Bob,
We shall drop the matter, by all means. However, before we do, I would
find it most helpful if you were to point out the flaws in my logic.
Sincerely,
Vernon
Robert Schneider wrote:
> 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
>
> http://www.otherbiblecode.com
>
>
> 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 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 15:55:23 EST