Re: Small probabilities

Jim,

My responses interleaved

JimA writes anew:
> Point well taken. Sloppy wording. The geometries per se aren't in
> principal that difficult. However, the extent of Vernon's derivations and
> the rationales for their connection to authentication of Scripture are just
> not easy to follow for most folks in an average Bible study class. I've
> taught enough to have a sense of what would cause most folks' (70%?) eyes to
> glaze over ["I don't understand this, and I don't need this sort of evidence
> anyhow!"]. Aside from the few remaining who might be able to follow
> (generous 10%?), the remainder (20%?) might get swept up in the articulation
> and illustration and accept the conclusion offered on the basis of
> impression, but not analysis. I think the ASA responders would fall in that
> (10%?).
>
> I think the pattern generation IS tantalizing and thought provoking
> initially. But I have trouble going straight to the same significance that
> Vernon sees., for several reasons, of which this one I described is one.

Iain:

I'll accept that there is a lot to get through on Vernon's web-site - on my
initial read there was a bit of the "eyes glazed over" effect. But I felt
it worthwhile persevering as I was doing background research for something
different, the use of numerology in musical composition. On closer
examination, I did find that it all seemed to cohere in a different and more
elegant way than other numerology websites I've seen around. Vernon's
derivations, at first sight may appear arcane and tortuous, but in fact when
looked into all seem to derive naturally from the properties of the number
37, primarily as a number that can be arranged as a hexagonal figure of
packed circles. This relates also naturally to the base 10 properties
(37x3=111, and the fact that the corresponding star number, the other factor
of the gematriac total of Gen 1:1 is 73, the digit reversal). In other
words, there is an originating property of the number that is reflected in
much of the other structure present in the stream seven integers. This
looks to be deliberate & I'll explain below why I don't think it could have
"naturally" arisen when scribes tried to tweak the text gematrically as
collateral patterns.

The difficulties Vernon faces, however, are that he wants you all to accept
the patterns, and then to accept furthermore that it validates that Gen Ch 1
is literally true. Given that there are a number of former YEC's on the
list, many who have had terrible struggles with their faith when they
realised they could no longer accept YEC-ism (I'm thinking of Glenn in
particular), I can see that this naturally predisposes people against the
whole thing, and liable to write it off as coincidence. Would you perhaps
agree though, that this forum is one where hopefully one can discuss
scientifically the merits of various possible explanations - to at least get
to the first step of deciding whether the patterns are intentional?

> JimA continues:
> My point has nothing to do with randomness, or ordering that comes out of
> the statistics of normal text usage. Instead, it relates to the gematrial
> structure that was certainly embodied in the Genesis texts by the author(s)
> and possibly by subsequent scribal imbellishment in light of gematrial
> considerations. Those nuances are mathematical and relational in nature. I'm
> suggesting that those changes in the text for those reasons may in
> themselves comprise enough constraints/rules to account for a surprising
> amount of collateral ordering and patterning - cause and effect. I'm
> suggesting that all of the derivative patterns (such as those discoveries of
> Vernon and others) didn't (necessarily) happen because of some
> God-idiosyncratic influence on the writers and texts, but are more the
> natural derivative consequence of the writers' gematrial introductions. In
> other words, that initial ordering put into place certain foundational
> patterning from which other relationships and patterns just naturally grow,
> and these in particular grew with the specific gematrial content of early
> Genesis without the need of further God-induced complexity.
>
> Somehow I am suspicious overall of this approach to "proof" for those few
> who can produce or comprehend it when God can otherwise speak directly to
> the heart of any man.

Iain continues:

Jim, I'm not sure if I've understood you right, but it seems what you are
suggesting is that the original authors introduced some structure by
gematrial considerations, and that possibly subsequent scribes tweaked it
and polished up the numerical structure, almost in an evolutionary sense.
It's a fair point, though I think there are problems with the approach.

The first is the implication of when the numerical values of the letters
were introduced into the Hebrew language. The common belief seems to be
that it was in the second century BC, when hebrew letters were used on coins
to denote the different denominations. Most people, I think, would date the
writing of Genesis to a long time before the 2nd Cent BC. Numerical letters
were introduced in the Greek alphabet in the 5th Cent. BC by the
Pythagoreans, and it is my understanding that the Hebrew letters were a
later invention. So if you are saying that the original authors used the
same gematrial values, then you are also saying that the Hebrew letters
pre-dated the Greek ones.

The second point about tweaking (what you describe as "scribal
embellishment") is also one I have strong doubts about for plausibility.
The problem is that the pattern is so much interdependent on the values of
all the words, that if you change a single thing, the entire pattern
vanishes and there's no evidence of a pre-existing "ordering" to be tweaked.

As a simple example of this, I think it was pointed out on the list by Paul
Seely that the Hebrew word "eth", an untranslatable particle indicating a
direct object ( called the "nota accusitivi") was a relatively late
introduction into the Hebrew language. It occurs twice in Gen 1:1, once on
it's own as the fourth word, and once combined with the "waw" connective,
which gives the word "and". Now, if you remove both instances of the word
"eth" from Gen 1:1 and assume the rest didn't change (just to see what
happens) you get a sequence of five integers, none of which is a multiple of
37, of which the total isn't a multiple of 37. It comes to 1899, which is
not a triangular or other figurate number, having the factorisation
3x3x211. Factors of 3 are relatively common, and the 211 is not a number
with any historical interest attached to it. No other contiguous sums of
subsets of the five integers (e.g. the last two) make a triangular number
either. So taking that sequence of integers, there is virtually no evidence
that you could pull out to suggest that humans or anything else used
gematrial considerations to compose it. Then the one introduction of this
grammatical particle, which was a change to the grammar of the language, and
not a scribal embellishment, caused the word "w'eth" = "and" to have the
value 407 (11x37), and simultaneously caused the total to come to 37x73 and
the total of the last two words to come to 19x37. Both these last
quantities are triangular numbers, the 73rd and the 37th respectively. It
seems to me that this can't be explained away as the polishing of a
pre-existing gematrial pattern, because it looks like a dramatic falling
into place of several features simultaneously. (Dare I say "punctuated
equilibrium" as opposed to "incremental change"?)

Anyway, thanks for contributing intelligently to the discussion of this. I
hope my responses haven't bored too many people!

Regards,
Iain
Received on Sun Jan 15 08:32:06 2006