Cover Letter
Table of Contents

 Theomatics proven solidly 

based on author's own published results and independent tests

A complete statistical analysis,
by an independent statistician in Germany,
authenticating the validity of theomatics.

Some time ago, a website appeared on the Internet claiming to have "solidly" debunked theomatics, The name of the person publishing this site is Tim Hayes, who lives in Texas, USA. (For some reason he does not disclose his name or identity on his own web page.)

In order to "test" theomatics, Mr. Hayes constructed his own tests and experiments. He calls his method "maximum order statistics" (MOS).

What his web site attempts to do is show that theomatics is invalid based upon MOS. While MOS may be a good method for proving some things, it is not valid in debunking theomatics. The MOS statistical approach contains serious flaws and limitations, and cannot prove that various theomatic results are random. This method does not permit the investigation to consider certain strong points in favor of theomatics.

The statistician in Germany who examined and tested theomatics independently, has stated that according to his understanding, Mr. Hayes use of the MOS method is invalid and "not applicable to theomatics."

As comprehensive as his website and calculations may appear, the bottom line is that Tim Hayes has not proven randomness. In reading his analysis, it is obvious that the entire thrust of his effort IS a concerted attempt to prove randomness. Only after he fails to accomplish that goal, does he then state (in an email sent to us), that "not being able to 'show complete randomness' is irrelevant." Apparently, he refuses to see the fact that this is the fatal flaw in his analysis.

It is doubtful that any serious or credible statistician would accept Mr. Haye's conclusion (that theomatics is not valid) unless he proved randomness. Because if theomatics were untrue, randomness would be the only logical possibility. Either that, or a perfectly natural cause/explanation (for the theomatic results) would have to be produced, which of course there are none.

The clincher in favor of theomatics, is that three things must line up in order for theomatics to have any statistical validity or claim of uniqueness.

  1. The patterns or phenomenon only appear within the Bible text and in no other work of literature, in any language.

  2. The patterns only appear with the numerical values to the letters of historical record (there are 403 septillion random permutations possible, none of which can work).

  3. Yet even in the Bible and with the proper numerical values to the letters—the patterns only appear with words and phrases having a common theological meaning or relationship. Anything else only produces randomness.

The third item above eliminates any grammatical or natural cause explanation for the results, and can only prove a divine/supernatural element as the logical explanation.

Furthermore, Tim Hayes ignores the "quality of the results" issue (which is the very basis of theomatics), nor can he provide any explanation for the clustering phenomenon (which has occurred consistently with tens of thousands of theomatic examples). His approach is basically saying that theomatics must adhere to a strict regulation of rules according to his MOS standard. He has stated unequivocally that if it does not meet this statistical standard, then "I will find that out, and kill it."

What is truly astounding and totally dishonest about Mr. Hayes analysis, after he falsely watered down the billions to one theomatic odds—in testing the comprehensive Luke 15 passage on the prodigal son—he still comes up with a "corrected" probability factor of only 1 chance in 1.25 million for the two word phrases (hardly random).

Yet remarkably, he states "we do not find these results impressive." In fact, he only shows this one in a million chance in a small table at the conclusion of one of his web pages where he points out a handful insignificant "errors", at a location where it is doubtful very many people would even notice the significance of this astounding number. Note:  You can view that table here.

We would like to remind Mr. Hayes that when the ELS "Famous Rabbis Experiment" appeared in the Statistical Science journal on the Bible code (which has since been debunked), the odds were only 1 chance in 65,000. Even a p-factor that low turned the scientific community upside down and had everyone scratching their heads. And Mr. Hayes is not impressed with his own sanctified "theomatic" result of 1 in 1.25 million???  And yet he claims that he has "solidly" debunked theomatics???

IMPORTANT:  After the statistician in Germany made his own thorough analysis of the A.B. Leever website and criticism, and performed his own independent and very conservative critical analysis, he also concluded that the odds were better than a million to one against chance occurrence.


Mr. Hayes has stated that he is determined to kill theomatics. This can only make a person wonder if he has some sort of religious agenda or ax to grind? Or what his real motivation might be?  We do not seek to judge what is in a person's heart and leave those matters up to God. But we do believe that those people out there who look seriously into this debate will realize that certainly, there are other personal motivating factors involved with Mr. Hayes, other than just the science.

There are many hundreds of theomatic structures in our files where extensive testing has been done—where every possible reference to a specific word or topic can be examined and accurately defined without any wiggle room whatsoever.  In comparing these results with random permutations, nobody can even come close to producing the same average results as theomatics—either the number of hits or the clustering phenomenon. On numerous patterns, the odds are simply millions and billions to one.

Any further discussion or debate on this subject (haggling over the details and definitions), would probably be a big waste of time. Unless randomness can be proven, this is now an issue that has been settled and is both determinate and conclusive.

Institute for Theomatics Research
Dundee, OR (USA)

The comments on this page are the statements of 
Theomatics Research, and not those of Kurt Fettelschoss.

Proceed to: Cover Letter | Proceed to: Table of Contents