Hi Jack,

Thanks for the link. With respect to
that site:

I have to confess at the outset
that I was wrong about the value of the

phrase 'TO AGION PNEUMA'. In going over
it again now, I see that

it is indeed 1080. (Not only was one
of my numbers wrong, but I even

got the total of my numbers wrong!
I hate when that happens.
Where's

a good pedant when you need
him/her?)

But what does the author do with the
isopsephic value 1080? He then

multiplies it by 666 and 88 to get a
number of hand-lengths (about 8")

which are somewhat approximate to the
diameter of earth. The 666 is

one of a set of four numbers that he
asserts (without proof) constitute

the basis of "the Egyptian geodetic
code" (whatever that is). But just

multiplying 1080 by
666 doesn't get him where he
wants to go, so he adds

a fudge-factor - the number 88. He claims in a note that 88 hand-lengths are

about equal to 10 arm-lengths, so that the diameter of the earth could also be

expressed as 1080 x 666 x 10 arm-lengths, but that seems only to substitute

one fudge-factor for another. Isn't that amazing? One can take the numeric

value of a certain phrase (pick any one, the other two factors will
make up

for it), multiply it by
one of a set of magic numbers, further multiply it by a

fudge-factor, and come up with the diameter of the earth! Seriously?

Whatever else this is, it isn't isopsephy.

Worse yet, the page uses the name
'Abraxas' as if this were the name

of a real person. As far as I know, 'Abraxas' was just a term that the

Gnostics used. Having a numeric value of 365, it was likened to various

things linked in some way or other with the length of the
calendar year.

Yet the author claims that the phrase
'the hand of Abraxas' was "attributed

to him through isopsephia" - which
makes no sense at all.

Admittedly, I gave up on this page
before I was halfway through it. Too

many unsubstantiated assertions, too
many things described badly or wrongly,

too many artificially-constructed numerical coincidences
presented as if they

were meaningful. Even at the
outset, there was an assertion I hadn't encountered

elsewhere, namely that "where the letters S and T occur together" (as
in STAUROS),

they have a combined
value of 6 instead of their normal
values of 200 and 300. This

is certainly something with which I should become familiar, if
true, but I'm afraid

I'd have to hear it from a reputable source.
(I'll report back if and when I
do.)

Mike