From: Michael Roberts (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 13:43:26 EDT
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.?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vernon Jenkins" <email@example.com>
To: "Michael Roberts" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "ASA" <email@example.com>
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" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Vernon Jenkins" <email@example.com>
> Cc: "ASA" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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 - 15:54:28 EDT