| Calendar: Weeks within months |
What if the numeric patterns mean nothing and the above fit of the words Israel and Zion also are meaningless chance occurrences? One can argue, like Davis, that 'numerology' rests on a false premise in that the Hebrews did not use their alphabet in this manner in Bible times16. My arguments are based on patterns beginning in the ordinal values, the use of which is suggested by the acrostic passages in the Hebrew Bible. The patterns continue into the numerical values, which although were not used in the text of the Hebrew Bible, have had and continue to have a part in the national life of Israel. The totals are a combination of these two that should not be dismissed out-of-hand.
Perhaps the valuing systems have precedent, but the fit of "Israel" and "Zion" to the Hebrew alphabet is a random occurrence. Chance is virtually ruled out given the extreme constraint on the possible patterns and the overlap of 2 of the most important Hebrew words with possibly the most complex internal common denominator relationships possible for words without repeating letters.
If not chance, then how did this relationship occur? Diringer found speculation that the Hebrew alphabet is a creation of the Israelis as a religious document17 (See also the study of Mosaics). Maybe the priests formed the alphabet around the word Israel. This thought stretches the mind even more than the random occurrence. How did they know to form the alphabet around the word Zion at the same time when Jerusalem was not yet their capital? Others may make the far-fetched argument that the use of Zion as a religious symbol preceded the Israelites18 and because the Hebrew alphabet derived from a proto-Canaanite language19 maybe the alphabet was formed around the word Zion before Zion became central to Israel. However, the centrality of "Israel" in the alphabet speaks against this.
This seems to leave only the option of divine design. Bar-Adon20 writes that many alphabets were attributed to divine origin and thus alterations were resisted in letters and the order of letters. Although, the Hebrew Bible is silent on the origin of the alphabet, it records a literate people from the beginning21. See article on Edenics. In addition, Morris speculated
The language of the antediluvians was probably the same as spoken in Eden between God and Adam, and was also the language spoken by Shem after the Flood. Since Noah and Shem did not participate in the rebellion of Nimrod at Babel, there is no reason to suppose that their language was among those 'Confused' by God at that time. This inference is further supported by the fact that the names of the antediluvian patriarchs (Adam, Seth, etc.) all have a definite meaning in the Hebrew language, and also by the remarkable revival of the Hebrew language in the present nation of Israel 22
Diringer wrote "As to the order of the [Hebrew] letters, various theories have been proposed, but here again it is highly probable that the matter has no particular significance."23 This study suggests strongly that there is significance to the order and that the Hebrew alphabet bears the signature of the Creator. The evidence is not clear otherwise. Saenz-Badillos admits, "Whatever the truth of the matter, we have to recognize that the exact beginnings of the Hebrew language are still surrounded by mystery."24 This study illustrates a tool that creationists can use to demonstrate divine origin of the Hebrew alphabet.
Davis issued several strong warnings against studying numbers in the Bible25. Although, this argument identifying the uniqueness of the words Israel and Zion rests solely on the structure of the Hebrew alphabet itself, a review of this work in light of his warnings may be appropriate because of the association of these two words with their numbers in the Bible. Davis argued first that looking for number patterns is based on a false apologetic; that it cannot lead people to God. This may be true, but I argue, why then describe the order in any of God's creation (Romans 1:20)? Second, Davis notes that numerical patterns can be found in any set of numbers. Again, this may be true, but does not rule out the patterns found in the Hebrew alphabet or the Scriptures. A recently published work presents evidence of the mathematical precision in the Scriptures26, 27.
Davis continues with a third warning pointing to lack of objectivity in seeking patterns. Because of this argument I started with the alphabet itself and used the three value systems simultaneously. However, I still wrestled with this concept in that the patterns identified for odd and even factors were not identical given the even factors having middle sets lacked by the odd factors. Fourth, Davis suggested that appealing to 'nearest neighbors' is absurd. This principle, used by Panin, was not used in this study. However, it was observed that the Hebrew alphabet of 22 letters seems to be one letter too long for the factor of 11 and one letter short for the factor of 12 based on 'perfect' fits in the ordinal values (Fig. 1). Only because of these 'misses' did the pattern work for both the factors of 11 and 12. Davis' fifth argument of patterns being based on the false premise that the numerical values were used in the Bible has been addressed previously, and his sixth, that there is no place for gaining additional understanding by the use of numerics fails if there is found to be an underlying basis for numerics.
The internal patterns used to identify Israel and Zion can not apply to other important Hebrew words such as YHVH or David. The letters of these latter two words are limited to the first half of the alphabet and include repeating letters. In addition, no interrelated groups span the alphabet for factors other than 11 and 12. As a final warning, this type of study can be endless when one begins to look for common denominator relationships in Biblical texts. I am convinced that numerical patterns occur, but am also convinced that searching for them can be a great distraction from other more important endeavors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I appreciate J. Schneider for training me in objective research
and bearing with my less guarded moments. I thank my sons Brian
and Andrew for their helpful and critical comments. I thank J.
and J. Martin, M. Loyer, W. Coursey, and W. Curtis for reviewing
earlier drafts of this manuscript. Special appreciation goes to
my wife Robin who bore with my long hours in this research.
© 2000 C. M. Felland