PDA

View Full Version : The Bible Wheel, Numerology, and Cognitive Bias



Richard Amiel McGough
08-13-2014, 10:01 PM
I have been thinking a lot about the Bible Wheel and the numerology (holographs). I can see now that selection bias played a central role in both.

I find it VERY curious that you would come to such a conclusion now. You mean to tell me that after 15 years of defending the bible wheel and claiming nobody has been able to refute it, all of a sudden WHEN SOMEONE BEGINS USING IT TO POINT OUT HOW IT DEMONSTRATES THE SUPERNATURAL ORIGIN OF THE BIBLE *REGARDLESS* OF THE "NEGATIVE" TRAITS OF THE BIBLICAL GOD, you now claim it's a result of "selection bias"??? Now be careful with my words. I'm not saying you didn't use the bible wheel before as evidence for the supernatural origin of the bible (you clearly did). What I'm saying is AFTER you concluded the "negative" traits of the biblical God = The biblical God doesn't exist, you never had someone come along (as far as I know) that forced the issue that I've been raising (namely, the "negative" traits of the biblical God has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he exists). So that makes me highly suspicious that you would all of a sudden start claiming the bible wheel is now a result of "selection bias", especially because you're clearly not just a nontheist but a radical ANTITHEIST.

Hey there Gambini, :yo:

I'm really glad you responded to my comment about cognitive bias. It's something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and it really helps to bounce ideas off someone skeptical of my skepticism. Of course, I'm very skeptical of your skepticism of my skepticism because a lot of your numerology and arguments for the the Bible display a tremendous amount of cognitive bias. So it looks like we can both benefit from our mutual skepticism. Welcome to the Skeptic's Zone!

Now it's really important that you try to speak clearly and not misrepresent what I say. The fact that "selection bias" played a role in both the Bible Wheel and numerology is incontrovertible. Nothing could be more obvious, as I explained in the post to which you responded. But you misrepresented my statement when you said that I "claim it's [the Bible Wheel] a result of selection bias." I did not say that it was a RESULT of selection bias. I said "selection bias played a central role." Please forgive me for speaking plainly, but your posts are saturated with misrepresentations like that, which make meaningful discourse very difficult and suggest that you are a very sloppy thinker. Look at all the words I had to write to correct that one error of yours. It get's very tedious. I do hope you will try harder to articulate your thoughts more clearly.

And this is very important to the topic at hand, because sloppy thinking and misrepresentation of your opponent's views (strawmen) is one of the primary ways folks protect themselves from seeing and admitting the cognitive biases that they use to rationalize the COGNITIVE DISSONANCE that constantly alerts them to the fact that their beliefs are in fact false and delusional. So please, try to think carefully with me. We have a great opportunity here.

Another error is your assertion that I am a "radical ANTITHEIST." That is not true, and you know it because I have explained my position many times on this forum, and I explained myself directly to you a couple days ago when you lied about me by saying that am an "Atheist ZEALOT." As I explained, I am an "agnostic atheist" which means I do not assert that there is no god of any kind because such knowledge is beyond any human, and I am not a theist, so I am by definition an atheist. This simply means that I reject all the theistic style gods humans ever proposed, just as you do, save one. Please stop misrepresenting me. It reflects bad on you and makes rational discourse impossible. Again, look at how many words I have to write to correct your error. It get's very tedious.

To move on to a more substantial point: The "negative traits" of the Biblegod was only one of the reasons I concluded the he does not exist. The most important reason is that, contrary to the uniform testimony of the Bible, the Biblegod cannot be trusted. Can you name a single thing that anyone can actually TRUST the Biblegod to do for them in this life? Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It's almost as if he didn't exist! <hint, hint, wink> People who trust the Biblegod for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions. If Biblegod were half as trustworthy as your average dentist there would be no debate about his existence. Therefore, the central claim of the Bible is proven false, and the only rational choice is to reject it.

It is important for you to know the real reasons for my rejection of the Biblegod if you want to help me see the "errors of my way."

Now as for the immorality of the Biblegod - that problem does not stand in isolation. It is part and parcel with all the scientific errors, logical absurdities, and primitive superstitions contained in the Bible. When taken as a whole, it is obvious that the best explanation is that the Bible was written by ignorant men with primitive beliefs. The Bible is indistinguishable from other ancient books in this regard. I find your suggestion that the immorality of God "has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not he exists" absurd. The Bible adamantly asserts that the Biblegod is just and righteous even as it presents him as unjust and unrighteous. Both cannot be true. Therefore, the only rational response is to reject both the Bible and it's god as false.

And this brings us to the central topic of this thread. If the Bible and its god are false, how then do we explain the Bible Wheel and the numerology? The answer should be obvious. It is a demonstrable fact that 99.9999% of all numerology is pure bullshit based fundamentally on cognitive biases like selection bias, cherry picking, rationalization, confirmation bias, and so forth. Therefore, the first thing any rational person would do when confronted with the Bible Wheel and my numerology is to ask: Did cognitive biases play any role in forming and confirming those patterns? The answer is an unequivocal and incontrovertible "yes." When I first began studying numerology, I had nothing but selection bias to work with. I would scan the numerical values of many words and find "hits" that fit a pattern that seemed meaningful to me. The vast majority of the words I examined did not fit any pattern I could see, so I ignored them. This is the definition of selection bias. Likewise, my study of the Bible Wheel involved scanning the books on each spoke looking for connections. That too is the definition of selection bias. Does this mean that the "hits" did not indicate design? Not necessarily. That's the question that needs to be answered. Merely listing a bunch of "hits" as you do proves nothing. The only way to discern between chance and design is to examine ALL the data - including both the hits and the misses. It's a daunting task. I tried to do that in the early stages of my research. I wrote a program to record all the hits and misses but found it an impossible task, so I gave up and only recorded the hits. This means that I may have fallen into a classic delusion created by selection bias. I hope this thread will help determine if this is the case or not.



Theoretically, I could see how you could raise the possibility that the themes under the 22 spokes in the bible wheel might be the result of "selection bias", but how about the fact that the MATHEMATICAL DESIGN in the molecular masses of the very amino acids of life CORRESPOND with the semantical AND geometrical design in the very first verse of the bible??? That has NOTHING to do with selection bias.

Personally, I have never been impressed by the counting of atoms in those molecules and they have never played any role in my studies. There may be something to it, but if so I haven't seen anything convincing as yet. It's irrelevant to my quest to determine if the Bible Wheel and the numerology that I studied shows any signs of design. That's all I am interested in testing right now.

Your comment displays a particular kind of bias I see frequently in your posts. You use established results like the Creation holograph to lend credence to claims that would not stand on their own. That's a significant error in thinking that bloats your sense of "evidence" beyond what is justified by the facts. We need to examine each claim on its own merits.

Most of your posts, such as the one I am answering, contain examples of this error. You throw together the good, the bad, and ugly into one shotgun blast of "proof" to create an illusion that the evidence is much stronger than it really is. I've explained this to you many times but you just don't seem to get it. Your proof would be a thousand times stronger if you focused on the really strong results (like the holographs) and omitted the stuff that is dubious at best (and which is often total bullshit, as I've proven many times). In the world of "proof" less is more. It's odd that you don't realize that intelligent folks typically ignore (for good reason) someone who mixes error with truth the way you do.



And how about the MATHEMATICAL DESIGN in the breastplate of the high priest, the "Star Of Israel" pattern or the first Prime Magic Square (ALL of which is mathematically linked to the MATHEMATICAL DESIGN in Genesis 1:1)??? NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with selection bias (the numbers are clearly there).

As I've explained before, I've never seen any significance in "magic squares."

The numerical patterns on the breastplate is intriguing, but there is a selection bias in its design. I wonder how many attempts were made before one with this pattern was found? It is not patterned on any list of names explicitly given in scripture. The list was designed by the person who made the design. He chose to omit Levi and replace Joesph with his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, and move Benjamin from the last to the ten position in birth order.

Your comments are a perfect example of the bias I described above. You are presenting a shotgun of mixed results in an attempt to create an illusion of "overwhelming design." If you really want to convince me, you must focus upon one thing at a time. Less is more. If you can establish one point, then it will stand like a rock upon which you can build. When I see your scattered approach it strikes me as an example of sloppy biased thinking and so is worse than useless because it actually serves as evidence AGAINST your position rather than for it. You need to prove that your results are REAL and based on PRINCIPLED THINKING that is mathematically legitimate and that you have considered the relevant probabilities. Merely asserting "that can't be a coincidence" is not only meaningless, but evidence that you don't know what you are talking about (as I have proven many times with careful mathematical analysis of your claims).



Or how about the fact that there are 22 + 1 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of 37 (with EACH of the seven words of Genesis 1:1 being used EXACTLY 12 times in making up those perfect multiples of 37, with 12 being the PRIME ORDER of 37 itself)??? That has NOTHING to do with selection bias.

That has everything to do with selection bias. I have seen you relate dozens of numbers to Genesis 1:1 in dozens of ways. You have not shown that those coincidences are meaningful. That's what you need to do .... in a slow, thoughtful, principled manner. Do you really expect me to believe credulous crap? It won't happen. Merely claiming "look at these coincidences! They must be designed!" strikes me as absurd and as a perfect example of cognitive bias. It is the primary error of all the fallacious numerologists in the world. You really need to think about this.



And even with the bible wheel itself ...

How do you explain the STATISTICAL HITS of relevant words appearing under certain spokes???

I'm really glad you brought that up. It's an excellent example of my own selection bias. I only reported the stats that fit the pattern. If you examine the statistics of the distribution of ALL the words in the whole Bible, the stats show no design. I simply I know, because I studied them for years hoping to find evidence. There are some intriguing coincidences, but nothing that would statistically prove design.



How do you explain the fact that the odds of a symmetric sevenfold canon like the bible wheel is 1 in 688,324???


Off the top of my head, I see a variety of possible explanations:

Designed by God.
Designed by some other superhuman intelligent agent
Designed (perhaps subconsciously) by the scribes who kept rearranging the books to fit patterns they liked (there is much evidence that this happened)
Subconscious manifestation of the group mind (not unlike dream mandalas)
What pattern? So what? (This is the response I got from many if not most Christians)
That's Preposterous! (Direct quote from William Lane Craig when asked for his opinion)
Chance (shit happens).
All of the above
None of the above
Some combination of the above

So what do you think about the coincidences between Lincoln and Kennedy? What are the chances?

And what do you think of this site - Spurious Correlations (http://io9.com/our-new-favorite-website-spurious-correlations-1574464459) - that shows "amazing" coincidences in large datasets?



How do you explain the fact that Isaiah is placed MIDWAY between the giving of the Torah, and the completion of the New Testament and the structure of the BOOK of Isaiah happens to correspond with the large scale structure of the 66 book canon of the bible (as does the bible wheel)???

As I presume you know, the Isaiah-Bible Correlation (http://www.biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Isaiah/IsaiahBible.php) is one of the primary areas I studied. It's a huge part of my original website. Unfortunately, this kind of "correlation" is extremely susceptible to cognitive bias. I have met TWO people who came up with different patterns and were absolutely convinced that they had total proof of the divine design of the Bible. One guy had simply made up his own order, but the other guy used the order of the Tanach for the OT and the early manuscript order for the NT. His stuff was disturbing because I noticed some of his correlations were much better than what we see in the standard KJV order. For example, in the Tanach, Isaiah is book 12 and in Isaiah 12 we read of drawing from the "wells of salvation" (Isaiah means "the lord is savior.") This is much better than Isaiah 23 which doesn't have anything linking to Isaiah. I was always very disappointed with that. And then there's Isaiah 13 which is all about the fall of Babylon which corresponds very well with Jeremiah which is book 13 in the Tanach. Of course, Isaiah 24 correlates well too so it's not so bad. UPSHOT - lots of cognitive bias in this kind of study.



How do you explain the fact that a CIRCLE (the bible wheel = A CIRCLE) with an area of 31102 (the number of VERSES in the bible = 31102) divides up into 7 segments (the bible wheel = 7 natural divisions) with each having an area of 66.66 x 66.66 (the number of BOOKS in the bible = 66)???

That's curious, but never really impressed me much. Like I said, you should drop the shotgun approach and work with me to establish a foundation of results that actually demand explanation. A random set of random results, no matter how "intriguing" the numbers may be, can't prove that the Bible is designed.

And here's the most important fact: You generally accept without criticism anything that supports your believe in the Bible, and reject exactly the same kind of evidence that would support Islam or some other religion. That is BIAS. You can't deny it. I've seen you do it a hundred times. Don't you care if your beliefs are true or not?



How do you explain the fact that a CIRCLE (the bible wheel = A CIRCLE) with an area of 31102 (the number of VERSES in the bible = 31102) divides up into 22 segments (the bible wheel consists of 22 spokes) with each having an area of 11.89 x 118.9 (the number of CHAPTERS in the bible = 1189)??? Further, notice that the very word from which we get BIBLE = The FIRST word of the New Testament = A numerical value of *314* ...

22/7 = 3.14, which is the CLOSEST approximation of *PI* under 100 (the bible wheel = A *CIRCLE* and consists of *22* spokes, corresponding with the *22* letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and *7* natural divisions).

All that is very intriguing if you begin with a belief in the Bible. But you know it proves nothing because if you found similar things in the Quran you wouldn't become a Muslim. For example, the Quran states that the Number 19 rules over it, and it has 114 = 6 x 19 and 6 is the first PERFECT number and 19 is hexagonal. That's PROOF, right?



When you take all that together, I don't see how the bible wheel can be dismissed as an example of "selection bias". And the fact that you got a bunch of misses during your massive research doesn't change the fact that the OVERWHELMING number of overall CONNECTIONS under the 22 spokes are there. You see what I mean? That IN ITSELF is mathematically significant. So it really boils down to this ...

That's your primary error. The idea of taking all the CONFETTI of numbers and ideas "together" as if they all "confirmed" each other. That's a fundamental bias that makes your judgment suspect.



The large scale structure of the bible (the bible wheel) is there for the whole world to see. So if you're now going to claim the OVERWHELMING overall number of CONNECTIONS under the 22 spokes are a product of "selection bias", then THE BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to provide a SIMILAR example of connections in a random text (and the same thing goes for the "Creation Holograph" of Genesis 1:1-5/John 1:1-5).

There you go - declaring that your confetti of patterns is "OVERWHELMING." That to me looks like pure bias.

As for the burden of proof - you've got it backwards. How many "connections" did I report in my book and on this site? A tiny fraction of the total POSSIBLE connections given the 31,102 verses of the Bible. Therefore, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims there IS a pattern. Sorry. That's the only intelligent response to claims of "patterns" found in "holy books" involving numerology. Remember - 99.99999% of all such claims are total crap and demonstrably delusions based on bias. So why should my little religious thingy be any different? Especially if selection bias played a central role in its development?

Again, I'm really glad you are working with me on this. I look forward to really digging down deep to see what is, or is not, the case.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-16-2014, 05:33 PM
Deafening silence ...

:pop2:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-22-2014, 12:43 PM
Yo! Gambini!

It would be great if you would answer my post.

:pop2:

Gambini
08-22-2014, 07:07 PM
Yo! Gambini!

It would be great if you would answer my post.

:pop2:


Hey Richard :yo:


I'm glad you reminded me of this post. This is my first time seeing your "deafening silence" remark :D


I didn't respond to your first post because it was too long and would require a pretty long reply back. I'm going to try and set some time aside this weekend. As much as I hate doing long replies, there's just way too many problems I see in your post to ignore.



Catch you later :winking0071:



BINI

Richard Amiel McGough
08-22-2014, 07:09 PM
Hey Richard :yo:


I'm glad you reminded me of this post. This is my first time seeing your "deafening silence" remark :D


I didn't respond to your first post because it was too long and would require a pretty long reply back. I'm going to try and set some time aside this weekend. As much as I hate doing long replies, there's just way too many problems I see in your post to ignore.



Catch you later :winking0071:



BINI
You could always just comment on one point at a time you know. Personally, I think that is a much better strategy. That way we can focus on a single point and actually "take it to the mat." Most of your posts are so scattered that it's impossible to follow your train of thought, let alone effectively answer (without writing a book). And it gives you an opportunity to ignore points that you can't answer. You should just pick ONE POINT that you think is most devastating and present that. And then I will answer that ONE POINT and maybe we will be able to establish the truth of the matter.

Gambini
08-23-2014, 12:58 PM
So please, try to think carefully with me. We have a great opportunity here.


Sounds good to me.




Another error is your assertion that I am a "radical ANTITHEIST." That is not true, and you know it because I have explained my position many times on this forum, and I explained myself directly to you a couple days ago when you lied about me by saying that I am an "Atheist ZEALOT." As I explained, I am an "agnostic atheist" which means I do not assert that there is no god of any kind because such knowledge is beyond any human, and I am not a theist, so I am by definition an atheist. This simply means that I reject all the theistic style gods humans ever proposed, just as you do, save one. Please stop misrepresenting me. It reflects bad on you and makes rational discourse impossible. Again, look at how many words I have to write to correct your error. It get's very tedious.


The fact that you're an agnostic doesn't change the fact that you're an antitheist. You don't have to be POSITIVE about the nonexistence of God in order to be an antitheist. Your comments THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE FORUM bear witness to my claim that you're a radical antitheist. I'm not trying to be rude or misrepresent you. At the very least, you're RADICALLY against the biblical portrayal of God. So right off the jump, I already know you'd rather not have the biblical God to be real. I just find it curious that you would do a 180, after defending the bible wheel for 15 years (and claiming nobody has been able to refute it), and claim the entire design is now a massive fail. My suspicion arises primarily for two reasons ...

1) We already know you're an antitheist (especially with regards to biblical theism).
2) As soon as I pointed out that the "negative" traits of the biblical God have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he actually exists, you hit me with the 180 and claim the bible wheel is flawed ...


I think you're starting to realize that *ALL* (I repeat, *ALL*) of the problems you've EVER raised against the biblical God can be classified as "negative" traits, which again, have absolutely no bearing whatsoever with regards to whether or not the biblical God exists. For example, ALL the "contradictions" or "errors" would only point to his FALLIBILITY. There isn't a SINGLE problem you've EVER raised about the biblical God that cannot be classified as simply "negative" or "imperfect" traits. And it's very curious that AS SOON AS I POINTED THIS OUT, you do a 180.


Another point ...


ATHEISM IS NOT A "LACK OF BELIEF"! That is *NOT* the UNIVERSAL definition of atheism. You can't give me a SINGLE recognized dictionary that DOESN'T define atheism as the BELIEF that there is no God but I can give you several recognized dictionaries that DOESN'T define atheism as a "LACK OF BELIEF". For example, the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Merriam Webster Compact Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary DO NOT have the "LACK OF BELIEF" definition. In other words, MY definition of atheism is UNIVERSAL. Yours ISN'T.


Btw, the very reason many atheists want to hide under the umbrella of "lacking a belief" fails in itself. They use this to place the entire burden of proof on the theist, which is a waste of time because GENERAL THEISM IS THE DEFAULT POSITION *REGARDLESS* OF HOW YOU DEFINE ATHEISM. I don't have to demonstrate to the solipsist that the external world exists. He has to demonstrate to me that the external world doesn't exist (and there are just as many, if not more, solipsists worldwide as there are nontheists). Your response to this is to claim that doesn't prove God exists. BUT THAT'S A RED HERRING! Nobody is saying the fact that general theism is the default position = God exists. The POINT is that since general theism is the default position, it is IRRATIONAL to reject it UNTIL you can present POSITIVE evidence against general theism. Just like it is IRRATIONAL to reject the idea that the external world exists UNLESS someone can provide POSITIVE evidence against it.




The Biblegod cannot be trusted. Can you name a single thing that anyone can actually TRUST the Biblegod to do for them in this life? Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It's almost as if he didn't exist! <hint, hint, wink>


The trustworthiness of the biblical God has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he exists. And you're not even making an argument here. This is nothing more than your OPINION. There are *BILLIONS* of people who believe their prayers have been answered (and yes, God can answer the prayers of non-Christians). Your milk jug analogy is a complete strawman caricature of evidential arguments for answered prayer. An evidential argument for answered prayer only applies to EXTRAORDINARY incidents of answered prayer, of which there are thousands.




Does this mean that the "hits" did not indicate design? Not necessarily. That's the question that needs to be answered. Merely listing a bunch of "hits" as you do proves nothing. The only way to discern between chance and design is to examine ALL the data - including both the hits and the misses. It's a daunting task. I tried to do that in the early stages of my research. I wrote a program to record all the hits and misses but found it an impossible task, so I gave up and only recorded the hits. This means that I may have fallen into a classic delusion created by selection bias. I hope this thread will help determine if this is the case or not.


Hold on, the burden of proof is on NEITHER one of us to demonstrate the OBSERVABLE large scale structure of the bible wheel is a random phenomenon. If someone is going to claim the OBSERVABLE patterns are random, then they need to get a RANDOM text, break it down into three sets around 22 spokes that are EACH assigned the same 22 meanings behind the 22 Hebrew alphabets (as well as the 8 keywords for each 22 letters from the Psalm 119 pattern) and produce the same amount of interlocking correlations found in the bible wheel. If you claim the pattern is random, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is.



TO BE CONTINUED ...

Gambini
08-23-2014, 02:55 PM
Personally, I have never been impressed by the counting of atoms in those molecules and they have never played any role in my studies. There may be something to it, but if so I haven't seen anything convincing as yet. It's irrelevant to my quest to determine if the Bible Wheel and the numerology that I studied shows any signs of design. That's all I am interested in testing right now.


The mathematical links between Genesis 1:1 and the very genome of life is even more powerful than the bible wheel ...


•The semantical AND geometrical structure of THE VERY FIRST VERSE IN THE BIBLE, which INTRODUCES the creation account, breaks down to (666 + 666 + 666) + 703.


•The 4 x 5 table of the 20 amino acids of life, which is arranged according to their chemical properties, CLEARLY consists of mathematical design that happens to CORRESPOND with the semantical/geometrical structure of Genesis 1:1.


•(666 + 666 + 666) = The *37th* composite number and 703 = The *37th* Triangular number.


•666 + 703 = The *37th* Square number.


•666 = The distance between the *37th* order of EVERY successive polygon (to infinity) and 703 = The *37th* order of the FIRST polygon.


•Genesis 1:1 + *37* = The nucleon sum of the 20 amino acids of life.


•The PRIME FACTORS of Genesis 1:1 = *37* x *73*.


•Genesis 1:1 = The *37th* Hexagon AND the *73rd* Triangle.


•We KNOW Genesis 1:1 is mathematically rooted in the number *37* through the 22 + 1 word value combinations that are perfect multiples of *37* (WAY beyond random chance) with EACH of the seven words in Genesis 1:1 being used EXACTLY 12 times in making up those perfect multiples of *37* (12 = The PRIME ORDER of *37*). In fact, Peter Bluer has demonstrated that this feature DISAPPEARS when Genesis 1:1 is translated into OTHER languages with different gematria values for the different languages used.


•The fact that there is an intentional design in the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1 is FURTHER CORROBORATED by the ARITHMETIC PROGRESSION of word value combinations that are perfect multiples of the ONLY word value in Genesis 1:1 that is PRIME (401 x 1, 401 x 2, 401 x 3, 401 x 4 and 401 x 5). And this is even MORE beyond random chance than the 22 + 1 perfect multiples of *37*!!! So there is CLEARLY an intentional design built into the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1.


•According to Tidjani Negari's paper, the proportion of the amino acid PROLINE (which is the most UNIQUE of the 20 amino acids of life AND is the "KEY" that opens up the mathematical design in the genome arranged around the triple repdigits 111 through 999 in BASE TEN) in the kinked helices of the genome = *3.7*%.


•The formation of a peptide bond (the condensation reaction) produces a system, constituted by two amino acids and a water molecule, exhibiting a net dipole moment evaluated to *3.7* Debye.


•The human mitochondrial genome encodes for EXACTLY *37* genes.


•There are *3.7* amino acid residues per helix turn.


•The average molecular weight for the 20 amino acids of life is precisely *37* x *3.7*.


•The difference between the number of protons and neutrons in the 20 amino acids of life = The sum of all the PRIMES up to *37*.


•The sum of the atomic numbers of the different kinds of atoms in DNA = *37* and the total number of atoms in the different kinds of molecules in DNA = *73* (the PRIME FACTORS of Genesis 1:1 = *37* x *73*).



This is an UNDENIABLE link between the mathematical design in Genesis 1:1 and the mathematical design in the very genome of life. ALL of this information (and much more) *CAN* be taken together to argue for that (rather than taking them each as isolated cases) BECAUSE they are ALL found in Genesis 1:1 and the very genome of life (the links between them means that the mathematical design in one of them CORROBORATES the mathematical design in the other and vice versa). They each stand alone as evidence of mathematical design, but the links between them adds ADDITIONAL support to the mathematical design in both Genesis 1:1 and the very genome of life.




Your proof would be a thousand times stronger if you focused on the really strong results (like the holographs)


I am focusing on the strong results. Obviously I don't place everything on the same level. Things like the Creation Holograph or the link between Genesis 1:1 and the genome of life are very strong results.




I've explained before, I've never seen any significance in "magic squares."


Do you deny that the first prime magic square is NATURALLY encoded with the number *37* (having *37* at its very CENTER)???


Do you deny that the first prime magic square is NATURALLY encoded with the numbers 888, 1480 and 2368 (888 = Jesus, 1480 = Christ and 2368 = Jesus Christ)???


Do you deny that the first prime magic square is NATURALLY encoded with the number 333 (2368 + 333 = Genesis 1:1 AND the perimeter of the Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 Triangle = 333)???


Do you deny that 666 is part of the semantical/geometrical break down in Genesis 1:1 and that 666 itself is the 6th magic square (Genesis 1:1 INTRODUCES the "six days" of creation)???


Do you deny that the perimeter of the Genesis 1:1 Triangle = The first MULTIPLICATION magic square (hence, the PERIMETER of the Genesis 1:1 Triangle = The FIRST multiplication magic square and the PERIMETER of the Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 Triangle = The FIRST prime magic square)???




The numerical patterns on the breastplate is intriguing, but there is a selection bias in its design. I wonder how many attempts were made before one with this pattern was found? It is not patterned on any list of names explicitly given in scripture. The list was designed by the person who made the design. He chose to omit Levi and replace Joesph with his two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, and move Benjamin from the last to the ten position in birth order.


The 12 names on the breastplate follow the NATURAL ORDER OF BIRTHS of all 12 names on the list. It is perfectly permissible to omit Levi (since scripture ITSELF separates him as the progenitor of the priestly class) AND to replace Joseph with Ephraim and Manasseh (since scripture ITSELF does in certain cases when outlining the 12 tribes) ...


•The sum of the 12 names = 3700 (notice that 12 = The PRIME ORDER of *37*).


•The sum of every ODD positioned name value on the breastplate = Exactly HALF of 3700 and the sum of every EVEN positioned name value on the breastplate = Exactly HALF of 3700.


•The book of Numbers *3:7* records the Levites being presented before AARON (the FIRST HIGH PRIEST under the mosaic law) and Numbers *3:7* happens to be the 3700th verse in the bible (the sum of the breastplate = 3700).


•We saw that there is an intentional design in the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1. Well, the total number of word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 = 127 AND the total number of name value combinations on the breastplate that are perfect multiples of *37* = 127!!! Further, the total numerical value of those 127 perfect multiples of *37* = 2368 x 100 (2368 = JESUS CHRIST and the high priest was a TYPE of JESUS CHRIST).


There is MUCH more regarding the breastplate but I'll leave it at that for now.




If you really want to convince me, you must focus upon one thing at a time. Less is more.


That's a bit difficult when you hit me with a really long reply :p



TO BE CONTINUED ...

Gambini
08-23-2014, 05:37 PM
That has everything to do with selection bias. I have seen you relate dozens of numbers to Genesis 1:1 in dozens of ways.


You're actually telling me that the 22 + 1 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of *37* has "everything to do with selection bias"??? WHAT??? That is WAY beyond random chance AND is corroborated by the ARITHMETIC PROGRESSION of word value combinations that are perfect multiples of the ONLY *PRIME* of Genesis 1:1, which is the CENTRAL word value out of the seven Genesis 1:1 word values AND is the ONLY "untranslatable word". That's even MORE evidence that there is an intentional design built into the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1.




Off the top of my head, I see a variety of possible explanations:

Designed by God.
Designed by some other superhuman intelligent agent
Designed (perhaps subconsciously) by the scribes who kept rearranging the books to fit patterns they liked (there is much evidence that this happened)
Subconscious manifestation of the group mind (not unlike dream mandalas)
What pattern? So what? (This is the response I got from many if not most Christians)
That's Preposterous! (Direct quote from William Lane Craig when asked for his opinion)
Chance (shit happens).
All of the above
None of the above
Some combination of the above



1) That is the ONLY logical conclusion that accounts for the bible wheel because the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people known throughout the universe (the Israelites).

2) That is an ad hoc invention to AVOID the fact that the entire bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people known throughout the universe (the Israelites).

3) That doesn't explain the huge complexity and interlocking correlations within the large scale pattern of the bible wheel.

4) That is an ad hoc invention with ZERO evidence for "group minds" (you're scaring me, Richard). My position isn't ad hoc at all BECAUSE the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people throughout the holy universe (the Israelites).

5) That only shows the person is ignorant of your findings. In fact, I myself used this when I first came upon your discovery. For years I thought it was goofy bullshit until I actually looked into all your bible wheel articles and ordered your book.

6) That's either an argument from personal incredulity or just ignorance of the bible wheel itself (Craig commented on your discovery? I didn't even know that).

7) The burden of proof is on the person making this claim to DEMONSTRATE the pattern is random.

8) This is incoherent since it CAN'T be "all of the above" (that would be contradictory).

9) If it's none of the above, then it logically follows the pattern is real AND the burden of proof is on the person to present another alternative AND demonstrate why it should override the plain text of the bible itself (which proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people throughout the universe, the Israelites).

10) Most of these "explanations" would contradict each other and the ONLY one that isn't ad hoc is the first one.




So what do you think about the coincidences between Lincoln and Kennedy? What are the chances?


That's clearly selection bias because you're ALREADY starting with two presidents who happened to be assassinated and then searching for RANDOM occurrences in both their lives. *NOTHING* about the bible wheel is random. There are RULES relating to the meanings behind each of the 22 letters ruling over each of the 22 spokes AND there is a correspondence with the keywords that begin each stanza in the 22 divisions of Psalm 119 (which is alphabetically designed).




And what do you think of this site - Spurious Correlations (http://io9.com/our-new-favorite-website-spurious-correlations-1574464459) - that shows "amazing" coincidences in large datasets?


That has absolutely NOTHING to do with biblical gematria. Biblical gematria involves mathematical links of *RELATED* words that have significant meaning to each other. This site you posted is meaningless. None of those things have any relation to each other.




As I presume you know, the Isaiah-Bible Correlation (http://www.biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/Isaiah/IsaiahBible.php) is one of the primary areas I studied. It's a huge part of my original website. Unfortunately, this kind of "correlation" is extremely susceptible to cognitive bias. I have met TWO people who came up with different patterns and were absolutely convinced that they had total proof of the divine design of the Bible. One guy had simply made up his own order, but the other guy used the order of the Tanach for the OT and the early manuscript order for the NT. His stuff was disturbing because I noticed some of his correlations were much better than what we see in the standard KJV order. For example, in the Tanach, Isaiah is book 12 and in Isaiah 12 we read of drawing from the "wells of salvation" (Isaiah means "the lord is savior.") This is much better than Isaiah 23 which doesn't have anything linking to Isaiah. I was always very disappointed with that. And then there's Isaiah 13 which is all about the fall of Babylon which corresponds very well with Jeremiah which is book 13 in the Tanach. Of course, Isaiah 24 correlates well too so it's not so bad. UPSHOT - lots of cognitive bias in this kind of study.


It's not cognitive bias when you look at THE WHOLE PICTURE. There are 66 chapters in Isaiah, who's timeline is placed MIDWAY between the giving of the Torah and the completion of the New Testament (there are 66 books in the bible) AND Isaiah happens to be the FIRST book in the SECOND cycle of the bible wheel (the MIDDLE cycle). There are TWO natural divisions of Isaiah and TWO natural divisions of the bible (the OT and the NT). The first natural division of Isaiah consists of 39 chapters (corresponding with the 39 books of the OT) and the second natural division of Isaiah consists of 27 chapters (corresponding with the 27 books of the NT). The FIRST chapter of Isaiah opens with a reference to "the heavens and the earth" and the LAST chapter of Isaiah closes with a PROPHECY of a NEW heavens and a NEW earth (just as the bible opens in Genesis with a reference to "the heavens and the earth" and closes in Revelation with a PROPHECY of a NEW heavens and a NEW earth). The 40th chapter of Isaiah (corresponding with the first book of the New Testament) opens with the FIRST BIBLICAL OCCURRENCE of the word "maveseret", which means "bringer of good tidings" and is translated in Greek as the root word of *GOSPEL*. The 40th chapter of Isaiah also opens with THE VERY WORDS SPOKEN BY JOHN THE BAPTIST IN MATTHEW (where he announces the prophesied messiah). The first 39 chapters of Isaiah is known as "the book of judgment" (corresponding with the theme of the 39 books of the OT) and the last 27 chapters of Isaiah is known as "the book of comfort" (corresponding with the theme of the 27 books of the NT).


And notice this is independent CORROBORATING evidence of the bible wheel because it points to a large scale design in the 66 books of the bible.




And here's the most important fact: You generally accept without criticism anything that supports your belief in the Bible, and reject exactly the same kind of evidence that would support Islam or some other religion.


Not true. For example, I reject Panin's heptadic discoveries and Michael Drosnin's bible code (although I do affirm the MACRO ELS codes from Ed Sherman, which I've NEVER seen Brendan McKay even address). In fact, I originally rejected the bible wheel itself even though I affirmed the divine inspiration of the bible (but that's because I never really looked into it and the pattern looked forced to me). Further, there are times where you pointed out I was wrong and I admitted my wrong, which shows I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.




All that is very intriguing if you begin with a belief in the Bible. But you know it proves nothing because if you found similar things in the Quran you wouldn't become a Muslim. For example, the Quran states that the Number 19 rules over it, and it has 114 = 6 x 19 and 6 is the first PERFECT number and 19 is hexagonal. That's PROOF, right?


Ugh ... Am I missing something? How does the fact that 6 is the first perfect number have ANY connection to the number 19??? And what does the fact that 19 is Hexagonal have anything to do with anything??? Where's the link??? I've looked into the alleged numeric patterns in the Qur'an. They are no different than Panin's heptadic discoveries. Why do I reject both??? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN *DEMONSTRATED* THAT YOU CAN FIND THOSE SAME KINDS OF PATTERNS IN *RANDOM* TEXTS. This is NOT the case with the mathematical design in Genesis 1:1, the mathematical links between Genesis 1:1 and the very genome of life, the biblical holographs or the bible wheel.




The idea of taking all the CONFETTI of numbers and ideas "together" as if they all "confirmed" each other. That's a fundamental bias that makes your judgment suspect.


That's a regular means of argumentation (making a CUMULATIVE case). And I'm not saying take UNRELATED pieces of information together. I'm saying take RELATED pieces of information together to make an overall case. For example, the structure of Isaiah CORROBORATES the bible wheel (and vice versa) in terms of demonstrating the supernatural origin of the 66 book canon of the bible because they are both inherent to the bible and BOTH make an INDEPENDENT evidential case for design in the large scale structure of the 66 book canon of the bible.



As for the burden of proof - you've got it backwards. How many "connections" did I report in my book and on this site?


No, I don't have it backwards at all. Again, THE BIBLE WHEEL PATTERN IS THERE. Now if you want to claim the bible wheel pattern is really RANDOM, then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that you can get the same patterns in a RANDOM text.



BINI aka The Mystic Meanie



LONG LIVE THE BIBLE WHEEL!!! :D

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2014, 07:17 PM
The fact that you're an agnostic doesn't change the fact that you're an antitheist. You don't have to be POSITIVE about the nonexistence of God in order to be an antitheist. Your comments THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE FORUM bear witness to my claim that you're a radical antitheist. I'm not trying to be rude or misrepresent you. At the very least, you're RADICALLY against the biblical portrayal of God. So right off the jump, I already know you'd rather not have the biblical God to be real. I just find it curious that you would do a 180, after defending the bible wheel for 15 years (and claiming nobody has been able to refute it), and claim the entire design is now a massive fail. My suspicious arises primarily for two reasons ...

1) We already know you're an antitheist (especially with regards to biblical theism).
2) As soon as I pointed out that the "negative" traits of the biblical God have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he actually exists, you hit me with the 180 and claim the bible wheel is flawed ...

Wow. You just produced a textbook example of the Genetic Fallacy. The truth or falsehood of a proposition is independent of whether the person stating it is theist, atheist, antitheist, or whatever. And worse, your assertion is false. I am not an "antitheist" let alone a "radical antitheist." And worse still, you have not presented any evidence to support your assertion. And why haven't you? Because you can't, because your assertion is false. I have never written a word that would support your assertion. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated that I am an atheist because I am not a theist, and I am not a theist because I believe the concept is unwarranted and probably irrational. I have given reasons for my position, so I am a rational agnostic atheist. That's it. That's the truth. Your argument is based on a strawman caricature of my position (to add yet another logical sin to your ledger).

Another falsehood in your post is your assertion that I concluded the Bible Wheel is flawed only after you presented your argument that the "negative traits of the biblical God have no bearing" on God's existence. On the contrary, I began talking about the flaws in the Bible Wheel nearly three years ago when I started a thread called An Evolutionary Explanation of the Bible Wheel (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2630-An-Evolutionary-Explanation-of-the-Bible-Wheel). In that article, I explained how Rose had mentioned that "the Bible Wheel was not as perfect as I thought it was. She explained that though it might be "optimal" given the 66 books, it was no where near as good as it could have been if I could have edited those books myself to make them fit the pattern even better." That statement is true. And over the years since I wrote that article, I have studied how fallacies and cognitive biases like selection bias (cherry picking) and confirmation bias can create an illusion of design. It is now OBVIOUS to me that my PRIMARY evidence for the Bible Wheel was based on selection bias. I would scan each spoke for "hits" and ignore all the misses, which vastly outnumbered the hits. I reported only the "hits" and never even did an analysis of the lion's share of the data which consisted of misses. None of this was in response to your argument about the negative traits of God, which should be patently obvious to you anyway since you know that I reject your argument as fallacious (as I explain in more detail below).



I think you're starting to realize that *ALL* (I repeat, *ALL*) of the problems you've EVER raised against the biblical God can be classified as "negative" traits, which again, have absolutely no bearing whatsoever with regards to whether or not the biblical God exists. For example, ALL the "contradictions" or "errors" would only point to his FALLIBILITY. There isn't a SINGLE problem you've EVER raised about the biblical God that cannot be classified as simply "negative" traits. And it's very curious that AS SOON AS I POINTED THIS OUT, you do a 180.

That's true, if you include "non-existence" as a "negative trait." The "contradictions and errors" in the Biblical description of God prove that the biblegod cannot exist, because his properties would be self-contradictory, and incoherent things cannot exist. That's the problem. The Bible states that God is good and just and then presents God as grossly immoral. It says that God is omniscient and then says that there are things that God does not know. Etc. etc. etc. The Biblical god is a logical impossibility. I am fully justified in my judgment.

And again, your presentation of that lame argument had no influence of any kind on the development of my understanding concerning the cognitive biases and other errors in my presentation of the Bible Wheel. And even if it did, it wouldn't imply anything about the validity of my assertions. You fail on all points dude.



ATHEISM IS NOT A "LACK OF BELIEF"! That is *NOT* the UNIVERSAL definition of atheism. You can't give me a SINGLE recognized dictionary that DOESN'T define atheism as the BELIEF that there is no God but I can give you several recognized dictionaries that DOESN'T define atheism as a "LACK OF BELIEF". For example, the Standard Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Merriam Webster Compact Oxford English Dictionary and the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary DO NOT have the "LACK OF BELIEF" definition. In other words, MY definition of atheism is UNIVERSAL. Yours ISN'T.

The meaning of words changes over time. I have explained what I mean when I call myself an atheist, so there is no reason for any confusion on that issue. If you think the word should be restricted to "strong atheists" who assert that there are no gods as a fact, then you can call me a "non-theist." I don't care. It means the same thing - I am not a theist. No knowledge comes from your meaningless haggling over semantics.



Btw, the very reason many atheists want to hide under the umbrella of "lacking a belief" fails in itself. They use this to place the entire burden of proof on the theist, which is a waste of time because GENERAL THEISM IS THE DEFAULT POSITION *REGARDLESS* OF HOW YOU DEFINE ATHEISM. I don't have to demonstrate to the solipsist that the external world exists. He has to demonstrate to me that the external world doesn't exist (and there are just as many, if not more, solipsists worldwide as there are nontheists). Your response to this is to claim that doesn't prove God exists. BUT THAT'S A RED HERRING! Nobody is saying the fact that general theism is the default position = God exists. The POINT is that since general theism is the default position, it is IRRATIONAL to reject it UNTIL you can present POSITIVE evidence against general theism. Just like it is IRRATIONAL to reject the idea that the external world exists UNLESS someone can provide POSITIVE evidence against it.

Your claim that the assumption of God's existence is the "default position" is total bullshit. The "default position" is that there is no reason to believe in any god because everyone rejects 99.9999% of all gods that have every been proposed and there is no reason to believe any god actually exists and many reasons to believe he does not exist. This is a perfect example of the primary religious delusion, the idea that God is trustworthy. Nothing could be more absurd. No one, not one person, can actually TRUST God to do anything for them in this life. Folks who trust God for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions. If God were half as trustworthy as the average dentist, there would be no debate about his existence. You assertion that the existence of God is the "default positions" is just as ludicrous and delusional as saying that "God is trustworthy." Your arguments are absurd.



The trustworthiness of the biblical God has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he exists. And you're not even making an argument here. This is nothing more than your OPINION. There are *BILLIONS* of people who believe their prayers have been answered (and yes, God can answer the prayers of non-Christians). Your milk jug analogy is a complete strawman caricature of evidential arguments for answered prayer. An evidential argument for answered prayer only applies to EXTRAORDINARY incidents of answered prayer, of which there are thousands.

1) If God is not trustworthy, then he is not the god described in the Bible which means the god of the bible does not exist.

2) It is not merely my opinion. It is a demonstrable fact that no person on planet earth can actually TRUST God to do anything in any particular situation. They can hope. They can pray. But they cannot TRUST that he will ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING. It appears you have no concept of what the word "trust" actually entails. To say someone is "trustworthy" means that you can trust the person to actually DO what he says he will do. God has said he will answer prayers, but no one can TRUST that he actually answers any prayer, unless you want to say his failure to answer is itself an answer. But that would be too moronic even for you.

3) The fact that BILLIONS deluded people believe that God answers prayers proves my point that religion has corrupted their minds.

4) Your assertion that he milk jug analogy is a strawman is false and unsubstantiated. If you want to make assertions like that, you need to show how the analogy misrepresents prayer. The point of the video is that a person would get EXACTLY the same results if they prayed to either a milk jug or Yahweh. I don't see how anything you said contradicts that fact.



Hold on, the burden of proof is on NEITHER one of us to demonstrate the OBSERVABLE large scale structure of the bible wheel is a random phenomenon. If someone is going to claim the OBSERVABLE patterns are random, then they need to get a RANDOM text, break it down into three sets around 22 spokes that are EACH assigned the same 22 meanings behind the 22 Hebrew alphabets (as well as the 8 keywords as for each 22 letters from the Psalm 119 pattern) and produce the same amount of interlocking corrections found in the bible wheel. If you claim the pattern is random, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it is.

What "observable" patterns are you talking about? You really need to be more specific if you want anyone to understand what you are trying to say.

There is no need to test random texts for patterns. We can look at what we have in the Bible. If 99.9% of the text is not "connected" in a meaningful way on the spokes, then there is no "observable patterns" that need explaining. The fact that I could cherry pick a few hundred connections is meaningless in light of the fact that the vast majority do not fit. This was my error in my book. Cherry picking proves nothing. You need to look at ALL the data, and when we do that, we do not see any "observable pattern" in the vast majority of the text. I believe this constitutes a solid debunking of my primary claim, which is that the Bible Wheel reveals significant correlations between the books on the spokes. It would be great if you could try to accurately represent my argument and then refute it without making any logical fallacies, strawman misrepresentations, or other blatant errors that I have to correct.

Great chatting!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2014, 08:43 PM
Or how about the fact that there are 22 + 1 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of 37 (with EACH of the seven words of Genesis 1:1 being used EXACTLY 12 times in making up those perfect multiples of 37, with 12 being the PRIME ORDER of 37 itself)??? That has NOTHING to do with selection bias.

That has everything to do with selection bias. I have seen you relate dozens of numbers to Genesis 1:1 in dozens of ways. You have not shown that those coincidences are meaningful. That's what you need to do .... in a slow, thoughtful, principled manner. Do you really expect me to believe credulous crap? It won't happen. Merely claiming "look at these coincidences! They must be designed!" strikes me as absurd and as a perfect example of cognitive bias. It is the primary error of all the fallacious numerologists in the world. You really need to think about this.

You're actually telling me that the 22 + 1 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of *37* has "everything to do with selection bias"??? WHAT??? That is WAY beyond random chance AND is corroborated by the ARITHMETIC PROGRESSION of word value combinations that are perfect multiples of the ONLY *PRIME* of Genesis 1:1, which is the CENTRAL word value out of the seven Genesis 1:1 word values AND is the ONLY "untranslatable word". That's even MORE evidence that there is an intentional design built into the word value combinations of Genesis 1:1.

I did not say that selection bias accounted for all features of the Creation holograph. I said "I have seen you relate dozens of numbers to Genesis 1:1 in dozens of ways." And that fact is true. I said you "have not shown that those coincidences are meaningful." That also is true. My point was that selection bias played a significant role in both the Bible Wheel and numerology. Your comment did not address the issue of how to discern between chance, design, and necessity. That's your problem. I've been explaining this to you for well over a year and you still don't get it. Merely pointing out a selected subset of random "connections" proves absolutely nothing. My comment was aimed specifically at your fundamental error - as I s

Now as for the connection of the number 37 with the creation holograph. It is true that number occurs well outside the range of random chance. I did the calculation myself. Here's the graph from my article on the Number 37 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_37.php) that shows the factor analysis of sums of words in Genesis 1:1 -

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/Gen11FactorAnalysis.gif

I have no fear of the truth. The fact that the number 37 plays an important role in the creation holograph is intriguing, but it proves nothing about the existence of a god that cannot exist because his properties are logically incoherent. There must be some other explanation. If you want to insist that it does "prove" the existence of the Biblegod, then you will need to redefine him so his properties are not self-contradictory. There is no other way.



1) That is the ONLY logical conclusion that accounts for the bible wheel because the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people known throughout the universe (the Israelites).

Not true. Your appeal to logic is illogical because you are asserting that a logical contradiction (Yahweh) must exist.



2) That is an ad hoc invention to AVOID the fact that the entire bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people known throughout the universe (the Israelites).

No it is not. You asked for possible explanations, and that's one of them. It coheres well with the imperfections of the Bible and Bible Wheel.



3) That doesn't explain the huge complexity and interlocking correlations within the large scale pattern of the bible wheel.

What "huge complexity and interlocking correlations" are you talking about. If you look at ALL the data, you will see that 99.9% of shows no signs of any connections or correlations. You are lost in the delusion created by selection bias.



4) That is an ad hoc invention with ZERO evidence for "group minds" (you're scaring me, Richard). My position isn't ad hoc at all BECAUSE the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people throughout the holy universe (the Israelites).

Lots of people think there is lots of evidence suggesting the existence of "group minds." You assertion that such an idea scares you is just another example of you underhanded attempt to mislead people by appealing to emotionalism and knee-jerk responses to foreign concepts.



5) That only shows the person is ignorant of your findings. In fact, I myself used this when I first came upon your discovery. For years I thought it was goofy bullshit until I actually looked into all your bible wheel articles and ordered your book.

And you were impressed by the "big case" I made by presenting a few hundred cherry picked "links" without noticing that I had ignored 99.9% of the data? You sure are easy to fool, Gambini.



6) That's either an argument from personal incredulity or just ignorance of the bible wheel itself (Craig commented on your discovery? I didn't even know that).

A mutual acquaintance presented it to him (with four pages of carefully reasoned Bayesean probabilities) and that was his response.



7) The burden of proof is on the person making this claim to DEMONSTRATE the pattern is random.

Bullshit! The burden of proof is always on the person claiming that there is a pattern in need of explanation. And that's not an answer to my point, which is that improbable shit happens all the time, and that might be the only legitimate explanation. How do you "explain" the connections between the assassinations of Lincoln and Kennedy or any of the ten thousand other weird "coincidences" that have been observed?



8) This is incoherent since it CAN'T be "all of the above" (that would be contradictory).

Glad you noticed! No go apply that logic to your claims about the Biblegod and maybe we can make some progress.



9) If it's none of the above, then it logically follows the pattern is real AND the burden of proof is on the person to present another alternative AND demonstrate why it should override the plain text of the bible itself (which proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people throughout the universe, the Israelites).

Not true. The only thing implied by "none of the above" is some other explanation that was not mentioned above. It says nothing about the pattern being "real" or anything about any "burden of proof" because it has not been demonstrated that a pattern demanding explanation even exists.



10) Most of these "explanations" would contradict each other and the ONLY one that isn't ad hoc is the first one.

Point 3, the evolutionary explanation, is not "ad hoc" in any way at all. On the contrary, it is the default position because we have much evidence that the scribes altered the order of the books many times over a period of more than a thousand years. This is why Norm Geisler said that even though it looks like there is some meaningful order in the canon, we shouldn't make too much of it because it has obviously been arranged by humans.



That's clearly selection bias because you're ALREADY starting with two presidents who happened to be assassinated and then searching for RANDOM occurrences in both their lives. *NOTHING* about the bible wheel is random. There are RULES relating to the meanings behind each of the 22 letters ruling over each of the 22 spokes AND there is a correspondence with the keywords that begin each stanza in the 22 divisions of Psalm 119 (which is alphabetically designed).

Your assertion that "nothing about the Bible Wheel is random" directly begs the question! There is very good reason to think that the order of the books is random in relation to the Bible Wheel because 99.9% of the verses aligned on the same spokes have no connections with each other.

As for the "Alphabetic Verses" - I'm glad you brought them up. I just reviewed my Table of Alphabetic Links and Keylinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/Alphabetic_Structure.php) in which I listed all the connections I could find after 15 years of research. The results are not pretty. There are only 22 alphabetic keylinks and no spoke has alphabetic keylinks in all three books. Seven spokes have no alphabetic key links at all! And the other links, which relate to an alphabetic keyword but are not directly linked to the alphabetic verses, are entirely missing from all three books on Spoke 7 and about half a dozen of the other books. Now let's ask a simple question: Is there any reason to think an Omniscient God produced such an incomplete pattern that "just happens" to look like the results of cherry picking? If so, why? What could he possibly be trying to prove by wrapping an enigma in a mystery like that? This is why it is illogical to believe an omniscient god produced the "pattern" if one even exists. It is too imperfect and accomplishes nothing.

This is the ultimate question that must be answered. You need to explain why an omniscient God would design a mish-mash of incomplete and non-conclusive patterns.

And this connects with the more general concept of "encoding." When a message is encoded in a text, the full message is fully understood when decoded. Every LETTER is accounted for. We don't see anything like that.





And what do you think of this site - Spurious Correlations (http://io9.com/our-new-favorite-website-spurious-correlations-1574464459) - that shows "amazing" coincidences in large datasets?

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with biblical gematria. Biblical gematria involves mathematical links of *RELATED* words that have significant meaning to each other. This site you posted is meaningless. None of those things have any relation to each other.

I didn't say it did. But it does. I asked you what you thought about it because it refers to any attempt to find "patterns" in any large data set, whether it be the 31,102 verses of the bible or the limitless number of numbers that can be "connected" through gematria. It shows that very convincing "coincidences" can be found in totally unrelated data. I've been trying to explain this to you for over a year but you refuse to deal with it. The vast majority of your "gematria results" are total bullshit because you have no rules, not PRINCIPLES guiding your study. I've proven this dozens of times on this forum.



It's not cognitive bias when you look at THE WHOLE PICTURE. There are 66 chapters in Isaiah, who's timeline is placed MIDWAY between the giving of the Torah and the completion of the New Testament (there are 66 books in the bible) AND Isaiah happens to be the FIRST book in the SECOND cycle of the bible wheel (the MIDDLE cycle). There are TWO natural divisions of Isaiah and TWO natural divisions of the bible (the OT and the NT). The first natural division of Isaiah consists of 39 chapters (corresponding with the 39 books of the OT) and the second natural division of Isaiah consists of 27 chapters (corresponding with the 27 books of the NT). The FIRST chapter of Isaiah opens with a reference to "the heavens and the earth" and the LAST chapter of Isaiah closes with a PROPHECY of a NEW heavens and a NEW earth (just as the bible opens in Genesis with a reference to "the heavens and the earth" and closes in Revelation with a PROPHECY of a NEW heavens and a NEW earth). The 40th chapter of Isaiah (corresponding with the first book of the New Testament) opens with the FIRST BIBLICAL OCCURRENCE of the word "maveseret", which means "bringer of good tidings" and is translated in Greek as the root word of *GOSPEL*. The 40th chapter of Isaiah also opens with THE VERY WORDS SPOKEN BY JOHN THE BAPTIST IN MATTHEW (where he announces the prophesied messiah). The first 39 chapters of Isaiah is known as "the book of judgment" (corresponding with the theme of the 39 books of the OT) and the last 27 chapters of Isaiah is known as "the book of comfort" (corresponding with the theme of the 27 books of the NT).

Yes, I'm very familiar with that "picture" since i have written thousands of words about it. There is no need for you to repeat what i already know. The Isaiah Bible Correlation is one of the "three threads" on which I structured my original site. So let's look at the quality of that evidence. First, I agree, it is impressive if you look at the big picture. And there are about a third of the books that bear a sufficiently striking correlation to really intrigue me. But there are also about a third that don't seem to match at all. And worse, I have met two different people who used two different orders of the books and yet were just as convinced as I was that God designed there pattern. This demonstrates that cognitive biases play a very important role in a study like the Isaiah Bible correlation. And worse, one of the orders, which follows the order of the modern Jewish Tanakh, actually fits MUCH BETTER for the book of Isaiah which is book 12 rather than 23 in that canon.

So once again, we see that the real problem is that the picture formed is INCOMPLETE. It's like a "hint" that there might be "some" correlation, but what could be the cause? Why would an intelligent God do a half-assed job?



And notice this is independent CORROBORATING evidence of the bible wheel because it points to a large scale design in the 66 books of the bible.

Yes, that's what I always argued. But there is a problem. Weaving wet noodles will never make a strong fabric no matter how many are weaved. So the Isaiah Bible correlation does not offer any evidence for the order of the canon until it is independently confirmed as a "meaningful pattern." And remember, you will need to explain why an omniscient god did such a half-assed job in this supposedly "supernatural" design of his word.




No, I don't have it backwards at all. Again, THE BIBLE WHEEL PATTERN IS THERE. Now if you want to claim the bible wheel pattern is really RANDOM, then the burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that you can get the same patterns in a RANDOM text.

There is no "Bible Wheel pattern." The Bible Wheel is nothing but a circular array of 66 cells. Any random object consisting of 66 cells could be displayed on that matrix, just like the Bible Wheel. The matrix IMPOSES a pattern on any object consisting of 66 cells. There is no self-evident pattern, except the Canon Wheel, but that's a different topic since I was talking about the "pattern" of the order of the books on the spokes.

The "null hypothesis" is that the relation between the books on the spokes is random. Therefore, the person who says there is a non-random pattern bears the burden of proof. Besides, I have done the research and can confirm that 99.9% of the text is not aligned in a meaningful way on the wheel. Therefore, the null hypothesis is confirmed by the evidence.



LONG LIVE THE BIBLE WHEEL!!! :D
It will be interesting to see how it fairs under the bright light of logic and facts.

I appreciate your effort.

Gambini
08-23-2014, 10:15 PM
The fact that the number 37 plays an important role in the creation holograph is intriguing, but it proves nothing about the existence of a god that cannot exist because his properties are logically incoherent. There must be some other explanation. If you want to insist that it does "prove" the existence of the Biblegod, then you will need to redefine him so his properties are not self-contradictory. There is no other way.


That's not true. For the sake of argument (and putting aside the possibility that fallible men could have tampered with the original autographs), even if there ARE legitimate "contradictions" with regard to the nature of the biblical God, it STILL would only show that the biblical God is merely fallible (in that he can make apparently "contradictory" statements regarding his nature). The fact that someone makes contradictory statements has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not they actually exist. So NONE of your problems with the bible show the biblical God doesn't exist. At best, it would only mean the biblical God has "negative" or "imperfect" traits (such as making apparently "contradictory" statements regarding his nature).



BINI

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 07:16 AM
The fact that the number 37 plays an important role in the creation holograph is intriguing, but it proves nothing about the existence of a god that cannot exist because his properties are logically incoherent. There must be some other explanation. If you want to insist that it does "prove" the existence of the Biblegod, then you will need to redefine him so his properties are not self-contradictory. There is no other way.
That's not true. For the sake of argument (and putting aside the possibility that fallible men could have tampered with the original autographs), even if there ARE legitimate "contradictions" with regard to the nature of the biblical God, it STILL would only show that the biblical God is merely fallible (in that he can make apparently "contradictory" statements regarding his nature). The fact that someone makes contradictory statements has no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not they actually exist. So NONE of your problems with the bible show the biblical God doesn't exist. At best, it would only mean the biblical God has "negative" or "imperfect" traits (such as making apparently "contradictory" statements regarding his nature).

You really need to learn basic logic Gambini. If the Bible says that X has properties P and Not P then X cannot exist.

If the Bible attributes contradictory properties to God, such as simultaneously being good and immoral, just and unjust, then we know that the God it describes cannot exist.

Contradictory descriptions of God in the Bible proves that the Bible is fallible. Is says nothing about the God it describes except that such a God cannot exist because the concept is logically incoherent.

If the Bible is wrong about the properties of God, then you don't know which properties God really has, including the property of existence.

Pretty simple stuff.

Gambini
08-24-2014, 12:30 PM
If the Bible attributes contradictory properties to God, such as simultaneously being good and immoral, just and unjust, then we know that the God it describes cannot exist.


The problem is you're not representing my argument accurately. I'm not saying God can actually HAVE two contradictory properties. I'm saying IF the biblical God inspired a statement that is demonstrably false or "contradictory", it has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER as to whether or not he actually exists. All it would show is that he is CAPABLE of making false or "contradictory" statements. You see what I mean??? Having "imperfect" or "negative" traits doesn't negate existence. And you just granted that there IS mathematical design in the bible. Therefore, you have absolutely no reason at all to reject the *EXISTENCE* of the biblical God. You can question his moral character, infallibility or trustworthiness, but not his existence.


Again, ANY "explanation" of the mathematical design in the bible other than the biblical God is completely AD HOC. The explanation that the biblical God is behind the mathematical design is the NATURAL explanation because the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people throughout the holy universe (the Israelites).


Btw, notice that I haven't insulted you once in this thread and you've already resorted to insulting me personally, which is very telling.



BINI

Snakeboy
08-24-2014, 01:07 PM
The " god " in the Bible can't be " righteous " and " evil " at the same time ?

Then what does the Tzaddik do ?

:pop2:

Gambini
08-24-2014, 01:33 PM
The "null hypothesis" is that the relation between the books on the spokes is random. Therefore, the person who says there is a non-random pattern bears the burden of proof. Besides, I have done the research and can confirm that 99.9% of the text is not aligned in a meaningful way on the wheel. Therefore, the null hypothesis is confirmed by the evidence.


Richard, if there was a bigger percentage of "hits", it would necessarily LIMIT what the encoder could express on the surface text, right??? There is a necessary tradeoff between the encoded "hits" under the 22 spokes and the specific writings of the surface text. And the fact that you dumped 99% of the "trials" doesn't mean anything. The ONLY thing that matters is what are the odds of finding HUNDREDS of thematically related links under 22 random sets of three TINY books??? Remember, we are talking about *THEMES*, not just mere words. Given that there are HUNDREDS of related THEMES under the 22 spokes (with each of the 22 spokes representing three TINY books), I would argue the burden of proof is on the one claiming this ISN'T nonrandom.


As far as the "keylinks" from Psalm 119, the fact that they are absent in 7 of the 22 spokes actually fits with the author of the OPEN alphabetic passages in scripture (like in some of the other Psalms or Lamentations etc). In other words, NOBODY denies that there is an INTENTIONAL design in those passages IN SPITE of the fact that some of them don't run through all 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. You see what I'm saying? In fact, the number 7 itself is PART of the large scale structure of the bible wheel (and 22/7 = The closest approximation of Pi under 100, which corresponds with the CIRCLE of the bible wheel).


What say you???



BINI

Gambini
08-24-2014, 01:47 PM
The " god " in the Bible can't be " righteous " and " evil " at the same time ?

Then what does the Tzaddik do ?

:pop2:


Sir, I see that you now have 111 posts. I perceive that you are one of the Gods??? :pray:

Snakeboy
08-24-2014, 02:02 PM
Now you're just being silly Gambini, God is going to fall out of a cloud riding a horse :lol:

Btw, something else I thought interesting about Genesis

Beyt, the first letter ( the first Rabbati " large " ) = House / Tent / Tabernacle ( roughly )

Tsaddi, the last letter, ( The first final " Sofit " letter ) = The Tzaddik, ( The Covenanted )

Tsaddi has two forms, the normal and the final, respectively representing the Tzaddik on his knees, hands raised to god, and standing in victory, hands raised to god.

The first and last letters " Beyt-Tsaddi " spell out " Botz " , which means " Mud "

The Tzaddik is the " first and last Adam ", formed from the earth ( Mud )

The Ordinal sum of the first and last words in Genesis 1:1 is 119 ( iirc )

Psalm 119:137 - 119:144 = Tsaddi

As far as Genesis 1:1 in Pi, PI168 = Strong's Hebrew168 = " ohel ' ( Tent ) = " the beyt "

I won't post a wall of text, but I think this is something I have not yet seen discussed

:pop2:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 02:03 PM
If the Bible attributes contradictory properties to God, such as simultaneously being good and immoral, just and unjust, then we know that the God it describes cannot exist.


If you want to insist that it does "prove" the existence of the Biblegod, then you will need to redefine him so his properties are not self-contradictory. There is no other way.

The problem is you're not representing my argument accurately. I'm not saying God can actually HAVE two contradictory properties. I'm saying IF the biblical God inspired a statement that is demonstrably false or "contradictory", it has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER as to whether or not he actually exists. All it would show is that he is CAPABLE of making false or "contradictory" statements. You see what I mean??? Having "imperfect" or "negative" traits doesn't negate existence. And you just granted that there IS mathematical design in the bible. Therefore, you have absolutely no reason at all to reject the *EXISTENCE* of the biblical God. You can question his moral character, infallibility or trustworthiness, but not his existence.

I understand your argument perfectly. You are doing exactly what I said you would have to do. You are defining two gods - one that is real and does not have contradictory properties, and one that is described in the Bible that may or may not have contradictory properties. For clarity, I will represent the true GOD with all caps, and the "god" described in the Bible in small case and scare quotes.

You assert that it would not matter if GOD described himself as the self-contradictory "god" of the Bible. That might mean he is incompetent or a liar, but it would not necessarily imply that he does not exist. That is true, but it's also true that the self-contradictory "god" of the Bible can not exist. And who is this GOD that you suggest may have inspired a self-contradictory Bible? How can we trust a word he says if his words are contradictory which means some of them are necessarily false? Why should anyone believe he exists? You argument does nothing to prove the existence of the Biblegod. You have simply defined a new GOD who has nothing to do (necessarily) with the "god" described in the Bible. Your argument fails, quite spectacularly, I might add.

Therefore, your only options are 1) Admit the "god" of the Bible cannot exist because he has contradictory properties, or 2) Refute all the evidence of the contradictory properties of the "god" described in the Bible. Your invention of a new GOD that is different than the "god" described in the Bible solves nothing.

Richard

Snakeboy
08-24-2014, 03:01 PM
Oh yeah, forgot

John 1:1 uses " logos " three times

Logos = 373

373 x 3 = 1119

:pop2:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 03:10 PM
The "null hypothesis" is that the relation between the books on the spokes is random. Therefore, the person who says there is a non-random pattern bears the burden of proof. Besides, I have done the research and can confirm that 99.9% of the text is not aligned in a meaningful way on the wheel. Therefore, the null hypothesis is confirmed by the evidence.

Richard, if there was a bigger percentage of "hits", it would necessarily LIMIT what the encoder could express on the surface text, right???

Perhaps, to to a degree. But the number of "hits" is nowhere near any such limit. I could easily have composed a thousand times more impressive hits per spoke without encountering that hypothetical limit. This is the primary indication that the "hits" are the result of selection bias and not design. If God wanted to deliberately design a pattern he could have done it a thousand times better. Why do a half-assed job? He could have made the whole thing work like a the tumblers of a combination lock so there would be no doubt about the design. Why deliberately design it so that it LOOKS LIKE selection bias? Especially since God would know that the world is overflowing with deluded religious people making claims about "patterns" in their holy texts? Seriously, God would be an idiot to code things that way. Such "patterns" are not worthy of God - they show no sign of intelligence and so it would be folly to use it as evidence of God. Especially since it looks like any other collection of cherry picked data and the stats prove the null hypothesis.



There is a necessary tradeoff between the encoded "hits" under the 22 spokes and the specific writings of the surface text.

Yes, to the degree that the texts are not identical. But there is no reason to think that the number of hits came anywhere near such a theoretical limit. It would be trivial to add hits without obscuring the surface text. Indeed, it is a mistake to contrast the "surface text" with the "encoded text" because the most impressive "hits" are when the surface text matches. E.g. the Spoke 1 KeyLink between Genesis 17:4 and Romans 4:17 concerning Abraham, the Father of many nations.



And the fact that you dumped 99% of the "trials" doesn't mean anything. The ONLY thing that matters is what are the odds of finding HUNDREDS of thematically related links under 22 random sets of three TINY books??? Remember, we are talking about *THEMES*, not just mere words. Given that there are HUNDREDS of related THEMES under the 22 spokes (with each of the 22 spokes representing three TINY books), I would argue the burden of proof is on the one claiming this ISN'T nonrandom.

Say what? The fact that 99% of the data does not conform to the pattern proves that the text as a whole was not designed in accordance with that pattern. It confirms the null hypothesis, which is that there is no design at all. The fact that you can find "hundreds" of a good cherries in an orchard containing millions of bad cherries proves that the cherries you found were cherry picked. Man, I can't believe I need to explain something this elementary.

The "thematic links" are even worse, because the judgment of what constitutes a "common theme" is highly subjective and easily influenced by the biases of the interpreters. I spent a lot of time trying to find a way to objectively prove the patterns of the Bible Wheel, and never succeeded. For example, I analysed the 500,000 cross-references in the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge, hoping that it would reveal more thematic connections between the books that are aligned on the same spoke. That's a huge data set, so I was pretty hopeful. The analysis showed nothing relating to the Bible Wheel. I applied it also to the Isaiah Bible Correlation and found nothing. So there you go.



As far as the "keylinks" from Psalm 119, the fact that they are absent in 7 of the 22 spokes actually fits with the author of the OPEN alphabetic passages in scripture (like in some of the other Psalms or Lamentations etc). In other words, NOBODY denies that there is an INTENTIONAL design in those passages IN SPITE of the fact that some of them don't run through all 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. You see what I'm saying? In fact, the number 7 itself is PART of the large scale structure of the bible wheel (and 22/7 = The closest approximation of Pi under 100, which corresponds with the CIRCLE of the bible wheel).

Nobody denies that there is an INTENTIONAL design in the alphabetically structured verses because 99% of the verses follow the alphabet. There are very few missing or misplaced letters. This is the opposite of what we see with the alphabetic keylinks. The vast majority of verses do not connect with any book on its corresponding spoke. The Bible contains 13 alphabetically structure passages, such as Psalm 119 (which has 8 verses per letter), and Lamentations (which has 4 alphabetic chapters, with the third chapter having 3 verses per letter for a total of 6 per letter), and so forth. This results in a set of about 480 verses that could form an "alphabetic keylink." And how many of these 480 verses actually form a Keylink to a book on it's corresponding spoke? After years of research, I found only 22, which is 4.5%. But how many would we expect from random chance? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if the number were on the order of 4.5%. If you want to believe that there is a "pattern" that was "designed" you will have to do the calculation.

Bottom line: Just as we know the alphabetic verses were INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED because 99% of the letters "fit the pattern" of the alphabet, so we can be confident that they were NOT INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED to fit the Bible Wheel pattern because 95.5% DO NOT FIT the pattern.

Great chatting!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 03:13 PM
Oh yeah, forgot

John 1:1 uses " logos " three times

Logos = 373

373 x 3 = 1119

:pop2:
I always thought that was pretty cool.

There is an enduring mystery in the alphanumeric structure of Genesis 1:1-5 + John 1:1-5. I have no idea what it could mean or how it got there, but I am quite confident about certain things it cannot mean, such as the idea that the Bible is "true" in the sense intended by fundamentalist Christians.

Gambini
08-24-2014, 03:28 PM
Now you're just being silly Gambini, God is going to fall out of a cloud riding a horse :lol:


That was the writers way of conveying the mothership to the ancients :winking0071:




The Ordinal sum of the first and last words in Genesis 1:1 is 119


That's interesting. And Psalm 119 = The largest chapter in the bible = The "locksmith" of the bible wheel (with the entire theme of Psalm 119 being about the word of God).



SHALOMness

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 03:31 PM
The " god " in the Bible can't be " righteous " and " evil " at the same time ?

Then what does the Tzaddik do ?

:pop2:
I don't understand what you are trying to say. What does a "Tzaddik" do that would make sense of God possessing contradictory properties?

Gambini
08-24-2014, 03:38 PM
Oh yeah, forgot

John 1:1 uses " logos " three times

Logos = 373

373 x 3 = 1119

:pop2:


The value of "John" = 373 x 3 = 1119



BINI

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 03:46 PM
The Ordinal sum of the first and last words in Genesis 1:1 is 119

That's interesting. And Psalm 119 = The largest chapter in the bible = The "locksmith" of the bible wheel (with the entire theme of Psalm 119 being about the word of God).

Another cherry picked fact. You just made a random "connection" between the value of the "Ordinal sum of the first and last words in Genesis 1:1" with Psalm 119. If the number were different, you could have made a different random connection. It wouldn't matter what the number was, you could find some sort of "connection." There is no rhyme nor reason in your collection of cherry picked facts. All you do is "match numbers" and then claim they are "evidence of design." But that's absurd, because everyone knows that you will find many "matches" in random sets of data. So how do you discern between random chance, deliberate design, and mathematical necessity? You don't! I've been bringing this to your attention for over a year. It is simply irrational to attribute every random "match" to design. Is there any way for you (or any of your readers) to distinguish between your results and the ravings of a schizophrenic? Please take no offense. I'm not saying that you are schizophrenic. I'm saying that your obsessive compulsive creation of "connections" is indistinguishable from the kinds of connections schizophrenics make.

Have you ever seen A Beautiful Mind? Its the story of John Nash and his descent into madness. He found "patterns" in everything. Here's a pic from the movie which shows how he made connections between RANDOM newspaper articles, RANDOM numbers, RANDOM photographs, and RANDOM words:

1245



If you have any real interest in discerning between chance, design, necessity, and DELUSION then you must have some PRINCIPLES guiding your study. I have not seen

Snakeboy
08-24-2014, 03:48 PM
I don't understand what you are trying to say. What does a "Tzaddik" do that would make sense of God possessing contradictory properties?

Well, the Tzaddik would be the one under the covenant, hence the " veil ", ie, the Tzaddik wouldn't know their position as the Tzaddik

A Tzaddik is defined in rabbinic tradition as one who's merits exceed their inequities

So, it's not a stretch to say a Tzaddik could easily live a life of " falling short of the mark ", ie sinning, but always striving to do better, hence the effort to keep the commandments, the Tzaddik is the one who " keeps the commandments " ( which also refers to the Ark of Testimony )

The Tazddik is the " foundation of the world " according to tradition.

A scenario nobody ever discusses, and I mean nobody I have seen, is

: what would happen if " god " walked the earth completely oblivious to that fact they were " god " ?

Living a life of " sin ", etc

Does that make " god " " good "..or " bad "

:pop2:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 04:04 PM
Well, the Tzaddik would be the one under the covenant, hence the " veil ", ie, the Tzaddik wouldn't know their position as the Tzaddik

A Tzaddik is defined in rabbinic tradition as one who's merits exceed their inequities

So, it's not a stretch to say a Tzaddik could easily live a life of " falling short of the mark ", ie sinning, but always striving to do better, hence the effort to keep the commandments, the Tzaddik is the one who " keeps the commandments " ( which also refers to the Ark of Testimony )

Hummm ... you seem to be weaving together various traditions. When you speak of the "covenant" implying a "veil" I presume you are thinking of this verse:

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Is there anything in Jewish tradition that links the veil to the law? They know, of course, about the veil that Moses wore, but I wonder if they have developed a tradition around that. In any case, I don't see the veil as representing the idea that a Tzaddik would not be aware of being Tzaddik. How do you make that connection? What does the law have to do with the Tzaddik not knowing he was Tzaddik? It seems to me that the opposite would be the case. The only way a Tzaddik could know that he was righteous would be if he was under a covenant that told him exactly what he needed to do, and he knew he did it.




The Tazddik is the " foundation of the world " according to tradition.

Yep. I learn that many years ago. They take it from this verse:

Proverbs 10:25 As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation.

The words translated as "everlasting foundation" are YESOD OLAM which can be interpreted as "the foundation of the world."



A scenario nobody ever discusses, and I mean nobody I have seen, is

: what would happen if " god " walked the earth completely oblivious to that fact they were " god " ?

Living a life of " sin ", etc

Does that make " god " " good "..or " bad "

:pop2:
I'm glad you put "sin" in scare quotes, because I have no use for that word. It is the disease Religion invented to sell its Cure to the sick and needy.

As to your question: If god "forgot" he was god, then he would not be "god" in the sense of our discourse concerning the contradictory properties of the Biblegod.

Gambini
08-24-2014, 04:15 PM
Why should anyone believe he exists?


I just told you ...


1) There is mathematical design in the bible, which you just GRANTED.


2) The NATURAL explanation (and only one that isn't AD HOC) for this mathematical design is that it was inspired by the biblical God BECAUSE the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people in the holy universe (the Israelites) AND inspiring the Hebrew prophets.



These two points establish the *EXISTENCE* of the biblical God REGARDLESS of whether or not he is capable of making "false" or "contradictory" statements. So YOUR argument fails (quite spectacularly, I might add). In fact, given these two points, it is highly likely that your biblical exegesis is flawed. Regardless, NONE of your objections to biblical statements override the two points I mentioned. And having "imperfect" traits (such as the capability to inspire "false" or "contradictory" statements) doesn't negate *EXISTENCE*.



BINI

Snakeboy
08-24-2014, 04:21 PM
God wouldn't be " forgetting " he was god so much as the Tzaddik ( God's mediator on earth ) would be blinded to the role they were fulfilling, by God, which would be in line with the process of being covenanted.

This requires that we ask who is responsible ?

The Tzaddik wouldn't have knowingly volunteered...

The Tzaddik, were they imbued with some sort of " godly " powers, wouldn't have known the influence they had been having on the world

The whole purpose of the Tzaddik is to be the " conduit " for God into this world, ie the mediator between God and man, but what happens if that is going on and the Tzaddik is kept completely oblivious to the fact ?

All these arguments about whether god is " evil " or " good " are completely overlooking this scenario of the Tzaddik, ie

" what happens when somebody is acting for God on earth and does not know it at the time ? "

" God " on earth would be the Tzaddik, who had been doing " bad ", for the ultimate purpose of fulfilling god's " plan "

" good " and " bad " are entirely subjective human concepts anyways, right ?

Something " good " happens now, down the road it turns out to be ' bad "
Something " bad " happens now, down the road it's a " blessing in disguise "

What really is the difference between a curse and a blessing ?

Wouldn't that depend on who was asking the question ?

You'd think for a Tzaddik it would be more like a curse, yet for the world it's a " blessing "

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 04:34 PM
I just told you ...

1) There is mathematical design in the bible, which you just GRANTED.

I have not granted there is a general "mathematical design" in the entire Bible. On the contrary, I have explicitly stated and presented evidence that there is NOT a general "mathematical design" in the entire Bible. For example, 95.5% of the Alphabetic Verses that could have been used to create Alphabetic KeyLinks do not fit the pattern.



2) The NATURAL explanation (and only one that isn't AD HOC) for this mathematical design is that it was inspired by the biblical God BECAUSE the bible proclaims its God from A to Z and records a long history of this God interacting with the most unique people in the holy universe (the Israelites) AND inspiring the Hebrew prophets.

It's NOT the only explanation that is not "ad hoc." And it's NOT a "natural explanation" because it does not explain why an intelligent God would produce a half-assed pattern that doesn't even fit 95.5% of the data.



These two points establish the *EXISTENCE* of the biblical God REGARDLESS of whether or not he is capable of making "false" or "contradictory" statements. So YOUR argument fails (quite spectacularly, I might add).

Your assertion is absurd. Even if I granted that the Bible had supernatural design, it would not, indeed could not, imply that the self-contradictory god described in its pages actually existed. It is logically impossible for the Biblegod to exist if it has self-contradictory properties.

And your mimicry of my words is ridiculous. You have shown no failure of any kind in my assertion that a being with self-contradictory properties cannot exist. My point is true. Yours is demonstrably false.



In fact, given these two points, it is highly likely that your biblical exegesis is flawed. Regardless, NONE of your objections to biblical statements override the two points I mentioned. And having "imperfect" traits (such as the capability to inspire "false" or "contradictory" statements) doesn't negate *EXISTENCE*.

Again, you have totally failed to understand my point. I am not saying that there could not be some OTHER God who inspired the Bible and the self-contradictory statements about the Biblegod. My point is that the god described in the Bible cannot exist if its properties are incoherent. Why do I have to keep repeating this point? You know it is true. That's why you invented a NEW GOD who is DIFFERENT than the Biblegod. You agree that if the biblical description of the Biblegod contains self-contradictory statements, then the Biblegod cannot exist.

Snakeboy
08-24-2014, 04:36 PM
Hummm ... you seem to be weaving together various traditions. When you speak of the "covenant" implying a "veil" I presume you are thinking of this verse:

2 Corinthians 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

Is there anything in Jewish tradition that links the veil to the law? They know, of course, about the veil that Moses wore, but I wonder if they have developed a tradition around that. In any case, I don't see the veil as representing the idea that a Tzaddik would not be aware of being Tzaddik. How do you make that connection? What does the law have to do with the Tzaddik not knowing he was Tzaddik? It seems to me that the opposite would be the case. The only way a Tzaddik could know that he was righteous would be if he was under a covenant that told him exactly what he needed to do, and he knew he did it.



Yep. I learn that many years ago. They take it from this verse:

Proverbs 10:25 As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more: but the righteous is an everlasting foundation.

The words translated as "everlasting foundation" are YESOD OLAM which can be interpreted as "the foundation of the world."


I'm glad you put "sin" in scare quotes, because I have no use for that word. It is the disease Religion invented to sell its Cure to the sick and needy.

As to your question: If god "forgot" he was god, then he would not be "god" in the sense of our discourse concerning the contradictory properties of the Biblegod.

You know, I don't really think about it too much

I do think it's interesting that " sin " and Torah " are kind of opposites, thematically, if you will

" sin " = missing the mark ( roughly )
root of " torah " ( yarah ) " aim for the mark " ( roughly )

Both of these are the two directions the Tzaddik goes in life

Where the bible says things like " bow in the cloud " ( as a sign of a covenant ) imo, it's not talking about a rainbow and a cloud, after all, the book uses phrasing like " cloud of witnesses ", etc

If the Torah was to be placed by the Ark to serve as a witness, and the Book of Rev phrases it as " the Ark of Testimony "

But that brings us back to the fact that the Tzaddik probably wouldn't want to be the person to fulfill that role in the first place.

Could have something to do with the statements about the " son of man " needing to be lifted up before the " coming "

idk, Richard, there could be more to it all, jus sayin..

- as far as some sort of " penultimate " biblecode revelation, if there were something like that in the Bible, it would probably only one person to reveal it, and that would be the Tzaddik, imo

Nothing else would make sense, as it would be ordained by god that they be the one to do it, right ?

If god existed, and that was god's plan, then no amount of math degrees would be sufficient, no biblecode program would ever reveal it, etc

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 04:46 PM
God wouldn't be " forgetting " he was god so much as the Tzaddik ( God's mediator on earth ) would be blinded to the role they were fulfilling, by God, which would be in line with the process of being covenanted.

What does "being covenanted" have to do with being "blind"?



This requires that we ask who is responsible ?

The Tzaddik wouldn't have knowingly volunteered...

Why not?



The Tzaddik, were they imbued with some sort of " godly " powers, wouldn't have known the influence they had been having on the world

Why not?



The whole purpose of the Tzaddik is to be the " conduit " for God into this world, ie the mediator between God and man, but what happens if that is going on and the Tzaddik is kept completely oblivious to the fact ?

It's odd that you seem to be saying there is more than one "mediator between God and man" since the verse you are citing says the opposite:

KJV 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;



All these arguments about whether god is " evil " or " good " are completely overlooking this scenario of the Tzaddik, ie

" what happens when somebody is acting for God on earth and does not know it at the time ? "

" God " on earth would be the Tzaddik, who had been doing " bad ", for the ultimate purpose of fulfilling god's " plan "

" good " and " bad " are entirely subjective human concepts anyways, right ?

Something " good " happens now, down the road it turns out to be ' bad "
Something " bad " happens now, down the road it's a " blessing in disguise "

Your approach makes no sense to me. The question of whether the Biblegod is "good" or "bad" or both has nothing to do with imagining he came to earth in a body as a Tzaddik. The point is that the Bible describes God commanding immoral things like genocide as God in heaven, not as a blinded human.



What really is the difference between a curse and a blessing ?

Wouldn't that depend on who was asking the question ?

A cursing is the opposite of a blessing. There could be no greater difference.



You'd think for a Tzaddik it would be more like a curse, yet for the world it's a " blessing "
Ah ... I see what you are getting at. Yes, it may cost a person great suffering (a curse) in order to "bless" another. But there's no confusion there.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 05:01 PM
You know, I don't really think about it too much

I do think it's interesting that " sin " and Torah " are kind of opposites, thematically, if you will

" sin " = missing the mark ( roughly )
root of " torah " ( yarah ) " aim for the mark " ( roughly )

Both of these are the two directions the Tzaddik goes in life

That is an interesting symmetry. Like Paul said in Romans 4:15 "where no law is, there is no transgression." So God created sin when he created the law. That sounds exactly like our government. It created millions of criminals by prohibiting alcohol and pot.

The real problem is that the "Torah" does not define the "mark" in a rational way. It mixes real moral ideals, like no stealing or murder, with all sorts of absurd issues that have nothing to do with morality, such as eating shellfish or mixing fibers in your clothing.



Where the bible says things like " bow in the cloud " ( as a sign of a covenant ) imo, it's not talking about a rainbow and a cloud, after all, the book uses phrasing like " cloud of witnesses ", etc

It seems to me that context makes it clear that he was speaking of rainbows. It was in response to the RAIN that came from CLOUDS that supposedly flooded the earth.

Genesis 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Of course, you are free to interpret any word in any way you want. The "cloud" can be the "congregation" and the "bow" and be the light from the "righteous acts of the saints":

Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

But if you go that route, you might as well just make up your own religion (unless you want to hijack all the "cred" the Bible has from thousands of years of government sanctioned brainwashing). I can see why it would be hard to pass up an opportunity like that!



Could have something to do with the statements about the " son of man " needing to be lifted up before the " coming "

How so? Isn't that a necessary sequence of events, if you wanted the coming to come after the crucifixion and resurrection?



idk, Richard, there could be more to it all, jus sayin..

Now worries. I'm "just sayin" too.



- as far as some sort of " penultimate " biblecode revelation, if there were something like that in the Bible, it would probably only one person to reveal it, and that would be the Tzaddik, imo

There's an old Jewish tradition that the Messiah will not only interpret the words of the Bible, but even the spaces between the words. I think that's an excellent example of the kind of fanciful "magical" thinking common to religious folk.

Snakeboy
08-24-2014, 05:05 PM
What does "being covenanted" have to do with being "blind"?


Why not?


Why not?


It's odd that you seem to be saying there is more than one "mediator between God and man" since the verse you are citing says the opposite:

KJV 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Richard,..." Jesus Christ " is the Tzaddik....you really think it's accidental that it's part of the name of Melchizedek, or that that 6,666 word in Strong's ( righteous ) is the gematria ( 6,666 ) of the verse describing the basin for washing the " sin offering " ?

Your approach makes no sense to me. The question of whether the Biblegod is "good" or "bad" or both has nothing to do with imagining he came to earth in a body as a Tzaddik. The point is that the Bible describes God commanding immoral things like genocide as God in heaven, not as a blinded human.

It doesn't make sense because it's a scenario you never considered, but that doesn't change the fact that it throws a nice monkey wrench into the " god is evil / good " arguments

Also

How can you openly admit that you think something like the Genesis account is BS, as a literal story, but cherry-pick another story, most likely also BS, to say that god in the Bible commuted horrible things ?

What kinda harebrained methodology is that ?

That just makes you guilty of doing exactly what you say other people do, cherry-picking, ie you are picking and choosing what is literal and what is not, with no consistency

A cursing is the opposite of a blessing. There could be no greater difference.

Well, in Hebrew the same word is used interchangeably sometimes, is it not ?

I haven't read too much on this, but I appreciate anything you have to say about it


Ah ... I see what you are getting at. Yes, it may cost a person great suffering (a curse) in order to "bless" another. But there's no confusion there.

Definitely not, charity in all forms is a great thing :thumb:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2014, 06:54 PM
How can you openly admit that you think something like the Genesis account is BS, as a literal story, but cherry-pick another story, most likely also BS, to say that god in the Bible commuted horrible things ?

What kinda harebrained methodology is that ?
Your comment doesn't make any sense to me. The fact that the stories of the genocide commanded by God (for example) probably never happened does not change the fact that the Bible says they did and attributes the command to God. Therefore, the statement that the God described in the Bible is immoral is a fact, whether or not the events actually happened. There is no "cherry picking" of any kind involved.

Cherry picking is when a person looks at a large data set and selects "hits" that happen to match a pattern they like and they use the small set of hits to make a general claim that does not actually correspond to any patterns in the data set as a whole. Case in point: In the Bible Wheel book, I claimed that the Alphabetic Verses were designed to match the Bible Wheel. I then presented every example I could find. I did not report that the vast majority of those verses did not fit the pattern. Therefore, that was a classic example of "cherry picking."

David M
08-25-2014, 03:39 AM
.

As to your question: If god "forgot" he was god, then he would not be "god" in the sense of our discourse concerning the contradictory properties of the Biblegod.

I think the word "contradictory" is the wrong word to describe the qualities of God. The word "complimentary" applies instead to the qualities of God.


God is not both good and evil, but think of God as neutral. The fact is; God does things that are regarded by man as good and evil. If God blesses man, that is regarded as "good". If God curses man, that is regarded as "bad". These are how these things are seen by man. God does things according to his word, and does not give blessing or cursing without justification. Hence, Gods acts justly.

The fact that God say; "I create evil" does not automatically imply that God is evil. Man can be evil and is created by God. That does not make God evil for having created something capable of being evil.

God loves and God hates. Those are two qualities of God. Things done out of love, we regard as "good" and things done out of hate we can think of as "bad" or evil. Nevertheless, God is doing according to that which he loves and that which he hates and that which he has spoken and made known to man.

When God has warned us of the things he hates, then we do those things to our own peril and destruction. When God says in effect; " don't to this because I hate it and if you do it, I shall curse you and even cause you do die prematurely" then the responsibility rests on us not to do that which God hates. God must not be blamed for what is purely man's fault and doing that which offends God. When God keeps his word, God is being just according to his word.

duxrow
08-25-2014, 05:14 AM
:h1: We are the horses, but who has your reins? "As in Adam all die; even so in Christ shall all be made alive", 1Cor15:22. It's the fig. of speech "synecdoche" wherein a part is put for the whole. When Moses sang joyfully about the horse and rider going into the sea, realize God's not opposed to horses. He wants us to take the bit in our mouth and follow Him, rather than giving our reins to Satan and be bound for the Lake of Fire!

I'm astounded about all the fuss over the qualities of God that seem to be ignoring "the god (little 'g') of this world", 2Cor4:4. Satan, the devil, the serpent, the dragon, Rev12:9, certainly plays the villain, who "goes about AS A Roaring Lion" 1Pet5:8, seeking whom to devour.
I don't call it cherry picking to compile the appropriate verses in order to zero in on our ADVERSARY! Even so, those OT Saints didn't have the benefit of knowing satan the way we do in the NT. Right?

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2014, 10:35 AM
2) As soon as I pointed out that the "negative" traits of the biblical God have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he actually exists, you hit me with the 180 and claim the bible wheel is flawed ...

Hey there Gambini,

Your assertion is false. I have been considering the possibility that the Bible Wheel is "flawed" because of cognitive bias for over two years. It had absolutely nothing to do with your argument concerning the "negative traits" of God. It is not a "new" idea at all. For example, here is what I wrote at the end of my analysis of cognitive bias called The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/), which I published on my blog on October 6, 2012:
This topic is of keen interest to me because I was a fundamentalist Christian for about 15 years. I explain the cognitive dissonance that drove me out of the faith in my article called Why I Quit Christianity (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2011/08/08/why-i-quit-christianity/). I have left a very long trail spanning more than a decade on this site and many posts in other forums defending my work on the Bible Wheel. My next project is to apply the insights I gained by writing this article to myself. Most arguments raised against my work claimed that the Bible Wheel (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/28/what-is-the-bible-wheel/) had no objective validity and that all my evidence was nothing but the product of cognitive biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) like cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29), confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia), and so forth. So now I will review those arguments and put my old responses to them through the same fire I have used to test Rich Deem’s arguments. It should prove enlightening.
And indeed, it has proven very enlightening!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Gambini
08-25-2014, 05:18 PM
Your assertion is false. I have been considering the possibility that the Bible Wheel is "flawed" because of cognitive bias for over two years.


I didn't say you weren't "considering the possibility". I said now you're SAYING it is flawed (IMMEDIATELY after I pointed out that ANY being making or inspiring "false" or "contradictory" statements doesn't = Nonexistence and would only demonstrate fallibility). You misread me alot. In fact, that's why I didn't even bother responding to your last post to me here. When I said you GRANTED there was mathematical design in the bible, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE BIBLE WHEEL. And that should have been obvious since the whole point of this thread is about you now rejecting the bible wheel, which means you need to be very careful when you accuse someone of being "delusional". If the bible wheel is one huge massive fail, that means all the Christians who laughed at and mocked your "little wheel" (like JP Holding and William Lane Craig) were right and you were deluded for 15 years (running around the internet claiming nobody can refute it and that it was invincible). I only point this out because you have a tendency to call other people deluded. It also seems like you can't stand the fact that there are people who disagree with you. Just an observation.



E = SHALOMness Squared

Richard Amiel McGough
08-25-2014, 10:33 PM
2) As soon as I pointed out that the "negative" traits of the biblical God have no bearing whatsoever as to whether or not he actually exists, you hit me with the 180 and claim the bible wheel is flawed ...

Hey there Gambini,

Your assertion is false. I have been considering the possibility that the Bible Wheel is "flawed" because of cognitive bias for over two years. It had absolutely nothing to do with your argument concerning the "negative traits" of God. It is not a "new" idea at all. For example, here is what I wrote at the end of my analysis of cognitive bias called The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/), which I published on my blog on October 6, 2012:
This topic is of keen interest to me because I was a fundamentalist Christian for about 15 years. I explain the cognitive dissonance that drove me out of the faith in my article called Why I Quit Christianity (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2011/08/08/why-i-quit-christianity/). I have left a very long trail spanning more than a decade on this site and many posts in other forums defending my work on the Bible Wheel. My next project is to apply the insights I gained by writing this article to myself. Most arguments raised against my work claimed that the Bible Wheel (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/28/what-is-the-bible-wheel/) had no objective validity and that all my evidence was nothing but the product of cognitive biases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) like cherry picking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_%28fallacy%29), confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia), and so forth. So now I will review those arguments and put my old responses to them through the same fire I have used to test Rich Deem’s arguments. It should prove enlightening.
And indeed, it has proven very enlightening!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard


I didn't say you weren't "considering the possibility". I said now you're SAYING it is flawed (IMMEDIATELY after I pointed out that ANY being making or inspiring "false" or "contradictory" statements doesn't = Nonexistence and would only demonstrate fallibility).

When I said you assertion was false, I was talking about your claim that it was a "180" as if it were a sudden change in what I've been saying. It is not. I've been dropping hints for quite a while, but my thoughts on this issue had not really gelled. It takes quite a while and a lot of effort to free your mind from biases that were instilled over years of biased thinking. But the time has come. I am now explicitly stating that it is flawed because of selection bias. And why am I saying that? Because that's what I've concluded after years of studying the evidence. As I'm sure you have noticed, I've been "cutting my teeth" debunking every variety of biases that pervert the judgment of believers. Reviewing your claims played no small role. (Thanks!) I've spent a lot of time on this project. It was TWO YEARS AGO, after studying how Rich Deem literally disintegrated his mind with his blatantly biased rationalizations, that I said my NEXT PROJECT was to apply the same rigorous honesty to my own work. It should be no surprise that it taken this long to get that project off the ground since I spent fifteen years convincing myself, largely through selection bias, that the Bible Wheel and gematria were evidence of God. But I have enough evidence now, and am ready to affirm that cognitive bias played a significant role in both the Bible Wheel and gematria. If you want to challenge that conclusion, great! All you need to do is challenge the evidence that supports it. The fact that I happened to start this thread after you presented your argument about the "negative traits of God" is utterly irrelevant. That argument had absolutely nothing to do with my choice. This should be obvious since I have explained why that argument not only fails, but is blatantly absurd. All you are doing is inventing a NEW GOD that is different than the "god" of the Bible. I've explained this in detail twice, and you have not refuted a word I wrote. You have not even responded to my point. It seems like you are somehow blinded. So here is what you need to do ...

RESPOND TO THIS: If you grant (for the sake of argument) that the Bible attributes self-contradictory properties to its "god" then logic demands that that "god" cannot exist. This does not mean that there could not be some OTHER GOD who does not have those self-contradictory properties, and who may have inspired the Bible. But that's irrelevant. We know nothing of that OTHER GOD except that it cannot be the "god" of the Bible. If you want to argue for that OTHER GOD, fine. But first you must admit that it could not be the "god" of the Bible.



If the bible wheel is one huge massive fail, that means all the Christians who laughed at and mocked your "little wheel" (like JP Holding and William Lane Craig) were right and you were deluded for 15 years (running around the internet claiming nobody can refute it and that it was invincible).

Your logic is fallacious. The fact that a person rejects a proposition that happens to be false does not mean that they had a valid reason for rejecting it. They are "right" only in the sense that a broken clock is "right" twice a day. Most of the mocking fools didn't have a clue what they were talking about and never even tried to formulate an argument. And the few who did try were easy to refute. That's why I could legitimately "run around the internet claiming nobody could refute it." But as the old saying goes - if you want a job done right, do it yourself! So that's what I've done. It will be VERY interesting to see if you can formulate any argument against my assertion that selection bias played a sufficiently significant role in the Bible Wheel to obviate any claim of divine design.

I am really glad you are pursuing this.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

CWH
08-26-2014, 04:53 AM
When I said you assertion was false, I was talking about your claim that it was a "180" as if it were a sudden change in what I've been saying. It is not. I've been dropping hints for quite a while, but my thoughts on this issue had not really gelled. It takes quite a while and a lot of effort to free your mind from biases that were instilled over years of biased thinking. But the time has come. I am now explicitly stating that it is flawed because of selection bias. And why am I saying that? Because that's what I've concluded after years of studying the evidence. As I'm sure you have noticed, I've been "cutting my teeth" debunking every variety of biases that pervert the judgment of believers. Reviewing your claims played no small role. (Thanks!) I've spent a lot of time on this project. It was TWO YEARS AGO, after studying how Rich Deem literally disintegrated his mind with his blatantly biased rationalizations, that I said my NEXT PROJECT was to apply the same rigorous honesty to my own work. It should be no surprise that it taken this long to get that project off the ground since I spent fifteen years convincing myself, largely through selection bias, that the Bible Wheel and gematria were evidence of God. But I have enough evidence now, and am ready to affirm that cognitive bias played a significant role in both the Bible Wheel and gematria. If you want to challenge that conclusion, great! All you need to do is challenge the evidence that supports it. The fact that I happened to start this thread after you presented your argument about the "negative traits of God" is utterly irrelevant. That argument had absolutely nothing to do with my choice. This should be obvious since I have explained why that argument not only fails, but is blatantly absurd. All you are doing is inventing a NEW GOD that is different than the "god" of the Bible. I've explained this in detail twice, and you have not refuted a word I wrote. You have not even responded to my point. It seems like you are somehow blinded. So here is what you need to do ...

RESPOND TO THIS: If you grant (for the sake of argument) that the Bible attributes self-contradictory properties to its "god" then logic demands that that "god" cannot exist. This does not mean that there could not be some OTHER GOD who does not have those self-contradictory properties, and who may have inspired the Bible. But that's irrelevant. We know nothing of that OTHER GOD except that it cannot be the "god" of the Bible. If you want to argue for that OTHER GOD, fine. But first you must admit that it could not be the "god" of the Bible.


Your logic is fallacious. The fact that a person rejects a proposition that happens to be false does not mean that they had a valid reason for rejecting it. They are "right" only in the sense that a broken clock is "right" twice a day. Most of the mocking fools didn't have a clue what they were talking about and never even tried to formulate an argument. And the few who did try were easy to refute. That's why I could legitimately "run around the internet claiming nobody could refute it." But as the old saying goes - if you want a job done right, do it yourself! So that's what I've done. It will be VERY interesting to see if you can formulate any argument against my assertion that selection bias played a sufficiently significant role in the Bible Wheel to obviate any claim of divine design.

I am really glad you are pursuing this.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard
If the Biblewheel ia flawed, then it becomes a Big Lie, and who is the Big Liar?.....

God Bless.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2014, 06:30 AM
If the Biblewheel ia flawed, then it becomes a Big Lie, and who is the Big Liar?.....

God Bless.:pray:
A person who falls into delusion is not necessarily a deliberate liar. I spoke what I understood to be true to the best of my ability when I was a Christian, and I continue to do so now. You are simply being a rude and abusive, trying to take advantage of my honesty to insult me because you don't have the intellectual ability to refute anything with logic and facts.

CWH
08-26-2014, 10:46 AM
A person who falls into delusion is not necessarily a deliberate liar. I spoke what I understood to be true to the best of my ability when I was a Christian, and I continue to do so now. You are simply being a rude and abusive, trying to take advantage of my honesty to insult me because you don't have the intellectual ability to refute anything with logic and facts.
I am not being rude or abusive but advising you not to call people liars when they seems delusional to you or whose ideas and concepts are disagreeable to you. Same as you , we are not deliberate liars but we spoke of what we understood to be true in the best of our ability.

God Bless.:pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-26-2014, 11:10 AM
I am not being rude or abusive but advising you not to call people liars when they seems delusional to you or whose ideas and concepts are disagreeable to you. Same as you , we are not deliberate liars but we spoke of what we understood to be true in the best of our ability.

God Bless.:pray:
That's good advice Cheow. If you ever see me making such an error, please point it out and be sure to supply evidence supporting your assertion. And remember, there is nothing wrong with stating that someone is deluded or lying if it is demonstrably true.

Gambini
08-28-2014, 12:14 PM
RESPOND TO THIS: If you grant (for the sake of argument) that the Bible attributes self-contradictory properties to its "god" then logic demands that that "god" cannot exist. This does not mean that there could not be some OTHER GOD who does not have those self-contradictory properties, and who may have inspired the Bible. But that's irrelevant. We know nothing of that OTHER GOD except that it cannot be the "god" of the Bible. If you want to argue for that OTHER GOD, fine. But first you must admit that it could not be the "god" of the Bible.


Nonsense. If I told you I was infallible and then you presented evidence that I was NOT infallible, does that mean I do not exist??? Of course not. It would only demonstrate that I am fallible. Same thing with the biblical God. If there is mathematical design in the bible, which you GRANTED there is, then THAT is evidence for the EXISTENCE of the divine being that is proclaimed throughout the bible from A to Z and who is said to have interacted with the most unique people in the holy universe (the wicked awesome Israelites) AND is said to have divinely inspired the Hebrew prophets. Now IF there are biblical examples of "errors", "contradictions" or "negative" traits associated with this divine being, then all you would have demonstrated is the FALLIBILITY of this being (of course, all of those problems you have with the bible could easily be explained as fallible MEN, not a fallible God, tampering with the original autographs, but let that go). The mathematical design in the bible = EVIDENCE for the EXISTENCE of the divine being who inspired the Hebrew prophets WHEREAS the problems you raise would only demonstrate his FALLIBILITY. Again, if I told you I was infallible and said there was a horse in your living room. It wouldn't disprove my EXISTENCE if there was no horse in your living room. It would only demonstrate I am not infallible. If I said it is impossible for me to fit in a size 10 shoe while wearing a size 10 shoe, it would only demonstrate I am not infallible.




Your logic is fallacious. The fact that a person rejects a proposition that happens to be false does not mean that they had a valid reason for rejecting it.


I never said they had a valid reason for rejecting it. I said IF the bible wheel is a massive fail, then that means all the Christians who said your discovery was bunk were right REGARDLESS of WHY they thought it was bunk. And from what I've seen, the very argument you're making now against the bible wheel is the very same argument most Christians have been using against it (namely, that it involves selection bias or cherry picking). Not only that, you yourself are ON THE RECORD in stating they are WRONG in claiming the bible wheel involves cherry picking (statements you've made on other forums). Do you deny this???



BINI

dpenn
08-28-2014, 12:33 PM
Richard,

This is my initial post, so I hope I have jumped through your register hoops propherly. Obviously, this thread is what I observe to be the core of your arguments in favour of your years of developing your Bible Wheel, followed by your subsequent denial of its truth and validity.

My preliminary question is simply, if you deny the existence of the God of the Bible divinely inspiring the writing of its Scriptures, what is the alternative?

Do you believe the Jewish adepts had mathematical superiority of knowledge, which they ingeniously embedded in a historical myth, engineered to launch a multi-millenial attempt to rule the world?

If not Jewish, do you think it was a broader kabal of world intellects who engineered the Bible to hide their desire for world dominance?

Even if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, what do you think would be the purpose of the Zionist movement, creating a new parallel between the Church and Israel, rather than a more biblical one Lord, one faith, one baptism of the Bible? As an aside, what is your view of the Talmudic and Kaballistic Judaism?

If you have a knowledgeable answer for the above, for what reason would they have expanded the Jewish people of God to the world Jewish-Gentile universal church? Keep in mind the early Jewish persecution of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.

How do you think this would interface with the many trinitarian religious systems prior to the writing of the New Testament?

Do you agree with Alexander Hislop and many others that the Roman Catholic Church is merely a modern expression of the ancient Mystery Religions, and is in fact the world's largest false Christian cult?

Do you have any views on the existence of Masonry, Illuminati, or Jesuits?

Do you not find it interesting that the teachings of Jesus denounce the teachings and actions of these public or secret organisations?

Well, this is probably requiring an encyclopedic response, but I put a few questions out there to see what your blogsite has in response to my contemporary concerns.

Thanks for an opportunity to open this discussion to these areas of my concern

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
08-28-2014, 01:01 PM
RESPOND TO THIS: If you grant (for the sake of argument) that the Bible attributes self-contradictory properties to its "god" then logic demands that that "god" cannot exist. This does not mean that there could not be some OTHER GOD who does not have those self-contradictory properties, and who may have inspired the Bible. But that's irrelevant. We know nothing of that OTHER GOD except that it cannot be the "god" of the Bible. If you want to argue for that OTHER GOD, fine. But first you must admit that it could not be the "god" of the Bible.

Nonsense. If I told you I was infallible and then you presented evidence that I was NOT infallible, does that mean I do not exist??? Of course not. It would only demonstrate that I am fallible. Same thing with the biblical God.

You still do not understand. The point is this: If you wrote a book in which you described a person who had self-contradictory properties, such as being simultaneously male and female, then I would know that you could not be the person described in the book. Simple as that. It doesn't mean that you don't exist. It means you could not be the person described in the book because THAT person does not exist. Nothing could be simpler.

The same goes for the god of the Bible. If that god is described as having self-contradictory properties, then THAT GOD cannot exist. This does not imply the non-existence of some OTHER GOD that may have inspired the self-contradictory description in the Bible.



If there is mathematical design in the bible, which you GRANTED there is,

I have not granted that there is a general mathematical design (like the holographs) throughout the Bible. On the contrary, the holographs appear in a very limited number of verses. Yes, they are intriguing, but they are not a property of the bible as a whole. They certainly do not "prove" that the self-contradictory "god" described in its pages is true, since that would imply a contradiction, and contradictions cannot be true.



then THAT is evidence for the EXISTENCE of the divine being that is proclaimed throughout the bible from A to Z

Not if that being is described as possessing self-contradictory properties. That would be like "proving" that square circles exist. It would be a meaningless proposition.



Now IF there are biblical examples of "errors", "contradictions" or "negative" traits associated with this divine being, then all you would have demonstrated is the FALLIBILITY of this being

Not true. Logic declares that no being with self-contradictory properties can exist. As I've explained many times, its fine if you want to say that there is some OTHER GOD that does not have the contradictory properties of the biblegod, but you can't say that the biblegod actually exists if it has incoherent properties.



(of course, all of those problems you have with the bible could easily be explained as fallible MEN, not a fallible God, tampering with the original autographs, but let that go).

Not true. If you go that route, then all statements in the Bible are suspect. You would have no rational principle with which to discern between the "true God" and the god described in the Bible.



The mathematical design in the bible = EVIDENCE for the EXISTENCE of the divine being who inspired the Hebrew prophets WHEREAS the problems you raise would only demonstrate his FALLIBILITY.

Not true. Amongst those "inspirations" are commands of genocide, the institution of slavery and sexism, and many errors in logic and fact. There cannot be any "evidence" proving that false = true.



Again, if I told you I was infallible and said there was a horse in your living room. It wouldn't disprove my EXISTENCE if there was no horse in your living room. It would only demonstrate I am not infallible. If I said it is impossible for me to fit in a size 10 shoe while wearing a size 10 shoe, it would only demonstrate I am not infallible.

You still don't get it. The correct analogy would be that you said there was a horse in your living room, and YOU WERE THE HORSE. If the horse does not exist, then neither could you be that horse. To repeat: You are proposing an OTHER GOD that has different properties than the god of the Bible which we know cannot exist if it has self-contradictory properties.



I never said they had a valid reason for rejecting it. I said IF the bible wheel is a massive fail, then that means all the Christians who said your discovery was bunk were right REGARDLESS of WHY they thought it was bunk.

So what? I would agree with them!



And from what I've seen, the very argument you're making now against the bible wheel is the very same argument most Christians have been using against it (namely, that it involves selection bias or cherry picking). Not only that, you yourself are ON THE RECORD in stating they are WRONG in claiming the bible wheel involves cherry picking (statements you've made on other forums). Do you deny this???

Give me an actual quote and we can talk.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-28-2014, 01:30 PM
Richard,

This is my initial post, so I hope I have jumped through your register hoops propherly. Obviously, this thread is what I observe to be the core of your arguments in favour of your years of developing your Bible Wheel, followed by your subsequent denial of its truth and validity.

Hey there dpenn, :yo:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

I really appreciate your thoughtful questions. They are exactly what I am hoping for, to help me test my conclusions.



My preliminary question is simply, if you deny the existence of the God of the Bible divinely inspiring the writing of its Scriptures, what is the alternative?

Before asking for an alternative explanation, we must determine if there are any patterns that need explaining. There were three independent topics that I claimed gave evidence for the divine design of the Bible:

1) The Bible Wheel

2) The Isaiah-Bible Correlation

3) The Biblical Holographs (Gematria)

The first thing to note is that selection bias played a central role in the development of the "evidence" for each of those topics:

1) The Bible Wheel: I scanned every book looking for "connections" with the corresponding Hebrew letter and the other two books on the spoke. I wrote a 412 page book reporting on all the "hits" I found. I did not report, or even deal with, most of the data. This is a classic case of selection bias, and it brings into question any conclusions based on it.

2) The Isaiah-Bible Correlation: Again, I compared every chapter of Isaiah with the corresponding book of the Bible. And again, I reported only the "hits." It is extremely important to note that other people did the same thing, using a different order of the books (e.g. Hebrew Tanakh) and became utterly convinced that their pattern was evidence of "divine design."

3) The Biblical Holographs (Gematria): The whole topic of gematria is based fundamentally on selection bias. For any given number, there is usually a large random collection of words that have that value. One must "select" which ones to focus on to form patterns. I tried to avoid this problem by looking for self-reflective, self-coherent, highly integrated patterns which I called "holographs." Those are the ONLY aspect of numerology that I would even consider as possibly valid. The irony, of course, is that numerology is the most lucid example of selection bias. I would say about 99.9% of all numerology I've ever seen was totally delusional bullshit.



Do you believe the Jewish adepts had mathematical superiority of knowledge, which they ingeniously embedded in a historical myth, engineered to launch a multi-millenial attempt to rule the world?

No. Nothing like that has ever crossed my mind.



If not Jewish, do you think it was a broader kabal of world intellects who engineered the Bible to hide their desire for world dominance?

Nope. Conspiracy theories are almost always blatantly delusional.



Even if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, what do you think would be the purpose of the Zionist movement, creating a new parallel between the Church and Israel, rather than a more biblical one Lord, one faith, one baptism of the Bible? As an aside, what is your view of the Talmudic and Kaballistic Judaism?

When I was a Christian, I thought the doctrines of the "Christian Zionists" were entirely unbilblical.

As for the Talmud and Kabbalah, they are interesting sources of information. The topic is too deep to go into right now.



If you have a knowledgeable answer for the above, for what reason would they have expanded the Jewish people of God to the world Jewish-Gentile universal church? Keep in mind the early Jewish persecution of the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.

That's too far off-topic for this thread. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to discuss it.



How do you think this would interface with the many trinitarian religious systems prior to the writing of the New Testament?

I see no connection between the Christian doctrine of the Trinity and the prior "trinitarian" religions. It seems to me that the motivation for the Trinity came entirely from Scripture and the worship of Christ as God in the early church.



Do you agree with Alexander Hislop and many others that the Roman Catholic Church is merely a modern expression of the ancient Mystery Religions, and is in fact the world's largest false Christian cult?

Hislop wrote crap. I agree with this snippet from the wiki that I posted in this thread (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2505-Eating-flesh-sacrficed-to-idols-vs-Christian-Communion&p=36697#post36697) a few years ago:



The Two Babylons is an anti-Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholic) religious pamphlet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamphlet) produced initially by the Scottish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland) theologian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology) and Presbyterian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian) Alexander Hislop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop) in 1853. It was later expanded in 1858 and finally published as a book in 1919. Its central theme is its allegation that the Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church) is a veiled continuation of the pagan religion of Babylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon), the veiled paganism being the product of a millennia old conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy%29).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-books.google.com-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-1) Christian Book Reviews November 12th, 2005</ref> It has been recognized by scholars as discredited and has been called a "tribute to historical inaccuracy and know-nothing religious bigotry" with "shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty" and a "nonsensical thesis".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-3)

Although scholarship has shown the picture presented by Hislop to be based on a misunderstanding of historical Babylon and its religion, his book remains popular among some fundamentalist protestant Christians.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-books.google.com-0)
The book's thesis has also featured prominently in the conspiracy theories of racist groups such as The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Covenant,_The_Sword,_and_the_Arm_of_the_Lord)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-4) and other conspiracy theorists.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-5)

Although extensively footnoted, giving the impression of reliability, commentators (in particular Ralph Woodrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Woodrow)) have stated that there are numerous misconceptions, fabrications and grave factual errors in the document, and that this book follows the line of thought of works like: Martin Luther - On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Babylonian_Captivity_of_the_Church) (1520), Titus Oates - An Exact Discovery of the Mystery of Iniquity as it is now in Practice amongst the Jesuits (1679), Conyers Middleton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conyers_Middleton) - Letter from Rome (1729).[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#cite_note-6)

The fact that Protestants claimed the Pope Antichrist (in the Westminster Confusion of the Faith) is an excellent example of the profound incoherence of the Bible and the religion as a whole.



Do you have any views on the existence of Masonry, Illuminati, or Jesuits?

They are of no consequence, except that they serve as great fodder for delusional conspiracy theories.



Well, this is probably requiring an encyclopedic response, but I put a few questions out there to see what your blogsite has in response to my contemporary concerns.

Yes, a proper response would require a book. But we can pursue the points of interest one at a time.

Again, I really appreciate your questions and hope the conversation continues.

So what do you think about the Bible Wheel, Isiaiah-Bible Correlation, and Holographs? Do you think they are "evidence" of divine design? Do you have different opinions for each? I would be interested in your opinion.

Great chatting!

Richard

dpenn
08-28-2014, 02:53 PM
Hey there dpenn, :yo:

Before asking for an alternative explanation, we must determine if there are any patterns that need explaining. There were three independent topics that I claimed gave evidence for the divine design of the Bible:

1) The Bible Wheel

2) The Isaiah-Bible Correlation

3) The Biblical Holographs (Gematria)

Richard

Once again, this is my first time responding by quotes, so I hope I have done it correctly.

1) The Bible Wheel.

When I first browsed your book to get an overall understanding of where you were going with it, I was fascinated by the layering of repeated 22's, (kaballistic use of the Hebrew char's). And even though you showed many overlapping themes on the threads, I found them somewhat arbitrary, since I could see no reason why the third cycle would begin with Romans, and not Matthew. But it was rather ingenious how you grouped the 5, 12, 5 sets of books of the OT, plus gospels, so that Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, matched, Haggai, Zecharia, Malachi, the prophets of the restoration period. A further disconnect is that you had 12 OT history books in Cycle 1, but 5 NT history books in Cycle 2. Then you associated the 12 Historical books of the OT in Cycle 1, with 12 Minor Prophets of the OT in Cycle 2. Also, the 5 books of the Pentateuch in Cycle 1 don't seem to match with the 5 Major Prophets of Cycle 2. And then to group the remaining 22 books of the NT into Cycle 3, seems to be a bit arbitrary, especially beginning with Romans. Having said this, the numbered groupings of 5,12,5 seemed ordered, especially as they overlay the design of the Menorah.

2. The Isaiah-Bible correlation seems to be much more than coincidental. I think back to Gambini's remarks on a recent post with you, and there sure are many more elements of intentional design than I was previously aware. And it does seem to express a mini hologram of the overall biblical text, at least at a very summary level.

3. Biblical Holographs.

My general thought about Biblical Enigma Machines, is that they seem to go just too far beyond what Jesus actually taught. His message was simple, yet profoundly wise. And when He did hint at a deeper truth that we should search out, it never suggested that we become masters of prime numbers, or magic squares, or magic squares of primes, or deeper hidden gnostic Gematria knowledge contained in the creation of the Hebrew letters. Obviously, numbers play a key and central part of the biblical message, but they don't become the driving force of interpretation. Even the famous, "here is the mind that has wisdom, count the number of the beast" doesn't appear to be some deep kaballistic encrypted code.

Having said that, I must admit that I was quite startled at the precision of much of the Gematria Holographs. I must have lived quite a sheltered life, since I was not aware of most of this. I have come to realise the significant interplay with the Hebrew and Greek language and number systems, but I had no idea that there was such a profound overlap between the two systems (letter and number).

***

As an afterthought, when I first became a Christian, one of the biggest hurdles for me to get over was the suspicion that the Bible was a deeply intelligent engineered book to manage the working class by a ruling elite, much like the exoteric-esoteric divide. But somehow, the love and grace of God won my heart over to believe on Jesus Christ for my salvation. I think it is possible that if I was exposed to Talmudic Gematria and Kaballism, I very well might never have come to see Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour (but who knows, God is Sovereign, and not many wise are called, i.e. some are).

I am aware of many of the apparent contradictions of the Bible, but many of them have plausible answers and many others have been resolved over time. So I trust that the difficulties are in the process of being resolved, and God has His reasons for leaving us partially in the dark (thus the parables, etc).

***

One final point, conspiracy theory MAY BE one of the most anti-intellectual accusations to make to write off many intelligent inquiries into the concealed actions of many secret societies. Why are they secret? And why do they take blood curdling oaths to assure their secrecy?

Jesus did all things publicly and spoke truthfully for all to see and hear. I don't know what truly caused you to stumble at that stone, but my hope and prayer, is that, given time you might reconsider His reality.

In Him,

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
08-28-2014, 03:24 PM
Once again, this is my first time responding by quotes, so I hope I have done it correctly.

Looks like it worked just fine.

You brought some very interesting points. I'm at work right now. I'll answer in a few hours after I get home.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-28-2014, 06:45 PM
1) The Bible Wheel.

When I first browsed your book to get an overall understanding of where you were going with it, I was fascinated by the layering of repeated 22's, (kaballistic use of the Hebrew char's). And even though you showed many overlapping themes on the threads, I found them somewhat arbitrary, since I could see no reason why the third cycle would begin with Romans, and not Matthew. But it was rather ingenious how you grouped the 5, 12, 5 sets of books of the OT, plus gospels, so that Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, matched, Haggai, Zecharia, Malachi, the prophets of the restoration period. A further disconnect is that you had 12 OT history books in Cycle 1, but 5 NT history books in Cycle 2. Then you associated the 12 Historical books of the OT in Cycle 1, with 12 Minor Prophets of the OT in Cycle 2. Also, the 5 books of the Pentateuch in Cycle 1 don't seem to match with the 5 Major Prophets of Cycle 2. And then to group the remaining 22 books of the NT into Cycle 3, seems to be a bit arbitrary, especially beginning with Romans. Having said this, the numbered groupings of 5,12,5 seemed ordered, especially as they overlay the design of the Menorah.

Hey there dpenn,

Your comments are very enlightening. They show the fundamentally subjective nature of "meaningful patterns."

Your comments seem to indicate that you think I "did something" to design the pattern. That's not correct. The order of the books follows the traditional pattern of the 66 book protestant canon, as exemplified in the KJV for example. I did nothing but "roll up" the list of books on a spindle wheel of 22 spokes. All the patterns follow from that one act. I discuss this in my article What is the Bible Wheel? (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/28/what-is-the-bible-wheel/).

"kaballistic use of the Hebrew char's"

Why do you think it is "kabbalistic"? (As an aside, it is spelled with two b's and one l). The meanings of the letters are fairly well established in the Bible (seven of the names of the letters appear in the Alphabetic Verses (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/Alphabetic_Verses.php)), by the roles they play in Hebrew grammar and etymology, and by historical Jewish commentary (see Chapter 7 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/Chapters/Chapt07.php) of the Bible Wheel book). Did you intend that term in a pejorative sense?

"I found them somewhat arbitrary, since I could see no reason why the third cycle would begin with Romans, and not Matthew"

That's interesting. I've always felt that the structure of Spoke 1 was one of the most convincing patterns of "divine design." Did you read my review of Spoke 1 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Book/Chapters/Chapt05.php)? It seems to me that the book of Romans fits much more with Spoke 1 that would Matthew. But then again, given that Matthew is the first book of the NT, the case could be made for your suggestion that the whole design could have been vastly improved if God had added more books (and letters to the Hebrew alphabet) to make the kind of patter you would prefer.

One of the patterns that impressed me most was the alignment on Spoke 1 of three books that are the "first books" of major portions of Scripture:

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

Of course, the books could have been rearranged so that Matthew was aligned with Genesis and Romans. Or perhaps it would have been better if John aligned with Genesis, since both begin with "In the beginning." This again shows the arbitrary "post hoc" nature of pattern finding. People can always make up "reasons" for any pattern they find, and such reasons will often be based on arbitrary and subjective likes, dislikes, biases, and so forth.

One of the most important things to understand is that the circular matrix of 66 cells imposes a sense of "design" by it's orderly structure. But that's an illusion because any arbitrary set of 66 objects could be displayed on such a matrix.

"But it was rather ingenious how you grouped the 5, 12, 5 sets of books of the OT, plus gospels,"

Ingenious? What are you talking about? I didn't do anything. That's how the pattern fell out on its own. I discovered it about four years after my initial discovery of the Wheel. I was quite stunned that the books naturally fall into those numerical categories. I had noticed that the first spoke consisted of the first books of three natural divisions of scripture, and this prompted me to check if there was a larger pattern. I described the process in detail in the thread called The Discovery of the Canon Wheel (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?1205-Discovery-of-the-Canon-Wheel). I can assure you, I did nothing "ingenious."

Of course, many folks have felt that the pattern is not real. There is no debate about the Torah having 5 books, or the 12 minor prophets. The most common challenges are that the 22 Epistles because they say that Revelation is a book of prophecy, not an epistle (it is, of course, both). And many people would prefer to separate Acts into its own category of "History" and the four Gospels as "biography" (or just "Gospels"). I argued that biographies are accurately categorized as history. And some people argued that the division of the books such as 1 & 2 Kings was arbitrary, and so there could be no significance to any "patterns" based on such things. I rejected that argument by asserting that the pattern exists, and the historical contingencies that led to it are irrelevant.

"A further disconnect is that you had 12 OT history books in Cycle 1, but 5 NT history books in Cycle 2."

Why is that a "disconnect"? It seemed to me that the point of the Canon Wheel was the tri-radiant halo that matched the halo of Christ, as well as the menorah. The three cycles and seven divisions always struck me as quite beautiful and amazing.

Given your previous hint at anti-trinitarianism, I'm wondering if you find the tri-radiant halo "disturbing." I know other folks, particularly those who are into "Hebrew roots" and who reject traditional Christianity as "pagan" and "Babylonian," are profoundly disturbed by the correlation with ancient Christian iconography of Christ as God. I always thought it was an amazing confirmation of the Trinity. So again, we see how "pattern finding" is subjective and entirely unreliable as a proof of anything.

"Then you associated the 12 Historical books of the OT in Cycle 1, with 12 Minor Prophets of the OT in Cycle 2. "

I did no such thing. That pattern was determined entirely by the order of books in the Bible. You don't have to put them on the wheel to see it. You could display them in a rectangular grid with 22 columns and three rows and see the same thing.

"Also, the 5 books of the Pentateuch in Cycle 1 don't seem to match with the 5 Major Prophets of Cycle 2."

The "Law and the Prophets" doesn't ring any bells? You don't think they naturally go together?

"And then to group the remaining 22 books of the NT into Cycle 3, seems to be a bit arbitrary, especially beginning with Romans."

It seems you don't appreciate Romans as the "Chief book of the NT" as it has been described by many exegetes. I'm wondering if you have been influenced by the work of E. L. Martin and his "Restoring the Original Bible" in which he advocated the idea that the Epistles should start with James (the so-called "manuscript order.") I vigorously refuted that idea in my article called Restoring the Original Bible Refuted (http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/ELM_Restoring.php). This is extremely significant in the present context, because Martin was convinced that his pattern was God's pattern, and it directly contradicted the pattern I thought was divine. So once again, we see the arbitrary and subjective nature of such "pattern finding." I think such patterns are highly suspect as evidence of "divine design." Unfortunately, I wasted a lot of my life believing in the Bible and its God because of such patterns.

I'll answer your other points in another post, since this one is already getting large.

Again, let me thank you for taking the time to discuss these things with me. Your comments are very helpful.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-28-2014, 07:39 PM
2. The Isaiah-Bible correlation seems to be much more than coincidental. I think back to Gambini's remarks on a recent post with you, and there sure are many more elements of intentional design than I was previously aware. And it does seem to express a mini hologram of the overall biblical text, at least at a very summary level.

Do you have any principles by which to determine if a coincidence is merely a coincidence or if it was "intentionally designed"?

I was always very impressed by the Isaiah Bible Correlation because of the overall fit coupled with some stunning "coincidences." But there are many books with no obvious connections to the corresponding chapter in Isaiah, so it's a mixed bag. And this raises a very important question: If it was designed by God, why would he do a half-assed job? What could be the purpose of making a pattern like that, and not make it clear that he designed it?

There is good reason to doubt the "connections" are significant. In my last post, I mentioned how E. L. Martin redesigned the Bible (http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/ELM_Restoring.php) to come up with an "amazing symmetry" similar, but contradictory, to mine. He was convinced it was God's design. The same thing has happened with the Isaiah Bible Correlation. I met a man who used the order of books in the Tanakh and did the same kind of analysis as I. He was convinced that God designed it that way. So in both cases, we have examples of people using entirely different orders of the books as the basis of "patterns" that they thought God designed. I think this is strong evidence of how selection bias can lead to false conclusions, and how looking for post hoc "patterns" in large data sets can not be relied upon as proof of anything. Have you seen the site Spurious Correlations? It shows how large data set commonly produce patterns that appear to be connected with in fact they are not.



3. Biblical Holographs.

My general thought about Biblical Enigma Machines, is that they seem to go just too far beyond what Jesus actually taught. His message was simple, yet profoundly wise. And when He did hint at a deeper truth that we should search out, it never suggested that we become masters of prime numbers, or magic squares, or magic squares of primes, or deeper hidden gnostic Gematria knowledge contained in the creation of the Hebrew letters. Obviously, numbers play a key and central part of the biblical message, but they don't become the driving force of interpretation. Even the famous, "here is the mind that has wisdom, count the number of the beast" doesn't appear to be some deep kaballistic encrypted code.

Having said that, I must admit that I was quite startled at the precision of much of the Gematria Holographs. I must have lived quite a sheltered life, since I was not aware of most of this. I have come to realise the significant interplay with the Hebrew and Greek language and number systems, but I had no idea that there was such a profound overlap between the two systems (letter and number).

I agree that the holographs "go far beyond what Jesus actually taught" but I don't see the relevance of that. On the contrary, I can't see any reason to think that an infinitely wise God would not design his word with such wonders in it. Well, there is one reason. The patterns are a kind of numerology, and an intelligent God would know that numerology is the playground for cranks. Why would he want to make his word look like that crap? And worse, it does not serve to convince anyone but the already convinced. The Muslims have their own numerology of the Quran that they think PROVES it to be the Word of Allah. So I really see no value in such things. It's really good for nothing but convincing people that are already convinced of things for the wrong, indeed delusional, reasons.



As an afterthought, when I first became a Christian, one of the biggest hurdles for me to get over was the suspicion that the Bible was a deeply intelligent engineered book to manage the working class by a ruling elite, much like the exoteric-esoteric divide. But somehow, the love and grace of God won my heart over to believe on Jesus Christ for my salvation. I think it is possible that if I was exposed to Talmudic Gematria and Kaballism, I very well might never have come to see Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour (but who knows, God is Sovereign, and not many wise are called, i.e. some are).

Yeah, and if you were exposed to the common sort of Christian numerology, you may well have believed for all the wrong reasons. The vast majority of such numerology is filled with blatant inconsistencies and irrational assertions.



I am aware of many of the apparent contradictions of the Bible, but many of them have plausible answers and many others have been resolved over time. So I trust that the difficulties are in the process of being resolved, and God has His reasons for leaving us partially in the dark (thus the parables, etc).

My experience was precisely the opposite. Reading the leading Christian apologists proves that the contradictions are real and the attempt to defend the Bible forces people to be dishonest and irrational. I'm not talking about you of course. Just what I've read.



One final point, conspiracy theory MAY BE one of the most anti-intellectual accusations to make to write off many intelligent inquiries into the concealed actions of many secret societies. Why are they secret? And why do they take blood curdling oaths to assure their secrecy?

If they are so powerful and so secret, how did you come to know about them? Have you not noticed the fundamentally fallacious logic they use?



Jesus did all things publicly and spoke truthfully for all to see and hear. I don't know what truly caused you to stumble at that stone, but my hope and prayer, is that, given time you might reconsider His reality.


I would be delighted to discuss the reasons with you. The most fundamental is this: God is not trustworthy. No one can actually TRUST God to do anything for anyone in this life. It is fundamentally delusional to "trust God." Parents who trust God for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions. If God were half as trustworthy as the average dentist, there would be no debate about his existence.

And then there are all the contradictions, absurdities, errors in fact and logic, and most importantly, the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible that makes it impossible for me to believe he could be the "true God." The folks who wrote the Bible were obviously primitive and ignorant in every sense of those words.

But that's another topic. If you would like, we could start a new thread to discuss it.

Great chatting!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

dpenn
08-29-2014, 10:39 AM
I am still on a learning curve, trying to intuitively anticipate how to respond via multiple quotes within a posting. So here goes ...


Do you have any principles by which to determine if a coincidence is merely a coincidence or if it was "intentionally designed"?

Richard

Richard, you show amazing mathematical correlations between the Gen 1:1 Hebrew text being
2701 = 73*37, manifesting in the Star of David, words: wisdom, unity, one, YHVH, etc. That is a little bit beyond coincidental, even if I don't have any scientific algorithms to support my observations. This is simply basic logical observation. But the things you like to brush aside as conspiracy theories that spawn the delusions of lesser minds, seems to me to be screaming out for intelligent design. So, if it is not a part of the divinely inspired text of the Bible, what alternative design are we left with?


I agree that the holographs "go far beyond what Jesus actually taught" but I don't see the relevance of that.

Richard

I do see the relevance of that because Jesus Christ by the NT Scriptures claims to be God in flesh, fully God and fully man, yet one Lord Jesus Christ. If He is the model and example for all professing Christians, and He doesn't resort to Gematria Enigma Machine teaching methods, shouldn't we be a bit suspicious when a Talmudic, Kabbalistic (thanks for the spell check correction), Gematria driven highjacking of the Scriptures takes over?

At the same time, I must be honest and say that there are obviously significant letter-number correlations throughout the Scriptures, and I simply don't have an adequate answer for that at this stage of my understanding. But the most obvious is usually very simplistic, even if it is profoundly intelligently designed.



If they are so powerful and so secret, how did you come to know about them? Have you not noticed the fundamentally fallacious logic they use?

Richard

Yes I have noticed the fallacious logic they use, the same fallacious logic many of the atheistic evolutionists use. It doesn't surprise me that many of the Luciferian Light Brigade of some of the secret societies come to see this pseudo-light as darkness and turn to the true Light of the Gospel, and then expose much of the secret society indoctrination that is corrupting the minds of many.

Having said this, please don't think that I am not aware of many of these so-called escapees of the Illumined Light cults, could very well be intentional disinfo or misinfo agents. So each case needs to be evaluated in light of Biblical truth.


I would be delighted to discuss the reasons with you. The most fundamental is this: God is not trustworthy. No one can actually TRUST God to do anything for anyone in this life. It is fundamentally delusional to "trust God." Parents who trust God for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions. If God were half as trustworthy as the average dentist, there would be no debate about his existence.


Richard

When you say that No one can actually TRUST God, what you mean is I cannot TRUST God. Have you ever read the biography of George Mueller, a Baptist preacher from England in the 1800's. He opened multiple orphanages for children and operated as a Faith Ministry, that did not advertise their needs. And over the course of many years, raised funds to provide for the children, and see to their education. One interesting example, is when one morning, they were all sat down for a porridge breakfast, but were lacking milk. He proceeded to thank God that He had always provided for their needs, and shortly following the prayer, a milk wagon on the street had a broken wheel. Rather than let the milk go sour uselessly, they off-loaded it to the orphanage, providing timely milk for their morning breakfast. Add to that his many times receiving needed funds to the penny, right on time, and without notification, and you have one man who would contradict your no one can TRUST God.

Even a simple example from my own life: As a young believer in Christ, I was so overwhelmed by God's answering my many prayers, I began keeping a prayer journal, stating my prayer requests and then listing the answers to prayer when they occurred. I was young and working a summer job with the city, where I was laid off at the end of the year. What followed was the only time I ever applied for a local job from the newspaper, as a managerial trainee in a retail store. Well I was hired and trained for 2 months. At that time, my sister, who was a single mother in another city in my province, became a Christian, but she was going through a very difficult time in her life. She came to visit me, and with tears asked if I could possibly move to her city and help her out for a while. I told her that we should pray, because I knew that God was very interested in providing for us. I said that I was up for a transfer anywhere in Canada in a couple of months and if it was His will, He would have me transferred to her city. This was a weekend, and the following Monday morning, my boss called me into the office and told me that there was a crisis in her city ... the assistant manager had just flipped out and quit suddenly, leaving the store. Could I take an immediate transfer to that city by mid-week Wednesday? I was convinced this was of God, so I took the transfer, and was able to stay with her for a couple of months and help out enough to get her on her feet again. Interestingly (and thankfully), I only worked at this job for a couple of months, as it was soon evident that this job was not a good match for where I wanted to go with my life.

I could go on to list many such examples, which help me to TRUST God in everything in my life, but time would not permit, and you would probably be bored to death. There are many such promises in the Word of God, but unfortunately the name it and claim it crowd of the prosperity pseudo-church has turned prayer into sinful manipulations of people's sinful nature. Maybe this is why these are the fastest growing and richest churches today, but scandalously devoid of biblical doctrinal purity and truth.

I also realise that this is somewhat off-topic, so I will leave this at that.

Thanks for your open forum to dialogue about some off these important issues of life.

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 12:42 PM
I am still on a learning curve, trying to intuitively anticipate how to respond via multiple quotes within a posting. So here goes ...

Looks like you've got the hang of it. If you are interested, I explain how to quote quotes within quotes, as I do below, in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2599-How-to-quote-posts-in-replies).







2. The Isaiah-Bible correlation seems to be much more than coincidental. I think back to Gambini's remarks on a recent post with you, and there sure are many more elements of intentional design than I was previously aware. And it does seem to express a mini hologram of the overall biblical text, at least at a very summary level.

Do you have any principles by which to determine if a coincidence is merely a coincidence or if it was "intentionally designed"?

Richard, you show amazing mathematical correlations between the Gen 1:1 Hebrew text being
2701 = 73*37, manifesting in the Star of David, words: wisdom, unity, one, YHVH, etc. That is a little bit beyond coincidental, even if I don't have any scientific algorithms to support my observations. This is simply basic logical observation. But the things you like to brush aside as conspiracy theories that spawn the delusions of lesser minds, seems to me to be screaming out for intelligent design. So, if it is not a part of the divinely inspired text of the Bible, what alternative design are we left with?

You will note that I was responding specifically to your comment about the Isaiah-Bible Correlation seeming to be "much more than coincidental." The holographs are very different in that they are not based on looking for thematic connections between different passages which could easily be biased and are difficult to judge objectively.

Also, the "Creation Holograph" (Genesis 1:1) does not have anything to say about "unity, one, YHVH." Those connections are found in the Unity Holograph which is based on the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). But there is a general connection in that both holographs are based on star numbers (Genesis is based on star numbers 37 and 73, whereas the Unity Holograph is based on the star number 13).

Your suggestion that your judgment is "simply basic logical observation" doesn't really mean anything because you didn't say how you discern between chance and design. People in general, and religious folk in particular, are quite prone to mistaking their own biases for "basic logical observation." For example, Muslims think that numerology proves that the Quran was "intelligently designed" by Allah. They think their judgments are based on "basic logical observation" too. Obviously, we need a better criterion.





I agree that the holographs "go far beyond what Jesus actually taught" but I don't see the relevance of that.

I do see the relevance of that because Jesus Christ by the NT Scriptures claims to be God in flesh, fully God and fully man, yet one Lord Jesus Christ. If He is the model and example for all professing Christians, and He doesn't resort to Gematria Enigma Machine teaching methods, shouldn't we be a bit suspicious when a Talmudic, Kabbalistic (thanks for the spell check correction), Gematria driven highjacking of the Scriptures takes over?

At the same time, I must be honest and say that there are obviously significant letter-number correlations throughout the Scriptures, and I simply don't have an adequate answer for that at this stage of my understanding. But the most obvious is usually very simplistic, even if it is profoundly intelligently designed.

The only relevance is if the design is valid. If it is valid, by which I mean that there is reason to believe that God himself designed it, then study of it would obviously be justified.

Your use of the terms "highjacking," "Gematria Enigma Machine," "Talmudic," and "Kabbalistic" seem to indicate a very strong bias is affecting your judgment.



Yes I have noticed the fallacious logic they use, the same fallacious logic many of the atheistic evolutionists use.

Wow. Where did that come from? The science of evolution is nothing like conspiracy theories. Have you ever studied the actual science or have you foolishly filled your head with the lies spewed out by corrupt creationists? Sorry if this comes across harshly, but your comment demands it. To liken a modern science like General Relativity, Quantum Physics, or Evolution to a "conspiracy theory" is literally insane. Do you also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and Adam rode dinosaurs?


It doesn't surprise me that many of the Luciferian Light Brigade of some of the secret societies come to see this pseudo-light as darkness and turn to the true Light of the Gospel, and then expose much of the secret society indoctrination that is corrupting the minds of many.

What are you talking about? There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name "Lucifer." That's nothing but a silly mistranslation that was imported from the Vulgate into the KJV.



Having said this, please don't think that I am not aware of many of these so-called escapees of the Illumined Light cults, could very well be intentional disinfo or misinfo agents. So each case needs to be evaluated in light of Biblical truth.

Right. It is a CONSPIRACY theory, so everything is "explained" and "justified" by making up more imaginary conspiracies. Wow.

All the best,

Richard

duxrow
08-29-2014, 01:43 PM
Do you also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and Adam rode dinosaurs?

What are you talking about? There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name "Lucifer." That's nothing but a silly mistranslation that was imported from the Vulgate into the KJV.


Richard For Shame Richard, You know the Pre-Adamic Age is not refuted by Scripture. And when you say "There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name Lucifer (w/o reading further than Isa14), you fail to remember the many metaphors of satan and how he's also called "angel of light". 2Cor11:14.

Careful dpenn, :yo: He'll do his best to throw you curves.. :thpeace_dove_olive_

Gambini
08-29-2014, 02:12 PM
You still don't get it. The correct analogy would be that you said there was a horse in your living room, and YOU WERE THE HORSE. If the horse does not exist, then neither could you be that horse.


That doesn't make any difference. If I claim infallibility, and then make a false statement regarding my OWN nature, that would only demonstrate I am not infallible. It doesn't do ANYTHING to show I don't exist. The fact that there is mathematical design in the bible (and you GRANTED there is mathematical design in Genesis 1:1-5/John 1:1-5 and other key biblical passages) DEMONSTRATES the SENTIENT GOD revealed throughout the bible (who divinely inspired the Hebrew prophets) *EXISTS*. Your argument regarding the "errors" or "contradictions" associated with this SENTIENT GOD would only show he is fallible. That's it. It doesn't make a difference if the "errors" were made regarding his own nature. At the very least, we know this God, who interacted with the most unique people in the holy universe (the Israelites), is a SENTIENT GOD (by virtue of the fact that he inspired the Hebrew prophets to produce the mathematical design in the bible AND the fact that NOTHING in the bible contradicts the biblical claim that the God of Israel is a SENTIENT GOD).




Give me an actual quote and we can talk.


Here is an EXACT quote you made in the year 2008 AD (in the 49th post of the thread "the bible wheel?" over at www.christian-forum.net) ...


"Now one of the PRIMARY objections people raise is the charge of "cherry picking". They suggest that the bible is such a book that anyone can make connections with anything, and therefore nothing like the bible wheel could have any real meaning. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE. God established the connections for us in the alphabetic verses, and the specific content of the books is an objective fact."


So you were ALREADY claiming that one of the PRIMARY objections to the bible wheel was that it involves cherry picking AND you dismissed those charges as untrue (and then proceeded to explain why it was untrue). Now, as soon as I argued that even if ALL the problems you have with the bible were true, it would only demonstrate fallibility, all of a sudden you do a 180 and claim the bible wheel is a result of cherry picking the biblical data under the 22 spokes of the bible wheel.



BINI

dpenn
08-29-2014, 02:48 PM
Richard,

thanks for the nested quotes link. This is almost becoming holographic. Btw, as an aside, I went through a short 5 year obsession with painting contemporary geometrical art on canvas. Three of those paintings were computerised fractal representations on canvas.

Is there a way to insert a simple jpeg? I tried to show photos of these 3 paintings by a copy and paste, but it doesn't seem to be permitted. Am I missing something obvious?

Back on track ...




You will note that I was responding specifically to your comment about the Isaiah-Bible Correlation seeming to be "much more than coincidental." The holographs are very different in that they are not based on looking for thematic connections between different passages which could easily be biased and are difficult to judge objectively.

Also, the "Creation Holograph" (Genesis 1:1) does not have anything to say about "unity, one, YHVH." Those connections are found in the Unity Holograph which is based on the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). But there is a general connection in that both holographs are based on star numbers (Genesis is based on star numbers 37 and 73, whereas the Unity Holograph is based on the star number 13).



I am sorry about the over-generalisation. I was merely fast tracking Isaiah-Bible Correlation, Creation Holograph, and Unity Holograph, (forgetting to include the star number 13). These are obviously very comprehensive and detailed on your website, and I didn't mean to cross them up and confuse their individual uniqueness. They are impressively done, and I sure didn't mean to detract from that. So your criticism is well taken.



Your suggestion that your judgment is "simply basic logical observation" doesn't really mean anything because you didn't say how you discern between chance and design. People in general, and religious folk in particular, are quite prone to mistaking their own biases for "basic logical observation." For example, Muslims think that numerology proves that the Quran was "intelligently designed" by Allah. They think their judgments are based on "basic logical observation" too. Obviously, we need a better criterion. The only relevance is if the design is valid. If it is valid, by which I mean that there is reason to believe that God himself designed it, then study of it would obviously be justified.




Your use of the terms "highjacking," "Gematria Enigma Machine," "Talmudic," and "Kabbalistic" seem to indicate a very strong bias is affecting your judgment.



Yes, a very strong bias is affecting my judgement, but I thought you also agreed from an earlier post that this seems to go well beyond the simple teaching of Jesus in the Bible. So for me to group these Talmudic, Kabbalistic interpretations as highjacking sound biblical interpretation for me is justified. For you and many others, this is considered insulting, or at the bare minimum, out there somewhere.









If they are so powerful and so secret, how did you come to know about them? Have you not noticed the fundamentally fallacious logic they use?



Yes I have noticed the fallacious logic they use, the same fallacious logic many of the atheistic evolutionists use.



Wow. Where did that come from? The science of evolution is nothing like conspiracy theories. Have you ever studied the actual science or have you foolishly filled your head with the lies spewed out by corrupt creationists? Sorry if this comes across harshly, but your comment demands it. To liken a modern science like General Relativity, Quantum Physics, or Evolution to a "conspiracy theory" is literally insane. Do you also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and Adam rode dinosaurs?



Notice that I didn't say all, but many of the atheistic evolutionists. And that certainly doesn't include all valid and real scientific knowledge and experimentation. I was merely addressing the atheistic evolutionary term. Please do not include General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, all scientifically verifiable, with the pseudo-science of Evolution. Mutational natural selection within kinds is accepted by all scientists, creationists and evolutionists alike, with half a brain, including my pea brain. However, big bang, chemical formation, star formation, godless chance formation of all matter, life from non-life evolution uses as fallacious arguments as any of these secret societies (obviously not the same arguments, but equally as invalid and deceptive). Yes, I think it is possible that the earth is as young as 6,000 years old. And Adam might have tried to ride a dinosaur (dragon), but probably didn't succeed.



What are you talking about? There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name "Lucifer." That's nothing but a silly mistranslation that was imported from the Vulgate into the KJV.



I have no reason to make a major issue over the KJV Lucifer term from Isaiah, but one thing is obvious, and that is this is referring to the fall of Lucifer "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" KJV. And you cannot deny that 33rd degree Head of Masonry, Albert Pike in Morals and Dogma, wrote: "LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darknesss! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not!".

I do appreciate your open and interactive debate on this subject. But sooner or later, I would like to hear about what you think is an alternative to the truth of the Bible, or the divine authorship of the Bible, so that what holy men of God wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, God said, through man.

How do you determine right from wrong? How can you use non-material mathematics, and logic, and hold to a materialistic evolutionary model for all of reality? And if this isn't your view of evolution, what is? What was before the big bang? Where did information come from? I am sure you are quite aware of the impossible probability of the chance creation of life. How do you get life from non-life? Why, with the 150+ years of scientific attempts to validate evolutionary creation of all of life, even with the greatest minds, we still cannot come close to creating life from non-life. Oh sure, we can take life and cook it into something we can pretend is life, but the best they can do is take existing life and tweek it, for better or for worse.

So, thus my opening question, what is the alternative to the Bible Wheel, Numerology, and Cognitive Bias?

dp

dpenn
08-29-2014, 03:59 PM
Careful dpenn, :yo: He'll do his best to throw you curves..

Thanks for the heads up, but a curve ball is still a fair pitch, even if I might not have the current skill set to hit it. If, or when that becomes misinfo or disinfo, that is a different story. Hopefully, we are all pursuers of truth. I need constant challenging to keep me on the straight and narrow also.

Btw, I personally do not hold to a pre-Adamic created order. There may be better scientifically sound answers to handle the apparent contradictions between hypothesised cosmological time vs biblical creation and genealogical time. Even quantised red-shift observation may suggest something other than the traditional Doppler Affect suggestion of an expanding universe. If this is ever completely verified, it would suggest different layers of energy levels, and the red-shift would be interpreted contrary to the velocity model. One thing cannot be denied, the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11 suggest a much shorter time to creation in Gen 1. In Gen 1, God looked on ALL He had created, and it was very good (I presume this included the original creation of the angelic realm too, before the fall of Lucifer/Satan).

respectfully,

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 04:39 PM
You still don't get it. The correct analogy would be that you said there was a horse in your living room, and YOU WERE THE HORSE. If the horse does not exist, then neither could you be that horse.

That doesn't make any difference. If I claim infallibility, and then make a false statement regarding my OWN nature, that would only demonstrate I am not infallible. It doesn't do ANYTHING to show I don't exist.

You still don't get it. You are not even addressing the point that I've repeated at least four times now. I already agreed that it would not imply that YOU don't exist. I said that it would imply that you could not be the HORSE because the HORSE does not exist. Here again is how I explained the error that you are repeating back in post #47 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66272#post66272):

You still do not understand. The point is this: If you wrote a book in which you described a person who had self-contradictory properties, such as being simultaneously male and female, then I would know that you could not be the person described in the book. Simple as that. It doesn't mean that you don't exist. It means you could not be the person described in the book because THAT person does not exist. Nothing could be simpler.

How many times do I need to repeat myself? I explicitly said that it would not imply that YOU do not exist! Your response has nothing to do with what I wrote. How is it possible that you could be confused about something so plain and simple?

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 04:56 PM
For Shame Richard, You know the Pre-Adamic Age is not refuted by Scripture. And when you say "There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name Lucifer (w/o reading further than Isa14), you fail to remember the many metaphors of satan and how he's also called "angel of light". 2Cor11:14.

I never said anything about any "Pre-Adamic Age" and I don't even know what you think you mean by that term. I could guess, but that would be foolish. If you want to make some sort of assertions about a "Pre-Adamic Age" and explain how that relates to my question about Adam riding dinosaurs, by all means, please do so.

When I said that there is no "fallen angel" named Lucifer, I was not talking about "metaphors of satan." I was talking about the fact that there is no "fallen angel" named "Lucifer" in any accurate version of the Bible. The name got imported into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate. It is classic mistranslation based on a translation of the original Hebrew heylel to the Greek eosphoros in the Greek LXX to Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate which was copied into the English KJV. Look at that chain of confusion!

Hebrew => Greek => Latin => English

Anyone who thinks there is a real "fallen angel" named "Lucifier" is simply ignorant of the Bible. Of course, that includes probably at least 95% of fundamentalists.

And there's a great irony here. The Latin Vulgate which introduced the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 used the same word in 2 Peter 1:19 -

KJV 2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star [Lucifer] arise in your hearts:

Vulgate: 2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris


The Latin Bible tells you that you should pray for LUCIFER to rise in your heart! :lol:




Careful dpenn, :yo: He'll do his best to throw you curves..
Actually, I'm a total straight shooter. But truth will seem to "curve" and the simplest things will see grossly distorted if you are living in a world twisted from reality, like a funhouse mirror:

1248

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 05:04 PM
(I presume this included the original creation of the angelic realm too, before the fall of Lucifer/Satan).

Hey there dp,

As explained in my last post, there is no "fallen angel" named "Lucifer" in any original or accurately translated version of the Bible. That name is nothing but a mistaken importation of a Latin mistranslation of a Greek translation of an ambiguous Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12.

Just thought you should know. :yo:

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 06:13 PM
Here is an EXACT quote you made in the year 2008 AD (in the 49th post of the thread "the bible wheel?" over at www.christian-forum.net (http://www.christian-forum.net)) ...


"Now one of the PRIMARY objections people raise is the charge of "cherry picking". They suggest that the bible is such a book that anyone can make connections with anything, and therefore nothing like the bible wheel could have any real meaning. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE. God established the connections for us in the alphabetic verses, and the specific content of the books is an objective fact."


So you were ALREADY claiming that one of the PRIMARY objections to the bible wheel was that it involves cherry picking AND you dismissed those charges as untrue (and then proceeded to explain why it was untrue). Now, as soon as I argued that even if ALL the problems you have with the bible were true, it would only demonstrate fallibility, all of a sudden you do a 180 and claim the bible wheel is a result of cherry picking the biblical data under the 22 spokes of the bible wheel.

What's your point? The mere fact that I rejected the charge of cherry picking proves nothing. It doesn't mean that I was right then or wrong now for changing my mind. And it certainly does not prove that I did a "180" in response to your ludicrous argument that the biblegod could be true in spite of the self-contradictory properties stated in the Bible. First, I did not do a 180 - I merely SAID what I had been thinking about (and saying) for a long time. Second, I didn't give your argument a second thought because it was patently absurd on many levels. The only reason I keep explaining your error is that you keep repeating the argument. The really sad thing is that you have not even responded to my explanation as yet! You continue to think that the OTHER GOD you have invented, which has different properties that the biblegod, is the same as the Biblegod. That's your error. I've explained it many times and you have never responded. Very, very wierd. It's like you are literally blind to things you don't want to see.

dpenn
08-29-2014, 06:21 PM
When I said that there is no "fallen angel" named Lucifer, I was not talking about "metaphors of satan." I was talking about the fact that there is no "fallen angel" named "Lucifer" in any accurate version of the Bible. The name got imported into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate. It is classic mistranslation based on a translation of the original Hebrew heylel to the Greek eosphoros in the Greek LXX to Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate which was copied into the English KJV. Look at that chain of confusion!

Hebrew => Greek => Latin => English

Anyone who thinks there is a real "fallen angel" named "Lucifier" is simply ignorant of the Bible. Of course, that includes probably at least 95% of fundamentalists.

And there's a great irony here. The Latin Vulgate which introduced the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 used the same word in 2 Peter 1:19 -

KJV 2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star [Lucifer] arise in your hearts:

Vulgate: 2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris


The Latin Bible tells you that you should pray for LUCIFER to rise in your heart!




Richard, I do not accept the correlation between the Latin lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 and 1 Peter 1:19. It is obvious from the words in each text that they can't possibly be talking about the same thing. One is a fallen angel, the other is the rising of Christ in the heart, much like the rising of the day star (I am presuming sun).

Here is a case where one strains at a gnat and swallows a camel. It is obvious that the occult secret societies know full well the Lucifer they are following in their hearts. And it certainly isn't the risen Lord Jesus Christ. So for someone who takes pride in shooting straight, this is quite the curve ball. You can't possibly think this refers to the same person in each case.

If you were at all biblically sound in the past, you know full well how the Roman Catholic Church has used their Latin translation of the Vulgate to bully any truly Bible believing Christian. I know that for the sake of you rejecting all of Christianity, it is very convenient for you to use the RCC as a valid representation of Christianity. But I think in your heart you know that is not true. As if Jesus would approve of the Inquisition, responsible for the deaths of more Bible believing Christians than all false religions and atheist atrocities of the world combined. Add to that the grossest of distortions of Christian doctrines imaginable. And I don't want to push this any further lest I come across as a Catholic basher. That is not my intent, but neither is denial of the facts healthy. I love many honest living and peaceful Catholics, as some of them are the finest people I have worked with.

If the KJV was so intent on importing and using lucifer from the Latin, why did it translate Isaiah 14:12 as Lucifer, and 2 Peter 1:19 as day star? The LXX of Isaiah is ewsphoros, and the NT is phwsphoros, and I am not sure of the exact correlation between the two, but they are not the same. And even if they were, context would still make them as different as day and night.

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 06:56 PM
Richard, I do not accept the correlation between the Latin lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 and 1 Peter 1:19. It is obvious from the words in each text that they can't possibly be talking about the same thing. One is a fallen angel, the other is the rising of Christ in the heart, much like the rising of the day star (I am presuming sun).

Here is a case where one strains at a gnat and swallows a camel. It is obvious that the occult secret societies know full well the Lucifer they are following in their hearts. And it certainly isn't the risen Lord Jesus Christ. So for someone who takes pride in shooting straight, this is quite the curve ball. You can't possibly think this refers to the same person in each case.

I never said that they were the "same person." My point was that the word "lucifer" is not the name of a person (or angel) in either case. In the case of Isaiah 14:12, it was copied from the Latin Vulgate which was translated from the Greek LXX which was translated from the Hebrew heylel. There is no reason anyone should interpret the word "lucifer" as the name of a fallen angel in that verse. That is a gross error based on multiple mistranslations and false assumptions.

In the case of 2 Peter 1:19, the word is an accurate translation of the Greek phosphoros which means "light bearer" (as does lucifer) and which also was the Greek name of the planet Venus, also known as the "morning star." It seems pretty obvious that Peter was using it as a symbol of the "light of Christ" rising in one's heart. The reason I showed that verse was to "break the spell" of ignorant Christians who have a superstitious fear of the name "Lucifer" based on the errant copying of a translation of a mistranslation of an ambiguous text that was interpreted (without justification) as applying to Satan. In other words, I was showing that the preachers who preach about "Lucifer" as a "fallen angel" are grossly ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches.



If you were at all biblically sound in the past, you know full well how the Roman Catholic Church has used their Latin translation of the Vulgate to bully any truly Bible believing Christian. I know that for the sake of you rejecting all of Christianity, it is very convenient for you to use the RCC as a valid representation of Christianity.

I did not "use the RCC as a valid representation of Christianity." The Latin Vulgate was THE Bible of the entire Western Christian world for about a thousand years. It deeply influenced the translators of the KJV, as if obvious by their fallacious inclusion of the name "Lucifer."



As if Jesus would approve of the Inquisition, responsible for the deaths of more Bible believing Christians than all false religions and atheist atrocities of the world combined.

As if Jesus would approve of the slavery practiced by the Protestant Christians in the American south? Oh .. wait ... I guess he would have approved of that. Indeed, the most powerful arguments supporting slavery came from the Bible. For example, take a look at this thread: DeBow's Review (1850) Argued that the Bible Supports Slavery (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2134-DeBow-s-Review-(1850)-Argued-that-the-Bible-Supports-Slavery).

Do you think there has ever been a group of believers that Jesus would have "approved"?



Add to that the grossest of distortions of Christian doctrines imaginable.

It would be very interesting to know what doctrines you think define Christianity. Are you a member of any particular denomination or group? Or do you just think of yourself as a "Bible believer"?



And I don't want to push this any further lest I come across as a Catholic basher. That is not my intent, but neither is denial of the facts healthy. I love many honest living and peaceful Catholics, as some of them are the finest people I have worked with.

dp
Point well taken. :thumb:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 07:48 PM
Here is an EXACT quote you made in the year 2008 AD (in the 49th post of the thread "the bible wheel?" over at www.christian-forum.net (http://www.christian-forum.net)) ...

"Now one of the PRIMARY objections people raise is the charge of "cherry picking". They suggest that the bible is such a book that anyone can make connections with anything, and therefore nothing like the bible wheel could have any real meaning. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE. God established the connections for us in the alphabetic verses, and the specific content of the books is an objective fact."

So you were ALREADY claiming that one of the PRIMARY objections to the bible wheel was that it involves cherry picking AND you dismissed those charges as untrue (and then proceeded to explain why it was untrue). Now, as soon as I argued that even if ALL the problems you have with the bible were true, it would only demonstrate fallibility, all of a sudden you do a 180 and claim the bible wheel is a result of cherry picking the biblical data under the 22 spokes of the bible wheel.

Thanks for finding that post Gambini. Here is the correct link (http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=18022&st=48&p=171226&#entry171226). And here's another quote from that post:
Now the real miracle of the Bible Wheel shines with its greatest clarity when we examine the specific content on each Spoke in light of the Alphabetic KeyWords that God established in the Alphabetic Verses of Scripture. The Alphabetic Verses are the passages that God designed on the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet. The most notable example is Psalm 119 which has 8 stanzas for each letter giving a total of 176 (= 8 x 22) verses. And what is the theme of this, the largest chapter in God's Word? It is none other than the WORD itself! And how are words written? With the Alphabet, of course. We find therefore that God designed the PSALM of HIS WORD on the pattern of the Hebrew Alphabet, and this establishes the pattern for the large-scale pattern of His entire Word in the form of the Wheel. But there is more! There are many profound correlations between the Alphabet KeyWords and the specific content of the books on the corresponding Spokes.
I then presented one of my favorite examples of the "profound correlations" - the connection between the symbolic meaning of Tzaddi (righteousness) and the content of Spoke 18.

So let's evaluate the evidence. I asserted that the Alphabetic KeyWords used in the Alphabetic Verses establish "the large-scale pattern of His entire Word in the form of the Wheel." Is that statement true? Did I find sufficient evidence to support such a broad claim? That is the hypothesis that must be tested. In the post you quoted, I gave evidence only from one spoke relating to only one of the symbolic meanings of Tzaddi. So to evaluate the claim, we need to examine ALL THE DATA and see if it fits with my hypothesis. That's how science works.

As it turns out, the answer is "no." The hypothesis is not true for most alphabetic keywords. There are very few places where we get connections as clear as what we see on Spoke 18. I searched for such connections for many years and the truth is that there are very few. Far too few to warrant any claim of deliberate design, especially from an almighty omniscient being who chose to create such a design. And worse, there is no way to know how many of the connections we do find would be expected by mere coincidence.

I have begun reviewing my work and have found many examples of a subtle (and often not so subtle) selection bias running throughout. I really thought I was being careful to avoid it, but I really don't think anyone can because of the psychology of belief. That's why science is so obsessed with PEER REVIEW. That's the one of the most effective ways to avoid deluding ourselves with our biases.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. One of my favorite Alphabetic KeyLinks was based the ayin verse of Psalm 34:

AV Ps 34:15 AYIN The eyes (ayini) of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.

This verse is quoted in one and only one book of the Bible, 1 Peter on Spoke 16, corresponding to Ayin:

1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

This is the definition of an Alphabetic KeyLink - a unique link that appears only on the Spoke corresponding to the Hebrew letter. I thought this was strong evidence of design. But there is one little fact that I ignored. Peter also quoted the Peh verse! But it's on Spoke 16 instead of 17 where it "belongs" -

Psalm 34:16 PEH The face (pani) of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.

This means that the Peh verse is an "anti-keylink." It is a unique link that is NOT connected with the corresponding spoke. This example, which I thought was one of the best examples CONFIRMING my hypothesis, actually contains evidence that refutes it! This shows how blind believers can be. And I'm not talking just about religious believers. All humans have beliefs and all humans are subject to bias. That's the genius of science - it is based on EVIDENCE and PEER REVIEW which are essential to the discovery of truth and reality.

I am in process of reviewing all my work to see how much was skewed by similar biases. It should prove very enlightening.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 08:32 PM
This means that the Peh verse is an "anti-keylink." It is a unique link that is NOT connected with the corresponding spoke. This example, which I thought was one of the best examples CONFIRMING my hypothesis, actually contains evidence that refutes it! This shows how blind believers can be. And I'm not talking just about religious believers. All humans have beliefs and all humans are subject to bias. That's the genius of science - it is based on EVIDENCE and PEER REVIEW which are essential to the discovery of truth and reality.

I am in process of reviewing all my work to see how much was skewed by similar biases. It should prove very enlightening.

Richard
I just reviewed my second "favorite" Alphabetic KeyLink that I have listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticKeys.php) page. It too has an "anti-keylink" in its immediate context, just as my "favorite" KeyLink mentioned in the quote above. That's one "miss" for each "hit" so far.

The primary claim of the Bible Wheel book is that God designed the Bible in the form of the Wheel and in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet. The primary evidence that I presented supporting this claim was the existence of KeyLinks. I defined two kinds:

KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/KeyLinks.php) are defined as words, sets of words, phrases, and even whole verses are found distributed only on a given Spoke of the Wheel. These KeyLinks are extremely common in Scripture. I currently have 1,897 recorded in my database.

Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticKeys.php) are defined as unique links between the content found on the Spokes with the content found in the corresponding Alphabetic Verses (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticVerses.php) (those portions of Scripture explicitly designed upon the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet).

With these definitions in mind, let's review mysecond "favorite" Alphabetic KeyLink that I have listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticKeys.php) page. It is based on the Shin verse of Psalm 34:

AV Psalm 34:20 SHIN He keepeth (shamar) all his bones: not one of them is broken.

I was very impressed by the fact that this verse is quoted in one and only one book of the Bible, John on Spoke 21, corresponding to Shin. I thought it "confirmed" my hypothesis that God had designed the Bible in accordance with the pattern he established in the Alphabetic Verses. But let's look at the context:

John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

That second citation is also KeyLink because it appears in two and only two books of the Bible (Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:37). But it's actually an "anti-keylink" because the books are not on the same spoke, which directly contradicts my hypothesis.

So why didn't I notice this before? Because of SELECTION BIAS. I reported only the "hits" and usually ignored the "misses." And not only did I ignore reporting them, I ignored the fact that they contradicted my whole thesis! I am stunned to see how deluded I was. If it was a keylink, I would have shouted it from the rooftops as more EVIDENCE that God designed the Bible. But it didn't fit the pattern I was looking for, so I ignored it.

I was deluded because I really truly believed that the Bible was designed by God in accordance with the Bible Wheel. But now even a cursory glance at the actual evidence proves me wrong. How could I be so blind? That's the power of belief coupled with cognitive bias.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 09:09 PM
I just reviewed my second "favorite" Alphabetic KeyLink that I have listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticKeys.php) page. It too has an "anti-keylink" in its immediate context, just as my "favorite" KeyLink mentioned in the quote above. That's one "miss" for each "hit" so far.

The primary claim of the Bible Wheel book is that God designed the Bible in the form of the Wheel and in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet. The primary evidence that I presented supporting this claim was the existence of KeyLinks. I defined two kinds:

KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/KeyLinks.php) are defined as words, sets of words, phrases, and even whole verses are found distributed only on a given Spoke of the Wheel. These KeyLinks are extremely common in Scripture. I currently have 1,897 recorded in my database.

Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticKeys.php) are defined as unique links between the content found on the Spokes with the content found in the corresponding Alphabetic Verses (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticVerses.php) (those portions of Scripture explicitly designed upon the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet).

I just reviewed my third "favorite" Alphabetic Keylink listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticKeys.php) page. It is based on the the Aleph verse of Psalm 34:

AV Ps 34:1 ALEPH I will bless (avarakah) the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth.

The word "avarakah" appears only in another alphabetic verse (AV Psalm 145:1) and in Genesis on Spoke 1:

Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless (avarakah) them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

This keylink was a not "exact" in the sense that the keyword was prefixed by the conjunctive vav, but I didn't (and still don't) think that was particularly significant. But the thing that is significant is that this verse contains an anit-keylink. The promise that "in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" is quoted in one and only one book of the Bible:

KJV Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

So there it is. Each of the first three "favorite" examples of "divine design" of the Bible Wheel that I reviewed contain within themselves evidence that directly contradicts my hypothesis! That's three strikes in a row, from my "best" evidence!

I am thrilled. This is amazing. I was in bondage to the Bible Wheel delusion for well over a decade. It has taken about three years of serious thought to even begin to free my mind. This shows how difficult it is for believers to break free from their delusions.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-29-2014, 09:51 PM
I have now reviewed the fourth and final example of an "Alphabetic KeyLink" listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticKeys.php) page. It does not have a strict "anti-keylink" like the others, but it it is close to an "anti-keylink" because the shin verse is uniquely linked to two off-spoke books. It is based on the Resh clause of Psalm 111 (which has two alphabetic clauses per verse). Verse 111:10 begins with the clause corresponding to Resh:

AV Psalm 111:10a RESH The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:

The word order of the English translation is reversed. The Hebrew begins with "Reshit chokmah." Here's what I say about it on that page:

As a final example - perhaps the most significant of them all - we have the unique appearance of the phrase Reshith Chokmah (Beginning of Wisdom) found only in the Resh verse of AV Psalm 111 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/AV_Psalm111.php#resh)and the Twentieth Book, Proverbs, the premier "Book of Wisdom" to be found in the Bible. It is actually a double Alphabetic KeyLink, as discussed at length in the Synopsis of the Twenty-two Spokes in the Bible Wheel book and on this site in the Spoke 20 article The Beginning of Wisdom (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Resh_Wisdom.php).

Now let's look at the whole verse:

Psalm 111:10 RESH The fear of the LORD is the beginning (reshit) of wisdom: SHIN a good understanding (sekel) have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

The word "understanding" is sekel, a shin keyword. The phrase "good understanding" is sekel tov. This phrase is found in three other verses of the Bible (if we allow for the vav prefix). It is found in Proverbs 3:4, 13:15, and 2 Chronicles 30:22. None of those books are on Spoke 21 corresponding to Shin. This is strong evidence AGAINST my hypothesis that God designed the Bible on the pattern of the Bible Wheel.

I have little doubt that all the evidence I presented in the Bible Wheel book will fall by the same sword. It is evident that selection bias played a HUGE role in my formulation of the evidence supporting it. I have no reason of any kind to believe that any of the evidence will stand under scrutiny. I conclude that the Bible Wheel has been debunked.

:woohoo:

FREEDOM!

Nothing
08-29-2014, 10:28 PM
I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3

dpenn
08-29-2014, 10:32 PM
In the case of 2 Peter 1:19, the word is an accurate translation of the Greek phosphoros which means "light bearer" (as does lucifer) and which also was the Greek name of the planet Venus, also known as the "morning star." It seems pretty obvious that Peter was using it as a symbol of the "light of Christ" rising in one's heart. The reason I showed that verse was to "break the spell" of ignorant Christians who have a superstitious fear of the name "Lucifer" based on the errant copying of a translation of a mistranslation of an ambiguous text that was interpreted (without justification) as applying to Satan. In other words, I was showing that the preachers who preach about "Lucifer" as a "fallen angel" are grossly ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches.


Richard, I am glad to hear that you do not equate the two usages of as the same. I still find it interesting that the KJV only uses Lucifer for Isaiah, and day star for 2 Peter. I am also aware that the Hebrew is heylel, which refers to "light bearer". I am not convinced that day star refers to Venus and not the Sun, but I may be proven wrong on that one. I am also not certain that day star can be interchanged with light bearer in 2 Peter. One thing is certain, the esoteric writers love to equate Lucifer to the bringer of illuminated light, especially from that knowledge received from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So Christians have every reason to be weary about the use of Lucifer for Jesus Christ as the light bearer, which is quite different from Him arising in our hearts like the rising of the day star.




As if Jesus would approve of the slavery practiced by the Protestant Christians in the American south? Oh .. wait ... I guess he would have approved of that. Indeed, the most powerful arguments supporting slavery came from the Bible.


I do not think that Jesus would ever have approved of the horrendously brutal chattel slavery practiced by many professing Christians of the US South. When George Whitefield came to America to preach the Gospel in Georgia, he had great opposition from many of these slave owners, who treated the blacks as though they didn't even possess a soul. But Whitefield preached to the black slaves with tears running down his face, appalled at the cold-hearted ignorance of the slave owners. When you consider the close relationships of many slaves to their masters in the OT, you see something even more superior to many of our employer/employee relationships. For example, Eliezer of Damascus, a slave, would have destined to inherit everything from Abraham without the birth of Isaac, and later, he was honoured with seeking out a wife for Isaac in Haran. Paul also addressed the slavery issue in Philemon, and taught that if one could gain his freedom, that would be much more preferable. But at the same time, there were commandments of God for both the masters and the slaves, as they were both accountable for their actions unto the Lord.



Do you think there has ever been a group of believers that Jesus would have "approved"?


The great commission of Christ in Matthew 28:18-20 suggests His approval of the Church universal:

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying , All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo , I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."



It would be very interesting to know what doctrines you think define Christianity. Are you a member of any particular denomination or group? Or do you just think of yourself as a "Bible believer"?


Well, I believe simply, the Bible alone defines what a true Christian is, so I do hold to that tenet of the Protestant Reformation. And although I do appreciate the godly lives of so many of the contributors to many of the Confessions of Faith, I don't necessarily align myself with any one of them, or even group of them. Having said that, it is impossible to define oneself as a Christian without having a rather comprehensive knowledge of the Bible. My roots were mostly with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, but I have been involved with Baptists, Reformed Presbyterians, and Charismatics, over the course of my Christian walk. I tend toward a more Calvinistic doctrinal position regarding election and predestination, but hold to believer's baptism, rather than paedo-baptism. And sadly, many of the more healthy Charismatic churches are being eclipsed by the more charismaniac churches. But you are probably aware of the necessary doctrinal components that make up the Gospel message, even if you reject them, so I won't labour the point here.

I believe many Roman Catholics are genuine believers in Christ, because they are ignorant of what their doctrine actually teaches, but the overall Vatican system, with its many orders and papal bulls I must sadly say, falls far short of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The same could be said for the Orthodox Church, and the more liberal Protestant Churches.

You asked, so that is my general answer to a very difficult question.

Jesus, through Paul, spoke to the Church in Ephesians 2:1-10; 4:4-7 highlighting the fact that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, and not of works, lest we should boast. But then he added, having been saved by Christ alone through faith alone, we are called to walk in good works as a demonstration that our faith is genuine:

"And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved; And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ... There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;One Lord, one faith, one baptism,One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."

There is much more I could say, but I am quite sure you really don't want me to do that here.

Thank you once again for your openness to discuss these subjects fairly and uncensored. That is a rare quality on your part and I do appreciate it.

dp

David M
08-30-2014, 12:53 AM
Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

Do you also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and Adam rode dinosaurs?

What are you talking about? There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name "Lucifer." That's nothing but a silly mistranslation that was imported from the Vulgate into the KJV.


RichardFor Shame Richard, You know the Pre-Adamic Age is not refuted by Scripture. And when you say "There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name Lucifer (w/o reading further than Isa14), you fail to remember the many metaphors of satan and how he's also called "angel of light". 2Cor11:14.

Careful dpenn, :yo: He'll do his best to throw you curves.. :thpeace_dove_olive_

Whilst this thread is a little off topic at times, this is a good time to express the doubt I have had regarding the Bible Wheel. For the first time I am agreeing with Richard on two points in one post.

The first point of agreement is that I have never thought there is great significance in the Bible Wheel. When I looked for more correlation between the spokes etc, I could not find it. Now Richard is revising his thoughts on the whole subject. The Bible Wheel is like any theory that is work in progress and any theory might eventually get thrown out, even the theory of Evolution. So while Richard is changing his thinking on the Bible Wheel, maybe Richard can re think some of the other things he has clung to by saying; "this is what the Bible teaches".

This brings me to the second point. For all that Richard tells me "this is what the Bible teaches" and the arguments I have had about Angels not sinning, at least Richard and I agree that Lucifer is not a fallen Angel. Even JWs changed their teaching on this and no longer think of Lucifer as the Devil, or a fallen Angel. The context of Isaiah 14 is speaking of Babylon and the King of Babylon, who is identified as Lucifer. This has been known for over a century and a half, yet these myths are promulgated and people are misguided. The truth will win out in the end, only we have a long way to go to get rid of all the lies that we are prone to accept.

sylvius
08-30-2014, 03:04 AM
I have now reviewed the fourth and final example of an "Alphabetic KeyLink" listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticKeys.php) page. It does not have a strict "anti-keylink" like the others, but it it is close to an "anti-keylink" because the shin verse is uniquely linked to two off-spoke books. It is based on the Resh clause of Psalm 111 (which has two alphabetic clauses per verse). Verse 111:10 begins with the clause corresponding to Resh:

AV Psalm 111:10a RESH The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:

The word order of the English translation is reversed. The Hebrew begins with "Reshit chokmah." Here's what I say about it on that page:

As a final example - perhaps the most significant of them all - we have the unique appearance of the phrase Reshith Chokmah (Beginning of Wisdom) found only in the Resh verse of AV Psalm 111 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Topics/AV_Psalm111.php#resh)and the Twentieth Book, Proverbs, the premier "Book of Wisdom" to be found in the Bible. It is actually a double Alphabetic KeyLink, as discussed at length in the Synopsis of the Twenty-two Spokes in the Bible Wheel book and on this site in the Spoke 20 article The Beginning of Wisdom (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Resh_Wisdom.php).

Now let's look at the whole verse:

Psalm 111:10 RESH The fear of the LORD is the beginning (reshit) of wisdom: SHIN a good understanding (sekel) have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

The word "understanding" is sekel, a shin keyword. The phrase "good understanding" is sekel tov. This phrase is found in three other verses of the Bible (if we allow for the vav prefix). It is found in Proverbs 3:4, 13:15, and 2 Chronicles 30:22. None of those books are on Spoke 21 corresponding to Shin. This is strong evidence AGAINST my hypothesis that God designed the Bible on the pattern of the Bible Wheel.

I have little doubt that all the evidence I presented in the Bible Wheel book will fall by the same sword. It is evident that selection bias played a HUGE role in my formulation of the evidence supporting it. I have no reason of any kind to believe that any of the evidence will stand under scrutiny. I conclude that the Bible Wheel has been debunked.

:woohoo:

FREEDOM!


"The beginning of wisdom is the debunking of the bible wheel "

"reshit chochmah chillul galgal sefer has'farim" :winking0071:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2014, 10:39 AM
"The beginning of wisdom is the debunking of the bible wheel "

"reshit chochmah chillul galgal sefer has'farim" :winking0071:
Ha! That's cute.

It's great that you celebrate my victory over delusion. It will be a great day when you apply the same principles of logic and evidence to your "work" so that you too can find freedom from your delusions.

Rose
08-30-2014, 10:54 AM
I do not think that Jesus would ever have approved of the horrendously brutal chattel slavery practiced by many professing Christians of the US South. When George Whitefield came to America to preach the Gospel in Georgia, he had great opposition from many of these slave owners, who treated the blacks as though they didn't even possess a soul. But Whitefield preached to the black slaves with tears running down his face, appalled at the cold-hearted ignorance of the slave owners. When you consider the close relationships of many slaves to their masters in the OT, you see something even more superior to many of our employer/employee relationships. For example, Eliezer of Damascus, a slave, would have destined to inherit everything from Abraham without the birth of Isaac, and later, he was honoured with seeking out a wife for Isaac in Haran. Paul also addressed the slavery issue in Philemon, and taught that if one could gain his freedom, that would be much more preferable. But at the same time, there were commandments of God for both the masters and the slaves, as they were both accountable for their actions unto the Lord.


dp

Hello Dpenn :yo:

I agree with you that Jesus probably would not have approved of "horrendously brutal chattel slavery", but he still implicitly approved of owning human beings as property "slaves". Slavery is an egregious violation of human rights, and no matter how well a slave is treated they are still a person in bondage to another person. Slavery was just as morally wrong in biblical times as it is today. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery ever condemned, in fact as you even mentioned the Biblegod gave commandments on how slaves were to be treated! The Biblegod approved of slavery. Just because people like George Whitefield preached against slavery does not mean the Bible condemned it because it didn't.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus never once condemned any of the horrendous violations against the human rights of women or slaves found in the Bible, he supported every "jot" and "tittle" of the law because he was deluded by his religion and believed that the Biblegod was his father.


Kind regards,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2014, 11:32 AM
Well, I believe simply, the Bible alone defines what a true Christian is, so I do hold to that tenet of the Protestant Reformation. And although I do appreciate the godly lives of so many of the contributors to many of the Confessions of Faith, I don't necessarily align myself with any one of them, or even group of them. Having said that, it is impossible to define oneself as a Christian without having a rather comprehensive knowledge of the Bible. My roots were mostly with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, but I have been involved with Baptists, Reformed Presbyterians, and Charismatics, over the course of my Christian walk. I tend toward a more Calvinistic doctrinal position regarding election and predestination, but hold to believer's baptism, rather than paedo-baptism. And sadly, many of the more healthy Charismatic churches are being eclipsed by the more charismaniac churches. But you are probably aware of the necessary doctrinal components that make up the Gospel message, even if you reject them, so I won't labour the point here.

Hey there dp,

Thanks for the info. It really helps to know where your are coming from. Your openness if refreshing.

When I was a Christian, I described myself as a "blood-bought born-again Bible believing Trinitarian Christian." I never identified with any particular denomination, though I felt most at home in rather fundamentalist "evangelical" style churches, like Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel movement. I visited a few charismatic churches over the years, and had many close friends who spoke in tongues, but never received that "gift" myself though I did spend some hours praying for it. In general. I thought the charismatic movement was mostly insane and absurd because I could see how they deluded themselves and followed after blatant charlatans like Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley, Rick Joyner, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagan, etc., etc., etc.

My understanding of the Gospel was completely "orthodox" as far as I can tell. When I reject it, I am not rejecting a caricature but rather the "real thing." Of course, that raises the question "What is the 'real' Gospel?" The fact that there are so many contrary interpretations amongst the most fervent "Bible believers" indicates to me that there is no such thing - the "Gospel" is literally incoherent. And most importantly, I think it is fundamentally immoral because it teaches that sinners don't "pay" for their sins whereas good unbelievers are either tormented in hell forever or annihilated (depending on your interpretation). Neither fate is just! It is not just to let sinners go free and punish good people who aren't so gullible as to believe one peculiar set of religious dogmas promulgated by blatantly irrational believers. There really is nothing about the Gospel that makes any sense to me at all. Why couldn't God simply forgive without having his son (himself) tortured to death? Why would blind "faith" in a religious story determine anyone's eternal fate?

Well, those are probably questions for another thread. I'd like to keep this thread focused on cognitive bias and how to determine if a set of beliefs is or is not justified by logic and facts.

Great chatting!

Richard

dpenn
08-30-2014, 11:41 AM
Richard,

I realise that this has gone off-topic somewhat, but it is all still linked to the Lucifer comment, so I find this an opportune time to overturn some of the most basic teaching of JW doctrine which denies that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, plus the Holy Spirit, as the 2nd Person of the Trinity, was God miraculously creating the genetic human material in the womb of Mary, a virgin, thus the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, and son of man.


This brings me to the second point. For all that Richard tells me "this is what the Bible teaches" and the arguments I have had about Angels not sinning, at least Richard and I agree that Lucifer is not a fallen Angel. Even JWs changed their teaching on this and no longer think of Lucifer as the Devil, or a fallen Angel. The context of Isaiah 14 is speaking of Babylon and the King of Babylon, who is identified as Lucifer. This has been known for over a century and a half, yet these myths are promulgated and people are misguided. The truth will win out in the end, only we have a long way to go to get rid of all the lies that we are prone to accept.


David, almost all solid Christians would agree that Lucifer refers initially behind the fall the the King of Babylon. How could you not believe that? The text demands it. But behind the local fulfillment of this prophecy, there is a deeper teaching on the fall of Satan/Lucifer, even if you don't like the name Lucifer. The same exists in Ezekiel 28 with the prophecy against the King of Tyre. Clearly this has a real fulfillment in the King of Tyre, but there is a deeper embedded equating of the King of Tyre to the original fall of Lucifer/Satan and his original pre-fall existence in the Garden of Eden.

There is a parallel two level type of prophecy in Isaiah 7-8:

The setting is in 7:1

"And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it."

So Isaiah was given a prophecy to Ahaz, King of Judah, the core being in 7:14-15:

"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel . Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good."

The more immediate fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded in Isaiah 8:3-4:

"And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Mahershalalhashbaz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria."

Here, the birth of Isaiah's son was the immediate fulfillment of this prophecy.

But in the NT, this also is a clear prophecy about the incarnation of the Son of God, foretelling the fact that the Holy Spirit would come upon the Virgin Mary, and the boy Jesus would be born as a result, as evidenced in Matthew 1:18-24:

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

Elsewhere there is a clear reference to the divinity of Jesus Christ, in Isaiah 9:6-7:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

So, I think a few more JW teachings need to be revised if they are to be true to the biblical record.

dp

sylvius
08-30-2014, 12:02 PM
Ha! That's cute.

It's great that you celebrate my victory over delusion. It will be a great day when you apply the same principles of logic and evidence to your "work" so that you too can find freedom from your delusions.


Mine would be "chillul hashem" (blasphemy, defamation of God, profantion of the name of God, desecration of the Name) or "chillul hashabbat" (desecration of the Sabbath); things for which Jesus was condemned to be guilty of death.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2014, 12:23 PM
What it all really comes down to is the fact that you don't like God, plain and simple. Even if you found out that God is real, you would serve him with a grudging heart.
Hey there Nothing, :yo:

You are correct that I do not like the biblegod. What good and rational person could? What is there to "like" or even "admire" about a god who commands genocide, institutes slavery and sexism, fills his "holy book" with ignorant superstitions and mythology, and describes himself as a primitive tribal war god? Let's get real about what the Bible actually teaches. It tells us that this "god" is so twisted and perverted as to think that violence is the solution to every problem from the Flood, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to the destruction of Jerusalem, to the crucifixion of Christ, to the eternal Lake of Fire where he roasts his puny and helpless enemies for ever and ever. I really don't see anything to "like" about that god.

If that god turned out to be true, I would not "serve him with a grudging heart." I guess I would probably be driven insane by knowing that my creator is insane. Made in his image and all that. But we don't need to worry about that because the biblegod has self-contradictory properties and so it is logically impossible for him to exist.



You don't trust or hope for him to exist, you're quite content with the thought that the universe happened for no reason and that there's no purpose to it. You can just make up your own purpose and do whatever you want. That might be freedom to you, but to me that is crushing emptiness. Because that is what you want in your heart, God has given you over to it.

Well, the truth is that everyone "makes up their own purpose and does whatever they want" whether or not they believe in a god. We are all free in this regard. Your "solution" is an illusion. It may make you feel better but there is no reason to think it is true.

I have never said anything that would justify your assertion that I am "quite content with the thought that the universe happened for no reason and that there's no purpose to it." On the contrary, I think the universe is probably self-existent in much the same way as you think that your god is self-existent. But no one knows and there is no way for anyone to get an answer to such questions at this point in history, so the issue is moot.

I don't experience the "crushing emptiness" when contemplating the fact that life ends with I die. It's really no different than what happens every night when I fall into a deep dreamless sleep. I go unconscious. I don't "exist" in the sense of being a self-conscious being. I see no reason to doubt that is what "I" will "experience" in death. So what's the problem? It is the way of all flesh. Imagining an "eternal future" is a pipe dream. What about all the Muslims, Hindus, and pagans who have lived throughout history? What was the meaning of their lives? Christians believe that the universe is meaningful because they personally are going to live forever in happiness with God while all the less fortunate unbelievers will either be annihilated or tormented forever in hell. In either case, I do not see how Christianity gives an "meaning" to the vast majority of people who have ever existed on this planet.

You bring up many interesting questions. Maybe we should start a thread devoted to them.

Great chatting!

Richard

dpenn
08-30-2014, 04:20 PM
My understanding of the Gospel was completely "orthodox" as far as I can tell. When I reject it, I am not rejecting a caricature but rather the "real thing." Of course, that raises the question "What is the 'real' Gospel?" The fact that there are so many contrary interpretations amongst the most fervent "Bible believers" indicates to me that there is no such thing - the "Gospel" is literally incoherent. And most importantly, I think it is fundamentally immoral because it teaches that sinners don't "pay" for their sins whereas good unbelievers are either tormented in hell forever or annihilated (depending on your interpretation). Neither fate is just! It is not just to let sinners go free and punish good people who aren't so gullible as to believe one peculiar set of religious dogmas promulgated by blatantly irrational believers. There really is nothing about the Gospel that makes any sense to me at all. Why couldn't God simply forgive without having his son (himself) tortured to death? Why would blind "faith" in a religious story determine anyone's eternal fate?



Richard,

You say, I am not rejecting a caricature but rather the real thing, and then proceed to say, What is the real Gospel? But quite surprisingly, then, you say the fact that there are so many contrary interpretations amongst the fervent believers indicates to me that there is no such thing - the Gospel is literally incoherent.

Let me get this straight ... you followed the real thing, but now that you don't believe it anymore, suddenly the contrary interpretations become one of the credible reasons why you reject it. Doesn't that sound a bit illogical to you? As an insider, there was a way to identify the real thing, but as an outsider, suddenly you don't see so clearly anymore, and even more, you side with all whom I am certain before you considered in error to support your position. Now I see why you lump all pseudo-Christians and cults together ... it gives you the illusion that you have actually demonstrated why Christianity is not true. In my biased opinion, I don't think you have done that successfully, Richard.

You then say many bad people get their sins forgiven while many good people suffer in hell. But the Bible classifies all as sinners and in need of salvation, thus the free gift of salvation is offered freely to all. Also, the Bible does not say that bad people are to remain bad people, but if they genuinely repent of their sins and receive the free gift of salvation offered freely in and through the atoning work of Jesus Christ they are saved. The Bible even qualifies "by their fruit you shall know them". So if anyone doesn't demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit in their life, one has every good reason to doubt their salvation. Your so-called good person still has every opportunity of placing their faith and trust in Christ, under all the same terms as the so-called bad person, repenting of their sins and receiving with their whole heart the free Gospel of salvation offered through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. So there is no unfairness here, only "whosoever will may come". I realise it is not as simple as this in all cases, and in all times, but this is still the general message of the Gospel message of John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.".

I hope you don't mind my quoting from the KVJ. I am not bound to it, nor am I a KJV only believer, but I do appreciate the more poetic style, even if it is a bit more archaic. I do have other Bibles that I use, however I prefer good, scholarly, translations, not paraphrases.

Thanks for the dialogue,

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2014, 05:03 PM
Richard,

You say, I am not rejecting a caricature but rather the real thing, and then proceed to say, What is the real Gospel? But quite surprisingly, then, you say the fact that there are so many contrary interpretations amongst the fervent believers indicates to me that there is no such thing - the Gospel is literally incoherent.

Let me get this straight ... you followed the real thing, but now that you don't believe it anymore, suddenly the contrary interpretations become one of the credible reasons why you reject it. Doesn't that sound a bit illogical to you? As an insider, there was a way to identify the real thing, but as an outsider, suddenly you don't see so clearly anymore, and even more, you side with all whom I am certain before you considered in error to support your position. Now I see why you lump all pseudo-Christians and cults together ... it gives you the illusion that you have actually demonstrated why Christianity is not true. In my biased opinion, I don't think you have done that successfully, Richard.

Hey there dp, :tea:

I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I can see why you might find my comments inconsistent. I didn't really take much time to explain myself fully. When I was a Christian, I held to the "orthodox" Gospel that all have sinned and need to be saved through faith in Christ. But there were a number of points that didn't seem to "fit" into any coherent pattern. First, there is the idea of predestination. It seems the best interpretation of the Bible is that God chooses the "elect" and so no one can do anything to get saved. But that's contradicted by other passages that clearly appeal to people to make a choice to believe. I reviewed the contrary views (Calvinism vs. Arminianism) but never came to a solution that actually made sense to me and which I could actually believe. So I just "let it ride" like most Christians do with many incoherent aspects of the Gospel.

Another example is the meaning of salvation itself. The most fundamentalist position is that each person must hear the Gospel and explicitly believe in the name of Jesus to be saved. But that means that everyone born before Christ is necessarily damned, and few people actually believe that, so they need to make up doctrines about how folks who never heard get saved. I have many books dealing with these kinds of questions, such as "What about those who never heard?" and "Four Views on Hell" etc. This is what I mean when I say that the Gospel is incoherent. I learned "live with" the incoherence when I was a Christian by just ignoring the questions as best as I could. But as an unbeliever, those very questions now seem like good reasons for rejecting the faith.



You then say many bad people get their sins forgiven while many good people suffer in hell. But the Bible classifies all as sinners and in need of salvation, thus the free gift of salvation is offered freely to all.

Yes, of course I know that the Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. My point was that the Gospel is unjust because the sinners don't ever receive justice for their sins while other people, even the best amongst us, suffer forever for the "sin" of not believing a religious dogma. It makes no sense to me at all. If you would like to try to explain how that could be "just" that would be great.

And your assertion that salvation is offered to all makes no sense, given that most people who have ever lived never heard about it. How then can it be the standard by which God judges? And this brings up another fundamental incoherence in the Bible. Many passages teach that everyone will "render to every man according to his deeds" and everyone will be "judged according to their works." But that seems to directly contradict the message of salvation by faith. So which is it? Is God going to reward everyone "according to their works" or not?



Also, the Bible does not say that bad people are to remain bad people, but if they genuinely repent of their sins and receive the free gift of salvation offered freely in and through the atoning work of Jesus Christ they are saved. The Bible even qualifies "by their fruit you shall know them". So if anyone doesn't demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit in their life, one has every good reason to doubt their salvation.

And that's why I doubt the salvation of the vast majority of "evangelical" Christians, as represented, for example, by the millions of members of the Southern Baptist Convention and the millions of deluded people who flock to the likes of Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley, etc., etc., etc. If I judge by the "fruit" I see no reason to believe the Gospel. On the contrary, I have every reason to reject it, because it breeds in people a contempt for the truth and a delusional worldview. In general, the fruit is bad everywhere I look. Indeed, you see profound evil in the largest group of Christians on the planet, the Roman Catholic Church. This is how it has always been for all religions. They are more like political parties. Suni and Shiites kill each other, Catholics and Protestants kill each other. Hindus and Moslems. Religion is the root of much evil.



Your so-called good person still has every opportunity of placing their faith and trust in Christ, under all the same terms as the so-called bad person, repenting of their sins and receiving with their whole heart the free Gospel of salvation offered through the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ. So there is no unfairness here, only "whosoever will may come". I realise it is not as simple as this in all cases, and in all times, but this is still the general message of the Gospel message of John 3:16:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.".

Are you really satisfied with that answer? What happened to God's "elect"? Are you saying people can get saved without God first choosing them?



I hope you don't mind my quoting from the KVJ. I am not bound to it, nor am I a KJV only believer, but I do appreciate the more poetic style, even if it is a bit more archaic. I do have other Bibles that I use, however I prefer good, scholarly, translations, not paraphrases.

No problem at all. The KJV was always my preferred version.



Thanks for the dialogue,

dp
And thank you!

Richard

dpenn
08-30-2014, 05:35 PM
I agree with you that Jesus probably would not have approved of "horrendously brutal chattel slavery", but he still implicitly approved of owning human beings as property "slaves". Slavery is an egregious violation of human rights, and no matter how well a slave is treated they are still a person in bondage to another person. Slavery was just as morally wrong in biblical times as it is today. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery ever condemned, in fact as you even mentioned the Biblegod gave commandments on how slaves were to be treated! The Biblegod approved of slavery. Just because people like George Whitefield preached against slavery does not mean the Bible condemned it because it didn't.

The fact of the matter is that Jesus never once condemned any of the horrendous violations against the human rights of women or slaves found in the Bible, he supported every "jot" and "tittle" of the law because he was deluded by his religion and believed that the Biblegod was his father.


Kind regards,
Rose

Hi Rose,

I was wondering when you would enter this dialogue, welcome.

I have to agree with every bit of what you say, in general. It is true specific commandments were given in the OT, regarding slavery, and yes, Jesus, obeying all aspects of the law, would have gone along with that, not to mention his NT teaching about slaves and masters.

I do think that Paul, writing to Philemon, suggested it was a better thing to attain freedom over slavery, but until that was realised, slaves and masters should obey God in all aspects of their lives. Paul, the prisoner for his faith, wrote Philemon, the slave master, on behalf of his runaway slave, Onesimus, appealing for his mercy toward Onesimus. Consider Philemon 1:15-16:

"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?"

By suggesting, above a servant, even a beloved brother, and how much better it would be for Philemon, both in the flesh, and in the Lord, if he were to receive Onesimus once again.

So, Rose, even though there are some admittedly difficult teachings in earlier time frames, I believe that this is another one of those examples where Christ was taking the internal Gospel message well beyond the external limitations of the law of Moses. I am not saying the Law was not internal, it clearly was, but we do know that Jesus Christ brought in a New Covenant, built on better promises, and I think that is hinted at here. That is why most of the legal actions to do away with slavery were initiated by Christians, not atheists.

Further, Jesus and Paul had as much to say to masters as they did to slaves, as we are all to give an account of our lives to God. Ephesians not only addresses husband-wife, children-parent, but also master-slave relationships. I am sure you are aware of the following Ephesians 6:5-9:

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

I think you can see that this is a balanced approach to both masters and slaves, not the type of slavery we are familiar with. That would be good advice for employer-employee relations today (of course I don't mean this should be enforced in the workplace, I merely mean it is a balanced approach to both sides).

In any event, I am at least appreciative of the fact that you admit that the type of "chattel slavery" practised by the African slave trade was foreign to the teaching of Moses, and commanded by God. There were even inheritance rights. Please do not think that I am in favour of slavery. I merely recognise that this was a period in history that was quite far removed from where we are today, including multiple wives, and marrying of near relatives. And I also thank you for acknowledging that George Whitefield, clearly preached against the evils of slavery in the South. Many people will not admit that, and continue to malign genuine biblical Christianity for all the evils of slavery.

What do you think is the alternative? How do you determine right from wrong? How do you determine absolutes? I know we all have a moral code in us, but I think even that is a clear indication that God has somehow written His law in our inner being, and our conscious can only accuse or excuse us in our actions and thoughts. I am sure that you know what the Bible says in Romans 1:18-23:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

I think that without God, all that evolution can ever offer us is "an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

I can only hope this softens your heart a little bit toward the God of the Bible,

dp

dpenn
08-30-2014, 07:18 PM
... First, there is the idea of predestination. It seems the best interpretation of the Bible is that God chooses the "elect" and so no one can do anything to get saved. But that's contradicted by other passages that clearly appeal to people to make a choice to believe. I reviewed the contrary views (Calvinism vs. Arminianism) but never came to a solution that actually made sense to me and which I could actually believe. So I just "let it ride" like most Christians do with many incoherent aspects of the Gospel.

Richard

I am quite certain that we aren't going to resolve Calvinism vs Arminianism here today, but it at least needs to be addressed as it is so central to the Gospel message. I believe the Bible clearly teaches both divine election and predestination, from a Calvinistic perspective. But I also know that God has given us the command to go into all the world and make disciples, offering an external call of the Gospel in the preaching of the Gospel. And even though there is a need for each individual to turn from their sins and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, it is clear from the teaching of the Bible that God would say, "you did not choose Me, but I chose you". There are deep mysteries in the Bible, some of them are cleared through careful study, others prolong, and still others surface out of seeming nowhere.

For example, the Bible says that God foreordained that Jesus Christ should be crucified for our sins, suffer and die, in order to be raised from the dead and ascended to His right hand. But evil sinful people put Him on the Cross and crucified Him, and Peter in Acts 2 says that they will be held accountable for this. And yet Isaiah 53 says that it pleased the Father to put Him to death, as He has made Him a sin offering (paraphrase, but true).


Another example is the meaning of salvation itself. The most fundamentalist position is that each person must hear the Gospel and explicitly believe in the name of Jesus to be saved. But that means that everyone born before Christ is necessarily damned, and few people actually believe that, so they need to make up doctrines about how folks who never heard get saved. I have many books dealing with these kinds of questions, such as "What about those who never heard?" and "Four Views on Hell" etc. This is what I mean when I say that the Gospel is incoherent. I learned "live with" the incoherence when I was a Christian by just ignoring the questions as best as I could. But as an unbeliever, those very questions now seem like good reasons for rejecting the faith.

Richard

I think the most basic biblical meaning of salvation is that because of the sin of Adam, all died spiritually, and will also all die as a result of the curse placed on this disobedience. My understanding of original sin, is not the first sin that Adam sinned, but the consequences of Adam's first sin, namely he, and all of his and Eve's posterity would be born with an inherited, and acquired sinful nature. Thus all die. The two exceptions of Enoch and Elijah are dealt with as special exceptions to this in the Scriptures.

This introduces us to salvation, as in Adam all die, so also in Christ, all will be made alive. And Ephesians 2 makes it clear that we are all born alienated from God, and under His wrath. So the first thing that salvation acquired through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was that His blood atoned for our sins. That is, as a perfect sacrifice, as a lamb brought to slaughter, He actually turned away the wrath of God. In other words, He bore the full punishment of God against sin for all those who place their faith and trust in Him. So salvation means that first, Jesus Christ lived a perfect sinless life before God, secondly, He substitutionally bore our sins in His own body on the Cross, and all those who place their faith and trust in Him, turning from their sins to receive Him as their personal Lord and Saviour, are saved from the wrath of God to come, are being saved from the working of sin in our own flesh in this life, and will be saved finally from every taint of sin in this life, following the physical resurrection of the body, and its being changed like unto His glorified body in the eternal presence of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is obvious from the Bible that OT saints were saved, having lived before God, as long as they lived according to the revelation God gave them in the Old Covenant, forshadowing the coming and final sacrifice of Christ. But since the Cross of Christ, God requires everyone, everywhere, to repent and to receive the Gospel of salvation in Christ.

I admit, sometimes it is hard to believe that sin is so serious in the mind of God. But the Bible clearly teaches that it was so serious, it literally caused the fall of the entire human race, in Adam. I know many like Chuck Missler and many from your former Calvery Chapel denomination, try to turn the seriousness of sin into a more palatable view that the sons of God of Genesis 6, refers to a time when fallen angels co-mingled with the women of earth, to cause a corrupted blood line, which was the reason for God sending the flood. And I do know that some contexts do use the phrase beniy elohim that way, but there is an exception, and that is, Hosea 1:10:

"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God" (i.e. beniy el hi).

So I don't hold to the teaching that bad bloodlines didn't cause the global flood, but bad faithlines was a strong enough reason for God to bring judgement. Likewise, I believe the Bible teaches that the final judgement will be like in the days of Noah, and I do not think that will be new mixtures of fallen angels and women. Nor do I believe that there is a differnce between fallen angels and demons as some teach, including Chuck Missler and Tom Horn, etc... that is, that the demons are the children of these angel women, so that when they die, because they are hybrids, they become demons in this world. Good luck with that teaching. And yes, I do appreciate much of the teaching of Chuck Missler, and to a lesser extent, Tom Horn, but I cannot buy into this Nephilim crazed sons of God teaching that has flooded the Evangelical Church. Add to that, their unbiblical Zionism, placing both Israel and the Church on parallel, but separate tracks in the endtimes, and I am afraid there might come a serious falling away from the faith as a result of all of this crazed teaching from many otherwise very brilliant and scholarly people.


Yes, of course I know that the Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. My point was that the Gospel is unjust because the sinners don't ever receive justice for their sins while other people, even the best amongst us, suffer forever for the "sin" of not believing a religious dogma. It makes no sense to me at all. If you would like to try to explain how that could be "just" that would be great.

Richard

But Jesus paid the ultimate price, He received God's justice, His wrath upon sin for all who place their faith and trust in Him. And that is open for the good, bad, and ugly. How many real evil people do you know that turn to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, and live a Spirit-filled, godly life? Not too many. So I believe you are making more out of this than even reality evidences. I have to believe with Abraham, "shall not the judge of the whole earth do what is right"? I can't enter into the mind of God, nor can you, even if you deny His existence. The thing that is amazing is how much non-believers fight against the existence of God, when they have absolutely no alternative to His Being sovereign Lord over all Creation, including laws and nature.


And your assertion that salvation is offered to all makes no sense, given that most people who have ever lived never heard about it. How then can it be the standard by which God judges? And this brings up another fundamental incoherence in the Bible. Many passages teach that everyone will "render to every man according to his deeds" and everyone will be "judged according to their works." But that seems to directly contradict the message of salvation by faith. So which is it? Is God going to reward everyone "according to their works" or not?

Richard

I don't think I said that salvation is offered to all, and if I did I didn't mean that. It is obvious that half the world or more hasn't had the Gospel offered to them. I don't fully understand it, but I do believe the Bible teaches that salvation is a free gift offered through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ alone, to be received by faith alone, but even Christians will appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ to receive rewards for things done in this life. But at the end of time, following the resurrection, only those outside of Christ, those whose names are not written in the Lamb's Book of Life, will appear before the Final Judgement of God to receive what was done in this life. The Bible teaches that all OT saints, and all NT believers in Jesus Christ will not be part of that judgement where the books will be opened.


And that's why I doubt the salvation of the vast majority of "evangelical" Christians, as represented, for example, by the millions of members of the Southern Baptist Convention and the millions of deluded people who flock to the likes of Benny Hinn, Todd Bentley, etc., etc., etc. If I judge by the "fruit" I see no reason to believe the Gospel. On the contrary, I have every reason to reject it, because it breeds in people a contempt for the truth and a delusional worldview. In general, the fruit is bad everywhere I look. Indeed, you see profound evil in the largest group of Christians on the planet, the Roman Catholic Church. This is how it has always been for all religions. They are more like political parties. Suni and Shiites kill each other, Catholics and Protestants kill each other. Hindus and Moslems. Religion is the root of much evil.

Richard

Richard, my standard of Christianity has to be the written Word of God. I am so thankful that I know many loving, genuine, truly biblical Christians, because there are many whose faith does not line up with the Word. I almost get dizzy in appalling shock when I think of men such as Todd Bentley, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Haggin etc, etc, etc, ad-nauseum. But I know that so many others, and many more whose names are never known, have lived out exemplary Christian lives. Hinn, Copeland, Haggin, Bentley, and many others have taught outright heresies, and yet they claim to be prophets and apostles, when all the time they are full of such lies and deceit and willful deception. I am sure that God will judge them someday. But I refuse to let them dictate to me the clearer and purer teachings of Jesus Christ and His holy Apostles and Prophets.

And yes, religion is the root of much evil, but I don't believe that Jesus Christ or true biblically solid Christians are guilty of such gross evil. By their fruit you will know them. But you must admit, much of what is going on in the world today, is done by atheists, including social engineers, war mongers, global bankers, intelligence agencies, secret societies aligning them with the religions of the world. Look at all the deaths by a Mao Tze Tung, a Pol Pot, an Adolf Hitler, a Lenin, Trotsky, or a Stalin. You can't tell me that was religions.


Are you really satisfied with that answer? What happened to God's "elect"? Are you saying people can get saved without God first choosing them?

Richard

I struggle with my faith like anyone who is a serious thinker and sensitive to the evil times. If God is God, He must be sovereign even by definition, so it is obvious that no one can be saved except God first choose him or her. But I say with Abraham, "shall not the Judge of the whole earth do what is right"? I have seen so many of the blessings of God. I see no alternative. What is your alternative?

This was a good, but heavy dialogue Richard. I hope we both continue to grapple with the gravity of this subject, and we continue to strive for the truth.

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
08-30-2014, 07:30 PM
Thanks for finding that post Gambini. Here is the correct link (http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=18022&st=48&p=171226&#entry171226). And here's another quote from that post:
Now the real miracle of the Bible Wheel shines with its greatest clarity when we examine the specific content on each Spoke in light of the Alphabetic KeyWords that God established in the Alphabetic Verses of Scripture. The Alphabetic Verses are the passages that God designed on the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet. The most notable example is Psalm 119 which has 8 stanzas for each letter giving a total of 176 (= 8 x 22) verses. And what is the theme of this, the largest chapter in God's Word? It is none other than the WORD itself! And how are words written? With the Alphabet, of course. We find therefore that God designed the PSALM of HIS WORD on the pattern of the Hebrew Alphabet, and this establishes the pattern for the large-scale pattern of His entire Word in the form of the Wheel. But there is more! There are many profound correlations between the Alphabet KeyWords and the specific content of the books on the corresponding Spokes.
I then presented one of my favorite examples of the "profound correlations" - the connection between the symbolic meaning of Tzaddi (righteousness) and the content of Spoke 18.

So let's evaluate the evidence. I asserted that the Alphabetic KeyWords used in the Alphabetic Verses establish "the large-scale pattern of His entire Word in the form of the Wheel." Is that statement true? Did I find sufficient evidence to support such a broad claim? That is the hypothesis that must be tested. In the post you quoted, I gave evidence only from one spoke relating to only one of the symbolic meanings of Tzaddi. So to evaluate the claim, we need to examine ALL THE DATA and see if it fits with my hypothesis. That's how science works.

As it turns out, the answer is "no." The hypothesis is not true for most alphabetic keywords. There are very few places where we get connections as clear as what we see on Spoke 18. I searched for such connections for many years and the truth is that there are very few. Far too few to warrant any claim of deliberate design, especially from an almighty omniscient being who chose to create such a design. And worse, there is no way to know how many of the connections we do find would be expected by mere coincidence.

<snip>

I am in process of reviewing all my work to see how much was skewed by similar biases. It should prove very enlightening.

Richard
As I suspected, the review of my work has proven very enlightening. Disturbingly so. I was able to instantly debunk the four examples of Alphabetic KeyLinks (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Alphabet/AlphabeticKeys.php) that I have had posted on my site for over a decade (see posts #65 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66305#post66305), #66 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66307#post66307), #67 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66308#post66308), and #68 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66309#post66309)), which I always considered to be some of the best evidence I had. I now am going to debunk the claims I made concerning Spoke 18 in the post that Gambini found on christian-forum.net (link (http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=18022&st=48&p=171226&#entry171226)). Those claims were based on my article about the connection between Tzaddi and the Book of Matthew on Spoke 18 called To Fulfill All Righteousness (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tzaddi_Matt.php). I always thought that this was some of the most powerful evidence that God had designed the Bible in the form of the Wheel. Here is an extended quote from that post on christian-forum.net:

One of the most obvious, and astounding examples, is seen on Spoke 18. The 18th letter is Tzaddi, and the primary Alphabetic KeyWords associated with it are based on the root "tzedek" meaning righteousness. God used words based on this root in many of the Alphabetic Verses corresponding to Tzaddi. For example (AV stands for Alphabetic Verse):


AV Ps 119:137 Righteous (Tzaddik) art thou, O LORD, and upright are thy judgments.
AV Ps 145:17 The LORD is righteous (tzaddik) in all his ways, and holy in all his works.
AV Lam 1:18 The LORD is righteous (tzaddik); for I have rebelled against his commandment.
AV Ps 112:9b ... His righteousness (tzedakah) endureth for ever;
AV Ps 119:142 Thy righteousness (tzedakah) is an everlasting righteousness.
AV Ps 119:144 The righteousness (tzedek) of thy testimonies is everlasting:

This is the primary symbolic meaning of the 18th letter Tzaddi - righteousness.

This theme dominates all three books on Spoke 18:


Job is a theodicy, an exploration of the righteousness of God in light of human suffering.
Matthew is the Gospel of Righteousness, as explained below.
1 John - this book explicitly defines the meaning of righteousness, and is the only book to proclaim the title of our Lord as Jesus Christ the Righteous.

Now one of the primary objections people raise is the charge of "cherry picking." They suggest that the Bible is such a big book that anyone can make connections with anything, and therefore nothing like the Bible Wheel could have any real meaning. But this is not true. God established the connections for us in the Alphabetic Verses, and the specific content of the books is an objective fact. Case in point: the frequency of the word "righteousness" is greatly maximized in Matthew relative to the other Gospels:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/righteousGospel.gif

I presented that graph as evidence against the charge of "cherry picking." The data is valid and it certainly looks convincing because it shows that righteousness really is maximized in Matthew relative to the other three Gospels. But that is deceptive. And ironically, it is itself a textbook example of cherry picking because it does not show all the data for the distribution of the words "righteous" and "righteousness" in the whole Bible. Here is the graph of all the data:

1251

Obviously, the "theme of righteousness" is not "maximized in Matthew" except in relation to the other three Gospels. So though my statement was literally true, it was fundamentally deceptive. It is curious that it is maximized (relative to the other Gospels) on Spoke 18, but when we look at all the data we see no correlation between "righteousness" and the pattern of the Bible Wheel. This is the key to debunking claims that are based on selection bias. All you need to do is look at all the data.

Once again, what I thought was some of the "best evidence" for my thesis that God designed the Bible in the form of the Wheel fails. There is no evidence of any design. I have now reviewed five of my "most powerful examples" and they all fail.

I'm afraid I have justified a couple old adages. The first is: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." And the second is "You can make numbers confess to anything if you torture them long enough."

<sigh>

Richard

Rose
08-30-2014, 08:22 PM
Hi Rose,

I was wondering when you would enter this dialogue, welcome.

I have to agree with every bit of what you say, in general. It is true specific commandments were given in the OT, regarding slavery, and yes, Jesus, obeying all aspects of the law, would have gone along with that, not to mention his NT teaching about slaves and masters.

I do think that Paul, writing to Philemon, suggested it was a better thing to attain freedom over slavery, but until that was realised, slaves and masters should obey God in all aspects of their lives. Paul, the prisoner for his faith, wrote Philemon, the slave master, on behalf of his runaway slave, Onesimus, appealing for his mercy toward Onesimus. Consider Philemon 1:15-16:

"For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord?"

By suggesting, above a servant, even a beloved brother, and how much better it would be for Philemon, both in the flesh, and in the Lord, if he were to receive Onesimus once again.

So, Rose, even though there are some admittedly difficult teachings in earlier time frames, I believe that this is another one of those examples where Christ was taking the internal Gospel message well beyond the external limitations of the law of Moses. I am not saying the Law was not internal, it clearly was, but we do know that Jesus Christ brought in a New Covenant, built on better promises, and I think that is hinted at here. That is why most of the legal actions to do away with slavery were initiated by Christians, not atheists.

Thank you for the welcome Dpenn ... :signthankspin:

The huge problem is that it was the Biblegod who gave the Old Covenant, so why should a New Covenant be necessary unless the old was flawed? Why did the Biblegod allow slavery in the first place, when we know how much he hated it when the Hebrews were enslaved to the Egyptians? There is no sound reason why the Biblegod could not have ordained a law forbidding slavery, he didn't have a problem ordaining the new tradition of circumcision, or requiring a day of rest on the Sabbath, both things that had never been done before ... along with all the other 613 laws that the Hebrews had to follow.


Further, Jesus and Paul had as much to say to masters as they did to slaves, as we are all to give an account of our lives to God. Ephesians not only addresses husband-wife, children-parent, but also master-slave relationships. I am sure you are aware of the following Ephesians 6:5-9:

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

I think you can see that this is a balanced approach to both masters and slaves, not the type of slavery we are familiar with. That would be good advice for employer-employee relations today (of course I don't mean this should be enforced in the workplace, I merely mean it is a balanced approach to both sides).

There would be no need of that "balanced approach" if all forms of human ownership had been forbidden under the law from the beginning. If all people were treated with equal human rights, all the laws governing masters and slaves would be unnecessary. As I have said before, no matter how well a master treats his slave it is still a violation of a persons human rights to be "owned" by another person, and nowhere in the entire Bible is slavery condemned.


In any event, I am at least appreciative of the fact that you admit that the type of "chattel slavery" practised by the African slave trade was foreign to the teaching of Moses, and commanded by God. There were even inheritance rights. Please do not think that I am in favour of slavery. I merely recognise that this was a period in history that was quite far removed from where we are today, including multiple wives, and marrying of near relatives. And I also thank you for acknowledging that George Whitefield, clearly preached against the evils of slavery in the South. Many people will not admit that, and continue to malign genuine biblical Christianity for all the evils of slavery.

I agree that Jesus probably would have condemned abusive slavery, but I don't necessarily think that is the case with the teachings of Moses. In Exo.21 the law states that the only restriction on beating a slave is that you can't beat him to death ... now that's pretty bad!

Yes, the biblical time period is very far removed from our values and morals today, but the Biblegod is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever. So, why did the Biblegod give laws that violated the human rights of women and slaves? If slavery is morally wrong today, then it was equally wrong in biblical times.

Also, just because Christians like George Whitefield preached against slavery in no wise means that Christianity taught against slavery, because it didn't ... the Bible does not teach that slavery is wrong, it condones it.


What do you think is the alternative? How do you determine right from wrong? How do you determine absolutes? I know we all have a moral code in us, but I think even that is a clear indication that God has somehow written His law in our inner being, and our conscious can only accuse or excuse us in our actions and thoughts.

It is very easy to determine right from wrong when it comes to the treatment of people. All people are equally human and as such are entitled to equal human rights. If I do something to you that violates your human rights that is morally wrong, the same goes for all the laws in the Bible that violate peoples human rights ... they are morally wrong. The Bible does not teach right from wrong it only teaches obedience to a god who demands worship.



I am sure that you know what the Bible says in Romans 1:18-23:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

I think that without God, all that evolution can ever offer us is "an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

I can only hope this softens your heart a little bit toward the God of the Bible,

dp

It's funny that you should say all evolution has to offer is "an image made like unto corruptible man" when it is the Bible that introduces the idea of man being corrupt. I don't believe there is anything innately corrupt about humans, granted people do bad things, but that has nothing to do with being born corrupt. The theory of evolution offers us an explanation of the diversity of life, not how life began.

One of the main reasons I do not believe the Biblegod is a true god is because of the horrendous manner in which the laws attributed to him violate the basic human rights of women and slaves ... this is a sure sign that he was created in the minds of biased primitive men who thought of themselves as superior.

Kind regards,
Rose

dpenn
08-30-2014, 10:17 PM
The huge problem is that it was the Biblegod who gave the Old Covenant, so why should a New Covenant be necessary unless the old was flawed? Why did the Biblegod allow slavery in the first place, when we know how much he hated it when the Hebrews were enslaved to the Egyptians? There is no sound reason why the Biblegod could not have ordained a law forbidding slavery, he didn't have a problem ordaining the new tradition of circumcision, or requiring a day of rest on the Sabbath, both things that had never been done before ... along with all the other 613 laws that the Hebrews had to follow.

Rose

Rose,

I will never be able to answer all of your questions adequately. But there are a few comments I can make regarding your blog. For reasons I don't know, but the Bible explains, God chose to work out salvation over a long period of time, including an Old Covenant of shadows and types, all in preparation of a New Covenant complete in Christ. Galatians uses an allegory of a school master leading us to maturity, and Hebrews speaks of a better Covenant built upon better promises. This means that the Old was good, but the new is better. And Moses was the administrator of the Old, whereas, Jesus, the Son of God, the Lord of the New. I don't know why God chose to use animal sacrifices, typifying the coming of the final perfect sacrifice of His Son. We maybe don't like it too much, but can you imagine what sacrifice the Son of God made, to come down from all eternity to be born as a boy, to be fully human, yet fully divine? Can you imagine what kind of love would allow Him to bear the sins and guilt and penalty of all those who will place their faith and trust in Him?

I don't know why God didn't design a law forbidding slavery, but I do know that He forbid His people to allow their children to pass through the fire, or to be caught up in all sorts of sexual immorality, or to be caught up in all the false worship of the gods that sanctioned all of these things. Many of them were very evil in their ways, and maybe that is why he endorsed slavery, as an only way to deal with a people given over to gross sins. We seem to be moving that way in our societies today, so maybe we will get to experience, like them, just what the results can become, of gross sin permeating all of society. And by the way, God was placing guidelines on slavery, whereas the heathen nations were all practising brutal forms of slavery as well. Much of the radical Muslim world today still practices horrendous forms of slavery.

Maybe it was much like divorce, Jesus said that God allowed it in Moses' day, but from the beginning it was not so. It was always intended that a man and woman would be joined to one another for life. That was the ideal, but God knowing the hardness of their hearts, permitted Moses to allow for a written divorce, but again with guidelines. Not all things were clarified in the Bible, so maybe it was something like that, a reluctant, necessary permission. I don't know, and I don't think anyone else knows for sure. I live my life in the light of the Gospel of Christ, under a New and better Covenant, built on better promises, and I have found God to be loving, faithful, merciful, forgiving, gracious, and kind to all who submit to His Sovereign Lordship, in all things.


There would be no need of that "balanced approach" if all forms of human ownership had been forbidden under the law from the beginning. If all people were treated with equal human rights, all the laws governing masters and slaves would be unnecessary. As I have said before, no matter how well a master treats his slave it is still a violation of a persons human rights to be "owned" by another person, and nowhere in the entire Bible is slavery condemned.

Rose

That would have been a nice dream, but that doesn't answer for Adam plunging the human race into a fallen state due to his sinful disobedience in the Garden of Eden. We could all wish that didn't happen, or in your case, probably deny it ever happened, but the Bible states clearly that as the reason for sin being a part of our existence in the first place. And how much we hate this mess at times, there has been a way provided to be delivered from it all and in time, to receive perfected immortal, glorified bodies to live in the gracious presence of God for all eternity. I personally know I can trust God because He has never failed me yet, even though I have failed Him more times than I care to say. I am truly sorry if that is not your experience, but I believe it to be true non the less. And as I said in my earlier blog, I think Paul was already laying the groundwork for brotherly love rising above and replacing slavery. You may choose to reject that, but you can't reject what he clearly said on behalf of Onesimus, the slave whom he went to bat for.


I agree that Jesus probably would have condemned abusive slavery, but I don't necessarily think that is the case with the teachings of Moses. In Exo.21 the law states that the only restriction on beating a slave is that you can't beat him to death ... now that's pretty bad!

Rose

There are a number of things in the OT that I find harsh, and I could wish they were different. One thing is clear though, and that is the whole world was doing the same, not just the people of God under Moses. And theirs truly was appalling and ruthless. As I said, maybe this was something like God's permitting divorce, as stated by Christ, but yet giving Moses clear guidelines for its practise if hardness of heart prevailed. I really can say no more regarding that, just that I find no alternative in their day and age anywhere in the writings of history.


Yes, the biblical time period is very far removed from our values and morals today, but the Biblegod is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever. So, why did the Biblegod give laws that violated the human rights of women and slaves? If slavery is morally wrong today, then it was equally wrong in biblical times.

Rose

Well, it might be that they needed to mature in the allowance of the slavery of their day, whereas there are many other things we need to mature in, for example, abortion. To me, that is far more offensive morally than slavery, since it does not even allow an unborn child the right to live. I heard a recent figure this week, that it is estimated that there have been 53 million abortions in the US since Roe v Wade in 1973. I don't believe abortion is the unforgiveable sin, and I genuinely feel sorry for many women that have become trapped in a situation they really didn't want. But for the child, it is life and death. And the Hebrews passage that says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, remains true to His immutable, eternal, Being, and it is a relief to know He even more true than the very laws of science or nature, because, as the pre-incarnate Son of God, Colossians, and Hebrews say that He is the Creator of all things, visible, and invisible, and by Him, all thinks consist. So whatever I don't understand from the Word, I trust that He will help me to understand, or give me the grace to persevere in faith, believing that all things work together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.


Also, just because Christians like George Whitefield preached against slavery in no wise means that Christianity taught against slavery, because it didn't ... the Bible does not teach that slavery is wrong, it condones it.

Rose

I think this was covered in my discussion of Philemon, even if it is not adequate for your liking.


It is very easy to determine right from wrong when it comes to the treatment of people. All people are equally human and as such are entitled to equal human rights. If I do something to you that violates your human rights that is morally wrong, the same goes for all the laws in the Bible that violate peoples human rights ... they are morally wrong. The Bible does not teach right from wrong it only teaches obedience to a god who demands worship.

Rose

You may think this is so obvious, but we have a world that operates as if that is not true. Just look around you in this world, and tell me where this is true. I know that Jesus told us to love one another, and even our enemies. In the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7, he taught not only the Beatitudes, which no human being could truly live out without His grace and power, but showed how the Oral Traditions of the Jews had corrupted the real meaning of the Law of God. Of course, this didn't end there, because since this time God's Word has fallen prey to even more Talmudic and Kabbalistic twisting of its truth, till it is almost unrecognisable. Of course the Bible teaches right from wrong, not only in the OT, but that is the teaching of the NT from one end to the other, but yes, it does command us in the ways of spiritual worship of God, and the benefits therein.


It's funny that you should say all evolution has to offer is "an image made like unto corruptible man" when it is the Bible that introduces the idea of man being corrupt. I don't believe there is anything innately corrupt about humans, granted people do bad things, but that has nothing to do with being born corrupt. The theory of evolution offers us an explanation of the diversity of life, not how life began.

Rose

I don't know how anyone could even dream that man is not corrupt. I think if you really consider this one, you will have to admit that people do bad things because they have a corrupt nature. Otherwise that would be impossible.


One of the main reasons I do not believe the Biblegod is a true god is because of the horrendous manner in which the laws attributed to him violate the basic human rights of women and slaves ... this is a sure sign that he was created in the minds of biased primitive men who thought of themselves as superior.

Rose

Well I have tried to give my response to the slavery issue. Being a man, I am not as equipped as I would like to tackle the women's issues you think are so bad. It is obvious that God ordained that man would be the head of the home, but the Bible speaks in many places where the woman rose above the man in numerous situations. You are probably aware that in the Garden of Eden, it was recorded that Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit, and she then gave to Adam, and he ate too. But it wasn't Eve that plunged the world into sin, it was Adam, because he was ordained to be the representative before God of the whole human race. That is why Romans 5 can say, in Adam all die, but in Christ, all are made alive. And although you intimate that women are abused, the women that followed after, and served Christ, in His days on earth, seemed to love Him every bit as much as the men did. Sure a wife is to submit to her husband, but a husband is also to love his wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for it. I don't know who has the tougher job. I simply think we are all adequately equipped and designed to enjoy the roles that God has ordained for us.

I hope this isn't too cliche an answer for you. I have to confess this is a bit of a joke here on my part, as I am a single man and have never been married, so you might rightly say, what do you know, and you know what? you might be right.

Anyways, Rose, like Richard, it is obvious you both have a real case against God, and I am not going to pass judgement on that. I am not God. But I do know that you really believe that these issues place a blemish on the character of the God of the Bible. So for now, I am just glad that we were able to speak our minds on a truly important subject. Thanks for the dialogue.

dp

Rose
08-31-2014, 11:37 AM
Rose,

I don't know why God didn't design a law forbidding slavery, but I do know that He forbid His people to allow their children to pass through the fire, or to be caught up in all sorts of sexual immorality, or to be caught up in all the false worship of the gods that sanctioned all of these things. Many of them were very evil in their ways, and maybe that is why he endorsed slavery, as an only way to deal with a people given over to gross sins. We seem to be moving that way in our societies today, so maybe we will get to experience, like them, just what the results can become, of gross sin permeating all of society. And by the way, God was placing guidelines on slavery, whereas the heathen nations were all practising brutal forms of slavery as well. Much of the radical Muslim world today still practices horrendous forms of slavery.

Hello Dpenn,

Haven't you ever wondered why the Biblegod couldn't give a law forbidding slavery, yet he could command the Hebrew soldiers to go and slaughter every man, woman and child or allow the soldiers to keep the virgin women alive and take them as captive wives? The gross immoralities that the Biblegod commanded the Hebrew soldiers to do is ever bit as horrendous as any of the actions the pagan societies were participating in.



Maybe it was much like divorce, Jesus said that God allowed it in Moses' day, but from the beginning it was not so. It was always intended that a man and woman would be joined to one another for life. That was the ideal, but God knowing the hardness of their hearts, permitted Moses to allow for a written divorce, but again with guidelines. Not all things were clarified in the Bible, so maybe it was something like that, a reluctant, necessary permission. I don't know, and I don't think anyone else knows for sure. I live my life in the light of the Gospel of Christ, under a New and better Covenant, built on better promises, and I have found God to be loving, faithful, merciful, forgiving, gracious, and kind to all who submit to His Sovereign Lordship, in all things.

Again, have you ever wondered why the Biblegod would permit men to divorce, yet not allow women the same privileged? If divorce was allowed because men's hearts were hard, wouldn't treating women with kindness and equality be a better approach than allowing men to rule over women and abuse them with their power?




There are a number of things in the OT that I find harsh, and I could wish they were different. One thing is clear though, and that is the whole world was doing the same, not just the people of God under Moses. And theirs truly was appalling and ruthless. As I said, maybe this was something like God's permitting divorce, as stated by Christ, but yet giving Moses clear guidelines for its practise if hardness of heart prevailed. I really can say no more regarding that, just that I find no alternative in their day and age anywhere in the writings of history.

Is it ever an acceptable excuse to allow bad actions because others are doing the same? I think not ... especially when it is a supposed god who is doing the allowing. Whether or not there were alternatives manifest in the world did not stop the Biblegod from imposing many unique doctrines upon the Hebrew people. Would you ever allow your child to beat up another kid because he didn't know any better? I hope not.


Well, it might be that they needed to mature in the allowance of the slavery of their day, whereas there are many other things we need to mature in, for example, abortion. To me, that is far more offensive morally than slavery, since it does not even allow an unborn child the right to live. I heard a recent figure this week, that it is estimated that there have been 53 million abortions in the US since Roe v Wade in 1973. I don't believe abortion is the unforgiveable sin, and I genuinely feel sorry for many women that have become trapped in a situation they really didn't want. But for the child, it is life and death. And the Hebrews passage that says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, remains true to His immutable, eternal, Being, and it is a relief to know He even more true than the very laws of science or nature, because, as the pre-incarnate Son of God, Colossians, and Hebrews say that He is the Creator of all things, visible, and invisible, and by Him, all thinks consist. So whatever I don't understand from the Word, I trust that He will help me to understand, or give me the grace to persevere in faith, believing that all things work together for the good for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

Like I said before, it is never acceptable to allow wrong behavior even if the perpetrators are to immature to know better. It seems to be a consistent justification for Christians to use the tired excuse of god allowing people to do bad thing because they didn't know any better.



Well I have tried to give my response to the slavery issue. Being a man, I am not as equipped as I would like to tackle the women's issues you think are so bad. It is obvious that God ordained that man would be the head of the home, but the Bible speaks in many places where the woman rose above the man in numerous situations. You are probably aware that in the Garden of Eden, it was recorded that Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit, and she then gave to Adam, and he ate too. But it wasn't Eve that plunged the world into sin, it was Adam, because he was ordained to be the representative before God of the whole human race. That is why Romans 5 can say, in Adam all die, but in Christ, all are made alive. And although you intimate that women are abused, the women that followed after, and served Christ, in His days on earth, seemed to love Him every bit as much as the men did. Sure a wife is to submit to her husband, but a husband is also to love his wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for it. I don't know who has the tougher job. I simply think we are all adequately equipped and designed to enjoy the roles that God has ordained for us.

I hope this isn't too cliche an answer for you. I have to confess this is a bit of a joke here on my part, as I am a single man and have never been married, so you might rightly say, what do you know, and you know what? you might be right.

One doesn't have to be a woman to see the extreme male-bias that is rampant throughout Scripture ... I wrote a long article on my blog titled Gender Bias in the Bible (http://godandbutterfly.net/the-male-bias-of-the-bible/the-biblical-male-mindset/), which you might be interested in reading to get you up to speed on all the unjust and biased treatment of women in the Bible.


Anyways, Rose, like Richard, it is obvious you both have a real case against God, and I am not going to pass judgement on that. I am not God. But I do know that you really believe that these issues place a blemish on the character of the God of the Bible. So for now, I am just glad that we were able to speak our minds on a truly important subject. Thanks for the dialogue.

dp

I appreciate your willingness to speak rationally about these important issues. :) What matters most to me is treating people with equality and kindness ... this is something that I find sorely lacking in the Bible. For the most part I do not find that the Biblegod acts with kindness and this to me is extremely troubling. No matter how hard a persons heart is, kindness is always the best tool to break through, but that is not the method used by the Biblegod. If I can view the actions of the Biblegod's unkindness from a higher moral level, where do my morals come from?

These are just a few of the reasons why I believe that the Biblegod was made up in the minds of men, who created him after their own image and likeness.

Kind regards,
Rose

dpenn
09-01-2014, 11:01 AM
I appreciate your willingness to speak rationally about these important issues. :) What matters most to me is treating people with equality and kindness ... this is something that I find sorely lacking in the Bible. For the most part I do not find that the Biblegod acts with kindness and this to me is extremely troubling. No matter how hard a persons heart is, kindness is always the best tool to break through, but that is not the method used by the Biblegod. If I can view the actions of the Biblegod's unkindness from a higher moral level, where do my morals come from?

These are just a few of the reasons why I believe that the Biblegod was made up in the minds of men, who created him after their own image and likeness.

Kind regards,
Rose

Rose,

Most of my responses have been to you and Richard, and we have had some very open discussions regarding what we believe and why. And I have already responded to most of your blog earlier. So I am merely going to try and take this in a slightly different direction. I have repeatedly asked, what is the alternative? As a matter of fact that was my first question when I signed up as a member on this blogsite.

If Christianity is just another religion made up in the minds of men, then why was He hated so much by the ruling religious leaders of His day? The Bible tells you why. And why were the Christians hated and persecuted so much, not just in the early Church, but down through the ages, including the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church in the Inquisition, past and present. The Bible tells you why. I am not talking about pseudo-Christians from the lunatic fringe, pseudo-prophet and pseudo-apostles like Todd Bentley, or Benny Hinn, or Kenneth Copeland, or Kenneth Haggin, or bla, bla, bla. I am talking about some of the most loving and caring Christians down through the ages, who have advanced all kinds of scientific and social benefits in this world, who live according to the biblical model of the beatitudes and sermon on the mount of Matthew 5-7? Hey, do you want to see the most insane version of the lunatic fringe today? Just go on Kim Clement's website and watch a few of his video clips. He makes these other nut jobs look like choir boys (and just for you, choir girls, in the likes of Joyce Meyer and Beth Ross). And it is obvious that all of his staged fulfilled prophecies are merely a sick and useful tool of a Jewish/Zionistic/Vaticano Globalist launch of the most evil NWO imaginable. But as evil as I think these people are, and even though I do believe many of them are deluded and deceived, many are obviously knowing charlatans, I simply know they are false teachers, preachers, prophets, and apostles. How do I know that? The Bible tells me so. There are just too many other good Bible teachers and leaders, and lowly servants, that live out the solid Gospel message throughout their lives, and also over the course of history.

Atheistic evolutionism falls in flames to the ground, unable to answer for all of the amazingly designed features of life. There has never been a scientific answer for how life could arise from non-life, add to that the wonders of mathematics, logic, moral consciousness, beauty, information, emotional interaction, senses, etc, etc, etc. Oh sure, they can steal God's creation and mess with it, like cloning, or DNA manipulation, or brag about how their pseudo-science can answer all of known reality. But usually they have to resort to lies and deceptions in the fossil record, or force professing Christians, or even simply Intelligent Design adherents out of centers of higher learning. Van Til aptly described the delusion of the humanist mind, when he likened them to a child that has grown enough, so that sitting on his or her father's lap, has finally matured enough to reach up and slap that father in the face. I don't mean this to be condescending or disrespectful Rose, but keeping with this analogy, Whose face have you and Richard been slapping lately?

Do you really think that humanism has the answer? Can you trust the social engineer of our day? What about a Ray Kurzweil who thinks we are on the brink of a singularity that will see humans merge with machines, and usher in eternal life. Or when asked, do you believe there is a God, answers, not yet. Just watch the u-tube version of his documentary "Transcendent Man". It is one of the most pitiable and sad things I have ever observed. What about all the Globalists who write openly about eliminating 7 billion people in order for their NWO to succeed? These are not dim-witted religious people, these are your Fabian Socialists, your humanists for a better tomorrow. If not the standard of the Bible, by what Standard would you suggest we live and move and have our being? You might have a nice dream world for your inner clique of friends, and don't think I am saying there is anything wrong with that. But how can a humanist choose right from wrong? We have tried this over and over, and it always ends miserably, and with massive bloodshed, the type of bloodshed you despise.

These modern day Socialists, these great planners for a better tomorrow, fully intend on using their new Genetic, Robotic, Artificial Intelligence, and Nano Technologies on a lesser humanity. If this were simply used to enhance life, in all of its vast spectrum, that would be wonderful. But they are messing with DNA, splicing animal, plant, and human genetic information. They don't have a clue where they are going with this. But God be damned, they insist on doing it, and don't dare try to stop them. If you aren't up to date on what is going on here, just google Chuck Missler and Tom Horn's 2 part presentation of this at a 2011 Conference, seen here: (https://archive.org/details/TranshumanismTheAgeOfTheHybrid).

I am simply not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Christianity has given us many wonders to behold, and great hope on into the future, and beyond, into eternity. You always seem to ignore that God so loved the world, and gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. I can only hope that you someday see that you do not have a real answer to this. And in saying that I certainly am not suggesting that nihilism is a true philosophical position after all. It might be an option, but it is far from the truth. Our hearts demand it, logic demands it, human intelligence demands it, and I believe God reveals it, and the Bible proclaims it.

I hope I am not coming across as too forceful with this. I am merely trying to suggest that the alternative does not exist. You might wish there were an alternative, but I don't think you have a real working alternative, one that encompasses truth and reality.

dp

Rose
09-01-2014, 12:36 PM
Rose,

Most of my responses have been to you and Richard, and we have had some very open discussions regarding what we believe and why. And I have already responded to most of your blog earlier. So I am merely going to try and take this in a slightly different direction. I have repeatedly asked, what is the alternative? As a matter of fact that was my first question when I signed up as a member on this blogsite.

Hello Dpenn

Does there need to be an alternative to the Bible? I don't think so ... unless you want to consider the scientific method as an alternative.


If Christianity is just another religion made up in the minds of men, then why was He hated so much by the ruling religious leaders of His day? The Bible tells you why. And why were the Christians hated and persecuted so much, not just in the early Church, but down through the ages, including the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church in the Inquisition, past and present. The Bible tells you why. I am not talking about pseudo-Christians from the lunatic fringe, pseudo-prophet and pseudo-apostles like Todd Bentley, or Benny Hinn, or Kenneth Copeland, or Kenneth Haggin, or bla, bla, bla. I am talking about some of the most loving and caring Christians down through the ages, who have advanced all kinds of scientific and social benefits in this world, who live according to the biblical model of the beatitudes and sermon on the mount of Matthew 5-7? Hey, do you want to see the most insane version of the lunatic fringe today? Just go on Kim Clement's website and watch a few of his video clips. He makes these other nut jobs look like choir boys (and just for you, choir girls, in the likes of Joyce Meyer and Beth Ross). And it is obvious that all of his staged fulfilled prophecies are merely a sick and useful tool of a Jewish/Zionistic/Vaticano Globalist launch of the most evil NWO imaginable. But as evil as I think these people are, and even though I do believe many of them are deluded and deceived, many are obviously knowing charlatans, I simply know they are false teachers, preachers, prophets, and apostles. How do I know that? The Bible tells me so. There are just too many other good Bible teachers and leaders, and lowly servants, that live out the solid Gospel message throughout their lives, and also over the course of history.

Jesus was no more hated than any other religious leader, or for that matter he was no more hated than the recipients of Christian hatred during the Crusades and Inquisition. People have been hating on each other since time immemorial.



Atheistic evolutionism falls in flames to the ground, unable to answer for all of the amazingly designed features of life. There has never been a scientific answer for how life could arise from non-life, add to that the wonders of mathematics, logic, moral consciousness, beauty, information, emotional interaction, senses, etc, etc, etc. Oh sure, they can steal God's creation and mess with it, like cloning, or DNA manipulation, or brag about how their pseudo-science can answer all of known reality. But usually they have to resort to lies and deceptions in the fossil record, or force professing Christians, or even simply Intelligent Design adherents out of centers of higher learning. Van Til aptly described the delusion of the humanist mind, when he likened them to a child that has grown enough, so that sitting on his or her father's lap, has finally matured enough to reach up and slap that father in the face. I don't mean this to be condescending or disrespectful Rose, but keeping with this analogy, Whose face have you and Richard been slapping lately?

Of course all the questions have not been answered yet, evolution is a very young science, but considering its age, the questions it has answered have been astounding. The progress that has been made in the field of genetics is amazing and just think DNA was only discovered around 60 years ago!

The problem with the Bible's explanation of creation, is that it is frozen in a primitive time period when scientific knowledge was not yet available ... and the beauty of science is that it is a fluid field that can change with evidence and knowledge, it is not locked-in to a specific doctrine given by a primitive man-made deity.


Do you really think that humanism has the answer? Can you trust the social engineer of our day? What about a Ray Kurzweil who thinks we are on the brink of a singularity that will see humans merge with machines, and usher in eternal life. Or when asked, do you believe there is a God, answers, not yet. Just watch the u-tube version of his documentary "Transcendent Man". It is one of the most pitiable and sad things I have ever observed. What about all the Globalists who write openly about eliminating 7 billion people in order for their NWO to succeed? These are not dim-witted religious people, these are your Fabian Socialists, your humanists for a better tomorrow. If not the standard of the Bible, by what Standard would you suggest we live and move and have our being? You might have a nice dream world for your inner clique of friends, and don't think I am saying there is anything wrong with that. But how can a humanist choose right from wrong? We have tried this over and over, and it always ends miserably, and with massive bloodshed, the type of bloodshed you despise.

Humanism is not meant to be an answer, it just describes the natural way things are. Just because the primitive men who wrote the Bible needed a god to explain all the unknowns, does not mean their god exists. A god like the Biblegod is not necessary to explain the workings of the universe, even though there could be some intelligent force behind the universe. The Biblegod is primitive and barbaric and clearly represents the mindset of superstitious men ... if anything, the Biblegod detracts from the magnificence and awesomeness of the universe, with his bloody slaughterings presented as the solution to all of humanities problems.


I am simply not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Christianity has given us many wonders to behold, and great hope on into the future, and beyond, into eternity. You always seem to ignore that God so loved the world, and gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. I can only hope that you someday see that you do not have a real answer to this. And in saying that I certainly am not suggesting that nihilism is a true philosophical position after all. It might be an option, but it is far from the truth. Our hearts demand it, logic demands it, human intelligence demands it, and I believe God reveals it, and the Bible proclaims it.

I hope I am not coming across as too forceful with this. I am merely trying to suggest that the alternative does not exist. You might wish there were an alternative, but I don't think you have a real working alternative, one that encompasses truth and reality.

dp

No worries about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, because there ain't no baby in there. :lol: It is clear after much searching and filtering the murky waste filled water of the Bible, there is no baby to be found.

I am happy that you are openly sharing your opinions, so there is no worries about being to forceful ... please continue ... :pop2:

Once again, just because the Bible is shown to be a creation of the minds of primitive men does not mean there needs to be an alternative ... just keep an open mind. :)


Kind regards,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
09-01-2014, 12:37 PM
Rose,

Most of my responses have been to you and Richard, and we have had some very open discussions regarding what we believe and why. And I have already responded to most of your blog earlier. So I am merely going to try and take this in a slightly different direction. I have repeatedly asked, what is the alternative? As a matter of fact that was my first question when I signed up as a member on this blogsite.

What is the alternative? Science.



If Christianity is just another religion made up in the minds of men, then why was He hated so much by the ruling religious leaders of His day?

Why was Joseph Smith hated? Why was Muhammad hated? It seems to be a common theme in religious cults.



The Bible tells you why. And why were the Christians hated and persecuted so much, not just in the early Church, but down through the ages, including the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church in the Inquisition, past and present. The Bible tells you why. I am not talking about pseudo-Christians from the lunatic fringe, pseudo-prophet and pseudo-apostles like Todd Bentley, or Benny Hinn, or Kenneth Copeland, or Kenneth Haggin, or bla, bla, bla. I am talking about some of the most loving and caring Christians down through the ages, who have advanced all kinds of scientific and social benefits in this world, who live according to the biblical model of the beatitudes and sermon on the mount of Matthew 5-7?

I have no idea what you are talking about. The Pope is called "Papa" and is loved and revered by over a billion Catholics throughout the world, and many Protests and secular leaders respect him too.

The real question is why religious people hate atheists so much. They lie about us. They are brainwashed to believe that atheists are immoral selfish degenerates. And when religious rulers had the power, they could murder atheists (and other "heretics") at will, in public.

It seems to me that you have a very biased view in favor of your own religion.



Hey, do you want to see the most insane version of the lunatic fringe today? Just go on Kim Clement's website and watch a few of his video clips. He makes these other nut jobs look like choir boys (and just for you, choir girls, in the likes of Joyce Meyer and Beth Ross). And it is obvious that all of his staged fulfilled prophecies are merely a sick and useful tool of a Jewish/Zionistic/Vaticano Globalist launch of the most evil NWO imaginable.

Well now ... that's interesting. To my eyes, your theory about "Jewish/Zionistic/Vaticano Gloablist NWO" sounds at least as crazy as anything Kim Clement has to say. Please take no offense, as none is intended. I'm just trying to let you know what your ideas look like "from the outside."



But as evil as I think these people are, and even though I do believe many of them are deluded and deceived, many are obviously knowing charlatans, I simply know they are false teachers, preachers, prophets, and apostles. How do I know that? The Bible tells me so. There are just too many other good Bible teachers and leaders, and lowly servants, that live out the solid Gospel message throughout their lives, and also over the course of history.

No one needs the Bible to know that those people are deluded, deceived, and/or knowing charlatans. And the truth is, all their followers believe themselves to also be devoted Bible believers, so "believing the Bible" does not help free people from delusion, but rather enslaves them to it.



Atheistic evolutionism falls in flames to the ground, unable to answer for all of the amazingly designed features of life.

I'm sorry, but your assertion strikes me as absurd and based fundamentally on a complete ignorance of the relevant science.



There has never been a scientific answer for how life could arise from non-life,

So what? Science is very young. We discovered DNA less than a hundred years ago. And religious superstitions obviously supply no answers! They teach blatant falsehoods, like the idea that the earth was created a mere 6000 years ago, etc.




add to that the wonders of mathematics, logic, moral consciousness, beauty, information, emotional interaction, senses, etc, etc, etc.

The idea of "God" does nothing to explain those ideas. Logic is an articulation of reality. Animals show signs of moral consciousness. None of those ideas give any reason to believe in a god.



Oh sure, they can steal God's creation and mess with it, like cloning, or DNA manipulation, or brag about how their pseudo-science can answer all of known reality.

So now you are calling real science "pseudo?" That makes no sense at all. It sounds delusional to me.



But usually they have to resort to lies and deceptions in the fossil record, or force professing Christians, or even simply Intelligent Design adherents out of centers of higher learning.

Those are the kinds of lies typically spewed out by demonstrably corrupt creationists. I had no idea you had let yourself be so deceived by them.



Van Til aptly described the delusion of the humanist mind, when he likened them to a child that has grown enough, so that sitting on his or her father's lap, has finally matured enough to reach up and slap that father in the face. I don't mean this to be condescending or disrespectful Rose, but keeping with this analogy, Whose face have you and Richard been slapping lately?

That is an absurd analogy. There is no evidence of any kind that there is a "Fatherly God" who has taught anyone anything. On the contrary, your "God" delighted in letting his followers die horrible deaths even as they begged him for healing. Ignorant humans had to learn science on their own, and when we did, we developed medicines that now heal millions of people that God would have let die. Van Til's analogy makes sense only to those are so deluded as to believe there really is a "Loving Father God" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



Do you really think that humanism has the answer?

I don't know what you think "humanism" means, so I can't answer. But I can say that humans are obviously on our own. When people had no choice but to "trust in God" we died like flies. Now we can use our evolved brains to free ourselves from the religious delusions that kept us in death and bondage for thousands of years.



I am simply not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Christianity has given us many wonders to behold, and great hope on into the future, and beyond, into eternity. You always seem to ignore that God so loved the world, and gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

I'm sorry, but it's a little difficult to see the "love" in the Gospel that preaches eternal suffering and/or death to everyone outside your cult.



I hope I am not coming across as too forceful with this. I am merely trying to suggest that the alternative does not exist. You might wish there were an alternative, but I don't think you have a real working alternative, one that encompasses truth and reality.

dp
No worries my friend. Conversation is best when people lay their cards on the table. Case in point: the things you claim are "truth and reality" look like wild delusions to me. To compound that with your assertion that there is "no alternative" to such unfounded beliefs really puts it over the top of "crazy." I trust you will not think I am being "too forceful" with this. It's just what I honestly believe.

Great chatting!

Richard



As for your idea that there is no "alternative" -

duxrow
09-01-2014, 03:23 PM
What is the alternative? Science.

Why was Joseph Smith hated? Why was Muhammad hated? It seems to be a common theme in religious cults.
-Why hated? They both claimed a NEW gospel based on Angel-speak, despite the Published Bible saying "Don't add or take-away", and despite Jesus being "First and Last" Rev 1:11, plus Gal 1:8 " But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed".

:sEm_ImSorry: Naturally IMO, all Bible believers would see Mormons and Muslims as attacking the Scripture and undermining Christianity with their Moroni Baloney and koran plaigarism.

dpenn
09-01-2014, 05:18 PM
What is the alternative? Science.






There has never been a scientific answer for how life could arise from non-life,



So what? Science is very young. We discovered DNA less than a hundred years ago. And religious superstitions obviously supply no answers! They teach blatant falsehoods, like the idea that the earth was created a mere 6000 years ago, etc.



Richard,

But you must admit, that after hundreds years of scientific intense attempts to show how life could form naturally from non-life, and coming up dumbfounded, makes one wonder why or how atheistic evolutionists can call this real science. To my observation, the real science is their attempts to create life naturally, with all the best minds of the ages, but failing. You cannot prove from my blogs that I say one negative thing against real science. Don't you find it a bit suspicious that there isn't even a hint at how life could have evolved naturally from non-life.


I have no idea what you are talking about. The Pope is called "Papa" and is loved and revered by over a billion Catholics throughout the world, and many Protests and secular leaders respect him too.


I had said, And why were the Christians hated and persecuted so much, not just in the early Church, but down through the ages, including the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church in the Inquisition, past and present.






You mean that you will whitewash the Inquisition and other severe actions of the RCC throughout history? You said in an earlier blog that you once believed the "real thing" of the Gospel. At the time, with the Bible as your standard, you must have believed the basic Christian doctrines which were totally denounced and anathematized by the Council of Trent, and many papal bulls, from the hands of infallible popes. You told me you shoot square, and don't throw curves. This one seems more like a wild pitch.



The real question is why religious people hate atheists so much. They lie about us. They are brainwashed to believe that atheists are immoral selfish degenerates. And when religious rulers had the power, they could murder atheists (and other "heretics") at will, in public.



I would probably agree with you that religious people probably do hate atheists a lot. But Jesus said that genuine Christians are commanded to love their neighbours as themselves, and that extends even to their enemies. I can only answer your accusation from the perspective of a Bible believing Christian.


It seems to me that you have a very biased view in favor of your own religion.



On a lighter note: "I highly resemble that"!


Well now ... that's interesting. To my eyes, your theory about "Jewish/Zionistic/Vaticano Gloablist NWO" sounds at least as crazy as anything Kim Clement has to say. Please take no offense, as none is intended. I'm just trying to let you know what your ideas look like "from the outside."



You may have a point there. It is hard to prove something of this magnitude. I have studied his prophecies and followed all the videos of his ministry over the past few years, until they made these only available to "Royal Guard" members, or "Friends of Abraham" members, something I wasn't prepared to become. I still monitor that ministry, online Saturdays and Wednesdays, and find it more out there than Copeland, and Hinn (did you know he also prophesied over Hinn, saying God's choice to replace Oral Roberts when he died?). This guy travels to Paris, Israel, Ukraine, and Ferguson, to prophesy the Word of God, equating himself often, like David, Elijah, or other key biblical characters. And the shocking thing is that many of his predictions come true. But if you are plugged into a powerful kabal of ruling elite, his highly political and military prophecies can be made to appear as legitimate. You can call me crazy, but I am out there as saying he is a quack and a charlatan and a false prophet.


No one needs the Bible to know that those people are deluded, deceived, and/or knowing charlatans. And the truth is, all their followers believe themselves to also be devoted Bible believers, so "believing the Bible" does not help free people from delusion, but rather enslaves them to it.



Well, I know you don't accept the Bible, but Paul and Jesus did clearly warn against false christs and false prophets, and that the end deception would be so severe, that even if possible, the very elect would be deceived. I don't know the time frames they were referring to, but there sure have been some false teachers, preachers, prophets and apostles in our day. I know this feeds your argument, but whether you don't like to admit it, this also gives credibility to the Word of God.




I'm sorry, but your assertion strikes me as absurd and based fundamentally on a complete ignorance of the relevant science ... So now you are calling real science "pseudo?" That makes no sense at all. It sounds delusional to me.



Atheistic evolutionism falls in flames to the ground, unable to answer for all of the amazingly designed features of life.





How do you answer for all left-handed amino acids from DNA, or all right-handed sugars from RNA? Both occur both left and right naturally. And it takes proteins to created amino acids, and amino acids to create proteins. There isn't anything that can be created from scratch, naturally, yet for some reason, these kind of statements are absurd, etc, as stated above. No one has ever shown scientifically how stars could form in nature, as gravitational forces are overcome by Hoyles Gas law to counteract any possibility of matter collapsing into stars from hydrogen and helium. And it seems like all disciplines of natural science, from physics, thermodynamics, to chemistry, to name a few, all behave according the the 2nd law of thermodynamics, sometimes just referred to as the law of entropy, but for some unknown and unscientific reason, entropy is ignored when considering life, with all of its order, design, and information, forming from non-life. So call me crazy, or deluded, but natural science does not have even a hint of an answer for even these few observations from real science. So who really leaps into the arms of pseudo-science?


The idea of "God" does nothing to explain those ideas. Logic is an articulation of reality. Animals show signs of moral consciousness. None of those ideas give any reason to believe in a god.


add to that the wonders of mathematics, logic, moral consciousness, beauty, information, emotional interaction, senses, etc, etc, etc.





When you say that the idea of God does nothing to explain those ideas, you maybe don't want to believe this, but if God exists, and is exactly what the Bible defines Him to be, it does everything to explain this, whereas, naturalistic science alone comes up wanting. And please don't say that I am ignorant of real science again. I am fully aware of much of the limitations of natural science.


Those are the kinds of lies typically spewed out by demonstrably corrupt creationists. I had no idea you had let yourself be so deceived by them.



Did you ever watch the documentary movie, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed? If not, you can watch it on Youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

You might even be interested in the interview of Ben Stein by RC Sproul regarding this subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqfJQir60yI (you have to play with the sound a bit here, as the audio isn't balanced very well).


Van Til's analogy makes sense only to those are so deluded as to believe there really is a "Loving Father God" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



Of course, Van Til was a Christian apologist and teacher of philosophy. You may choose to downplay his analogy, but that doesn't necessarily make him wrong.


I can say that humans are obviously on our own. When people had no choice but to "trust in God" we died like flies. Now we can use our evolved brains to free ourselves from the religious delusions that kept us in death and bondage for thousands of years.



What makes you so sure that our advancements in scientific knowledge and discoveries is not all as a result of the sovereign good pleasure of a loving God. But that doesn't rule out that some of the toddler scientists aren't grown up enough to sit on their father's lap and try to slap Him in the face. I am sure that you are aware that even Daniel, from the OT, prophesied that knowledge would be greatly increased and people would be going to and fro. I don't want to make too much of this, but it certainly fits. It is my understanding that many of the greatest discoveries in science, over the past 300+ years, especially, were the direct result of professing and practicing Christians. I have no idea what the percentage break-down would be, but you can't claim all for the atheists.


I'm sorry, but it's a little difficult to see the "love" in the Gospel that preaches eternal suffering and/or death to everyone outside your cult.



Well, if Jesus Christ really did die for the sins of all those who would place their faith and trust in His atoning sacrifice, I consider that pretty loving, especially when it is by grace through faith alone in Christ alone. And to think that God has given us His Word as a guide for all of life and practice, and that His Holy Spirit is given to indwell each believer to guide us in our prays and guide us in all truth, it seems to me that can only be possible if God is love.

I thank God that I can plum the depths of science to the best of my ability, but still worship Him for all His good gifts, and realise that all truth is God's truth. That is different from saying everything is God's truth. Some things are sinful, and some things are illogical, and some things called science are actually not science at all. But one thing is certain in Christianity, and that is that all of science was created by God and for His glory. It is only a trustworthy God can create trustworthy science with trustworthy laws, and all related intellectual disciplines.

I do appreciate your pushing me to the limit at times Richard. If my faith is real, it needs to stand the test.

dp

dpenn
09-01-2014, 06:19 PM
Richard,

On a lighter note, I am curious how you pronounce your last name.

Is it McGough as in enough, or

Is it McGough as in through, or

Is it McGough as in now, or

Is it McGough as in thaw, or

something else?

Respectfully,

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
09-01-2014, 06:36 PM
Richard,

On a lighter note, I am curious how you pronounce your last name.

Is it McGough as in enough, or

Is it McGough as in through, or

Is it McGough as in now, or

Is it McGough as in thaw, or

something else?

Respectfully,

dp
Rhymes with "few" or "through" as you suggested. :winking0071:

Richard Amiel McGough
09-01-2014, 07:38 PM
I do appreciate your pushing me to the limit at times Richard. If my faith is real, it needs to stand the test.

I wanted to start with your final comment because it captures the essence of what our conversation is really all about.



But you must admit, that after hundreds years of scientific intense attempts to show how life could form naturally from non-life, and coming up dumbfounded, makes one wonder why or how atheistic evolutionists can call this real science. To my observation, the real science is their attempts to create life naturally, with all the best minds of the ages, but failing. You cannot prove from my blogs that I say one negative thing against real science. Don't you find it a bit suspicious that there isn't even a hint at how life could have evolved naturally from non-life.

I do believe you are overstating your case just a tad. Is it really accurate to say that there have been "hundreds years of scientific intense attempts to show how life could form naturally from non-life?" As you know, DNA was discovered less than a hundred years ago. Obviously, no "attempts," no matter how "intense" or "scientific," could have had any hope of success before that discovery.

I also must say that your use of inflated rhetoric like "dumbfounded" and "all the best minds of the ages" doesn't help make your case more convincing to me. Such language echoes religious fundamentalism, not serious science.

Your rejection of evolution, the central organizing principle of biology, as other than "real science" makes you sound like a crank.

You say you have a blog? Great! I would love to read it. It should help me get a better idea of where you are coming from. Could you please post a link?



And it seems like all disciplines of natural science, from physics, thermodynamics, to chemistry, to name a few, all behave according the the 2nd law of thermodynamics, sometimes just referred to as the law of entropy, but for some unknown and unscientific reason, entropy is ignored when considering life, with all of its order, design, and information, forming from non-life. So call me crazy, or deluded, but natural science does not have even a hint of an answer for even these few observations from real science. So who really leaps into the arms of pseudo-science?

Entropy is not "ignored when considering life." Where did you get that idea? The Second Law powers life. We eat low entropy food, excrete high entropy shit, and live off the difference.

Likewise, the Second Law drives evolution, which is as natural, expected, and inevitable as a rock rolling down a hill. Here is an excellent video that explains the science very well which I posted in the thread How Beliefs Resist Change: Christianity and Cognitive Science (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science&p=52571#post52571).





If there is an explosion in a junk yard, and after the smoke cleared, there stood a Boeing 747, would you sail the friendly skies in it?

This is one of the most common of the many creationist fallacies.

Evolution is NOTHING like an "explosion in a junk yard." The fact that creationists use this argument merely exposes their inexcusable ignorance.

Evolution is driven by "chance" just like thermodynamics. Evolution explores the "phase space" of all possible genetic patterns. The environment at time t naturally selects the forms most fit for that environment. Nothing could be more natural or expected. Evolution is just the operation of natural law.

Here is a debate where Dr. Rainbow gives very valuable explanation of what the actual science of evolution says.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tJ-ryHrTrA

The good stuff starts @32 minutes in. He made a graphic that shows how the "evolution machine" which runs 24/7/365 while exploring the "evolutionary phase space."

If you understand his explanation you will understand why the validity of evolution is as certain as the second law of thermodynamics.


It would be great if you would watch the video so we can discuss the "real science" of evolution.



Did you ever watch the documentary movie, Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed? If not, you can watch it on Youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5EPymcWp-g

Yes, I've see that. Have you seen the many refutations such as this one?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3QHsUS3Lp4

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-01-2014, 09:09 PM
I just got this email which explained why the Bible Wheel is fundamentally flawed:


Greetings Mr. Richard:

Your hypothesis and premise of the “Bible Wheel” is most intriguing. I appreciate your diligence and research.

However, I must discount your layout and order concerning the Bible wheel.

(1) To truly reference the Biblical texts, you MUST follow the Biblical order of the Tanakh not the Christian order…Tanahk was first, Christian scripture was second. For example, book 8, 1stinner ring, should be Sh’mu’el Alef (Samuel 1), not Rut (Ruth), book 12 should be Y’sha’yahu (Isaiah), not 2 Kings…etc. Since your initial alignment of Biblical books is in error, your entire alignment is in error, thus rendering all comparisons to your defined three different books, in error. Tanakh has three orders to it…(a) Torah, (b) Nevi’im (Prophets), (c) K’tuvim (writings) and does not follow the errant Christian canon order or derogatory Biblical division naming.

(2) It is most unfortunate that your derogatory name of the true Bible, namely “old testament”, is quite offensive. It is offensive to those of us who believe that Y’shua is the Messiah, since Y’shua never used this type of derogatory name referring to scripture nor did any of the writers of Tanakh ever elude to this type of derogatory theology. It clearly shows a profound and unfortunate bias against Y’hovah and His chosen writers of Tanakh. The continued reference to “old testament” is an affront to Y’hovah because it implies by the very name that the Tanakh is irrelevant, thus showing the continued Christian bias against Y’hovah and His holy word.

(3) The continued use of “law” to describe Torah is profoundly disturbing. Y’hovah clearly has His very own writers refer to His first five written books as Torah, not law. Law is an unfortunate term, provided by the translators of the Septuagint and absolutely promoted & propagated by Christian writers & theologians concerning the supremacy of Christian scripture over Tanakh. The use of this term “law” has a profoundly negative effect in our current shallow, theological minds. The question is, does the term “law” truly, better and more fully describe ‘Torah” or does the true name “Torah” as provided by Y’hovah BEST describe “Torah”? If “Torah” best describes “Torah”, why not simply use the name as provided by Y’hovah? Why keep promoting the terribly errant Christian theological term & thought, “law”?

(4) Your use of Gematria is most interesting. To follow the Hebrew Biblical number value method concerning Tanakh but promote the supremacy of Christian scripture over Tanakh is most confusing and hypocritical. This whole system was in place long before the nativity of Y’shua and Christian scripture. If one is going to follow a Hebrew/Jewish method in one instance, then all Hebrew/Jewish methodology must be followed. Thus, refusing to follow the obvious Christian bias would be a necessity.

As Y’shua states: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish but to [completely] fill-up.”

Y’hovah’s Blessings,

<name withheld>

dpenn
09-01-2014, 10:26 PM
I do believe you are overstating your case just a tad. Is it really accurate to say that there have been "hundreds years of scientific intense attempts to show how life could form naturally from non-life?" As you know, DNA was discovered less than a hundred years ago. Obviously, no "attempts," no matter how "intense" or "scientific," could have had any hope of success before that discovery.

I also must say that your use of inflated rhetoric like "dumbfounded" and "all the best minds of the ages" doesn't help make your case more convincing to me. Such language echoes religious fundamentalism, not serious science.

Richard

Richard, as if you don't use hyperbole or other light figures of speech to get your point across. This is merely similar, if I told you once, I told you a thousand times. It isn't the main part of the argument, and I think you know that. Please don't strain at every gnat. That doesn't help your argument either. Well with geologic column and genetics in the late 1700's and early 1800's, to Darwin's book in 1859, it has been a pretty constant attack on Creation and the Bible. So let me revise that a bit, to 200+ years from 300+ years. There was a lot going on in this debate before the discovery of DNA.


Your rejection of evolution, the central organizing principle of biology, as other than "real science" makes you sound like a crank.

Richard

I know that I accept change that makes diversity with kinds possible, also accepting natural selection as an observable scientific fact. But unfortunately, the evolutionist camp skips a few scientific steps of verification, and pretends (yes, I did say pretends) that this proves evolution of life from non-life (never observed, and never proven scientifically, it always is assumed by faith), or the big bang, (never observed, and never proven, but always assumed by faith), how stars, and thus planets, etc, could have been formed out of a point of singularity, as provable Hoyle's law of gases disproves this experimentally, also the formation of the elements of the periodic table from banged out matter some 14 or so billion years ago (always assumed and taken by faith). There are all kinds of properties of spiral galaxies, including temperatures that should have cooled much below what exists, still existing over billions of years, contradicting these kind of years. Add to this a total lack of missing links in the massive fossil record, where complex forms of life just appear suddenly in the geologic record. And then add to this, the total misinfo and disinfo, and many cases of outright fraud and deception in the skeletal remains of faked ape-human finds (so many by so-called scientists that is laughable).

How can this make me sound like a crank? Doesn't some of this make the other evolutionists' deception sound more like cranks? If they have science, show me the science, don't con me into pretending they have proven what has evaded them so far as unprovable.


You say you have a blog? Great! I would love to read it. It should help me get a better idea of where you are coming from. Could you please post a link?

Richard

I am referring to previous things discussed on this blog.


Entropy is not "ignored when considering life." Where did you get that idea? The Second Law powers life. We eat low entropy food, excrete high entropy shit, and live off the difference.

Richard

Of course, we are designed to take in energy from the sun, by eating plants, or animals that eat the plants, but this is all after the existence of life. We are fearfully and wonderfully made, as God set the whole process in motion, so that we can grow uphill, till we all die. But try and get life from non-life, including the necessary information to manage the DNA, and that is a whole different case. That is what is so amazing about life, with designed input of information and selected material, we can accomplish amazing things, only not creation of life from non-life, and neither can nature alone (no matter how you try to cook the science).


Likewise, the Second Law drives evolution, which is as natural, expected, and inevitable as a rock rolling down a hill.

Richard

Of course, no argument here. But that is after you have all of Creation working for you, including all of the intelligent design fully functioning in all of life.


It would be great if you would watch the video so we can discuss the "real science" of evolution.

Richard

I will have to get around to watching your video. I hope it isn't merely tweeking existing life to more life, adding additional existing info for good or for bad. Does it actually show how life can form from non-life, and can it be carried out in a lab? I can pretty well guess with certainty, it cannot and will not.

Did you watch the video interview of RC Sproul and Ben Stein? RC adds a few more philosophical elements to the subject.

You can call me a crank all day long, but show me the science of proven life from non-life, and everything that preceeds natural selection, mutations, and variation within kinds. And please don't pretend we have mapped out all of the genome of the human DNA, when we have only mapped out about 2% of the genome, with the remaining DNA being classified as Junk DNA. But it is proving more and more that even though the 2% creates the necessary amino acids that make up the proteins, the remaining 98% is proving to manage all the control of these processes. When this is meddled with in the lab, it always results in lethal mutations, and deformities demonstrating anything but junk.

So you need to overcome a few of your own caricatures of my being ignorant of or denying science, when all along I just want someone to show me some, that is any, foundational science that proves chance evolution of life from non-life. I think I will be waiting on that one for the rest of my days. The old saying applies here: "you can fool some of the people some of the time, and most of the people most of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". This is the essence of your biological entropy law running downhill (I will avoid the tempting punch line that goes along with this, I think there is even a country song written to describe it).

Until we meet again,

dp

David M
09-02-2014, 01:19 AM
In view of the latest revelations about The Bible Wheel, I wondered if the book should not be republished with an update.

Out of curiosity, I was interested to see what the current price was. It seems like there are folks in the US ready to cash in and make a profit from reselling the book to people in the UK.

Here are the facts:

1253

1254

1255

The information is presented as loosely connected with numbers (i.e. prices).

David M
09-02-2014, 02:18 AM
Rhymes with "few" or "through" as you suggested. :winking0071:


As in "goo" or "flew".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5zipU6r7o

Richard Amiel McGough
09-02-2014, 06:49 AM
In view of the latest revelations about The Bible Wheel, I wondered if the book should not be republished with an update.

Out of curiosity, I was interested to see what the current price was. It seems like there are folks in the US ready to cash in and make a profit from reselling the book to people in the UK.

Here are the facts:


The information is presented as loosely connected with numbers (i.e. prices).
I think the book should be burned. It's only value is that it provides a lot of insight into how folks delude themselves with selection bias.

I doubt anyone in the UK has successfully sold a copy for £132. That's equivalent to $218

Richard Amiel McGough
09-02-2014, 07:13 AM
As in "goo" or "flew".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o5zipU6r7o
My dad used to do a pretty good impression of "old Magoo." It's pretty close to the pronunciation of our name, but it's not a "goo" (indicated by ü) bur rather "you" (like "mug-you" as indicated by . The difference is indicated by yü). Here's a table of pronunciation symbols:



\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/schwa.gif \ as a in abut
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/primarystress.gifhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/schwa.gif http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/secondarystress.gifhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/schwa.gif \ as u in abut
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/schwa.gif \ as e in kitten
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/schwa.gifr \ as ur/er in further
\ a \ as a in ash
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/amacr.gif \ as a in ace
\ ä \ as o in mop
\ ahttp://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/udot.gif \ as ou in out
\ b \ as in baby
\ ch \ as ch in chin
\ d \ as d in did
\ e \ as e in bet
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/primarystress.gifhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/emacr.gif http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/secondarystress.gifhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/emacr.gif \ as ea in easy
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/emacr.gif \ as y in easy
\ f \ as f in fifty


\ g \ as g in go
\ h \ as h in hat
\ i \ as i in hit
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/imacr.gif \ as i in ice
\ j \ as j in job
\ k \ as k in kin
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/kunderlined.gif \ as ch in ich dien
\ l \ as l in lily
\ m \ as m in murmur
\ n \ as n in own
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/eng.gif \ as ng in sing
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/omacr.gif \ as o in go
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/odot.gif \ as aw in law
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/odot.gifi \ as oy in boy
\ p \ as p in pepper

\ r \ as r in red
\ s \ as s in less
\ sh \ as sh in shy
\ t \ as t in tie
\ th \ as th in thin
\ th \ as th in the
\ ü \ as oo in loot
\ http://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/udot.gif \ as oo in foot
\ v \ as v in vivid
\ w \ as w in away
\ y \ as y in yet
\ yü \ as you in youth
\ yhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/images/pronguide/udot.gif \ as u in curable
\ z \ as z in zone
\ zh \ as si in vision

David M
09-02-2014, 10:44 AM
I think the book should be burned. It's only value is that it provides a lot of insight into how folks delude themselves with selection bias.

I doubt anyone in the UK has successfully sold a copy for £132. That's equivalent to $218

You must read the ads correctly. The books are stocked in the US and the ads are quoting a UK price. One book is in NY and the other book is in Florida. Strange that two sellers so far apart are selling for around the same inflated price.

Have you withdrawn the book from sale in the US? Saying "the book should be burned" would suggest that it should not be sold by retailers.

Gambini
09-02-2014, 01:23 PM
I just got this email which explained why the Bible Wheel is fundamentally flawed:


Greetings Mr. Richard:

Your hypothesis and premise of the “Bible Wheel” is most intriguing. I appreciate your diligence and research.

However, I must discount your layout and order concerning the Bible wheel.

(1) To truly reference the Biblical texts, you MUST follow the Biblical order of the Tanakh not the Christian order…Tanahk was first, Christian scripture was second.


Richard, you really think that's a good argument against the bible wheel??? If anything, that SUPPORTS the bible wheel because the symmetry DISAPPEARS when we don't use the 66 book canon.


I agree that the links you've written about between the large scale structure of the bible wheel and Psalm 119 is questionable primarily because I think it's highly unlikely that the designer behind the bible wheel would leave out 7 of the 22 alphabetic "key links" (a third of them). So I wouldn't put stock in a link between the bible wheel and Psalm 119. However, the bible wheel isn't dependent on Psalm 119. The HUNDREDS of total correlations between the three TINY books of each of the 22 spokes of the bible wheel aren't dependent on Psalm 119.


I also think you were in error by claiming the Isaiah/Bible correlation served as additional evidence for the bible wheel (I made the same error too). The Isaiah/Bible correlation, which I would argue is way more powerful than the bible wheel, is only evidence for a large scale design in the 66 books of the bible. That's it. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the bible wheel itself. And given the OVERALL PICTURE showing a clear link between Isaiah and the bible, the fact that every single chapter doesn't link with every single book is trivial. The OVERALL connections between the 39 + 27 chapters of Isaiah with the 39 + 27 books of the bible are too strong to dismiss.


Here are 10 points that I would argue form a CUMULATIVE case in support of the bible wheel ...


1) The Sepher Yetzirah (a 2,000 year old *JEWISH* text) states that God placed the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet around a CIRCLE (a "WHEEL").

2) The Odes of Solomon (a nearly 2,000 year old *CHRISTIAN* text) alludes to the "bible wheel".

3) The 66 books of the bible fit PERFECTLY in three "wheels" within a "wheel" (corresponding with the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet, which seals the bible from Aleph to Tav).

4) The Hebrew value of "wheel" = 66 (corresponding with the 66 books of the bible).

5) The odds of a symmetric SEVENFOLD canon like the "bible wheel" is 1 in 688,324 (the FINAL book of the bible refers to a BOOK that is SEALED with SEVEN SEALS).

6) All three books on the FIRST spoke of the "bible wheel" are the FIRST BOOKS of their respective canonical divisions.

7) The relationship between the natural divisions of the "bible wheel" and Pi. That is, there are 22 spokes and 7 natural divisions in the *CIRCULAR* "bible wheel" (22/7 = 3.14 = The CLOSEST approximation of Pi under 100 and *314* = The Greek New Testament value of "BIBLE", which is the very FIRST word in the New Testament).

8) A CIRCLE with an area of 31102 (the number of VERSES in the bible) divides up into 7 segments (the "bible wheel" consists of 7 natural divisions) with each having an area of 66.66 x 66.66 (the number of BOOKS in the bible = 66).

9) A CIRCLE with an area of 31102 (the number of VERSES in the bible) divides up into 22 segments (the "bible wheel" consists of 22 spokes) with each having an area of 11.89 x 118.9 (the number of CHAPTERS in the bible = 1189).

10) There are HUNDREDS of total corresponding links between the three TINY books in each of the 22 spokes of the "bible wheel".


These 10 points TAKEN TOGETHER form a cumulative case that ultimately argues against the idea that number 10 is simply a result of selection bias.



Btw, since you now believe the bible wheel book is a massive delusion and should even be burned (I didn't know you supported book burnings!), I was wondering if your other "discovery" (your "objective" moral theory) compels you to give back all the money you've made from promulgating falsehoods.



BINI

duxrow
09-02-2014, 02:45 PM
:yo:Good points, Bini, and you could add how David is Generation#33 and Jesus#66.
Noah was "perfect" in his generation(s), and he was Number 10, so that may figure too..

dpenn
09-02-2014, 05:08 PM
Gambini,

I am glad to see you surface again. You seem to be quite knowledgeable of the historic esoteric writings and symbols.

So, I am curious if you have considered how to deal with the Bible Wheel when you use the old Hebrew division of 22 books comprising the modern 39 books of the OT? In that case, you would be stuck with 22 and 27 books. Obviously someone reconstructed the same OT content in the familiar 39/27. The 5-12-5 repeating cycles is very impressive for the 66 books, (also GLGL = wheel = 66) especially as it fits the THLH of the menorah so well. It does seem awkward though, that the first 5 books of the NT are placed at the end of cycle 2, so that the whole of the remaining NT books make up cycle 3.

Do you know when this representation of the THLH was first used?

dp

dpenn
09-02-2014, 05:32 PM
:yo:Good points, Bini, and you could add how David is Generation#33 and Jesus#66.
Noah was "perfect" in his generation(s), and he was Number 10, so that may figure too..

duxrow,

I am assuming that you came up with David being generation 33, by ignoring Canain, between Arphaxad and Shelah in the Luke genealogy. But I can't see how you came up with generation 66 for Jesus. I can't see that from either the Matthew or Luke genealogies.

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
09-02-2014, 08:01 PM
I know that I accept change that makes diversity with kinds possible, also accepting natural selection as an observable scientific fact.

Your comment makes no sense because the word "kind" is not a scientific term and you have not defined it. Are you saying that all birds are of the same "kind"? If so, does that mean that you accept that eagles, ducks, penguins, ostriches, and hummingbirds all evolved from a common ancestor? Please explain what you mean and how it relates to real science.



I know that I accept change that makes diversity with kinds possible, also accepting natural selection as an observable scientific fact. But unfortunately, the evolutionist camp skips a few scientific steps of verification, and pretends (yes, I did say pretends) that this proves evolution of life from non-life (never observed, and never proven scientifically, it always is assumed by faith),

Three problems:

1) There is no scientific evidence the settles the question of how life first began. There is no scientific evidence that proves it happened by natural law, and there is no scientific evidence that proves it did not happen by natural law. Therefore, the question is moot.

2) There is an overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence that all life descended from a common ancestor through a process of evolution over a period of 3.5 billion years or so.

3) No clear thinking evolutionist would say that natural selection "proves evolution of life from non-life." They are free to believe it, just like you are free to not believe it, because there is no evidence to settle the matter yet. Of course, it is much more logical and consistent to believe that life arose through natural law, since there is no one observable repeatable experiment that requires a god for an explanation.



or the big bang, (never observed, and never proven, but always assumed by faith),

No scientist "assumes" the big bang "by faith." It's simply the best theory that fits the current data. If we get better data that contradicts the big bang theory, we would toss it in a nanosecond. Your assertion that it is "by faith" indicates an abysmal ignorance of basic science and how scientists think.



how stars, and thus planets, etc, could have been formed out of a point of singularity, as provable Hoyle's law of gases disproves this experimentally,

Please post a link to your evidence.



also the formation of the elements of the periodic table from banged out matter some 14 or so billion years ago (always assumed and taken by faith).

Not true. Have you never heard of nucleosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis)?



There are all kinds of properties of spiral galaxies, including temperatures that should have cooled much below what exists, still existing over billions of years, contradicting these kind of years.

Again, please post a link to the evidence.



Add to this a total lack of missing links in the massive fossil record, where complex forms of life just appear suddenly in the geologic record.

Oh, so you accept that the scientific conclusion that the Cambrian explosion happened about 542 million years ago? If not, then why do accept the scientific conclusion that many complex forms suddenly appeared? It appears you are picking and choosing which bits and pieces of the science fits what you want to believe, while you reject the rest without any justification. That's a selection bias.

And what kind of fossils would you expect to precede the Cambrian? Don't you know that they were soft bodied and so don't leave many fossils?



And then add to this, the total misinfo and disinfo, and many cases of outright fraud and deception in the skeletal remains of faked ape-human finds (so many by so-called scientists that is laughable).

I'm sorry to see that you have let yourself be so deceived by the lies of corrupt creationists.



How can this make me sound like a crank? Doesn't some of this make the other evolutionists' deception sound more like cranks? If they have science, show me the science, don't con me into pretending they have proven what has evaded them so far as unprovable.

Again, I'm sorry to see that you have let yourself be so deceived by the lies of corrupt creationists.



Of course, we are designed to take in energy from the sun, by eating plants, or animals that eat the plants, but this is all after the existence of life. We are fearfully and wonderfully made, as God set the whole process in motion, so that we can grow uphill, till we all die. But try and get life from non-life, including the necessary information to manage the DNA, and that is a whole different case. That is what is so amazing about life, with designed input of information and selected material, we can accomplish amazing things, only not creation of life from non-life, and neither can nature alone (no matter how you try to cook the science).

You missed my point. We were not "designed" to take in energy - that's what drove our evolution. And as you agreed, evolution is driven by the second law. It's all explained in the video I posted. Please watch it so we can talk about the "real" science.





Likewise, the Second Law drives evolution, which is as natural, expected, and inevitable as a rock rolling down a hill.

Of course, no argument here. But that is after you have all of Creation working for you, including all of the intelligent design fully functioning in all of life.

There is no evidence of any "intelligent design." The judge in the Dover case wrote a 135 page decision after listening to all the "bright lights" of the Intelligent Design movement like Behe and concluded that intelligent design is NOT science but rather is a religious doctrine. And this is easy for anyone to see. If you disagree, please post a link to a SCIENTIFIC THEORY supported by experimental results that has been produced based on the "theory of intelligent design."



I will have to get around to watching your video. I hope it isn't merely tweeking existing life to more life, adding additional existing info for good or for bad. Does it actually show how life can form from non-life, and can it be carried out in a lab? I can pretty well guess with certainty, it cannot and will not.

Of course it is "tweaking existing life into more life" since that's what the theory of evolution is all about. The question of how life first began is currently moot because no one knows. You can't prove it wasn't by natural law, and I can't prove it was. But we do have a mountain of evidence of how life evolved after it began. It looks like you are trying to avoid the real evidence provided by real science by focusing on areas that are currently unknown. That is a very common creationist tactic that is required because there is no evidence FOR creationism. So you must retreat to the realm of the "unknown" as the only hope of find a place for your religious doctrines that must be "accept on faith" because there is no evidence.



You can call me a crank all day long, but show me the science of proven life from non-life, and everything that preceeds natural selection, mutations, and variation within kinds.

Again, you are obviously trying to dodge the mountain of data supporting common descent by focusing on an area for which we lack scientific data. You can't prove life did not arise through natural law and I can't prove it did. So the only fruitful area of discourse at this time is in the areas where there is well-established scientific knowledge, such as the fact of common ancestry and evolution of life from the first cell (after it got here, however that happened).

Great chatting,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-02-2014, 08:52 PM
I just got this email which explained why the Bible Wheel is fundamentally flawed:

Greetings Mr. Richard:

Your hypothesis and premise of the “Bible Wheel” is most intriguing. I appreciate your diligence and research.

However, I must discount your layout and order concerning the Bible wheel.

(1) To truly reference the Biblical texts, you MUST follow the Biblical order of the Tanakh not the Christian order…Tanahk was first, Christian scripture was second.

Richard, you really think that's a good argument against the bible wheel??? If anything, that SUPPORTS the bible wheel because the symmetry DISAPPEARS when we don't use the 66 book canon.

You are correct that one pattern "disappears" but that's ok because another pattern, which some people think is much better, replaces it. So which proves what? Years ago when I was working on the Isaiah Bible Correlation, I met a man who was convinced that the Isaiah Connection (http://bibleprophecy.net/isaiah/index.html) (as he called it) proved that God designed the order of the books in the canon to be in "connected" with the order of the chapters of Isaiah. Here is what he said (source (http://bibleprophecy.net/isaiah/index.html)):



The Old Testament prophetic book of Isaiah, with its 66 chapters, is a microcosm of the whole Bible with its 66 books. There is a definite, direct, one-to-one correspondence between each chapter of Isaiah and each book of the Bible. This is an amazing, if indirect, proof, of the sovreignty of God and the superintendence of His Spirit over the whole of Scripture. Written by different authors, in different languages, in different cultures at different times, it is incredible that this relationship exists between the book of Isaiah, and the whole of the Bible.

This Isaiah connection is a strong evidence for the divine inspiration of the Bible, and the completeness and authenticity of the received canon. The Isiaiah connection affirms that the Apocrypha is indeed, apocryphal! The omnipotent foreknowledge of God in history is demonstrated by this connection. While Isaiah, when he wrote, was largely addressing the real-life situations and people of his day, God was purposing that His words through Isaiah would serve a larger aim. Isn't this always the way with God?

The sequential order of Bible books which must be followed for a perfect match with Isaiah chapters has profound implications. It will be noted that the order in our English Bibles is NOT the order confirmed by the Isaiah connection. The order for the Old Testament books is that found in the Hebrew Bible, which is the original order. Jesus put His stamp of approval on this order, when, in reasoning with the men on the road to Emmaus, He told them that ll things written about Him "in the law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled." (Luke 24:44)


In the Hebrew Bible the order of the books follows Jesus' order: Law, Prophets, Psalms. But our English Bible has the order as Law, Psalms, Prophets. Which is correct? The "proof must be in the pudding." The Isaiah connection must "fit." The reader is invited to explore through study the Bible--Isaiah Connection.


The order of the link-up with Isaiah chapters and the books of the New Testament also follows the original order as contained by the vast majority of Greek uncial manuscripts. The first and second church councils to address the subject of the New Testament, Laodicea (363 AD) and Hippo (393 AD), both confirm this order. The Russian Orthodox Bible also carries this original order. This order puts Hebrews right in the middle of the Pauline epistles, not on their border as in the English Bible.


See that? The pattern that convinced him was radically different than the traditional order used for the Bible Wheel. Furthermore, this pattern is independently confirmed by Ernest L. Martin who used the same order and found this amazing pattern of perfect symmetry, based on the ALEPH TAV just like the Bible Wheel (link (http://www.biblewheel.com/RR/ELM_Restoring.php)). Click to enlarge:

1256

So now we have two independent witnesses to the same canonical order that are very similar to the Bible Wheel and the Isaiah Bible Correlation, only they are based on a radically different ordering of the books! This is strong evidence that anyone can find "patterns" and "connections" in any large set of data like the Bible if the have sufficient motivation. And how is anyone supposed to OBJECTIVELY JUDGE between them? The "connections" are all subjective value judgments! But some of the "connections" are notably better with the alternative order, such as the correlation of Isaiah itself. In the KJV order, the Book of Isaiah corresponds to Isaiah 23 which has no connections at all, whereas in the order of the Tanakh, it correspond to chapter 12 where we read:

Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the YAH YHVH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.

That connects directly with the name Isaiah, which in Hebrew means YHVH has saved. It's a MUCH better fit. And we see the same thing with Jeremiah, which is book 13 in the Tanakh. It's primary theme is the downfall of Babylon, which is the primary topic of Isaiah 13 which opens with the words "The burden of Babylon."

And note - Martin's pattern is based on 49 = 7 x 7 books (God's perfection squared), whereas the KJV has the mark of MAN (66) which is similar to 666. :eek:



I agree that the links you've written about between the large scale structure of the bible wheel and Psalm 119 is questionable primarily because I think it's highly unlikely that the designer behind the bible wheel would leave out 7 of the 22 alphabetic "key links" (a third of them). So I wouldn't put stock in a link between the bible wheel and Psalm 119.

You seem confused about the alphabetic keylinks. They were not restricted to Psalm 119. I looked for them in all the alphabetically structured passages, such as Lamentations, Psalm 34, 111, 112, 145, the end of Proverbs 30, etc. There are about 480 verses alphabetically structured, which means God could have designed 480 alphabetic keylinks if that's what he was into. I examined them all and found about 22 out of 480, which is 4.5%. That's seems pretty much what would be expected from chance.

No spoke has alphabetic keylinks to every book on the spoke, and seven spokes have no alphabetic keylinks at all. Again, it looks like random chance ... and my focusing upon them looks like .... wait for it ....

>>> SELECTION BIAS <<<



However, the bible wheel isn't dependent on Psalm 119. The HUNDREDS of total correlations between the three TINY books of each of the 22 spokes of the bible wheel aren't dependent on Psalm 119.

And there are THOUSANDS of correlations that don't fit the pattern. So again, it looks like random chance ... and my focusing upon them looks like .... wait for it ....

>>> SELECTION BIAS <<<



I also think you were in error by claiming the Isaiah/Bible correlation served as additional evidence for the bible wheel (I made the same error too). The Isaiah/Bible correlation, which I would argue is way more powerful than the bible wheel, is only evidence for a large scale design in the 66 books of the bible. That's it. It doesn't say ANYTHING about the bible wheel itself. And given the OVERALL PICTURE showing a clear link between Isaiah and the bible, the fact that every single chapter doesn't link with every single book is trivial. The OVERALL connections between the 39 + 27 chapters of Isaiah with the 39 + 27 books of the bible are too strong to dismiss.

When I said the Isaiah Bible Correlation supported the Bible Wheel it was only because it "confirmed" the order of books which is the foundation of the Bible Wheel. I considered them mutually confirming.

I agree that the 39/27 division is a pretty cool coincidence. But it's not nearly enough to support an extraordinary claim like "God designed it."

Your idea that the "overall connections" are "too strong to dismiss" is just an example of .... wait for it ...

>>> CONFIRMATION BIAS <<<

You believe it because it confirms what you want to believe.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-02-2014, 10:00 PM
And given the OVERALL PICTURE showing a clear link between Isaiah and the bible, the fact that every single chapter doesn't link with every single book is trivial. The OVERALL connections between the 39 + 27 chapters of Isaiah with the 39 + 27 books of the bible are too strong to dismiss.


Years ago, while working diligently to collect my special little "cherries" that fit the pattern I was looking for, I met a man who thought that he had finally decoded the Bible using connections with the chapters of Isaiah to find the "correct" order of the books. Here is how he explained his project (his site is not currently active, but you can find it on the waybackmachine):



Introducing Book Order

Not many people sit around pondering the question of whether the books of the Bible are arranged correctly, which is unfortunate since putting the books in order is a prerequisite to understanding the Bible. In fact, apart from a Bible where the books are in order, the Bible is in effect, scrambled, encrypted, sealed and should have an "OUT OF ORDER" sticker placed on the cover.

The good news is the process of determining the correct book order is not nearly as painful as one might expect. In fact the strategy is based solely on the Bible and can be completely audited by anyone willing to investigate what the Bible says.

Isaiah is the Key

Keys unlock things, whether encryption in the software world or doors on treasure vaults, and Isaiah is the key that unlocks book order (which in turn unlocks the Bible).

With it's 66 chapters, the book of Isaiah is the Bible's magic decoder ring, revealing how to order the 66 books of the Bible. How it works is easy. Simply match each book in the Bible to a chapter in Isaiah based on some unique content. The result is a new book order (or ancient one) derived from the pages of the Bible itself.

In the process of matching the books to chapters in Isaiah something else is discovered. Isaiah operates as a commentary, editorial or interpretive book for the other books of the Bible. For example


Here is the order he derived by his amazing "magic decoder ring" ...

Book Order Bible


Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
First Samuel
Second Samuel
First Kings
Second Kings
Ezekiel
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Ezra
Nehemiah
Esther
Zechariah
Micah
Jonah
Amos
Hosea
Haggai
Zephaniah
Psalms
Job
Ecclesiastes
Proverbs of Solomon
Ruth
Song of Solomon
Joel
Obadiah
Malachi
Nahum
Habakkuk
First Chronicles
Second Chronicles
Daniel
John
Matthew
Mark
Luke
Acts
Philippians
First Thessalonians
Second Thessalonians
Second John
Second Timothy
First Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Romans
Hebrews
Jacob
First Timothy
Jude
Second Corinthians
Philemon
Colossians
First John
First Peter
Second Peter
Titus
Third John
Revelation


You will note that his order is radically different than either the KJV order of the Tanakh + Manuscript order followed by E. L. Martin and the "Isaiah Connection" guy.

Conclusion: Put a hundred people in a hundred isolated cells with the Bible. Tell them to arrange the books of the Bible in accordance with the themes of the chapters of Isaiah. I can pretty much guarantee that you will get a hundred different orders! This all the proof that a rational person needs to reject "evidence" based on subjective selection bias of "connections" between the books of Isaiah with the Bible.

duxrow
09-03-2014, 05:19 AM
duxrow,

I am assuming that you came up with David being generation 33, by ignoring Canain, between Arphaxad and Shelah in the Luke genealogy. But I can't see how you came up with generation 66 for Jesus. I can't see that from either the Matthew or Luke genealogies.

dpdpenn, UR right about Cainan (typo), and late on this old-hat subject. http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm (also webdoc51.htm)

ONLY TWO (2) "Joseph, son of Jacob" in the Bible!

Richard Amiel McGough
09-03-2014, 07:36 AM
Here's another example of a man who is convinced that the Isaiah - Bible correlation was designed to be a "perfect template that God has given to compare as to authenticity regarding authorship by God the Almighty"

http://www.gilbertandfriends.com/Isaiah___Numerics.html

Of course, he uses the pattern of the Tanakh for the OT and the "manuscript order" for the NT that radically contradicts the pattern of the KJV.

Here is a bit of what he says about the "patterns" he thinks confirm the Bible:



Isn't it interesting, that in 1947, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, the entire book of Isaiah was found and later carbon dated to be approximately about the time of Christ to as old as, 200 years BC. Isaiah is "the Book" that is a witness to what Books belong in the Bible and their proper order of occurrences. And we have this important witness to the structure of the Bible which dates to the time Jesus was on this earth!

The Catholic Bible has added 5 Books in the Old Testament that do not fit into this perfect template that God has given to compare as to authenticity regarding authorship by God the Almighty. The numeric test given by Panin to every Book, and Passage in the Bible, as well as this comparison to the Book of Isaiah, are proof positive that the Bible is the work of only one Author, who is God Himself.

In my daily bible readings, I have found at least 21 Chapters in Isaiah that have direct links to their corresponding Books of the Bible, some are as obvious as the nose on your face, and some are not as obvious, but talking about the same subject. One place, for instance, is found in the Book of Jonah, who went to Nineveh, the capitol of Assyria and the corresponding chapter in Isaiah, No. 19 that talks about the 1,000 year Reign, when their will be a Highway between Israel and Assyria. How neat is that? Please go to the podcasts below and listen to the radio shows regarding this subject.


If you go looking for "patterns" and "connections" to prove that "God designed the Bible" (or the Quran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Hindu Vedas) you are guaranteed to find them. Such patterns prove nothing. Especially since they never deal with all the data. They are nothing but examples of selection bias. Cherry picking. There is one standard by which the cherries are judged worthy: Do they confirm what I want to believe? If so, they are picked. If not, they are ignored. That's why all the pattern find and numerology proves absolutely nothing except how easy it is for people to delude themselves with cognitive biases.

dpenn
09-03-2014, 10:22 AM
Richard, a few days back in response to my summarising holograph info from your website, just a little too much to your liking, you correctly rebuffed me (well taken). You said ...




Also, the "Creation Holograph" (Genesis 1:1) does not have anything to say about "unity, one, YHVH." Those connections are found in the Unity Holograph which is based on the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). But there is a general connection in that both holographs are based on star numbers (Genesis is based on star numbers 37 and 73, whereas the Unity Holograph is based on the star number 13).

Richard

As a point of contact with the Unity Holograph (and I might add, your discussion on the 13's embedded in the Seal of the US), I was wondering if you have encountered the 13's employed in the selection of Pope Francis I. Consider the following highlighted in Tom Horn's book Zenith 2016, page 150:


"White smoke at 7:06 pm: 7+6=13; he is 76 years old: 7+6=13; he was elected on the calendar date: 3/13/13 ... 2 13's of its own; 3/13/2013 also yields 3+1+3+2+1+3=13; he was announced at precisely 8:13 pm Vatican time, or in military and European time, 20:13". 20:13 yields interesting 33.


I also noticed in your article, The Number 112: The Lord God, the following significance:

The Gematria value for "The LORD God" = 112

Genesis 1.1 + John 1.1 = 2701 + 3627 = 6328 = Sum(112)

Well, Tom Horn has written another book, Petrus Romanus, where he digs up an ancient RC contested prophecy of the popes by Mael Maedoc Ua Morgair (Malachy), born in Armagh, Northern Ireland in 1094. where he supposedly predicted the 112th pope following his visit to Rome. He was posted vicar of Bangor in 1123, and in 1139 he sought an audience with Innocent II to resolve his disputed appointment as archbishop. On his way, he stopped for a rest at the Cistercian Abbey of Clairvaux, where he met the future-saint Bernard (who would later be his central biographer, Horn, p 13).

Containing suspicious esoteric numbers, Horn adds on p. 14,

"Sixteen months after the journey began Malachy finally arrived in Rome, his heart and mind lifted and hopeful. Quickly, he was brought he was brought to Pope Innocent II for official audience. Innocent approved Malachy's request for the pallia but with strict conditions: Malachy was to take on new responsibilities. He was now the Papal Legate of Ireland with all its ensuing political intricacies. This is not what he had wanted; he so desperately desired the peace and serenity of the Abbey. It was upon leaving the seven hilled city so frustrated, framed by the breathtaking view from Janiculum Hill that it came upon him. Because of the impiety of the Popes, Rome would burn.

As the legend goes, Malacy experienced what is today considered a famous vision called 'The Prophecy of the Popes'. The prophecy is a list of Latin verses predicting each of the Roman Catholic popes from Pope Celestine II to the final pope, 'Petrus the Roman', whose reign would end in the destruction of Rome. According to this ancient prophecy, the very next pope (following Benedict XVI) will be the final pontiff, Petrus Romanus, or Peter the Roman".

Horn goes on to list the Nostradamus like prophecy of the final segment:

"In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet ovus in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis civitas septicollis deruetur et judex tremendus judicabit populum, Finis".

Which is rendered:

"In the extreme persecution of the Holy Roman Church, there will sit Peter the Roman, who will nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the City of Seven Hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End".

To set the record straight, I don't believe the legitimacy of this prophecy in the slightest, but that doesn't mean that this won't be cooked much like the 911 story. And it wouldn't surprise me if this pseudo-prophecy was coerced into fulfillment.

Horn relies heavily on a French book, La Mysterieuse Prophetie des Papes, translated into English, The Mysterious Prophesies of the Popes, written by Rene Thibaut (1883-1952), a Belgian Jesuit in 1951. Thibaut was a mathematician, and master at ciphers and esoteric writings. He proves that if you torture the data long enough it will confess to almost anything. For example, he said that the average reign of the popes was 11 years, and if this was to remain true to the 112th, then Benedict XVI would have to resign in 2012 (of course he would have loved for this to have happened on Dec 21, 2012). Well this one wasn't quite bang on, but early in 2013, it was revealed by the RCC that he had actually determined to resign in March of 2012, but didn't actually resign until Feb 11, 2013 (was he trying to accommodate a Malachy/Thibaut fulfillment?).

Well, I could labour this story, but it goes on and on. So I will cut it short and just add, I do see the numbers 13 and 112 surfacing in some uncomfortable ways here. Just because I think this is all fabricated, doesn't mean they are not going to use it, to its success or failure to come true. Just look at all that has been accomplished through the whole 911 attack.

I feel compelled to give a Horn disclaimer. Do not think that I buy into Tom Horn's beniy elohim belief that the "sons of God and daughters of men" refers to angels marrying earth women, producing nephilim, whose offspring led eventually to demons vs angels myth. But he does dig up some interesting stuff. Also, he and Missler are very strong Zionists, and I think that is not founded in the NT Scriptures, but is imposed upon it. I do, however believe and hope that remnant Israel will some day have their eyes opened to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and will, with all Gentiles in the Church make up he One Body of Christ.

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
09-05-2014, 05:50 PM
Here is a fascinating website that shows how easy it is for folks to delude themselves when they go looking for "patterns" in their Bible, their horoscope, numbers relating to their birthday, or whatever. It's called bibletracks.blogspot.com (http://bibletracks.blogspot.com/) and is devoted to finding "connections" between each book of the Bible is and its corresponding chapter of Isaiah.

Sometimes it takes a lot of creativity to find (i.e. create) a connection between the books. For example, when I believed in the Isaiah Bible Correlation I was deeply disappointed with the content of Isaiah 23 which should have corresponded to the Book of Isaiah itself. (I would fantasize how wonderful it would have been if God had inspired 66 verses that matched the 66 chapters and the 66 books.) In any case, I never found any meaningful connection. And neither did our friend ... but that didn't stop him from inventing a connection! Here is what he wrote:

http://bibletracks.blogspot.com/2007/10/isaiah-chapter-23-isaiah.html
Now what connection can we see between the prophecy of Isaiah chapter twenty-three and the book of Isaiah? This is it. Isaiah is a book of prophecy. Isaiah is not a book filled with prophecy about the Church, nor about the Gentiles. It is a book filled with prophecies about Israel, and that is what this prophecy in Isaiah chapter twenty-three is; a prophecy about Israel hidden behind a prophecy about Tyre. This is the twenty-third chapter of Isaiah, and Isaiah is the twenty-third book in our Bible. They are connected.
On the upside, the author seems to have some self-awareness of the weakness of some of the connections, as seen in this comment from his home page:
Note: Not all of the connections are of the same strength.
Some may be stretching your imagination to see the connection, but
I'm still working on these, and praying the Spirit will show me more.
It is important to remember that we find a much more natural and satisfying "connection" if we follow the order of the Tanakh which has Isaiah as Book 12:

Isaiah 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. 3 Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation.
So how does one discern which pattern demonstrates God's design? There is no way. Anyone can find "connections" between elements of any large data set.

It sure is great to be free of these delusions - the Bible Wheel, the Isaiah-Bible Correlation, Numerology, and Christianity!

:woohoo:

Richard Amiel McGough
09-05-2014, 06:06 PM
I googled "biblewheel debunked" to see what others have said, and found this lunatic website of a guy who redesigned the whole bible to fit his imaginary "Golden Ration UCCOO Format."

Here's the pattern of the Bible that he thinks God designed and revealed to him:
http://www.phibible.org/index.html


1257



And here's his article "debunking" the Bible Wheel:
http://www.phibible.org/info/BibleWheel.html

dpenn
09-05-2014, 10:45 PM
It would be great if you would watch the video so we can discuss the "real science" of evolution.
Richard

Richard,

I finally got around to watching your video link of a creation vs evolution debate between Dr Kent Hovind, and Dr Matthew Rainbow. I would assume that you believe that Rainbow won the debate on behalf of evolution, but I thought Hovind won the debate hands down. That doesn't mean that I particularly like the style of Hovind, I prefer more the intellectual and articulated style of Ross (see link at end of post to Ross vs Hovind debate), even if I don't necessarily believe the argumentation of Ross. I thought that the mutational, adaptations, natural selection that Rainbow argued for, most creationists would argue for too, because mere genetic change still falls with in the change within kinds, or the Bible. I know that you demand a definition of kind, but one thing kind is not, is a common source single cell evolving into all forms of known life. For example, I would think that wolves, coyotes, dogs, for example, although different species, come from a common, call it dog kind. If species can reproduce together, then they would obviously be of the same kind, even if they create hybrids that cannot reproduce, example, mule.

If you haven't already seen the debate between Hugh Ross, a day-age Christian, vs Kent Hovind, a 6-day creationist, it is much better. I would be curious what you think of that one. You can find it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNV6XYpX_XQ

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2014, 09:59 AM
And it seems like all disciplines of natural science, from physics, thermodynamics, to chemistry, to name a few, all behave according the the 2nd law of thermodynamics, sometimes just referred to as the law of entropy, but for some unknown and unscientific reason, entropy is ignored when considering life, with all of its order, design, and information, forming from non-life. So call me crazy, or deluded, but natural science does not have even a hint of an answer for even these few observations from real science. So who really leaps into the arms of pseudo-science?

Entropy is not "ignored when considering life." Where did you get that idea? The Second Law powers life. We eat low entropy food, excrete high entropy shit, and live off the difference.

Likewise, the Second Law drives evolution, which is as natural, expected, and inevitable as a rock rolling down a hill. Here is an excellent video that explains the science very well which I posted in the thread How Beliefs Resist Change: Christianity and Cognitive Science (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3616-How-Beliefs-Resist-Change-Christianity-and-Cognitive-Science&p=52571#post52571).

It would be great if you would watch the video so we can discuss the "real science" of evolution.

Richard,

I finally got around to watching your video link of a creation vs evolution debate between Dr Kent Hovind, and Dr Matthew Rainbow. I would assume that you believe that Rainbow won the debate on behalf of evolution, but I thought Hovind won the debate hands down. That doesn't mean that I particularly like the style of Hovind, I prefer more the intellectual and articulated style of Ross (see link at end of post to Ross vs Hovind debate), even if I don't necessarily believe the argumentation of Ross. I thought that the mutational, adaptations, natural selection that Rainbow argued for, most creationists would argue for too, because mere genetic change still falls with in the change within kinds, or the Bible. I know that you demand a definition of kind, but one thing kind is not, is a common source single cell evolving into all forms of known life. For example, I would think that wolves, coyotes, dogs, for example, although different species, come from a common, call it dog kind. If species can reproduce together, then they would obviously be of the same kind, even if they create hybrids that cannot reproduce, example, mule.

Hey there dp,

It seems you forgot why I posted that video. I was responding to your assertion that scientists "ignore entropy" when considering life and evolution. I posted the video to help you educate yourself about how evolution works. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please respond to this point. Do you now understand that the Second Law does not contradict the theory of evolution, and that all the creationists who say it does are not only wrong, but radically ignorant of the most basic elements of science?

Looking forward to your answer,

Richard

dpenn
09-06-2014, 10:44 AM
Hey there dp,

It seems you forgot why I posted that video. I was responding to your assertion that scientists "ignore entropy" when considering life and evolution. I posted the video to help you educate yourself about how evolution works. Did you actually watch the video? If so, please respond to this point. Do you now understand that the Second Law does not contradict the theory of evolution, and that all the creationists who say it does are not only wrong, but radically ignorant of the most basic elements of science?

Looking forward to your answer,

Richard

You may have a point there Richard. That was some time back, so I forgot about your main point of entropy. I was merely thinking of finally getting around to the video you recommended. But if you will recall also, I already said that I have no problem with entropy being throughout God's creation, even from the beginning. So you are preaching to the choir on that one. Obviously, if plants turn the sunlight into energy via photosynthesis, and animals eat the plants for the energy, and man eats the plants or the animals for that energy, he is swimming upstream against existing entropy like a salmon (for you west coast people).

My contention is that life from non-life could not possibly form without outside information or design to overcome the entropy working against it. That remains the problem today. Yes, DNA works marvelously well after creation, but I believe that science was never meant to be the tool for creation from the beginning. But it is obvious that God also created science to govern the process of life and all of His creation, that is, as long as He doesn't superimpose miracles on that, like recorded in the Bible.

Btw, you really should watch this Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind debate. You will see much more interaction of the scientific material associated with the biblical record:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNV6XYpX_XQ

PS. Are you going to respond even in part to my posting about the prophecy of the popes and numbers 13 and 112?

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2014, 12:30 PM
You may have a point there Richard. That was some time back, so I forgot about your main point of entropy. I was merely thinking of finally getting around to the video you recommended. But if you will recall also, I already said that I have no problem with entropy being throughout God's creation, even from the beginning. So you are preaching to the choir on that one. Obviously, if plants turn the sunlight into energy via photosynthesis, and animals eat the plants for the energy, and man eats the plants or the animals for that energy, he is swimming upstream against existing entropy like a salmon (for you west coast people).

My contention is that life from non-life could not possibly form without outside information or design to overcome the entropy working against it. That remains the problem today. Yes, DNA works marvelously well after creation, but I believe that science was never meant to be the tool for creation from the beginning. But it is obvious that God also created science to govern the process of life and all of His creation, that is, as long as He doesn't superimpose miracles on that, like recorded in the Bible.

Hey there dp,

Once again, it looks like you have lost sight of the train of thought in our conversation. In post #106 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66392#post66392) I explained that no one has any knowledge about the origin of life, so that question is moot. You have no evidence that it could not have arisen through natural law, and I have no evidence that it did. But I do have a mountain of evidence supporting the idea that all life evolved from a common ancestor. Here the exchange we had:





I know that I accept change that makes diversity with kinds possible, also accepting natural selection as an observable scientific fact. But unfortunately, the evolutionist camp skips a few scientific steps of verification, and pretends (yes, I did say pretends) that this proves evolution of life from non-life (never observed, and never proven scientifically, it always is assumed by faith),

Three problems:

1) There is no scientific evidence the settles the question of how life first began. There is no scientific evidence that proves it happened by natural law, and there is no scientific evidence that proves it did not happen by natural law. Therefore, the question is moot.

2) There is an overwhelming mountain of scientific evidence that all life descended from a common ancestor through a process of evolution over a period of 3.5 billion years or so.

3) No clear thinking evolutionist would say that natural selection "proves evolution of life from non-life." They are free to believe it, just like you are free to not believe it, because there is no evidence to settle the matter yet. Of course, it is much more logical and consistent to believe that life arose through natural law, since there is no one observable repeatable experiment that requires a god for an explanation.

You have not provided any evidence supporting your contention that "life from non-life could not possibly form without outside information or design to overcome the entropy working against it." You have not given any reason to think the second law would make that contention plausible.

You are demonstrating the bankruptcy of creationism. You have no evidence that contradicts the REAL SCIENCE of evolution based on hard evidence like the fossil record and DNA, so you retreat to the unknowable realm of speculative "origins" and then declare that our current ignorance implies that "God did it."



Btw, you really should watch this Hugh Ross vs Kent Hovind debate. You will see much more interaction of the scientific material associated with the biblical record:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNV6XYpX_XQ

PS. Are you going to respond even in part to my posting about the prophecy of the popes and numbers 13 and 112?

dp
Yes, I will watch the video and comment on it as time permits. And I will answer your post relating to the popes and numerology.

In the meantime, it would be interesting if you would comment on the evidence supporting evolution (common descent, DNA, etc.).

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2014, 01:07 PM
As a point of contact with the Unity Holograph (and I might add, your discussion on the 13's embedded in the Seal of the US), I was wondering if you have encountered the 13's employed in the selection of Pope Francis I. Consider the following highlighted in Tom Horn's book Zenith 2016, page 150:

"White smoke at 7:06 pm: 7+6=13; he is 76 years old: 7+6=13; he was elected on the calendar date: 3/13/13 ... 2 13's of its own; 3/13/2013 also yields 3+1+3+2+1+3=13; he was announced at precisely 8:13 pm Vatican time, or in military and European time, 20:13". 20:13 yields interesting 33.


What do you think that implies? Are you suggesting that they chose him because he was 76 years old? Or are you suggesting that they rigged his birth so he would be 76 years old at the time they elected him? By what method do you discern between design and random coincidence? I see no reason to believe that numerology proves anything.



Well, Tom Horn has written another book, Petrus Romanus, where he digs up an ancient RC contested prophecy of the popes by Mael Maedoc Ua Morgair (Malachy), born in Armagh, Northern Ireland in 1094. where he supposedly predicted the 112th pope following his visit to Rome. He was posted vicar of Bangor in 1123, and in 1139 he sought an audience with Innocent II to resolve his disputed appointment as archbishop. On his way, he stopped for a rest at the Cistercian Abbey of Clairvaux, where he met the future-saint Bernard (who would later be his central biographer, Horn, p 13).

Given that you don't accept many if not most of Tom Horn's crazy theories, why do you quote him?

dpenn
09-06-2014, 02:29 PM
What do you think that implies? Are you suggesting that they chose him because he was 76 years old? Or are you suggesting that they rigged his birth so he would be 76 years old at the time they elected him? By what method do you discern between design and random coincidence? I see no reason to believe that numerology proves anything.



"White smoke at 7:06 pm: 7+6=13; he is 76 years old: 7+6=13; he was elected on the calendar date: 3/13/13 ... 2 13's of its own; 3/13/2013 also yields 3+1+3+2+1+3=13; he was announced at precisely 8:13 pm Vatican time, or in military and European time, 20:13". 20:13 yields interesting 33.




Richard, there is a bit more going on here than just Pope Francis I being 76 years old, but to answer your question, I think they are so controlling in all of this, probably the least significant of this all would be his age of 76, if in fact he actually is 76.



Given that you don't accept many if not most of Tom Horn's crazy theories, why do you quote him?

Well, in the first place, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and you will probably notice that I mentioned two different subjects from the pen of Tom Horn :lol:. But all joking aside, there is much in his books that is profoundly revealing, while at the same time, his Gen 6, beniy elohim, underlies most everything. There is actually much more that I agree with, if and until that trust is breached. I hope to always give credit where credit is due.

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
09-06-2014, 02:44 PM
What do you think that implies? Are you suggesting that they chose him because he was 76 years old? Or are you suggesting that they rigged his birth so he would be 76 years old at the time they elected him? By what method do you discern between design and random coincidence? I see no reason to believe that numerology proves anything.
Richard, there is a bit more going on here than just Pope Francis I being 76 years old, but to answer your question, I think they are so controlling in all of this, probably the least significant of this all would be his age of 76, if in fact he actually is 76.

OK - does that mean that you padded your "amazing coincidences" with numbers that you don't believe prove anything? That's pretty typical of numerologists. It makes all their claims suspect. Especially since you didn't answer my main questions (highlighted red above).

dpenn
09-06-2014, 04:18 PM
Hey Richard, for starters, thanks for setting me up for a quadruple nest, it almost seems fractal like:


OK - does that mean that you padded your "amazing coincidences" with numbers that you don't believe prove anything? That's pretty typical of numerologists. It makes all their claims suspect. Especially since you didn't answer my main questions (highlighted red above).


Richard, there is a bit more going on here than just Pope Francis I being 76 years old, but to answer your question, I think they are so controlling in all of this, probably the least significant of this all would be his age of 76, if in fact he actually is 76.


What do you think that implies? Are you suggesting that they chose him because he was 76 years old? Or are you suggesting that they rigged his birth so he would be 76 years old at the time they elected him? By what method do you discern between design and random coincidence? I see no reason to believe that numerology proves anything.


"White smoke at 7:06 pm: 7+6=13; he is 76 years old: 7+6=13; he was elected on the calendar date: 3/13/13 ... 2 13's of its own; 3/13/2013 also yields 3+1+3+2+1+3=13; he was announced at precisely 8:13 pm Vatican time, or in military and European time, 20:13". 20:13 yields interesting 33.





I suspect either one of your suggestions for "chosen" or "rigged" could be possible, just as cooking the books for the prophesy of the final pope could be just as engineered. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the intelligence centres of the Vatican, including especially the Jesuits, could pull something like this off.

Btw, Bernard of Clairvaux, the famous monk that harboured Malachy, and even wrote a biography about him, was also famous for his oversight of the Knights Templar (thus the Masons), at the time of the early Crusades, not to mention, living close to the time of Francis of Assissi, Pope Francis' namesake.

And I am sorry, I just don't have the mathematical expertise to derive an algorithm for such coincidences, but that shouldn't negate common sense of observation. Not to mention, it is very challenging to determine what great intellects are doing in secret, let alone mind-read their plans. There is One Who sits enthroned in heaven, Who knows all things, as Daniel acknowledged. I guess if He ever found it necessary for me to know their deeper secrets, I would receive adequate revelation, but for now, my ignorance isn't so bliss.

dp

Richard Amiel McGough
09-12-2014, 07:59 PM
I have successfully debunked the Bible Wheel and the Isaiah Bible Correlation in various posts in this thread. I showed in both cases that my claims were marred by a consisten selection bias (aka cherry picking) which happened because I did not look at all the data, or rather, I IGNORED data that did not fit the patterns I was trying to "prove."

I now have applied the same criterion to the Logos Holograph (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Logos.php) which I represented as follows:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/LogosHolograph.GIF

In the article, I also noted that the value of "logos theou" (God's Word) = 857 which coincides with "zon" (living, the first word in the holograph). What I didn't mention is that this phrase is never used in the New Testament. I felt justified in using it because it is "legitimate Greek" but by allowing myself to play with add/removing articles I created more opportunities for MISSES but that didn't bother me because I wasn't looking at all the data.

Here then is "all the data." It includes a textual variant - the red "te" - which is found in the Majority Text (the Byzantine textform that underlies the TR and the KJV). It is missing from the modern critical Greek NT that I used when I "discovered" this holograph. If I had used the Majority Text I never would have thought much of anything was going on in this text because the missing "te" destroys most of the pattern based on the number 373.

The "hits" that I highlighted in the holograph are marked with yellow. There are 14 out of 92 possibilities, which is 15%. I see no reason to think that represents anything but meaningless coincidence because there is no consistent pattern. There were five different primes involved in the 14 hits, namely, 857, 443, 73, 373, and 137 and most of them only got a single "match" and there are hundreds of primes in the table below. A statistical analysis therefore shows nothing of any significance.

The red highlight is an interesting example of a "hit" that is found only if we use the Majority text (which would destroy other hits).





value
factors
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας




857
104
70
373
770
484
31
371
31
1885
585
332
803
744
31
929
711
865
1908
305
31
1146
991
305
31
1325
31
730
1567
31
1035
336


857
prime
ζων


































1697
prime


ο
λογος
του
θεου




























1627
prime




λογος
του
θεου




























857
prime




λογος

θεου




























443
prime


ο
λογος






























2658
6x443
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου




























1228
4x307
ζων







ενεργης


























1259
prime
ζων






και
ενεργης


























3060
180x17
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης


























7440
240x31
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον




















13366
82x163
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος












13061
37x353
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος












16018
2x8009
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








15713
19x827
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








16779
357x47
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






16474
2x8237
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






19748
4x4937
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


19443
3x6481
ζων
γαρ
ο
λογος
του
θεου
και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


402
6x67







και
ενεργης


























371
7x53








ενεργης


























4782
6x797







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον




















4751
prime








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον




















5742
198x29







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος


















5711
prime








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος


















10708
4x2677







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος












10403
101x103







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος












10677
3x3559








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος












10372
4x2593








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος












13360
80x167







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








13055
35x373







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








13329
9x1481








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








13024
352x37








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








14121
27x523







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






13816
88x157







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






14090
10x1409








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






13785
15x919








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






17090
10x1709







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


16785
45x373







και
ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


17059
7x2437








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


16754
2x8377








ενεργης
και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


1916
4x479









και
τομωτερος
























1885
65x29










τομωτερος
























4380
60x73









και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον




















4349
prime










τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον




















5340
60x89









και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος


















5309
prime










τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος


















10306
2x5153









και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος












10001
73x137









και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος












10275
75x137










τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος












9970
10x997









τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος












12958
418x31








και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








12653
prime








και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








12927
93x139









τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








12622
2x6311









τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








13719
51x269








και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






13688
232x59









τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






13383
9x1487









τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






16688
112x149








και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


16383
129x127








και
τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


16657
prime









τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


16352
224x73









τομωτερος
υπερ
πασαν
μαχαιραν
διστομον
και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


960
192x5














και
διικνουμενος


















929
prime















διικνουμενος


















5926
2x2963














και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος












5621
77x73














και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος












8578
2x4289














και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








8273
prime














και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








8547
231x37















διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








8242
26x317















διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








9339
33x283














και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






9034
2x4517














και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






9308
52x179
















διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






9003
3x3001
















διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος






12308
68x181















και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


12003
3x4001















και
διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


12277
prime
















διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


11972
164x73
















διικνουμενος
αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων
και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


4966
26x191

















αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος












4661
59x79

















αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος












7618
26x293

















αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








7313
71x103

















αχρι
μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








4255
115x37


















μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος












3950
50x79


















μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος












6907
prime


















μερισμου
ψυχης
τε
και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








6602
2x3301


















μερισμου
ψυχης

και
πνευματος
αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








2652
156x17






















αρμων
τε
και
μυελων








761
prime


























και
κριτικος






730
10x73



























κριτικος






3730
10x373


























και
κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


3699
27x137



























κριτικος
ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


2969
prime




























ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων
καρδιας


2633
prime




























ενθυμησεων
και
εννοιων



336
48x7































καρδιας

Richard Amiel McGough
10-04-2014, 07:40 PM
I have completed my first blog post debunking the Bible Wheel. It's called Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/10/04/debunking-myself-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/).

Mystykal
10-05-2014, 05:52 AM
I have completed my first blog post debunking the Bible Wheel. It's called Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/10/04/debunking-myself-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/).



Hi Richard:

I hope you are doing well... I wonder, are you going to continue to sell your book now that you have concluded it is bunk? I would like to buy a few off of you before you destroy them all...:lol:

I think you must let the world see your journey for what it is and eventhough you think you have found a better place than what all your study gave you - you should keep going... Looking for faith! Real genuine faith. Faith that can bend the reality of all realities. Faith that can merge the seen with the unseen... the known with the unknown!


Namaste,

Mystykal

Richard Amiel McGough
10-05-2014, 06:56 AM
Hi Richard:

I hope you are doing well... I wonder, are you going to continue to sell your book now that you have concluded it is bunk? I would like to buy a few off of you before you destroy them all...:lol:

Good morning Mystykal,

No, I don't intend to continue selling the book. But it is now in the world and has a life of its own. The PDF version is available on various sites, so there's no way for me to delete it from the world. It's like the poem from Omar Khayyam:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

I've put a notice on the banner of my old site saying the Bible Wheel has been debunked, and I will be replacing the ads for the book with a "DEBUNKED" logo of some sort. I've been waiting until I could finish the article debunking it. It took a long time to write.


I think you must let the world see your journey for what it is and even though you think you have found a better place than what all your study gave you - you should keep going... Looking for faith! Real genuine faith. Faith that can bend the reality of all realities. Faith that can merge the seen with the unseen... the known with the unknown!

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think it is quite delusional. Please take no offense, as none is intended. When I say "delusional" I mean it in the same way as when I say I was deluded about the Bible Wheel. You are simply believing things for which you have no evidence.

Why should anyone believe things for which there is no evidence?

How do you distinguish between true and false beliefs when there is no evidence?

The Amazing Randi continues to offer a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate ANY supernatural ability.

Great chatting!

Richard

David M
10-05-2014, 04:34 PM
I have completed my first blog post debunking the Bible Wheel. It's called Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/10/04/debunking-myself-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/).
Hello Richard
What would have been your stock answer a year or so ago, before you began to deconstruct your beliefs, when some challenged you about the Bible Wheel and if they had suggested then that you were showing selection bias?


David

Richard Amiel McGough
10-05-2014, 04:51 PM
Hello Richard
What would have been your stock answer a year or so ago, before you began to deconstruct your beliefs, when some challenged you about the Bible Wheel and if they had suggested then that you were showing selection bias?


David
Excellent question!

I would have presented the best cherry picked "evidence" I could find. Of course, that would have been absurd, since you can't disprove selection bias by presenting more selectively chosen facts! The proper answer would be to prove that I was actually dealing with ALL THE DATA. But I couldn't do that, because I wasn't actually dealing with all the data. In other words, I really was cherry picking, and there is no way I could have refuted that charge last year or at any time in my "career" of proclaiming the Bible Wheel.

It is very curious that you bring this up right now because I just finished an article on my blog which included an imaginary conversation between "Me now" and "Me then" when I was a believer. The article is called Battle of the Bible Wheels: Catholic vs. Protestant (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/10/05/battle-of-the-bible-wheels-catholic-vs-protestant). As it turns out, the 72 books of the Catholic Bible make a Bible Wheel using the 24 letters of the Greek alphabet. Here's what I just wrote at the end of my blog post (after exposing other errors I had made):

The Battle of the Bible Wheels

There is yet another refutation of my Bible Wheel Challenge that is perhaps the most compelling of all, since a picture is, as they say, worth a thousand words. For years, I believed that the Bible Wheel was proof of the Protestant Canon, as opposed to that of the Roman Catholic Church. I just “knew” that the deuterocanonical books would “ruin the pattern.” You couldn’t even make a Bible Wheel since there were too many books! Or so I thought.

I never actually analysed the data at all.Much to my surprise, it is very easy to make a Roman Catholic Bible Wheel. I simply followed the order of books as listed in the Vulgate (http://www.drbo.org/lvb/index.htm) (and the Douay-Rheims (http://www.drbo.org/index.htm) version), and followed the tradition of counting Jeremiah and Lamentations as one to give a total of 72 books. These books can then be displayed on a wheel of 24 spokes, corresponding to the 24 Greek letters. Thus, the Catholics can claim their Bible is “sealed from Alpha to Omega” just as I claimed that that Protestant canon was “sealed from Aleph to Tav.” Only their claim has a much better ring to it, given that the Alpha and Omega are descriptions of the divine found within the text itself and are ubiquitous in ancient Christian art and literature as seen, for example, in the Chi Rho I placed in the center:

1307

I now have a foil against which to test my claims about the Bible Wheel. How would I have responded when I was a believer? To answer this, I’ll create a dialog between “Me now” and “Me then.” Note: PBW = Protestant Bible Wheel and CBW = Catholic Bible Wheel.

Me now: The PBW is meaningless. I can create the same kind of pattern with the Catholic Bible and the Greek alphabet.

Me then: Yeah, but the CBW doesn’t have a Canon Wheel.

Me now: Score one for the PBW. But the PBW doesn’t match the words of the Bible which speak explicitly of the Alpha and Omega which also have played a very important role in Christian art and literature. And the 24 spokes of the CBW correspond to very significant uses of the numbers 24 and 24/2 = 12 in the Bible, like the 24 elders around the thrown of God and the 144,000 = 24 x 6,000, etc. The number 22 doesn’t play any role in the symbolic numbers of the Bible as far as I know.

Me then: Score one for the CBW. But the number 22 does play an important role in the alphabetic verses which follow the pattern of the 22 letters. There are no alphabetic verses designed upon the Greek alphabet, so you can’t have any alphabetic KeyLinks like I have found in the PBW.

Me now: KeyLinks? There’s been a development in that area. Your claims relating to the Alphabetic KeyLinks collapsed like a house of cards the moment I examined them objectively. I proved that in a series of five posts on our forum (here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66305#post66305), here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66307#post66307), here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66308#post66308), here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66309#post66309), and here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66340#post66340)).

Me then: Oh my. That’s embarrassing. Let’s move on to another question.

Me now: OK. What’s the best spoke on your Bible Wheel?

Me then: The first spoke! It’s totally amazing! It consists of Genesis, Isaiah, and Romans, which are the first books of the Law, the Prophets, and the New Testament Epistles! And there is a strong theme of “creation” that unites them. It’s the best spoke on the PBW. The evidence is very strong.

Me now: I agree that’s pretty impressive. But not nearly as impressive as the first spoke of the CBW which consists of Genesis, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Gospel of John. Take a look at these correlations:

Genesis: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
Wisdom: O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy word, And ordained man through thy wisdom, that he should have dominion over the creatures which thou hast made,
John: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Look at that! The Wisdom of Solomon explicitly refers to the Logos by whom all things were made. It coheres perfectly with Genesis and John. I could go on …

Me then: No need. I see your point. There is no limit to the “connections” that can be found no matter how the books are arranged, and more importantly, there is no way to judge between the two Bible Wheels. I know I would have been very impressed by the Catholic Bible Wheel if I were a Catholic looking for “patterns” that proved divine inspiration. And that’s nothing confirmation bias. Thanks for helping me see the error of my ways. I think I’ll be going now. Bye bye.

David M
10-05-2014, 06:04 PM
Hello Richard




[/FONT][/COLOR]Me then: No need. I see your point. There is no limit to the “connections” that can be found no matter how the books are arranged, and more importantly, there is no way to judge between the two Bible Wheels. I know I would have been very impressed by the Catholic Bible Wheel if I were a Catholic looking for “patterns” that proved divine inspiration. And that’s nothing confirmation bias. Thanks for helping me see the error of my ways. I think I’ll be going now. Bye bye.

Whilst I could see some correlation in the a few of the spokes of the Bible Wheel, the first thing I noticed that many spokes had no apparent correlation. I was not happy that the BW was used to support the Trinity. Maybe if had had conversations with you, I can imagine you replying with the words; "that is absurd" or "that is fallacious". I do not think you would readily have given in to criticism.

I think this goes to show, how easily we can delude ourselves and others. What of those who were easily led by your Bible Wheel and thinking that it was supporting their beliefs? That to me is; the "blind leading the blind".

We cannot blame God for us deluding ourselves about what God has revealed to us. Why blame God, or a fictitious divine being (Satan) for spreading lies and delusion, when we do a good job ourselves?

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
10-05-2014, 07:15 PM
Whilst I could see some correlation in the a few of the spokes of the Bible Wheel, the first thing I noticed that many spokes had no apparent correlation.

I agree that some spokes had much better correlations than others. But you and I never discussed it, so it doesn't really matter.



I was not happy that the BW was used to support the Trinity.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. The only thing I said concerning the Trinity and the Bible Wheel was that there were some nice correlations between the tri-radiant structure of the Canon Wheel and ancient trinitarian iconography. Do you remember any specific arguments I made that you were not "happy" with?



Maybe if had had conversations with you, I can imagine you replying with the words; "that is absurd" or "that is fallacious". I do not think you would readily have given in to criticism.

That would depend on the quality of your criticism of course. I don't recall ever saying something was "absurd" without giving good reason for my judgment. And if I erred, all you would have had to do is show the error.



I think this goes to show, how easily we can delude ourselves and others.

I couldn't agree more. But your comment seems quite ironic since you don't recognize that your belief in the Bible is delusional.



What of those who were easily led by your Bible Wheel and thinking that it was supporting their beliefs? That to me is; the "blind leading the blind".

Folks who were "easily led by the Bible Wheel" would be responsible for their own delusion, just as I was for mine. If they had not begun with a delusional belief in the Bible, they never would have been deluded by the Bible Wheel.



We cannot blame God for us deluding ourselves about what God has revealed to us. Why blame God, or a fictitious divine being (Satan) for spreading lies and delusion, when we do a good job ourselves?

If there is a God who inspired the Bible, then he is responsible for the confusion caused by his extremely confused, ambiguous, and incoherent book.

Mystykal
10-06-2014, 12:43 AM
Good morning Mystykal,

No, I don't intend to continue selling the book. But it is now in the world and has a life of its own. The PDF version is available on various sites, so there's no way for me to delete it from the world. It's like the poem from Omar Khayyam:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it

I've put a notice on the banner of my old site saying the Bible Wheel has been debunked, and I will be replacing the ads for the book with a "DEBUNKED" logo of some sort. I've been waiting until I could finish the article debunking it. It took a long time to write.


I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I think it is quite delusional. Please take no offense, as none is intended. When I say "delusional" I mean it in the same way as when I say I was deluded about the Bible Wheel. You are simply believing things for which you have no evidence.

Why should anyone believe things for which there is no evidence?

How do you distinguish between true and false beliefs when there is no evidence?

The Amazing Randi continues to offer a million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate ANY supernatural ability.

Great chatting!

Richard

Hi Richard:

I take no offense! I realize that it is hard to let go of notions which on the surface appear to be genuine but in the end are empty...

I would really like a hard copy of your book, I find it quite facinating and really well written. I really hope you will keep a few on hand just as a way to let those who want to have a hard copy to be able to buy...

As to Randi I already answered that! He is not allowing those who can do such things to be a part of his search... Nothing is at it appears.


Why should anyone believe things for which there is no evidence?

Faith IS the evidence or the power behind the changes which we seek. The reason faith is no longer understood by most people is that they use the word as a noun instead of a verb. The evidence is in the changes which take place when faith is present v/s when it is not. The no change milk jug results you refer to are because faith is NOT present in those prayers.... Delusional thinking? Well time will tell.

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
10-06-2014, 02:21 AM
Hello Richard


Folks who were "easily led by the Bible Wheel" would be responsible for their own delusion, just as I was for mine. If they had not begun with a delusional belief in the Bible, they never would have been deluded by the Bible Wheel. So now you are saying people who are deluded by reading the Bible Wheel are responsible for their own delusion. You are absolving yourself of causing any delusion. You now support what I said to follow, but are denying it.


If there is a God who inspired the Bible, then he is responsible for the confusion caused by his extremely confused, ambiguous, and incoherent book.The Bible might seems incoherent to you and maybe we have to blame man for making the original word of God incoherent.
You can blame Jesus for speaking in parables and for his audience missing the spiritual message contained in the parables. You blame God for missing the point of his word with its spiritual message to us.
Moses was told to write things down "plainly" so his people would understand and have no excuse. If there is confusion over what Moses has written, after he was told to write it "plainly", then the fault is not with God.

You do not blame yourself for your lack of understanding. What if you are responsible for not "rightly dividing the word of truth" ? Maybe "attitude" (towards God's word) is your problem; attitude was the subject of a thread I recall.

Who is responsible for believing in "lying words"; the one who lies, or the one who believes in the lies? The Bible gives us adequate warning about that. I am now very wary of being lied to by people I have no knowledge of. I have been lied to in the past and deceived, because I trusted people who had not proven to be trustworthy, hence my trust was mislaid. That is the reason now to test everything and that includes what is said about the Bible and God's word.

All the best
David

David M
10-06-2014, 03:37 AM
Faith IS the evidence or the power behind the changes which we seek. The reason faith is no longer understood by most people is that they use the word as a noun instead of a verb. The evidence is in the changes which take place when faith is present v/s when it is not. The no change milk jug results you refer to are because faith is NOT present in those prayers.... Delusional thinking? Well time will tell.

Namaste,

Mystykal
Hello Mystykal
This is just to let you know, that I agree with your statement. Faith is about doing. As you say, faith is displayed when it is seen in action as if it were a verb. Whenever, I mention the fact of "doing works", I am jumped on for saying that we are saved by works. That is not what I have ever said. Ultimately, we are saved by God's grace.

Galatians chapter 3 has much to say on faith. For example; (v11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Of the list of faithful men and women listed in Hebrews 11, they lived out their faith, not by following laws, but responding to the call of God. Doing things in faith requires doing things outside the comfort zone.

Responding to God's word is to put trust in God that he is true to his word. Therefore, we should distinguish between "trust" and "faith". I believe (accept as true) the resurrection. We have the assurance by the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. We shall all naturally die, so that requires no faith on our part. Jesus demonstrated faith by trusting in God and laying down his life, knowing that in 3 days he would be raised to life. What Jesus did, not only demonstrated his faith by "doing", it was also done out of love; love for his Heavenly Father and love toward us, who were yet sinners.

Faith is about "doing". Faith has to be demonstrated. As we are told (James 2:20); "Faith without works is dead". And so as James goes on to say (v26) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Strictly speaking, the word "faith" is a noun and not a verb. When you look up the word "faith" in the dictionary, you find there are at least 7 different meanings. That is the problem we have in agreeing on what is the meaning we intend to convey when we use the word "faith". The one definition missing from the dictionary (dictionary.com) is that given in Heb 11:1; faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is only good, when it is linked with works that demonstrates a person's trust that God will keep his word toward them, if they do their part according to God's word. Those who gave their lives in the service of God did so, knowing that God will raise them to life again in the time of the restored Kingdom. This goes back to the promises of inheritance made to Abraham. Hence the "hope of Israel" is the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. (Acts 1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

All the best
David

Richard Amiel McGough
10-06-2014, 07:39 AM
Hi Richard:

I take no offense! I realize that it is hard to let go of notions which on the surface appear to be genuine but in the end are empty...

Good morning Mystykal,

I'm glad you took no offense. But I think it's rather silly for you to be telling me that I am holding to some empty "notions" - if you are going to talk like that, please have the courtesy to define what those notions might be! :p

It's curious how you say such things about me since I am obviously able to let go of "empty notions" I held fervently for many years concerning God and the Bible, and the Bible Wheel. Ironicaly, your comments seem to apply more to you than me. Your ideas seem quite literally empty of any truth. You believe in things for which there is no evidence. It appears your conviction is based almost entirely on confirmation bias. Yet you tell me my "notions" are empty? That's pretty ironic dude!



I would really like a hard copy of your book, I find it quite facinating and really well written. I really hope you will keep a few on hand just as a way to let those who want to have a hard copy to be able to buy...

I have a few hundred in the garage. We may have a bon fire some day, but I don't know ...



As to Randi I already answered that! He is not allowing those who can do such things to be a part of his search... Nothing is at it appears.

That sounds like an excuse. Randi puts NO RESTRICTIONS except those that would stop deception.



Faith IS the evidence or the power behind the changes which we seek.

That sounds exactly like the essence of Thelemic Magick! Are you into that? Are you saying that you can change things in reality by the power of your "faith/will"?



The reason faith is no longer understood by most people is that they use the word as a noun instead of a verb. The evidence is in the changes which take place when faith is present v/s when it is not. The no change milk jug results you refer to are because faith is NOT present in those prayers....

I understand the two meanings of faith. I have no confusion on that point.



Delusional thinking? Well time will tell.


I do believe time has told.

Shine on!

:sunny:

dpenn
10-06-2014, 10:48 AM
dp:


I have completed my first blog post debunking the Bible Wheel. It's called Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/10/04/debunking-myself-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/).

Richard, I look forward to working through your site, and may get back to you in the future about this.

For now, maybe you have written about this elsewhere, and if so, could you direct me to the site(s) that deal with the Higgs boson (ignoring the God particle goofy name)? I am just curious, with your background in Quantum Physics, what is your reaction to the discovery of that new 3rd particle (that is, in addition to Matter, and Force particles)? Do you hold to the Supersymmetry model to future findings? My understanding is that they are going to ramp up the energy of the LHC at the end of 2014 (I could be out of date on this). Even if they could find all particles searched for to explain the physics of the universe, do you honestly think this proves a materialistic, evolutionary universe, explaining life from non-life?

Could I also ask you what software tool you use to build your web pages on your BW site(s)?

dp

dpenn
10-06-2014, 05:09 PM
dp:


I have completed my first blog post debunking the Bible Wheel. It's called Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2014/10/04/debunking-myself-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/).

... I have completed reading this blog superficially (without reading your 5 "here's" yet, below), and noted that you wrote at the end:



On August 29, 2014 I finally put my claims to the test. I reviewed the best evidence I had supporting them in a series of five posts (here, here, here, here, and here). My conclusion? Every claim I tested failed. They all fell like a house of cards. The self-induced hypnotic spell is finally broken.

I have since debunked all the major claims involving all three threads of my presentation. I am now convinced that all the “evidence” presented on my original site and in my 412 page Bible Wheel book is a massive monument to cognitive bias. The “mystery” has been resolved. I know of nothing in the Bible that requires any “supernatural agent” to explain.




Richard,

I must admit, your story is a fascinating one, which must have been filled with sadness and painful experiences, of which I am happy to see you have risen above so much of it. And I am glad that you have come clean with the much of the content of your Bible Wheel book, if you are convinced you were somehow deceived in its writing. But to debunk your book is one thing, whereas, to debunk the Bible is quite another. So when you say "The “mystery” has been resolved. I know of nothing in the Bible that requires any “supernatural agent” to explain.", I suspect, in the context, that you probably meant to refer to your book.

I am curious, you said that the writings of Aleister Crowley's 777, set you out on the Hebrew kabbalistic trail that led you into all sorts of gematria and numerology, which somehow led to your discovery of the truth of the Bible. Now that you presumably repudiate the writings of the Bible, are you still inclined to follow the anti-biblical approach of men such as Crowley, or the Kabbalah, or other Talmudic sources? I understand that Hubbard, of Scientology, was also a disciple of Crowley, and his OTO, or Golden Dawn (I can't remember which, or if both).

For example, Crowley's tarot card for 16, ayin, is the Devil. Maybe this is where the all-seeing-eye that is covering the world actually comes from. What do you think?

dp

Wm Jas
10-06-2014, 07:10 PM
Obviously, the "theme of righteousness" is not "maximized in Matthew" except in relation to the other three Gospels. So though my statement was literally true, it was fundamentally deceptive. It is curious that it is maximized (relative to the other Gospels) on Spoke 18, but when we look at all the data we see no correlation between "righteousness" and the pattern of the Bible Wheel. This is the key to debunking claims that are based on selection bias. All you need to do is look at all the data.

I assume you are right that "righteousness" is not maximized overall on Spoke 18. However, the graph you have here, showing the number of occurrences in each book of the Bible, is deceptive because it doesn't take into account the length of each book. Psalms is the longest book in the Bible (42,704 words in the KJV), so of course it has many occurrences of "righteous" (or any other word you care to choose). 1 John, on the other hand, is very short (2,517 words), so even a small number of occurrences of "righteous" is impressive. There are 8 occurrences of "righteous" and "righteousness" in 1 John -- the equivalent of 135.7 occurrences (8 * 42,704 / 2,517) in a book the size of Psalms. Matthew has 23,343 words, so its 19 occurrences are the equivalent of 34.8 occurrences in a book the size of Psalms. Job, with 18,098 words, has 20 occurrences of the words in question -- the equivalent of 47.2 for a Psalms-sized book.

Now I haven't checked every book, so I can't say whether or not the theme of righteousness is "maximized" on Spoke 18. (It seems not.) However, I can say that your graph is very misleading. You should redo it, taking into account book length. Otherwise, you're just replacing one misleading graph with another.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-06-2014, 07:12 PM
Richard,

I must admit, your story is a fascinating one, which must have been filled with sadness and painful experiences, of which I am happy to see you have risen above so much of it. And I am glad that you have come clean with the much of the content of your Bible Wheel book, if you are convinced you were somehow deceived in its writing. But to debunk your book is one thing, whereas, to debunk the Bible is quite another. So when you say "The “mystery” has been resolved. I know of nothing in the Bible that requires any “supernatural agent” to explain.", I suspect, in the context, that you probably meant to refer to your book.

I am curious, you said that the writings of Aleister Crowley's 777, set you out on the Hebrew kabbalistic trail that led you into all sorts of gematria and numerology, which somehow led to your discovery of the truth of the Bible. Now that you presumably repudiate the writings of the Bible, are you still inclined to follow the anti-biblical approach of men such as Crowley, or the Kabbalah, or other Talmudic sources? I understand that Hubbard, of Scientology, was also a disciple of Crowley, and his OTO, or Golden Dawn (I can't remember which, or if both).

For example, Crowley's tarot card for 16, ayin, is the Devil. Maybe this is where the all-seeing-eye that is covering the world actually comes from. What do you think?

dp
Hey there dp,

Thanks for the great questions. This is something I really enjoy talking about. There's a lot of "housecleaning" yet to do. This has been such a big change for me after so many years as a believer. Talking about it helps.

I have no interest in any metaphysical speculative spiritual/mystical woowoo like the Kabbalah, Crowley, the Bible, numerology, God, or any of that. From my current point of view, all such things are equally vain and flawed. There're all based on fantasy and cognitive biases which is why it's all received "by faith" rather than knowledge.

The Devil card (ayin) is a traditional card. It's not unique to Crowley's deck. The only thing unique about his deck was its extravagant artwork.

I see no reason to think it is the origin of the concept of "all seeing eye" (aka the Eye of Providence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence)). That is a very old CHRISTIAN concept that comes directly from Scripture (God sees all). I find it fascinating that you have such paranoias about other believers who profess Christ. I cannot imagine any rational reason to think that the Christians who symbolize God as the "all seeing eye" are secret members of some Satanic cult masquerading as Christians. That seems totally nuts to me. (No offence intended. I'm just letting you know how I see things.)

So do you have any way to discern between real "occult conspiracies" totally insane paranoid fantasies?

Richard

PS - I used to joke with myself that I was the only person Crowley ever led to Christ. After converting, two believing friends and I had a big bonfire of all my occult books. We spent about three hours renouncing all that stuff and praying like lunatics. I was disappointed that no screaming demons appeared in the flames. I'm telling you the truth - I really thought I might see some! :doh:

Richard Amiel McGough
10-06-2014, 08:10 PM
I assume you are right that "righteousness" is not maximized overall on Spoke 18. However, the graph you have here, showing the number of occurrences in each book of the Bible, is deceptive because it doesn't take into account the length of each book. Psalms is the longest book in the Bible (42,704 words in the KJV), so of course it has many occurrences of "righteous" (or any other word you care to choose). 1 John, on the other hand, is very short (2,517 words), so even a small number of occurrences of "righteous" is impressive. There are 8 occurrences of "righteous" and "righteousness" in 1 John -- the equivalent of 135.7 occurrences (8 * 42,704 / 2,517) in a book the size of Psalms. Matthew has 23,343 words, so its 19 occurrences are the equivalent of 34.8 occurrences in a book the size of Psalms. Job, with 18,098 words, has 20 occurrences of the words in question -- the equivalent of 47.2 for a Psalms-sized book.

Now I haven't checked every book, so I can't say whether or not the theme of righteousness is "maximized" on Spoke 18. (It seems not.) However, I can say that your graph is very misleading. You should redo it, taking into account book length. Otherwise, you're just replacing one misleading graph with another.
Excellent points, Wm Jas! :thumb:

When talking about "deceptive" statistics, it's always a good idea to keep in mind the old adage "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." :lol:

During the years I spent collecting evidence for the Bible Wheel, I would usually consider both the raw distribution and the weighted distribution (hits per words in book) ... and then use the one that best supported the point I was trying to make. Either or both can be misleading. For example, here is the graph I presented in my book to support my assertion that the idea of "creation" was dominant on Spoke 1 (reproduced on my site here (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Aleph_creation.php)):

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/sn_creation_linear.gif

I then stacked these according to the spokes of the wheel and produced this graphic:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/sn_creation_largegraph.gif


And here is what I said this implied:

All of these facts conspire to demonstrate the divine design of the Holy Bible. Yet there is more! Could God have chosen a more appropriate theme to initiate his Wheel? Indeed, this is where all creation begins, as it is written in the first verse of the first Book of the first Spoke, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The miracle of the Wheel is that it integrates the plain message of Scripture with the simple geometry of the perfect Circle and the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Such is the wonder of the Word of our infinitely wise God!
Now this is, according to your comment (which I believe is correct), fundamentally deceptive. What I should have shown was the percentage distribution:

1309

As you can see, the three highest peaks are in Colossians, Ephesians, and 1 Timothy. Not one of those books is on Spoke 1.

So now, if I want to "save" the evidence for Spoke 18 by using a percentage distribution, I destroy the evidence for Spoke 1. That shows how inconsistent I was when I wrote the book. I thought I was being totally honest but was actually making up rationalizations to use one set of data over another. I now see that as a clear symptom of a mind lost in a delusion.

It is very important to note that even if the few graphs I found were valid, they wouldn't prove anything because they are cherry picked from the vast ocean of word distributions that don't fit the Bible Wheel. All my blather about statistics proving the Bible Wheel was pure bunk. The Bible Wheel has been totally debunked.



Here's the percentage data for Spoke 18 for folks interested. It is a graph that shows the percentage of hits per the number of words in each book:

1308

And here is the distribution in descending order, with the books on Spoke 18 highlighted red:

Pro: 0.5054
Rom: 0.4556
2Pe: 0.3863
1Jo: 0.3178
Psa: 0.3041
2Ti: 0.2361
Tit: 0.2186
1Pe: 0.2019
2Th: 0.1938
Phi: 0.1826
Jam: 0.1736
Isa: 0.1728
Mal: 0.1684
Hab: 0.1356
Gal: 0.1294
Ecc: 0.1255
Job: 0.1160
Heb: 0.1159
2Co: 0.1151
Eph: 0.0990
Amo: 0.0949
1Ti: 0.0885
Mat: 0.0802
Eze: 0.0736
Mic: 0.0635
Zep: 0.0619
Dan: 0.0603
Rev: 0.0584
Hos: 0.0580
Deu: 0.0353
Gen: 0.0314
Lam: 0.0293
Jer: 0.0281
1Co: 0.0211
Joh: 0.0209
Luk: 0.0193
Act: 0.0165
1Ki: 0.0163
Zec: 0.0155
2Sa: 0.0146
Ezr: 0.0134
1Sa: 0.0120
2Ch: 0.0115
Jdg: 0.0105
Neh: 0.0095
Exo: 0.0092
Mar: 0.0066
2Ki: 0.0043
Lev: 0.0041
Num: 0.0030
Jos: 0.0000
Rut: 0.0000
1Ch: 0.0000
Est: 0.0000
Sol: 0.0000
Joe: 0.0000
Oba: 0.0000
Jon: 0.0000
Nah: 0.0000
Hag: 0.0000
Col: 0.0000
1Th: 0.0000
Phm: 0.0000
2Jo: 0.0000
3Jo: 0.0000
Jud: 0.0000

Mystykal
10-06-2014, 10:58 PM
Good morning Mystykal,

I'm glad you took no offense. But I think it's rather silly for you to be telling me that I am holding to some empty "notions" - if you are going to talk like that, please have the courtesy to define what those notions might be! :p

It's curious how you say such things about me since I am obviously able to let go of "empty notions" I held fervently for many years concerning God and the Bible, and the Bible Wheel. Ironicaly, your comments seem to apply more to you than me. Your ideas seem quite literally empty of any truth. You believe in things for which there is no evidence. It appears your conviction is based almost entirely on confirmation bias. Yet you tell me my "notions" are empty? That's pretty ironic dude!


I have a few hundred in the garage. We may have a bon fire some day, but I don't know ...


That sounds like an excuse. Randi puts NO RESTRICTIONS except those that would stop deception.


That sounds exactly like the essence of Thelemic Magick! Are you into that? Are you saying that you can change things in reality by the power of your "faith/will"?


I understand the two meanings of faith. I have no confusion on that point.



I do believe time has told.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Hi Richard:

I'm Laughing my ass off...:lol: My comments about not being able to let go of things was a reference to myself! But you applied it to yourself!:D Well if the shoe fits... :pop2: Seriously, I think you are expressing yourself well. I understand, I think, your change of heart and your new point of view, However, I do not see a need to constantly defend "the truth", The "empty notions" in life are all bias based no doubt. However, to just ignore large batches of information as just made up nonesense when it comes to things like spiritual phenomenon is to ignore large portions of reality. I know you are familiar with the movie "The serpent and the rainbow." The facts of that episode are even more explosive in real life than they were dipictied in the movie. To ignore all of that information and just not try to understand it is to suggest that the paranormal world does not exist.

Randi needs to go to some place where the every day happenings are paranormal if he wants to "debunk" all paranormal activity. But he cherry picks his encounters...


You believe in things for which there is no evidence.


The word evidence is an interesting word... I think that you cannot define evidence in a narrow somewhat autocratic way. When you do that you leave all kinds of phenomenon out of the picture. And then you have cognitive bias! You may not agree with that but.... I believe that is an acurate assessment. :pop2:


Since according to you there is (no evidence for) NO GOD NO Spirit NO Evil malevolent Beings - then all you are left with is this screwed up world which is on its way out! People like to believe in a future. An After-Life Something more! The Egyptians did it; the Greeks did it; the Romans did it; and the Jews did it!... Just to name a few. But basically all social groups have believed in very complex GOD systems. It boggles the mind to think that it all is just a lie of the psyche and we have no connection to the cosmos in any significant way... And when we die it's over forever!...Life is a great mystery and we celebrate that Mystery thru our rituals and myths. However, that does not explain where life came from or how it exists only here on earth...

The facts are that many things cannot be explained which happen to us on a daily basis... Then there is the meditative path which brings us face to face with the unknown. And it is there that the Spirit is visible and has a place in reality.


http://newconnexion.net/articles/index.cfm/2002/05/yuwipe.html (http://newconnexion.net/articles/index.cfm/2002/05/yuwipe.html)

Lakota Healing: a Night of Spirit and Power
by Jim Martin

The cold water hisses and pops as it hits the red hot rocks in a tin bucket on the bare wood floor, engulfing me in purifying steam as I enter the ceremony room and take my place against the west wall with the other men. Meanwhile, the women enter and find seats on the opposite side of the room. Before me is a pile of sage, and beyond that a row of pots and dishes containing the ceremony food consisting of a stew, fry bread, wojape (plum pudding) and coffee, all blessed with a sprig of sweet smelling sage. The walls are bare except for a few canupas (pronounced cha-new-pah), the sacred pipes, hanging in deer skin pouches, and some ceremonial drums. The altar, to my left, is a slightly rounded pile of earth from a mole hill, brushed smooth with an eagle feather and inscribed with a sacred symbol. It is surrounded by tobacco filled prayer ties, small ‘flags’ and a hoop all made of choke cherry stems. Sacred rattles lie silently, awaiting their opportunity to perform. A long string of 405 tobacco ties which I have prepared defines the perimeter of the sacred space. I have attended many ceremonies with the Chipps family on the east coast as well as here on the plains of windswept South Dakota, but this night is special, for tonight the healing ceremony is for me.

The Yuwipi is one of the principal ceremonies of the Lakota Sioux people, along with the Inipi (sweat lodge), Hanbalecha (vision quest) and Sundance. It was a gift from spirit to the Chipps family generations ago and is practiced by family members to this day. The current ‘yuwipi man’, Godfrey, received the power to talk with spirits at the age of twelve and is considered one of the foremost healers of his kind in America today. We first met some years earlier in Massachusetts, and I was later invited to visit his family on the Pine Ridge Reservation near the spectacular Badlands.

At first meeting, I found Godfrey to be strikingly different from the image of the classic medicine man I had previously held. Here was man in his thirties, (younger than me), short, barrel-chested, wearing boots and blue jeans with a printed T shirt and long black hair cascading from a baseball cap bearing the inscription ‘Shit Happens.’ Godfrey, an extremely dedicated, focused and powerful healer, became one of my principal teachers and spiritual guides. Over the years, however, I have also come to see him as a warm and sincere human being with problems and shortcomings like all the rest of us. His role, as he explains it, is ‘spirit interpreter’. Godfrey relays information received directly from the animals, elders and other spirit beings on to those persons in need of healing. This is his unique gift and burden, and I approached him in the traditional manner, offering my canupa, requesting healing.

Once all attendees are seated, the canupa is filled with the smoking mix of tobacco, bark and osha root to the accompaniment of the sacred pipe loading song. It is then handed to Grandmother Vicki to hold and pray with.

Eventually Godfrey enters, removing his shirt and shoes. Assistants bind his hands behind his back, then wrap him entirely in a star quilt which is in turn bound with deer skin thongs. He is gently placed face down upon the bed of sage and we are ready to begin. My excitement soars as the flickering light of the lone kerosene lantern fades and we are left in absolute dark, the world of spirit, wonder and mystery.

A rapid burst of drumming accompanied by the voices of singers pierces the silence as ancient healing songs invite the spirits to enter and participate. I am directed to stand, offer prayer and request healing. Suddenly, the rattles lying at the alter are taken up by the unseen spirit beings and fly about the room, shaking and sparking against the ceiling before coming to me for ‘doctoring’ in which they rapidly but gently shake against my body from head to foot. Godfrey’s muffled voice can be heard as he speaks with the spirits, praying and receiving further instructions for herbs, further ceremonies to be performed, and so on. Next, the quilt is thrown against me, offering more healing and indicating that Godfrey has been freed from his bindings. After a few more songs the lamps are lit, revealing Godfrey untied and sitting up, recovering. The canupa is passed around the room and smoked by all. After prayers we feast, and the ceremony is complete. A thanksgiving ceremony follows some days later.

I have seen many incredible and wonderful things around the world and the Yuwipi ceremony, performed right here in America, ranks among my most remarkable experiences. I give thanks for the opportunity to share this healing and other spiritual practices with the Chipps family and all the Lakota people. Mitakue Oyassin - All My Relations.


Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
10-07-2014, 12:54 AM
Hello Mystykal
This is just to let you know, that I agree with your statement. Faith is about doing. As you say, faith is displayed when it is seen in action as if it were a verb. Whenever, I mention the fact of "doing works", I am jumped on for saying that we are saved by works. That is not what I have ever said. Ultimately, we are saved by God's grace.

Galatians chapter 3 has much to say on faith. For example; (v11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Of the list of faithful men and women listed in Hebrews 11, they lived out their faith, not by following laws, but responding to the call of God. Doing things in faith requires doing things outside the comfort zone.

Responding to God's word is to put trust in God that he is true to his word. Therefore, we should distinguish between "trust" and "faith". I believe (accept as true) the resurrection. We have the assurance by the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead. We shall all naturally die, so that requires no faith on our part. Jesus demonstrated faith by trusting in God and laying down his life, knowing that in 3 days he would be raised to life. What Jesus did, not only demonstrated his faith by "doing", it was also done out of love; love for his Heavenly Father and love toward us, who were yet sinners.

Faith is about "doing". Faith has to be demonstrated. As we are told (James 2:20); "Faith without works is dead". And so as James goes on to say (v26) For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Strictly speaking, the word "faith" is a noun and not a verb. When you look up the word "faith" in the dictionary, you find there are at least 7 different meanings. That is the problem we have in agreeing on what is the meaning we intend to convey when we use the word "faith". The one definition missing from the dictionary (dictionary.com) is that given in Heb 11:1; faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is only good, when it is linked with works that demonstrates a person's trust that God will keep his word toward them, if they do their part according to God's word. Those who gave their lives in the service of God did so, knowing that God will raise them to life again in the time of the restored Kingdom. This goes back to the promises of inheritance made to Abraham. Hence the "hope of Israel" is the restoration of the kingdom of Israel. (Acts 1:6) When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

All the best
David
:lol:

Richard Amiel McGough
10-07-2014, 06:48 AM
Hi Richard:

I'm Laughing my ass off...:lol: My comments about not being able to let go of things was a reference to myself! But you applied it to yourself!:D Well if the shoe fits... :pop2:

Good morning Mystykal,

That's a perfect example of how difficult it is to communicate through little symbols like a,b,c, etc. with no tone of voice or body language to give additional information. That's why it can be so silly when we take ourselves so seriously online. Thumping and pounding on the keyboard --- Why oh why can't they just SEE what I'm trying to say?!?!?!?! Grrrrr .... :arghh:

:lol:



The "empty notions" in life are all bias based no doubt. However, to just ignore large batches of information as just made up nonesense when it comes to things like spiritual phenomenon is to ignore large portions of reality. I know you are familiar with the movie "The serpent and the rainbow." The facts of that episode are even more explosive in real life than they were dipictied in the movie. To ignore all of that information and just not try to understand it is to suggest that the paranormal world does not exist.

You seem to be exceedingly gullible and superstitious and willing to believe any and all woowoo that tickles your fancy. I see no reason to believe a silly horror movie produced by Wes Craven! I mean, get real! Believing horror movies are evidence of the supernatural? What's next, the Exorcist?

If the supernatural were a "large part of reality" then I couldn't ignore it. That follows from the fundamental definition of reality as "that which exists whether you believe in it or not." You are believing in ghosts and goblins and fairy tales with no real evidence at all.



Randi needs to go to some place where the every day happenings are paranormal if he wants to "debunk" all paranormal activity. But he cherry picks his encounters...

Bullshit. It is utterly absurd for you to put a charge of cherry picking, which is the primary error of irrational believers, on skeptics like Randi. Totally absurd.

You have no evidence of any kind that real supernatural events are happening far away in those places "skeptics fear to tread." You are blindly believing in fantasy.



The word evidence is an interesting word... I think that you cannot define evidence in a narrow somewhat autocratic way. When you do that you leave all kinds of phenomenon out of the picture. And then you have cognitive bias! You may not agree with that but.... I believe that is an acurate assessment. :pop2:

Your assessment makes no sense. Observable phenomena is the definition of evidence!

And what's with the copycat charge of "cognitive bias"? Your entire worldview is based fundamentally on cognitive bias. If you had an ounce of understanding of what that means, you would quit with your unfounded beliefs. It is, therefore, quite absurd for you to be tossing that accusation towards skeptics.



Since according to you there is (no evidence for) NO GOD NO Spirit NO Evil malevolent Beings - then all you are left with is this screwed up world which is on its way out! People like to believe in a future. An After-Life Something more! The Egyptians did it; the Greeks did it; the Romans did it; and the Jews did it!... Just to name a few. But basically all social groups have believed in very complex GOD systems. It boggles the mind to think that it all is just a lie of the psyche and we have no connection to the cosmos in any significant way... And when we die it's over forever!...Life is a great mystery and we celebrate that Mystery thru our rituals and myths. However, that does not explain where life came from or how it exists only here on earth...

It doesn't matter what people "want to believe." That has nothing to do with reality.

And we are left with the same "screwed up world" no matter what kind of woo-woo we might believe in.

Your assertion that life exists only on earth is totally unfounded. And contrary to your beliefs that there are "living" spiritual beings that are not constrained to the earth anyway. I find it quite surprising that you don't believe in aliens. ...

Your understanding seems to be inverted. You say it "boggles the mind" to think that the ten thousand mutually contradictory fantasies and fairy tales are all false. I see it exactly opposite - it is literally impossible that they could all be true! And it is obvious the 99% are false. And there's no reason to think the remaining 1% should fair any better.

I do not understand why you exult in ignorance and gullibility which leads to deception and delusion.



The facts are that many things cannot be explained which happen to us on a daily basis... Then there is the meditative path which brings us face to face with the unknown. And it is there that the Spirit is visible and has a place in reality.

Ha! That's not exactly correct. The fact is that there are many things that YOU cannot explain happen on a daily basis. But there is a very sad correlated fact - those things that you believe cannot be explained can be explained quite easily. I recommend a most excellent book that reveals the cognitive biases and ignorance that keeps people trapped in false beliefs:

The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day (http://www.amazon.com/The-Improbability-Principle-Coincidences-Miracles/dp/0374175349)

If you want to free yourself from bondage to delusion, read that book.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

dpenn
10-07-2014, 09:18 AM
dp:


Hey there dp,

Thanks for the great questions. This is something I really enjoy talking about. There's a lot of "housecleaning" yet to do. This has been such a big change for me after so many years as a believer. Talking about it helps.

I have no interest in any metaphysical speculative spiritual/mystical woowoo like the Kabbalah, Crowley, the Bible, numerology, God, or any of that. From my current point of view, all such things are equally vain and flawed. There're all based on fantasy and cognitive biases which is why it's all received "by faith" rather than knowledge.

The Devil card (ayin) is a traditional card. It's not unique to Crowley's deck. The only thing unique about his deck was its extravagant artwork.

I see no reason to think it is the origin of the concept of "all seeing eye" (aka the Eye of Providence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence)). That is a very old CHRISTIAN concept that comes directly from Scripture (God sees all). I find it fascinating that you have such paranoias about other believers who profess Christ. I cannot imagine any rational reason to think that the Christians who symbolize God as the "all seeing eye" are secret members of some Satanic cult masquerading as Christians. That seems totally nuts to me. (No offence intended. I'm just letting you know how I see things.)

So do you have any way to discern between real "occult conspiracies" totally insane paranoid fantasies?

Richard

PS - I used to joke with myself that I was the only person Crowley ever led to Christ. After converting, two believing friends and I had a big bonfire of all my occult books. We spent about three hours renouncing all that stuff and praying like lunatics. I was disappointed that no screaming demons appeared in the flames. I'm telling you the truth - I really thought I might see some! :doh:

Richard,

There is a big difference between the Scriptures that say God sees all, and secret societies all over the world that use many symbols of communication and recognition, you might say, playing god. Yes, I do have a way to discern between "real conspiracies" and paranoid fantasies. It is the same way I approach all facts in life, including the Word of God, reason, science, and good old trustworthy common sense and intuition. But it is often difficult to discern, or even more difficult to know for certain some facts, because secret societies are just that, secret. And the type of oaths they take are proof that they don't like being scrutinized. Remember, self-deception plagues us all, not just those that are convinced there are real conspiracies, but also those who embrace and enact those conspiracies. One thing is certain, real conspiracies are real, and paranoid delusions are always paranoid delusions.

There is undoubtedly the lunatic fringe of "conspiracy theorists", but anyone with intelligence knows that there are very real and dangerous conspiracy driven people in this world. My main focus is to study the Word of God, and to live by its clear teaching. But, like many others, I like to be rounded in many areas of learning, including, how governments work or fail, how the money system works, what causes all the wars, why there is such a push for a one world government, what this mean for our future freedoms, and yes, especially for Christians, and how we are to reconcile all of this with what God has revealed to us in His Word. And these are just a few of the questions I try to answer. There are many others, at the social level. For the time, I enjoy that I can freely choose what I believe and why. That is not a given in many countries, and seems to be disappearing at home too. I am not paranoid about it, but neither do I want to be ignorant of it.

There is one thing I have observed, and that is that people always seem to gravitate to something that they can't fully prove, but yet hold allegiance to, maybe not quite as simple as Dylan's "you've gotta serve somebody ... it might be the devil, or it might be the lord, but you've gotta serve somebody". Ironically, I can't be certain, but Dylan seems to have taken the same route as you. Your faith seems to rest in the fact that God does not exist, or if he does, he might be hiding under a rock on Mars, coupled with faith that science will answer all issues of life. My guess (and it is just an intuitive type of guess) is that you will not be able to live consistently, morally, and contentedly while attempting to remove God completely from your life. God reveals Himself inside of us, in our conscience, and outside in everything, through His general revelation, and all who deny this, will find themselves trying to hold down this truth in unrighteousness, like a spring ... it takes work. The minute you let down your guard, God will be on the rise, whether you like it or not.

I am certain that you will not accept this, or admit to this, but this is what I believe you will experience. And, as that old song goes, you might think me crazy ...

No offence intended.

dp

dpenn
10-07-2014, 10:26 AM
dp:



I find it fascinating that you have such paranoias about other believers who profess Christ. I cannot imagine any rational reason to think that the Christians who symbolize God as the "all seeing eye" are secret members of some Satanic cult masquerading as Christians. That seems totally nuts to me. (No offence intended. I'm just letting you know how I see things.)


Richard, I overlooked one of your points. There is a massive difference between those who profess Christ and those who possess the truth and reality of Christ. Through my studies, I have found that most of the churches, or secret societies that use the symbol of the "all seeing eye", are either gnostic, vatican, or liberal churches, and members of many of these, and many more, that align themselves with the masons, rosicrucians, or derivatives thereof. The ecumenical movement is proof of this. And what Christians are they all aligned against? You guessed it, historical biblical Christians. I know they are against much more than just genuine Christians, but I am speaking as a Christian. Jesus, Himself, said that there would be false apostles, prophets, and teachers, that would be able to even deceive the elect, if possible. And this was even the warning that the Apostle Paul had for the elders of the churches in Miletus, on his final trip to Jerusalem, before being imprisoned and sent to Rome, Acts 20:27-32,

"For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified."

This might seem totally nuts to you, but I think you are playing a wild card on your saying I am "nuts", even if you say there is no offence intended. I might be a little nuts at times, but overall, I am subject to the common self-deception that we all face, and have to reason my way through it, like any rational person.

dp

Mystykal
10-07-2014, 11:59 PM
Good morning Mystykal,

That's a perfect example of how difficult it is to communicate through little symbols like a,b,c, etc. with no tone of voice or body language to give additional information. That's why it can be so silly when we take ourselves so seriously online. Thumping and pounding on the keyboard --- Why oh why can't they just SEE what I'm trying to say?!?!?!?! Grrrrr .... :arghh:

:lol:



You seem to be exceedingly gullible and superstitious and willing to believe any and all woowoo that tickles your fancy. I see no reason to believe a silly horror movie produced by Wes Craven! I mean, get real! Believing horror movies are evidence of the supernatural? What's next, the Exorcist?

If the supernatural were a "large part of reality" then I couldn't ignore it. That follows from the fundamental definition of reality as "that which exists whether you believe in it or not." You are believing in ghosts and goblins and fairy tales with no real evidence at all.


Bullshit. It is utterly absurd for you to put a charge of cherry picking, which is the primary error of irrational believers, on skeptics like Randi. Totally absurd.

You have no evidence of any kind that real supernatural events are happening far away in those places "skeptics fear to tread." You are blindly believing in fantasy.


Your assessment makes no sense. Observable phenomena is the definition of evidence!

And what's with the copycat charge of "cognitive bias"? Your entire worldview is based fundamentally on cognitive bias. If you had an ounce of understanding of what that means, you would quit with your unfounded beliefs. It is, therefore, quite absurd for you to be tossing that accusation towards skeptics.


It doesn't matter what people "want to believe." That has nothing to do with reality.

And we are left with the same "screwed up world" no matter what kind of woo-woo we might believe in.

Your assertion that life exists only on earth is totally unfounded. And contrary to your beliefs that there are "living" spiritual beings that are not constrained to the earth anyway. I find it quite surprising that you don't believe in aliens. ...

Your understanding seems to be inverted. You say it "boggles the mind" to think that the ten thousand mutually contradictory fantasies and fairy tales are all false. I see it exactly opposite - it is literally impossible that they could all be true! And it is obvious the 99% are false. And there's no reason to think the remaining 1% should fair any better.

I do not understand why you exult in ignorance and gullibility which leads to deception and delusion.


Ha! That's not exactly correct. The fact is that there are many things that YOU cannot explain happen on a daily basis. But there is a very sad correlated fact - those things that you believe cannot be explained can be explained quite easily. I recommend a most excellent book that reveals the cognitive biases and ignorance that keeps people trapped in false beliefs:

The Improbability Principle: Why Coincidences, Miracles, and Rare Events Happen Every Day (http://www.amazon.com/The-Improbability-Principle-Coincidences-Miracles/dp/0374175349)

If you want to free yourself from bondage to delusion, read that book.

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard

Hi
Richard:
Hey! Chill out! :lol: You seem to be getting way out there in your assumptions about what I am saying...


You seem to be exceedingly gullible and superstitious and willing to believe any and all woowoo that tickles your fancy. I see no reason to believe a silly horror movie produced by Wes Craven! I mean, get real! Believing horror movies are evidence of the supernatural? What's next, the Exorcist?


You do know that the movie was written around a TRUE story of a doctor who went to discover puffer fish extract as a real ingredient for anesthetics! The movie is NOT the invention of Wes Craven! Read the book - The Serpent and the Rainbow....

I am NOT as gullible as you may think I am... Do you really think ALL yuwipi ceremonies are FAKE??? :eek::confused::mad:

I find your ability to just ignore what I say and to then make assertions which do not follow my line of logic to be a case of complete denial on your part! I never said anything about aliens! you said....

.

Your assertion that life exists only on earth is totally unfounded. And contrary to your beliefs that there are "living" spiritual beings that are not constrained to the earth anyway. I find it quite surprising that you don't believe in aliens. ...
..

My reference to no outside life in the universe was for your benefit as in from your logic standpoint. Since we have never encountered life outside of this planet earth as you say...

I do believe in spirit entities AND they ARE constrained to this earth! But they are not ghosts! So see you made alot of assertions in that last statement which are NOT true about me and what I think! The idea that anyone who believes in the EVIDENCE as seen and experienced in a REAL yuwipi session is just superstitious is CRAZY talk!! You assume that there are NO spirits because you have never seen one or you do not believe what you see!.... But IF a yuwipi cerimony is true and real then you are at a loss to explain it using your kind of logic where there are NO Spirits or entities in this world....


Namaste,

Mystykal

Richard Amiel McGough
10-08-2014, 09:50 PM
Hi
Richard:
Hey! Chill out! :lol: You seem to be getting way out there in your assumptions about what I am saying...

Hey there Mystykal,

I was totally chill. I guess you missed the smiley I put at the end of my comment. I was just agreeing with you about how difficult communication through little characters can be ... too easily misunderstood. That's all. Funny, your response exemplifies the point I was trying to make. :p



You do know that the movie was written around a TRUE story of a doctor who went to discover puffer fish extract as a real ingredient for anesthetics! The movie is NOT the invention of Wes Craven! Read the book - The Serpent and the Rainbow....

I read the wiki article, and I didn't see any reason to think anything supernatural happened. On the contrary, the book talks about drugs! Here's the opening paragraph:
The book presents the case of Clairvius Narcisse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvius_Narcisse), a man who had been a zombie for two years, as showing that the zombification process was more likely the result of a complex interaction of tetrodotoxin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrodotoxin), a powerful hallucinogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen) called Datura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura), and cultural forces and beliefs.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Serpent_and_the_Rainbow_(book)#cite_note-1)
What are you suggesting this proves?



I am NOT as gullible as you may think I am... Do you really think ALL yuwipi ceremonies are FAKE??? :eek::confused::mad:

I don't know about "all" but I most certainly think that stories of immaterial spirits carrying physical rattles around is false. Why would you believe something like that? That's the oldest fakery in the books! Fake mediums have been connecting things to strings and moving them around in dim light for centuries. This is why they can never demonstrate anything like this to Randi. All he does is make sure that they can't fake their bullshit, and BEHOLD! They can't fake their bullshit. Do you really find that surprising?



You assume that there are NO spirits because you have never seen one or you do not believe what you see!....

Not true. I just assume that if there are spirits, then the evidence wouldn't go POOF! and disappear the moment anyone made sure that the mediums weren't faking it.



But IF a yuwipi cerimony is true and real then you are at a loss to explain it using your kind of logic where there are NO Spirits or entities in this world....

As long as they can't actually demonstrate that the spirits can actually do anything, then there is nothing for me to explain.

All your "evidence" is the stuff of stories and fantasies. Which is more likely to be true - that Muhammad rode a horse to the moon, or one of his followers made up a story? Why is this so hard for you to understand? I'm not even being a "hard nosed skeptic." YOu have yet to present any evidence worth considering.

How do you decide which story to believe? Do you believe that Muhammad rode a horse to the moon? If not, why not? You believe all sorts of stories that have no more evidence supporting them than that.

Great chatting my friend!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Richard Amiel McGough
10-08-2014, 10:06 PM
Yes, I do have a way to discern between "real conspiracies" and paranoid fantasies. It is the same way I approach all facts in life, including the Word of God, reason, science, and good old trustworthy common sense and intuition. But it is often difficult to discern, or even more difficult to know for certain some facts, because secret societies are just that, secret.
I'm sorry, but I don't see an answer to my question. From what I've read of your posts, it seems to me that you use the same methodology as the "lunatic fringe" of the conspiracy theorists that you say "undoubtedly exist." Perhaps I have not understood. An excellent solution would be for you to present two or three of your best "methods" that you have used to discern the existence of these conspiracies. I don't need a "book" - on the contrary, please be as brief as possible. What is the best evidence you have for your beliefs about conspiracies and "secret societies" that actually rule the world? (If that's what you believe.)

Shine on!

:sunny:

PS: Sorry for the slow response. I'm very interested in the conversation, but work has been keeping me busy.

dpenn
10-09-2014, 12:04 AM
I'm sorry, but I don't see an answer to my question. From what I've read of your posts, it seems to me that you use the same methodology as the "lunatic fringe" of the conspiracy theorists that you say "undoubtedly exist." Perhaps I have not understood. An excellent solution would be for you to present two or three of your best "methods" that you have used to discern the existence of these conspiracies. I don't need a "book" - on the contrary, please be as brief as possible. What is the best evidence you have for your beliefs about conspiracies and "secret societies" that actually rule the world? (If that's what you believe.)

Shine on!

:sunny:

PS: Sorry for the slow response. I'm very interested in the conversation, but work has been keeping me busy.

Richard, this is one where I am just going to let you think I am part of the "lunatic fringe". I am quite certain that you are aware of some of them too, as you are much too smart to not know this. So I am guessing that you, for whatever reason, are being willfully ignorant of this one.

I don't really believe that any secret society could ever rule the world, as I believe that God is still Sovereign over all of His creation, including the Devil, and these human elite will all find themselves standing before the Judgement of God, at the end of time, to receive their just penalty for their willful disobedience.

If Jeremiah, an OT Prophet of God, could plead with the people of Jerusalem to turn in repentance to God, then I guess it is only fitting that some much lesser servant of the Lord, such as I, could plead with the world around me, to repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, and to save himself or herself from the Judgement to come.

I judge no man, woman, or child. I am merely a servant of the Living God, a sinner saved by grace.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-09-2014, 07:32 AM
Richard, this is one where I am just going to let you think I am part of the "lunatic fringe". I am quite certain that you are aware of some of them too, as you are much too smart to not know this. So I am guessing that you, for whatever reason, are being willfully ignorant of this one.

Too smart to not know what? If you can't even state your reasons, how then can you claim I am wilfully ignorant? I get the impression you know that the errors in your "reasons" will be exposed if you actually state them as a clear proposition, and so are dodging.

Here's a big hint for you: Why are conspiracy theories typically presented as a long list of cherry picked coincidences? Because that is how delusions are created! It's pretty simple stuff. Anyone on the outside can see it immediately. I know, because I only recently woke up to see how I was deluded by Christianity and the Bible Wheel. When I was on the inside, I couldn't see the errors in my logic. Now they are embarrassingly obvious. But that's ok, cuz being embarrassed out here in the fresh air is preferable to being smug in my dank dungeon of delusion.



I don't really believe that any secret society could ever rule the world, as I believe that God is still Sovereign over all of His creation, including the Devil, and these human elite will all find themselves standing before the Judgement of God, at the end of time, to receive their just penalty for their willful disobedience.

I've gotten the impression that you hold to the Westminster Confession of the Faith, specifically, that "God ordained whatsoever comes to pass." We should talk about that sometime. When I was a Christian, I thought that was the most blatant imposition of a fallacious human invention upon the Bible. It looked to me like a logic-monster gone mad.



If Jeremiah, an OT Prophet of God, could plead with the people of Jerusalem to turn in repentance to God, then I guess it is only fitting that some much lesser servant of the Lord, such as I, could plead with the world around me, to repent and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation, and to save himself or herself from the Judgement to come.

Why would you waste your time pleading with a God who will do what he will do regardless of what you say? Is not prayer pure vanity?

Have you not noticed that you god himself is not even free? If he's always known everything, then he never had a chance to make any decisions! What then determines what God would do if he couldn't decide for himself? He's determined by some unknown force or "nature" like a dull, dead, rock.

Well, time is fleeting. Talk more soon.

Richard

Mystykal
10-10-2014, 11:00 PM
Hey there Mystykal,

I was totally chill. I guess you missed the smiley I put at the end of my comment. I was just agreeing with you about how difficult communication through little characters can be ... too easily misunderstood. That's all. Funny, your response exemplifies the point I was trying to make. :p


I read the wiki article, and I didn't see any reason to think anything supernatural happened. On the contrary, the book talks about drugs! Here's the opening paragraph:
The book presents the case of Clairvius Narcisse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clairvius_Narcisse), a man who had been a zombie for two years, as showing that the zombification process was more likely the result of a complex interaction of tetrodotoxin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrodotoxin), a powerful hallucinogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen) called Datura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datura), and cultural forces and beliefs.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Serpent_and_the_Rainbow_(book)#cite_note-1)
What are you suggesting this proves?


I don't know about "all" but I most certainly think that stories of immaterial spirits carrying physical rattles around is false. Why would you believe something like that? That's the oldest fakery in the books! Fake mediums have been connecting things to strings and moving them around in dim light for centuries. This is why they can never demonstrate anything like this to Randi. All he does is make sure that they can't fake their bullshit, and BEHOLD! They can't fake their bullshit. Do you really find that surprising?


Not true. I just assume that if there are spirits, then the evidence wouldn't go POOF! and disappear the moment anyone made sure that the mediums weren't faking it.


As long as they can't actually demonstrate that the spirits can actually do anything, then there is nothing for me to explain.

All your "evidence" is the stuff of stories and fantasies. Which is more likely to be true - that Muhammad rode a horse to the moon, or one of his followers made up a story? Why is this so hard for you to understand? I'm not even being a "hard nosed skeptic." YOu have yet to present any evidence worth considering.

How do you decide which story to believe? Do you believe that Muhammad rode a horse to the moon? If not, why not? You believe all sorts of stories that have no more evidence supporting them than that.

Great chatting my friend!

Shine on!

:sunny:

Hi Richard:

Really? You blew be off like you do not understand that the book a serpent and the rainbow has alot more info in it than the drugs issue. The doctor's life became affected and he was NOT doing the drugs! You really need to stop acting like my questions are not worth thinking about....
As to yuwipi ceremonies... Randi has never proven one to be false! And your contention that a little rattle is no big deal to fake... what about the lights in the air the bound up man with hands bound... I will tell you that it is not completely dark in the room and you can see if there are people helping to untie him.... and for you to act like you can disregard all that info in one fell swoop and go to myths in Islam... well you are trying hard to avoid the subject!


Namaste,

Mystykal

Mystykal
10-11-2014, 12:11 AM
Hi Richard:

Really? You blew me off like you do not understand that the book The serpent and the rainbow has alot more info in it than the drugs issue. The doctor's life became affected and he was NOT doing the drugs! You really need to stop acting like my questions are not worth thinking about....
As to yuwipi ceremonies... Randi has never proven one to be false! And your contention that a little rattle is no big deal to fake... what about the lights in the air the bound up man with hands bound... I will tell you that it is not completely dark in the room and you can see if there are people helping to untie him.... and for you to act like you can disregard all that info in one fell swoop and go to myths in Islam... well you are trying hard to avoid the subject!


Namaste,

Mystykal

Richard Amiel McGough
10-11-2014, 07:26 AM
Hi Richard:

Really? You blew be off like you do not understand that the book a serpent and the rainbow has alot more info in it than the drugs issue. The doctor's life became affected and he was NOT doing the drugs! You really need to stop acting like my questions are not worth thinking about....

As to yuwipi ceremonies... Randi has never proven one to be false! And your contention that a little rattle is no big deal to fake... what about the lights in the air the bound up man with hands bound... I will tell you that it is not completely dark in the room and you can see if there are people helping to untie him.... and for you to act like you can disregard all that info in one fell swoop and go to myths in Islam... well you are trying hard to avoid the subject!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Good morning Mystykal,

I am not saying your questions are not worthy talking about. My point is that mere story telling is not the same thing as evidence. You appeal to stories that cannot be confirmed as true. Therefore, they do not prove what you are trying to prove. That's all.

I don't understand why you keep pushing the yuwipi as proof of anything. Flying rattles? That sounds ridiculous. Why can't they provide any evidence? Because the stories are almost certainly fake like all the others that have been totally debunked.

You passionately believe things that appear to be irrational and have never been able to provide any evidence that I can test. So what am I to do? Are you really saying that I should believe every supernatural claim I hear? That would make me a complete fool. So what do you want me to do? I can't say I believe things that look irrational and have no proof.

Great chatting,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
10-11-2014, 09:27 AM
FYI - I moved all the posts concerning the meaning of historical biblical Christianity to a thread of its own.

What is Historical Biblical Christianity? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6151-What-is-Historical-Biblical-Christianity)

I would like to keep this thread on the topic of the Bible Wheel, Numerology, and Cognitive Bias.

Thank you for your cooperation!

:focus:

dpenn
10-11-2014, 10:49 AM
dp:


FYI - I moved all the posts concerning the meaning of historical biblical Christianity to a thread of its own.

What is Historical Biblical Christianity? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6151-What-is-Historical-Biblical-Christianity)

I would like to keep this thread on the topic of the Bible Wheel, Numerology, and Cognitive Bias.

Thank you for your cooperation!

:focus:

Richard,

yea, knowing the way we go at it, if you were to respond to more of my points we would probably highjack your thread.

btw, I also felt that one other time, in particular, when sylvius and I kind of took over duxrow's thread on Biblical Studies, Jacob to Joseph, beginning about p 9, #88 or so. Is it possible for you to create a new thread called "Daniel 9:24-27", under Biblical Studies, and move from #88 to the end on p 15?

I am assuming I don't have the authority to do something like this.

Richard Amiel McGough
10-11-2014, 11:10 AM
Richard,

yea, knowing the way we go at it, if you were to respond to more of my points we would probably highjack your thread.

btw, I also felt that one other time, in particular, when sylvius and I kind of took over duxrow's thread on Biblical Studies, Jacob to Joseph, beginning about p 9, #88 or so. Is it possible for you to create a new thread called "Daniel 9:24-27", under Biblical Studies, and move from #88 to the end on p 15?

I am assuming I don't have the authority to do something like this.
I moved the posts to the new thread here: Daniel 9:24-27 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6152-Daniel-9-24-27).

Mystykal
10-11-2014, 10:29 PM
Good morning Mystykal,

I am not saying your questions are not worthy talking about. My point is that mere story telling is not the same thing as evidence. You appeal to stories that cannot be confirmed as true. Therefore, they do not prove what you are trying to prove. That's all.

I don't understand why you keep pushing the yuwipi as proof of anything. Flying rattles? That sounds ridiculous. Why can't they provide any evidence? Because the stories are almost certainly fake like all the others that have been totally debunked.

You passionately believe things that appear to be irrational and have never been able to provide any evidence that I can test. So what am I to do? Are you really saying that I should believe every supernatural claim I hear? That would make me a complete fool. So what do you want me to do? I can't say I believe things that look irrational and have no proof.

Great chatting,

Richard

Hi Richard:

I'm glad you backed down a little... Let me suggest that you can take each idea a step at a time and use the process of elimination to figure out what is real and what is not...


I don't understand why you keep pushing the yuwipi as proof of anything. Flying rattles? That sounds ridiculous. Why can't they provide any evidence? Because the stories are almost certainly fake like all the others that have been totally debunked.


so let's understand that Spirits either exist or they do not. To ASSUME that they DO NOT is to then just bury your head in the sand. I keep an open mind about it. I try and understand what we might be looking at instead of suggesting that all spiritual stuff like angels and god and jesus and holy spirit and the likes is just FAKE! If all things spiritual are fake then GOD is fake period. Does not matter which god you might be talking about!...
No angels? Then Satan previously called Lucifer or some other name is FAKE as well... Is that what you believe? NO Evidence? NONE? so Fake?



My point is that mere story telling is not the same thing as evidence. You appeal to stories that cannot be confirmed as true.


So, What then? My personal experiences mean nothing? So then you should send yourself or Randi or who ever you trust to seach out these things for let's say 50 years and do double blind studies and see if some of these reports do not hold up to the strictest scrutiny! Until then, your argument is invalid. Evidence is only gained in your life from personal experience!
:p

You are entitled to your position but it proves nothing! Get out there and EXPERIENCE the event for yourself! I did it and I came away with the understanding that the Spiritual world is real...


Namaste,

Mystykal

Richard Amiel McGough
10-12-2014, 11:04 AM
Hi Richard:

I'm glad you backed down a little... Let me suggest that you can take each idea a step at a time and use the process of elimination to figure out what is real and what is not...

Good morning Mystykal,

What did I say that made you think I am "backing down"? Backing down from what? I am not aware of any change in my attitude or beliefs in the last post. All I did was clarify what I meant in the previous post.



so let's understand that Spirits either exist or they do not. To ASSUME that they DO NOT is to then just bury your head in the sand. I keep an open mind about it. I try and understand what we might be looking at instead of suggesting that all spiritual stuff like angels and god and jesus and holy spirit and the likes is just FAKE! If all things spiritual are fake then GOD is fake period. Does not matter which god you might be talking about!...
No angels? Then Satan previously called Lucifer or some other name is FAKE as well... Is that what you believe? NO Evidence? NONE? so Fake?

I do not "assume" that there are no spirits of any kind. But neither do I simply believe every claim that comes down the pike. And more importantly, such claims have frequently been shown to be the product of either deliberate deception or cognitive bias. I have never, as yet, seen any reason to believe that there are spirits that can cause rattles to fly around, tables to levitate, trumpets to blow. One famous case is from 1924 when Houdini exposed the charlatan spiritual medium Mina Crandon who was a total fraud. Read about it here (http://mentalfloss.com/article/53424/houdinis-greatest-trick-debunking-medium-mina-crandon). There a thousands of people who make such claims, and none have every been confirmed and many have been proven deliberate frauds. The only rational response is to be skeptical.

I keep an open mind about these things. I think you are the one who has his head in the sand since you ignore the evidence that shows such claims are usually fraudulent or delusional. You have never presented anything but anecdotes as evidence. I do not find those stories compelling because they sound like all the other claims that have been proven false.

I think nothing could be more obvious than that the biblegod is "fake" in the sense of "not real." Just look at how he is described in the Bible. He reflects the primitive morals, selfishness, mythology, and faulty understanding of ignorant men who lived thousands of years ago.

And just so you know: The Hebrew and Greek Bible knows nothing of any "Lucifier." That's nothing but a faulty translation imported into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate. I've explained this at least a dozen times on this forum, most recently on August 29, just last month here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66298#post66298). I'm surprised you missed it.


So, What then? My personal experiences mean nothing? So then you should send yourself or Randi or who ever you trust to seach out these things for let's say 50 years and do double blind studies and see if some of these reports do not hold up to the strictest scrutiny! Until then, your argument is invalid. Evidence is only gained in your life from personal experience!
:p

You are entitled to your position but it proves nothing! Get out there and EXPERIENCE the event for yourself! I did it and I came away with the understanding that the Spiritual world is real...

Personal experience, when it comes to things like magic, fairies, miracles, and anything supernatural, is notoriously unreliable. People are easily fooled both by deliberate frauds and the biases of their own mind.

You are free to believe what you like but if you have no evidence, why would you expect anyone to agree? You have presented the outrageously improbable claims of Roger Morneau as if they were incontrovertible facts. When I explained why I considered his claims to be blatantly absurd, you let the matter drop. You didn't even try to answer the points I raised. Fine. No need to belabor that point. But if you cannot defend your claims, what right do you have to continue asserting that the problem lies with me and my supposed closed mind? You are the one making the claims, so the burden of proof lies with you. My mind is not closed. I am open to review any evidence you care to provide. As it stands, you have never presented anything that would give a rational person a reason to believe in the supernatural.

So chill out already! :p

Richard

Mystykal
10-12-2014, 10:35 PM
Good morning Mystykal,

What did I say that made you think I am "backing down"? Backing down from what? I am not aware of any change in my attitude or beliefs in the last post. All I did was clarify what I meant in the previous post.


I do not "assume" that there are no spirits of any kind. But neither do I simply believe every claim that comes down the pike. And more importantly, such claims have frequently been shown to be the product of either deliberate deception or cognitive bias. I have never, as yet, seen any reason to believe that there are spirits that can cause rattles to fly around, tables to levitate, trumpets to blow. One famous case is from 1924 when Houdini exposed the charlatan spiritual medium Mina Crandon who was a total fraud. Read about it here (http://mentalfloss.com/article/53424/houdinis-greatest-trick-debunking-medium-mina-crandon). There a thousands of people who make such claims, and none have every been confirmed and many have been proven deliberate frauds. The only rational response is to be skeptical.

I keep an open mind about these things. I think you are the one who has his head in the sand since you ignore the evidence that shows such claims are usually fraudulent or delusional. You have never presented anything but anecdotes as evidence. I do not find those stories compelling because they sound like all the other claims that have been proven false.

I think nothing could be more obvious than that the biblegod is "fake" in the sense of "not real." Just look at how he is described in the Bible. He reflects the primitive morals, selfishness, mythology, and faulty understanding of ignorant men who lived thousands of years ago.

And just so you know: The Hebrew and Greek Bible knows nothing of any "Lucifier." That's nothing but a faulty translation imported into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate. I've explained this at least a dozen times on this forum, most recently on August 29, just last month here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6024-The-Bible-Wheel-Numerology-and-Cognitive-Bias&p=66298#post66298). I'm surprised you missed it.


Personal experience, when it comes to things like magic, fairies, miracles, and anything supernatural, is notoriously unreliable. People are easily fooled both by deliberate frauds and the biases of their own mind.

You are free to believe what you like but if you have no evidence, why would you expect anyone to agree? You have presented the outrageously improbable claims of Roger Morneau as if they were incontrovertible facts. When I explained why I considered his claims to be blatantly absurd, you let the matter drop. You didn't even try to answer the points I raised. Fine. No need to belabor that point. But if you cannot defend your claims, what right do you have to continue asserting that the problem lies with me and my supposed closed mind? You are the one making the claims, so the burden of proof lies with you. My mind is not closed. I am open to review any evidence you care to provide. As it stands, you have never presented anything that would give a rational person a reason to believe in the supernatural.

So chill out already! :p

Richard

Hey Richard!

Wow ! Your logic fails me! I said "Go out there and get your own evidence!" You once again started talking about houdini I know all those stories... Alot of fakes do not disprove the true! And no amount of evidence will ever change your mind! So you keep arguing in circles. And by the way if you qouted me correctly I NEVER said Lucifer was his ACTUAL name... I said he is called Lucifer or whatever name he used to have... Are you so out of your mind that you try and suggest that I do not know that the word Lucifer is from the bogus Latin? Really? Get real! :D Please stop bringing up Roger Morneau. I understand all his evidence is not worth it in your opinion because he is not here to defend his claims... So drop it already!

Back to YUWIPI... Do you just believe something is false without investigating it. You say personal experience does not prove anything... ok. Then what does? The spiritual realm is not a math formula.... How else do you investigate if you are unwilling to go and EXPERIENCE the event?...


Namaste,


Mystykal

Richard Amiel McGough
10-13-2014, 07:22 AM
Hey Richard!

Wow ! Your logic fails me! I said "Go out there and get your own evidence!" You once again started talking about houdini I know all those stories... Alot of fakes do not disprove the true! And no amount of evidence will ever change your mind! So you keep arguing in circles.

Good morning Mystykal,

You said a lot more than "Go out there and get your evidence." I was responding to those other comments (as you can see if you read what I wrote).

I never said that the number of fakes disproves the is true. Such comments are quite silly since they have nothing to do with anything I have written.

We are indeed going in circles because you are not responding to the words I actually wrote.

Your assertion that "no amount of evidence will every change my mind" is both false and absurd. If there were EVIDENCE it would obviously change my mind. The whole problem is that there is no evidence.

You say I should "Go out there and get your evidence." I've already done that. I did it for years. You merely don't like the fact that I have come to a different conclusion than you.



And by the way if you qouted me correctly I NEVER said Lucifer was his ACTUAL name... I said he is called Lucifer or whatever name he used to have... Are you so out of your mind that you try and suggest that I do not know that the word Lucifer is from the bogus Latin? Really? Get real! :D

Here is what you wrote:
No angels? Then Satan previously called Lucifer or some other name is FAKE as well... Is that what you believe?
You straight up referred to Satan as "previously called Lucifer." If you knew he was never actually called Lucifer in the Bible, why did you say that? The name "Lucifer" is certainly "fake."



Please stop bringing up Roger Morneau. I understand all his evidence is not worth it in your opinion because he is not here to defend his claims... So drop it already!

You brought him up originally. I researched him and found he must be delusional, deceptive, or both. You never responded to the evidence I presented. Why not? I'm guessing this is how you protect your beliefs. You ignore the evidence and choose to believe exceedingly unlikely stories that are indistinguishable from the kind that have been proven fake.

So why should I stop bringing him up? You brought him up first and have not responded to the evidence I presented.



Back to YUWIPI... Do you just believe something is false without investigating it. You say personal experience does not prove anything... ok. Then what does? The spiritual realm is not a math formula.... How else do you investigate if you are unwilling to go and EXPERIENCE the event?...

Science, logic and facts, is the most effective method ever devised to discern between true and false claims about phenomena in the real world. You claim goblins, ghosts, demons, and fairies are real but you can't prove a word of it. So what then does "real" mean to you? In your world, do spirits have little "skeptic detectors" so they hide from everyone except believers?

Faith opens a person to delusion. That's why all the cults say you gotta "believe" or you won't be able to see their supernatural claims are true. That's the key Mystykal. It is the essence of how all the cults work. It is the key to delusion. You must "believe" and only then you will see "miracles."

If you begin by believing things with no evidence, it is no mystery that you continue to believe things with no evidence.

All the best,

Richard

Mystykal
10-13-2014, 10:57 PM
Good morning Mystykal,

You said a lot more than "Go out there and get your evidence." I was responding to those other comments (as you can see if you read what I wrote).

I never said that the number of fakes disproves the is true. Such comments are quite silly since they have nothing to do with anything I have written.

We are indeed going in circles because you are not responding to the words I actually wrote.

Your assertion that "no amount of evidence will every change my mind" is both false and absurd. If there were EVIDENCE it would obviously change my mind. The whole problem is that there is no evidence.

You say I should "Go out there and get your evidence." I've already done that. I did it for years. You merely don't like the fact that I have come to a different conclusion than you.


Here is what you wrote:
No angels? Then Satan previously called Lucifer or some other name is FAKE as well... Is that what you believe?
You straight up referred to Satan as "previously called Lucifer." If you knew he was never actually called Lucifer in the Bible, why did you say that? The name "Lucifer" is certainly "fake."


You brought him up originally. I researched him and found he must be delusional, deceptive, or both. You never responded to the evidence I presented. Why not? I'm guessing this is how you protect your beliefs. You ignore the evidence and choose to believe exceedingly unlikely stories that are indistinguishable from the kind that have been proven fake.

So why should I stop bringing him up? You brought him up first and have not responded to the evidence I presented.


Science, logic and facts, is the most effective method ever devised to discern between true and false claims about phenomena in the real world. You claim goblins, ghosts, demons, and fairies are real but you can't prove a word of it. So what then does "real" mean to you? In your world, do spirits have little "skeptic detectors" so they hide from everyone except believers?

Faith opens a person to delusion. That's why all the cults say you gotta "believe" or you won't be able to see their supernatural claims are true. That's the key Mystykal. It is the essence of how all the cults work. It is the key to delusion. You must "believe" and only then you will see "miracles."

If you begin by believing things with no evidence, it is no mystery that you continue to believe things with no evidence.

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard:

Thank you for your response!
:winking0071:

I guess I must live on a different planet than you or you really are not trying to understand me! YOU say:
you are not responding to the words I actually wrote.

Really?... I thought I was... so let's see... You said that Evidence is not present for ghosts and spirits... I say that there is plenty of evidence if you are looking! The fact that you have arrived at another opposite conclusion than me does not bother me! I just do not see how you did that IF you ever investigated the "woohoo" side of things. To just ignore things because other similar things are false is silly. Yuwipi ceremonies must be approached with an open mind... I do not think that Randi or yourself have ever been to one! That's why I keep bringing it up... The evidence is there if you look!

As to Roger M. you said:
"You brought him up originally. I researched him and found he must be delusional, deceptive, or both. You never responded to the evidence I presented. Why not? I'm guessing this is how you protect your beliefs. You ignore the evidence and choose to believe exceedingly unlikely stories that are indistinguishable from the kind that have been proven fake.

So why should I stop bringing him up? You brought him up first and have not responded to the evidence I presented.



What evidence did you present? NONE! you made some comments about how silly he sounds and his connections to Demon cults/secrect societies is outrageous you say.... But I did not see any EVIDENCE presented by you that his claims are false... You do not make sense to me about how you determine what is evidence and what is not....


Faith opens a person to delusion. That's why all the cults say you gotta "believe" or you won't be able to see their supernatural claims are true.


Faith is NOT what cults use! They use delusional thinking! Period.... There remains Faith, Hope and Love! Do you think love is fake too?

Namaste,

Mystykal
:D