used of the Lord (see, for example, 1John 2:2, 4:10).
3) In Revelation 13:18 the number of the Antichrist is given as 666 (or
18 x 37) - a visual analogue of Jesus, the Christ! - HCF = 111 (or 3 x
37).
Incidentally, 666 - associated with the promise of wisdom (Revelation
13:18) - actually provides us with a key to the biblical numerical
scheme, thus:
(a) it is triangular - indeed, uniquely so in that all
its numerical attributes are triangular;
(b) it may be written as (6+6+6) x 37 - 6 and 37 being
unique numerical objects in their own right.
We find that figuracy (or numerical geometry) and divisibility by 37 are
key elements in the phenomena under investigation - as typified by the
numerics of Genesis 1:1.
4) The Creator (Jesus Christ) = 888 + 1480 = 2368 = 37 x 64 (i.e. the
hexagon representing a 2D view of the cube of four multiplied by the
cube itself!). Compare this with 2701 (or 37 x 73), i.e. the Creation -
as summarised by Genesis 1:1. Here the numerical hexagon of 37
(conveying the image of 64-as-cube) forms the centre of 73-as-hexagram -
and the Lord is thereby depicted at the centre of his creation!
5) The fact that Genesis 1:1 has the form of an equilateral triangle
(symbol of the Triune God) and may be divided to yield a trio of
equilateral triangles, each of value 666, cannot, reasonably, be
dismissed as coincidental!
6) The only other verse in Genesis having the value 2701 is Genesis 8:14
with which the antediluvian/diluvian period of earth history closes -
the next verse ushering in the new order.
There are other examples of parallelism; but these are among the most
notable. In themselves, they draw attention to a particular aspect of
divine inspiration that, in this writer's experience, is not popular
(for obvious reasons, no doubt!). By contrast, there can be little doubt
that were like coincidences to be found in a 'SETI context', they would
be hailed as positive indicators of alien life!
In his introduction to Mere Creation, Dembski suggests that we must look
to science to provide empirical evidence of God's interaction with the
world. That may be so; but I suggest that a consideration of the
foregoing takes us along a simpler (and less controversial) path to the
fact of God's Being and Sovereignty. Even so, there yet remain questions
which should be exercising every Christian mind: Are these phenomena
intended to serve some additional purpose in the divine economy? Is it
possible that they have a significant part to play in settling, once for
all, the 'origins' controversy.
Vernon
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm