Statistical Evidence of Literacy Configuration in the Bible

[Graviphoton]

But i did explain this, therefore, i accept your apology. This thread is hee to debunk the claims of diety+codex formulae. I believe in God, but i must remain scientific at all cost.

[tvp45]

Well, I think I see your point. You're arguing that the Jews in Babylon intentionally wrote the Torah. OK, I can accept that.

[Graviphoton]

lol

 

You've still not shown how.

 

No. Your claim is that in a time of minuscule literacy, a document was written(most likely dictated by someone who wasn't even literate) containing a code which only works when a "shift value" is calculated from a document written centuries later in a different language.

 

How is that not an extraordinary claim?

 

Where? It sure wasn't in this thread.

 

Yes there is. Another interpretation is this is bad numerology which only works ad hoc.

 

I didn't say anything about the first seven words. You're still not answering important questions. Does the code apply to only the first seven words of Genesis, the entire document, or the entire bible(or any other combination). You've at least used the first seven words of Genesis and part of John. Different manuscripts exist(that's part of how we date them), so if the code applies to entire documents(or groups of documents), then it would only apply to certain manuscripts.

 

I did show them in the OP. I showed that Vernons staple proof was that that the literature was ''almost'' identical, and that the value of John 1:1 displayed an eerily similar ''palandromic multiplicational value'' of 39 x 93, as is found in Genesis 1:1 for 37 x 73. It can also be used in geometry, while 2701 is a triangular number, John 1:1 can be applied as a plinth. There is a whole plethora of codes, again, see Vernons website.

 

And again... DUH... I gave statistical readings at the end. Are people intentionally winding me up here?

 

Well, I think I see your point. You're arguing that the Jews in Babylon intentionally wrote the Torah. OK, I can accept that.

 

No, i am stating that the words were intentionally chosen for numerical purposes.

[Phi for All]

I happily justify it, because of the findings.

I have given mathematical proof and statistics.

I statisticated this small work at: 1 in 1.9 x 10^24

 

There is no other interpretation. Take this from someone who has studied theology for a long while.

O.

 

 

M.

 

 

G.

 

 

 

I need another vacation.

[ecoli]

I did show them in the OP. I showed that Vernons staple proof was that that the literature was ''almost'' identical, and that the value of John 1:1 displayed an eerily similar ''palandromic multiplicational value'' of 39 x 93, as is found in Genesis 1:1 for 37 x 73. It can also be used in geometry, while 2701 is a triangular number, John 1:1 can be applied as a plinth. There is a whole plethora of codes, again, see Vernons website.

 

And again... DUH... I gave statistical readings at the end. Are people intentionally winding me up here?

you didn't actually show statistical data. You pulled out a random number and said, this is how likely x would be. How did you get that number?

 

There's still nothing to show that this isn't purely coincidental. It's easy to see "code" and patterns when you look for them.

 

I believe some group did some similar number games with US tax law.

 

and you still are ignoring Yourdad's point about your arbitrary "shift value."

[Graviphoton]

But the US tax law has no evidence to suggest there should be something intentional. We are dealing with a highly mystical book, which for all suggestions, points to some hidden subtext code. Even the passage in Revelation 13:18 suggests the writers used codes... telling us to calulculate a name. This is gematria being hinted at.

 

And i did show statistical data. I showed my results, and they are not biased one bit.

 

And i never ignored yourdads point. If you read what i said properly, something you have failed to do three times now, you would see i appointed to his suggestion.

[ydoaPs]

Please respond to post #25.

[ecoli]

But the US tax law has no evidence to suggest there should be something intentional. We are dealing with a highly mystical book, which for all suggestions, points to some hidden subtext code.

There's a faulty premise if I've ever seen one.

 

Even the passage in Revelation 13:18 suggests the writers used codes... telling us to calulculate a name. This is gematria being hinted at.

that's your interpretation...

Also, different versions of revelations have different numbers "of the beast." So how do we know if your data is relevant to the original version?

And i did show statistical data. I showed my results, and they are not biased one bit.

you showed one result, but not how you arrived at it... this renders this 'result' pretty meaningless. Look through any peer-reviewed paper, and they show a methodology section. Show us how you calculated this statistical significance number.

[bascule]

Please view this URL, as it describes exactly what this is:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology

 

ktkxbye

[Graviphoton]

calculate... show ... give... its all the same. The mystery of numbers and the word is evident. I will show you how i statisticated another day when i aint so buisy. Anf how is the above a faulty premise? Is there any indication there should be an intentional pattern in the US tax dollars i am not aware of?

 

This thread is nothing but an attempt to show intentional design sweety. Calling it numerology isn't anymore against the truth than i showed. But then again, numerology was the core of the Bible. We know this.

[ecoli]

calculate... show ... give... its all the same. The mystery of numbers and the word is evident. I will show you how i statisticated another day when i aint so buisy. Anf how is the above a faulty premise? Is there any indication there should be an intentional pattern in the US tax dollars i am not aware of?

 

This thread is nothing but an attempt to show intentional design sweety. Calling it numerology isn't anymore against the truth than i showed. But then again, numerology was the core of the Bible. We know this.

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it so.

[ydoaPs]

Hmmm....still ignoring me?

[Graviphoton]

No. What is it i missed?

 

Ecoli

 

I am saying it does, for very good reasons. Not pure or mere speculation.

[Phi for All]

calculate... show ... give... its all the same.

Wrong, they all have different contextual meanings.

The mystery of numbers and the word is evident.

Begging the Question, fallacious.

I will show you how i statisticated another day when i aint so buisy.

You don't have that electronically handy so you can cut and paste in a second or two? Hmmmm.

Anf how is the above a faulty premise? Is there any indication there should be an intentional pattern in the US tax dollars i am not aware of?

Intention was not ecoli's point. That similar "codes" can be found where none should be casts a bad light on your statisticatability. ()

[ecoli]

Anf how is the above a faulty premise? Is there any indication there should be an intentional pattern in the US tax dollars i am not aware of?

Not any more than there is an intentional pattern in the Bible. As you can imagine, not too many people who have written it are currently alive.

 

For that matter, your premise is faulty. Your initial premise is that the bible is a mystical book, which contains numerological patterns. You happen to 'find' some of these patterns, concluding that the book was designed to have patterns.

 

However, none of this shows your premise to be correct, and smacks of circular reasoning.

 

So, even if the book was written to have patterns (which isn't obvious at all, based on your alleged statistics) this doesn't mean that the Bible is, in fact, mystical at all... ie Faulty premise.

 

Therefore, you might as well talk about patterns in the Tax code for the difference it makes. The fact that patterns appear in the tax code, where none was intended tends to suggest that other books, where numerology is supposedly in place, could also be just as coincidental.

 

In other words, this type of theological thinking isn't relevant or useful to anyone. (that I can think of).

[Graviphoton]

Now that's just absurd. I mean, there is greatly more chance a cabalist had integrated patterns into a divine prophecy other than US tax dollars. Please use your nuggins. I am sure you are a smart boy.

[ydoaPs]

No. What is it i missed?

 

The entirety of post #25.

[Graviphoton]

Wrong, they all have different contextual meanings. Begging the Question, fallacious. You don't have that electronically handy so you can cut and paste in a second or two? Hmmmm. Intention was not ecoli's point. That similar "codes" can be found where none should be casts a bad light on your statisticatability. ()

No i

No can't just cut and post. My work is hand done.

 

Ecoli's point has holes in it. There are many codes in the Bible. This has never been denied by the scholars who admit them, or the scholars who would rather ignore them if they could. The essential goal they tend to achive is a code that is statistically powerful enough to represent divine intervention.

 

What's that last part supposed to mean? I found out that the numbers raised in the OP where unique, and can only be attainable a few ways. The way shown was the most efficient. Giving the whole thing an aura of importance.

 

The ignorance blinds so many round here.

 

Oh the whole thing. Simply because the other two statements where --- illogical. But i will address them if it makes you feel happier.

[iNow]

Giving the whole thing an aura of importance.

 

The ignorance blinds so many round here.

 

Just for the record, it's nonsense like this that causes me to fiercely attack the nonsense which is religion and faith.

[Graviphoton]

Your Dad -- the entire thing...

 

Then i would like to see some of these interprteations that do not entice to entice reader to calculate, work out, solve the riddle of the name, which is 666.Did you know the answer lay in the fact 666 appears four times in the Bible, and in their use of context?

 

It applied to the first seven words of the Bible, and a shift connection to John 1:1.

 

There

[ydoaPs]

Now that's just absurd. I mean, there is greatly more chance a cabalist had integrated patterns into a divine prophecy other than US tax dollars. Please use your nuggins. I am sure you are a smart boy.

 

Read post #25 and re-evaluate your chances. What prophecy?

[Graviphoton]

Just for the record, it's nonsense like this that causes me to fiercely attack the nonsense which is religion and faith.

 

You attack religion if you so desire. My post is not about religion.

 

The respone i have to say, is... incredible. Many are attacking without understanding into the Bible structural context. Others are attacking out of ignorance to the finds... which are themselves evident. You are attacking by waving your arms.

 

Pathetic.

 

''Prophecy'' was a word i used. The Bible is like an entire book of prophecy. If it pleases you, mythology?

[ydoaPs]

Your Dad -- the entire thing...

 

Then i would like to see some of these interprteations that do not entice to entice reader to calculate, work out, solve the riddle of the name, which is 666.Did you know the answer lay in the fact 666 appears four times in the Bible, and in their use of context?

 

It applied to the first seven words of the Bible, and a shift connection to John 1:1.

 

There

 

Did you know that in the earlier manuscripts the number of the beast wasn't 666? Wow, I guess the manuscript used is starting to matter. Still waiting on the reply to post 25.

[Graviphoton]

Actually, 616 is found to be a mistake.

 

See. I did my homework. Do you?

 

And i don't believe 616 was ever in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so yeh, it doesn't matter at all.

[ecoli]

Actually, 616 is found to be a mistake.

 

See. I did my homework. Do you?

 

And i don't believe 616 was ever in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so yeh, it doesn't matter at all.

http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm

 

616, 665, 666 have all been used as numbers of the beast.

 

I did my homework and provided evidence. Can you say the same?