
His claim with respect to this challenge is: "My verdict is that you will not be able to come even remotely close to these results. The
only way you could possibly do it would be to program a computer to go through thousands and millions of number/letter arrangements, which would only prove ultimately that the Theomatics pfactors are are indeed very high.
Theomatics certainly did not find its results in the same manner (it is limited to the one arrangement of historical record), so that would be a completely unfair way to try and match or beat Theomatics."
Response We have met this challenge successfully, and quite easily, as follows:
We took the text published by the author.
We required every phrase included in the test to:  contain one of the references in Luke 15 noted by the author in his study,
 be no more than 4 words in length, and  consistently conform to our phrase construction rules.
We randomized the gemmatria (letternumber assignment) 25,000 times, such that letters with singledigit values in the standard gemmatria retained singledigit values, and likewise those with doubledigit
and tripledigit values retained values of comparable magnitude.
We located every factor less than 1000 in each of the random gemmatria which:  was at least 95% as large as the author's factor (all factors > 85),
 had as many hits as in the author's context (53, not 46),  had as good a WLA on total hits as in the author's context (2.74, not 2.37).
 had as unikely a Clustering Distribution as in the author's context
As noted in analysis of the author's
errors, the statistics the author formally requires that we meet in accepting his challenge are invalid since he did not actually obtain these results himself.
Results There are 175 instances of gemmatria in the 25,000 random gemmatria
examined, approximately 1 for every 143 attempts, where a factor surpasses the actual number of hits that occur in the author's context (H_{4}), has as good a Word Length Average (WLA_{H4}
) and as unlikely a clustering distribution. Notice below the distribution of these 175 instances by factor. The top row in the following chart is the factor, the second row is the number of successful random
gemmatria for that factor among the 25,000 gemmatria tested, followed by the percent related to that factor among all 175 instances.
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
93 
94 
95 
96 
100 
101 
102 
103 
110 
18 
13 
9 
5 
67 
4 
2 
2 
3 
1 
41 
1 
1 
2 
1 
10 
7 
5 
3 
38 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
23 
1 
1 
1 
1 
8 
8 
8 
8 
8 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
7 
6 
4.5 
4.5 
4.4 
4.4 
4.3 
4.3 
4.2 
4.1 
4.1 
4.1 
3.9 
3.9 
3.8 
3.8 
3.5 
Observe that 61% of these instances (108 of 175) involved either factor 90 or factor 100, and that remaining instances
heavily favor the smaller factors. If the environment were purely random one would expect a distribution as in the last two
rows above, much more evenly spread, mildly favoring the smaller factors (since their probability of success is proportionately higher), and tapering off toward the larger ones.
This unusual distribution does not follow the expected pattern, and can only be due to the affect of manipulating variables in
phrase construction and the types of letters generally found in variables; it has absolutely nothing to do with Theomatic design
since every single gemmatria considered was random. This implies that the language itself, coupled with the use of variable
manipulation techniques, implies a context that is highly nonrandom, biased toward small multiples of 10. This violation of the
randomness assumption tends to invalidate any indication of Theomatic significance, even if it happens to be observed.
The author, in an afterthought to the above requirements, proposed the following addendum: "In addition to the 46 hits and
the requirements you must meet, of those 46 hits 39 of them will have to all fall within the three word phrase limit and
produce an ultimate pfactor of .000000003828, or 1 in 262 million (along with the clustering). In case you have not read the last part of my report, that is precisely what Theomatics produced."
Of the above 175 instances, 31 of them, or 1 in 806, have at least as many 3word hits (35), have as good a WLA
(2.2286), and exhibit as good a clustering result (.1864) in these three word phrases as the author requires (corrected, of course, for his errors). These instances are given in the table below.
No 
Trial 
GEMMATRIA 
F 
H_{4} 
WLA_{4} 
CS_{4} 
H_{3} 
WLA_{3} 
CS_{3} 
PH_{4} 
P_{4} 
N_{4} 
O_{4} 
0 
0 
ABGDEZHQ.IKLMNCOP.RSTUFXYW 
90 
53 
2.8302 
.679232 
35 
2.2286 
.1864 
.009954 
.006761 
148 
1.00 
1 
147 
ADGHQZEB.NKLOPCMI.YFWTUXSR 
100 
54 
2.7407 
.245913 
38 
2.2105 
.1327 
.001820 
.000448 
2,234 
1.58 
2 
3810 
ADQBGZEH.KNLPMOCI.RTXWSFUY 
100 
53 
2.6792 
.465729 
39 
2.2051 
.1791 
.001146 
.000534 
1,874 
1.46 
3 
4676 
QBGHDZAE.OCMKLNPI.RUXFYSWT 
90 
55 
2.7273 
.061087 
37 
2.1081 
.0064 
.006772 
.000414 
2,417 
1.64 
4 
5087 
AQBDGZHE.NPOIKLMC.SXRTYWUF 
100 
56 
2.7321 
.180898 
40 
2.2250 
.0467 
.000140 
.000025 
39,346 
24.85 
5 
5305 
EBDQHGAZ.CPMNOKIL.UWYTSFRX 
90 
57 
2.7193 
.029672 
39 
2.1282 
.0231 
.001421 
.000042 
23,722 
12.50 
6 
6902 
QEDGHBAZ.KPICONLM.RYXUSFWT 
88 
62 
2.8226 
.320749 
39 
2.1282 
.0885 
.000288 
.000092 
10,840 
5.10 
7 
7053 
ZEQGBHAD.NMIOKCPL.YURXSFTW 
90 
53 
2.7736 
.098199 
36 
2.1944 
.0894 
.018169 
.001784 
560 
1.07 
8 
7835 
EQBGDZHA.NKLIPMCO.XSWFUYTR 
90 
53 
2.6981 
.454874 
38 
2.1842 
.0894 
.016113 
.007329 
136 
1.00 
9 
7884 
GHQBDAZE.KCPMLION.FSXYUWTR 
85 
58 
2.7069 
.062835 
42 
2.2143 
.0342 
.004313 
.000271 
3,690 
2.09 
10 
9277 
AQZBDGHE.KMICNLOP.WTSRFUYX 
90 
57 
2.6316 
.183165 
43 
2.1860 
.0968 
.001786 
.000327 
3,057 
1.86 
11 
9745 
AGDHZBEQ.OKLCPMIN.UWXYRFTS 
90 
53 
2.7736 
.043014 
35 
2.1429 
.0212 
.013556 
.000583 
1,715 
1.41 
12 
10146 
EZDGBQHA.CMOIKNLP.SFUYRXWT 
100 
57 
2.8246 
.361482 
37 
2.1892 
.0559 
.000209 
.000076 
13,243 
6.29 
13 
10188 
DAGQZHBE.PKNMCOLI.URFXTYWS 
100 
53 
2.7736 
.499875 
36 
2.1944 
.0462 
.001475 
.000737 
1,357 
1.30 
14 
10558 
BAHDQZEG.OMPCNLIK.FTYWSURX 
86 
57 
2.7719 
.572915 
38 
2.1579 
.1327 
.006550 
.003752 
266 
1.01 
15 
10569 
DZQHAGEB.NILMKOCP.WRFYTXUS 
94 
55 
2.8182 
.062491 
35 
2.1429 
.1171 
.002871 
.000179 
5,574 
2.80 
16 
10790 
GHDEQZAB.PLCMKOIN.UFRYTWXS 
86 
55 
2.6909 
.129321 
40 
2.2000 
.0746 
.011657 
.001507 
663 
1.10 
17 
11506 
GZBEHADQ.MNLKIPCO.UXSTFYRW 
102 
53 
2.7547 
.258264 
35 
2.1143 
.0765 
.000821 
.000212 
4,713 
2.47 
18 
12264 
ABQDZGHE.LKCOPIMN.SXRWTFYU 
100 
55 
2.7636 
.138446 
37 
2.1622 
.0074 
.000474 
.000066 
15,243 
7.34 
19 
14316 
ADBHQGZE.OPNLKMIC.RFSXUYWT 
90 
54 
2.6852 
.007123 
40 
2.2250 
.0067 
.008219 
.000059 
17,081 
8.37 
20 
15001 
EHBDZQGA.OILPCNKM.FRTXUYSW 
110 
54 
2.5741 
.001171 
39 
2.0256 
.0006 
.000101 
.000000 
BIG 
BIG 
21 
15065 
EAZGDQBH.CKPMLOIN.UYRFTWXS 
90 
60 
2.8000 
.060055 
40 
2.2000 
.1231 
.000576 
.000035 
28,894 
16.18 
22 
15428 
ADGHBZQE.MNLCOKIP.UWXFSTRY 
90 
53 
2.7925 
.027479 
35 
2.1714 
.0302 
.010220 
.000281 
3,561 
2.04 
23 
16195 
DQBGEHAZ.CMIOPNKL.FWRYTUSX 
85 
53 
2.8113 
.039142 
35 
2.2000 
.1054 
.041665 
.001631 
613 
1.08 
24 
17115 
HQBEZGAD.IPNOCMLK.XWURYSTF 
90 
57 
2.7719 
.183165 
38 
2.1579 
.1165 
.002605 
.000477 
2,096 
1.53 
25 
18126 
ABZGDQHE.NPLKMICO.RFTUYWSX 
100 
53 
2.6226 
.042012 
40 
2.1750 
.0061 
.001343 
.000056 
17,727 
8.74 
26 
18330 
DEQZHGAB.PIMOLKNC.XSWUYRTF 
87 
53 
2.8113 
.283815 
35 
2.2000 
.1262 
.022749 
.006456 
155 
1.00 
27 
20357 
GAQHZDEB.LPMICNKO.XRSWUFTY 
90 
53 
2.7925 
.150134 
36 
2.2222 
.1854 
.009693 
.001455 
687 
1.10 
28 
21050 
ZHDGEBQA.PKNLOICM.TYFWRSUX 
86 
53 
2.8302 
.024422 
35 
2.2286 
.0072 
.022154 
.000541 
1,848 
1.45 
29 
21090 
ABHGZDQE.OPCLNMIK.RTXYUFWS 
100 
53 
2.7925 
.068939 
36 
2.2222 
.0416 
.002187 
.000151 
6,633 
3.23 
30 
22924 
EHDAZQBG.NPKCOIML.XYRUTWSF 
91 
56 
2.7857 
.063360 
38 
2.2105 
.0785 
.003447 
.000218 
4,579 
2.42 
31 
23332 
GHBAZDEQ.KONLCMPI.XRYTWSUF 
100 
53 
2.7358 
.029494 
37 
2.1892 
.0217 
.001668 
.000049 
20,325 
10.30 
The top row gives benchmark results from the author's proposed Theomatic factor 90. The trial that the gemmatria was
constructed is given first, followed by the random gemmatria producing the result (syntax explained below), the factor (F), the number of hits (H_{4}) in 4 words or less, the WLA for these hits (WLA
_{4}), the clustering Chi Square pvalue for 4word phrases (CS_{4}), followed by the same three parameters for phrases of 3 words or less. Also, the probability of the hits (PH_{4}),
the joint probability of hits and clustering (P_{4}), N in the ratio 1:N (N_{4}), and the O statistic (O_{4}) are shown for 4 word phrases. The reference pool of 683 phrases is given
here. The actual hits for each of these 31 factors are given
here.
Each gemmatria is given in three sections, delimited by a decimal. The first section shows letters with singledigit values, the
middle section those with doubledigit values, and letters with tripledigit values are given last, as shown for the standard gemmatria in the following chart.
A 
B 
G 
D 
E 
Z 
H 
Q 

I 
K 
L 
M 
N 
C 
O 
P 

R 
S 
T 
U 
F 
X 
Y 
W 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
7 
8 
9 

10 
20 
30 
40 
50 
60 
70 
80 

100 
200 
300 
400 
500 
600 
700 
800 
In each random gemmatria, placing the rearranged letters in this chart will give the random letternumber mapping. The
letters vau (standard value 6) and koppa (standard value 90) are omitted by the author. Those assigned to 200 in the standard gemmatria (S and J) are both assigned to the same value in the random gemmatria. Analysis
Clearly, the author's verdict was incorrect. Approximately 1 trial in 800 gives results comparable to the author's results in his
initial context, not 1 trial in millions as the author expected. This is much less frequent than one would expect in a purely
random environment. This indicates that there is a more significant factor in the standard gemmatria than the author discovered.
It is noteworthy that of the 31 instances outperforming 90, 21 of them (68%) are multiples of 10, 11 instances (35%) are
factor 90 and 9 (29%) are factor 100. Clearly, there is something about the phrase construction rules and the structure of the language itself that favors such factors. Comments A number of comments are in order with respect to this challenge and the above results.
Factor size, in itself, does not affect the statistical significance of a factor since the odds of success are naturally incorporated into the relevant statistic: P_{H}
. The author's insistence that factors be of appropriate size and obtain a certain number of hits appears rooted in the fact that smaller numbers will naturally divide successfully more frequently,
and that this fact must be accounted for when selecting a factor, which is certainly true. This ties his 2^{nd} and 5^{th} requirements together in a statistical sense.
Clearly, requiring factors to be a certain size apart from the above concern, or that they obtain the actual number of
hits requested regardless of being larger in magnitude, as the author has in advancing two distinct requirements in #2 and #5  which are fully represented in the P_{H}
statistic  is unreasonably subjective and arbitrary. It actually violates the spirit in which he located the claimed Theomatics factor to begin with, which was merely based upon the statistically unlikely
number of hits obtained, and had nothing to do with the factor's actual size. The author gives no indication in his publications that certain factors should be sought or discarded merely
due to their size. In fact, he publishes results with Theomatic factors as small as 17 (TII, p 5075, the key Theomatic pattern for Fishes and Fishing).
The author has formally required that both the hit performance and the clustering observed in the 90 factor be
matched exactly by a random context. We interpret this to mean, "matched or exceeded in significance." Requiring the exact
same probability from two random events is evidently absurd; we cannot believe he intended this, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
 One must observe that requiring many particular properties of a single event to be matched (or exceeded) in a
comparison of two apparently random events is unreasonably restrictive. For such a comparison to be appropriate it
must finally be based upon a single representative statistic indicating the overall likelihood of the entire event.
In other words, in our opinion, the author's challenge technically contains reasoning comparable to the following: "I
flipped a coin 100 times once and got 62 heads. The first 4 flips were heads, so at least the first four of yours must be,
and of my first 12 there were 8 heads, so you have to have at least that many in your first 12 flips. At 26 flips I had 16
heads, so you have to have that many heads by flip 26.... You get five or six chances at most to try this (after all, I
only tried once). If you can't, then you have to agree that what I did was miraculous." We hope the analogy speaks clearly enough: hindsight is 20:20.
Not permitting a final statistic to be the metric used in Theomatic comparisons, which allows some factors to be ranked higher than the benchmark which are much better in one category though somewhat worse in another, is
heavily biasing the challenge in the author's favor. There are, in fact, 4 factors in the standard gemmatria which
outperform 90 in clustering in the 4word phrases, implying that the Theomatics factor would not have been chosen if
any of these other random factors had been noted first based upon the author's own biased methodology. These 4
factors are shown below, with the number of hits and percent of total for each radius type, followed by the pfactor:
F 
0 
1 
2 
0% 
1% 
2% 
CS 
90 
13 
21 
19 
25 
40 
36 
0.6792 
85 
14 
16 
16 
30 
35 
35 
0.2090 
86 
7 
12 
17 
19 
33 
47 
0.6456 
87 
8 
19 
12 
21 
49 
31 
0.4545 
89 
8 
16 
21 
18 
36 
47 
0.6592 
If the O statistic were simply used in this challenge, which we have shown to be a valid metric in this context, being
consistent with the manner in which Theomatic factors should be chosen, we would not have ever randomized the
gemmatria since 20 factors outperform factor 90 in the standard gemmatria in this more appropriate test, as shown in the first general testing result. This metric O, or an equivalent one, must ultimately be used to validate general Theomatic significance, so it should be the standard upon which the challenge is made.
Even so, the author's challenge (as interpreted) has been met quite successfully and very easily, in our opinion. This is
due to the very statistically bland nature of the final results he has presented. If the author's results had indeed been somewhat statistically significant, the task would have been much more difficult.
Conclusion
It is evident that the factor 90 is not statistically significant in this context: it has an O value of 1.00. The benchmarks set by the author, considered both independently and simultaneously, are actually below
what is achievable by randomness, which is 2 in a normally distributed environment  a benchmark achieved in half of our random gemmatria, or by 1 in every 1,388 attempts. This is about twice what we would expect in a purely random context, indicating that the text is not actually
behaving in a random manner, as we have observed, reinforcing the legitimacy of these experimental results.
Matching all of the components of the author's benchmark simultaneously took a few more trials on average, slightly more
than the number of trials that would generally be required to match the general significance of the Maximum Order Statistic,
even though such a challenge is heavily biased in the author's favor such that he himself could not accept it on behalf of his Theomatic factor if such a challenge were similarly presented to him.
Further, the distribution of the factors themselves is entirely nonrandom, clearly favoring the author's factor outside a
Theomatic context, indicating that the language structure and the affects of variable manipulation in phrase construction violate
our assumption that the context itself behaves in a random manner. Multiples of 10 are clearly favored in this context
regardless of the gemmatria chosen. Even with this advantage, the Theomatic factor noted by the author was outperformed by randomness from any perspective.
One must conclude that the author has proposed an instance of Theomatics, apparently one of his very best, that fails in
every respect to demonstrate any type of inherent design. One cannot appropriately reject the null hypothesis that Theomatics is random based upon these results. Comments are certainly welcome. home back top 
