# Re: Year of Destiny?!

Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Thu, 09 Sep 1999 00:24:03 +0100

Vernon wrote to Pim:
>
> > Before responding to your question, I would like to be assured that you have closely examined the material in question. Clearly, we can't discuss these matters in a vacuum!

Chris Cogan wrote:

> Why closely examine the material in question? If the premise is
> numerology and you have offered nothing to prove the validity of
> numerology, why should we bother with arguments based on that premise?
> First, prove the premise, *then* we'll consider arguments based on it.
> Otherwise, you are simply wasting people's time and space with
> superstition and meaningless mathematical manipulations. Don't you
> know yet that mathematics (even *elementary* mathematics) is so rich
> that you can do this kind of thing with almost *anything* that
> involves numbers? You're like a person who is astonished to find that
> the percentage of times that a flipped coin has landed tails-up plus
> the percentage of times it has landed heads-up is one hundred percent!

But the premise is not 'numerology' - as you would know had you bothered
to consult either of my websites! Like Pim, you appear to have a
particular 'bee in your bonnet' which is little more than an
ill-informed hunch! Since neither of you is prepared to follow the more
obvious course of checking out the claims being made let me clarify the
matter by outlining the two principles upon which my findings are based.

(1) NUMERICAL GEOMETRY - the fact that certain whole numbers may be
represented in 2- or 3-D by a close symmetrical arrangement of uniform
counters (square or circular, cubic or spherical, as appropriate). Such
numbers are termed 'figurate'. Some of these exhibit two symmetrical
forms and are said to be 'bifigurate'. Examples would be: 36 - square of
dimension 6, and triangle of dimension 8, and 64 - square of dimension
8, and cube of dimension 4. Two numbers only exhibit a higher order of
symmetry, viz 37 and 91, which are trifigurate.

So, you see, from the world of mathematics per se, certain numbers stand
out because of their related geometries - particularly 37 and 91 (which,
by the way, are related in being the difference and the sum of the cubes
of 4 and 3!).

(2) HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS MAY BE READ AS NUMBERS - this follows from
the historically-based use of letters as numerals by these early
peoples. Because the original documents upon which all Bible
translations are based were largely written in these languages, they
therefore also represent sets of numbers!

These unassailable truths lead to some interesting observations; for
example:

(a) Genesis 1:1 (the Bible's opening 7 words of Hebrew) represents the
number 2701 (ie the sum of its words read as numbers).

2701 = 37 x 73 (ie one of our two trifigurates times its digit reverse -
which is also figurate and related geometrically to 37!).

2701 is itself a large triangular number (for the Christian, the
equilateral triangle, clearly, has interesting symbolic associations!);
the perimeter of this triangle is 216, or 6x6x6 (triangles possessing a
cubic outline are very rare!).

Words 6 and 7 of this verse (translated "...and the earth.") are
multiples of 37. Together they total 703 - another triangular number
which, when inverted, fits precisely into the triangle representing the
complete verse, thereby dividing the remaining area into a trio of 666s!
(Yes, 666 - see Revelation 13:18 - is also a multiple of 37!).

Combining the words of Genesis 1:1 in various ways, we find 23 of the
total of 127 combinations to be multiples of 37 - ie over 6 times the
figure one would expect of a random set. This stategically placed verse
is thus 'saturated' with one of two numbers which are undoubtedly
unique!

Adding in word 8 (the first of verse 2) we obtain 3003 - another
triangular number which has 91 (the other trifigurate) as factor!

(b) In the Greek, each component (and whole) of the Creator's Name
('Jesus Christ')is a multiple of 37.

...I could go on and on! But why should it be necessary to repeat what I
have already provided at the URLs below?!

Chris, is this the kind of thing you mean by 'numerology'? Please