PDA

View Full Version : From the Mailbag - Is the Bible Wheel based on Faulty Assumptions?



Richard Amiel McGough
01-05-2008, 10:40 AM
I received this message this morning, and thought it would be edifying to post my answer here.


Very interesting website and theory, but I have a couple questions regarding the ordering and the number of the current english bible.

First, the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles were not divided until the Septuagint and Samuel and Kings were originally one book. This would reduce the numbering to 62 books.

Yes, that is common knowledge, but it is irrelevent to the Bible Wheel because the Bible Wheel is defined by the 66 book "Protestant" Bible as we have received it from history. The Bible Wheel is just a representation of, or "way of looking at" that 66 book canon. Any patterns found in the Bible Wheel were already implicit in the Bible. I am not free to go around changing the ordering and numbering of its books to fit patterns that may or may not have existed in the past, because that would violate the very definition of the Bible Wheel.


Second, the OT ordering is not maintained in church history (as you have noted) to which Christ testifies in Luke 24:44 (the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings or Psalms, the first book of the Writings). In Matt 23:35, & Luke 11:35 Jesus speaks of the blood from Abel (Genesis) to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah (2 Chronicles) will be on their heads indicating the entire OT scriptures as they were intended to be ordered from first to last.

Again, it is common knowledge that two different orderings have been received from history. And it is true that the Jewish pattern appears to have been acknowedged by Christ in Scripture. But that does not prove which pattern is "correct." The overwhelming structural supperiorty of the Christian pattern can not be denied. It exhibits a perfect symmetry that runs three-level deep (discussed on my site here (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/ChristianOT_vs_Tanakh.asp)).

http://www.biblewheel.com/Canon/OT_Tanakh_compare_560.gif

This must be compared with the pattern of the Tanakh which shows no symmetry at all, and is manifestly disordered in a most ironic way in that the book of Ezra/Nehemiah anachronistically precedes the book of Chronicles!


Third, it can be argued from the function of the books that Daniel is not a prophetic book but apocalyptic, Ruth is not intended to follow Judges but Proverbs, and Chronicles is different from the other historical books in its function for the post-exilic community. Particularly Ruth, when discussing the Asheth Kail (Hebrew - woman of mighty valor) is the only place found in Hebrew scriptures in Ruth which follows the description in Proverbs 31 of the Godly woman. It was never intended to be a historical book in the canon.

Yes, anything can be "argued" but those arguments are not conclusive. Obviously, early Christians received Daniel as prophecy and Ruth as history, so you are just arguing with folks long dead about the validity of their understanding. It does not impact the question of the Wheel. On the contrary, the Wheel impacts those otherwise inconclusive arguments by showing that the patterns handed down from the early Church exhibit a design that can only be attributed to God since 1) it is perfect in ten thousand ways, and 2) it could not have been deliberately designed by creatures subject to human limitations because the Designer had to be able to control the entire process of its development which spanned more than 1500 years.

It is also quite significant that the Jews themselves sometimes counted Ruth with Judges in their effort to force-fit the Tanakh into a 22 book pattern (which ultimately failed as we see in the moder 24 book Tanakh). I discuss their failed efforts to manipulate the structure of their canon here (http://www.biblewheel.com/canon/22Books.asp).

And beyond all this, there are variations in the Jewish order all the way up into the middle ages, so the argument that they had a "fixed order" is fallacious, and so the whole argument against the modern structure of the Bible falls like so many dominoes.


Fourth, the reordering of the scriptures does not follow any Biblical intention. There is no scripture that shows the current arrangement to be mandated nor prescribed. Due to Jerome's unfortunate rearrangement, we follow the ordering of Josephus who never intended his listing of the books of the OT to redetermine their order.

First, we do not know that there was a "reordering." On the contrary, it appears that the two different orders are both ancient and Jewish, and that there may not have been an "original" order at all, just competing Jewish traditions that were later locked down in their modern orders.

Second, even if there were a reordering, you can not say that it was not in obedience to the will of God. There is no reason to accept the ordering of the unbelieving Jews (who were Pharisees no less!) over that of the early followers of Christ.

Third, we know that the Christian arrangement existed before Jerome was born, so the assertion that it was was "rearranged" by him is entirely false. I conclusively refute this idea which was popularized by Ernest L. Martin in my review of his erroneous book "Restoring the Original Bible. (http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/ELM_Restoring.asp)"

Fourth, there is absolutely no evidence that Josephus - a first century Jew - reordered the books of the Tanakh when he reviewed their content. On the contrary, he expressed extreme revererence for those books when he said that no one dared change a single word of them. Such an attitude would naturally extend to the order of the books as well if the order were held to be as important at that time as you suggest.


Finally, any amount of pressure applied to any set of data will produce a mathematical ordering (see the Mathematical Chaos Theory or Set theory). "If you torture the data, it will talk" is the proverbial phrase used in this case. Instead of allowing the original ordering of scripture intended by the function of the books within the canon, we follow a modern english, western thinking of genre, chronology, and author.

I am thrilled to report that no such error has been or could be used as a criticism of the Bible Wheel because the Bible Wheel simply "falls out" fully formed when we do NOTHING but "roll up the Bible like a scroll." That's it. That's all there is to it. The entire structure has been implicit in the Bible since the day the 66 book pattern was established.

The contrast with your suggestion is extreme. There has NEVER BEEN a Christian Bible that follows the order you suggest. No church at any time in the history of the world has thought to produce a Bible exactly like the one Martin suggested. Furthermore, Martin's arguemnts are entirely forced and fallacious, as I showed in my review. For example, Martin attempted to force-fit the OT into his 22 book pattern by asserting that Joshua and Judges were "originally counted as a single book" without giving one shred of evidence. Such errors a found throughout his book, as we saw earlier in regards to his false assertion that the Christian order was "Jerome's rearrangement." I have rarely seen shoddier scholarship.


Plus, when you consider Esther a post-exilic book, why isn't parts of Psalms considered post-exilic as well?

Because the Psalms were not part of the particular pattern I was discussing, which concerned the relation between the 12 OT History books and the 12 Minor Prophets with which they aligned on the Wheel. If you read carefullly what I wrote, you will see that I was very specific. The 12 Minor prophets subdivide into 9 pre- and 3 post- exilic books, in precisely the same way as the 12 OT history books from Joshua to Esther. My assertion has nothing to do with those books in other parts of the canon. And I did not invent nor even discover this correlation. It was noted by various authors before I was born, and noticed by me only some years after discovering the Bible Wheel.


Appreciate your efforts to organize scripture but I wonder if it is based on some faulty assumptions about the current ordering and numbering. Do you address these issues at all?

I appreciate your email, because there are so many errors floating around out there that many folks are unable to perceive the glory of what God has done in His Holy Word and your questions gave me another opportunity to set the record straight.

As for "faulty assumptions about the current ordering and numbering" - I hope you now see that I made NO ASSUMPTIONS WHATSOVER. The Bible Wheel is simply a representation of an object that exists in our common universe - the 66 book "Protestant" Bible. Whether the "ordering and numbering" of that object is "correct" according to some pre-set standard has absolutely nothing to do with whatever patterns we find in it. But when we then find that those patterns demand a transcendent intelligence to explain their existence, we have proof that the "ordering and numbering" also must have been designed by that same intelligence.

God bless!

Richard

PS: The author of the email is encouraged to write with any follow-ups. And folks on this forum are encouraged to reply too.

Trumpet
01-05-2008, 11:44 PM
Hi all,

For anyone that is new to the reading of the Bible Wheel Book, I can tell you that the information in the Bible Wheel Book does no less than show the magnificance of the mind of God, yet shows that in all of God's infinite wisdom, He is a God of order, and a God that set out before time began a mathematical pattern to every single word that He has spoken through His Word, and every book, chapter, and verse also. The depths of this find makes the mind of man look like a speck in the universe. After reading it, you can easily see how the author, Richard, has simply put in print the marvelous pattern that God has stamped on His Holy Word, a pattern that no human could ever imagine or contrive. When comments come refuting the integrity of God's order in the modern layout of the 66 Book Bible, the Bible Wheel shows with great clarity the foolishness of the attacks against this order.

Once you read the Bible Wheel Book, you can easily see the patterns of simplicity along side that of complexity, to an extent that you can almost see the Glory and the Light of God shining through the clear jeweled canon wheel emblem. This book is truly a find on the order of the Pearl of Great Price, because it shows a system of how things in God's Word verify each other in countless ways, and verifies the stamp of God on all 66 Books. It peaks your understanding, and makes you hear God saying, "This Book is mine, for no one could do this except Me!" It aids you in realizing and trusting that all of History is really - His Story!

God bless! Don

fredgeorge
01-08-2008, 04:08 PM
First let me say, I am not attacking the complexity of God's Revelation either natural or special. I am attacking the god-in-a-box method of how we sometimes fit things to our 'own' way of thinking and yet miss the overbearing evidence for the higher message of salvation.

Interesting response but quite simply naive. I am not trying to be berating in this comment but point out how you miss your own statements and assumptions. Can you see what you're saying clearly? Can you see how you might be missing the point? Step back and see what you are saying and evaluate it. We all make assumptions even as Christian. Everything can be interpreted depending on our worldview assumptions. Also, I've never read Ernest Martin so you're references to him were pretty meaningless to me, sorry.

I quote:

Yes, that is common knowledge, but it is irrelevent to the Bible Wheel because the Bible Wheel is defined by the 66 book "Protestant" Bible as we have received it from history. The Bible Wheel is just a representation of, or "way of looking at" that 66 book canon. Any patterns found in the Bible Wheel were already implicit in the Bible. I am not free to go around changing the ordering and numbering of its books to fit patterns that may or may not have existed in the past, because that would violate the very definition of the Bible Wheel.
...and further I quote:

As for "faulty assumptions about the current ordering and numbering" - I hope you now see that I made NO ASSUMPTIONS WHATSOVER.
Sorry, but let me list some very basic assumptions you made throughout your website and arguments. I think several of these do not allow you to properly see your own arguments and thinking. (I agree with some of these but I understand I make the assumption when I say what I believe.)
Assumptions:
1. The Bible has a pattern (that is divinely inspired)

2. The pattern shows divine authorship by its complexity (how can we as humans discover a divine complexity?)

3. By virtue of #1 and #2, God put the Bible Wheel there we just had to 'see' it.

4. There has to be a 22 book pattern (which just 'falls out' - how does something 'fall out' unless we put a 'filter' through which we organize it).

5. The Bible Wheel is perfect in 10,000 ways (so if there is one imperfect way does that discredit the rest?)

6. That the sheer complexity (or perfect symmetry - btw, what makes it perfect?) of the Bible Wheel and our historical canon outweigh the comments by Jesus...and I quote:

Again, it is common knowledge that two different orderings have been received from history. And it is true that the Jewish pattern appears to have been acknowedged by Christ in Scripture. But that does not prove which pattern is "correct." The overwhelming structural supperiorty of the Christian pattern can not be denied. It exhibits a perfect symmetry that runs three-level deep.
(So, if Jesus divides the canon in three with His own WORD but because it doesn't fit...it must be an incorrect assumption on my part? I assume you think so.)

7. The Hebrew ordering of the OT is disordered and I quote:

This must be compared with the pattern of the Tanakh which shows no symmetry at all, and is manifestly disordered in a most ironic way in that the book of Ezra/Nehemiah anachronistically precedes the book of Chronicles!
MAYBE...maybe, there is a different ordering that is guiding Chronicles to be the last book!!! How about the fact that this is the book where the genealogies are looking for a king and a priest and THEN Matthew begins with a geneaology. Hmmm, the only NT book to begin with a geneaology? Also, Chronicles ends with Cyrus saying, "'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you?may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.'" Who went up? Christ went up. Christ was THE temple, the new temple built for us in the heavenly Jerusalem in the line of Judah. The end of Malachi refers to Elijah. Elijah was on the Mt. of transfiguration representing the Prophets and shows the conclusion of the Prophets section of scripture. Both certainly point to the coming of Christ as ends of their respective sections.
Also, the anachronistic features of scripture are clearly seen in other areas of scripture (take 1 Samuel 16,17 - definitely not chronological). This is because Chronological ordering is something WESTERN not inherent in the EASTERN semitic languages. They didn't consider the ordering according to time to be more important than theological grouping!!! Take another example, 1 & 2 Chronicles retell much of what 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings, why do we have a book that is only slightly different historically from the other books? Why is there a genealogy beginning from Adam in Chronicles only after the exile? Perhaps there is something they are looking for after the exile and Chronicles points us forward?


Finally, I find your arguments to be missing the whole of Biblical Theology. I quote:

I appreciate your email, because there are so many errors floating around out there that many folks are unable to perceive the glory of what God has done in His Holy Word and your questions gave me another opportunity to set the record straight.
The glory of what God has done is in Christ not in the Bible Wheel. Any organization we do is simply 'fun' and more importantly, a distraction if it takes away from the message of scripture. Luke 24:44 again shows that Christ is the subject of the entire OT and NT. The Bible Wheel does not give the theological importance that Christ gave to how to 'order' scripture. It is theological - not chronological or genre!!! This is perhaps the biggest assumption that I would press that you make - you set the Bible Wheel as divinely inspired and its proof is in the complexity and perfection, when it misses the true undergirding of the canon and how the scriptures were put together. Try to grasp what I am saying. DOES ORDER HAVE TO PREVAIL GOD'S THEOLOGICAL MESSAGE? The books show a much greater complexity than simply one of mathematical or word counting. This complexity is through seeing Christ in each book of the OT and their theological purpose in the overall canon both OT and NT. Think theological message not numbering.

As for the last poster, Trumpet, I have several questions for you:
1. Did God order the English Bible? If so, do you think "Pearl of Great Price" is inspired? (maybe I'm misinterpreting you by thinking you are Mormon).
2. If God was a God of order, why does each book have different numbers of chapters and verses?
3. Now, from how you answered #3, consider how much involvement man's efforts can into the numbering of each verse. Do you believe that there is a greater complexity in the verse numbering and we simply have to find it, OR is this simply our way of dividing up things to help us navigate and cross-reference, etc?
4. Could there be a complexity within the MESSAGE of each book rather than the numbers that is more important and driving than the Bible Wheel? Which do you think God is more concerned about?


Closing thoughts, ever study the Biblical Theology of Ruth, Daniel and Esther? Notice that in Hebrew they are related to Psalms, Job and Proverbs? And if Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings are simply history, what's the point of the history? To show God? To show man's failure? If they are in the prophetic section as in the Jewish ordering, you have the first four prophets (while the Jews are living in the promised land) and the second four prophets of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the book of the 12 (when they are being exiled), so the first four predict the exile (see Josh 24:19-26, Judges 2:1-3 in light of Deuteronomy 28 and then see how it shapes the story of the life of Elijah and Elisha).
________
Dc marijuana dispensary (http://dc.dispensaries.org/)

kathryn
01-08-2008, 05:06 PM
Hi Fred...Just one quick comment. In the book of Romans, it says that God's invisible qualities...his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. In other words, His creation is a valid witness to His Word. All of creation can be interpreted mathematically and if you study biblical numerology, including gematria, you will find that His creation witnesses perfectly to His word and His word to His creation. So, how do you define theology?

fredgeorge
01-08-2008, 06:21 PM
Theology:
Luke 24:44, Acts 1:1-3, Acts 28:23-31 and Romans 1:1-5, 17

Not all creation can be fully interpreted mathematically. I was a math teacher for two years, so I am not downplaying the mathematical side to the Bible - intricacies abound. But theology is quite simply greater. The gospel is not mathematical, ie. the equation doesn't go the way it should. Let us put the right horse in front of the right buggy. Christ and the kingdom of God theologically drives scripture, its interpretation, its ordering, everything. Quite right, math glorifies God as does all creation but there is more to creation than just math and symmetry.

I like math; I think the logical foundation for math shows a slice into the mind of God when He created the universe. But math nor logic does not define God; God defines math and logic. Inductively, the Bible Wheel looks impressive but deductively, it fails in theological emphasis and driving force to interpret scripture.
________
Ship sale (http://ship-sale.com/)

Richard Amiel McGough
01-08-2008, 06:43 PM
Hi fredgeorge,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

I'm glad you accepted my offer to discuss these things.


I quote:

Yes, that is common knowledge, but it is irrelevent to the Bible Wheel because the Bible Wheel is defined by the 66 book "Protestant" Bible as we have received it from history. The Bible Wheel is just a representation of, or "way of looking at" that 66 book canon. Any patterns found in the Bible Wheel were already implicit in the Bible. I am not free to go around changing the ordering and numbering of its books to fit patterns that may or may not have existed in the past, because that would violate the very definition of the Bible Wheel.
...and further I quote:

As for "faulty assumptions about the current ordering and numbering" - I hope you now see that I made NO ASSUMPTIONS WHATSOVER.
Sorry, but let me list some very basic assumptions you made throughout your website and arguments. I think several of these do not allow you to properly see your own arguments and thinking. (I agree with some of these but I understand I make the assumption when I say what I believe.)
Assumptions:
1. The Bible has a pattern (that is divinely inspired)

That is incorrect. I made no assumption about the Bible having any "pattern" and neither did I make any assumption about divine inspiration.

The existence of the pattern is an observational fact on the order of "Hey, look at that tree." It involves no assumption whatsoever.


2. The pattern shows divine authorship by its complexity (how can we as humans discover a divine complexity?)

I have presented many arguments that prove the Bible Wheel was designed by God, but I never argued that mere complexity proves it. Let us begin with the most basic arguemnt which is derived from the sevenfold symmetry of the Canon Wheel (http://www.biblewheel.com/Canon/SevenfoldCanon.asp). I begin by proving from simple combinatorics that the a priori probability of any such symmetry happening by chance is 1 in 688,324 (see What are the Chances? (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp)). I then argue that such low probabilities demand an explanation, and that the only reasonable explanation is - by definition - that some intelligent agent designed the pattern of the Canon Wheel. I then look for who could be that agent, and quickly eliminate all humans or groups of humans for the simple reason that the latter part of the patter based on the NT was not known when the content of previous part of the pattern was established, namely, the Hebrew Tanakh. Thus, the agent that designed the pattern had to exist over the span of cernturies and had to have the power to cause humans to put together the Bible to form the pattern without there knowledge. A little reflection quickly reveals that only God could have such powers. This conclusion is then self-reflectively confirmed in that the Bible claims within its text to be the very Word of God.


3. By virtue of #1 and #2, God put the Bible Wheel there we just had to 'see' it.

I don't know what you mean by that.


4. There has to be a 22 book pattern (which just 'falls out' - how does something 'fall out' unless we put a 'filter' through which we organize it).

Nope. I never "assumed" there "had to be" any pattern at all. The mere circular arragnement of the books proves nothing by itself. Any set with an even number of books could be "rolled up" like the Bible Wheel. That proves NOTHING. The "patterns" that I was talking about involved things like the sevenfold symmtric perfection (http://www.biblewheel.com/Canon/SevenfoldCanon.asp) of the Canon Wheel (which I discovered in a single morning four years after discovering the Bible Wheel :doh:) and the mutual thematic integration of the books aligned on each Spoke with each other and the corresponding Hebrew letter and most significantly, with the Alphabetic Verses in which God prophetically anticipated the structure of the entire 66 Book Bible a thousand years before Christ was born. I introduce this idea in the article called Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/AlphabeticKeys.asp).


5. The Bible Wheel is perfect in 10,000 ways (so if there is one imperfect way does that discredit the rest?)

Of course not ... don't you understand hyperbole when you hear it? I was trying to communicate my emotional intellectual spiritual ecstacy evoked by the revelation do the divine perfection of God's Word.


6. That the sheer complexity (or perfect symmetry - btw, what makes it perfect?) of the Bible Wheel and our historical canon outweigh the comments by Jesus...and I quote:

Again, it is common knowledge that two different orderings have been received from history. And it is true that the Jewish pattern appears to have been acknowedged by Christ in Scripture. But that does not prove which pattern is "correct." The overwhelming structural supperiorty of the Christian pattern can not be denied. It exhibits a perfect symmetry that runs three-level deep.
(So, if Jesus divides the canon in three with His own WORD but because it doesn't fit...it must be an incorrect assumption on my part? I assume you think so.)
Jesus never stated that the Christian Canon should use the tripartite pattern of the Tanakh. He merely made a statement that confirms that pattern existed then. But He also said that the Law and the Prophets prophesied unto John the Baptist in Malachi, the last book of the Christian pattern. This confirms that there were two patterns.

If you want to argue that God thinks the tripartite pattern of the Tanakh is correct, you need to answer why He never used it in any Bible ever produced. Your argument basically says that the order of all Christian Bibles ever seen in the history of the world was wrong, wrong, wrong. So if that's the case, why should we believe the content is correct? Your argument seems to dismiss God as the Author of His Own Word.


7. The Hebrew ordering of the OT is disordered and I quote:

This must be compared with the pattern of the Tanakh which shows no symmetry at all, and is manifestly disordered in a most ironic way in that the book of Ezra/Nehemiah anachronistically precedes the book of Chronicles!
MAYBE...maybe, there is a different ordering that is guiding Chronicles to be the last book!!! How about the fact that this is the book where the genealogies are looking for a king and a priest and THEN Matthew begins with a geneaology. Hmmm, the only NT book to begin with a geneaology?

There are many problems with that suggestion. First, a mere "geneology" is nothing compared with the thematic flow from Malachi to Matthew with the prophecy of the appearance of both John the Baptist and Christ Himself immediately before they both appear in the next book. Second, the book of Chronicles ends around 500 BC and there is much that happens after that in the OT history. It was not the end of the OT history. Third, Chronicles is out place in the canon because is stuck in a miscellaneous mix of prophecy, poetry, and wisdom books. I see nothing to commend the placement of Chronicles at the end of the Tanakh. And for that matter, all the books in the Kethuviim are obvioulsy out of place. The perfect symmetry of the Christian OT Canon 5-9-3 : 5 : 5-9-3 is the final proof of its incomparable superiority over the disordered Tanakh.


Also, Chronicles ends with Cyrus saying, "'The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you—may the LORD his God be with him, and let him go up.'" Who went up? Christ went up. Christ was THE temple, the new temple built for us in the heavenly Jerusalem in the line of Judah. The end of Malachi refers to Elijah. Elijah was on the Mt. of transfiguration representing the Prophets and shows the conclusion of the Prophets section of scripture. Both certainly point to the coming of Christ as ends of their respective sections.

You are forgetting that the Tanakh did not even have an "intrinsic order" to it anyway because it was a collection of scrolls. The ORDER of the books was apparently quite fluid until the invention of the codex, and the Jews resisted its use long after its invention. There are variation in the Jewish order right up into the MIDDLE AGES some with Chronicles FIRST rather than last in the Kethuviim. So your arguemnts don't seem to have any real foundation upon which to stand. But the Bible Wheel is founded on the everlasting ROCK of incontrovertible fact. It doesn't matter what anyone "believes" - the brute fact is that we have received a Bible from History that is the foundation of the Bible Wheel. It requires no arguments. It just is.

Compare the invincible reality of the Bible Wheel with the canon you propose. There is NO EVIDENCE for the exact pattern of the modern Jewish Tanakh prior to the middle ages. (By exact pattern, I mean the exact sequence of each and every book from Genesis to Chronicles). So your argument has no foundation. There is NO WAY to know if the pattern you suggest was the "original" or the "correct" pattern. And besides, we have plain proof that it was not, because God never used it in the final forumulation of HIS WORD.


Also, the anachronistic features of scripture are clearly seen in other areas of scripture (take 1 Samuel 16,17 - definitely not chronological). This is because Chronological ordering is something WESTERN not inherent in the EASTERN semitic languages. They didn't consider the ordering according to time to be more important than theological grouping!!!

Both patterns (Christian and Tanakh) come from the "eastern" frame of mind. And your argument is backwards anyway. Pretty much all scholars attribute the development of the LINEAR pattern of history (as opposed to the cycles of the GREEKS) to the SEMITES, specifially the Jews who gave us the OT.

In other words, the Jews invented the idea of linear history.


Take another example, 1 & 2 Chronicles retell much of what 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings, why do we have a book that is only slightly different historically from the other books? Why is there a genealogy beginning from Adam in Chronicles only after the exile? Perhaps there is something they are looking for after the exile and Chronicles points us forward?

Actually, the huge geneologies of 1 Chronicles (13th Book) were designed by God to display the symbolic meaning of Mem, the 13th letter and symbol of the preposition "from" in the sense of "where we come from." The Letter Mem is the essesnce of the idea of geneologies. I explain this in the review of Spoke 13 in the Bible Wheel book, and here online in my article called "From the Waters of Judah (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Mem_1Chronicles.asp)" (Mem also signfies water. This is an example of one of the ten thousand wonders revealed in the Bible Wheel.)


Finally, I find your arguments to be missing the whole of Biblical Theology. I quote:

I appreciate your email, because there are so many errors floating around out there that many folks are unable to perceive the glory of what God has done in His Holy Word and your questions gave me another opportunity to set the record straight.
The glory of what God has done is in Christ not in the Bible Wheel.

I am always astouned when people attack the praise of God's Written Word as if it were taking glory away from Christ, God's Living Word. All Christians agree that there is not glory compared to the glory of God revealed in Christ. But that has not stopped ten thousand saints from praising God for the Glory of His Word! Have you never read Psalm 119? It is 176 verses praising the glory of God's Word! All I said was the the Bible Wheel reveals more of that glory. Why would you have a problem with that?


Any organization we do is simply 'fun' and more importantly, a distraction if it takes away from the message of scripture.

Takes away from the message of Scripture? You simple do not know what you are talking about. Your argument is like "no one should study Greek! It distracts from the Gospel!" The Bible Wheel reveals that God designed the Bible on the message of the Gospel. You can read about that in my articles called "Gogotha - the Axis of the Wheel (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Axis.asp)" and "The Wheel of Revelation (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/WheelofRevelation.asp)."

God designed His Word on HIS OWN NAME translated from the Greek Alpha Omega into the Hebrew Aleph Tav. The glory revealed in the Bible is the glory of God, and the Bible Wheel is nothing but the Bible.


Luke 24:44 again shows that Christ is the subject of the entire OT and NT. The Bible Wheel does not give the theological importance that Christ gave to how to 'order' scripture. It is theological - not chronological or genre!!!

Again, you are arguing against something you know next to nothing about. That is not wise. Indeed, the Bible warns against what you are doing. You need to get informed, and ask questions before making accusations, or the accusations you make may prove to be false, and you will be found to be sinning.


This is perhaps the biggest assumption that I would press that you make - you set the Bible Wheel as divinely inspired and its proof is in the complexity and perfection, when it misses the true undergirding of the canon and how the scriptures were put together. Try to grasp what I am saying. DOES ORDER HAVE TO PREVAIL GOD'S THEOLOGICAL MESSAGE? The books show a much greater complexity than simply one of mathematical or word counting. This complexity is through seeing Christ in each book of the OT and their theological purpose in the overall canon both OT and NT. Think theological message not numbering.

If your statement is true, then GOD HIMSELF chose to ignore "God's Theological Message!" :lol: There has never been a Christian Bible produced that follows whatever pattern it is that you are advocating!

God rejected you pattern to such a degree that He wiped out any evidecne of the exact Jewish pattern that might have existed prior to the middle ages. I don't think you have thought through your argument very clearly.



As for the last poster, Trumpet, I have several questions for you:
1. Did God order the English Bible? If so, do you think "Pearl of Great Price" is inspired? (maybe I'm misinterpreting you by thinking you are Mormon).

Ludicrous (and rude) question fredgeorge. This issue has nothing to do with cults, and we are not talking about the order of the "English Bible" anyway. The pattern of the Bible Wheel has existed implicitly in the Vulgate since at least the fifth century AD. And there is evidence from the canon lists that it existed in the year 324 AD. The Bible Wheel is founded on the solid rock of history. I CHALLENGE you to produced the oldest canon list that EXACTLY MATCHES the modern Tanakh. I think you will be suprised.


2. If God was a God of order, why does each book have different numbers of chapters and verses?

Because God is not a moronically dull and mechanically repetative. Everyone knows that there is great value in variety.


3. Now, from how you answered #3, consider how much involvement man's efforts can into the numbering of each verse. Do you believe that there is a greater complexity in the verse numbering and we simply have to find it, OR is this simply our way of dividing up things to help us navigate and cross-reference, etc?

Most of the "chapter and verse" breaks follow the inherent structure of the text, so if God designed the text of the Bible, that will be reflected (to a greater or lesser extent) in the chapter and verse numbers. There also is no reason to think that God was disinterested in every detail of His Word, including how it would be divided into chapter and verse, so there is no reason to think that He refrained from influencing or guiding the resulting numbers. Do you have a problem with that? Do you beleive that the Bible is really God's Word?


4. Could there be a complexity within the MESSAGE of each book rather than the numbers that is more important and driving than the Bible Wheel? Which do you think God is more concerned about?

God's primary concerns are clear. Christ proved it on the Cross.

Thanks for the challenge fredgeorge. It was very stimulating.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
01-08-2008, 07:50 PM
Our new friend and critic has made the erroneous suggestion that there is some sort of disconnect between "God's Theology" and the structure of the 66 Book Bible as received from history. Nothing could be further from the truth. Perhaps the greatest joy I had in writing the Bible Wheel book was the daily discovery of new wonders that revealed the infinite wisdom of God in the design of His Word.

For example, consider the first and last Spokes of the Wheel. The first Spoke corresponds to the first letter Aleph, which is a symbol of beginnings, origins, and God. Indeed, it is the first letter of the first name of God revealed in the first verse of the Bible, Elohim. And what three books do we find on Spoke 1? They are the "first books" of three great divisions of the Bible:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Spoke1Books.gif

The profound relation of these three great "first books" with each other and the first letter Aleph is discussed in many articles in the section on Spoke 1 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph.asp) of this website. Note particularly that Isaiah is popularly known as the "Romans of the Old Testament (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_Isaiah.asp)."

Now look at the last Spoke of the Wheel, Spoke 22 which corresponds to the last letter Tav, which measn a sign, mark, or cross (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tav_Seal.asp). It is the covenant letter that signifies when something is SEALED. Thus, the Bible Wheel is "self-sealing" with the sign of the Cross. And the first and last letters form the Hebrew equivalent of the Name of God, Alpha Omega. And they combine to form the word AT which means a "miraculous sign" or "signature." Thus the inegration of the Bible with the Hebrew Alphabet conveys the idea of the sealed perfection of the Holy Word, and this is a miraculous sign that is the signature of its Author, the Alpha Omega, Aleph Tav. This is discussed at length in the article called The Capstone Signature of God's Word (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/CapstoneSignature.asp).

Now look at the three Books on Spoke 22, the Spoke of Consummation that seals the Bible Wheel:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tav_ThreeBooks.gif

Thus GOD ALMIGHTY SEALED HIS BOOK with the fundamental theme of the UNION OF GOD AND MAN IN CHRIST JESUS. This is the ultimate message of the whole Bible, engraved in its geometric structure and integrated with the symbolic meaning of the Hebrew letters.

Yet this is but the smallest glimpse of the endless glory of the Divine GOSPEL WISDOM revealed in the structure of God's Most Excellent Word. Every Spoke reveals a similiar infinity of insight into the Divine Gospel Wisdom of the Holy Word.

Richard

fredgeorge
01-08-2008, 09:29 PM
wow...i think we were on two different pages from the word "assumption" but let me use a couple synonyms such as "presupposition", "supposition", "speculation", "belief." These cannot be proven or disproven but must be 'assumed' or 'supposed' from the foundation in order to proceed. For example: I think we are both assuming that the Bible is God's word (as Christians that's not always a given anymore). But even more fundamentally, we are assuming that there is truth that is worth arguing and this truth can be shown logically. These are also assumptions that cannot be proven (most likely we would take them for granted but in our postmodern society nothing can be taken for granted anymore). Maybe the word, presuppositions is better because it has the idea of before making suppositions or proofs. Let's be clear: we all make presuppositions in our thinking and arguments. This is inescapable. You did it as do I and everyone who ever lived. (Think of your tree argument: You presuppose that seeing is believing in existence.)

As far as the idea of pointing out a tree as a fact....well, how do you know you're not dreaming when you see the tree? Maybe its a fake tree (does that make it less a tree). Does touching, smelling, tasting, hearing or seeing it prove it exists? Yes (to most of us). Those on hallucinogenic drugs may not be able to prove such things. Schizophrenic people see plenty of fun things but they are not real. I digress.

As for your challenge about the threefold division and the arrangement of the canon...have you read Josephus who attributes a closed Jewish Canon or read in the Babylonian Talmud in which the Jews considered the Prophets section closed (containing the four former and the four latter). I think you will find that it is worthwhile to study the Talmuds and the history of the current OT canon because through it we find the REASON for why a book was accepted into the canon (as opposed to simply 'receiving' what we have similar to the 'textus receptus'). If we know the stages, we can learn things that help us see why certain books were established and why others were rejected.

Ok, the last posts have been long and I don't have that much free time - so let's start somewhere simple. I knew you misunderstood me before you quoted my third point and said:

I don't know what you mean by that.
Quite right, we started amiss on two different pages, we will end amiss and misunderstand each other. What I am saying from the beginning is that you 'stand' on several ideas that while they may have support historically, mathematically, and theologically, not all your ideas are infallible nor correct. I agree with some of them but not all of them. Let me illustrate:

You must first believe that a pattern exists for you to see a pattern. If I look at some dots, I see them as simple dots. But if I try to connect them in an orderly way, then I presuppose they can be connected as such or at least I am having fun with dots.

Here is where I am not looking for you to contradict me because I also believe the Bible has patterns and order. If I did not, we would not be discussing this. But it is more important to understand there is a presupposition that goes behind saying this. It is like the fabric on which I am painting. I can only paint based on this belief. I believe in patterns. OK, ok. You must presuppose other things as well. These are all presuppositions. In order to have a logical argument, you must begin with these constructions. What I believe you are doing is from the beginning, assuming you have no assumptions but simple stating facts. Well, great. Er, not exactly since by definition you are contradicting yourself. Facts are based upon ideas that cannot be proved or disproved.

Let me finish with one more example: presuppositions are different for everybody. We don't always see them but they operate with us each day interpreting the world around us. As Christians, we presuppose God. This is yes, a fact, but it is also a presupposition, an assumption that we cannot prove infallibly. If we could prove God exists, there would not be an atheist in the world. However, we can show evidences that point to God which the atheists don't like or try to disprove. But it boils down to a belief, a presupposition that either has support for or against it but it cannot be proven conclusively, beyond any doubts for everyone's satisfaction. (This is where faith comes to our aid).

As for my reply to the last individual, I thought he was capitalizing "Pearl of Great Price" which is a work by Joseph Smith and held as high as their other scriptures "Book of Mormon" and "Book of Moroni." I didn't think the question rude but rather establishing common ground. I don't know with whom I am speaking in all cases. Please, be gentle; if it sounded ludicrous, maybe that's because there was a misunderstanding.
________
Yamaha Bw200 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Yamaha_BW200)

Richard Amiel McGough
01-08-2008, 10:26 PM
wow...i think we were on two different pages from the word "assumption" but let me use a couple synonyms such as "presupposition", "supposition", "speculation", "belief." These cannot be proven or disproven but must be 'assumed' or 'supposed' from the foundation in order to proceed. For example: I think we are both assuming that the Bible is God's word (as Christians that's not always a given anymore). But even more fundamentally, we are assuming that there is truth that is worth arguing and this truth can be shown logically. These are also assumptions that cannot be proven (most likely we would take them for granted but in our postmodern society nothing can be taken for granted anymore). Maybe the word, presuppositions is better because it has the idea of before making suppositions or proofs. Let's be clear: we all make presuppositions in our thinking and arguments. This is inescapable. You did it as do I and everyone who ever lived. (Think of your tree argument: You presuppose that seeing is believing in existence.)

I agree completely. :thumb: All language is built on presuppositions that we mutually agree upon (either implicitly or explicitly). That is the nature of of language. Otherwise your posts would be just naon oasfn 0o sZmncewqo alskmd a saod fohaf eanfe o, if you know what I mean.


As far as the idea of pointing out a tree as a fact....well, how do you know you're not dreaming when you see the tree? Maybe its a fake tree (does that make it less a tree). Does touching, smelling, tasting, hearing or seeing it prove it exists? Yes (to most of us). Those on hallucinogenic drugs may not be able to prove such things. Schizophrenic people see plenty of fun things but they are not real. I digress.

The Bible Wheel will not stand or fall because of such epistimological speculations. It is for folks who understand the difference between reality and fantasy. If you don't have that figured out, I don't think we have any reason to be discussing any logic and fact based knowledge like the Bible Wheel.


As for your challenge about the threefold division and the arrangement of the canon...have you read Josephus who attributes a closed Jewish Canon or read in the Babylonian Talmud in which the Jews considered the Prophets section closed (containing the four former and the four latter).

Not only have I read Josephus, but I have read dozens of sholastic analyses of that critical portion of Against Apion, and I own and have read the seminal works of McDanald, Childs, Bruce, Hengel, Christiansen, and a host of other books and research articles on the origin of the Jewish and Christian Biblical canons. Did you notice that Josephus actually supports the Christian pattern, since he apparently includes Chronicles with the history books? Here is a typical interpretation (http://www.xenos.org/essays/canon.htm)of Against Apion 1:8:


He says there were 22 books in the canon of the Old Testament (see "Against Apion" 1:8, where he mentions 5 books of Moses, 13 Prophets, and 4 Writings). - This corresponds to our 39 books. Following typical Jewish tradition, he recognized Jer. and Lam. as one book, as he also did Judges & Ruth, I Sam. & II Sam., I Kings & II Kings, I Chron. & II Chron., and Ezra and Esther. The 12 Minor Prophets were also recognized as one book, called "The Book of the Twelve." See that? Joesephus supports the Christian order of the OT, and his evidecnce is from the first century. Note especially the placement of Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah. The evidence is very strong that the two patterns are both JEWISH and the both originate sometime before Christianity.


I think you will find that it is worthwhile to study the Talmuds and the history of the current OT canon because through it we find the REASON for why a book was accepted into the canon (as opposed to simply 'receiving' what we have similar to the 'textus receptus'). If we know the stages, we can learn things that help us see why certain books were established and why others were rejected.
Those reasons are all speculation, opinions, and guess work. Sure, there's some value in them, but they are not and never will be able to definitively settle any questions concerning the canon.


Ok, the last posts have been long and I don't have that much free time - so let's start somewhere simple. I knew you misunderstood me before you quoted my third point and said:

I don't know what you mean by that.
Quite right, we started amiss on two different pages, we will end amiss and misunderstand each other. What I am saying from the beginning is that you 'stand' on several ideas that while they may have support historically, mathematically, and theologically, not all your ideas are infallible nor correct. I agree with some of them but not all of them. Let me illustrate:

What? :eek:

What did you say??? :woah:

Did you really mean to say that I am a fallable human being?

Aaaaarrrrggghhh! :smash:

How could you?

You meanie! :mad:

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


You must first believe that a pattern exists for you to see a pattern.

Yes, just as you must "believe" in logic if you want to make any sense to me or anybody else. And like I said, meanderings through the blind fields of the philofilosphy of epistupidomology ain't gonna do nuttin to help crack the nut you got stuck between your teeth.


If I look at some dots, I see them as simple dots. But if I try to connect them in an orderly way, then I presuppose they can be connected as such or at least I am having fun with dots.

Oh my! Such daunting challenges! That one has been used about a hundred times by all the under-graduates from the Advanced College of How to Blind Yourself to the Obvious. As it turns out, pattern recognition is the BASIS of intelligence tests! I wrote one for folks like you. Here's the link:

The Bible Wheel Intelligence Test (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/Patterns.asp)

It short and sweet and to the point. Give it try! (I dare you :lol:).


Here is where I am not looking for you to contradict me because I also believe the Bible has patterns and order. If I did not, we would not be discussing this. But it is more important to understand there is a presupposition that goes behind saying this. It is like the fabric on which I am painting. I can only paint based on this belief. I believe in patterns. OK, ok. You must presuppose other things as well. These are all presuppositions. In order to have a logical argument, you must begin with these constructions. What I believe you are doing is from the beginning, assuming you have no assumptions but simple stating facts. Well, great. Er, not exactly since by definition you are contradicting yourself. Facts are based upon ideas that cannot be proved or disproved.

Well now ... that read about "Zero" on my Lucidity Meter. Is this how you normally discuss the Gospel and the truth of God's Word? Talking in philosophical circles until nothing means anything?


Let me finish with one more example: presuppositions are different for everybody. We don't always see them but they operate with us each day interpreting the world around us. As Christians, we presuppose God. This is yes, a fact, but it is also a presupposition, an assumption that we cannot prove infallibly. If we could prove God exists, there would not be an atheist in the world. However, we can show evidences that point to God which the atheists don't like or try to disprove. But it boils down to a belief, a presupposition that either has support for or against it but it cannot be proven conclusively, beyond any doubts for everyone's satisfaction. (This is where faith comes to our aid).

As for my reply to the last individual, I thought he was capitalizing "Pearl of Great Price" which is a work by Joseph Smith and held as high as their other scriptures "Book of Mormon" and "Book of Moroni." I didn't think the question rude but rather establishing common ground. I don't know with whom I am speaking in all cases. Please, be gentle; if it sounded ludicrous, maybe that's because there was a misunderstanding.
OK - thanks for explaining that mistake. It was simple enough. I'll try to be gentle. I really LOVE being challenged. But I would prefer challenges that actaully challenge something I said, as opposed to challenges against the abilitity of anybody to say anything becasue of the underlying suppositions that we all bring to the table.

Capiche?

I look forward to becoming friends,

Richard

fredgeorge
01-08-2008, 11:04 PM
ok, i feel like we are getting somewhere. perhaps we can now discuss why your presuppositions to the Bible Wheel, like your fallible nature, are not inerrant, inspired, scriptural sound proof of it. In other words, if you understand yourself to be fallible, and your thinking to be fallible, then what you think and believe about the Bible Wheel could be fallible. Its not just a matter of saying that you 'see' it or it simply 'falls out' but that it is a geniune interpretation of the canon of scripture. If you can't see the weaknesses of your own thinking, are you thinking objectively? As far as the
meanderings through the blind fields of the philofilosphy of epistupidomology ain't gonna do nuttin to help crack the nut you got stuck between your teeth well, I can't help if you are just as equally biting on a nut that is just as hard. It took seven posts to get to the idea that we have presuppositions behind our thinking and maybe some of those presuppositions are incorrect. Sorry for the initial 'assumption' misunderstanding. I assumed you would admit something simple.

ok, so you are familiar with Josephus (who worked to fit the Hebrew Canon into 22 books and stuck several together according to genre) - what about Esdras...doesn't he validate the threefold division of the OT canon? If he was familiar with it, wouldn't that speak volumes to the interpretation of Luke 24:44? Historically, we are beginning to understand more from the books and how to hermeneutically interpret them based on the increase of knowledge of Semitic languages, settings, Hebraic Chiasm and structure. Things like the Suzeran-vassal treaties are giving us more tools to dig deeper into parallels within scripture. So, if we understand the function of a book from its acceptance within the canon, we also understand more of its place in the canon. If the sections of the OT law and prophets were closed after a certain point, why would this be necessary for us to change (which greek translators did in the Septuagint and Jerome finalized with the Vulgate)?

So, I quote you from the first post in this thread:
As for "faulty assumptions about the current ordering and numbering" - I hope you now see that I made NO ASSUMPTIONS WHATSOVER. The Bible Wheel is simply a representation of an object that exists in our common universe - the 66 book "Protestant" Bible. Whether the "ordering and numbering" of that object is "correct" according to some pre-set standard has absolutely nothing to do with whatever patterns we find in it. But when we then find that those patterns demand a transcendent intelligence to explain their existence, we have proof that the "ordering and numbering" also must have been designed by that same intelligence.
...and again state, we all make assumptions or presuppositions. If my arguments are not conclusive from the scriptures themselves and the context within which they are placed, how are yours any better? Your arguments are from extrabiblical material which you place on a higher level (history, combinatorics, symmetry, etc.) but these would be just as inconclusive if not more so considering. They do not say anything like, "God made this" or "God preordained this sequence." Scripture attests to its own ordering by Christ and the apostles in their references to the OT Law, prophets, and writings.
________
HONDA H100S SUPER HISTORY (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_H100S_Super)

Richard Amiel McGough
01-09-2008, 12:31 AM
ok, i feel like we are getting somewhere.

Excellent. Me too.


perhaps we can now discuss why your presuppositions to the Bible Wheel, like your fallible nature, are not inerrant, inspired, scriptural sound proof of it.

Is this how you would go about attempting to refute Quantum Physics or a dissertation on differential equations? I think not. Your whole approach seems off the wall to me. There are no unusual or hidden "assumptions" that I make. I use common sense which means that I appeal to everyday knowledge that we all use to opperate in the world. I appeal to the same kind of facts that you use to cross the street, cook your dinner, and tie your shoes. It seems like your focus on "assumptions" is an attempt to obfuscate the discussion.


In other words, if you understand yourself to be fallible, and your thinking to be fallible, then what you think and believe about the Bible Wheel could be fallible.

That GOES WITHOUT SAYING in all intelligent discussions. It seems to me ridiculous to emphasize it like you do. Yes, we are all fallable. Every word you said could be wrong. You might not exist, I might not exist, we all could be dreaming. What a profound gift post-modernism has bestowed upon us! If they have deconstructed anything, it is their own minds.

Now can we talk about some things that can be determined true or false with facts and logic? This pseudo-philopholistic mumbo-jumbo is a drag.


Its not just a matter of saying that you 'see' it or it simply 'falls out' but that it is a geniune interpretation of the canon of scripture. If you can't see the weaknesses of your own thinking, are you thinking objectively?

If you can't state a weekness in my arguments, are you actually presenting a real challenge to any of my assertions?


As far as the

meanderings through the blind fields of the philofilosphy of epistupidomology ain't gonna do nuttin to help crack the nut you got stuck between your teeth
well, I can't help if you are just as equally biting on a nut that is just as hard. It took seven posts to get to the idea that we have presuppositions behind our thinking and maybe some of those presuppositions are incorrect. Sorry for the initial 'assumption' misunderstanding. I assumed you would admit something simple.
I deal with reality, not philosphical inscrutibles. Gimme something I can scrute and I'll scrute it! It seems to me that you have yet to challenge me or my assertions with anything SUBSTANTIAL, SOLID, REAL.


ok, so you are familiar with Josephus...doesn't he validate the threefold division of the OT canon?

Yes and no. He did speak of three divisions, but those divisions apparently matched the Christian pattern, or some hybrid between the two! Ha! How do you like that? I tell you, I have studied this issue down to its ROOT and I can authoritatively declare that history has left no record sufficient to definitively settle the primary questions on the formation of the Christian or Jewish canons. We just don't have the DATA, and speculations are insufficient to settle anything.


If he was familiar with it, wouldn't that speak volumes to the interpretation of Luke 24:44?

No. Like I said, both patterns are obviously Jewish and ancient. The early Christians didn't just "make up" a new pattern. I explain this in my Canon Studies articles I linked earlier.


Historically, we are beginning to understand more from the books and how to hermeneutically interpret them based on the increase of knowledge of Semitic languages, settings, Hebraic Chiasm and structure. Things like the Suzeran-vassal treaties are giving us more tools to dig deeper into parallels within scripture. So, if we understand the function of a book from its acceptance within the canon, we also understand more of its place in the canon. If the sections of the OT law and prophets were closed after a certain point, why would this be necessary for us to change (which greek translators did in the Septuagint and Jerome finalized with the Vulgate)?

That's all very interesting speculation. And it will all be different in 50 years because speculative "knowledge" (that's a misnomer, of course) always follow the endlessly shifting sands of the current intellectual fads. You do know this, don't you?


So, I quote you from the first post in this thread:

As for "faulty assumptions about the current ordering and numbering" - I hope you now see that I made NO ASSUMPTIONS WHATSOVER. The Bible Wheel is simply a representation of an object that exists in our common universe - the 66 book "Protestant" Bible. Whether the "ordering and numbering" of that object is "correct" according to some pre-set standard has absolutely nothing to do with whatever patterns we find in it. But when we then find that those patterns demand a transcendent intelligence to explain their existence, we have proof that the "ordering and numbering" also must have been designed by that same intelligence.
...and again state, we all make assumptions or presuppositions. If my arguments are not conclusive from the scriptures themselves and the context within which they are placed, how are yours any better? Your arguments are from extrabiblical material which you place on a higher level (history, combinatorics, symmetry, etc.) but these would be just as inconclusive if not more so considering. They do not say anything like, "God made this" or "God preordained this sequence." Scripture attests to its own ordering by Christ and the apostles in their references to the OT Law, prophets, and writings.
Your argument (in red) seems to be saying "We're all deaf, blind, and ignorant. We can't know anything. Nobody can prove anything. There is no knowledge because everything we believe is based on suppositions that could be faulty."

All I have to say is that your argument destroys itself. If it is correct, then we can not know it is correct, because it could be based on faulty premises.

I encourage you to challenge my arguments with facts and logic. If all you've got is philosopical nihilism, I've got nothing to say but "You're wrong."

Richard

fredgeorge
01-09-2008, 02:17 AM
REASON FOR PHILOSOPHICAL ROUNDABOUT: seems like i presented several 'facts' and they were immediately thrown out by yourself. If you wanted 'facts' then why don't you check the very idea that what you're saying is questioned by the scripture itself not some symmetrical pattern you devote an entire website to. I think we had to boil off some excess 'revelation' that seems to be running throughout the presuppositions you make.

As for my quote of Josephus, I misquoted when I meant Esdras (I was thinking of the reference that Josephus made to the threefold division and the introduction to Ecclesiasticus. Yes, Josephus regrouped them together for the purpose of refuting.

As for my argument reduced to nihilism and the shifting sands of intellectual fads, doesn't the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the threefold division in your own quoted article (http://www.xenos.org/essays/canon.htm)? All I am trying to do is establish that there are varying views and these views have legitimacy to describe the canon. You attack my views with a sense of overwhelming obviousness when it is not so obvious nor sensical at all points. If there is a threefold division accepted by the early church and the Jews, then that sheds light on our understanding of the OT canon.

Finally, no, my argument is not

"We're all deaf, blind, and ignorant. We can't know anything. Nobody can prove anything. There is no knowledge because everything we believe is based on suppositions that could be faulty."
simply that if you can step back and admit your own assumptions and where they are possibly faulty...then we can move on. I had to go back and get you to admit you had any assumptions at all before we can move on to discuss anything rational and legitimate. Call it philosophical bantering but you were playing a card you didn't have.
That GOES WITHOUT SAYING in all intelligent discussions. It seems to me ridiculous to emphasize it like you do. Yes, we are all fallable. Every word you said could be wrong. Seems it did not go w/o saying in the beginning of all this when you called my arguments inconclusive from the start.

The sevenfold division of scripture is nowhere attested in scripture itself or in the early canonical divisions by the Jewish or Christian canons. The threefold division of the NT can be seen in its parallelism to the OT with the four gospels (of the life of Christ) paralleling the four books after Genesis (the life of Moses) and Acts paralleling the Prophetic section as the historical witness of the Old and New Covenants. Revelation and Genesis chiastically begin and end each other with Creation, Eden (New Jerusalem) and the Rise/Fall of satan. The writings and epistles instruct us in our daily life. The arguments for dividing the scriptures into seven are merely subjective and contain errors of scrutiny such as why divide the major and minor prophets? These are greek constructions not necessarily semitic while organizing according to genre which is not theological nor intended. The Septuagint also had extra books later thrown out by Jewish and early church councils alike.

The Bible Wheel is fascinating and thoroughly entertaining but at best it only provides us with interesting insights to an organization of the popular Protestant canon. It does not provide hermeneutical principles or anything deeper into the meanings behind certain books or their purpose in the canon.

btw, no, we would not go about disputing in this manner on Quantum Mechanics or differentical equations because there's understood foundations that we acknowledge and all concede but even then there's room for error in how raw data is interpreted (see all the arguments between Creationists and Evolutionists - different presuppositions create vastly different interpretations). And then you come back on me for insisting on proper understanding of presuppositions, wow. I wasn't the one declaring proof w/o making assumptions...
I hope you now see that I made NO ASSUMPTIONS WHATSOVER. The Bible Wheel is simply a representation of an object that exists in our common universe - the 66 book "Protestant" Bible. Whether the "ordering and numbering" of that object is "correct" according to some pre-set standard has absolutely nothing to do with whatever patterns we find in it. But when we then find that those patterns demand a transcendent intelligence to explain their existence, we have proof that the "ordering and numbering" also must have been designed by that same intelligence. yes, there's undeniable proof that there is a pattern but not one that demands God made it. NOW, do you understand my argument: think inductive verses deductive - one proves the other does not and yours does not.

Could God have spoken and revealed the Bible Wheel? I don't doubt God's providence and excellent sovereignty over all things yet I question whether we should be attached to this representation in the first place. We may not agree on this because of the backgrounds we use to prove our views. I don't doubt your ordering of the NT but the OT could be improved greatly by the understanding of how we try to forcefit ordering where it should not go. Genre, chronology, and author are the guiding elements in the current OT scheme but these do not properly illumine each book's place in the canon.

You want an attack on your arguments? The evidences you show for the Bible Wheel do not prove it is correct. They show order and consistency but NOT ON A DIVINE LEVEL. Mathematical probability does not show it is impossible...because they are proposed on fallible and imprecise calculations. You are working with raw probabilities not real possibilities - divide the canon into how many different ways? The math does not account for unrealistic outcomes - quite simply ineffective evidence for possibility. The alignment with the Hebrew alphabet in sets of 22 only shows that the number of books coincides with the number of alphabet symbols but there are innumerable other possibilities for such coincidences and such things do not demand divine origin. Complexity is not proof. Order is not proof. Coincidences are not proof. Symmetry is not proof. These things at best form evidences but not proofs. INDUCTION VERSES DEDUCTION. This is logic! and this is what I've been arguing all along. You can't make a universal statement from a series of examples. All the dogs I've seen are brown therefore all dogs must be brown. I figured this would be a simple logic problem but its turned into a philosophical knock-out from simple problems of definition. We begin with our 'assumptions' or presuppositions which inform our arguments and systems of interpretation which affect our conclusions. A to B to C. Logical progression. We sit down and compare our presuppositions, then our arguments and finally we see how our conclusions differ. Not too hard except when we try to jump to the middle and throw mud at each other without understanding what we believe underneath. If I was a Mormon and you were a Jehovah's Witness, we would have to establish that our presuppositions (such as I would believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers and we all existed in a previous spirit-baby realm and you would agree with me that Jesus is not god but disagree that those punished afterwards would be in hell but just cease to exist). But since I don't know exactly where you are coming from, I am trying to establish that.

How am I supposed to argue or discuss with you if we don't agree to set out our underlying beliefs and presuppositions then move into what our arguments are based on such? But of course, we are civil and we carry out these things such as quote each other to death till we come back around to the start of the argument - presuppositions and original beliefs that guide our thinking and arguments. Do I still get the bad rap for all this meandering?

You want fact when your facts don't matter much yet to me unless we begin from the same place - logic and proofs. Given x,y,z: prove. Just wanted the Givens and to play by the rules.
________
Percocet Rehab Forum (http://www.rehab-forum.com/percocet-rehab/)

Abigail
01-09-2008, 09:39 AM
Hi fredgeorge

Why are you getting so worked up. The Biblewheel 'falls out' of the Christian canon is the claim made by RAM. Why dont you check it out thoroughly and see for yourself. Have you read much of the site? You keep on saying that the Wheel is not valid because there were prior arrangements but then IMO the onus is on you to show what they were and that they could never be changed. Yet we know God does do NEW things see Isaiah 43:19 ' Behold I will do something new'. Why do you assume if it is not semitically ordered it is invalid?


I don't doubt your ordering of the NT but the OT could be improved greatly by the understanding of how we try to forcefit ordering where it should not go. Genre, chronology, and author are the guiding elements in the current OT scheme but these do not properly illumine each book's place in the canon. If you say that certain books can only go in certain places because of your new understandings of things then put them in the places and see if your arrangement has a symmetry which 'falls out' so easily. Many of the divisions that show up in the BW have been noticed and used by Christian commentators who did not even have the Biblewheel in mind. So if these division can then be seen in the BW surely that has something to say about the BW in that its symmetry just happens to agree with what past Christian commentators found as notable ways of dividing the word. We are pattern recognisers and categorisers.


The Bible Wheel is fascinating and thoroughly entertaining but at best it only provides us with interesting insights to an organization of the popular Protestant canon. It does not provide hermeneutical principles or anything deeper into the meanings behind certain books or their purpose in the canon. When I read this I almost get the impression that you think the people who organized the Christian Canon had the BW in mind yet that is the remarkable thing ...it seems they were totally unaware

fredgeorge
01-09-2008, 02:10 PM
OK, great questions. Here's why I am discussing/arguing the view of the Bible Wheel and the order of the canon.

1. The Bible Wheel does not give the Bible its context for understanding the whole picture or the individual books. Let me explain: There are constant references to the "Law and the Prophets" throughout the NT (see Matt 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, Luke 16:16, 24:44, John 1:45, Acts 13:15, 24:14, 28:23, Romans 3:21) also see the references to Moses and the Prophets (Luke 16:29-31, 24:27, Acts 26:22) where Moses refers to the Pentateuch and the Prophets refer to the Jewish section of the canon named as such. If we understand their division of scriptures and the reasons for such division, then we have a better understanding of how scripture speaks to us today. Example is in the book of Ruth. How is Ruth understood in our canon? Many great example abound of how it shows us the lineage of David or its a pause after Judges to let us recover from all the bloodshed. But none of these consider why the Jews accepted Ruth into their canon and the original context. If we understand that Ruth was the ONLY woman in all scripture to be called a "Godly awesome wife or woman" (Asheth Kail in Hebrew) and Boaz as "The Godly awesome man" (Ish Kail) and its position after the Proverbs chapter on the Godly wife (proverbs 31), we understand the book at a deeper level.

2. The Bible Wheel is fragmented at best in its theological framework. Nowhere in the scriptures is it attested to be interpreted or organized this way. In fact, what I am arguing is that at a fundamental level it misses the boat in its understanding the canon. Let me again reiterate; it looks awesome, has great symmetry, is a lot of fun to study, looks tremendously cool on the website and in general has some good things to teach anyone. But it does not give us a proper understanding to see each book in the theology of Christ and the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:3, Acts 28:23-31).

3. This is not a new understanding. The canon as presented here is not so simple and straightforward as it may seem. We need to be vigilant about our studies of history and theology and know that things are not as simple as we often first believe. The canon did not fall out from heaven but was argued over for several centuries and even added to later by certain councils we Protestants consider heretical. We are following a Septuagint version later modified by Jerome who based it on a list by Josephus (who was refuting claims that the OT books are contradictory and spurious).

Most importantly, yes, this is not an issue which should be dividing us. But it should be recognized that when several ideas conflict, lay all the information out and step through what constitutes as weighty proof or lighter proof. If the scriptures speak of themselves, doesn't that give greater testimony than our interpretation of history, symmetry and combinatorics? I'm not arguing that another canon has better symmetry because that's not the issue. Symmetry is secondary to the immediate interpretation of scripture and allowing it to be properly interpreted in the context of the original audience.

Good questions and issues to raise. Research it. Look at scripture itself first then the immediate context and finally further out to history, math and science. If there is a sevenfold arrangement or a BW within scripture then that would precede anything else in organizing the Bible. But you have to BEGIN with the idea of the BW and sevenfold arrangement and deduce the rest.
________
Warren transmission (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Warren_Transmission)

Richard Amiel McGough
01-09-2008, 03:27 PM
Hey there fredgeorge, :yo:

Thanks for the stimulating post. Please give me grace if I'm a little "sharp" here or there. The post is huge and it was written fast and I try to write things as I really see them. There is no animosity intended in any of it, but since our opinions clash on a number of points it can be easy to forget that the argument is my target, not you, to whom I wish all the best in Christ Jesus our Lord.

With that, let the sparring begin!

:fencing:


REASON FOR PHILOSOPHICAL ROUNDabout: seems like i presented several 'facts' and they were immediately thrown out by yourself.

I didn't "throw out" any "facts" - I simply presented other factst that supported my case. That's how logical discourse is normally conducted.


If you wanted 'facts' then why don't you check the very idea that what you're saying is questioned by the scripture itself not some symmetrical pattern you devote an entire website to. I think we had to boil off some excess 'revelation' that seems to be running throughout the presuppositions you make.

Yeah ... whatever. You post a lot of words that don't impact the validity of my claims.


As for my quote of Josephus, I misquoted when I meant Esdras (I was thinking of the reference that Josephus made to the threefold division and the introduction to Ecclesiasticus. Yes, Josephus regrouped them together for the purpose of refuting.

Funny thing about your claim that you never read E. L. Martin. You use the same fallacious arguments as he did. There is no evidence that Josephus "regrouped" anything. :lol: I laugh because you just make up things and then present your fabrications as if they somehow constituted "evidence" supporting your assertions! I mean, THINK ABOUT IT MAN! There is no evidence - not one indication - that Josephus "rearranged" the canon. On the contrary, Josephus explicitly said that "no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to MAKE ANY CHANGE in them." Therefore, if the text indicates anything about the order he reported, it indicates that he reported it without change.


As for my argument reduced to nihilism and the shifting sands of intellectual fads, doesn't the Dead Sea Scrolls refer to the threefold division in your own quoted article (http://www.xenos.org/essays/canon.htm)?

So what? That evidence is completely coherent with my arguemnt, which states that both patterns seen in the Christian OT and the Tanakh - are ancient Jewish patterns that originate before the first century.


All I am trying to do is establish that there are varying views and these views have legitimacy to describe the canon.

That didn't need to be "established." It is common knowledge.


You attack my views with a sense of overwhelming obviousness when it is not so obvious nor sensical at all points.

I only attack the views that I can prove erroneous with logic and facts. Can't fault me for that, can you? And why do you keep talking in vague generalities that have no content? If I erroneously "attacked" a valid point, it would be much more interesting if you refuted my error rather than just complain about my refutations of your errors.


If there is a threefold division accepted by the early church and the Jews, then that sheds light on our understanding of the OT canon.

No one said it didn't!


Finally, no, my argument is not

"We're all deaf, blind, and ignorant. We can't know anything. Nobody can prove anything. There is no knowledge because everything we believe is based on suppositions that could be faulty."
simply that if you can step back and admit your own assumptions and where they are possibly faulty...then we can move on. I had to go back and get you to admit you had any assumptions at all before we can move on to discuss anything rational and legitimate.

You did not have to "get me to admit that I had assumptions." If you thought that I had made an invalid "assumption" all you had to do was challenge that assumption. You didn't have to drag us through all this pseudo-intellectual pseudo-epistimology. The fact that people are fallable is a universally acknowledged fact amongst all sane humans. Your harping on this point is ridiculous, and your assertion that you had to force me to admit the obvious is just plain rude.


Call it philosophical bantering but you were playing a card you didn't have.

False. I have proven that I did not make the assumptions you said I made. That's why you changed the conversation to the banal and utterly irrelevant fact that we "all have to make assumptions" in order to communicate or function in the world.



That GOES WITHOUT SAYING in all intelligent discussions. It seems to me ridiculous to emphasize it like you do. Yes, we are all fallable. Every word you said could be wrong.
Seems it did not go w/o saying in the beginning of all this when you called my arguments inconclusive from the start.

False again. I did not merelhy "call" your arguments inconclusive - I DEMONSTRATED why they were inconclusive. In other words, I proved my point with logic and facts. You would do well to do the same.


The sevenfold division of scripture is nowhere attested in scripture itself or in the early canonical divisions by the Jewish or Christian canons. The threefold division of the NT can be seen in its parallelism to the OT with the four gospels (of the life of Christ) paralleling the four books after Genesis (the life of Moses) and Acts paralleling the Prophetic section as the historical witness of the Old and New Covenants. Revelation and Genesis chiastically begin and end each other with Creation, Eden (New Jerusalem) and the Rise/Fall of satan. The writings and epistles instruct us in our daily life. The arguments for dividing the scriptures into seven are merely subjective and contain errors of scrutiny such as why divide the major and minor prophets? These are greek constructions not necessarily semitic while organizing according to genre which is not theological nor intended. The Septuagint also had extra books later thrown out by Jewish and early church councils alike.
First, you are wrong about the division of between the Major and Minor prophets. We find a similar division in the Tanakh between the first three Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) and the Book of the Twelve (Minor Prophets). The Book of the 12 has been counted as a single book since antiquity, so there is a solid basis for seeing it as its own "division" in the Bible. This is confirmed in Acts 7:42 where a passage of Amos is cited with "as it is written in the book of the prophets." And the entire structure is self-confirming because all the pieces are mutually confirming and were recognized and documented long before the Bible Wheel was discovered. And the whole pattern is confirmed again as indicating the completion and perfection of the Holy Word because the symbolic meaning of the Number 7 is attested throughout Scripture. And the validity is confirmed by the fact that the patterns are intrinsic to the Bible itself, as evidenced by the simplicity with which it all just fell together with NO EFFORT whatsoever on my part, but came rather as a single "lightening bolt" strike of insight on a single morning four years after the initial discovery of the Bible Wheel. Note how very contrary this reality is compared with your false insinuation that I had somehow tortured the data until it said what I wanted it to say!

I also dispute your constant appeal to some imagined oppostion of the "Greek" or "Western" vs. the "Semitic" views in the formation of the Bible. That again is a classic error propogated by ELMartin. THe Bible is in Hebrew and Greek because it is for the whole world,Jew and Gentile. God designed it according to His infinite wisdom, not the competing factions of "east" vs. "west." Those simply are not proper categories for meaingful biblical exegesis.


The Bible Wheel is fascinating and thoroughly entertaining but at best it only provides us with interesting insights to an organization of the popular Protestant canon. It does not provide hermeneutical principles or anything deeper into the meanings behind certain books or their purpose in the canon.

How do you know what its potential is? You know almost nothing about it! Where did you get such hubris to judge something of which you know so little? I already demonstrated the profound theological implications of the design of Spoke 22. I am convinced that in time the Bible Wheel will prove to be the Rosetta Stone of Biblical Hermeneutics (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/RosettaStone.asp).


btw, no, we would not go about disputing in this manner on Quantum Mechanics or differentical equations because there's understood foundations that we acknowledge and all concede but even then there's room for error in how raw data is interpreted (see all the arguments between Creationists and Evolutionists - different presuppositions create vastly different interpretations). And then you come back on me for insisting on proper understanding of presuppositions, wow. I wasn't the one declaring proof w/o making assumptions... yes, there's undeniable proof that there is a pattern but not one that demands God made it. NOW, do you understand my argument: think inductive verses deductive - one proves the other does not and yours does not.

Well now .. we have made some progress anyway. Just yesterday you were cluttering up the conversation with banal statements like "You must first believe that a pattern exists for you to see a pattern." Now you are agreeing the that "there's undeniable proof that there is a patgtern." Excellent! :thumb:

Now as for your statement that this doesn't prove that "God made it" let me ask you this: Have you considered what you just said? You admit the pattern is totally obvious. And its based on the Biblical numberofcompetion and perfection, as well as the only 2D geometric figure (the circle) with infinite symmetry. Thus the Bible Wheel incorporates to independent symbols of completion and perfection (the Number 7 and the Circle). Now anyone who knows the history of the Bible knows that the humans who God used to write and collate the Bible could not have designed it, because the end product would have had to have been in view when the project was begun back with Moses, and the only being that knew what the final form of the Bible would be at the time the project began was God. And besides, have you forgotten we are talking about the Holy Bible here? Its GOD'S Word, so of course we Christians have every reason to believe it was designed by Him!


Could God have spoken and revealed the Bible Wheel? I don't doubt God's providence and excellent sovereignty over all things yet I question whether we should be attached to this representation in the first place. We may not agree on this because of the backgrounds we use to prove our views. I don't doubt your ordering of the NT but the OT could be improved greatly by the understanding of how we try to forcefit ordering where it should not go. Genre, chronology, and author are the guiding elements in the current OT scheme but these do not properly illumine each book's place in the canon.

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But my opinion is that the pattern of the Christian OT is absolutely superior in every way conceivable. And I have many solid proofs which I have shared in our discussion so far.

But as for "force-fitting" - That's what the Jews did when they tried to forcefit the canon into 22 books, but finally settled on 24. And that's what Martin did when he tried to forcefit to OT into 22 books. The Bible Wheel is the exception here. It forcefits nothing. It all just is what it is. I did nothing. God get's all the glory. It's His Word after all.


You want an attack on your arguments? The evidences you show for the Bible Wheel do not prove it is correct. They show order and consistency but NOT ON A DIVINE LEVEL.

How do you know what the "divine level" of design would be?

But the primary argument has nothing to do with showing that the pattern is itself "on the divine level." You missed the point. The proof says that the pattern is sufficiently rare (1 in 688,324) to demand an explanation. Then I prove that no human or group of humans could have done it because they required knowledge of the final form at the beginning. Therefore, the pattern, if it is the result of intelligent design, must be attributed to God.


Mathematical probability does not show it is impossible...because they are proposed on fallible and imprecise calculations. You are working with raw probabilities not real possibilities - divide the canon into how many different ways? The math does not account for unrealistic outcomes - quite simply ineffective evidence for possibility.

Good point! I grant that the calculations maybe "crude" the sense of giving each possibility an equal a priori probability. But that's the way one always calculates the first order probability estimation. But then again, you argument is not necessarily valid, because some people count the NT canon as having a "historical division" consisting of a single book, Acts. This means that all possible groupings of 66 books into seven divisions is a logical possibiliity.

But none of those calculations are needed anyway. They are just cruches for folks who don't have eyes to see the obvious - to find a pattern like the Canon Wheel effortlessly bursting from the very Word of God is self-evident proof that God did it. Its very CONTEXT proves it, as do the countless other top-level super-obvious confirmations like its sevenfold symmetry, its intgegration with the hebrew alphabet (Psa 119 = the Psalm of the Word), the thematic correlation of the books on the Spokes (e.g. Spoke 22 - the first Cycle is CONSUMMATED in the Song of Songs.)

There's really no need to present any "aguments" - all I need to do is point out what's there, and the conclusions are self-evident.


The alignment with the Hebrew alphabet in sets of 22 only shows that the number of books coincides with the number of alphabet symbols but there are innumerable other possibilities for such coincidences and such things do not demand divine origin.

Again, you are speaking from ignorance and making claims with no factual support. If you want to assert that "everything is just coincidence" then you need to present your probability calculations so they can be confirmed or refuted.


Complexity is not proof.

I never said it was. And I already told you that. Would you please read my answers?


Order is not proof. Coincidences are not proof. Symmetry is not proof. These things at best form evidences but not proofs. INDUCTION VERSES DEDUCTION. This is logic!

Again, a bunch of general denials with no specifics to back them up. That's just a bunch of hot air. We have not even begun the discussion.


and this is what I've been arguing all along. You can't make a universal statement from a series of examples. All the dogs I've seen are brown therefore all dogs must be brown. I figured this would be a simple logic problem but its turned into a philosophical knock-out from simple problems of definition. We begin with our 'assumptions' or presuppositions which inform our arguments and systems of interpretation which affect our conclusions. A to B to C. Logical progression. We sit down and compare our presuppositions, then our arguments and finally we see how our conclusions differ. Not too hard except when we try to jump to the middle and throw mud at each other without understanding what we believe underneath. If I was a Mormon and you were a Jehovah's Witness, we would have to establish that our presuppositions (such as I would believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers and we all existed in a previous spirit-baby realm and you would agree with me that Jesus is not god but disagree that those punished afterwards would be in hell but just cease to exist). But since I don't know exactly where you are coming from, I am trying to establish that.

I agree TOTALLY that we should be discussing our assumptions and all that, as necessary. But you have made a fundamental error. You started attacking the Bible Wheel before you knew anything about it. That set the whole conversation off in the wrong direction. But there's an easy way to fix it. Just try talking to me and ask questions and we'll get along just fine and probably make progress ten times as fast.


How am I supposed to argue or discuss with you if we don't agree to set out our underlying beliefs and presuppositions then move into what our arguments are based on such?

Its simple. Just assume that I am a totally rational man with perfect common sense, and I will do the same with you. Then everything we say should be a lot easy and we won't have to go looking for that black cat in the dark room with our eyes closed (that's my pet reference to epistimology).


But of course, we are civil and we carry out these things such as quote each other to death till we come back around to the start of the argument - presuppositions and original beliefs that guide our thinking and arguments. Do I still get the bad rap for all this meandering?

I'd be MOST HAPPY to clear the record between us both, and start fresh. :yo:

Richard

fredgeorge
01-14-2008, 06:05 PM
well, you've got me reading Ernest Martin who as far as I can tell documents his claims (contrary to your review of his book) in the Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud, Ecclesiasticus, Didascalia Apostolorum, and others. Did you not read these parts where it speaks about the closed canon and threefold division as related by the sources Martin quotes? Is the problem that they are written in Hebrew or did you find an english translation?

While I'm researching this fascinating subject of the background of both the Jewish canon and the early NT canon (which also had different orderings, see Athanasius http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html and the council of Laodicea who also had a different OT ordering, see canon 60, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm ) I just wanted to point out your single largest mistake and once again proving my point of assumptions in logic. And I quote...

Now as for your statement that this doesn't prove that "God made it" let me ask you this: Have you considered what you just said? You admit the pattern is totally obvious. And its based on the Biblical numberofcompetion and perfection, as well as the only 2D geometric figure (the circle) with infinite symmetry. Thus the Bible Wheel incorporates to independent symbols of completion and perfection (the Number 7 and the Circle). Now anyone who knows the history of the Bible knows that the humans who God used to write and collate the Bible could not have designed it, because the end product would have had to have been in view when the project was begun back with Moses, and the only being that knew what the final form of the Bible would be at the time the project began was God. And besides, have you forgotten we are talking about the Holy Bible here? Its GOD'S Word, so of course we Christians have every reason to believe it was designed by Him!
So, back to the beginning...why this is wrong...let me show you step by step.

First, you argue that I admit the pattern is 'totally obvious' which, let me clarify, I mean that yes there is a pattern (my words are 'undeniable proof' because, well 66 modus 22 gives no remainder). But if you mean obvious to say that every person who reads the Bible will have it jump out at them, then no. It is not obvious to the point that everyone sees it naturally; you have to point it out to them. This is where the assumptions begin (and now I do mean wrong assumptions, namely ending in the idea of an 'invincible, divine BW' which is an assumption that such an idea or thing exists in the first place. kinda like assuming that there is a Bible Code and then using it to 'prove' that through one prediction it is true, see further down for full illustration).

Second, let's see the logic of your argument from a summary statement: a) Because the BW is based on two (independent) symbols of perfection and b) it would be too hard for humans to do that, then c) God must be the only person who could do it. a + b = c
1. So, if you can prove things by mathematical symbols and permutability, and the inability for a human to put it there, let's take the Bible Code as an example...Michael Drosnin, a journalist who wrote the "Bible Code" and other books predicted in 1994 that Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, would be assassinated. This happened in 1995. The sheer probability of finding that in the Bible Codes proves that it could not have been done by humans. The fact that it was predicted through Scripture, if we believe that it is God's perfect word, shows that the Bible Codes must be infallible. Well, I'll let you finish this exmple out by researching the next prediciton from the Bible Codes 2 of a nuclear holocaust in 2006. Gee, must be true since its impossible for man to put it there.

2. Divine means God said it not inferred it. God did not say, here is the Bible Wheel, a truly amazing piece of work for you to finally understand the Bible. How can you prove that "a + b = c" is my basic question of logic. You cannot. Just as the evidences of a created order point to God but does not PROVE God exists, so your evidences show a unique pattern but not a divine origin. (And just so no one quotes Romans 1:20 to counter this statement, remember if you could PROVE something without a shadow of a doubt, that would mean there is no longer room for faith and no athiest would logically exist in the world. The fact that both faith - see Hebrews 6:11 - is needed and God is not proven to each and every person shows that mathematically, there is room for doubt or different interpretations on the created order - which I do not agree with but they prove the point that presuppositions come before conclusions.)

3. Also, the 'final form' of scripture is more an argument from choice rather than from definite agreement. You choose the 'Protestant Bible' versus the Catholic Bible and the Jewish orderings. You do not accept any apocryphal books or consider them deuterocanonical. These are all presuppositions but they show that the 'final form' has not been fixed throughout history nor the ordering.

4. Finally, your claims are simply not substantiated by scripture itself nor traditions nor church history. You quote ppl who have made reference to the BW and the sevenfold division but this does not show that throughout history it has been accepted throughout the divisions of the church. Traditions of Mishnah and the Talmuds as well as the numerous references in the NT (see Matt 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, Luke 16:16, 24:44, John 1:45, Acts 13:15, 24:14, 28:23, Romans 3:21) speak against your division of the OT. So, you have three testimonies against you not for you. You are working from one perspective and only one which sorely needs better logic.

Yeah, I thought we were getting somewhere too. But...I take it back. The more I read on the site, the less it looks like your 'common sense and logic' will topple the rapidly spinning top that rests on such bad conclusions and presuppositions. Let me ask you, could you even consider your own conclusions and logic in light of the vast amount of time, energy, and pride that you have obviously put into this idea and site? If you were wrong somewhere, could you admit it?

now, back to reading and more fun research...
________
History of bmw history (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/History_of_BMW)

Richard Amiel McGough
01-14-2008, 07:03 PM
Hey there fredgeorge! :yo:

I'm glad you are researching this. It is indeed a fascinating study.

well, you've got me reading Ernest Martin who as far as I can tell documents his claims (contrary to your review of his book) in the Mishnah, Babylonian Talmud, Ecclesiasticus, Didascalia Apostolorum, and others. Did you not read these parts where it speaks about the closed canon and threefold division as related by the sources Martin quotes? Is the problem that they are written in Hebrew or did you find an english translation?
I never said he didn't give citations. I was talking about specific claims he left unsupported. If you want to refute a specific claim that I made, you will have to quote my exact words.


While I'm researching this fascinating subject of the background of both the Jewish canon and the early NT canon (which also had different orderings, see Athanasius http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxv.iii.iii.xxv.html and the council of Laodicea who also had a different OT ordering, see canon 60, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm )

Thanks for the links. They reveal the primary error of Martin, which is his outrageous assertion (and assumption) that there was one single "original" order to the entire Christian canon. I trust you recognize his argument as entirely absurd and ignorant.


I just wanted to point out your single largest mistake and once again proving my point of assumptions in logic. And I quote...

Now as for your statement that this doesn't prove that "God made it" let me ask you this: Have you considered what you just said? You admit the pattern is totally obvious. And its based on the Biblical numberofcompetion and perfection, as well as the only 2D geometric figure (the circle) with infinite symmetry. Thus the Bible Wheel incorporates to independent symbols of completion and perfection (the Number 7 and the Circle). Now anyone who knows the history of the Bible knows that the humans who God used to write and collate the Bible could not have designed it, because the end product would have had to have been in view when the project was begun back with Moses, and the only being that knew what the final form of the Bible would be at the time the project began was God. And besides, have you forgotten we are talking about the Holy Bible here? Its GOD'S Word, so of course we Christians have every reason to believe it was designed by Him!
So, back to the beginning...why this is wrong...let me show you step by step.

First, you argue that I admit the pattern is 'totally obvious' which, let me clarify, I mean that yes there is a pattern (my words are 'undeniable proof' because, well 66 modus 22 gives no remainder). But if you mean obvious to say that every person who reads the Bible will have it jump out at them, then no. It is not obvious to the point that everyone sees it naturally; you have to point it out to them. This is where the assumptions begin (and now I do mean wrong assumptions, namely ending in the idea of an 'invincible, divine BW' which is an assumption that such an idea or thing exists in the first place. kinda like assuming that there is a Bible Code and then using it to 'prove' that through one prediction it is true, see further down for full illustration).

I agree that it "is not obvious to the point that everyone sees it naturally" but that was not my point, so I don't see how your comment proves any faulty "assumptions."


Second, let's see the logic of your argument from a summary statement: a) Because the BW is based on two (independent) symbols of perfection and b) it would be too hard for humans to do that, then c) God must be the only person who could do it. a + b = c

No, that's not the argument at all. I do not assert that it would have been "hard" for a person to do it. I assert it would have been logically impossible for a person to do it becuase that person would have had to design the order and content of the OT to fit a pattern that was entirely unknown until the canon was finalized with the NT. The Designer therefore must transcend the limits of human lifetime and must have been able to control the design of the Bible from its inception when the Five Books of Moses were completed unto its consummation when the final structure of the Bible Wheel was externally reified in the published form of the 66 Book Protestant Canon.


1. So, if you can prove things by mathematical symbols and permutability, and the inability for a human to put it there, let's take the Bible Code as an example...Michael Drosnin, a journalist who wrote the "Bible Code" and other books predicted in 1994 that Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, would be assassinated. This happened in 1995. The sheer probability of finding that in the Bible Codes proves that it could not have been done by humans.

Your argument has a gaping hole. You have not proven that there was any "improbability" at all. I gave simple, clear and incontrovertible mathematical calculations, and you attempt to refute me with an empty claim of some supposed "improbability" of some Bible Code codswallop? Get real. Show me the NUMBERS you used in your calculations or come up with a different argument.


The fact that it was predicted through Scripture, if we believe that it is God's perfect word, shows that the Bible Codes must be infallible. Well, I'll let you finish this exmple out by researching the next prediciton from the Bible Codes 2 of a nuclear holocaust in 2006. Gee, must be true since its impossible for man to put it there.

That argument is ludicrous. It has nothing to do with anything I have written.


2. Divine means God said it not inferred it.



That is not what "divine" means. Here's the definition from Websters (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/divine):
1 a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> b: being a deity <the divine Savior> c: directed to a deity <divine worship>2 a: supremely good : superb <the pie was divine> b: heavenly godlikeI used it in the sense highlight red.


2. Divine means God said it not inferred it. God did not say, here is the Bible Wheel, a truly amazing piece of work for you to finally understand the Bible. How can you prove that "a + b = c" is my basic question of logic. You cannot. Just as the evidences of a created order point to God but does not PROVE God exists, so your evidences show a unique pattern but not a divine origin. (And just so no one quotes Romans 1:20 to counter this statement, remember if you could PROVE something without a shadow of a doubt, that would mean there is no longer room for faith and no athiest would logically exist in the world. The fact that both faith - see Hebrews 6:11 - is needed and God is not proven to each and every person shows that mathematically, there is room for doubt or different interpretations on the created order - which I do not agree with but they prove the point that presuppositions come before conclusions.)

That argument fails because no one can PROVE anything to someone who refuses to believe, so the existence of PROOF does not nullify FAITH. And besides, your "refutation" is just a general statement that my proof can not be a proof because proof is impossible. That's just begging the question because the validity of my proof proves that your argument is false.


3. Also, the 'final form' of scripture is more an argument from choice rather than from definite agreement. You choose the 'Protestant Bible' versus the Catholic Bible and the Jewish orderings. You do not accept any apocryphal books or consider them deuterocanonical. These are all presuppositions but they show that the 'final form' has not been fixed throughout history nor the ordering.

Again, you have failed to comprehend the most basic element of my arguemnt. It has nothing to do with other objects. The Bible Wheel is a representation of a specific object. I assert that given the natural history of the formation of that object, we can confidently assert that its structure was not deliberately designed by people who put it together. Therefore, given its extreme improbability, coupled with the overwhelming intelligence it displays, we are justfied to conclude that it is the product of an intelligent agent. Putting all the pieces together implies that intelligent agent was God.

QED.


4. Finally, your claims are simply not substantiated by scripture itself nor traditions nor church history. You quote ppl who have made reference to the BW and the sevenfold division but this does not show that throughout history it has been accepted throughout the divisions of the church. Traditions of Mishnah and the Talmuds as well as the numerous references in the NT (see Matt 5:17, 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, Luke 16:16, 24:44, John 1:45, Acts 13:15, 24:14, 28:23, Romans 3:21) speak against your division of the OT. So, you have three testimonies against you not for you. You are working from one perspective and only one which sorely needs better logic.

The symbolic meaning of the structure is substantiated throughout the Bible. I did not cite the folks who recognized the sevenfold division to prove it was valid. I cited them to prove that I did not make it up myself because that would be the only argument against the obvious conclusion that God did it because the sevenfold symmetry proves design. And finally, it matters not at all if the final form was not recognized by Christians in the past. That is not used as a criterion for any conclusions I draw.


Yeah, I thought we were getting somewhere too. But...I take it back. The more I read on the site, the less it looks like your 'common sense and logic' will topple the rapidly spinning top that rests on such bad conclusions and presuppositions. Let me ask you, could you even consider your own conclusions and logic in light of the vast amount of time, energy, and pride that you have obviously put into this idea and site? If you were wrong somewhere, could you admit it?

now, back to reading and more fun research...
:lol: That's great fredgeorge! Very funny indeed! Every arguement you have posted has fallen flat, and now you accuse me of "pride." Don't you know that's the last resort of a failed argument? And again you falsely claim that my arguments rest on "bad conclusions and presuppositions" but for some strange reason you are incapable of making any of those charges stick.

But I'm glad you are trying! There is nothing like a vigorous attack on the Bible Wheel to prove the overwhelming wonder that God has laid before us in His most excellent Word.

Thanks!

Richard

fredgeorge
01-15-2008, 12:58 AM
I didn't know it was the last resort of a failed argument. So, I guess you failed to consider it, judging by your last response? Oh well, I guess introspection is for the birds.


Therefore, given its extreme improbability, coupled with the overwhelming intelligence it displays, we are justfied to conclude that it is the product of an intelligent agent. Putting all the pieces together implies that intelligent agent was God.
Ah, no, it does not imply God. But I'm glad you used implies rather than proves. I think you're learning.


Your argument has a gaping hole. You have not proven that there was any "improbability" at all. I gave simple, clear and incontrovertible mathematical calculations, and you attempt to refute me with an empty claim of some supposed "improbability" of some Bible Code codswallop? Get real. Show me the NUMBERS you used in your calculations or come up with a different argument.
Is it that you can't calculate the probability or that I have to spell it out for you mathematically? People try to use these probabilities all the time to show that there is divine origin; this example is not mathematical its relational. I'm relating the similarity of the arguments.


That is not what "divine" means. Here's the definition from Websters:

1 a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god <divine love> b: being a deity <the divine Savior> c: directed to a deity <divine worship>2 a: supremely good : superb <the pie was divine> b: heavenly godlike

I used it in the sense highlight red.
Oh, thanks....didn't know that one. Let me update...Divine means God made it or said it not that we infer its divine. You asked before how I would know what a 'divine level' of design would be? Its not one that is proved mathematically.


The symbolic meaning of the structure is substantiated throughout the Bible.
In similar encrypted ways, it would be like looked for the black cat in a dark room when how do you know what you pick up is a black cat. You just assume it. Repeat for all spokes of the BW.



The symbolic meaning of the structure is substantiated throughout the Bible. I did not cite the folks who recognized the sevenfold division to prove it was valid. I cited them to prove that I did not make it up myself because that would be the only argument against the obvious conclusion that God did it because the sevenfold symmetry proves design. And finally, it matters not at all if the final form was not recognized by Christians in the past. That is not used as a criterion for any conclusions I draw.
But it is a criterion that should be considered. Once again though, sevenfold symmetry shows creative organization but not divine inspiration. The chaos theory is a simply explanation of this effect. Impose order on a chaotic set of data and order will emerge. Order and symmetry, once again do not infer, prove or otherwise logically necessitate a divine origin. Using all the logic in the world won't get science to prove metaphysics. Once again, why do we have honest athiests or agnostics in the world (not the ones who are refusing to believe but have genuine questions) - because there are questions and leaps of faith that go in different directions.


That argument is ludicrous. It has nothing to do with anything I have written. By inference, the similarity of the arguments and the mathematical probability that you both tout, you and Michael Drosnin claim divine origin.


That's great fredgeorge! Very funny indeed! Every arguement you have posted has fallen flat, and now you accuse me of "pride." Don't you know that's the last resort of a failed argument? And again you falsely claim that my arguments rest on "bad conclusions and presuppositions" but for some strange reason you are incapable of making any of those charges stick.

But I'm glad you are trying! There is nothing like a vigorous attack on the Bible Wheel to prove the overwhelming wonder that God has laid before us in His most excellent Word.

Ah, once again...didn't realize I was at the end of the line...hmmm, i thought i was just beginning. Maybe its because I have to keep coming back to basic logic and arguments and philosophy to try to pick up the pieces from your poor inferences. Yeah, my arguments fall flat...and yours are round......Example: The BW is divinely inspired because of its complexity and symmetry; but because of the BW's divinely inspired status, there must be infinite complexity and symmetry which makes it invincible. Your presuppositions support your own conclusions and your own conclusions support your presuppositions. Start at one point for Pete's sake (don't know who Pete is but please, have a heart). Once you figure out how much your own logic circulates you'll figure out why we haven't left square one (and why nothing 'sticks' in your mind). Let me link it for you on wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Now, when you've finally figured out how your circular reasoning is attempting to validate your arguments and presuppositions at the same time, maybe you could "beg the question" to yourself and figure out why you seem to be so closed to any rebuttal. The proverb rings true here,

Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.
All a man's ways seem right to him,
but the LORD weighs the heart.
Of course the arguments fall flat, you've never heard them in the first place. You call them 'philofilosphy of epistupidomology' and it aptly describes your thinking. Write less and think more, if it is possible. Maybe you will catch what is being said. I still think you are stuck on what I said at the very first post...
1. The Bible has a pattern (that is divinely inspired)
2. The pattern shows divine authorship by its complexity (how can we as humans discover a divine complexity?)
3. By virtue of #1 and #2, God put the Bible Wheel there we just had to 'see' it.

I don't know what you mean by that.

At this point, I don't believe we will get anywhere since the basics of philosophical arguments and rational, logical progression is like a brick sinking into the ocean of pure circular pride. If you would like to further discussion, email me. I cannot type in this gray little box any longer...I'm getting claustrophobic trying to read everything in the quick reply.
________
Lovely Wendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

Abigail
01-15-2008, 02:01 AM
If you would like to further discussion, email me. I cannot type in this gray little box any longer...I'm getting claustrophobic trying to read everything in the quick reply.

you can use the 'preview post' to read through your post at intervals ...that does make it easier. I hope you guys dont go to e-mails. I like to read discussions like this.

Rose
01-15-2008, 09:42 AM
Hi fredgeorge, :yo:

I have one, very simple question.

If there is a pattern, and design in the Bible (which obviously there is), how did it get there, and why?

Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
01-15-2008, 12:12 PM
Good morning fredgeorge, :yo:


Ah, no, it does not imply God. But I'm glad you used implies rather than proves. I think you're learning.

Ahha! Now I see the problem in our discussion. You are pretending to know the meanings of basic words and logical theorems that lie entirely outside your true range of knowledge. The words "proves" and "implies" do not carry disjunctive meanings. On the contrary, the word "implies" is essential to any logical proof. Indeed, it is the very definition of the word "proof" as used by professional logicians. Consider the most basic element of any logical proof, which is read as "P implies Q":

P => Q

The symbol "=>" means "implies." It is the essence of any and all logical proofs.

It seems to me that our conversation would be much more interesting, frutiful, and flowing if you disabled your pseudo-intellectual defense system and just used your common sense to talk about the plain and obvious reality that we see before us.



Your argument has a gaping hole. You have not proven that there was any "improbability" at all. I gave simple, clear and incontrovertible mathematical calculations, and you attempt to refute me with an empty claim of some supposed "improbability" of some Bible Code codswallop? Get real. Show me the NUMBERS you used in your calculations or come up with a different argument.
Is it that you can't calculate the probability or that I have to spell it out for you mathematically? People try to use these probabilities all the time to show that there is divine origin; this example is not mathematical its relational. I'm relating the similarity of the arguments.

It's not for me to do the calculations required for your argument fredgeorge! If you can't support your own argument, then just admit it already. This baby game of "Peakaboo - now you see my argument, now you don't" is extremely tedius.

As for your comparison with "Bible Codes" - that is entirely fallacious. My arguments have nothing in common with Drosnin's. None of my arguments rest upon any "predictions of events" - let alone a single prediction that you erroneously said "proves that it could not have been done by humans." Here is the whole quote:



let's take the Bible Code as an example...Michael Drosnin, a journalist who wrote the "Bible Code" and other books predicted in 1994 that Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, would be assassinated. This happened in 1995. The sheer probability of finding that in the Bible Codes proves that it could not have been done by humans. The fact that it was predicted through Scripture, if we believe that it is God's perfect word, shows that the Bible Codes must be infallible. Well, I'll let you finish this exmple out by researching the next prediciton from the Bible Codes 2 of a nuclear holocaust in 2006. Gee, must be true since its impossible for man to put it there.

Though it is difficult to peer through the dark clouds that obscure your argument, it seems that it can be summarized using symbolic logic as follows. You begin by defining two logical propositions:

P = There has been at least one successful and very improbable prediction using the Bible Codes

Q = The Bible Codes are infallible

You then assert that P => Q.

You then assert that P is True (i.e. Drosnin successfully made a very improbable prediction using the Bible Codes) and Q is False (by giving evidence to the contrary), and so you arrive at the classic Logical Theorem known as Modus Tollens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens):

P => Q,

Not Q,

Therefore, Not P.

That's just great fredgeorge. Your logic was impeccable. You have just proven that a single coincidence - no matter how improbable - is insufficient to logically prove that Bible Codes are infallible. That's a great insight, but methinks you went a little overboard to state the obvious.

The value of your post would be greatly increased if you would apply a similar effort to showing how your refutation of the Bible Codes codswallop has anything whatsoever to do with any argument that I have ever asserted! None of my arguments rest on a single event that was "predicted." I'm not sure if your argument is better classified as the Fallacy of Guilt by Association (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html)" or as a "Straw Man Fallacy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)It has elements of both.

Bottom line - your argument has too many errors to bother documenting them all.


Oh, thanks....didn't know that one. Let me update...Divine means God made it or said it not that we infer its divine. You asked before how I would know what a 'divine level' of design would be? Its not one that is proved mathematically.

Again, you seem confused about the meaning of "infer" as if it were somehow contrary to our discovery that something originated in God. I don't understand that inference at all. Please give the logic behind it if you want to continue pressing it.

As for your odd definition of a "divine level of design" as something that is NOT proven mathematically, where did you get that idea? It seems totally ad hoc, (made up for this occasion - just to dismiss the evidence presented.) You are the one who introduced the phrase "divine level of design" - don't you have a definition for your own words?



The symbolic meaning of the structure is substantiated throughout the Bible.
In similar encrypted ways, it would be like looked for the black cat in a dark room when how do you know what you pick up is a black cat. You just assume it. Repeat for all spokes of the BW.

Well, I guess I can't argue with that. You are the obviously a leading expert in the analysis of the subtle shades of grey found on black cats and dark rooms, that's for sure.



But for the sake of those with eyes not so averse the the light, I will take this opportunity to review a few of those "encrypted" symbols. I begin with the declaration of the identity of the AUTHOR of the Holy Bible as revealed in its Final Book:
Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.Every child schooled in the elementary things of God and the Bible knows the great significance of this Divine Title. Here is how I explain it in my article called The Capstone Signature of God's Word (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/CapstoneSignature.asp):

This title identifies Christ as the Living Word of God http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/AOTA.gif who created all things, as it is written later in the same Book, "his name is called the Word of God" (Rev 19:13, BW book pg 39, see Aleph and Tav, First and Last (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/AlephTav.asp)). It is a Divine Title, revealed by God Himself, and it seals the Bible on multiple reiterative levels; first as a natural symbol of wholeness and completeness, second as a symbol of Eternity, and third as a symbol of the Word, with all these overtones being combined, compacted, pressed down, and shaken together into the ultimate symbol of the Complete Perfection of the Eternal Word of God. It is revealed only in the Apocalypse, and so the Last Book seals the linear sequence of the Sixty-Six Books with the declaration "It is done. I am the Alpha and Omega." Its Hebrew form – Aleph Tav – likewise seals the circular matrix of Sixty-Six Books and combines with the bilateral symmetry of the Canon Wheel, thereby "rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15, BW book pg 246) between the First and Last Spokes (pg 33 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/AlephTav.asp)).
I could present similar evidence for every other "encrypted" aspect of the Bible Wheel.

So here's your mission fredgeorge, should you choose to accept it -

STOP making baseless groundless generalized empty assertions that have nothing to do with anything I've ever written, and

START engaging the actual evidence that I present. Then this converstaition could get interesting.



The symbolic meaning of the structure is substantiated throughout the Bible. I did not cite the folks who recognized the sevenfold division to prove it was valid. I cited them to prove that I did not make it up myself because that would be the only argument against the obvious conclusion that God did it because the sevenfold symmetry proves design. And finally, it matters not at all if the final form was not recognized by Christians in the past. That is not used as a criterion for any conclusions I draw.
But it is a criterion that should be considered. Once again though, sevenfold symmetry shows creative organization but not divine inspiration. The chaos theory is a simply explanation of this effect. Impose order on a chaotic set of data and order will emerge. Order and symmetry, once again do not infer, prove or otherwise logically necessitate a divine origin. Using all the logic in the world won't get science to prove metaphysics. Once again, why do we have honest athiests or agnostics in the world (not the ones who are refusing to believe but have genuine questions) - because there are questions and leaps of faith that go in different directions.

THE CHAOS THEORY? Now your an expert in the CHAOS THEORY? Cool! Now we can have some real serious conversation! I've got degrees in Math and Physics, with advanced graduate work in Quantum Physics. I was working on a PhD in the Problem of Quantum Irreversibility, which is the Quantum analog of the Classical problem of an invariant Entropy caused by the Hamiltonian Unitary Time Evolution. I never finished the PhD because it was just too big of a problem for a PhD thesis. But in the process I had to read a lot of chaos theory becuase that was the primary line of attack to unerstand thermodynamics.

Now as for your comment - you seem to have it precisely backwards. Chaos theory has nothing to do with order being IMPOSED on a choatic set of data. No, no, no, :nono: Chaos theory is the study of how order spontaneously emerges from some choatic systems. This theory directly impacts the question of the "arrow of time" which was central to my PhD work.

But getting back to your argument - your assertions are entirely unfounded. Again you assert that proof is incompatable with faith. That's like arguing that planes can't fly becuase they are heavier than air. Your logic is utterly fallacious on that point, and its quality does not improve by mere repetition.

Again, I suggest that you attempt to find some fundamental error or systematic flaw in my arguemnts as I have presented them. You need to refute my specific arguments. As it is, you seem to be attempting to use logic to refute the idea of "logical proof" in general.



That argument is ludicrous. It has nothing to do with anything I have written.
By inference, the similarity of the arguments and the mathematical probability that you both tout, you and Michael Drosnin claim divine origin.

Wrong again. You still do not even understand my argument. And if you don't understand it, how can you hope to refute it?


Ah, once again...didn't realize I was at the end of the line...hmmm, i thought i was just beginning. Maybe its because I have to keep coming back to basic logic and arguments and philosophy to try to pick up the pieces from your poor inferences.

:lol: Thanks man - that was the Apotheosis of Irony!


Yeah, my arguments fall flat...and yours are round......Example: The BW is divinely inspired because of its complexity and symmetry;

That's not my argument!

That's not my argument!

That's not my argument! How many times do I need to repeat it? If you can't even state the argument that you are supposedly refuting, how could you hope to be successful in your enterprise?


......Example: The BW is divinely inspired because of its complexity and symmetry; but because of the BW's divinely inspired status, there must be infinite complexity and symmetry which makes it invincible. Your presuppositions support your own conclusions and your own conclusions support your presuppositions. Start at one point for Pete's sake (don't know who Pete is but please, have a heart). Once you figure out how much your own logic circulates you'll figure out why we haven't left square one (and why nothing 'sticks' in your mind). Let me link it for you on wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


Again, you have utterly failed to understand the most basic elements of my argument. I have NEVER invoked "the BW's divinely inspired status" in any argument I have ever made. Your charge of "Begging the Question" is incontrovertibly fallacious.

THEREFORE, you statement is a gross misrepresention of the facts. You would do well to acknowledge and correct your erroneous statements. Or if you want to support your charge, then all you need to do is quote something I have written to support it. As it stands, you have simply made yet another UNFOUNDED ASSERTION.

Do you not see that none of your arguments actually deal with any words that I've actually written? You are boxing at the air my friend. If you want to prove me wrong, you need to begin with something I have actually stated.

Richard