Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Number Seven patterns in Matthew's Genealogy
This is a study in numerics, very similar to what
Ivan Panin discovered in Genesis 1:1. I know it smacks of "Kabbalah", but I couldn't resist running the numbers on The Peshitta text of Matthew 1:1-17. Here's what I found :

[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]0btk
mhrb0d hrb dywdd hrb 0xy$m (w$yd htwdylyd
Yhwx0lw 0dwhyl dlw0 bwq(y bwq(yl dlw0 Qxsy0 Qxsy0l dlw0 mhrb0
mr0l dlw0 nwrcx nwrcxl dlw0 crp rmt nm Xrzlw crpl dlw0 0dwhy
nwmlsl dlw0 nw$xn nw$xnl dlw0 bdnym( bdnym(l dlw0 mr0
Y$y0l dlw0 dybw( tw(r nm dybw(l dlw0 z(b bxr nm z(bl dlw0 nwmls
0yrw0d httn0 nm nwmyl$l dlw0 dywd 0klm dywdl dlw0 Y$y0
0s0l dlw0 0yb0 0yb0l dlw0 m(bxr m(bxrl dlw0 nwmyl$
0yzw(l dlw0 mrwy mrwyl dlw0 +p$why +p$whyl dlw0 0s0
0yqzxl dlw0 zx0 zx0l dlw0 mtwy mtwyl dlw0 0yzw(
0y$wyl dlw0 nwm0 nwm0l dlw0 0$nm 0$nml dlw0 0yqzx
lbbd Fwlgb Yhwx0lw 0ynkwyl dlw0 0y$wy
lbbrwzl dlw0 ly0tl$ ly0tl$l dlw0 0ynkwy lbbd nyd Fwlg rtb nm
rwz(l dlw0 myqyl0 myqyl0l dlw0 dwyb0 dwyb0l dlw0 lbbrwz
dwyl0l dlw0 nyk0 nyk0l dlw0 Qwdz Qwdzl dlw0 rwz(
bwq(yl dlw0 ntm ntml dlw0 rz(yl0 rz(yl0l dlw0 dwyl0
0xy$m 0rqtmd (w$y dlyt0 hnmd myrmd hrbg Pswyl dlw0 bwq(y
Fwlgl 0md( dywd nmw 0rs(br0 Fbr$ dywdl 0md( mhrb0 nm Fbr$ lykh nyhlk
0rs(br0 Fbr$ 0xy$ml 0md( lbbd Fwlg nmw 0rs(br0 Fbr$ lbbd[/font]

1-2.Verses 1-16 are 152 (8*19) words; 707 (7*101) letters
3-4.Without v.1 introduction- 144(12*12) or 2*8*9 or 24*32 words; 668 (4*167) letters

5-8.Verse 17- (omitted) says there are three sets of 14 (2*7) generations each, from Abraham to King David,
David to Jochaniah, Jochaniah toThe Christ, totaling 42 generations = 2*3*7)

9-10.The first set to King David (shaded grey) has 56 words (7*8) or 23*7; 253 letters (11*23).See Luke???s genealogy for 253.
11-12.The middle section has 48 (4*12) or (6*8)or 24*3 words; 226 (2*113) letters.
13-14.The last section has 48 (4*12) or (6*8) or 24*3 words and 228 (3*4*19)or (12*19) letters.
15-16.Verse 17 has 23 words, 109 letters (both prime #???s).
17-18.The total for 1-17: 175 words (7*5*5); 816 (6*8*17) or (4*12*17) or (24*3*17) or (48*17) letters.
19-20.Vss. 2-17 have 167 words, 777-(7 hundreds,7 tens, 7 one???s) (7*111) or (7*3*37) letters.
Of 20 numbers above:
There are 7 multiples of 7, 6-8???s, 1-9, 6-12???s, 4-16???s, 2-19???s, 2-23???s, 3-48???s, 2-167???s.
The normal probability of sevens is 14.3% ; 7-7???s out of 20 numbers is 35% occurrence.
The probability of finding seven factors of 7 out of twenty numbers randomly, is approx. 1/(77/7^2.86) or 1/7^4.14, which is 1/3153, or 0.0003 = 0.03% , otherwise written 3 x 10-4 .
Three chances of 10,000 is a very slim chance, and that is just for the sevens !

Six 8???s have a prob. of 1/ (8^6/8^2.5) or 1/1448 = 0.0007 , or 0.07% ! Otherwise written 7 x 10-4 .
Six 12???s have prob. 1/(12^6/12^1.67) or 1/47081 = 0.00002 or 0.002% ! Otherwise written 2 x 10-5 .
Four 16???s : 1/(16^4/16^1.25) or 0.0004 = 4x 10-4.
Three 48???s have : 4.6 x 10-5 .

Two 167???s have : 6.6 x 10-5 .

Multiplying all the above probabilties gives a composite probability for the genealogy as it
occurs in The Peshitta : 0.00000000000000000000000510048.
Yes, that???s 24 decimal places to the right of zero ! 5x10-24.

Now, one might ask, ???Where are the 42 generations? I count 41.???

This genealogy is Mary???s line; Luke???s is plainly Joseph???s (Joseph Bar Heli) . The seemingly
missing generation in Matthew 1 is ???Joseph, Gabrah of Mary??? , in v. 16.
???Gabrah???, as Web site host and fluent Aramaic speaker ,Paul Younan has written, may refer to Mary???s father. The word denotes ???a guardian, protector??? . This genealogy is not Joseph???s, husband of Mary. That is obviously in Luke 3:23-38 (Joseph Bar Heli).
This genealogy in Matthew does not agree with Luke???s:

Luke 3:23 (MUR) And Jesus was about thirty years old. And he was accounted the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,
[font=Estrangelo (V1.1)]ylh rb Pswy rb 0wh rbtsmw Nytlt Nyn$ rb Ky0 0wh yhwty0 9w$y Nyd wh [/font]23 (PESHITTA)

Blue Aramaic words are ???Joseph Bar Heli???.

The verse in Greek:
kai autov hn ihsouv arcomenov wsei etwn triakonta wn uiov wv enomizeto iwshf tou hli
Blue Greek words: ???Joseph of Heli???. This form is used throughout the Greek genealogy to indicate sonship. If Joseph were not descended from Heli, they would not both be in the genealogy like this. The loose Greek construction is construed by some to refer to Jesus, not Joseph, as descended from Heli. Others have it to mean ???Jesus, accounted son of Joseph, who was son-in law to Heli.??? Neither of these is a natural reading of the Greek; they are attempts to reshape this genealogy into Mary???s instead of Joseph???s. To take the Greek phrase,
(Name ???tou??? name), which occurs 76 times in the Greek text, as ???Joseph son in law to Heli???, and then reinterpret it 75 times more as ???son??? is stretching credulity to its limits. It is playing too fast and loose with language and logic to be true.
The Aramaic reading is much more precise and definite: ???Joseph Bar Heli, Bar Matthat, ??????
Joseph???s name is in it, therefore it belongs to him. If it were Mary???s , her name would be in the genealogy. It is not. Her name is in Matthew 1:16. That is her genealogy.

The genealogy is Joseph???s line , so don???t expect it to match Matthew???s.
Scholars following the Greek of Luke, which omits the word for ???son??? (uiov)
75 times (Aramaic has ???Bar??? 76 times) , instead uses the genitive article tou
(tou) 75 times between each name. The genitive is usually translated ???of ..???:
- ???Jacob of Isaac of Abraham of Terah???etc.???.

That is a strange construction for a genealogy of The Messiah. One would expect precision in such a case. The Greek is imprecise, both in grammar and in its spelling of Hebrew and Aramaic names. We should expect a Semitic genealogy for all those Semitic names, such as would have been kept in the temple at Jerusalem and at the synagogues.

In The Peshitta, we have such a genealogy, fit for a King.
Even the numbers of its words and letters point to a Divine author.

Blessings ,

Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
November 23, 2004

Dear Dave:

I am having trouble understanding your math even though math was one of my college majors, so maybe you can walk me through this analysis.

Please start by explaining:

"There 7 multiples of 7, 6-8???s, 1-9, 6-12???s, 4-16???s, 2-19???s, 2-23???s, 3-48???s, 2-167???s.
The normal probability of sevens is 14.3%"

You are apparently referring to the factoring of the numbers of words and letters in selected groups of verses. How were the groups selected? I can see the seven multiples, but they are not of the numbers in your list. For example, there is a (7*111) but 111 is not in your list. I could not find two 167's as factors with 7.

The probability of 7 among 9 digits (excluding 0) is 11.1%, not 14.3%. What am I missing here?

I have other questions, but I would appreciate your answer to these first.

I really would like to understand your mathematical analysis. It looks quite intriguing.



P.S.: Your discussion of the genealogies of Matthew and Luke are a fine summary of the conclusions reached by Paul an others in this forum. It sharply contrasts with the weird but "accepted" view of Christian scholars that Matthew has the geneaology of Jesus and Luke has the geanealogy of Mary. Good job!
Shlama akhi Otto,

I used some unorthodox math in my calculations
to simplify the rather tedious process. I have since resorted to an old program I wrote 12 years ago that calculates "gematrias" and probabilities
of a certain factor "y" occurring "r" numbers of times out of "n" possibilities.

Are you ready for the simple formula ? I have a longer, more precise method, but it might take up
a full page of small type.
Here is the simpler method:
Probabilty = ((((( (n/2.72)^n)/(r/2.72)^r)/2.72*((n-r)/2.72^(n-r) ) * ((x/y)^r ) * (((y-x)/y)^n-r) )))))
* 100 "%".

Recalculating the data I supplied, the twenty numbers analyzed (n=20) yield the following results for eight factors: 7 (y=7) occurs 7 times as a factor by itself: That gives a 2.5% probability by the above method. My other more precise method gives a 1.2 % prob. For these examples, I'll use the simple method, as most of them are much closer to the real results than this.

7-7's- 2.5%
6-12's - 0.74 %
4-16's - 4.4%
4-48's (not 3) - 0.11%
6-8's - 4.4%
2-19's - 25%
2- 23's - 21%
2 - 167's -0.79%

A factor of 7 occurs 14.3% of the time among the whole numbers ; every seventh number is a factor of seven; 1/7 = 0.143.
Counting squares of seven, it comes to more like 16%. This fact should be accounted for in the formula.

The product of the above is 1.6 x 10^-12, or 0.0000000000012.

The longer method gives 9x10^-16, or 0.0000000000000009.

The long method computes factorials for each entered value.

Sorry for the sloppy math in the first post. It was an ad hoc method of quickly computing probability.
Perhaps I will be able to further simplify this.

I could go further into computing letter values for words and verses, using the number values for each letter, as Panin did for the Hebrew Bible.
Maybe another time. I think that the numbers of words and letters should be enough to show that
there is an unusually high amount of organization
(a Divine amount) behind The Peshitta text.

Lukes genealogy shares a factor of 253 with Matthew's. That alone has a 0.43 % probability.

Blessed be God The Word; Blessed be the word of God.

Many blessings,

Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
Interesting stuff Dave. I think you are the person to ask this question. I have heard there are numerical codes like this in the OT (i.e. Panin) but bnone exist in the GNT. Is this true? If so, such numerical codes in the ANT speaks volumes!
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
There are numeric codes in the GNT; Panin found them as have others, including myself. This is what I theorize is happening. The Peshitta is the original NT text. The GNT translates as literally as possible while retaining
a readable and accurate Greek. Some of the numeric coding of words and phrases will be carried over to the Greek from the Aramaic; the number patterns will be different, since Greek letters and Aramaic-Hebrew letters have different number values, but there will be repetitions
of translated words and phrases in both languages, hence, some residual effect remains in both Westcott and Hort's Greek NT and in The Byzantine
Greek NT.
I have not compared more than the Genealogy in Matthew from the Peshitta, but I believe the Peshitta shows more number coding in the
simple numbers of words and letters, as I have shown, than does the Greek. One needs to do a little "fudging" to find numerics in Greek:
Compute numeric values that come within +2 , -2 of significant factors- 7,8,37,73,111,144, etc. I think that is cheating and unconvincing. Another
fudge factor used is to present a list of significant factors without telling
how many numbers were searched to find these lists. I have presented
all the factors I found by searching the 20 numbers I presented under the genealogy.
If one sticks to the simple staightforward presentation of numbers of words and letters, and perhaps the numeric values without "neighbor" numbers, I believe we will see The Peshitta NT validated as the original inspired text in this way , as well as with my "Bible Codes" method of finding Divine names coded in the text millions of times by skipping letters, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9... up to 230,000 letters skipped !

I don't really have the energy right now to go into another study like this; perhaps another time I will update the old computer program for the Peshitta and run the numbers on it. I have little doubt that we will all be flabbergasted at the results.


Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
"to find numerics in Greek:
Compute numeric values that come within +2 , -2 of significant factors- 7,8,37,73,111,144, etc. I think that is cheating and unconvincing"

Ah yes, similar to the "clumping" method. Thanks for the info.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m -->
Dave Dave Dave,

After all these years studying hebrew and aramaic, your still unable to listen to GOD? Have you ever actually asked Him what is the original and accepted what eventually He showed you? I dought it. There is no way you could have, your still lost in the numbers.

It does "smack" of Khabbalah because that is what it is.

The peshitta has no identified historical background earlier than the 3rd or 4th century. Nothing. No one knows where it came from. There is no written history of it, period. It is only a standardized byzantine type text, which means it was condensed and shaped by mankind into what it is today.

How can I, the arbitary non-scholar, say such bold things? Because everything that has ever been found to be dated from the 1st or 2nd centuries has been of the western type text. That's everything, fragments, scraps, etc. There is no documented history of this aramaic text being utilized during those years. In fact, it points more towards the syriac being utilized to smooth out the rough greek, which I would say led to the formation of this particular aramaic text.

Look it up if you don't believe me. The evidence speaks for itself.

If you wanna really get down to it, scripture pertains to the old testament. Scripture was what came through the prophets. Their life was completely dedicated to allowing GOD to speak through them, and allowing GOD to accomplish certain miracles at times. They were chosen by GOD. The gospels was a combination of written sayings and documented experiences people saw first hand about Jesus's life and ministry. All of this was gathered by a few people and combined together. That is why you see differences between Luke and Matthew in places. Luke felt that he had a better source on certain items than Matthew, and listed it as such. He didn't copy Matthew, he felt he was listing what was a better source of truth, so that we could rely on his resourcefulness. Is that a lie made by me to denounce the NT? Not at all, it is a common sense simplistic truth. It just seems to be too simple at times for people. They refuse to accept the fact, even though history explains it for them every single time.

Dave, I totally applaud you when it comes to decifering the hebrew and teaching people about the triune nature of GOD, your amazing at it!! But don't try to prove something that has no historical proof behind it, it only looks like your reaching, and you've become biased towards this particular text. Do your homework. Get out of the numbers and start looking at the available history, unless it's just that you really don't want to know the truth?! Pretty soon your gonna come up against GOD in this persuit of "your" ambitions.

Just little things Dave, can shoot holes right through this agenda of yours and others on here. How about a quote from Aphraates:

Quote:"and Jacob begat Joseph, and Joseph was called father to Jesus The Messiah."

Interesting huh? To be honest, I think GOD witnesses to the greek because of the aramaic, someone put this together outside of GOD's will, and He said "Ok, you hate the greek so much that you wanna play with my words, I'll use the greek just to piss you off." Heh, really it seems to be the fact at times, when you look at the history of this.

By the way Paul, I have been about my business, learning new things. I never said that I wouldn't come back, I just got tired of arguing with you guys. And yes, I don't feel the blessing here that I do in church, so something must be wrong.

I will be learning Hebrew, and getting a degree in it when I retire here shortly. This was what GOD told me to do a couple of days ago, not mankind. I asked Him about aramaic and greek, and He said no. So there you go.
What's interesting in the "Mary's genealogy" theory is how this elevates Mary above Joseph. Does this sound familiar?

Using the term "smack" by Dave, this "smacks" of catholicism more than anything.

Interesting huh? This looks more and more like that is what happened here, anthing to make this uphold a certain religion huh?. Where does it stop? I don't know. How many more places can we find tampering with this text at? Hard to tell.
Dave, Dave, Dave,

Good to hear your voice again. Welcome back !

Dave B
Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
Alright pal, I've jumped in your genealogy frying pan swinging, either get back in here and deal with it or I'll start calling you Chris.


I've been looking at degree programs for Hebrew studies and such. Talk about confusion! No wonder these kids come out of these colleges knowing nothing.

Anyways, I was not going to waste any time on unneeded schooling since I was not directed towards it, but this has happened now, so I'm trying to find a school that a person can get a degree in biblical hebrew. Nothing seems clear unless I'm just not searching correctly.
Hi Dave,

Try a local synagogue. My brother- in -law, who is also a pastor , has been studying Hebrew at a synagogue with his wife and son. Sounds like a cool way to do it.

Do you really want to discuss the genealogies ?


Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at
Hmmm, I don't know about the synagogue, you know me and my opinions, there would be a riot, hospitalization, etc. It would make very interesting evening news though!

I will do some searching on the web though just to see what is available.

I will take some courses for now to familiarize myself with the language. I am located in the middle of nowhere at the moment (Indian Ocean), so that is the best that I can do, unless I find someone who is fluent in it here (highly doughtful) that wishes to teach.

We should just avoid the genealogy debate Dave, we would only run around each other in circles. It would be fruitless.

I do want to thank-you Dave. I had come back to the sight and read your post on the trinity, how the hebrew text showed the plurality of GOD, and how it is utlized in different places. That interested me! A day later, the word of GOD was spoken to be me about learning it, and I did not have a reservation about it, I could say yes to His will on it. Before, I was dead set against it. I am one who manages my time very carefully, and wishes not to make choices that could waste what time I have here. It's just a parcularity about me.

But anyways, thanks!
Shlama Dave,

You're very welcome. I'm glad I was a help to you. We all are members one of another.


Get my NT translations, books & articles at :
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""></a><!-- m --> and
I also have articles at

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)