Statistical Evidence of Literacy Configuration in the Bible

[bascule]

Can you compare your calculations run against an input corpus which isn't the Bible and show how they are different? Perhaps try the End User License Agreement for Windows Vista...

[Graviphoton]

Ecoli

 

Take my word for it. The Dead Sea Scrolls did not use 616. And even if it had, it was assume by scholars to be a mistake. The Bible actually contains quite a few numerical mistakes i bet you don't know about.

[ydoaPs]

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.

 

Do you even know what the Dead Sea Scrolls are?

 

Again, still waiting.

[JohnB]

I don't see why it should come as a surprise to anyone that a meaningful pattern can be found in early Biblical texts.

 

Unlike the later English versions, the early versions were not "read" but "sung". Because of this, there will be an underlying semi-melodic pattern, otherwise the "song" would not be pleasing to the ear.

 

AFAIK no one has tried it, but I dare say that if an Opera was subjected to the same type of scrutiny, similar patterns would emerge.

 

I think he may be right, but perhaps not for the reason he thinks.

 

Several books I own could be be reduced in a similar way by assigning values to the words and looking for patterns. The pattern could be further reduced to only 2 values and have the recurring pattern of;

 

12 112 112

12 112 112

12 112

112 112

12 112 112

 

Obviously there is statistical significance in the repeating of the number 112 as it couldn't appear by chance. It didn't, it was written into the pattern of the books themselves to give the correct cadence.

 

(If anyone can't work out what the books are about, just say 1, 2 instead of twelve and you'll get it.)

 

What I think Graviphoton has done is reduce the "song" to numerical values and found that there is a pattern, just as one would expect to find (if you think about it).

Perhaps try the End User License Agreement for Windows Vista...

I thought we were discussing an ancient Earth book, not an alien language.

[Graviphoton]

Can you compare your calculations run against an input corpus which isn't the Bible and show how they are different? Perhaps try the End User License Agreement for Windows Vista...

 

I've already compilated a test in which shows the math isn't beyond mans ability. In short, i created my own religious-like text, and applied an English Gematria. The result showed that it can be done. I will post the reults here, when i find my papers.

 

I don't see why it should come as a surprise to anyone that a meaningful pattern can be found in early Biblical texts.

 

Unlike the later English versions, the early versions were not "read" but "sung". Because of this, there will be an underlying semi-melodic pattern, otherwise the "song" would not be pleasing to the ear.

 

AFAIK no one has tried it, but I dare say that if an Opera was subjected to the same type of scrutiny, similar patterns would emerge.

 

I think he may be right, but perhaps not for the reason he thinks.

 

Several books I own could be be reduced in a similar way by assigning values to the words and looking for patterns. The pattern could be further reduced to only 2 values and have the recurring pattern of;

 

12 112 112

12 112 112

12 112

112 112

12 112 112

 

Obviously there is statistical significance in the repeating of the number 112 as it couldn't appear by chance. It didn't, it was written into the pattern of the books themselves to give the correct cadence.

 

(If anyone can't work out what the books are about, just say 1, 2 instead of twelve and you'll get it.)

 

What I think Graviphoton has done is reduce the "song" to numerical values and found that there is a pattern, just as one would expect to find (if you think about it).

 

Actually, this is the first intelligent reply. One of my theories was that there was a melodic pattern, which would leave a residue throughout the evolving languages.... such as the results of Einglish Bible Codes.

 

Your Dad

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls where hidden in caves, containing the oldest known pages of the Hebrew religion. That's all it is.

[ecoli]

Ecoli

 

Take my word for it. The Dead Sea Scrolls did not use 616.

 

This is hardly surprising considering that the Book of Kings, the only place the number 666 is mentioned in the Old testament does not even appear in the dead sea scrolls.

 

I find it amusing that you accuse myself and others of being ignorant in the subject, yet you don't even appear to know what books are in the Dead sea scrolls.

 

And even if it had, it was assume by scholars to be a mistake. The Bible actually contains quite a few numerical mistakes i bet you don't know about.

So, when it supports your conclusions, the numerology is right... but when it doesn't, they made a mistake?

 

Way to cherry pick your data to un-usefulness.

[ydoaPs]

So, the only intelligent replies are the ones that are supportive of you? What an ego.

 

I happily justify it, because of the findings. Have you still not bothered to find Dr. Vernons work?

lol

You will find John 1;1 and Gen 1;1 are mathematically unque.

You've still not shown how.

 

My extraordinary claim, isn't all that extraordinary. It simply states some intention.

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?

 

I have given mathematical proof and statistics. What else is really required?

Where? It sure wasn't in this thread.

 

There is no other interpretation.

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

 

Why do you keep insideously investing that there is some alternative scripture with the first seven words?

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.

[JohnB]

I think the melodic pattern would have been lost in the transition from Latin to English.

[Graviphoton]

Kings would have been part of it. The Dead Sea Scrolls where incomplete, thought to be due to the fact the greater deal of the scrolls had deteriated over the years.

 

And the conclusions are, conclusive in the OP. Any attempt to rally the discussion off-course by, ''what translation are you using,'' was so irrelevant, simply because the interpretation in majorly important phrases like ''in the beginning God created...'' are not distorted. They are the ground base of what they would have learned and printed long ago.

 

Again, use your brain boy. Nit-picking at rememdial things like this are not proving your point.

 

John B

 

Actually, i tend to do an analysis on Latin very soon. I know much latin, so i should make the most of it.

[ydoaPs]

Are you dense or scared?

Seriously, I'm still waiting.

[Graviphoton]

Your Dad

 

No, it was intelligent because he thought his conclusions through... to logic.

 

''You've still not shown how.''

 

I don't see why i should when the work has already been published on the net by Vernon. It's just lazy on your behalf. And, for the seventh time, i did show statistics. Are you blind? Or just ignorant?

 

Are you dense or scared?

Seriously, I'm still waiting.

 

Neither. But you are dillusional.

[mooeypoo]

I can find any meaning I want in the bible this way, including "God is false".

 

http://www.hofesh.org.il/religion_merchants/diloogim/ron.html

Since the bible was originally written in hebrew, the above article is dealing with the hebrew original version. Let me translate the so-called codes:

 

Figure (1) Genesis 19:10, skip 122: Moses' Tora ('knowledge'), Cheating, Akum ('gentile' - abbreviation), nonsense, evil

All in the same skips, wonderfully next to one another.

 

Figure (2) Genesis 21,22 skip 4036:

[this one is refering to a very big rabbi in Israel called "Noigershal" who is famous in his attempts to shove religion in people's faces and convert them (try to, at least)]:

Noigershal, Not a rabbi, Liar, Con artist, Philistine, Jail.

 

Now, in hebrew each letter has a numerical representation (it's an OOOOLLLLDDDDDD 'theory'). And using these 'codes' you find words that have the same numerical value. However, that happens in *HEBREW* -- the ORIGINAL language of the bible -- not latin, and DEFINITELY not english. I suggest you go back and read history.

 

So, another point for you: The bible wasn't written in English, it was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, translated to greek and latin, and *THEN* translated to all other languages.

 

Your "code" in the english language makes no sense. Whether you use skip, code, or anything else, you are using the wrong language.

 

 

And for all you code lovers, here's a program for you: http://exodus2006.com/torah4u.htm

 

It's hebrew, yup, but at least it's the real bible. And you can find ANYTHING and EVERYTHING in there. I, for one, found "God is false" and "you are an idiot" and "joking".

 

Nice ones, eh?

 

~moo

[ecoli]

Kings would have been part of it. The Dead Sea Scrolls where incomplete, thought to be due to the fact the greater deal of the scrolls had deteriated over the years.

 

Yet you claim that 616 wasn't used in the Dead sea scrolls, even though the Book of Kings is not included in the scrolls... do you not see the fallacy with this thinking?

We cannot know what number was used for the mark of the beast. You therefore can't arbitrarily label anything that doesn't fit into your code as a "mistake" just because it doesn't agree with your conclusion! That's not how the scientific method works.

[ydoaPs]

Still waiting.....

[Graviphoton]

Mooey

My codes are greatly more simple. I am using the first seven words, and 28 hebrew letters. That fact Dr. Panin ( another doctor and agnostic) found over 30 different seven-phenomena codes in the first 7 words. The work i have shown excites the equations. Even his work was statisticated at 1 in quintillions that it be chance. Dr. Vernons work also excites values of 1 in quantillions.

 

Its not enough to say... ''i can find anything,'' because that statement isn't true. Try and find the same codes, with the same importance in any book containing the first seven words, and i bet you will fail to find the same quality.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think the best thing to do here is to postpone further criticism until Graviphoton has a chance to compile a sufficient explanation of his exact methodology.

 

I, for one, do not doubt that one could easily find patterns in the Bible, the Koran, War and Peace, or Cryptonomicon if one looks hard enough. Some may be intentional (as JohnB pointed out). Before we draw that conclusion for Graviphoton's selected passages I suggest we look at what sort of statistical analysis he did.

[ydoaPs]

I don't see why i should when the work has already been published on the net by Vernon. It's just lazy on your behalf. And, for the seventh time, i did show statistics. Are you blind? Or just ignorant?

YOU are making claims about YOUR work. It falls upon YOU to show YOUR work. YOU have the burden of proof.

 

 

 

But you are dillusional.

 

It seems you have moved from ad hoc to ad hom. Nice.

[Graviphoton]

Ecoli

 

Actually, 666 is more likely due to the evident nature of the other findings of 666. Also, the name of Jesus when applied to Gematria values 888, and since Jesus is his nemesis, the logic follows through.

 

And Dad... what is your deal. Get some patience. I said i will post his work in due time. But instead, why don't you de me a favor, and look at his work. As i said, its just lazy on your behalf.

 

Caps...\

 

,all i am asking for is time. Thank you.

[JohnB]

Graviphoton, unless you are actually attempting to prove God exists through this exercise (and you said you weren't) then I'm afraid you are wasting your time going around a large circle.

 

You reduced certain passages to numerical sequences, fair enough, but now you have to "decode" the numerical sequences to get a meaningful result.

 

Unfortunately, when you decode those sequences you will get either;

a) A nice tune to sing the Old Testament to in Hebrew, or

b) The Old Testament sung in Hebrew.

 

You may take a number of steps to get there, but that's where you'll finish up. You aren't analysing the words, you are analysing the melody the words are sung to.

[Graviphoton]

And plus, i have to type all the work out... now including Vernons work, because dad can't be arsed to look for himself. I also now have to provide the work i did to debunk any notions only a God could produce such a task. That's a lot of typing, and i wish a bit of patience. That is all.

 

John

 

I am analysing the words as well. I must do, to understand there meaning and placement in the Bible. This was the first job i had to compile into works.

[ecoli]

Ecoli

 

Actually, 666 is more likely due to the evident nature of the other findings of 666. Also, the name of Jesus when applied to Gematria values 888, and since Jesus is his nemesis, the logic follows through.

 

But, again, you are prescribing your beliefs onto what you want to find and not necessarily what actually exists.

 

Normally, I wouldn't care, except that you are making statements that you can't prove, like the Dead sea scrolls says the number of the beast is 666, when, in fact, there is no reference to the beast in the scrolls at all.

 

In science, for example, we can't throw away observations that don't fit the model... Hwang Woo Suk was discraced for doing that in biology.

[Graviphoton]

Actually, i think you might find the number is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It appears four times. One of those times must contain the number.

 

But either way, i'm not claiming anything like you said. I originally claimed intention. Then 666 only came into the pic because Dad was sure there must be some discrepency within translating the first seven words. There is actually no discrepency in translating the words, but only their meaning. For instance, the fourth word cannot be translated. It is given as ETH, and we don't know what this means.

 

And there is evidence. definitive evidence. I have shown the pattern and the simple deduction. Soon you will see a lot more.

[mooeypoo]

Mooey

My codes are greatly more simple. I am using the first seven words, and 28 hebrew letters. That fact Dr. Panin ( another doctor and agnostic) found over 30 different seven-phenomena codes in the first 7 words. The work i have shown excites the equations. Even his work was statisticated at 1 in quintillions that it be chance. Dr. Vernons work also excites values of 1 in quantillions.

 

Its not enough to say... ''i can find anything,'' because that statement isn't true. Try and find the same codes, with the same importance in any book containing the first seven words, and i bet you will fail to find the same quality.

 

I gave you a program that can find anything you want.

 

What more do you want as proof? Try it yourself... there's even an english and a russian version. Have fun with it.

[Graviphoton]

Now... i will send work in tommorrow, if i aint too busy that is.

[ecoli]

Actually, i think you might find the number is in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It appears four times. One of those times must contain the number.

This, of course, begs the question of where?

 

edit: actually, never mind, I think I found the places you were referring to.

 

But either way, i'm not claiming anything like you said. I originally claimed intention. Then 666 only came into the pic because Dad was sure there must be some discrepency within translating the first seven words. There is actually no discrepency in translating the words, but only their meaning. For instance, the fourth word cannot be translated. It is given as ETH, and we don't know what this means.

different words, different numbers, though.

 

And there is evidence. definitive evidence. I have shown the pattern and the simple deduction. Soon you will see a lot more.

I look forward to it.