Re: Small probabilities

From: Vernon Jenkins <>
Date: Sat Dec 03 2005 - 18:22:46 EST

Hi Don,

I write this in answer to your question, "Has Vernon searched for meaningful
patterns in other parts of the Bible?"

Yes, I have examined other passages - most notably, Exodus 25-31 within
which we find, in particular, divine instructions concerning the 'priestly
vestments'. The page titled "An Oracle Restored" considers the numerical
implications of the Hebrew names of the 12 tribes as they would have
appeared engraved on the precious stones of the high priest's breastplate
(Ex.28:21). Within this highly-embroidered pouch attached to the front of
the ephod lay the Urim and Thummim (Ex.28:30) - those mysterious objects
through which divine direction was subsequently provided for God's people.
While these items have long since disappeared, the details of their
container, the breastplate, remain. You may find this page at

Another feature of especial interest is Genesis 8:14 which functions both as
epilogue and prologue. Let me explain: here we find described the end of
the 'antediluvian/deluge' period of earth history and a setting of the stage
for a 'new beginning'. Remarkably, the sum of its 8 Hebrew words is 2701 -
the value of Genesis 1:1, and 73rd triangular number! Furthermore, like the
Bible's first verse, it may be expressed as a symmetrical tesselation of
matching hexagon and hexagram 'tiles'. You may find this demonstrated at [Incidentally, it was
Iain who first drew my attention to these impressive associations!].

Yet another verse that remains under close scrutiny is Genesis 9:9 - where
the noahic covenant is introduced. This is loaded with the number 93 in much
the same way as Genesis 1:1 is with 37. In due course, I may have more to
report on this. Elsewhere, in my experience, though there are many
'snippets' of interest, there is nothing that approaches the intensity of
the coordinated numerical geometries displayed in the Bible's opening Hebrew
words and their impressive links with the Lord's Name and Title - as these
are found rendered in the Greek of both Septuagint (c.300 BC) and New

Finally, let me draw your attention to "The Great A4 Mystery" - which you
may find at Here the
numerical values of the Bible's first 8 words are shown to be incorporated
in an abundant secular artefact.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Nield" <>
To: "Vernon Jenkins" <>
Cc: "Iain Strachan" <>; "Randy Isaac"
<>; <>
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: Small probabilities

>I did not say that a meaningful pattern must arise. I just asked Iain
>whether in assessing the probabilities he had taken into account the
>regularities in the Hebrew language -- by this I mean such things as the
>fact that some letters in a typical text occur more frequently than others,
>and the numbers in the sequence
>1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90,100, 200,300,400 are not
>equally spaced when considered as a set --- things that provide contraints
>on the possible outcomes.
> Has Vernon searched for meaningful patterns in other parts of the Bible?
> Don
> Don
> Vernon Jenkins wrote:
>> Don,
>> Why should one suppose that a meaningful pattern _must_ result in the
>> numbers obtained from a fair alternative reading of any portion of the
>> Hebrew text? The fact that it does so, in abundance, in respect of the
>> Bible's opening words is surely the stuff of mystery and wonder.
>> Vernon
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Nield" <>
>> To: "Iain Strachan" <>
>> Cc: "Randy Isaac" <>; "Vernon Jenkins"
>> <>; <>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 8:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: Small probabilities
>>> Has Iain taken into consideration the fact that the passage in Genesis
>>> is not a random sequence of letters but rather a Hebrew text and
>>> therefore should be expected to show some patterns if one searches for
>>> them?
>>> Don
>>> Iain Strachan wrote:
>>>> On 11/29/05, *Randy Isaac* <
>>>> <>> wrote:
>>>> Yes, Vernon, I do agree that facts are facts. Can't argue with
>>>> that. The significance and meaning of those facts is the
>>>> question. Your observations are clever and perhaps even creative
>>>> and artistic.
>>>> Randy,
>>>> I wonder if you could clarify what you mean by saying that Vernon's
>>>> observations are "clever" and "artistic". I may have got you wrong,
>>>> but it might appear from that that you are saying that with sufficient
>>>> ingenuity you can find a clever pattern in any sequence of numbers.
>>>> One of the things I've tried to do in this whole discussion about small
>>>> probabilities and description length (Kolmogorov theory etc) is to
>>>> illustrate that I think what Vernon has found is _not_ just the product
>>>> of an ingenious imagination, or a clever arbitrary bit of mathematical
>>>> manipulation - that the pattern in the integers was indeed something
>>>> that was deliberately put there, rather than just a coincidence.
>>>> One of the inhibiting factors of this discussion, it seems to me is
>>>> that Vernon wishes to put an interpretation on it (that the first
>>>> chapter of Genesis is literal truth), which I don't subscribe to, and
>>>> which makes the overwhelming majority of people on the ASA list want to
>>>> dismiss his observations out of hand. I think if we could divorce the
>>>> fact (of the pattern) from Vernon's interpretation, then we might get a
>>>> little further. I am of the opinion that the pattern, which we both
>>>> agree is a fact, is a piece of deliberate design. But in general,
>>>> there appear to be three interpretations of the facts:
>>>> (1) The pattern is a complete coincidence.
>>>> (2) The pattern is deliberate and was put there by the human authors.
>>>> (3) The pattern is deliberate and is intentional Divine action for
>>>> some purpose.
>>>> All of my contributions to the "small probabilities" threads (and
>>>> earlier ones on Kolmogorov) have been to the end of illustating that I
>>>> think there are sound methods for showing that (1) is not the case. I,
>>>> therefore have to deal with what are the likely implications of (2) or
>>>> (3) being the truth.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>> Iain
>>>> Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that there is any
>>>> philosophical or theological significance to the patterns and
>>>> relationships you have described. The verses you have quoted
>>>> previously to justify such signficance do not give carte blanche
>>>> permission to deduce meaning from arbitrary arithmetic
>>>> manipulation of numeric values of letters. As we've discussed in
>>>> this forum, the low probability of occurrence of numerical results
>>>> is not an indication of divine significance.
>>>> Randy
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> *From:* Vernon Jenkins <>
>>>> *To:* Randy Isaac <> ;
>>>> <>
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 20, 2005 7:28 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: Small probabilities
>>>> Randy,
>>>> Further to the matter of the observed coordination of the
>>>> numerical geometries that derive from unbroken sequences of
>>>> the Bible's opening Hebrew words, I invite you consider some
>>>> additional data which lend considerable weight to these
>>>> incontrovertible and remarkable events. The relevant page
>>>> titled "Genesis 1:1 - The Inside Story" may be found at
>>>> <>.
>>>> You may remember, some time ago, Iain commenting on the fact
>>>> that these realities are 'not everyone's cup of tea'. But
>>>> facts are facts! And facts are the lifeblood of rational and
>>>> meaningful debate. Is our grasp of the eternal verities so
>>>> sure - so secure - that we, as Christians, can afford to
>>>> ignore such solid empirical data? Surely not, as I think
>>>> you must agree.
>>>> Vernon
> --
> 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
> Courier address: 70 Symonds Street, Room 235 or 305
Received on Sat Dec 3 18:24:40 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 03 2005 - 18:24:40 EST