Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue

From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 13:43:26 EDT

  • Next message: Iain Strachan: "Re: 153"

    So what if we can get 153 out of multiples of 3? What does it mean?

    Did you know that 1859 the year Origin was published is 13squared times 11 ?
    What significance is there in the 13?

    How do you get e in John 1.1.? Was e known at that time?
    Also pi in gen 1.1.?
    Totally mystified

    Michael
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
    To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
    Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 10:06 PM
    Subject: Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue

    > Michael,
    >
    > 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
    process
    > as many times as may be necessary to obtain a final stable outcome - we
    find
    > that outcome invariably to be 153 - the 17th triangular number. Here are
    two
    > 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
    by
    > 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
    matter
    > 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
    application -
    > 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
    simply
    > transformed to the 3-digit triangular number153 by a process which - at
    each
    > stage - involves raising individual digits to the power 3. [You may
    remember
    > that I had already drawn attention to the matching incidence of threes in
    > Jn.21.]
    >
    > 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
    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!"
    >
    > 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
    "Watershed",
    > 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
    website
    > (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.
    >
    > Vernon
    > http://www.otherbiblecode.com
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
    > To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
    > Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
    > 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
    of
    > > 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
    base-10,
    > > > 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
    > that
    > > > outcome invariably to be 153 - the 17th triangular number. Here are
    two
    > > > 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
    > > by
    > > > Peter and his companions. Observe the significance of 3 in Jn.21: this
    > was
    > > > the 3rd time Jesus had appeared to the disciples since his
    resurrection;
    > > 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
    that
    > > 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
    > word
    > > 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
    > other
    > > features of the story (in ch21) shouild be taken allegorically.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 05 2003 - 15:54:28 EDT