**From:** Michael Roberts (*michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk*)

**Date:** Mon May 05 2003 - 13:43:26 EDT

**Previous message:**Steve Bishop: "Re: Feedback on Howell"**In reply to:**Vernon Jenkins: "Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue"**Next in thread:**John Burgeson: "Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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.
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

**Next message:**Iain Strachan: "Re: 153"**Previous message:**Steve Bishop: "Re: Feedback on Howell"**In reply to:**Vernon Jenkins: "Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue"**Next in thread:**John Burgeson: "Re: The Nature of Atheist - Christian dialogue"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

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