John:
Thanks for writing.
The fact that you have provided answers to my questions of 20 April
strongly suggests that you are completely au fait with the evidence I
have amassed to support my claims. May I therefore ask you to elaborate
a little on each of your answers? I am interested to know how you can
possibly defend these opinions.
Regarding your question to me: man was created with a simple counting
facility at the ends of his two arms. This would appear to be the main
reason why denary is the preferred choice of numbering system - and the
one intended by God. You should, of course, be aware that many of the
eye-catching properties of 37 and 91 are independent of radix. In other
words, they would lay claim to being considered remarkable whatever the
numerical context!
One further point: Is it your usual practice to ridicule matters of fact
with silly epithets like 'number jumbo'? I had hoped we were all a
little more mature on this list!
Vernon
John Burgeson wrote:
>
> Vernon Jenkins wrote: "Would you not agree that the '37/91 matter' -
> augmented by these
> remarkable 'coincidences' - speaks loudly of supernatural and purposeful
> design? Do you believe meaningful biblical exegesis is possible if these
> facts - together with their profound implications - are ignored?"
>
> To question 1, no.
> To question 2, yes.
>
> Vernon -- do you hold that the decimal system is divinely inspired? If not,
> then
> how would your number jumbo look if you were to use a duodecimal system of
> counting -- or an octal, or a binary? Etc.
>
> If you do hold that the decimal system is divinely inspired, what is the
> basis for the claim?
>
> Burgy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 23 2000 - 19:05:28 EDT