Prime numbers

[Stephen]

Hi folks! Thought I'd give some brief data re prime numbers from the first verse of the Bible.

Mathematicians universally recognise the number 2 as the first of the primes. This is as it should be, as the number 1 is far too special to be lumped in with the prime series. The number 1, referred to as unity, is the only indivisible integer. All the primes are divisible by 1, making them all dependent on 1 for their existence. In a similar fashion, all composite numbers are divisible into primes. There is a hierarchy at play amongst numbers, which may be divided into three categories: (a) Unity, (b) the primes, and (c) the composites. As with the Godhead, numbers themselves are organised around tri-unity.

The first letter of Scripture is the Hebrew 'beth', equivalent to our b, which has a numerical value of 2. This letter begins the first word, 'bereshith', and is always written larger than other letters in Genesis 1 in the Hebrew scrolls. Appropriately, Scripture begins gematrically with the first prime number. Just as the primes lead us into all combinations of numbers, so the 'beth' leads us into the word of God.

The subject of the Bible's first verse is God, the Hebrew 'elohim'. This word has a numerical value of 86. Anyone who has followed Richard's work knows that there is a strong numero-geometrical link between the thematically related verses of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Both verses open with the phrase: "In the beginning ...". The subject of John 1:1 is the Word, in Greek 'ho logos'. The Word - 'ho logos', which context shows us to be none other than the Lord - has a numerical value of 443. 443 is the 86th prime number.

The prime index of 'ho logos' links to the 'elohim' of Genesis 1:1. They both share a relationship through the number 86. In this way, gematria shows us that the thematically linked subjects of both verses are, in fact, the same being. Jesus Christ is, indeed, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

This is a very simple lesson in relation to prime numbers. Genesis 1:1 contains many such lessons in relation to the primes, although this is probably the simplest of them all. It should not escape our notice that the prime factors of Genesis 1:1 have a reflexive property through the pair 37 and 73. This is undergirded by their prime indices, 37 being the 12th prime and 73 the 21st prime.

I hope this morsel might inspire others to consider the role gematria plays in Scripture.

[Yarah]

Outstanding Stephen! Also beginning in Genesis 1:1, counting each letter "Aleph" we find that this first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, who's number is 1 and indicates God, appears 6 times, man's number. If we count from the first letter, the oversized Beth, 86 letters, we find the letter "Aleph". We can do this with the Gematria of God's other "names" and find the same thing. Yah is 15, YHVH is 26, God (EL) is 31, try this for yourself. God's word is as complex and carries the same intelligent design as all of His creation.

[Stephen]

Yarah, fascinating observation in regards to the 'aleph' and its recurrence as the 15th, the 26th, the 31st and the 86th letter of Scripture. As you remark, these are the gematrical values of the key OT names for God.

God Himself declares His sovereignty in the Shema by announcing that He is One. Aleph being equivalent to 1, and the Hebrew for one being 'echad' (probably related to our English word 'accord') - which word begins with aleph - it is of further interest that aleph has a gematrical value of 111. There is a clear indication that the number 1 is not to be likened to any other number, that it stands apart from, and over, all numbers in the same way that God stands apart as the first cause, over all creation.

In relation to aleph in Genesis 1:1, you are probably already aware that the nominal positions of each of the six alephs in the verse sum to 86. Naturally, it goes without saying that 'elohim' begins with aleph.

I am reminded, too, of the acronym for God's great name: 'ehyeh esher ehyeh'. All three words begin with aleph, marking this letter as peculiar to God.

The origins of the letter aleph apparently lie in the pictogram of the head of an ox. In the ancient palaeo-Hebrew script, the protean aleph's form resembles uncannily that of the stars in the head of the constellation Taurus. There is every likelihood that the stars themselves are the origin for both the name and the form of this letter.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi folks! Thought I'd give some brief data re prime numbers from the first verse of the Bible.

Mathematicians universally recognise the number 2 as the first of the primes. This is as it should be, as the number 1 is far too special to be lumped in with the prime series. The number 1, referred to as unity, is the only indivisible integer. All the primes are divisible by 1, making them all dependent on 1 for their existence. In a similar fashion, all composite numbers are divisible into primes. There is a hierarchy at play amongst numbers, which may be divided into three categories: (a) Unity, (b) the primes, and (c) the composites. As with the Godhead, numbers themselves are organised around tri-unity.

Stephen,

I like the mathematical clarity and integrity of your presentation. Some years ago I met a man who believed the primes should start at 1. It might seem like a trivial matter, but it actually is of central importance if we are looking for correlations between the prime and its index. Since the mathematical properties would not allow me to think of unity as a prime, I invented the idea of "numerical atoms" which are just the union of unity with the set of primes. Then I compared the correlation between the numerical atoms and their index versus primes and their index.

There were a number of interesting "hits" with the atoms. For example, it is pleasing to have a perfect correspondence between the first three atoms and their indexes (1/1, 2/2, 3/3) as opposed to the heterogeneous mix that primes have with their indexes (1/2, 2/3, 3/5). On the other hand, heterogeneity is very fertile and full of "dynamic tension" that goes somewhere and develops, so perhaps the primes are to be preferred over the atoms.

Another satisfying correlation in the "atoms" list is that the number 13 is the 7th "atom", so we have a correlation between Hex(2) = 7 and Star(2) = 13, the second Hex/Star pair (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Figurate.asp#hexstar).

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/HexStarPairs.gif

A similar hit is that the Number 37 is the 13th "atom" which are both star numbers. Likewise, the Number 151 is the 37th "atom", and 151 = the heart of the Logos Star 373 = 6 x 37 + 151.

BUT ... there also are some powerful hits starting with 2 as the first prime. As you noted, we have the correlation between the prime 443 (Ho Logos) and its index 86 (Elohim). Likewise, we have a correlation between the very significant prime 613 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_613.asp)(YHVH Elohi Yisrael) and its index of 112 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_112.asp)(YHVH Elohim).

We also have a correlation between the 114th Prime = 619 which is the large prime factor in the Grace Manifest Holograph (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Grace.asp) that is indexed by the number 114 (John 1:14). This is particularly interesting because now we have a verse of the Bible indexed by the index of the large prime found in its gematria!

I think that following the standard mathematical practice makes sense and is very elegant, especially in light of its threefold structure of Unity, Primes, Composites. This seems confirmed by the integration with the names of God, which I didn't find in the "numerical atoms" list. But the geometric correlations in the "atoms" makes me wonder if something is going on there.

But I find it difficult to discern between chance and design in this case, so I will remain uncommitted for now.

Thanks for the great post!

RAM

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I was thinking about how some of the more "skeptically inclined" might mock the idea that God could have anything to do with patterns in primes, since the patterns seem like they had to be established by their very nature, so that even God had no choice in the matter.

Then I remembered that Carl Sagan, a skeptical egghead frequently quoted by atheists (http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_CSagan.htm), wrote a very entertaining book called "Contact" in which he suggested that the Creator had encoded the digits of Pi so that when they are displayed in a certain way the zeros would form a perfect circle, which relates back to the definition of pi, and so forms a kind of message from the Creator.

Carl's suggestion caused some controversy because Intelligent Design folks quote him in support of their position. Here is a bit from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_%28novel%29#A_message_from_God_in_pi):


Intelligent design proponents often cite the ending of Contact as proof that Sagan believed that, using the tools of science, it was possible to discover if there was a creator of the universe. This interpretation is in direct conflict with the vast body of Sagan's views as represented in his work and writings. Such as The Demon-Haunted World as well as Science as a Candle in the Dark, of which are skeptical about claims of supernatural origins of the cosmos and favor explanations of a naturalistic origin.

[Stephen]

Hi Richard,

I am familiar with your concept of the 'atom numbers'. Mathematicians refer to these as irreducible numbers, being the prime series prefixed by unity. They produce fascinating results at times, and the series is not without merit. I regard them as a useful supplement to the prime series, but not a replacement for them.

Like yourself, I had given much thought to whether or not the number 1 deserved to be called prime. In the end, logic dictated that the mathematical community were correct in their conclusion that 1 is not prime. In a philosophical kind of way, mathematicians have affirmed that there is nothing else like the number 1. In the same way, we know that there is nothing else like God, who calls Himself One in the Shema. I'm sure you can make the connection.

I apply the law of Occam's razor in this instance to prove that 1 is not prime: all the prime numbers are divisible, but 1 is indivisible. Applying this to your concept of 'atoms', we may conceptually divide the atoms one from another in a compound and represent these in a diagram of chemical structure. However, we cannot of itself split a single atom; to do so would be to obliterate its atomic entity. It would no longer be a single atom.

Quite simply, God is not divided in Himself.

[Triple Nine]

... as the number 1 is far too special to be lumped in with the prime series. The number 1, referred to as unity, is the only indivisible integer. All the primes are divisible by 1, making them all dependent on 1 for their existence.

Stephen, I really like your post, because it causes me to consider the spiritual implications from what you have stated.
Here's a little more food for thought...

In Mark 12:29, Jesus is quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4, stating... "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD:"
The triune nature of God as three persons in One being is more clearly understood when we look to One as the answer.
Our great and marvelous God is a God of abundance and multiplicity. When people look to addition 1 + 1 + 1 = 3,
they get stuck because 3 does not equal one.

For me, this mathematical sequence expresses the trinity (how God is One): 1 X 1 X 1 = 1
The three persons of one Father forever multiplied to and by the one Son forever multiplied to and by the Holy Spirit.
God therefore, being unity, is indivisible, and we too, like the numbers you refer to, are dependent on (unity);
the One true God for our existence.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi folks! Thought I'd give some brief data re prime numbers from the first verse of the Bible.

Mathematicians universally recognise the number 2 as the first of the primes. This is as it should be, as the number 1 is far too special to be lumped in with the prime series. The number 1, referred to as unity, is the only indivisible integer. All the primes are divisible by 1, making them all dependent on 1 for their existence.

I think you are correct that the agreement now is near universal, and I think the reasons you gave - which are based ultimately on Algebraic Number Theory, are also correct. But historically there has been some debate about the prime status of the Number One. An interesting series of answers to the question "Why is One not a Prime", which seems to cover most possibilities, is found here: http://primes.utm.edu/notes/faq/one.html

The first two answers he gives seem pretty weak and unconvincing. The first is based on the definition of a prime:

"An integer greater than one is called a prime number if its only positive divisors (factors) are one and itself."

But that proves nothing because we could just as well define a prime as "A positive integer is called a prime number if its only divisor (factor) greater than one is itself. "

The second reason listed is also inconclusive because it too is based on an arbitrary definition in the Fundamental Theory of Arithmetic:

"Every positive integer greater than one can be written uniquely as a product of primes, with the prime factors in the product written in order of nondecreasing size."

We could simply reword this theorem to state:

"Every positive integer can be written uniquely as a product of primes greater than one, with the prime factors in the product written in order of nondecreasing size."

Obviously, there must have been some other reason(s) that mathematicians would go against the strong natural inclination to include one with the primes. And indeed there is, as we begin to see in the third reason listed on the primes page. It explains that One is not a prime because it is a "divisor of unity."

And finally, his fourth reason pretty much settles the issue as far as I can tell:


There was a time that many folks defined one to be a prime, but it is the importance of units and primes in modern mathematics that causes us to be much more careful with the number one (and with primes). When we only consider the positive integers, the role of one as a unit is blurred with its role as an identity; however, as we look at other number rings (a technical term for systems in which we can add, subtract and multiply), we see that the class of units is of fundamental importance and they must be found before we can even define the notion of a prime. For example, here is how Borevich and Shafarevich define prime number in their classic text "Number Theory:"
An element p of the ring D, nonzero and not a unit, is called prime if it can not be decomposed into factors p=ab, neither of which is a unit in D. Sometimes numbers with this property are called irreducible and then the name prime is reserved for those numbers which when they divide a product ab, must divide a or b (these classes are the same for the ordinary integers--but not always in more general systems). Nevertheless, the units are a necessary precursors to the primes, and one falls in the class of units, not primes.
As discussed earlier, this issue is very important to some folks who feel that the patterns found in the relations between primes and their indexes proves that one is a prime. But for that purpose, we could just adopt a new class of numbers - Atoms as Stephen mentioned - and let the mathematicians keep their prime definition pure, since intellectual purity is a prime passion of mathematicians, I can assure you!

That's why Christians are often excellent mathematicians. E.g Blaise Pascal (Probablitiy theory), Isaac Newton (inventor of Calculus.

RAM

[Stephen]

Hi Folks!

I am in perfect agreement with Richard. The primes ought to remain as they are, while the prime series supplemented by the addition of 1 should be given a new name. This latter series does have some interesting findings; however, I regard it as a secondary source of information in relation to the prime series. Triple Nine mentioned some of the philosophical implications of 1 being in a numerical class of its own, relating these to the Godhead. I am in perfect accord with those conclusions.

Stephen

[Frank Colijn]

Hi folks! Thought I'd give some brief data re prime numbers from the first verse of the Bible.

Mathematicians universally recognise the number 2 as the first of the primes. This is as it should be, as the number 1 is far too special to be lumped in with the prime series. The number 1, referred to as unity, is the only indivisible integer. All the primes are divisible by 1, making them all dependent on 1 for their existence. In a similar fashion, all composite numbers are divisible into primes. There is a hierarchy at play amongst numbers, which may be divided into three categories: (a) Unity, (b) the primes, and (c) the composites. As with the Godhead, numbers themselves are organised around tri-unity.

The first letter of Scripture is the Hebrew 'beth', equivalent to our b, which has a numerical value of 2. This letter begins the first word, 'bereshith', and is always written larger than other letters in Genesis 1 in the Hebrew scrolls. Appropriately, Scripture begins gematrically with the first prime number. Just as the primes lead us into all combinations of numbers, so the 'beth' leads us into the word of God.

The subject of the Bible's first verse is God, the Hebrew 'elohim'. This word has a numerical value of 86. Anyone who has followed Richard's work knows that there is a strong numero-geometrical link between the thematically related verses of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. Both verses open with the phrase: "In the beginning ...". The subject of John 1:1 is the Word, in Greek 'ho logos'. The Word - 'ho logos', which context shows us to be none other than the Lord - has a numerical value of 443. 443 is the 86th prime number.

The prime index of 'ho logos' links to the 'elohim' of Genesis 1:1. They both share a relationship through the number 86. In this way, gematria shows us that the thematically linked subjects of both verses are, in fact, the same being. Jesus Christ is, indeed, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

This is a very simple lesson in relation to prime numbers. Genesis 1:1 contains many such lessons in relation to the primes, although this is probably the simplest of them all. It should not escape our notice that the prime factors of Genesis 1:1 have a reflexive property through the pair 37 and 73. This is undergirded by their prime indices, 37 being the 12th prime and 73 the 21st prime.

I hope this morsel might inspire others to consider the role gematria plays in Scripture.

Hi Stephen,

I like to say something about the prime numbers, but I think it makes sence to say something about numbers in general, so we can understand the number universe of God. There are infinit numbers build up out of 9 digits (the zero is not a digit) So we have:


1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9
the building blocks are:
(1)-(1+1)-(1+1+1)(1+1+1+1)-(1+1+1+1+1)-(1+1+1+1+1+1)-(1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1).......
or
(1)-(1+1=2)-(2+1=3)-(3+1=4)-(4+1=5)-(5+1=6)-(6+1=7).......

We can divide the infinit numbers in many different ways. The first logic way are the triangular/not triangular numbers:


1-(1)-(1+2=3)-(1+2+3=6)-(1+2+3+4=10)-(1+2+3+4+5=15).......

So 1 is the first triangular number, 3 the second, 6 the third, 10 the fourth and so on.....(I think we don't have a word for numbers that are not triangular)

An other division of nubers is odd and even:


1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.......

number 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 .......
0dd 1 - 3 - 5 - 4 - 7 - 9 - 11 - 13 .......
Even 2 - 4 - 6 - 8 - 10 - 12 - 14 .......

So the first odd number is 1 and the first even number is 2; the seventh odd number is 13 and the seventh even number is 14.

We can also divide the numbers in primes and composites:


1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 -10 - 11 - 12 - 13

number......1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 ......
prime.........1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 7 - 11 - 13 .......
composite.. 4 - 6 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 12 - 14 .......

This makes in my opinion 1 as the first prime and 4 as the first composite. There is no reason to treat the one in a different way in the sequence of primes than in the sequence of triangular or odd numbers. And yes one is a very special nuber as a unity. But the three and the seven are also very special. You can see in the sequence of primes that the first three primes are equal to their numerical place; so in heaven, so on earth. That's why I call them Super Perfect Primes. The highest number in this 'world' is the three. The three raised till its own power is 3x3x3=27, the starting point of the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet, including the sophit letters. In this sequence of 27 numbers we find 10 primes. These 10 primes in the sequence 'n' appoint in the prime sequence 10 other primes, of which the first three are the Super Perfect Primes and the other seven I call Perfect Primes. You can find more informatin on the following pages:
http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/6._Truth.htm
and http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/7._The_prime_table.htm

I think it is interesting to know that the sum of the 10 primes in the sequence 'n' (27) and the 10 Perfect Primes is: (1+2+3+5+7+11+13+17+19+23)+(1+2+3+7+13+29+37+53+61 +79)=101+285=386, the Hebrew CV of Jesus.

I hope that this information adds something to the prime discussion, Frank

[Geoffrey]

Hallo Frank!


So 1 is the first triangular number, 3 the second, 6 the third, 10 the fourth and so on.....(I think we don't have a word for numbers that are not triangular)

Why should 1 be a triangular number if it cannot form a triangle like three?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hallo Frank!



Why should 1 be a triangular number if it cannot form a triangle like three?

The Number 1 is called a triangular number because it is the first number in the series of triangular numbers given by the forumula T(n) = n(n+1)/2:

1 = 1 = 1 x (1 + 1)/2
3 = 1 + 2 = 2 x (2 + 1)/2
6 = 1 + 2 + 3 = 3 x (3 + 1)/ 2
etc.

Likewise, 1 is the first square number because it is the first in the series generated by n^2 = n x n

1 = 1 x 1
4 = 2 x 2
9 = 3 x 3
etc.

In my book, its just a convention. You can choose to talk about Trinagular numbers starting at 1 or 3. All that matters is that you are clear in your definitions.

Richard

[Frank Colijn]

Hi Geoffrey,

The question you asked, I asked myself once and is not so easy to answer. That it is common accepted that one is the first triangular number will not do. Usually we use the circel as unit to make images to express numbers, allthough we could have chosen a triangle or square as unit. But maybe the bible writer wanted us to use the circle, for the number Pi is hidden in the first verse, and everything in creation is build up out of circels or balls. As you probably know the circel can be divided in six equal parts by its own radius. The six points on the circumference of the circel can become connected in several ways; the triangle is one of them. It is a theoretical possibility. It is also the starting point of Hexagons and Hexagrams and even squares, cubes, pentagons, pentagrams and many more mathematical figures can be drawn in the circel. All (or many) mathematical laws are already there. One is the potential starting point of nearly all sequences (not for the even numbers). One is the point that not yet has moved. The one will be what it will be. The one is the begining of all things. When 1 is eccepted as a prime then the factors of the CV of Gen.1:1 are 2701=1x37x73. The sum of those factors is 1+37+73=111, the CV of the word Aleph: 80+30+1=111. The aleph is the first letter of the alphabet with the number value 1. I will add an image as an attachment and I hope that you will understand why 1 is the first triangular number. More number information can be found on my website: http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/indexEN.htm (http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/indexEN.htm)

Frank

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This makes in my opinion 1 as the first prime and 4 as the first composite. There is no reason to treat the one in a different way in the sequence of primes than in the sequence of triangular or odd numbers. And yes one is a very special nuber as a unity. But the three and the seven are also very special. You can see in the sequence of primes that the first three primes are equal to their numerical place; so in heaven, so on earth. That's why I call them Super Perfect Primes.
Hi Frank,

I don't understand the problem. If mathematicians want to define primes as being greater than 1, it doesn't matter because its just a definition. We are free to define mathematical sets too. So if the word "prime" is already taken by the mainstream mathematicians, we can follow Stephen's suggestion and define a set called "Irreducible Numbers" that is formed by the union of {1} with the primes. I called this set "Numerical Atoms."

Since its just a question of definition, why does it matter?

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

When 1 is eccepted as a prime then the factors of the CV of Gen.1:1 are 2701=1x37x73. The sum of those factors is 1+37+73=111, the CV of the word Aleph: 80+30+1=111. The aleph is the first letter of the alphabet with the number value 1.
Hey Frank,

I think it is a mistake to add the unit to the factors. There is no proper principle being displayed here. If you can add it once, you can add it any number of times.

2701 = 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 37 x 73

I agree that it would be "neat" if the factors added up to 111, but the reality is that they add to 110. And I think there is a reason for this. The average of the two factors yields the value of the generating triangle T(10):

(37 + 73)/ 2 = 110/2 = 55 = T(10)

This is because the Hex/Star pair 37/73 is generated by the self-intersection of the 10th triangular number. Here is a pic:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/hexstar3773_55.gif

I talk about this here: http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Creation_Work.asp

I think your suggestion that we add the unit to the prime factorization exemplifies one of the reasons mathematicians define primes as > 1. As explained in a previous post, it is because of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic:

Every positive integer greater than can be written uniquely as a product of primes, with the prime factors in the product written in order of nondecreasing size.

Mathematicians want everything exact. They don't want to be able to write 2701 = 1 x 37 x 73 and 2701 = 1 x 1 x 1 x 37 x 73. They want the unique factorization.

This is a real problem. We can't fix it by making an arbitrary rule like "you are only allowed to include the Prime Number once in any factorization" because then our mathematics would be inconsistent. For example, a prime number is then "factored" as 37 = 1 x 37. And 2701 is "factored" as

2701 = 1 x 37 x 73 = 1 x (1 x 37) x (1 x 73) = 1 x 1 x 1 x 37 x 73.

You see, the associative law demands that we can do this. So what then is the rule? If the number 1 is a prime and it is included in the definition of the prime factorization, how do we state the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic?

Richard

[Frank Colijn]

Hi Richard,

Till a certain level I agree with you. But again it depends on how things are defined. You can see 2701 as a multiplication of 37 and 73, and the sum of the multiplication factors (SMF) is 110, the number of 'mosad', foundation: 4+60+6+40=110 (Is.28:16). The prime factors of 2701 are (1^n)x(37^1)x(73^1) or 1x37x73. Sum of the prime factors (SPF) is 111. I see numbers raised to a power as a unit. If this is mathematical right I don't know, but it can be one of the many ways how things are coded. Take for instance: Spirit of God, ruach Elohim, 214+86=300. The factors are: (1^n)x(2^2)x(3^1)x(5^2)=1x4x3x25.......PFS 1+4+3+25=33. When Ian Mallett came up with the binairy notation I was playing with the binary calculator and this is what I found:

Word 300 is the first word of Gen.1:25: and made 300-70-10-6, anagram of Jesus, Joshua, sum 386 (You might say Jesus represents the Spirit of God, and according to the words of John 1:3 are all things made by him and made for him.)
--- word value 386, binary 110000010, reversed 010000011=131
--- word place 300, factors (1^n)x(2^2)x(3^1)x(5^2)=1x4x3x25.......PFS 1+4+3+25=33
--- prime number place of prime 131 (value) is 33 (place)..... P33=131 (this is only so when 1 is counted as the first prime)
Coincidence, my manipulation of numbers, or devine disign?

But it is even more complex. When we take the multiplication factors of 300 (Spirit of God) in the following way: the first and the last...and the factors in between: (4x3)x(1x25)=12x25.....MS 12+25=37. We have to wach the three and four carefully, for the word three is coded in Gen.1:1 starting on letter 4 and ending on letter 25 (with ELS 7, see chapter 9 (http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/9._The_Theorem_of_Pythagoras.htm)) Now we make prime jumps starting from the 12(3x4)....P12=31....P31=113....P113=613, three jumps and four numbers: 12-31-113-613. The third number is 113. (The third seed is the good seed) Word 113 is the 12th Elohim in the bible (Gen.1:10 word 10) The sum of the steps is 12+31+113=156.....1x2x2x3x13......first and last: (4x3)x(1x13)=12x13......MS 12+13=25. But we had four numbers from three steps, sum: 12+31+113+613=769. This is the 137th prime. Word 37 is the word 'the light' (Gen.1:4 word 10) and starts on the 137th letter of the bible. In verse four it is the 34th letter....P34=137! This is the place between light and darkness where Stephen (http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/email_fine_structure_constant.htm) found the alpha number from the fine structure constant. This road works only when 1 is seen as the first prime.

An other interesting observation with the four numbers 12-31-113-613 is that the sum of the first and the last number is: 12+613=625=25x25, and the sum of the numbers in between 31+113=144=12x12.

I don't know if you already read my website, but as you know Jesus calls himself the 'truth' and maybe you know that the sum of all dividers of 'truth', ameth, 441 is: 1 3 7 9 21 49 63 147.... SD 300. As you see 441 is not counted as a divider. This is probably done so otherwise there would be no Perfect Numbers.(6, 28, 496, 8128.....)

I think there is some more discussion needed to get our approach of numbers straight, Frank

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Till a certain level I agree with you. But again it depends on how things are defined. You can see 2701 as a multiplication of 37 and 73, and the sum of the multiplication factors (SMF) is 110, the number of 'mosad', foundation: 4+60+6+40=110 (Is.28:16).
Hi Frank,

That's an excellent observation concerning mosad (foundation) = 110. It is very significant in relation to Genesis 1:1. I wrote about it in my article called "The Foundation of Creation (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../gr/GR_Creation_Foundation.asp)."


The prime factors of 2701 are (1^n)x(37^1)x(73^1) or 1x37x73. Sum of the prime factors (SPF) is 111. I see numbers raised to a power as a unit. If this is mathematical right I don't know, but it can be one of the many ways how things are coded. Take for instance: Spirit of God, ruach Elohim, 214+86=300. The factors are: (1^n)x(2^2)x(3^1)x(5^2)=1x4x3x25.......PFS 1+4+3+25=33.
OK - you have a rule. That is good. The rule for the Prime Factor Sum (SPF) is:

SPF (a^m) x (b^n) = 1 + (a^m) + (b^n) where a and b are primes > 1.

I think a big question now is "What is the meaning of the SPF function?" Why is it significant?

If I were to make up an SPF function, I think I would write it this way:

SPF (a^m) x (b^n) = (m x a) + (m x b)

I like this because its very well behaved mathematical function:

SPF(xy) = SPF(x) + SPF(y) for all x and y > 0

In other words, it acts like the log function:

Log(xy) = Log(x) + Log(y)

which is what you would want in a function that is somehow "measuring" the weight of the factors, correct?

As for your argument about 1 as a prime: I still think it is incorrect to say that "The prime factors of 2701 are (1^n)x(37^1)x(73^1)" because that seems inconsistent with a well-formed mathematics. All the extra units add no information, and the equation 2701 = 37 x 37 remains true without including the units, so the units seem completely superfluous. You are free to "add one" in your definitions of functions without messing with the definition of primes.


When Ian Mallett came up with the binairy notation I was playing with the binary calculator and this is what I found:

Word 300 is the first word of Gen.1:25: and made 300-70-10-6, anagram of Jesus, Joshua, sum 386
Ahh .. you have brought forth one of my pet peeves. The proper name of Jesus in Hebrew is not Yeshua = 386, but Yehoshua = 391 = Yeshuah (Salvation). The evidence is overwhelming. Consider these identities:

My Holy Name (Shem Qadshi) = 754 = (http://www.biblewheel.com/gr/gr_754.asp)Jesus Christ ( (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/../gr/gr_754.asp)Yehoshuah HaMeshiach) (http://www.biblewheel.com/gr/gr_754.asp)

Click the link for many other powerful identities that settle the issue. I have long been mystified why "Messianic Jews" - who should know the Rabbinic tradition that says a missing letter is a sign of God's Judgment on a man - would popularize the nick-name "Y'shua" which is lacking note only the Divine Letter Hey, but also the Divine Name YAH! His name should be spelled Yod Hey Vav Shin Ayin - the first three letters being the same as YHVH.


(You might say Jesus represents the Spirit of God, and according to the words of John 1:3 are all things made by him and made for him.)
--- word value 386, binary 110000010, reversed 010000011=131
--- word place 300, factors (1^n)x(2^2)x(3^1)x(5^2)=1x4x3x25.......PFS 1+4+3+25=33
--- prime number place of prime 131 (value) is 33 (place)..... P33=131 (this is only so when 1 is counted as the first prime)
Coincidence, my manipulation of numbers, or devine disign?

You ask "Coincidence, my manipulation of numbers, or devine disign?" I answer the first two. Sure, it is possible that God could have had something to do with that "coincidence" but it is so complicated, and so far removed from simple intuition as to be impossible to discern. We all know that God's Wisdom is beyond our "searching out." But if our "searching out" leads beyond what we can comprehend, what good is it? I prefer the main things that are the plain things. The patterns you are displaying here are not clear to me.


But it is even more complex. When we take the multiplication factors of 300 (Spirit of God) in the following way: the first and the last...and the factors in between: (4x3)x(1x25)=12x25.....MS 12+25=37. We have to wach the three and four carefully, for the word three is coded in Gen.1:1 starting on letter 4 and ending on letter 25 (with ELS 7, see chapter 9 (http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/9._The_Theorem_of_Pythagoras.htm))
I recommend folks click on your link. Your pic is great. The spacing of the letters Shin Lamed Shin Hey (that spell THREE) at an interval of every SEVEN letters is extremely intriguing, because the value of the verse is based on THREE and SEVEN because 2701 = 37 x 73. And we also the Greek value of the Word (Logos) by which God created all things is 373, a kind of compression of 37 x 73. And the large-scale structure of the Word follows the pattern of Three Cycles and Seven Divisions that form the Tri-radiant Halo. The pattern of 3-7 seems truly divine.


Now we make prime jumps starting from the 12(3x4)....P12=31....P31=113....P113=613, three jumps and four numbers: 12-31-113-613. The third number is 113. (The third seed is the good seed) Word 113 is the 12th Elohim in the bible (Gen.1:10 word 10) The sum of the steps is 12+31+113=156.....1x2x2x3x13......first and last: (4x3)x(1x13)=12x13......MS 12+13=25. But we had four numbers from three steps, sum: 12+31+113+613=769. This is the 137th prime. Word 37 is the word 'the light' (Gen.1:4 word 10)
OK - now I read rather slowly and carefully, and I follow your logic, but I think you are moving in areas far too removed from normal intuition to discern between chance and design. I assume you know that the normal person will not ever be able to follow the trail you have laid down here, correct? Why not display the brilliant LIGHT of God's Word that will lead people to a deeper understanding? The "hopping" from one prime to the next via the index of the prime (especially when the index is contested because you see 1 as a prime) moves the conversation completely outside the realm of "light" for any normal reader. And on this point, I really would like to know how you personally discern between chance and design, Frank.


and starts on the 137th letter of the bible. In verse four it is the 34th letter....P34=137! This is the place between light and darkness where Stephen (http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/email_fine_structure_constant.htm) found the alpha number from the fine structure constant. This road works only when 1 is seen as the first prime.
Actually, the "road" would work just fine if you let the mathematicians have their "primes" and you defined your own set as "irreducibles" or "numerical atoms." There is no need to fight a windmill here. Its just a matter of definition, and nothing more.


An other interesting observation with the four numbers 12-31-113-613 is that the sum of the first and the last number is: 12+613=625=25x25, and the sum of the numbers in between 31+113=144=12x12.
That is interesting.


I don't know if you already read my website, but as you know Jesus calls himself the 'truth' and maybe you know that the sum of all dividers of 'truth', ameth, 441 is: 1 3 7 9 21 49 63 147.... SD 300. As you see 441 is not counted as a divider. This is probably done so otherwise there would be no Perfect Numbers.(6, 28, 496, 8128.....)
But this leads to a huge question. The number of possible functions is unlimited. Why do you consider the sum of the proper divisors as significant? You have tossed out "hits" that are found using many different functions in this one email, but you have not shown any consistent patterns. And that's the key. The world of numbers is such that you can spend the rest of your life finding "interesting" coincidences, but if you can not show the meaning of those coincidences, what good are they?


I think there is some more discussion needed to get our approach of numbers straight, Frank

Yes, I agree completely. I look forward to further discussion.

Your brother in Christ our Lord,

Richard

[Frank Colijn]

Hi Richard,

Let me tell you how I see the bible text. For me it's a kind of gobelin, woven with all kind of colors making up the images on the tapestry. That is the surface of the text that we read. But in Is.46:9-10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa046.html#9) God states: Declaring the end from the beginning, and from old times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure;
Where can we read the end in the beginning? Well God had to compress that information. With codes. It are the threads on the backside of the gobelin connecting the colors and images. They connect the letters, words, verses, chapters, books and the information that is written like we read it. And there are as many codes as flowers in the field. Some flowers have 5 leaves and are pentagonal based, and some flowers have six leaves and are hexagonal based. The bible is created with the same elements as the Creation. But we can't always use the same coding (or decoding) on different places.(All roses are flowers, but not all flowers are roses) I try to be consistent as possible when I pick up a thread, for each thread has its own character. (for instance the first and last of the prime factors as I showed in my last post) And yes many people will have difficulties in understanding in what I have written, but that is on this very moment not my greatest concern, in time we will understand it better and we will be able to learn all this to our children like we do now with mathematics. For the moment it's more important that we have a more consistant approach of numbers in the research of the codes. I do not want to fight windmills with mathematicians but for the reseach it is imporant that we recognize 1 as the first prime, for I think that's the way things are coded. On this subject I agree with Ian Mallett although we have also our differences.

About 386 vs 391 for the name Jesus. The list of other 'good' phrases with the number value 754 equal to the value of Yehoshuah haMeshiach does not prove that the spelling is right (nor that it is wrong) The numbervalue 363 for the word haMeshiach 8-10-300-40-5, can also mean haNachas, the snake, 300-8-50-5. Jesus the snake? Even the number of the beast, 666, is also the number of the corner stone which is Jesus.The phrase Jesus messiah does not occur in the O.T.
Yehoshuah 70-300-6-5-10 (391), is the name of the sixth book and is always translated as Joshua, never as Jesus. The form 70-6-300-10 (386) appears in Ezra 2:2 for the first time and becomes translated as Jeshua, which is already closer to the word Jesus. The 386 form can be found coded in the first chapter of Genesis with ELS 22. The 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet are the building blocks of the Word, which is Jesus. The letterplaces of this code are 625(jod)-603(shien)-581(vav)-559(ajin). The sum of these letterplaces is 625+603+581+559=2368 which is the CV of the Greek form of Jesus Christ. As you know Christ is the light of man (John 1:4). This is expressed in the multiplication factors 64x37 of 2368. Word 64 is and made, and word 37 is the light. (I just discovered a moment ago that the form 358+386=744 is coded in Ps.22:1-12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Psa&chapter=22&version=NIV#top) with ELS 45, the number of man, adam) Please read this chapter (http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/12._Jesus_ELS_22.htm) of my website. There are more lines that prove that this code is right.

I don't think I have answered all your questions but I am expecting some people so I have to go for now. W'll talk later.

Regards, Frank

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

Let me tell you how I see the bible text. For me it's a kind of gobelin, woven with all kind of colors making up the images on the tapestry. That is the surface of the text that we read. But in Is.46:9-10 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa046.html#9) God states: Declaring the end from the beginning, and from old times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure;
Where can we read the end in the beginning? Well God had to compress that information. With codes. It are the threads on the backside of the gobelin connecting the colors and images. They connect the letters, words, verses, chapters, books and the information that is written like we read it. And there are as many codes as flowers in the field. Some flowers have 5 leaves and are pentagonal based, and some flowers have six leaves and are hexagonal based. The bible is created with the same elements as the Creation. But we can't always use the same coding (or decoding) on different places.(All roses are flowers, but not all flowers are roses) I try to be consistent as possible when I pick up a thread, for each thread has its own character. (for instance the first and last of the prime factors as I showed in my last post) And yes many people will have difficulties in understanding in what I have written, but that is on this very moment not my greatest concern, in time we will understand it better and we will be able to learn all this to our children like we do now with mathematics. For the moment it's more important that we have a more consistant approach of numbers in the research of the codes. I do not want to fight windmills with mathematicians but for the reseach it is imporant that we recognize 1 as the first prime, for I think that's the way things are coded. On this subject I agree with Ian Mallett although we have also our differences.
Hello my friend!

From what you have written, it seems that we view the divine design of the Holy Bible in much the same way.

The more I read your work, the more impressed I become. I hope you understand that when I said that some of your results were "so complicated, and so far removed from simple intuition as to be impossible to discern" if they were chance or not, I most certainly was not talking about all, or even most, of your results! I was just answering your question concerning that one point of SPFs. In general, your web pages are well presented and very deep.


About 386 vs 391 for the name Jesus. The list of other 'good' phrases with the number value 754 equal to the value of Yehoshuah haMeshiach does not prove that the spelling is right (nor that it is wrong) The numbervalue 363 for the word haMeshiach 8-10-300-40-5, can also mean haNachas, the snake, 300-8-50-5. Jesus the snake? Even the number of the beast, 666, is also the number of the corner stone which is Jesus.
You are absolutely correct that a "good" or "bad" identity here or there does not prove a spelling correct or incorrect. There are other principles that must be considered when determining the correct spelling an values of words. We must begin, of course, with the words are written in Scripture. In the case of the Hebrew name of Jesus, the most common is Yehoshua (Joshua) = 391. The name "Yeshua" is a relatively rare variation of that name that appears only in the later books of the OT. And the form Yeshua is missing the divine Name Yahu (YHV) which reduces its theological significance.

So how then do we discern which one is "correct"? Which did God intend? Perhaps both? I'll write more on this below.


The phrase Jesus messiah does not occur in the O.T.
Of course not. We wouldn't expect it to. But Yehoshua HaMeshiach = 754 is perfectly correct Hebrew, and its exactly what we would have expected if the phrase were written in the OT.


Yehoshuah 70-300-6-5-10 (391), is the name of the sixth book and is always translated as Joshua, never as Jesus.
Actually that is not quite accurate. When translated into Greek, the name Yehoshua (Joshua) is always translated as IHSOUS (Jesus). We even see this in the Greek NT in Hebrews 4:8 where Joshua (the Son of Nun) is translated as "Jesus." All modern versions correct this and write "Joshua" or "Y'hoshua." In the two Hebrew versions of the NT that I checked, one translated the Greek IHSOUS into Yehoshua, and the other into Yeshua. Note also that in the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate, the sixth book is called the Book of Jesus Son of Naue.


The form 70-6-300-10 (386) appears in Ezra 2:2 for the first time and becomes translated as Jeshua, which is already closer to the word Jesus.
It is closer to the "Jesus" in English, but that does not mean that it is closer to the correct name.


The 386 form can be found coded in the first chapter of Genesis with ELS 22. The 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet are the building blocks of the Word, which is Jesus. The letterplaces of this code are 625(jod)-603(shien)-581(vav)-559(ajin). The sum of these letterplaces is 625+603+581+559=2368 which is the CV of the Greek form of Jesus Christ. As you know Christ is the light of man (John 1:4). This is expressed in the multiplication factors 64x37 of 2368. Word 64 is and made, and word 37 is the light. (I just discovered a moment ago that the form 358+386=744 is coded in Ps.22:1-12 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Psa&chapter=22&version=NIV#top) with ELS 45, the number of man, adam) Please read this chapter (http://members.home.nl/frankcolijn/frankcolijn/12._Jesus_ELS_22.htm) of my website. There are more lines that prove that this code is right.
I think that ELS of 22 in Genesis 1, with the place values summing to 2368 is astounding. It seems to confirm the validity of the 386 form of the name. But I know that the 391 is also part of a large set of confirming identities, so it makes me think that both values are "confirmed." Unfortunately, I don't know what to make of this ambiguity yet.


I don't think I have answered all your questions but I am expecting some people so I have to go for now. W'll talk later.

Regards, Frank

Yes, I look forward to discussing these things further with you Frank.

[derekkye]

prime = 61 (english gematria)
= 19th prime
:)
If you rotate 19 180 degrees you get 61

[Qube!714]

Interesting discussion on prime numbers, guys. :)

I've got three prime birthdays myself

7141973
7141991
7142011

as you can see i'm coming up on my third prime birthday 38! 2 metonic cycles indeed. in fact, averaging all the numbers 1 - 38 equals 19.5. and that is decimal harmonic of 195 being 7/14.

[Qube!714]

i bet if there's anyone who could see the significance of something it would be you guys.

9/11 is the 254th day of the year
254 is the index of 1609 - the very year and the day henry hudson discovered the island of manhattan.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

i bet if there's anyone who could see the significance of something it would be you guys.

9/11 is the 254th day of the year
254 is the index of 1609 - the very year and the day henry hudson discovered the island of manhattan.
I certainly can see the connection, but I can't see how we could tell if it was the result of chance, design, or law (ordering principle).

Do you have a way to distinguish between chance and design in things like this?

BTW ~ welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

All the best,

Richard

[Qube!714]

I certainly can see the connection, but I can't see how we could tell if it was the result of chance, design, or law (ordering principle).


interesting question, i guess i would say i don't believe in chance.:winking0071:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I certainly can see the connection, but I can't see how we could tell if it was the result of chance, design, or law (ordering principle). interesting question, i guess i would say i don't believe in chance.:winking0071:
Fascinating answer. Does that mean that you believe everything is designed in a meaningful and interpretable way? The shape of every cloud? The exact sequence of phone numbers in every phone book? The precise coordinates (both cartesian and radial) of every pimple on the face of every teenager? After a while, the concept of "random" seems to make a lot of sense!

[Qube!714]

if i believe that God sustains creation from one moment to the next how could i possibly believe in randomness?

i wonder is casting lots leaving things to chance?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

if i believe that God sustains creation from one moment to the next how could i possibly believe in randomness?

i wonder is casting lots leaving things to chance?
I understand the idea of God sustaining creating, but how does that imply that the date of 9/11 was deliberately encoded in the sequence of prime numbers? That seems completely random to me because there is no consistent pattern. Especially because the date 9/11 is relevant only to very recent history, yet the sequence of primes is eternal.

As for casting lots ~ that has been a standard method of divination found in most cultures. For example, the Chinese cast yarrow sticks or coins and use them to discern the Tao. Do you think that God designed the I Ching so that they could get good info that way?

Also, does casting lots really work? I mean, can you correctly predict anything by casting lots? Sure, there are a few Biblical passages that suggest that casting lots may be legit, but then again, you and I both know that it wouldn't really work consistently for us, right?

[Qube!714]

i'm just gonna say this. you have a one in 365 chance of henry hudson having discovered the island of manhattan on a given day. now him doing so on the prime number year indexed by that day is beyond probability for me.

now you're mileage may vary.


and why does the idea of casting lots seem so preposterous to the modern mind? the bible is rife with example with lots being cast to replace Judas for example. chalk it up to the complete usurpation of the mind by greek rational thinking?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

i'm just gonna say this. you have a one in 365 chance of henry hudson having discovered the island of manhattan on a given day. now him doing so on the prime number year indexed by that day is beyond probability for me.

now you're mileage may vary.

Actually, I don't get any mileage at all because there is no meaning to the connection you found. Did it help help anyone predict the event? No. Did it help anyone understand the reason for the event? No. Will this knowledge help anyone avoid similar events in the future? No. All these answers are "no" so what good is it? It looks like it's just a random coincidence. Your probability calculation does not change this impression because almost every event is extremely "improbable" if you calculate the "odds" of it happening. For example, the probability of dealing any random 5-card hand is one chance in (52-choose-5) (http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&q=52+choose+5&aq=0&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=52+choose&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=8ec2bc6eb6ca6ae0) = 2,598,260. Thus, any hand you are dealt is extremely improbable. I believe exactly the same thing is going on with your date calculation. Is there any reason to believe it is not simply a random coincidence? And if it is not random, then shouldn't you find similar connections with other important dates like December 7th since the attack on Pearl Harbor was at least as significant as 9/11? Shouldn't we find the date that Hawaii was discovered? But that calculation doesn't work, does it?



and why does the idea of casting lots seem so preposterous to the modern mind? the bible is rife with example with lots being cast to replace Judas for example. chalk it up to the complete usurpation of the mind by greek rational thinking?
I don't recall saying that casting lots was "preposterous." I simply asked if you thought it really worked, and you have not answered. Here is the question I asked:
I mean, can you correctly predict anything by casting lots? Sure, there are a few Biblical passages that suggest that casting lots may be legit, but then again, you and I both know that it wouldn't really work consistently for us, right?
So what do you think? Can you consistently predict events using lots? I think we both know the answer to that, since otherwise you'd be a billionaire, right?

All the best,

Richard

[Qube!714]

7142011


later......

[Richard Amiel McGough]

7142011


later......
Well, you got me curious, so I did a quick Google and found your livejournal page:

http://qube714.livejournal.com/

There's a lot of curious info there. You believe that Jesus is God but that Paul was a false apostle. Curious indeed! And you seem to think that something is going to happen on 7/14/2011 but I'm not sure what. But then I found your birth-date on your profile (http://qube714.livejournal.com/profile) is 7/14 and you write a lot about the number 38 and you will be 38 on 7/14/2011. And you connect it with Arabic gematria from the Quran. And verses from the Bible. And apocryphal books like Enoch. Hummm ... curiouser and curiouser. Have you written a summary anywhere on the net of what this all is supposed to mean?

[Unregistered]

Reason Alone (a limited Aspect of God and thus imperfect) will never let anyone see that 1 is Prime and Union, as are 2 and 3! Just as the Bible says! 1 + 1 = 2 AND 1 * 1 * 1 = 3 AND 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 This is a Gift that must be taken on Faith Alone! This is why only through Faith in Jesus Christ Our Lord And Savior can we come to our Salvation. Let us now use this Divine Knowledge to do Great Works! In the Name of Jesus Amen!
- Joseph

[rdelmonico]

Deleted post.

[JamesTar]

I wanted to start a game that fits here I guess.
Lets count to 1,000,000 using prime numbers only.

2

[HaroldEsses]

I would like to know is there an existing formula to find prime nos. ??In either case I have come up with a formula... x/x-1 where x is the given no. to be checked the ratio x/x-1 should be in its lowest terms by default ... also xshould not equal to 2 then and only then it is a prime no.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I would like to know is there an existing formula to find prime nos. ??In either case I have come up with a formula... x/x-1 where x is the given no. to be checked the ratio x/x-1 should be in its lowest terms by default ... also xshould not equal to 2 then and only then it is a prime no.
Hey there Harold,

No, there is no known formula for primes.

I don't understand what your equation is supposed to tell us. Suppose x = 6. How does 6/5 tell us that six is not prime? Or if x = 7, how does 7/6 tell us that 7 is prime?

All the best,

Richard