I want to know historically, what gives or takes away the inspiration to the biblewheel?

Why the order of the books was chosen as it is now?

Why the chapters are inspired as well?

Who were responsible to put the bible together?

Were there any preconceived pattern of the biblewheel? I know I have seen paintings of the prophets and gospels in a wheel shape maybe RAM can clarify that.

LTDahn, don't be offended, because I want the answers for myself as well. I've tried presenting this to my friends and surroundings and up to now there's no fruit.
Quote Originally Posted by LTDahn

The real problems with this follow:

1. The wheel is predicated upon chapter and verse numbers, which means it is anachronistic in nature and could never have been recognized by the writers and initial readers. If you're familiar with the notion of sensus plenior, you'll know what I'm getting at. Virtually anything can be asserted anachronistically, reading a modern/contemporary framework onto an ancient text (or canon of texts). But those assertions are not beneficial to what a given text is communicating.

2. The wheel is predicated upon an English translation of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, as though there are one-for-one equivalents between them. And the fact is that there is not. Pick up any source on Koine Greek lexicography and translation, and you'll find that it is very difficult to assign English referents to Greek terms in a one-for-one fashion - let alone assign Koine Greek referents to Ancient Hebrew/Aramaic terms as though mathematical parallels can be drawn, or are warranted.

3. What are you asking to be "explained"? That there are coincidental numerical parallels? There are literally dozens of number schemes for the bible. There is not one end-all, be-all scheme which explains ANYTHING. What does this biblewheel do for us? What does it accomplish? How does it help you understand Romans, for example? And, more importantly, what does it contribute to our understanding of Paul's literary, cultural, rhetorical, regional contexts, and his initial readers' understanding of his texts? I emphatically submit that it contributes nothing whatsoever.

4. If this biblewheel is an essential part of biblical interpretation, then the individual writers' (e.g., Paul, Peter, Luke) intentions and scopes are greatly diminished. In fact, the biblewheel inherently assumes that they are insignificant players in a big picture scheme that offers nothing by way of interpretation of their respective texts.

I guarantee you that no NT scholar has, nor will, adopt this biblewheel as legitimate.