Re: numerologyand Aaron's breastplate: was : It's no joke

From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 18:33:53 EDT

Hi Don,

Thanks for your comments. The overall order of birth of the 12 sons of Jacob (as detailed in Gen.29:31-35; 30:1-24; 35:16-18) is as follows (mother's name bracketed):

 1. REUBEN (Leah)
 2. SIMEON (Leah)
 3. LEVI (Leah)
 4. JUDAH (Leah)
 5. DAN (Rachel/Bilhah)
 6. NAPHTALI (Rachel/Bilhah)
 7. GAD (Leah/Zilpah)
 8. ASHER (Leah/Zilpah)
 9. ISSACHAR (Leah)
 10. ZEBULUN (Leah)
 11. JOSEPH (Rachel)
 12. BENJAMIN (Rachel)

When the promised land was divided between the tribes (Nu.1), Levi was excluded (Dt.10:8-9) and Joseph was represented by his sons Manasseh and Ephraim. You will find these details are accurately implemented in the disputed breastplate pattern.

You wrote,

 1. Exod. 28:30 says that Aaron will bear the names of the sons of Israel
in the breastpiece --- not the names of some sons and some grandsons.

A little earlier, in Ex.28:21, we read "And the stones shall be with the names of the children of Israel...every one with his name shall they be according to the twelve tribes." As we have seen, Levi and Joseph inherited no land - hence they formed no part of the twelve tribes. One should also remember that the descendants of Jacob were collectively referred to as the children of Israel.

  2. The order of entries into the 3 times 4 matrix is completely
arbitrary...

Not so. The birth order has been strictly adhered to.

...Gen.35:22-26 lists the names of the sons of Israel, all 12
 of them. For example, Gad is number 11 on the list, and according to
 Chapter 30 of Genesis he was the the second to last to be born.. Gad
 codes to 7, and 7 is placed in the (2,1) position of the matrix., an
 arbitrary position...

You need to read this reference again; rather than an overall birth order, what we have here is the birth order relating to each of the 4 mothers. See my references and list above for the correct interpretation.

 ...Even without considering substitutions of grandsons
 for sons, there are factorial 12 (about half a billion) of ways of
 putting the entries into the matrix, so it is not surprising that one
 combination yields something interesting.

Actually, the number of possible combinations is 4096 (i.e. 2^12). What is surprising, surely, is that the remarkable features observed involve the sums of contiguous groups of breastplate array elements. Further, you fail to take into account the other, earlier, findings detailed in "An Oracle Restored". This may be found at http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/oracle.htm

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com
  
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <d.nield@auckland.ac.nz>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:04 AM
Subject: numerologyand Aaron's breastplate: was : It's no joke

> Hi Vernon:
> The whole thing is very arbitrary.
> 1. Exod. 28:30 says that Aaron will bear the names of the sons of Israel
> in the breastpiece --- not the names of some sons and some grandsons.
> 2. The order of entries into the 3 times 4 matrix is completely
> arbitrary. Gen.35:22-26 lists the names of the sons of Israel, all 12
> of them. For example, Gad is number 11 on the list, and according to
> Chapter 30 of Genesis he was the the second to last to be born.. Gad
> codes to 7, and 7 is placed in the (2,1) position of the matrix., an
> arbitrary position. Even without considering substitutions of grandsons
> for sons, there are factorial 12 (about half a billion) of ways of
> putting the entries into the matrix, so it is not surprising that one
> combination yields something interesting.
>
> You, Vernon, may be impressed by this numerology but I am not.
> Don
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this to our attention. No, I can offer no
>> satisfactory explanation (risible, or otherwise), and freely admit
>> that you fellows have in your armoury weapons that continue to present
>> difficulties for one of my persuasion. However, you in turn
>> must sometimes experience a twinge or two of doubt. Let me therefore
>> test you with a little matter that was drawn to my attention some days
>> ago.
>>
>> One of the principal reasons for the 'Mt.Sinai encounter', recorded in
>> Exodus 25-31, was to instruct Moses as to the precise details of
>> construction of the portable sanctuary that would function as God's
>> dwelling place on earth - the tabernacle - together with its
>> furnishings, and manner of use. Concerning the high-priestly
>> vestments we read particularly of the /oracle/ - the Urim and Thummim
>> (Ex.28:30) - provided for the guidance of the people in difficult and
>> uncertain times. Details are lacking of the nature and use of these
>> items, but we are informed that they were held in a pouch - called the
>> /breastplate/ (or, in some translations, /breastpiece/) - attached to
>> the front of the /ephod/ - the outmost garment of the high priest.
>> This breastplate was formed from a single piece of highly-embroidered
>> linen cloth one cubit long and half a cubit wide, folded over in two
>> to form a square, half a cubit by half a cubit (about 9in.x 9in). It
>> was adorned with twelve precious stones on which were engraved the
>> names of the twelve tribes - ie those of the sons and grandsons of
>> Jacob arranged according to their order of birth. These were set out
>> in four rows of three stones each (Ex.28:15-30). [Note: the names
>> 'Levi' and 'Joseph' are absent from this arrangement].
>>
>> A fair alternative reading of the Hebrew of these tribal names leads
>> to a rectangular array of whole numbers. 'Jesus Christ' is encoded 3
>> times in this array; by name, once in Greek and once in Hebrew; by
>> description, once in Hebrew. The details may be found here:
>> http://www.fivedoves.com/tng/gospelinstone.htm
>>
>> Surely mysteries such as these must be accomodated by all who are
>> committed to the search for truth. I trust you would agree.
>>
>> Vernon
>> www.otherbiblecode.com <http://www.otherbiblecode.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com
>> <mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com>>
>> To: <asa@calvin.edu <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
>> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 7:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: It's no joke
>>
>> >I just read a news item in /Science/, 307:1841 (25 March 2005), that
>> > radiocarbon dating has been calibrated back to "12,400 cal yr B.P."
>> using
>> > tree rings, and to 26,000 through corals and forminifera. The original
>> > studies are in /Radiocarbon/, 46 (2005). Since an earlier calibration
>> > brought out the explanation in the /Journal of the Creation Research
>> > Society/ that bristlecone pines sometimes (~1 in 3 years ?) produced
>> > double rings, and Vernon insists that nothing can be carbon-dated older
>> > than 58,000 yr B.P., are we to recognize that every tree produces three
>> > annual rings annually? Or is it that recognizing an old earth makes
>> > scientists either unable to count or to recognize growth rings? Note
>> > that, on YEC/flood geology assumptions, tree rings must have been
>> > produced since the Flood, not since creation.
>> >
>> > I await the risible explanation, which contradicts the heading.
>> > Dave
>> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Donald A. Nield
> Associate Professor, Department of Engineering Science
> University of Auckland
> Private Bag 92019
> Auckland, NEW ZEALAND
> ph +64 9 3737599 x87908
> fax +64 9 3737468
> d.nield@auckland.ac.nz
> http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/People/Staff/Nield/
>
>
Received on Thu Apr 14 18:35:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 14 2005 - 18:35:25 EDT