I studied the gematria of Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 for a number of years and have posted the results in a series of articles beginning with my article here. There is such a profound connection between those ten verses that it took many pages to explain all the details. I put all the results together in a single image which I called the Creation HyperHolograph:
The entire holograph is based on combinations of the set A = 27, B = 37, C = 73, and D = 137 = A + B + C. I call this the Holographic Generating Set. The structure of Genesis 1:1 can be expressed in four simple ways using the first three of these numbers (where sum(n) denotes the nth triangular number:
Generating Set: Genesis 1.1 Gen 1.1 = BC Prime composition of 2701. = Sum(C) Triangular Structure = Sum(B)+ 2AB Triangular Substructure = A2 + AC + 1 Self-reflection of the GenSet
This set also gives a simple simple equation linking Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1
Genesis 1.1 + AB = 100B = John 1.1 + C
And the sum of those two passages is a simple function of those three numbers:
Genesis 1.1 + John 1.1 = C2 + AB
Furthermore, simple combinations of the elements of this set give the exact values of the first four convergents of the continued fraction representation of the Fine Structure Constant, explained here.
Terms Convergent Error 1 0.0359997
I think think is particularly significant because the creation passages (Gen 1, John 1) speak of the creation of light and matter, and the Fine Structure Constant is the number that governs the strength of the interaction between matter and light.
Concerning Pi and e:
I have known about the calculations of Pi and e from the letters of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 for a long time, but have never been very impressed with them for many reasons. 1) The calculations are rather complex, and I have no motivation to think that they should give any meaningful information. 2) I don't see any meaning in the appearance of those numbers in those contexts. They don't seem to fit into any larger patterns. 3) The system of equations seems to be over-determined. By this I mean that if the letters were specified to give the patterns I've shown above, the designer would have had no "degrees of freedom" left over to specify further information. 4) The "approximations" were off by many orders of magnitude, being multiplied by powers of 10. 5) Your article began by comparing these numbers with the approximations actually used by the Egyptians, but the Jews never used these numbers to actually approximate pi.
Given these reasons, I could never feel confident that we could clearly discern between chance and design in the appearance of these approximations to Pi and e.
Proof of Scripture?
Now I will address your primary question: "If this demonstration of the wisdom of God does not convince you the Bible is not of human origin, I would like to know what would convince you."
For over two decades, I was convinced that numerical patterns like those I've shown above, and especially the Bible Wheel (which shows a unity to the entire body of Scripture), gave sufficient proof that the Bible was of divine origin. And during those two decades, no critic was ever able to show that there was any fundamental flaw or systematic error in the results I presented. So I felt perfectly confident that they were rock-solid and incontrovertible.
But then something else happened. I began to examine the "problematic" aspects of the Bible - the errors, contradictions, and moral abominations it attributes to God (e.g. genocide). The more I studied, the more I became convinced that it was simply impossible to assert that the Bible was the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." Therefore, I now am confronted with a profound paradox: All the evidence for something "supernatural" going on in the Bible remains, but the book itself cannot be trusted as the "Word of God." Indeed, the patterns, if they were consciously designed by a supernatural agent, imply that agent to be extremely intelligent. But when I read the words of the Bible, they seem more like the words of an ignorant, primitive, brutal Bronze age warlike tribe - essentially indistinguishable from what we read in other primitive documents from that time.
So that's the problem with the idea of "proving the Bible" through numbers and patterns. At best, you may be able to prove that the document was not consciously produced by the people who put it together, but this is a far cry from claiming it is proof of the Bible as the very Word of God.
I would be very interested in pursuing this topic with you since I am mystified by this paradox.
All the best,