Re: Call me a fideist

Hi Glenn,

You wrote:

(1) Let's look at your calculation of e from John 1:1. Why is the .0011% error considered ok? Why shouldn't God get it right rather than have this small error?

For the simple reason that both pi and e are transcendental, whereas the formula used generates rational fractions. An error, therefore, is unavoidable. However, as you say, it is quite small in each case.

(2) You use one system for your numbering of letters. It isn't the most natural. One could use alpha =1 and omega= 24 rather than alpha = 1 and omega= 800. Then your entire numerology would be different, but you would still find relationships of interest.

But what you overlook is the fact that my mappings have an historical basis (as I make clear in my Web pages) rather than being completely arbitrary, like yours. Further, your selection may be simple, but how would you know whether it was the one used by John D Barrow? Again, it should be apparent to all that number represents an exceedingly soft, plasticine-like, medium. Thus, given a number, one may by the judicious use of the arithmetic operators mould a whole succession of 'interesting' progeny with which to fire the imagination. And that is precisely what you have done. In my analyses, on the other hand, nothing is imposed on the numbers that arise from the fair alternative reading of the Hebrew and Greek texts; I simply report what I find - and, in respect of Genesis 1:1, that is, first and foremost, the remarkable structure of coordinated numerical geometries that underpin this verse and following word.

(3) Vernon, this is why I don't believe what you do about mathematically encoded messages in Genesis 1.

Way back in July 2001 I was challenged by one Todd Greene who, like yourself, was not convinced of the unique nature of Genesis 1:1. He proposed creating a program to test given strings of text - from whatever source - for the kind of phenomena exhibited by the Bible's first verse. I collaborated with him to the extent of writing a protocol - this to provide a firm basis for his program design. This protocol may be found online at http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/protodd.htm; its title:

 "ON TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS THAT OBC-LIKE FEATURES ARE NOT UNIQUE TO THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES BUT MAY BE FOUND TO OCCUR IN OTHER TEXTS ".

Since that time, nothing more has been heard of the proposed scheme.

More recently, in similar vein, Ed Babinski has questioned my conviction concerning this verse. The foregoing protocol has been drawn to his attention; however, again, no action has been forthcoming.

Glenn, may I suggest you read this page to find out what you are really up against. Your earlier suggestion that such markers may be found in _any_ text - and that you know this to be true - is clearly wrong. The strategically-placed assertion that we Christians know as 'Genesis 1:1' is, indeed, _unique_. You don't have to take my word for it; simply examine the facts.

Vernon
www.otherbiblecode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'Vernon Jenkins'" <vernon.jenkins@virgin.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:17 AM
Subject: RE: Call me a fideist

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vernon Jenkins [mailto:vernon.jenkins@virgin.net]
>> Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 4:07 PM
>>
>> Hi Glenn,
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> > Vernon, I would agree with you except that mathematically one can do
>> with
>> > any text whatsoever, what you do to the Bible. Such a watermark is not
>> > really a watermark unless you can demonstrate that this can ONLY be done
>> > for
>> > Scripture. Having seen it done with other texts, I know it isn't
>> unique.
>>
>>
>> Your words cause me to doubt that you have seriously considered the
>> evidence
>> I provide. Possibly you are confusing my approach with that of the
>> proponents of ELS (Equidistant Letter Sequences). I am aware that they
>> have
>> encountered problems of the kind you describe.
>>
>> http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=The_Beginning_of_Wonders
>>
>> Vernon
>
> Let's look at your calculation of e from John 1:1. Why is the .0011% error
> considered ok? Why shouldn't God get it right rather than have this small
> error?
>
> You use one system for your numbering of letters. It isn't the most natural.
> One could use alpha =1 and omega= 24 rather than alpha = 1 and omega= 800.
> Then your entire numerology would be different, but you would still find
> relationships of interest.
>
> I pulled a book at random from my library. It is Pi in the Sky by John D.
> Barrow. I opened to the Preface and used the first sentence. It is: There
> is safety in numbers. Assigning 1 to A and 26 to Z, and multiplying each
> letter by its corresponding value and adding them I get 275 for the value of
> this sentence.
>
> Now, there is an amazing relationship in this first sentence which predicts
> the exact exponent of Newton's law of gravitation. Given that there are
> five words, and the square of 5 is 25 (note that this is raising 5 to the
> power of 2 which is the exact exponent of Newton's law of gravitation).
> Dividing by 25 we find that the answer is 11. But, there are exactly 22
> letters in this 5 word sentence. And if you divide 22 by 11 you get
> 2--precisely the exponent in Newton's theory. And note how many times 2
> appears in this derivation. It appears 6 times. First there are 22 letters,
> then there is the power of 2. It appears once in the square of 5 (25) It
> appears once in 275. and it appears in the final answer---2. This of
> course is twice the number of the trinity.
>
> Now, if you add the numbers used in the above calculation you have
> 22+275+5+2+25+2= 331. This is the 67th prime. If you add the digits of 331
> you get 7, which is another prime. 67 itself is a prime--three primes to
> represent the trinity again. If you multiply 7*67*331 you get 155239. What
> do you get if you add the digits of 155239 up? Why you get 25, the square
> of the number of words in the first sentence of Pi in the Sky.
>
> Now, if you look at the 7, 67, and 331 and you multiply them by pairs
>
> 7*67 = 469
> 7* 331 = 2317
> 67 * 331 = 22177
>
> Adding the digits of these 3 numbers yield the primes 19, 13, 19
> respectively. These numbers yield 2 different primes--precisely the
> exponent in Newton's theory of gravity.
>
> If you take 22177-2317-469 you get 19391. Adding the digits of this number
> gives 23. Adding the digits of 23, yields 5, the number of words in Barrows
> sentence. Notice that we added two times--precisely the exponent number in
> Newton's theory of gravitation.
>
> Multiplying 19*13 gives 247 which if the digits are added gives 13. This is
> another clue. 1+3=4 and 4 is the square of the exact number used in Newton's
> theory of gravitation as the exponent. To get the square of 2 you have to
> use two 2's, which is what you need to describe the number of letters in
> Barrow's first sentence. And 3-1 = 2, the exact exponent of Newton's
> theory of gravitation.
>
> If you add the digits in both 19 and 13 you get 14 which if you then add
> those digits you get 5. Note that we iterated the addition twice, meaning
> the factor of 2 appears here which appears as the exponent in Newton's
> theory of gravity.
>
> Adding 19+13 you get 32 which if the digits are added, you get the number of
> words in Barrow's sentence. Once again iterating the addition twice yields a
> significant number.
>
> How could Barrow have known that he was writing such a fabulous sentence
> with such a clear message encoded in it? Clearly this is a deeply inspired
> (not to mention inspiring) book. God clearly has some special plan for the
> writer John D. Barrow.
>
> Vernon, this is why I don't believe what you do about mathematically encoded
> messages in Genesis 1.
>
>
Received on Tue May 31 18:39:25 2005