Vernon,
I've read your comments. I think this is a topic on which we shall never have a meeting of minds and so it seems best to me that we agree to disagree, and drop it.
Sincerely,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Vernon Jenkins
To: Robert Schneider
Cc: D. F. Siemens, Jr. ; asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: BIBLE: Genesis 1:1 (was Re: Qs for Dr. Collins)
Bob,
Thanks for writing. However, before I address your specific questions perhaps you would allow me to paint a brief backcloth to what must be generally regarded as an extraordinary claim, viz that the Bible's opening verse constitutes a standing miracle. The logical development of my argument requires that I first bring to your attention a number of incontestable facts - some of which no doubt will already be familiar to you:
(1) All our Bible translations derive from copies of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek originals whose words are fairly interpretable as whole numbers by virtue of the schemes of alphabetic numeration adopted by these early peoples.
(2) The Hebrew and Aramaic writings pre-dated the Hebrew alphabetic scheme (c200BC) by some centuries, whereas the Greek writings post-dated the Greek scheme (c600BC) by a similar span.
I suggest these verities should immediately raise a question in the minds of those who - like myself - believe the Bible to be the Inspired Word of God, viz Does such inspiration extend to the numbers which we now find inextricably woven into the text of the originals? If yes, then clearly the Bible has more to impart to its readers than has been supposed hitherto - and its Author is a lot bigger than we can ever have imagined! However, at this point we are in no position to give a categorical answer either way - though sensibly agreeing that it would be unwise to dismiss the possibility out of hand.
(3) There is a verse in the Bible's last Book, Revelation, which has intrigued generations of readers and given rise to much fanciful speculation. It emanates (as does the whole Book) from the mouth of our Lord Himself (Rev.1:1), and though we are warned not to ignore it (Rev.22;19) - and despite its offer of wisdom to those who would seriously grapple with it - it rarely features as a topic for discussion in Christian circles. I refer, of course, to Rev.13:18. Taken at face value, this verse immediately provides two key items of information, viz (a) the reading of strings of Hebrew or Greek letters as numbers is ratified by the Lord, and (b) the specific number 666 is associated with this ratification. Clearly, (a) has a direct bearing on the matter aired earlier, viz that the numbers represented by the letters and words of the scriptural originals might constitute a second channel through which the Lord would be able to provide supplementary information relating to the biblical text proper. And regarding (b), it suggests that further inquiries regarding 666 are appropriate in order to determine whether its attributes as a number per se include something more than mere visual appeal as a denary object.
(4) ) It is observed that certain whole numbers, when represented as sets of uniform counters (square, circular, cubic or spherical, as the case may be), may be so arranged as to completely fill a symmetrical polygonal or polyhedral frame. Such numbers are said to be figurate. A small proportion of these will be bifigurate, ie may be realised geometrically in two distinct ways - as, for example, 64 - the square of 8 and the cube of 4. Just two are found to be trifigurate, viz 37 and 91. The first exists as hexagon, hexagram and octagon (or truncated square); and the second as triangle, hexagon and pyramid. Interestingly, they are related in being, respectively, the difference and sum of the two cubes, 27 and 64. Clearly, 37 and 91 are high-profile numbers in respect of these absolute attributes.
(5) It so happens that 666 uniform circular counters may be compactly arranged on a flat surface - 1 in row 1, 2 in row 2, 3 in row 3,..., and 36 in row 36 - to form an equilateral triangle, all of whose numerical attributes are also triangular. The Lord has therefore presented us with a singular example of numerical geometry - and a multiple of 37 - whose symmetrical form is a simple expression of our Triune God - Co-Equal, Consubstantial, Co-Eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit! The suggestion is, therefore, that the numerical information we are to expect when reading the Bible's Hebrew and Greek words as numbers will include instances of numerical geometry - the triangle, in particular - and multiples of the uniquely symmetrical number, 37.
(6) The 7 numbers that derive from the reading of the Hebrew of the Bible's strategically-placed and foundational first verse total 2701, or 37x73 - a large triangular number (standing on a base comprising 73 counters, and having a perimeter of 216, or 6x6x6 counters)! The numbers represented by the two final words (translated "and the earth") are 407 and 296 - each a multiple of 37. Their sum is 703, or 19x37 - 37th triangular number - and it so happens that this figure, when inverted, fits precisely into the 73rd (representing the whole verse), thereby generating a triple of satellite triangles - each of 666.
(7) In both Septuagint and NT Greek the name "Jesus" and the title "Christ" evaluate to 888 and 1480, respectively, ie to 24x37 and 40x37. This means that our Creator, Jesus Christ, takes the value 2368, or 64x37.
Bob, I trust the above provides a clear view of how my argument runs. There is of course much more that can be said - but to say it here would be merely to repeat what can be viewed on my web pages. You will already have gathered that I am convinced this is all 'of the Lord' (indeed, I would be most interested to hear of any reasonable alternative explanation), and I believe it is primarily intended to bring us all to our senses!
Let me now therefore proceed to address the specific points you made:
I use the term self-evident as meaning incontrovertible. While early researchers like Panin have drawn attention to the numerical attributes of Genesis 1:1 and other verses, none appear to have spotted its links with the coordinated figurate number symmetries and their symbolisms.
I am at a loss to understand the relevance of your 'competing cryptographic models'. How might such arise in the foregoing development?
While I appreciate what you say in your closing paragraph I am still left with the dilemma that Christians across the board resist my arguments and evidences. One is surely entitled to ask why the numero-geometrical data associated with Genesis 1:1 and Creator's Name should be regarded so differently from those obtained from observations made in any other field; and one is surely entitled to a reasonable answer. Can it really be a matter of superstition? Not in the case of the Christian, surely! Thus, I am reluctantly led to conclude that the human condition is more dire than we are capable of understanding - or are ever likely to admit! No wonder the Lord says, "... without me, ye can do nothing." (John 15:5).
I would appreciate your sharing with me any further thoughts you may have on these matters.
Sincerely, in His Name,
Vernon
Robert Schneider wrote:
Vernon writes, in response to Dave: >"2) You follow a well-worn trail when you refer to the self evident numero-geometrical features of Genesis 1:1 >as "numerology". This, I suppose, implies that you agree the phenomena to be of supernatural origin - but of >the _wrong kind_. But surely, a moment's thought must dismiss that notion as illogical, for it requires the >"powers of darkness" to be involved in glorifying God and His Son, Jesus Christ (whose name and title >are directly linked numerically with this first verse)!"And in his earler response to Dave, Vernon writes: >"The Bible - already a most remarkable Book - has recently been shown to begin in a highly remarkable >manner - in fact, so remarkable as to defy all natural understanding! Perhaps equally remarkable has been >the universally negative response to this news! I interpret this as proof of the biblical strictures concerning >man (viz "creature of evil imaginations from his youth, enemy of God, deceitful above all things and >desperately wicked" - appropriately sanitized and shrouded in the euphemism "original sin"), and thus of our >utter dependance on the truths He has revealed to us in the Scriptures. This 'standing miracle' (it is nothing >less, as you will know from the evidences and arguments presented on my websites) is clearly something >that is feared by evolutionists (and, strangely, also by creationists!) - otherwise it would be allowed as a valid >topic for reasoned debate in forums such as ASA. These being the hard facts, I suggest it is highly >reasonable that we look nowhere else for a true account of origins than the early chapters of the Bible."
Vernon,
As to the first comment, while I may not have read your piece on "the numero-geometrical features" of Genesis 1:1 as carefully as Dave, I have to say that I do not find these features "self-evident." If they were, they surely would have been discerned much sooner than "recently." If they were self-evident, then I would have expected the earliest Christian commentators on Gen. 1 to have been delighted to find this confirmation of their identification of Jesus Christ with the word that spoke the creation into being, which they arrived at by interpreting the OT in the light, first, of the Jesus experience, then, of the texts that became the NT. As far as I know, they did not.
But, more fundamentally, I think such claims of mathematical patterns or codes hidden in the text of Scripture ultimately fail to convince for two reasons. First, one can imagine competing cryptographic models, and then one has to ask, "Which one(s) are correct?" Second, and more importantly, because the meaning of texts is commonly, and correctly, understood to reside in the language of the texts (including grammar, style, context, word-play, etc.). While I respect your convictions about your interpretation, I have to say that such assertions as these about Scripture make no sense to me.
Finally, the assertion that these claims have been received negatively because of our sinfulness and evil is simply an old-fashioned ad hominem argument. I do not "fear" these assertions, "evolutionist" that I am; I simply find them unconvincing. And, believe me when I say that I am not an enemy of God. I love God and his Son, just as I believe you do. We have been reconciled, and I am an ambassador of this good news of reconciliation.
Grace and peace,
Bob Schneider
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 21:58:58 EST