From: Michael Roberts (email@example.com)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 17:58:02 EDT
Interesting but what has it got to do with God or the Bible? Am I totally
and utterly thick? What's it meant to prove? I am totally mystified
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Michael Roberts" <email@example.com>
Cc: "ASA" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue
> I had said: "Among the clear certainties of life we may observe the
> following: taking any multiple of 3 (as normally expressed as a denary, or
> base-10, object) and summing the cubes of its digits - repeating the
> as many times as may be necessary to obtain a final stable outcome - we
> that outcome invariably to be 153 - the 17th triangular number. Here are
> examples which demonstrate the principle:
> 3 -> 27 (ie 3^3) -> 351 (ie 2^3 + 7^3) -> 153 -> 153 ...
> 1624623 -> 540 -> 189 -> 1242 -> 81 -> 513 -> 153 ...
> In other words, this simple digit transform converts one third of all
> natural numbers (as normally represented) to the number of fishes caught
> Peter and his companions."
> You replied: " I simply cannot understand what you are saying ... and the
> sequence of numbers is unintelligible."
> Let me therefore again attempt to convince you that 153 per se is, without
> doubt, a most remarkable number; and that its presence in Jn.21 is a
> that ought not to be lightly dismissed. I regard my opening paragraph as a
> concise, yet complete, description of a process that invariably delivers
> this number from any multiple of 3. Let me therefore focus on the examples
> and provide a little more detail:
> Example 1:
> Step 1: 3 is clearly a multiple of 3; its cube is 3x3x3, or 27
> Step 2: the digits of 27 are 2 and 7, and their cubes, 8 and 343
> Step 3: the sum of these cubes is 351 - its digits, 3, 5 and 1
> Step 4: the sum of the cubes of these is 3x3x3 + 5x5x5 + 1x1x1,
> or 27 + 125 + 1, or 153 - its digits 1, 5 and 3
> Step 5: the sum of the cubes of these is, as before, 153
> This therefore the _stable outcome_ of the process.
> Example 2:
> Step 1: 1624623 is a multiple of 3 - its digits, 1, 6, 2, 4, 6, 2, 3
> Step 2: the sum of the cubes of these is 1x1x1 + 6x6x6 + 2x2x2
> + 4x4x4 + 6x6x6 + 2x2x2 + 3x3x3, or 1 + 216 + 8 + 64 +
> 216 + 8 + 27, or 540 - its digits, 5, 4 and 0
> Step 3: the sum of the cubes of these is 5x5x5 + 4x4x4, or 125
> + 64, or 189 - its digits, 1, 8 and 9
> Step 4: the sum of the cubes of these is 1x1x1 + 8x8x8 +
> 9x9x9, or 1 + 512 + 729, or 1242 - its digits, 1, 2, 4 and 2
> Step 5: the sum of the cubes of these is 1 + 8 + 64 + 8, or 81
> Step 6: the digits of 81 are 8 and 1, and their cubes, 512 and 1;
> the sum of these is 513 - its digits, 5, 1 and 3
> Step 7: the sum of the cubes of these is 153
> While these are specific examples, the principle is of general
> as may be readily demonstrated. Michael, I hope we can now agree that here
> is an important feature of all multiples of 3, viz that they may be
> transformed to the 3-digit triangular number153 by a process which - at
> stage - involves raising individual digits to the power 3. [You may
> that I had already drawn attention to the matching incidence of threes in
> I had then said: "John, along with Peter, had earlier been judged by the
> Sanhedrin to be 'unlearned and ignorant men' (Acts 4:13). Clearly
> John's including the detail, '153 fishes...yet was not the net broken', in
> the last chapter of his gospel is as mysterious as his building an
> value of the universal constant 'e' into the numerics of his first verse!"
> To which you responded: "What do you mean?"
> I posted details of this finding (in parallel with the discovery of an
> equally accurate value for 'pi' in Genesis 1:1) under the title
> June 20, 2001. Indeed, I'm surprised you've no knowledge of it, for it
> invoked much discussion - and you were certainly around at that time. You
> may find the details under the heading "From First Principles" at my
> (URL below),
> Clearly, these authorities you keep quoting - Carson, Hendricksen, and now
> Barrett - had no knowledge of these developments. Thus, their words in
> respect of Jn.21 can no longer carry any weight; and the suggestion that
> this chapter may be allegorical is risible.
> Finally, in answer to my request for clarification of your charge, "To
> interpret Rev.13:18 the way YOU DO IS TO DELIBERATELY MISINTERPRET HOLY
> SCRIPTURE.", you offer the following:
> "Vernon, your arguments boomerang against the Bible. This is my concern."
> Michael, this is hardly satisfactory; indeed it raises more questions than
> it provides answers.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Roberts" <email@example.com>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: "ASA" <email@example.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 1:00 PM
> Subject: Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue
> > I simply cannot understand what you are saying below and the sequence
> > numbers is unintelligible.
> > In fact what you have done is to demonstrate that the bible is probably
> > allegory as CKBarrett argues. See below on the 153.
> > Vernon your arguments boomerang against the Bible. This is my concern.
> > Michael
> > >
> > > Among the clear certainties of life we may observe the following:
> > >
> > > Taking any multiple of 3 (as normally expressed as a denary, or
> > > object) and summing the cubes of its digits - repeating the process as
> > many
> > > times as may be necessary to obtain a final stable outcome - we find
> > > outcome invariably to be 153 - the 17th triangular number. Here are
> > > examples which demonstrate the principle:
> > >
> > > 3 -> 27 (ie 3^3) -> 351 (ie 2^3 + 7^3) -> 153 -> 153 ...
> > >
> > > 1624623 -> 540 -> 189 -> 1242 -> 81 -> 513 -> 153 ...
> > >
> > > In other words, this simple digit transform converts one third of all
> > > natural numbers (as normally represented) to the number of fishes
> > by
> > > Peter and his companions. Observe the significance of 3 in Jn.21: this
> > > the 3rd time Jesus had appeared to the disciples since his
> > he
> > > questions Peter 3 times; 153 has 3 digits.
> > > The number of disciples involved in the event was 7 - another number
> > having
> > > a clear biblical significance..
> > >
> > > John, along with Peter, had earlier been judged by the Sanhedrin to be
> > > "unlearned and ignorant men" (Acts 4:13). Clearly therefore John's
> > including
> > > the detail, "153 fishes...yet was not the net broken",
> > > in the last chapter of his gospel is as mysterious as his building an
> > > accurate value of the universal constant 'e' into the numerics of his
> > first
> > > verse!
> > What do you mean?
> > >
> > > These matters provide tangible, and in my view, conclusive evidence
> > the
> > > real Author of the gospel that carries his name was not John, but the
> > Lord.
> > > And that should encourages one to believe the whole Book to be God's
> > to
> > > man - and hence essentially immune to the depredations of the higher
> > critics
> > > and others.
> > So much for that . Dealing with the 153 the NT scholar CKBarrett in his
> > commentary says (p484) This observation increases the probability that
> > features of the story (in ch21) shouild be taken allegorically.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 05 2003 - 04:01:36 EDT