Statistical Evidence of Literacy Configuration in the Bible

[mooeypoo]

In fact, i'm arguing about the wrong thing entirely. I must have been stoned when i made that last post.

 

We are dealing with the original Hebrew text. The translation of the text is irrelevant, because we don'r really make any convert from Hebrew to English, but in fact dealing with the actual Hebrew letters. Surely, whatever they mean, they are written the same in any old version of Genesis 1:1. If it wasn't, i am sure i would have heard about it, and even heard of it being used as an arguement.

 

So really, whatever the words mean, isn't really the point, but rather the point is we are numerically reducing Hebrew letter to make total values... and this process cannot be flawed, since we don't need to translate anything.

 

Stop moving the goal post.

 

Your numerical value theory is linked to the meanings -- the entire point is that the numbers go with the meaning, that's what the page is babbling on about, and why the specific words that give out specific meanings were CHOSEN to be shown to give specific numbers.

 

If you want people to treat your theory seriously, you should be consistent.

 

If the translation and the hebrew meaning doesn't matter, then the words don't matter either, and just like you chose ones that give 666 and 999, I can choose others that give me 333 and 777 -- the most POWERFUL combinations in the bible, or find other concepts with the same numbers you picked.

 

Be consistent and stop throwing us around in games. I followed your logic, and switched the goal post with you three times already.

 

I am not going to do that again.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

Consider i am not moving the goal post though.

 

I am only highlighting the obvious: that the pillar of my codes:

 

37 x 7

39 x 7

 

Don'trely on any tranlastion of the Hebrew letters. They only depend on numerically placed values. There's quite a difference, moo.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, if the meaning of the words don't matter, then the numbers are arbitrary. You claim there is 999 and 666 and that the mere existence of these numbers is enough to make a meaning, and I claim that there are 777 and 333 with entirely opposite meaning.

 

Since the meaning of the word is irrelevant, I can just produce random words to make out any combination of numbers I care for.

 

Your theory, therefore, is just irrelevant. It's all-inclusive and meaningless, without the meaning of the words.

 

Wasn't the entire point is that 999 appears with *specific* words while 666 appears with other *specific* words? If it is, then meaning matters, and the bible wasn't written in english, so *hebrew* meaning matters.

 

If it doesn't, then your theory just lost its legs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh.. and you did move the goal post, if you first argue about literacy (literacy means *MEANING*), then you claim to know if the translation is accurate, and then when that fails, you go for "the meaning of the words is irrelevant".

 

That is moving the goal post.

 

Three times.

 

And counting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny things, numbers.

[Graviphoton]

Well, that's a bit flawed, because we already know that the words mean something, and roughly speaking, we do know them, give or take a few translational errors, and plus the fact one of the seven words are totally untranslatable. So it doesn't really matter whether:

 

1) the words make sense, because we already know they do... even if we cannot know the true form

 

2) whether the numbers have any hidden meaning at all to the Hebrew words; which is pointless to imagine anyway, because they never left God's Handbook to Cosmic Numbers.

 

I think this is getting to the point, where the reader now must make a decision within themselves to either class the codes i have shown to be true or false. And of course, undecided.

 

Also, if anyone is interested, i have been speaking to Dr. Jenkins. I have given him my results, and after a quick read over, he is keen to study the codes. With any further developments, or anything he generally has to say about them, i shall keep the page notified.

[mooeypoo]

Well, that's a bit flawed, because we already know that the words mean something, and roughly speaking, we do know them, give or take a few translational errors, and plus the fact one of the seven words are totally untranslatable. So it doesn't really matter whether:

Okay, seriously now.

 

Either the words mean something ro they don't. Either the meaning is important or it's not. STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST.

 

If the words 'cearly mean something', the meaning is important, and cannot be roughly taken, specifically as an ad-hoc explanation after finding out the intended translation was wrong.

 

1) the words make sense, because we already know they do... even if we cannot know the true form

I do know the true form, because I can read the original form of the bible, in which these word-number-games were created.

 

2) whether the numbers have any hidden meaning at all to the Hebrew words; which is pointless to imagine anyway, because they never left God's Handbook to Cosmic Numbers.

This needs proof. There is no proof there's a "hidden meaning". Specifically not (AGAIN!) as an ad-hoc explanation for you fiding out you don't like the translation.

 

I think this is getting to the point, where the reader now must make a decision within themselves to either class the codes i have shown to be true or false. And of course, undecided.

The reader should be unbiased and go to external sources to validate his claims. The reader should read the words in their original intended language if he is to claim they hold special value.

 

This reader seems to just not accepting the facts presented.

 

 

Also, if anyone is interested, i have been speaking to Dr. Jenkins. I have given him my results, and after a quick read over, he is keen to study the codes. With any further developments, or anything he generally has to say about them, i shall keep the page notified.

 

WHAT CODES!?

 

Geesh. The codes that come from random meaningless words or the codes that come from "whoops, thats not the intended words we hoped for" words? Meaning mean something or not? What about other random numbers to find words?? I found *other meanings* using the SAME THEORY -- and you completely ignored it.

 

And after all this, you seriously expect anyone to take your theory seriously.

 

Seriously now.

[Graviphoton]

Right moo... here's the deal... i'll through this chunk by chunk, and answer accordingly. If you study my work in the OP, you will find there is moving of any posts. Then after this, i need to go for a wee while, i have some math to do

 

''Okay, seriously now.

 

Either the words mean something ro they don't. Either the meaning is important or it's not. STOP MOVING THE GOAL POST.

 

If the words 'cearly mean something', the meaning is important, and cannot be roughly taken, specifically as an ad-hoc explanation after finding out the intended translation was wrong.''

 

The numbers and the codes, have not been specifically identified together completely, whilst there is some hint that the words ''of chosen catagories'' mean something based upon the findings. For an example, the catagory of nouns 'God', 'Heaven' and 'Earth,' are considered the core words of Genesis 1:1, that remarkable add to 777. But in no way can these calculations be related to the words, other than singular and total gemetria values. The fact distinguished patterns emerge, from numerically decyphering the words, can we make the speculation that the words and the codes do in fact have a symbiotic relationship other than the numerically placed values.

 

Until we find evidence of this, we can only speculate.

 

''I do know the true form, because I can read the original form of the bible, in which these word-number-games were created.''

 

Well... good. Because it was the true form i was working from, before people started to comment on the authenticity of the translation and what translation one was using.

 

''This needs proof. There is no proof there's a "hidden meaning". Specifically not (AGAIN!) as an ad-hoc explanation for you fiding out you don't like the translation.''

 

I speculate otherwise. I say there is ample proof... as i said, this was now time to make your own minds up, which you have, and so have i, based on the evidence.

 

''The reader should be unbiased and go to external sources to validate his claims. The reader should read the words in their original intended language if he is to claim they hold special value.

 

This reader seems to just not accepting the facts presented.''

 

Oh, but the reader is far from being ignorant to facts. He has looked through them, and given them the respect they need. But i have found no counter-evidence to wholey suggest it is wrong. Therefore, my conclusions are still open, and i will not be narrowed down to a dogmatic, unproved truth.

 

''WHAT CODES!?

 

Geesh. The codes that come from random meaningless words or the codes that come from "whoops, thats not the intended words we hoped for" words? Meaning mean something or not? What about other random numbers to find words?? I found *other meanings* using the SAME THEORY -- and you completely ignored it.

 

And after all this, you seriously expect anyone to take your theory seriously.''

 

I gave a good example of what a code can be. It went along the lines like this:

 

''If my analyse produced numbers like 775789, then i would have took no notice. But for the fact they produced 70707, and other multiple conditions, i argue they are hidden codes.''

[Edtharan]

Actually what I find interesting is that your Code requiers the use of 0 (Zero), but at the time that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written, the concept of Zero as a number had not yet been invented.

 

It is a bit like requiering that somone in the 16th century was driving around in a Ferrari. It just doesn't work.

[mooeypoo]

That's a good point Edtharan, but allow me to play "devil's advocate" and say that if those codes are given by god himself (either explicitly or by "causing someone to write them") then humanity doesn't have to know the concept of 0 for god to know (obviously) and write it, and allow us to "discover it" when we are "wiser".

 

That, however, is by no means proof. Though I am not going to be surprised if Graviphoton will say exactly what I just said, as another ad-hoc excuse. This theory is consistent in providing ad-hocs, i'll give it that.

 

 

 

I can find cool numbers in random words (and if I try, probably random words with cool meaning) in ANY BOOK I CHOOSE.

 

From Harry Potter to "The God Delusion", the sheer number of words and letters will allow anyone with a bit of patience and the desire to find exactly what they want to see find what they are looking for.

 

The theory you suggest is only impressive if (a) it was continuous, which it isn't - the words are RANDOM, not one-after-the-other and (b) would exist solely on that book and © be connected to the meaning of the word, suggesting a correlation between the text and some hidden "authenticating" message.

 

It's neither.

 

It's bunk. And worse of all, you keep dancing around it. You called the thread "Statistical Evidence of Literacy Configuration in the Bible" which is vague to itself, but it does include *STATISTICAL* (number.. statistics..) and *LITERACY* (literal meaning -- hence, the meaning counts).

 

Now you claim that we either know the words in general, or the meaning isn't important, or the language on which this is based is not as important as the fact these codes appear, etc etc. You're being inconsistent, moving the goal post, dancing around the faults we raise to you and ignore screw-ups. You're not convincing anyone like that.

 

I don't have time nor do I have the patience to do this excercize on Harry Potter or The Wizard of Oz, but I suggest you take one of these books and prove to yourself that you can find 666, 777, 7707 or 820319 (my birth date) in random word combinations (appearing or NON APPEARING -- your examples give some words that are simply *made up* and do not appear in Genesis) in the first chapter too. And I can put my money on it, too.

 

 

 

~moo

[iNow]

It's neither.

 

It's bunk. And worse of all, you keep dancing around it.

 

Repeated for emphasis.

[Graviphoton]

Actually what I find interesting is that your Code requiers the use of 0 (Zero), but at the time that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written, the concept of Zero as a number had not yet been invented.

 

It is a bit like requiering that somone in the 16th century was driving around in a Ferrari. It just doesn't work.

 

Now -- that' s a very good point. However, the notion must have been known, to have ''40 years'' drafted all over the old testiment. This might just be a subtle condition, which need not be important. If the notion of ''40'' was known, then the notion of zero was known, but perhaps not in the sense we know it. its like 5 x 8 reads ''40''. Maybe its something like that.

 

Mooey

 

Wrong, again... you said...

 

''I don't have time nor do I have the patience to do this excercize on Harry Potter or The Wizard of Oz, but I suggest you take one of these books and prove to yourself that you can find 666, 777, 7707 or 820319 (my birth date) in random word combinations (appearing or NON APPEARING -- your examples give some words that are simply *made up* and do not appear in Genesis) in the first chapter too. And I can put my money on it, too.''

 

What's the point? I've already created my own draft, on the Bible Codes, which showed man can create these things. The whole point of the OP, was to proove an intentional design. I am sure i could look through a hundred books, and never find the kind of design that have been found. This is why i base it as ''intentional''. Remember, i don't refer to my work alone.

 

INow

 

As i said, make your own minds up. Let me dance around the fire, so long as there are a few logs to keep it burning.

[ydoaPs]

Now -- that' s a very good point. However, the notion must have been known, to have ''40 years'' drafted all over the old testiment. This might just be a subtle condition, which need not be important. If the notion of ''40'' was known, then the notion of zero was known, but perhaps not in the sense we know it. its like 5 x 8 reads ''40''. Maybe its something like that.

 

Or, maybe they didn't use the same number system we do!

[Graviphoton]

Well... yea.

 

I think. I don't know how they would have seen final calculations. What i was saying, is that 40 to us must still be 40 to them. They just may not derive the final answer in the same way.

[ydoaPs]

just like 101 and 5 are the same thing?

[Graviphoton]

No.

[ydoaPs]

Okay, why not? 101 and 5 definitely ARE the same thing.

[mooeypoo]

Now -- that' s a very good point. However, the notion must have been known, to have ''40 years'' drafted all over the old testiment. This might just be a subtle condition, which need not be important. If the notion of ''40'' was known, then the notion of zero was known, but perhaps not in the sense we know it. its like 5 x 8 reads ''40''. Maybe its something like that.

I think I did a better job defending that point than you did, but that's besides the point, because as I pointed out (and you ignored. Again) it's irrelevant to the *proof* of this theory.

 

Mooey

 

Wrong, again... you said...

 

''I don't have time nor do I have the patience to do this excercize on Harry Potter or The Wizard of Oz, but I suggest you take one of these books and prove to yourself that you can find 666, 777, 7707 or 820319 (my birth date) in random word combinations (appearing or NON APPEARING -- your examples give some words that are simply *made up* and do not appear in Genesis) in the first chapter too. And I can put my money on it, too.''

That's *ONE* of the things I've said, as a SUMMARY.

What about the rest of the points I've made? Do you not have answers to them or are you being disingenuous?

 

What's the point? I've already created my own draft, on the Bible Codes, which showed man can create these things. The whole point of the OP, was to proove an intentional design. I am sure i could look through a hundred books, and never find the kind of design that have been found. This is why i base it as ''intentional''. Remember, i don't refer to my work alone.

 

How comfortable, Graviphoton, to skip all the points I made and answer a single one (and miss my point) by twisting the point I was making to fit your own agenda. In some circles that's called Trolling.

 

Whatever you may call it, it isn't very sincere for you or for your theory.

 

I am not going to address any more points you make until you fairly answer mine. As far as I am concerned, this theory is bunk, and the only way you can *start* convincing me otherwise is by actually answer my points.

 

I suggest everyone else to do the same and stop this clearly-one-sided debate until you actually answer *all* we are saying.

 

You didn't come to a theology forum, we are not here to take your points and nod our heads. We are *RATIONAL* people, following the *SCIENTIFIC METHOD*.

 

That means honesty, thorough analysis and peer review.

 

 

 

Stop trolling and start being fair - we are taking teh time to answer you, the least you could do is read our points and *answer them all*.

 

Ignoring points that don't "do you good" is cowardly.

 

 

I am not holding my breath.

 

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

If you think i am trolling, then i wont waste any more time. Just come to your own conclusions about the OP, and let it rest. There really is no more for me to say.

 

And i do answer points. If i don't answer them all, it is because either:

 

1) i don't know how to answer them properly

2) or i haven't had the time to answer all posts

 

It is not because of being ignorant, or nasty, or unfair. Its only fair one allows another a bit of time. Try cutting your arguements down into shorter notation, and less of the insults also, and your posts might be more pleasing to the eye.

[mooeypoo]

If you think i am trolling, then i wont waste any more time. Just come to your own conclusions about the OP, and let it rest. There really is no more for me to say.

 

And i do answer points. If i don't answer them all, it is because either:

 

1) i don't know how to answer them properly

2) or i haven't had the time to answer all posts

 

It is not because of being ignorant, or nasty, or unfair. Its only fair one allows another a bit of time. Try cutting your arguements down into shorter notation, and less of the insults also, and your posts might be more pleasing to the eye.

Let me put it this way:

We presented points that if left unchallenged, are obliterating your theory.

 

The proper response is either:

(1) Wow. My theory is bunk. Thank you for helping me realise that. (You're welcome)

(2) Hmm. I will think of the points, do some research, and come up with valid counter-points, to show that my theory is still valid.

 

Since you did NEITHER, I have to say that according to the available claims and the counter claims - which by your own admission, the lack of response mean you don't know (or didn't have time.. wow.. well, I'd make time for claim that make your theory void) - hence, the theory is, at the moment, void.

 

Aboslutely void.

 

Until you come up with something that changes that. But whatever it is, it needs to answer the points we asked you to answer, not some random points you think you are comfortable answering. That's what I meant when I said you are dancing around the subject and trolling. And yes, that is being dishonest and unfair. And it's not doing your theory any justice, either.

 

 

Scientific theories go through a process called "Peer Review", where scientists try to obliterate the theory using science, proof and logic. The purpose is not to humiliate or bash anyone, it is to make sure that the theory has "feet" to stand on -- if the "disproving" peer review process fails, and the theory remains WELL BASED despite counter-claims, and can answer them well, then it is considered a *valid theory*.

 

Whether the scientist proposing the theory has or don't have the time to answer, or all the answers to supply, there is ONE and a SINGLE result to peer review failure:

 

No scientific theory will remain valid after failing peer review.

 

Welcome to the club, my friend, you just failed peer review.

 

You have two options now: Re-examine the points of failure and strengthen the theory so it ANSWERS them (and perhaps becomes valid), or dropping the theory for lack of evidence.

 

In other words: Either stop wasting our time, or start being serious.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

I failed then.

 

Not the first time, and certainly not the last i will enounter in my lifetime.

[mooeypoo]

Peer review has no personal-attack intention to it, it's strictly analysis of a theory. The counter-points made are not against you personally, they're against the validity of the theory.

 

Your theory failed the peer review, not you.

You just failed to see it.

 

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

Now -- that' s a very good point. However, the notion must have been known, to have ''40 years'' drafted all over the old testiment. This might just be a subtle condition, which need not be important. If the notion of ''40'' was known, then the notion of zero was known, but perhaps not in the sense we know it. its like 5 x 8 reads ''40''. Maybe its something like that.

The Sumarians and the Babalonians used a base 60 number system (that is they had 60 different symbols for numbers - but importantly no symbol for 0). It is why we have 60 minutes in an hour (our system for measuring time comes form the Babalonians ). They also had no symbol for 0. They could use a space to represent a zero, but it was not used in the same way that we can use 0 (as a number unto it's self), it was more like a delimiter. Like how when writing large numbers we use a commer to seperate groups of digits's to make it easier to read (like for a million we can write 1,000,000).

 

So for the number 40 the Sumarians and the Babalonians could have used a single symbol, the one they had for 40. Or in roman numberals it would ahve been XXXX (X is the romal symbol for 10).

 

Actually, lets look at the Roman numbers. These came after the Old Testiment was written and was an advanced number system (more so than what would have been around during the writing of the Old Testiment.

The roamns had these symbols:

1= I

5 = V

10 = X

50 = L

100 = C

500 = D

1000 = M

 

Now they don't have a symbol for 4 like we do, so how could they write that? Easy "IV". Because the I (1) is infront of the V (5) you subtract the 1 from the 5 to get 4. You could also write it like "IIII", but that is harder to read than the "IV".

 

You can slo write much larger numbers too. Say for example 2008. It would be written like "MMVIII". This is read 1000 + 1000 + 5 + 3 or 2008.

 

Notice that even though 2008 has two 0 digits in it, the roman numerals have absolutly no symbol for 0 at all. The concept of 0 as a number did not exist at this period in history.

 

Lets have a look at the number 666 in Roman Numerals:

DCLXVI : D (500) + C (100) + L (50) + X (10) + V (5) + I (1) = 666.

 

Or it could hav ebeen written like: CCCCCCXXXXXXIIIIII , or like CCCCMLXIIIIII (but these are harder to read so the shorter version is prefered).

 

Or lets take 999 which is: CMXLIX

 

None of these actually creates a distinct pattern like you said attracted you to these numbers in the first palce.

 

just like 101 and 5 are the same thing?

yourdadonapogos is right. 101 and 5 are the same thing. 101 in Binary (base 2) is equal to 5 in Decimal (base 10).

 

666 in Base 2 is 1010011010, and 999 is 1111100111.

 

Or lets try a different base number system like hexadecimal (base 16 - used in computers a lot) 666 = 29A and 999 = 3E7.

 

none of these patterns stand out very much, they look more random than 666 or 999.

[Graviphoton]

Very true... they do look more random. Thank you for your work