billwald@juno.com wrote:
>
> Dear Vernon
>
> >Presumably, you will already know that, as a denary object, 37 also
> >has interesting properties that are independent of the foregoing.
>
> The word "denary" is not in my dictionary. What does it mean?
>
The numerical symbol '37' represents 'three tens plus seven'. In other
words, ten is being used as a 'collective unit' (or 'base', or 'radix')
when we write numbers in the usual way. This is the hallmark of the
'denary' or 'decimal' system.
> >for other reasons, ten appears to be the natural choice of system
> >radix!
>
> Why? A system based on 12 would be much handier <G> for humans, 2 is
> logical for computers.
>
Man was created (or, evolved, if you prefer) with a simple counting
facility at the ends of his two arms. This would appear to be the main
reason why denary is the preferred choice of numbering system. However,
there are other associations which underline the significance of ten.
For example, it is a triangular number (1+2+3+4 = 10) - revered by the
Pythagoreans as 'tetraktys'; again, the reduced digit sum of all perfect
numbers except the first (expressed as denary objects) is 10 - thus,
28 -> 2 + 8 = 10
496 -> 4 + 9 + 6 = 19 -> 1 + 9 = 10
8128 -> 8 + 1 + 2 + 8 = 19 -> 10
...........
There are others. See, for example, my page
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/Remarkable.htm
> >many are radix-dependent while others are absolute - ie independent
> >of place, of time, and of man's hand!
>
> Have you tried your calculations in base 12? (my math isn't so good)
>
I have investigated other systems, but denary alone appears to be
tailor-made for generating eye-catching objects like 666, 777 and 888 -
all multiples of 37. And, again, 37 x 73 for the value of Genesis.1:1 -
this interesting reflection in the digits of the prime factors being
peculiar to their denary representation.
In radix 12, thirty-seven would appear as '31', ie three twelves plus 1,
and seventy-three as '61'; 888 (the Greek form of 'Jesus' - nominative
case) would appear as '620', and 666 as '476'.
> By the way, if someone in Jesus' time and place had yelled, "Hey,
> Jesus," do you think Joshua ben Joseph would have turned around?
>
Possibly not. But all our NT translations derive from Greek documents.
> >However, the account is not complete for we have yet to consider the
> >numerical implications of the Creator's name as it is rendered in
> >the Greek, nominative case, of both Septuagint and New Testament:
>
> Do you consider the Septuagint as inerrant, on a par with the Biblical
> autographs?
>
The Septuagint is simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew of the OT.
Whether inerrant or not, the point is that the same forms of the Lord's
Name and Title were in use at least 300 years before the Incarnation!
Any suggestion of a conspiracy to engineer these to be multiples of 37
must, therefore, be discounted.
Thanks for writing!
Sincerely,
Vernon
Vernon Jenkins MSc
[musician, mining engineer, and formerly Senior Lecturer in Maths and
Computing, the Polytechnic of Wales (now the University of Glamorgan)]
http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
http://www.compulink.co.uk/~indexer/miracla1.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 18 2000 - 19:41:36 EDT