From: Vernon Jenkins <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>

Date: Wed Sep 27 2006 - 18:07:51 EDT

Date: Wed Sep 27 2006 - 18:07:51 EDT

For the particular attention of Gordon and Wayne:

Gentlemen,

You've each commented on a statement that was included in my recent response to Paul (who had invited me to investigate the numerical properties of Genesis 1:1 with the 2 aleph-taus removed), as follows:

"It's not that I don't want to, Paul; it's just not possible! You see, numerical geometry as a pictorial tool is confined to a relatively small subset of the natural numbers - and 1899 is not found among these."

The reason I single out the _numerical geometries_ for particular mention is that they represent the most potent of all the evidences available for making cogent sense of the numbers that derive from the fair reading of the Hebrew and Greek words of the J-C Scriptures. Why so? Because

1) linking natural number with symmetrical form creates mathematical absolutes that are both indubitably and eternally true

2) otherwise hidden relationships among the natural numbers are uncovered

3) the rare and the unique among the natural numbers are revealed

4) as Revelation 13:18 implies, such entities are designated to be used in the numerical interpretation of the J-C Scriptures

We might also observe that these absolutes are completely independent of the many man-made systems of number representation and manipulation - each of which involves the concept and choice of radix.

Thus the significance of 2701 (the fair reading of Genesis 1:1 as it is represented in Hebrew _today_) - which has the interesting factorisation, 37 x 73 - is immeasurably enhanced by the observation that it is also a _triangular number_ - always has been, always will be, no matter where, or in what context, it appears. Enhanced even more when it is realised that each of its reflective factors is a 'star' number. And so on...

Gordon, it should go without saying that I would not touch your digit-swapping scheme with a bargepole. Indeed, I'm surprised that you should think I would regard it seriously as evidence justifying the exclusion of the 2 aleph-taus!

To conclude on this particular matter: while I offer other kinds of evidence to support my claims (notably, the emergence of the universal constant pi from the Bible's first verse - as we now find it written), it is undoubtedly the coordinated numerical geometries that carry the day.

Wayne, please be assured that my Christian faith does not rest on the numerics of the Scriptures - though these certainly provide much-needed additional assurance. I suggest it is reasonable to believe that the Lord has augmented His Word in this remarkable manner to achieve some serious and significant purpose in our day. For my part, having brought these matters to your attention, I regard my responsibilities to be over. It is now a matter for the individual conscience - and, of course, the Holy Spirit's moving, as and where he wills.

Vernon

www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----

From: "gordon brown" <gbrown@euclid.colorado.edu>

To: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>

Cc: <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; <PHSeely@msn.com>; <igd.strachan@gmail.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>

Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:25 PM

Subject: Re: [asa] Empiricism, Faith and Science

*> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
*

*>
*

*>> Vernon wrote:
*

*>>
*

*>> > It's not that I don't want to, Paul; it's just not possible! You see,
*

*>> > numerical geometry as a pictorial tool is confined to a relatively small subset
*

*>> > of the natural numbers - and 1899 is not found among these.
*

*>>
*

*>> Maybe not numerical geometry, but how about prime numbers,
*

*>> or some other pattern. So little is understood about natural
*

*>> numbers, maybe 1899 has something else to offer.
*

*>>
*

*>
*

*> If the text of Genesis 1:1 had come down to us without the object markers,
*

*> I think that Vernon would still have found interesting features. For
*

*> example, he might observe what happens if one permutes the digits of 1899.
*

*> 1998=2x999, and 8991= 9x999, and 999 is a multiple of 37, which interests
*

*> him very much. Of course, these two should count as only one feature since
*

*> switching the first and fourth digits of any number makes a difference in
*

*> value of a multiple of 999.
*

*>
*

*> Gordon Brown
*

*> Department of Mathematics
*

*> University of Colorado
*

*> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
*

Vernon wrote:

It's not that I don't want to, Paul; it's just not possible! You see, numerical geometry as a pictorial tool is confined to a relatively small subset of the natural numbers - and 1899 is not found among these.

Maybe not numerical geometry, but how about prime numbers,

or some other pattern. So little is understood about natural

numbers, maybe 1899 has something else to offer.

It does seem just a little too convenient to claim that the

current version is the inspired text and the oldest version

therefore was not. I would think the work penned (at least in part

by Moses) would be the most likely inspired. Was not Moses

one of the greatest old testament prophets?

I greatly appreciate number theory in its own right, and I can rejoice

with you on the interesting patterns you have found in a humble

number 2701: but honestly Vernon, I would not rely on it for my faith.

To that, I have to look for what makes God real to me and I cannot see

God in the form of numbers per se. When I reflect on a time that I was

lost, I would not have crossed into Jesus' hands with the numbers you

propose, as I did not with other improbable examples people at that time

cited. You see, turning to God is not about facts and never was. There

is something there that no numbers can ever prove.

by Grace we proceed,

Wayne

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with

"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Received on Wed Sep 27 18:27:38 2006

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8
: Wed Sep 27 2006 - 18:27:38 EDT
*