Re: Numbers

From: Iain Strachan \(asa\) (
Date: Sun Mar 02 2003 - 09:50:13 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "Re: Re: personal revelations"

    PASAlist wrote:

    <interesting discussion on the variations in spelling in the Hebrew

    > In conclusion, we can say that the 5 consonants in the nota accusativi in
    > 1:1 were not there before approximately the time of David, the three yods
    > used as vowel letters were not there before approximately the time of King
    > Asa. and one cannot count on the spellings of any of the words as going
    > any earlier than the time of Jeremiah if that. If, therefore, the
    > based on the consonants in Gen 1:1 is due to divine inspiration, it was a
    > writer or editor several hundred years after Moses (whom no one dates
    > than c. 1300 BC) who was so inspired.

    This is all very interesting, but surely this in itself effectively rules
    out the idea that it could have been done by "man". Otherwise it means that
    the introduction of the nota accusativi and the introduction of the yod for
    the long "i" were done solely by a human to make Gen 1:1 add up to a pretty
    total (and have the extraordinary internal structure that is analysed on
    Vernon's web-site). I think it would be hard enough to make that structure
    given a blank slate to write about; if one had instead to make it work by
    twisting the spelling of a given text, it would appear to be next to
    impossible. Additionally, there are all the other instances that have been
    found in the OT, which would also be affected by such tinkering. One
    notable instance of a sentence coming to 1369 (37 squared) is "But he was
    pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities" (Is.
    53:5a). Another is "And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the
    waters" (Gen 1:2b) , using the yod for the long "i" in Elohym. The first of
    these examples has very little to do with the C/E debate, but it is very
    clearly at the core of the Gospel, and central to what all Christians
    believe. I think it's pretty reasonable to claim that all this doesn't come
    about by tinkering with the spelling.

    No one has as yet answered my point that the only scientific explanation
    that has been postulated for the formation of order out of chaos is an
    evolutionary process, and that in order for this to work, each change must
    yield selective advantage. But spelling changes don't change the meaning,
    and whether or not it adds up to a multiple of a significant number clearly
    also doesn't add any selective advantage in the process of evolution of a

    There seems to be the assumption here that if the pattern wasn't there when
    it was written down by the original author, then somehow God must have
    botched it up, and then corrected His mistakes later on. But why does it
    have to be there the first time? What if God foreknew how the language was
    going to evolve, and arranged things so the patterns would be manifested
    once the language had stabilised? As the web-site I referenced earlier
    shows; in three separate Jewish traditions there are only a handful of
    letter errors between them. The fact that a fourth one is different is
    irrelevant. It surely means that the scribes in these three traditions
    believed that something was there that needed preserving, that was dependent
    on the spelling.

    You say that it was a writer or editor several hundred years after Moses who
    was so inspired. But presumably the writer or editor was just modernising
    the spelling to what was accepted contemporary use, just as modern versions
    of the KJV say "beginning" and "earth" instead of something like
    "beginnynge" and "earthe". It seems you are left with two possibilities:

    (1) Coincidence.
    (2) A supernatural phenomenon (as claimed by Vernon).

    Now you can't "prove" anything is a supernatural phenomenon. So you will
    have to argue that it's coincidence if you don't like option (2). That's
    what I thought it must be when Grattann-Guinness first told me the NT
    gematria were riddled with 37's. I really didn't like the implications of
    it being a real phenomenon. But reading Vernon's site, just from the
    mathematical point of view, and leaving out all the other claims as to
    whether it means that Gen 1 is literally true (and I don't think it proves
    this anyway), I was pretty convinced (reluctantly so) that it was not a
    coincidence; that this was a real phenomenon that I had been directed by a
    convoluted route into researching.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 02 2003 - 09:50:51 EST