RE: Year of Destiny?!

Pim van Meurs (
Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:11:05 -0700

To Vernon:

What rules out 1) coincidence 2) the original writers or translators adding 'numerology'? You'll have to show that neither applies.

From: Vandergraaf, Chuck[]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 1:01 PM
To: ''
Subject: RE: Year of Destiny?!


Thank you for gently pointing out my error in my comment about the "leap
month." However, I am still not convinced of the significance of the
numbers 5760 and 2000.


> ----------
> From: Vernon Jenkins[]
> Reply To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 04, 1999 4:17 PM
> To:;
> Subject: Re: Year of Destiny?!
> Friends,
> By way of a general response to comments concerning my recent posting,
> let me say:
> (1) It is not possible to assess the significance of the impending
> conjunction of the numbers 5760 and 2000 in isolation. The matter must
> set in the broader context of the world situation and information
> reported earlier concerning certain key words and passages in the
> original Hebrew and Greek of the biblical text. [Readers with no
> knowledge of this background material are invited to refer to the URLs
> below.]
> (2) By labelling the derivation of such information 'numerology' many
> appear to be missing the point. Neither Christian nor Jew should find it
> too hard to believe that God - to further His eternal purposes - could,
> or would, act in this way in writings they believe to have been inspired
> by Him. For those who deny the supernatural, the phenomena in question
> have to be attributable to chance or human conspiracy - contentions
> which are readily rebutted! [Is it any wonder that these would want the
> matter consigned to oblivion?!] Those (of either category) unwilling or
> afraid to examine the evidence clearly can have nothing worthwhile to
> contribute to the current discussion!
> (3) The point that is being missed by so many people is that the
> empirical data referred to rest on the soundest of foundations, viz
> mathematics per se, ie the understanding that certain numbers, in
> themselves, possess interesting or unique properties, but which are also
> meaningful in respect of biblical text and symbolism.
> Let me close by addressing remarks to particular individuals:
> To Glenn: The numerical phenomena residing in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1
> and the Greek of the Lord's Name can hardly be erased! They are living
> testimony to the being and sovereignty of our God, and to the fact that
> he holds the whole of history in his hands!
> To Chuck: The basis of the Jewish calendar is the lunar month; to
> achieve sync with the solar year it is necessary to insert an extra
> month from time to time. See for
> further details.
> To Susan: I have the impression that you are one who declines to view
> the evidence referred to above. Why not do that and provide an
> explanation in naturalistic terms?
> To Darren: In my book, anything that impinges on the matter of origins
> can be thrown into the ring in these lists. Some Jews really believe the
> age of the earth to be 5760 years!
> To Gordon: I think we have to accept things as they are now. You clearly
> acknowledge that God is freely able to achieve his purposes - whether or
> not these include human error!
> Vernon

<<File: ATT00000.html>>