Re: Numerics

From: Jim Armstrong <>
Date: Sun Jun 05 2005 - 11:43:27 EDT

No response to my earlier single question...

Re: "What you see in the above illustration is the first 64 letters of
the Hebrew Torah, all of which was dictated by God to Moses face to face
at Sinai." - Is this traditional perspective disturbed at all by the
presumeably historical recording of Moses' death in the self-same
passages that are attributed to the hand of Moses?

Though there are other questions that flow from this, I'll leave it as
just this one question. JimA.

David Bradford wrote:

> Glenn
> This time I will address both points. First, if I write a memo to
> someone covering several points, I run the risk of getting a reply
> that answers only the one point that matters most to them but least to
> me. Readers are selective, so by focussing on one topic myself I am
> more likely to get a reply that is relevant.
> As to vowel pointing, if the original text (without pointing)
> contained 28 letters, then the text after pointing contains the same
> letters, no more and no less. Nor is there any effect on the value of
> a letter in numerology. Once you have fixed on a type of values to
> use, then a letter has the same value whether it is pointed or not.
> For example, the letter mem may be pointed so that it is pronounced
> 'mee', 'ma' or 'maa', but its full (ie standard) gematria value is 40
> in all cases, and it is still a single character on the page. The
> Masoretes designed this system so that it is possible to see
> through the pointing, to the unadulterated text.
> I realise that it causes some offense to some people that there is
> more than one set of letter values to choose from. For some, there is
> a distinction between values which have meaning that is an intrinsic
> characteristic of the Hebrew alphabet, and values that are invented.
> In other words, when God created the world by his utterences (eg Let
> there be light), He had already done some preliminary work including
> the creation of an alphabet, a language and the Torah (blueprint). To
> the Jews, these things are taken for granted. Otherwise the Torah
> would have no more value than any other book of the Bible (most of
> which may be divinely inspired). Of course, when anyone is using
> numeric letter values the watchword should always be consistency. The
> user should not mix them willy-nilly without proper cause
> and explanation. An example of reasonable mixed use is to describe the
> 4-letter Hebrew word for wisdom as having both a sum of its Ordinal
> values of 37 (ie 8, 11, 13 & 5), and a sum of Standard values of 73
> (ie 8, 20, 40 and 5). It is not my present aim to promote any
> particular numeric conclusions, but you may recognise the numbers 37
> and 73 from elsewhere. The fact that both numbers derive from the
> specific word 'wisdom' will be seen by some people as significant, but
> not by others. Rather, my immediate aim is to iron out any
> mis-information so that the debate on numerics may proceed on a level
> playing field.
> In any case, the Israelites did not have separate numeric digits, so
> it was almost inevitable that their alphabet would be put to that use.
> The debate is still ongoing as to whether Hebrew numerology is
> discovered or invented. The only true test for number being an
> intrinsic characteristic of language is if we can find evidence of
> non-random numeric structure within the most sacred scriptures. And
> the only text I am aware has been claimed to come straight from the
> lips of God is the Five Books of Moses. A few of us are collecting the
> evidence, but it would help a great deal if others with appropriate
> skills could could apply those skills to the dabate.
> I accept that there are further hurdles to overcome, which is why my
> own recent approach to underlying messages has focussed exclusively on
> language instead of number. But the two cannot remain separate for
> ever, since they appear to be the same landscape seen from differing
> perspectives.
> David
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Glenn Morton <>
> To: 'David Bradford' <>
> Cc: 'ASA Message Board' <>
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:09 PM
> Subject: RE: Numerics
> But as I understand it, you are using the vowels for your analysis
> when the original text of several thousand years ago didn't have
> them--i.e. didn't have the pointing marks.
> I don't understand how failing to answer questions dissipates
> their impact. I run into people all the time in this area who
> fail to answer questions. They are usually young-earth
> creationists who won't answer geologic questions. I never knew it
> was for fear of 'dissipating' their impact.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of David Bradford
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 6:33 AM
> To: Glenn Morton
> Cc: ASA Message Board
> Subject: Re: Numerics
> Glenn
> I won't try to answer all your issues in one reply as that just
> dissipates the impact of them all. But I must address one
> fundamental misunderstanding that seems to be a major stumbling
> block for you.
> The Masoretes did not introduce any new letters into the Hebrew
> scriptures. Nor did they deliberately remove any. Their great
> concerne (in extremis) was that the true understanding of the
> Torah in particular was in danger of being lost. This was due to
> the Hebrew language falling out of everyday use, just as Latin
> has. The Jewish background of the Masoretes forbade them to make
> material changes in the Torah, so what they did was introduce a
> system of marks (known as pointing) that could be added above,
> below and within letters, to assist with pronunciation. The net
> effect was to fix the vowel sounds; but this does not mean that
> they added vowels as extra characters.
> David
Received on Sun Jun 5 11:44:17 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 05 2005 - 11:44:18 EDT