# Re: Powers that Be (was Year of Destiny?!)

Vernon Jenkins (vernon.jenkins@virgin.net)
Wed, 22 Sep 1999 23:59:15 +0100

Gordon,

Yes, I too am acquainted with the work of Ivan Panin. Though he
discovered many interesting features associated with Genesis 1:1, he was
so taken with 7 that he missed the equally-significant 37 and its
associated geometries.

You say, "I consider a numerological argument to be very weak if it is
based on features that can only be found in one verse." But that is
hardly the case here! You are forgetting the highly-significant
numerical links with the Creator's Name (as outlined in my recent post).
Forgetting, also, the links with Genesis 8:14 (which brings to a close
the era introduced by Genesis 1:1), Exodus 25, and Revelation 13:18! I
have provided material on each of these at the URLs below. The evidence
for my thesis is thus drawn from a much broader base than you suggest.

Concerning the table of differences (recently offered as supporting
evidence for the wonder of Genesis 1:1), let me first thank you for your
clear analysis of its underlying structure. It would appear that you are
correct in reckoning it to be an unremarkable feature, and my inclusion
of the table, pointless. However, let me now respond to these criticisms

(1) I believe the table to be of value in revealing those parameters
which lead to the simplest and most elegant expression of these
differences. Thus, 105 and its double, 210 (occurring twice); 99 and its
double, 198; (105 - 99) occurring thrice and (105 + 99) occurring once.

(2) There is much more to be said about these parameters, their
difference and their sum, for they are associated by related geometries!
Thus,

. 210 uniform circular counters can be arranged on a flat surface as an
equilateral triangle standing on a base of 20;

. the upper 14 rows of this triangle comprise 105 counters (ie 105 is
14th triangular number);

. it follows that the trapezium formed by the lower 6 rows also has 105
counters;

[Note: Of the 1413 triangular numbers contained within the first million
natural numbers, only 4 have the property displayed here, viz that the
double of a triangular number is itself triangular.[

But, to continue:

. the triangle represented by the topmost 3 rows has 6 counters, and
the trapezium represented by the next 11 rows, 99 counters;

. in short, 8 of our 21 tabular values are represented in this picture
and are thereby associated with a rare geometrical event.

[To clarify matters, I have prepared coloured diagrams of these features
which may be found at the first of the URLs below under the heading
"Miscellaneous".]

Clearly, the situation concerning the numerics of Genesis 1:1 is more
remarkable than at first appears! We might further observe, in passing,
that 6 is first perfect number; as a triangle it sits atop
99-as-trapezium in 105-as-triangle; the second perfect number, 28, as a
triangle, similarly sits atop a trapezium od 500 in 528-as-triangle. It
may be remembered that those tabular differences involving 913 - the
Bible's first word - required to be reduced by this figure to bring them
into line with the others!

Concerning Genesis 1:1 (surely a unique assertion!), there are so many
of such 'coincidences' - each of which, unique, eye-catching, or
appositely symbolic - that, at some point, the earnest seeker after
truth must conclude that 'the package' has been divinely ordained, and
is concrete evidence of supernatural design.

[Gordon, I observe you failed to acknowledge the positive significance
of the 'cubic connections' referred to in my posting. Was this an
oversight?]

Regards,

Vernon

gordon brown wrote:
>
> Vernon,
>
> During my childhood I was fascinated by the reports of Ivan Panin's work
> on Bible numerics, in which he had found so many features of numerical
> values of words adding up to multiples of seven. Later I became suspicious
> of the significance claimed for these observations when I wondered why
> they were not more widely known and when I noted that different types of
> features were claimed for different passages, which is not remarkable
> since any such computation should have a one-in-seven chance of yielding a
> multiple of seven. Also the proponents used these methods to claim support
> for the readings of the Textus Receptus, even where there was overwhelming
> evidence of later insertions into the original text. Thus I am too
> cautious to use numerology to support the inspiration of Scripture unless
> I am convinced that no skeptic can come up with another credible
> explanation. I consider a numerological argument to be very weak if it is
> based on features that can only be found in one verse.
>
> You devoted a lot of space in a recent posting to what is not a very
> remarkable feature at all. Your tables of differences between word values
> were totally unnecessary. As soon as it is observed that six of the seven
> words in Gen. 1:1 have numerical values that are congruent to two modulo
> three, it immediately follows that their differences can be written as
> combinations of 105 and 99 since any multiple of three can be expressed in
> this form (since 3 is the greatest common divisor of 105 and 99). The
> probability that a randomly chosen set of seven integers will contain a
> set of at least six that are congruent to each other modulo three is
> slightly greater than two percent. Thus such a feature would not be
> extremely rare. Furthermore it is even more likely in a sentence with two
> direct objects. (In Gen. 1:1 each object is preceded by the object marker
> 'eth, in one instance with the value-6 prefix waw (and).) In the one
> instance where a word's value was not congruent to two modulo three, you
> replaced it by a number that was, thus enabling you to complete your
> table. Since 913 leaves a remainder of 1 when divided by 3, you simply
> subtracted a number (500) that was congruent to two modulo three to give
> you a number congruent to two modulo three, but you could have
> accomplished the same thing by using any number other than 500 with this
> property.
>
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics