Re: Call me a fideist

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Wed Jun 01 2005 - 18:00:02 EDT

Hi Glenn,

My comments are interleaved.

>For the simple reason that both pi and e are transcendental, whereas the
formula used generates rational fractions.
>An error, therefore, is unavoidable. However, as you say, it is quite small
in each case.

It still isn't the right number.

But, given the circumstances, your demand for _perfection_ is surely unreasonable. And do remember that the really _prime_ attributes of Genesis 1:1 to which I am drawing attention are the _coordinated numerical geometries_. It follows that the appearance of the universal constants pi and e in related verses (in themselves, events of low probability) should be regarded merely as part of ' the icing on the cake'.

>But what you overlook is the fact that my mappings have an historical basis
(as I make clear in my Web pages) rather
>than being completely arbitrary, like yours.

And you arbitrarily chose which of the ancient numeral systems to use. Greek
had two systems, an early one and a late one and you choose the late one.

For the simple reason that the earlier one was not _alphabetically_ based.

With Hebrew you ignore the fact that a gershayim mark or a geresh mark is
used to distinguish numerals from letters. You then apply the number scheme
to all letters.

I have before me a Hebrew Bible and observe that the verses are numbered using _unmarked_ alphabetic characters.

I also note that you don't actually use the ancient Hebrew text. You use
the Massoritic Hebrew with all the vowels inserted. This was done in the 7th
century AD. Without those vowels, your math would be different. Indeed, it
is different than the math derived from the original text. Thus, you are
forcing things into the text which weren't in the original, but only in a
later text.

The Hebrew alphabet is essentially consonantal; vowelisation and the work of the Massoretes are no concerns of mine. Hence your assertion is manifestly false.

>Further, your selection may be simple, but how would you know whether it
was the one used by John D Barrow? Again, it
>should be apparent to all that number represents an exceedingly soft,
plasticine-like, medium. Thus, given a number,
>one may by the judicious use of the arithmetic operators mould a whole
succession of 'interesting' progeny with which
>to fire the imagination. And that is precisely what you have done. In my
analyses, on the other hand, nothing is
>imposed on the numbers that arise from the fair alternative reading of the
Hebrew and Greek texts; I simply report
>what I find - and, in respect of Genesis 1:1, that is, first and
foremost, the remarkable structure of coordinated
>numerical geometries that underpin this verse and following word.

>Glenn, may I suggest you read this page to find out what you are really up
against. Your earlier suggestion that such >markers may be found in _any_
text - and that you know this to be true - is clearly wrong. The
strategically-placed >assertion that we Christians know as 'Genesis 1:1' is,
indeed, _unique_. You don't have to take my word for it; >simply examine
the facts.

I have examined the facts. They are found wanting.

So be it.

Received on Wed Jun 1 18:02:33 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 01 2005 - 18:02:33 EDT