Pi and e are simple multiplications and divisions. No algebra, calculus or other subtleties required!
First of all the maths is not tortuous. It's some of the simplest manipulations it is possible to do.
But look at how many potential calculations that allows for. Addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, exponents, and concatenation are six different operations. (Concatenation will need to be treated a bit separately from the others below.) So any two starting numbers can be related to each other in at least six ways. But you've also allowed these operations to be strung together in series, when you talk about the ratios of products of serial sums or sums of multiple grouped products or whatever it was.
Although there are only two ways to arrange/concatenate two items in order, there are six for three items (abc-acb-bac-bca-cba-cab), 24 for four items (abcd-acbd-bacd-bcad-cbad-cabd-abdc-acdb-badc-bcda-cbda-cadb-adbc-adcb-bdac-bdca-cdba-cdab-dabc-dacb-dbac-dbca-dcba-dcab), 120 for five (just picture each of the 24 four-item sequences plus an "e" in each of the five possible spots before & after the first four), 720 for six (just picture each of those 120 five-item sequences plus an "f" in each of the six possible spots before & after the first five items), and so on. But that only gives us the number of possible orders in which to arrange the input numbers to prepare for these kinds of calculations. Then there's the question of what operations to do between each pair in the sequence, with five non-concatenating operations to choose from, each of which is quite simple on its own. That's five basic simple operations between the first two starting numbers, then five again if there's a third number, five again for the fourth, and so on, giving us totals of 25, 125, 625, 3125, or 15625 combinations for series of three, four, five, six, or seven inputs. But the numbers of possible arrangements and possible operations within each arrangement must be multiplied to find the actual number of options you can build up from these
simple ingredients.
For two inputs: 5 operations on each of 2 arrangements: 10 options
For three inputs: 25 operations on each of 6 arrangements: 150 options
For four inputs: 125 operations on each of 24 arrangements: 3,000 options
For five inputs: 625 operations on each of 120 arrangements: 75,000 options
For six inputs: 3125 operations on each of 720 arrangements: 2,250,000 options
For seven inputs: 15625 operations on each of 5040 arrangements: 78,750,000 options
...and all you need to do is pick the one that gives you what you want.
(Consecutive additions, or consecutive multiplications, could be done in either order with the same answer, and the above isn't adjusted for that. But that only works for those two operations, and only if they're consecutive with the same kind of operation in the series, which would have been too complicated to account for in the above calculations and not have made a significant difference.)
"But wait", you might say, "I didn't use that many different inputs; I only started with one number!" But that wouldn't be true. You then allowed for another number from another Bible verse (which doesn't really even give the right number anyway), and then for separate counts of the numbers of letters per word for I don't even know how many words, and then for separate counts of words per verse. And on top of that, you allowed the results of one calculation to be the input for the next one. So the supply of inputs you're letting yourself choose from is another one of those runaway-train effects like the ones I showed above, where the more calculations you've done already, the more potential inputs you have to manipulate for the next round; I don't even know how many we're already up to in this case, but it's well over the seven that I did the numbers for above.
Then, when you're willing to say an answer matches some real-world thing even if it clearly doesn't match anyway, we have to multiply the above ranges of options by how many different kinds of misses there are per each one that you would count as hits. I'm not even sure how to begin categorizing those.
So, each time Jenkins says to add, ask yourself why it wasn't a conatenation. Each time Jenkins says to concatenate, ask yourself why it wasn't a square. Each time Jenkins says to square, ask why it wasn't a cube or a root. Each time he says to multiply, ask why it wasn't subtraction. Each time he says to subtract, divide, or concatenate, ask yourself why in the given order instead of some other order, and why other comparable words/numbers to the ones you're concatenating aren't included in the concatenation or why the ones that are included really belong together. And each time he says to do one thing six times in a row for a six-word phrase and then add them up or multiply them all together, ask why it wasn't something else six times in a row and then alternating +/-, or some other series of operations on the original six things followed by using the even-numbered words' results as exponents for the odd-numbered words... or doing one kind of operation when the last answer had a single digit and another when it had two or more... all while keeping in mind that every single one of those rejected options is
exactly as simple, non-subtle, non-ingenious, and non-calculussy as the ones that made the cut.
...Then remember to go back through it all again and multiply anything that's dependent on the decimal system in the above ranges of options, like concatenation, by the number of other bases we could have been working in. (God would have known how data is encoded in computers, for example, which gives as at least three or four other bases to choose from immediately.)
...And when you get to Jenkins's answer for any given algorithm, if it doesn't really fit what Jenkins says it's supposed to fit, remember to ask yourself why God didn't actually hit the target, and why we're supposed to say he did.
