Is the formation of the Biblewheel inspired by God?

[gilgal]

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.

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.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

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.

Hi Gilgal,

Where did you get that quote from LTDahn? Was it in a private message? I don't see any posts from him on the forum in which he said those things.

To LTDahn,

I would be delighted if you would like to engage me on these questions. Here are my initial answers:

Beginning with your Point #1:

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.

The wheel is predicated upon chapter and verse numbers> That is not correct. The Bible Wheel itself has nothing to do with chapter and verse numbers. It is based solely upon the traditional order of the 66-book canon. Have you read the introductory material? It's very brief - see What is the Bible Wheel?

Now it is true that I have conducted an intensive study of the chapter and verse structure and have found what I believe are clear signs of design. But that is not a topic for a beginner. We must begin at the beginning, which is the Bible Wheel itself.

which means it is anachronistic in nature> The content of the Biblical canon itself is "anachronistic" in the sense you define because there was a long debate about the inclusion of the books of 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Furthermore, the order of the books is also "anachronistic" and would not have been recognized by the writers and initial readers. But this has nothing to do with the validity of the Bible Wheel. The one question is this - does the Bible Wheel show signs of design by an intelligent agent? If so, then we recognize that God continued working on His revelation beyond the mere act of tossing us some inspired but unordered and uncanonized books and hoping mere humans would put the Bible together the way He wanted. There is no a priori reason to assert that He did not continue working "behind the scenes" to establish the form of the Canon.

If you're familiar with the notion of sensus plenior, you'll know what I'm getting at> Actually, the Bible Wheel is a prime example of a valid sensus plenior, which is defined as follows:

In Biblical exegesis, the phrase sensus plenior is used to describe the "deeper meaning intended by God" but not intended by the human author. Walter C. Kaiser notes that F. Andre Fernandez coined the term in 1927, but it was popularized by Raymond E. Brown.[1]

The phrase originates from the Latin, and means "fuller sense". Brown defines sensus plenior as
“ That additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.[2] ”

The implication is that more meaning can be found within Scripture than that which derives from understanding the circumstances in which the original was written.

Sensus plenior corresponds to Rabbinical interpretations of the Hebrew Scriptures — remez ("hint"), drash ("search"), and/or sod ("secret") — whereby 'deeper meaning' is drawn out or derived from the text.

Conservative Christians have used this term to mean the larger or whole teaching of scripture.

This is really what the Bible Wheel is all about. The natural history (the part for which humans were responsible) can not in any way explain the design of the Bible Wheel. It is, therefore, an example of a pattern or meaning intended by God and not the humans he used to produce it. I talk about this in my article on the Twenty-two Books of the Jewish Tanakh. The historical fact is that the Jews attempted to force fit their canon to fit the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet. Their effort failed, but it anticipated the Work of God that designed the Christian Canon on that pattern.

Virtually anything can be asserted anachronistically> Nothing like that is happening with the Bible Wheel. It is nothing but a two-dimensional view of the traditional 66-book canon.

Now on to your point #2:

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.

This comment is false. My work is fundamentally based on the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. I will take note occasionally of connections that are based on translations, but I almost always note them as such and they play no fundamental role in the Bible Wheel at all.

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.

I would be delighted to discuss this after you have read the basic introductory material. It is very brief. Until then, it is rather premature to be making such an emphatic assertion. Let us recall the wisdom we have been taught:

Proverbs 18:13 He who gives an answer before he hears, It is folly and shame to him.

Richard

[Rose]

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.

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.

Hi Gilgal,

I'm going to focus on the two of the questions you posted by LTDahn, I highlighted them in red: What does this biblewheel do for us? What does it accomplish?

The Bible Wheel exists as a structure that is contained in the order of the 66 book Protestant Bible. This order of the Bible has been in existence for many centuries, so it is in no way an invention of any one or group of persons. Just because the Bible exists, and the structure of the Bible Wheel can be derived from it, in no way assumes that it must do something for us, or accomplish a purpose (though its design shows the hand of God upon the Bible).

The Bible is an object in the world, just like any other object that exists in the world....that fact cannot be denied, it is our job to try and discern what God is showing us from this amazing design.


Rose

[LTDahn]

Hi Gilgal,

Where did you get that quote from LTDahn? Was it in a private message? I don't see any posts from him on the forum in which he said those things.

The OP was copied from an email correspondence I had with gilgal.

To LTDahn,

I would be delighted if you would like to engage me on these questions. Here are my initial answers:

Beginning with your Point #1:

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.

The wheel is predicated upon chapter and verse numbers> That is not correct. The Bible Wheel itself has nothing to do with chapter and verse numbers. It is based solely upon the traditional order of the 66-book canon. Have you read the introductory material? It's very brief - see What is the Bible Wheel?

From what I have seen, it's a numbers game noting a correspondence (seemingly arbitrary) of chapter numbers here with verse numbers there, and the like. If you deny that the wheel is predicated on chapter and verse numbers, you must admit that your analysis of the wheel's system and your arguments in favor of the wheel are indeed predicated on chapter and verse numbers. Otherwise, why bring them up at all? Why can you not make your point without alluding to chapter and verse numbers?

Now it is true that I have conducted an intensive study of the chapter and verse structure and have found what I believe are clear signs of design. But that is not a topic for a beginner. We must begin at the beginning, which is the Bible Wheel itself.

Beginner or no beginner, "signs of design" imply that chapter and verse numbers are inherently significant to the wheel - which is exactly why I noted that the wheel is predicated on chapter and verse numbers. You can deny it all you want. But so far, your denials demonstrate my point.

which means it is anachronistic in nature> The content of the Biblical canon itself is "anachronistic" in the sense you define because there was a long debate about the inclusion of the books of 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation. Furthermore, the order of the books is also "anachronistic" and would not have been recognized by the writers and initial readers. But this has nothing to do with the validity of the Bible Wheel. The one question is this - does the Bible Wheel show signs of design by an intelligent agent? If so, then we recognize that God continued working on His revelation beyond the mere act of tossing us some inspired but unordered and uncanonized books and hoping mere humans would put the Bible together the way He wanted. There is no a priori reason to assert that He did not continue working "behind the scenes" to establish the form of the Canon.

I agree that the concept of the canon is anachronistic to a point. However, the canon does not assume that a common, mathematical, meta-thread exists between say, Genesis and Jude, or any two other books in the canon. Matters of canonicity have more to do with the validity of a given book/letter, and not with how two or more (or all) of the books are intertwined via some number scheme or correspondence code. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

If you're familiar with the notion of sensus plenior, you'll know what I'm getting at> Actually, the Bible Wheel is a prime example of a valid sensus plenior, which is defined as follows:[INDENT]In Biblical exegesis, the phrase sensus plenior is used to describe the "deeper meaning intended by God" but not intended by the human author. Walter C. Kaiser notes that F. Andre Fernandez coined the term in 1927, but it was popularized by Raymond E. Brown.[1]

The phrase originates from the Latin, and means "fuller sense". Brown defines sensus plenior as
“ That additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book) when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.[2] ”

I am familiar with Ray Brown. But Protestants have repeatedly and consistently denied the concept of sensus plenior, due to the rogue possibilities. "Deeper meanings" are not inherently wrong, but neither are they falsifiable or verifiable - which is exactly what the bible wheel has going against it. Falsifiability.

I will take this up further in the very near future. At present, I have a pressing responsibility to attend to.

Rose, I have not ignored your comments, either.

Until then,

LTD

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Beginner or no beginner, "signs of design" imply that chapter and verse numbers are inherently significant to the wheel - which is exactly why I noted that the wheel is predicated on chapter and verse numbers. You can deny it all you want. But so far, your denials demonstrate my point.

Good morning LTDahn,

It is good to be discussing this with you, but your comment has has a couple flaws:

1) Your assertion that "chapter and verse numbers are inherently significant to the wheel" is false. I wrote a 412 page, 250,000 word book explaining the Bible Wheel and never once mentioned anything about "signs of design" in the chapter and verse structure. Everything I wrote in the Bible Wheel book, which is a complete introduction to the topic, would remain true if all the chapter and verse numbers were removed from the Bible.

2) Your assertion that "your denials demonstrate my point" is a ludicrous empty assertion. I demonstrated your error, not your point.

I find it curious in the extreme that you are persisting in your attempt to refute the Wheel before understanding it's most basic elements.

I agree that the concept of the canon is anachronistic to a point. However, the canon does not assume that a common, mathematical, meta-thread exists between say, Genesis and Jude, or any two other books in the canon. Matters of canonicity have more to do with the validity of a given book/letter, and not with how two or more (or all) of the books are intertwined via some number scheme or correspondence code. You are comparing apples to oranges here.

The shameful errors caused by answering before hearing are showing once again my friend. If you had simply read the brief introduction What is the Bible Wheel? you would not have made such embarrassing blunders. There is no assumption of a "a common, mathematical, meta-thread" in the foundation of the Bible Wheel. It is nothing but a two-dimension view of the traditional 66-book canon. There are absolutely no assumptions about anything. It simply is what it is - a way to view the Bible. If it displays demonstrable signs of design, so be it. If it does not, so be it.

I am familiar with Ray Brown. But Protestants have repeatedly and consistently denied the concept of sensus plenior, due to the rogue possibilities. "Deeper meanings" are not inherently wrong, but neither are they falsifiable or verifiable - which is exactly what the bible wheel has going against it. Falsifiability.

Again, you are speaking from ignorance. The Bible Wheel is eminently falsifiable. I have presented the method on a page called The Bible Wheel Challenge. Here is the basic idea:

THE BIBLE WHEEL CHALLENGE asserts that the Christian canon is truly perfect in the twofold sense that 1) no rearrangement of its books would improve upon the patterns discovered on the Bible Wheel, and 2) any rearrangement would cause an obvious degradation of existing patterns. The challenge is for the opponent to suggest a rearrangement and present arguments for why such a change would produce patterns equal to or superior to those presently seen in the Bible Wheel. This challenge simultaneously proves the invincibility of the Bible Wheel even as it demonstrates the vacuity of the skeptics canard that "patterns mean nothing because they can be found in anything." It is an extremely powerful challenge because it can not be refuted without interacting with the data, and the data are the touchstone that proves the Bible Wheel.

I have had this challenge on the internet for many years. Not one opponent has yet attempted it. Perhaps you will be the first.

All the very best,

Richard

[Victor]

Hi there gilgal,

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

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question.

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

This is a fascinating topic. The final order was the product of a long historical development, passing through many hands until the final dominant form was achieved. No group of men can claim to have put this sequence together.

Of course some books have a reason for being ordered in some way. For example, the first few books follow a chronological arrangement. OT comes before the NT. And so it goes.

Why the chapters are inspired as well?

I don't understand the question.

Who were responsible to put the bible together?

As I said above, it was a long process that took centuries and involved both Jews and Christians. Of course it was not because someone wanted to come up with the alphabetic structure of the Bible.

Were there any preconceived pattern of the biblewheel?

There certainly was not any human preconceived pattern of the Bible Wheel. That's exactly how God works into history.

I know I have seen paintings of the prophets and gospels in a wheel shape maybe RAM can clarify that.

Again I don't understand. You seem to speak of something other than the tri-radiant halo that surrounds icons of the Lord.

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.

People don't bother to understand, not only the Bible but most things in life. I found over and over again that even people who say they love the Bible are often oblivious to large portions of Scriptures and to the unity of the message of God's Book. Many admire the Bible for "proof texts" that seemingly happen to support their worldview or because it 'inspires' them.

Most of those who are put in contact with the Bible Wheel just reject it quickly long before they become acquainted with it.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Most of those who are put in contact with the Bible Wheel just reject it quickly long before they become acquainted with it.

That is correct Victor. Folks who reject the Bible Wheel have no idea what they are rejecting. It looks like nothing but a knee-jerk reaction against new information. I have been presenting this information on the internet for almost a decade, and not one opponent has ever found a systematic error or fundamental flaw in my presentation of the Bible Wheel. And every person who has ever come against it has simply quit the conversation when the errors of their arguments were exposed. But that's ok - God has taught me patience. Truth is only for those who love it. No one else could ever find it.

[Victor]

Hey there, Lee! The following was your comment:

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.

The parts highlighted red are HUGE MAJOR errors concerning the Bible Wheel. They immediately reveal that you are not familiar with nor have studied it. For example, in the 250,000 words of the Bible Wheel book there is no mention of "design" in the 'chapter and verse structure' of the Scriptures.

It seems that you just took an overall glance, got a bad impression, experienced some cognitive dissonance and started to offer comments on why you don't like what you have seen.

Therefore you are refuting something you don't know. I have witnessed this over and over again in my life. I beg that you take some time to meditate before going on. Some people just prefer to insist on opposing something they are mostly ignorant of because otherwise they would have to admit they are opposing something they barely know about.

Or you can take another way - the Christian approach. You can read the intro to the Bible Wheel or, better yet, you can read the book. Then you'll be able to take your time to assess if this Bible study model is valid or not. If it is wrong, you'll be able to expose the error correctly. If it is valid, it will open yet another vista to the infinite wisdom contained in the Holy Book.

So please pray about it. Do investigate. You can begin with the Introduction and follow from there.

In the Spirit of Christ,
Victor

He who answers before listening - that is his folly and his shame. - Proverbs 18:13

Therefore, since I myself have (1) carefully investigated (2) everything (3) from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus. - Luke 1:3

.
.
.

[gilgal]

RAM wasn't there any paintings of the prophets and gospels and apostles shown as a wheel? I thought I had seen something like that on your website.

LTDahn if you don't accept the book/chapter/verse patterns then take one step back and see if the numbers WITHIN the text are inspired. What does 666 mean? What does #2 mean...

Job had a good example:

Job 1
13And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
#1
14And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:

15And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
#2
16While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
#3
17While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels (the 3rd letter is Gimel - Camel), and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
#4
18While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:

19And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness(the 4th book - Numbers is wilderness experience), and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

[Victor]

Job 1
13And there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:
#1
14And there came a messenger unto Job, and said, The oxen were plowing, and the asses feeding beside them:

15And the Sabeans fell upon them, and took them away; yea, they have slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
#2
16While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The fire of God is fallen from heaven, and hath burned up the sheep, and the servants, and consumed them; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
#3
17While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, The Chaldeans made out three bands, and fell upon the camels (the 3rd letter is Gimel - Camel), and have carried them away, yea, and slain the servants with the edge of the sword; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.
#4
18While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house:

19And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness(the 4th book - Numbers is wilderness experience), and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee.

I think we have discussed this before! Do you remember which thread?

By the way, the correlation above is not the Bible Wheel study, though they resonate each other.

Four woes in Job following a typical structure: they are grouped 3 (animals and servants killed) + 1 (children killed). It's like the four Gospels (3 Synoptics + 1 Autoptic). These four woes are then followed by a fifth one against Job himself (thus 4+1, like Gospels + Acts). These are very common structures in the Bible. (E.g. Daniel 7: three beasts similar to known animals + 1 diverse beast. Four Kingdoms + 1 Kingdom of God.)

The first woe mentions oxen which reminds of the symbolic meaning of the first Hebrew letter Aleph. The third woe mentions camels which reminds of the third Hebrew letter Guimel.

The third woe mentions the Number 3 itself just like the fourth woe mentions the Number 4. And there's more... :-)