From: Vernon Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 16:26:35 EST
Thank you for restating your earlier questions.
You appear to have completely missed the point that the main thrust of the
evidence backing my claims concerns the absolutes of numerical geometry. For
example, the fact that Genesis 1:1 is a large triangular number possessing a
cubic outline is completely independent of any method of symbolic
representation - including the Babylonian sexagesimal system. Ten enters
this arena as a 'secondary' player by virtue of the fact that other
interesting features emerge when the relevant figurate numbers are expressed
as denary objects. For example, the 7 Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 have a
combined value of 2701 - the denary representation of the 73rd trianglular
number. Its digits total 10 - the radix of the denary system - as do those
of each of its prime factors, 37 and 73. Had we represented the same number
in octal, say, then such 'coincidences' would not have occurred. To make the
point even more strongly, if 2701 is added to the number represented by
reading its digits in reverse, viz 1072, the result is 3773, ie the
concatenation of the digits of its factors. This is a unique result which
only obtains in denary representation and, clearly, is completely
independent of the underlying geometry.
Again, the 'pi/e affair' is founded on calculations involving the letter-
and word- values being expressed as denary objects - these having nothing to
do with the coordinated geometries which form the backbone of my claims. The
fact that these absolutes are supported by the denary system is just one of
the reasons I have for believing ten and denary to be a divinely-ordained.
As I have said, I shall be bringing these before the Forum in the near
future. Concerning your demand for prior notice of pi being present in
Genesis 1:1: does the absence of such notice really diminish the wonder of
this find? - and would you make similar demands of explorers in all fields
of endeavour? On the other hand, the geometries are, of course, specified by
Finally, may I say that your reference to my ancestry can have little
relevance to the matters now before us.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Burgeson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 1:36 AM
Subject: Pi and e
> Vernon -- when I reminded you a few days ago that you had never answered
> even considered) my question of 2 years ago to you -- "Do you claim the
> denery system to be inspired by God?" you admitted you had dropped the
> on that one and asked what were the other questions I had at that time.
> I think there were several, for I tried very hard to consider your
> and did do some thinking & study around them. I am reluctant to revisit
> those exercises, for I'm two years older now, and there is never enough
> time, but I will list what I can remember of them.
> 1. As far as I can see, if we were using -- say -- the babylonian notation
> of numbers, none of your claims would hold together. As I recall, you
> agreed, and so claimed that the denary system must, ipso facto, be
> I simply asked there for you to give ANY sort of supporting evidence for
> this -- else it is simply an ad hoc "explanation," that is, something
> assumed w/o any supporting evidence in order to support some other claim.
> understand you are again considering this question.
> 2. You depend heavily on the "odds" argument, but, as has been pointed out
> previously, the odds are calculated AFTER the artifact (pi and e) are
> discovered. I pointed out that on that basis the probability of a "Vernon
> Jenkins" was even less likely. What is needed for your claim is SOME
> independent evidence which predates your discovery, or at least is
> independent of it, bearing on your claim. For instance, some piece of
> observable data that would PREDICT the presence of pi and e in the manner
> you claim to have found them. Perhaps a prediction by some pre-scientific
> philosopher who might know about a "pi" but hardly about an "e."
> 3. You need to establish some INDEPENDENT criteria by which the deviance
> (admittedly, not much) from the actual values is justified. Frankly, this
> one has me baffled -- I cannot even conceive of any observable that would
> suffice for this question.
> Those are 3 of the questions I can remember -- there might have been
> Oh yes -- the question of different manuscripts; in particular manuscripts
> containing Genesis. Are there variant readings? Are there the POSSIBILITY
> variant readings? I remember some discussion of the presence or absence of
> something minor in John 1:1 -- and your statement that the one which
> provided the transcendental value must be correct because it "proved" the
> claim. I think at that time I quit thinking about your claims as such an
> argument was simply begging the question.
> MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Mar 12 2003 - 16:28:07 EST