Christian numerology

[MarieR]

Hello everyone,

I'd like some help on how to debunk a numerology on the Bible. It's based on the work of Vernon Jenkins.

It's a bit too complicated mathematically for me, so if someone good at it could help me, I'd appreciate.

So, here is the point made by the author:

Genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 are mathematically linked as well as theologically (they are the 2 "in the beginning" passage)

He says the gematria (in Hebrew) of genesis 1.1 = 2701 = 37*73 = 19*37 + 2*27*37 

He then isolates the numbers 27, 37 and 73 from the calculation above and says that the gematria of genesis 1.1 (still Hebrew) + John 1.1 (in Greek) equals 6328  which is 73² + 27*37. So it uses the same numbers which for him is proof of design.

For him the numbers 27, 37 and 73 are linked geometrically. The number 37 is linked to 73 by representing the hexagonal core of the star (37 is an hexagonal number and 73 is a star number). Then 37 is linked to 27 by being the difference of consecutive cubes 37 = 64 - 27 = 4³ - 3³.

With those 3 numbers you can add them, multiply them, divide them, etc, etc. But he says the proof of design is because the combination for genesis 1.1 + John 1.1 is VERY simple, it uses the numbers only once each.

So I checked mathematically, and it works, there is no mistake. I also checked if variants existed for the texts of genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 and there is no known variant for those texts. 

So, my question is, do the numbers he picked have a special link, or is it quite arbitrary his choice? 

And if someone could tell me if that is statistically significant what he found? The author does not produce any statistics of his findings. 

I know that many of you will think it's just numerology bullshit and discard it (and I agree) but I would appreciate getting some answers to my specific questions as well. Thank you everyone for your help. 

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MarieR said:

I'd like some help on how to debunk a numerology on the Bible.

numerology is Just coincidence, thats all she said...

[Strange]

You can pick any numbers, find a pattern and claim it is significant. And, of course, numerologists always pick the numbers that "work" (are easy to invent a relationship for). For example:

1 hour ago, MarieR said:

He then isolates the numbers 27, 37 and 73 from the calculation above

Why? What happened to 19 and 2?

But you will never convince someone who believes in numerology that they are wrong. It is like an incurable illness.

[MigL]

The folly of applying a fictional science to fictional literature...

[Sensei]

Generally numerology is nonsense.

Take for example numerology in which you have to add the all digits in multi-digit number e.g.

1234 -> 1+2+3+4 = 3+7=10 -> 1+ 0 = 1

But it gives this result only for decimal numeral system!

Numerologist, not being scientist, nor professional mathematician, does not even know about existence of different numeral systems.

Decimal system arrived to Europe from Middle East (thus called Arabic numerals). It arrived to Middle East from India.

"The first mentions of the numerals in the West are found in the Codex Vigilanus of 976.[22]"

I have seen usage of this algorithm for calculation of checksum.

BTW, the words algebra and algorithm are of Arabic origin (Arabic mathematicians)

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Sensei

[Strange]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

The folly of applying a fictional science to fictional literature...

Indeed. Someone applied the techniques in “The Bible Code” to one of the Harry Potter books and got equally meaningful results!

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Strange said:

But you will never convince someone who believes in numerology that they are wrong. It is like an incurable illness.

Similar to the phenomenon we see here when someone fills the gaps in their knowledge with junk they've made up. Custom science designed with ad hoc methodology is an addiction for some. 

[Strange]

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Similar to the phenomenon we see here when someone fills the gaps in their knowledge with junk they've made up. Custom science designed with ad hoc methodology is an addiction for some. 

"But it must be right, because it makes sense to me" (someone said almost exactly that in another thread just now)

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

"But it must be right, because it makes sense to me" (someone said almost exactly that in another thread just now)

The true test to see if you're using Designer Science? When you can't explain the parts you filled in yourself. We see this all the time. "I know it proves my point, but I'm just not good at explaining it. If I could do the maths involved, you'd see I'm right!" 

I think the numerology crap makes these folks think they're doing the math. It somehow seems less like cherry-picking when it involves numbers.

[Strange]

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It somehow seems less like cherry-picking when it involves numbers.

Even when the numbers (and the operations on them) are cherry-picked to produce the desired results! Or, as often happens, something close to the desired results - and then they claim that is is "near enough" (or just hope no one notices).

[Raider5678]

8 hours ago, MarieR said:

So, my question is, do the numbers he picked have a special link, or is it quite arbitrary his choice? 

1

Arbitrary.

https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/moby.html

See. We're designed to look for patterns. So as a result, we see patterns where there really is none.

[MarieR]

Thank you everyone for your answers. 

 

I was confused because he talks about holograms, triangular numbers, square numbers, etc. He finds links between them because of their shapes and then makes his calculations... And I have no clue about holograms, and all of this stuff. So as a non mathematician, from the outside, it looks intriguing.

[koti]

42 minutes ago, MarieR said:

Thank you everyone for your answers. 

 

I was confused because he talks about holograms, triangular numbers, square numbers, etc. He finds links between them because of their shapes and then makes his calculations... And I have no clue about holograms, and all of this stuff. So as a non mathematician, from the outside, it looks intriguing.

Holograms are images on a 2d surface which appear to have 3 dimensions. It's done by encoding data (it can be traditional film) in such a way that when suitable light is shined onto it, the image diffracts light to appear 3 dimensional showing depth. It's really tricking the eyes and the brain to see depth where there is none.
In quantum physics there is the "holographic principle" which is something completely different from your traditional holograms because it deals with space and matter not images, in simple words it states that the entire volume of space can be thought of by encoding it onto lower dimensions. This principle is useful in string theories and quantum gravity theories and originated from Leonard Susskind. The holographic principle is useful in calculating black hole thermodynamics and was used by Stephen Hawking for his famous black hole entropy discoveries.
Charlatans twist pieces of math, physics and other branches of science into creating their own ridiculous pseudo theories which might sound like real science for an untrained eye. Numerology is complete BS from the scientific point of view, there is no mathematical evidence that numerology is anything more than a fairy tale. Look up Number Theory (Arithmetic) which is a branch of math to get you started. Heres a link to Holographic Principle which might be a bit tough to bite into but its very interesting once you understand it...anything is better than numerology - stay away from that as its not science. 

[studiot]

10 hours ago, MarieR said:

Thank you everyone for your answers. 

 

I was confused because he talks about holograms, triangular numbers, square numbers, etc. He finds links between them because of their shapes and then makes his calculations... And I have no clue about holograms, and all of this stuff. So as a non mathematician, from the outside, it looks intriguing.

 

 

I waited to see if you came back before replying, Marie.

Remember that none of the later developments in Mathematics and Philosophy (that is after 200AD) will be in the Bible.

Most of the references to these subjects are just fanciful nonsense (eg 'The Number of the Beast').

In 500BC however, They did have a surprisingly accurate value for Pi. 
This appears in the Book of Kings.

 

 

 

 

 

[michel123456]

21 hours ago, MarieR said:

(...)

So, here is the point made by the author:

Genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 are mathematically linked as well as theologically (they are the 2 "in the beginning" passage)

(...)

 

That happens also in all my work reports.

Chapter 1.1 is the beginning. I have no report beginning with 2.3 (for example).

[studiot]

2 hours ago, michel123456 said:

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 1:35 PM, MarieR said:

(...)

So, here is the point made by the author:

Genesis 1.1 and John 1.1 are mathematically linked as well as theologically (they are the 2 "in the beginning" passage)

(...)

 

That happens also in all my work reports.

Chapter 1.1 is the beginning. I have no report beginning with 2.3 (for example).

Well think the lady is being fed more stuff and nonsense.

I don't think they had a decimal system in 500BC, when this was written.

Perhaps coming from Greece, you could confirm how the Ancient Greek number system worked?

[Strange]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I don't think they had a decimal system in 500BC, when this was written.

And I don't think the Bible uses a decimal numbering system. Chapter and verse, more likely.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Perhaps coming from Greece, you could confirm how the Ancient Greek number system worked?

Wouldn't it be more relevant to find out how the original (Aramaic?) text was numbered? If it was.

As the text has been so heavily edited, with the content selected, deleted and moved around, I don't know how well the current structure and numbering would match the earliest texts.

[studiot]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

1)And I don't think the Bible uses a decimal numbering system. Chapter and verse, more likely.

2)Wouldn't it be more relevant to find out how the original (Aramaic?) text was numbered? If it was.

As the text has been so heavily edited, with the content selected, deleted and moved around, I don't know how well the current structure and numbering would match the earliest texts.

 

1) Exactly the point I was leading to.

There are many 'Bibles' The one we commonly refer to was introduced over 2000 years after the first words of the Old Testament were written, although I'm not sure how much was written and how much oral tradition. I will have to ask my expert friend. Any 'Bible' version is really only a floder for a series of differnt documents from many eras and sources within that time.

2) There were two versions of the 'original'  text, that did not always correspond. This was because it was written in two centres. Alexandria in Ancient Greek and Jerusalem in Ancient Hebrew, which were a long way apart in those days. So news and versions took time to compare. We are still deciphering scrolls today. Our King James one came from the Alexandria documents.

Edited January 21, 2019 by studiot

[MarieR]

I checked the variants already and found none for the texts of genesis 1.1 and John 1.1. 

The text of genesis 1.1 was not found intact in the dead see scrolls but the few words that were still preserved matched the Masoretic text.

I am usually not impacted by numerology but this guy found many links between the two passages, that he got me disturbed. 

One of his link is the one I put on my first post. The second is that by making a calculation (using the values of the letter, the number of letters) etc, he finds the number pi for genesis 1.1 and using the same method of calculation, he finds e for John 1.1

[studiot]

29 minutes ago, MarieR said:

The text of genesis 1.1 was not found intact in the dead see scrolls but the few words that were still preserved matched the Masoretic text. 

 

I don't know if you were adressing my post but

Can you read them?

 

When my learned friend retired from the Bar he decided he wanted to study the Bible so he took an MSc from London University.

In order to read the existing documents, he had to learn both ancient Greek and Ancient Hebrew forst (he already knew Latin)

 

Meanwhile my Dutch Uncle told me when I was about knee high, he said "Did you know the number 6 is special ?"

Look it is the only number that is both the product of all the preceeding numbers 1x2x3 = 6, as well as the sum of all the precceding numbers 1+2+3 = 6

The moral of this is that there are loads of coincidences in number theory.

Great fun what?

But Numerology is for charlatans, as already said.

I already told you where a good value for Pi is stated in the Bible, and it is not in Genesis.

 

Edited January 21, 2019 by studiot

[MarieR]

46 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I don't know if you were adressing my post but

Can you read them?

 

When my learned friend retired from the Bar he decided he wanted to study the Bible so he took an MSc from London University.

In order to read the existing documents, he had to learn both ancient Greek and Ancient Hebrew forst (he already knew Latin)

 

Meanwhile my Dutch Uncle told me when I was about knee high, he said "Did you know the number 6 is special ?"

Look it is the only number that is both the product of all the preceeding numbers 1x2x3 = 6, as well as the sum of all the precceding numbers 1+2+3 = 6

The moral of this is that there are loads of coincidences in number theory.

Great fun what?

But Numerology is for charlatans, as already said.

I already told you where a good value for Pi is stated in the Bible, and it is not in Genesis.

 

Yes I saw your posts. Though I never heard of the theory of two texts, one written in Greek, the other in Hebrew. I always thought the Septuagint was a translation from a Hebrew form of the text. 

[michel123456]

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Well think the lady is being fed more stuff and nonsense.

I don't think they had a decimal system in 500BC, when this was written.

Perhaps coming from Greece, you could confirm how the Ancient Greek number system worked?

You are overestimating my knowledge.

However, from my knowledge, ancient greeks had no independent numbering system, they used letters. Alpha for 1, Beta for 2, a.s.o.( it gets weird after some letters, a system still used today in certain circumstances in today's Greece). most ancient cultures used letters for numbers. This situation has the result that any word can be translated in numbers. That is the origin of numerology. Any text can become a set of numbers.

We got free of that after the invention of arabic numbers. From that point and after we all should have thrown numerology in the waste basket (together with astrology). But for whatever reason some of us didn't.

[michel123456]

[continued]

Here a multiplication from Eutocius manuscript. Left in Greek, right in today's numerals. Don't ask me what's about...(it is 3013.75^2)

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ελληνικό_σύστημα_αρίθμησης#/media/File:Multiplication_Eutocius.jpg

And for once, the wikipedia pages for Greek numerals are different in English, Greek & French (interestingly it is not the usual copy-paste).

Edited January 22, 2019 by michel123456

[studiot]

On 1/22/2019 at 12:29 PM, michel123456 said:

Here a multiplication from Eutocius manuscript. Left in Greek, right in today's numerals. Don't ask me what's about...(it is 3013.75^2)

Thanks. +1

[Strange]

On 1/21/2019 at 3:00 PM, studiot said:

Perhaps coming from Greece, you could confirm how the Ancient Greek number system worked?

It is an interesting question: why do so many ancient writing systems use letters for numbers?

After all, the first inscriptions (before full writing systems developed) were generally basic accounts or stocktaking records: how many sheep or jars of oil were being delivered. So the most important part was the numbers.

And the oldest writing system (Sumerian) had symbols for numbers as well as a positional system (and a symbol/placeholder for zero).

So it seems odd that things went "backwards" from there. Presumably we can blame the Egyptians (because we got our nearly all writing systems from there) but that doesn't really explain anything.