**Previous message:**James Mahaffy: "Issue of CIS"**In reply to:**John W Burgeson: "Re: Watershed"**Next in thread:**Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Watershed"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

John,

Both these dimensionless constants, pi and e, are transcendental

numbers; in other words, neither can be defined precisely as the ratio

of two integers, nor by any algebraic process. The numbers represented

by the letters and words of biblical Hebrew and Greek are, of necessity,

integers. Thus, by the procedure described, it is only possible to

generate approximations of these constants. However, the fact that they

are good approximations - bearing in mind the tight constraints imposed

by the demands of the many other features of interest (revealed in

earlier pages) - speaks volumes for the remarkable abilities of their

author.

Concerning these approximations, I estimate the 'odds against' them

arising by chance to be around 10 billion to 1 - and that takes no

account of the obvious textual association between the verses involved.

John, I suspect you have not examined the evidence I have provided. If,

and when, you do, you will find there are additional aspects to consider

as, for example, some telling features of geometry and symbolism.

I am surprised that you appear unable to temper your aversion to these

findings with a little reason. Shouldn't all Christians approach any

newly revealed body of self-evident truth with an open mind? - and

particularly when it offers to lead to a better understanding of God's

providence, works and ways?

Regards

Vernon

John W Burgeson wrote:

*>
*

*> >> the Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 deliver a value for the fundamental
*

*> constant
*

*> 'pi' correct to 5 significant figures (underestimating the true value by
*

*> a mere 0.0012%). Precisely the same procedure applied to the Greek of
*

*> John 1:1 yields an estimate of Euler's number, 'e', also correct to 5
*

*> significant figures (overestimating the true value by 0.0011%)>>
*

*>
*

*> So God is an imperfect mathematician? He underestimates pi and
*

*> overestimates e?
*

*>
*

*> Sorry.
*

*>
*

*> John Burgeson (Burgy)
*

*>
*

*> www.burgy.50megs.com
*

*> (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
*

*> humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
*

John W Burgeson wrote:

*>
*

*> >> the Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 deliver a value for the fundamental
*

*> constant
*

*> 'pi' correct to 5 significant figures (underestimating the true value by
*

*> a mere 0.0012%). Precisely the same procedure applied to the Greek of
*

*> John 1:1 yields an estimate of Euler's number, 'e', also correct to 5
*

*> significant figures (overestimating the true value by 0.0011%)>>
*

*>
*

*> So God is an imperfect mathematician? He underestimates pi and
*

*> overestimates e?
*

*>
*

*> Sorry.
*

*>
*

*> John Burgeson (Burgy)
*

*>
*

*> www.burgy.50megs.com
*

*> (science/theology, quantum mechanics, baseball, ethics,
*

*> humor, cars, God's intervention into natural causation, etc.)
*

**Next message:**Vernon Jenkins: "Re: Watershed"**Previous message:**James Mahaffy: "Issue of CIS"**In reply to:**John W Burgeson: "Re: Watershed"**Next in thread:**Howard J. Van Till: "Re: Watershed"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29
: Wed Jun 20 2001 - 19:30:09 EDT
*