Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 74
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Like I said, I can really appreciate your point of view. But I think you have confused "mind" with "Mind," our human minds with the Cosmic Mind. Objective Reality is plenty Real. Yes, we can influence Reality - especially in as much as it unfolds through us - but that's not the same as saying that Reality is just a "concensus." Yes, it is like a "shared dream" but that "dream" is being "shared" with all Reality. The Mind is not subject to any human mind.
    No, I was aware of this distinction when I was doing the post. I don't want you to think I believe the code can't be studied as an objective phenomenon, using mathematical tools. I think it can be studied and I've done some analysis myself (within my very limited powers). However, in the final analysis, the code is dependent upon intangibles, principally the meaning it has to the reader. That's mainly why it's not totally objective. For instance, I discovered the phenomenon I call the Signature of Christ in the first 24 words of the NIV. This is three pairs of numerical 'signatures' - Jesus/Yehoshua, Word x 2 and Messiah x 2 - found by cutting the 24 words into four strings of 6 words and numerating them as usual.

    However:

    1) Other words can be fitted there - not many, for sure, but some. How did I know to put 'Jesus' there instead of 'Jew', the only other word I know that has a standard value of 515? Who knows? Maybe three synonymous words with these values can be placed there.

    2. The other words are meaningfully related to Jesus - or are they? 'Word' can mean a small string of letters signifying an idea, not just the 'Word' of John 1:1.

    3. How do I know that others, especially non-Christians, will see these as meaningful? To Jews, 'Messiah' is not synonymous with 'Jesus' or 'Yehoshua'.

    4. The code is just numbers - how can I justify replacing them with words at all?

    5. Why should the first few words of scripture be considered more significant than any other words?

    6. What's significant about the Bible anyway. Couldn't God encode a crime novel?

    A sceptic could have (and some have had) a field day with the signature phenomenon, asking these and other searching questions. So it very much depends upon the reader whether the signatures mean anything or not. Yet to many Christians with a little understanding of probabilities and some intuition it is clear that these three words are synonymous, that the signatures are arranged in a very ordered way that is related to the number 6 and hence the six days of Creation, summarized by the opening words, and the location is very high-profile – it’s just where you would put a message you want the world to read - and it amounts to a kind of authenticating watermark within the opening words of Scripture. And the Bible, given it’s historical importance, is the book you would insert the message into. The fact that the Bible was historically considered to be God’s Word also suggests that this intelligence we call ‘God’ was the encoder – and in fact another code in that very same location seems to say just that. In short, the signature phenomenon is a highly integrated matrix of encoded numerical signatures with great meaning to a sensitive reader.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I find it strange that you reject objective Reality when it comes to the NBC but not when you cross the street. Why the double standard?
    Just because I don’t want to get hit by a car, that doesn’t mean I believe the car is real! It’s not, and neither am I. My consciousness is real, that’s all. But a lot of it is devoted to proving to the rest of it that the world I see is real. Jesus said that with enough faith we could move mountains. I believe that is literally true. Jesus walked on water because he totally believed he could. If I tried I would go blub, blub, not because I am denying reality but simply because I did not have enough faith – in other words, only in the most superficial way do I believe what I am writing here. At the subconscious level I don’t believe I could walk on water, and so I would sink if I tried.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I'm still pretty confident that the "codes" I have studied (the Bible Wheel and Gematria) would still stand up under rigorous "objective verification."
    Someone could always shout ‘It’s a fluke!’ and you would have no real answer. They could also suggest that unaided people did it (people have always been ingenius) or that the ‘meaningful’ connections you find between say Genesis and Romans, or whatever, thus showing that they show some kind of acausal connection could be found between any two books. Your code rests upon meaning too.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Well, that "work of art" seems exceedingly ideosynchratic to me. And that's fine, of course, but you seem to think that is has some "objective validity" or you wouldn't be trying to share it with others, would you?
    What I’m trying to show is that there is a message there, inserted by a higher power, that has something of extreme importance to convey. The message is statistically improbable, conveyed by numbers, using their traditional biblical meanings, and relates recent events to biblical prophecy. The message is internally consistent and says over and over again in a variety of creative – dare I say artistic – ways that 9/11 and other events were manifestations of the Second Coming. It uses a language which, once you understand it, makes the message dazzlingly clear. But once again, you have to understand something of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, biblical numerics, the Bible itself and more to connect the dots. Is it objectively real? Yes and no. The message is there all right (and has several parts to it) and I have tried to show it to be an unlikely phenomenon, but it ultimately rests on the meaning it conveys and thus can never be validated scientifically until meaning can be scientifically analysed. For those who get it, it’s an extremely sophisticated weave of synchronicities; for those who don’t get it, it’s coincidence.

    And on art, not only is the code a kind of work of art, so was 9/11. It was a staged drama, depicting several major biblical tableaux and brilliantly (even if horrifically) grabbing the world’s attention. For instance, it depicted in great detail the Day of Atonement, which was because it was the ultimate Day of Atonement, a blood sacrifice to atone for our sins.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    The think about the "artistic associations" you make is that "art" is singularly notorious for being subjective. Just go to any modern gallery. Your work has not made sense to me because I don't have any particular interest in 9/11 (I think it's just part of our world, not that special) or in the Pope, or in the "Second Coming" and certainly not the "end times." So there is really nothing about it that makes sense to me. The number patterns don't look good either because are built off sentence fragments.
    You write as if you were hearing the phrase ‘Second Coming’ for the first time, and yet you are perfectly aware of what it means to nearly all Christians! Surely you concede that the Second Coming is the most anticipated event in modern times. The event has now occurred and the code, by the way, was necessary because the SC has not been recognized for what it is, because of the widely differing eschatologies Christians are taught (or mistaught) and the simplistic theology most Christians are fed.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    But don't worry if I don't get it! If nothing else, I hope I can help you understand why some folks don't get what you are talking about. I hope that's helpful to you in your journey.
    I hope you do get it, because it would be great to have you on my side.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    And I want to repeat that we have a lot in common, so these kinds of conversations could be very fruitful. We are sufficiently similar to be able to communicate well with each other, and sufficiently different to have lots to talk about. That's a good combo, eh?
    Agreed!
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 01-22-2012 at 06:01 PM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    No, I was aware of this distinction when I was doing the post. I don't want you to think I believe the code can't be studied as an objective phenomenon, using mathematical tools. I think it can be studied and I've done some analysis myself (within my very limited powers). However, in the final analysis, the code is dependent upon intangibles, principally the meaning it has to the reader. That's mainly why it's not totally objective.
    Hey there Bill,

    It looks like you've changed your original statement from "objective verifiability is impossible" to "it's not totally objective." That's quite a change, and for the better I might add. If something like your NBC is not "objectively verifiable" in any way at all, it is worthless as "evidence" of anything in my estimation. It might be fine as a personal hobby or art, but beyond that it is meaningless if it cannot be objectively verified.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    For instance, I discovered the phenomenon I call the Signature of Christ in the first 24 words of the NIV. This is three pairs of numerical 'signatures' - Jesus/Yehoshua, Word x 2 and Messiah x 2 - found by cutting the 24 words into four strings of 6 words and numerating them as usual.
    First, let me say that the structure you have discovered in the first 24 words of Genesis is by far the most impressive of the results that I have reviewed. It has the least sense of "arbitrariness" and it "hangs together" pretty well. But the fact that the pattern is based on sentence fragments makes it feel awkward and inelegant to me. But on the other hand, it has a "sense of connectedness" not dissimilar from the holographs in that the same numbers 263 (Messiah (s)) and 654 (Word (s)) both appear twice in those sentence fragments:

    Name:  signature5.jpg
Views: 23
Size:  17.1 KB


    But are those numbers unusual or unexpected in an English text? No, not by any means. To see just how very common those numbers are in English Gematria, I analyzed the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. I found three of the four numbers you found the first 24 words of Genesis:

    515 = Jesus (s)
    263 = Messiah (s)
    391 = Yehoshua (Jesus in Hebrew, appears twice)

    I also found two occurrences of 386 = Yeshua, the variant of Yehoshua that you mention in your database and one occurrence of 353 (cross (s)) which appears a lot in you analyses. Note that I didn't overlap any of the text. I just read it straight through, dividing it according to "interesting" values. I marked "uninteresting" values with an x:
    x When
    391 (Yehoshua) in the course of human events, it becomes
    391 (Yehoshua) necessary for one people to dissolve
    386 (Yeshua) the political bands which have connected them
    x with
    263 (Messiah) another, and to assume among
    353 (Cross) the powers of the earth, the separate
    x and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a
    515 (Jesus) decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
    386 (Yeshua) that they should declare the causes which
    x impel them to the separation.
    Look at that! Most of the text is "coded" with very significant numbers pointing to Jesus as Messiah! Amazing! Or is it? It certainly doesn't seem so to me. It feels like a mere meaningless coincidence. Of course this is just one example (the first I tried) and maybe it is significant and I just don't know it. I tried a few others and didn't find anything so striking. To settle this question we would need to do some real statistical analysis of the frequency of numbers in English sentences.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I find it strange that you reject objective Reality when it comes to the NBC but not when you cross the street. Why the double standard?
    Just because I don’t want to get hit by a car, that doesn’t mean I believe the car is real! It’s not, and neither am I. My consciousness is real, that’s all. But a lot of it is devoted to proving to the rest of it that the world I see is real. Jesus said that with enough faith we could move mountains. I believe that is literally true. Jesus walked on water because he totally believed he could. If I tried I would go blub, blub, not because I am denying reality but simply because I did not have enough faith – in other words, only in the most superficial way do I believe what I am writing here. At the subconscious level I don’t believe I could walk on water, and so I would sink if I tried.
    You seem to have an odd definition of "real." As far as I can tell, you just said that nothing is "real" except your consciousness. No wonder I have trouble understanding you!

    And when you say "only in the most superficial way do I believe what I am writing here" I have but one response:

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I'm still pretty confident that the "codes" I have studied (the Bible Wheel and Gematria) would still stand up under rigorous "objective verification."
    Someone could always shout ‘It’s a fluke!’ and you would have no real answer. They could also suggest that unaided people did it (people have always been ingenius) or that the ‘meaningful’ connections you find between say Genesis and Romans, or whatever, thus showing that they show some kind of acausal connection could be found between any two books. Your code rests upon meaning too.
    That is false. I would have a many solid answers. Yes, people are free to say "it's a fluke" without giving any logic or facts to back up their claim. But that is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. I have many good reasons supporting the holographs. And I also have many good reasons for my impression that your findings have resulted from random chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    What I’m trying to show is that there is a message there, inserted by a higher power, that has something of extreme importance to convey. The message is statistically improbable, conveyed by numbers, using their traditional biblical meanings, and relates recent events to biblical prophecy. The message is internally consistent and says over and over again in a variety of creative – dare I say artistic – ways that 9/11 and other events were manifestations of the Second Coming. It uses a language which, once you understand it, makes the message dazzlingly clear. But once again, you have to understand something of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, biblical numerics, the Bible itself and more to connect the dots. Is it objectively real? Yes and no. The message is there all right (and has several parts to it) and I have tried to show it to be an unlikely phenomenon, but it ultimately rests on the meaning it conveys and thus can never be validated scientifically until meaning can be scientifically analysed. For those who get it, it’s an extremely sophisticated weave of synchronicities; for those who don’t get it, it’s coincidence.
    Well, I think I have more than enough understanding of "Christianity, Judaism, Islam, biblical numerics, the Bible itself" to make a judgment.

    I'm still not clear on what the "message" really is. What does it mean to say that "9/11 and other events were manifestations of the Second Coming"?

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    And on art, not only is the code a kind of work of art, so was 9/11. It was a staged drama, depicting several major biblical tableaux and brilliantly (even if horrifically) grabbing the world’s attention. For instance, it depicted in great detail the Day of Atonement, which was because it was the ultimate Day of Atonement, a blood sacrifice to atone for our sins.
    I don't understand. How can connecting words with numbers show something like that?

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    You write as if you were hearing the phrase ‘Second Coming’ for the first time, and yet you are perfectly aware of what it means to nearly all Christians! Surely you concede that the Second Coming is the most anticipated event in modern times. The event has now occurred and the code, by the way, was necessary because the SC has not been recognized for what it is, because of the widely differing eschatologies Christians are taught (or mistaught) and the simplistic theology most Christians are fed.
    Yes, the "Second Coming" is the "most anticipated event" amongst fundamentalist Christians. But they aren't the only Christians out there, indeed, they are a minority of the world's Christians. And their concept of the "Second Coming" is false anyway, so why would a "higher intelligence" encode a falsehood in the NIV1984?

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I hope you do get it, because it would be great to have you on my side.
    Well, I like to think I am on "your side" whether or not I come to agree with the story you are telling. And I hope we can continue this conversation long enough to really understand each other.

    Great chatting, my friend,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there Bill,

    It looks like you've changed your original statement from "objective verifiability is impossible" to "it's not totally objective." That's quite a change, and for the better I might add. If something like your NBC is not "objectively verifiable" in any way at all, it is worthless as "evidence" of anything in my estimation. It might be fine as a personal hobby or art, but beyond that it is meaningless if it cannot be objectively verified.
    I said "objective verifiability is impossible" because in an absolute sense there is nothing 'out there' and so the metaphysical suppositions behind the idea of objectivity, based on 'common sense' or the old Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, are, in that same absolute sense, wrong. That was all I meant by the statement. But I've obviously given you the impression that I exist in some world where every viewpoint is equally valid. That's not the case. The fact remains, though, that the code (as with gematria in general) rests upon an intangible: meaning. If you ignore meaning the code evaporates into randomness. But if you take meaning and relationships into account the code come sharply into focus. I was insistent on the objectivity point because atheists I've argued with have taken the same tack as yourself and steered the discusion onto their territory, because they know that makes it easier to attack the code.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    First, let me say that the structure you have discovered in the first 24 words of Genesis is by far the most impressive of the results that I have reviewed. It has the least sense of "arbitrariness" and it "hangs together" pretty well. But the fact that the pattern is based on sentence fragments makes it feel awkward and inelegant to me. But on the other hand, it has a "sense of connectedness" not dissimilar from the holographs in that the same numbers 263 (Messiah (s)) and 654 (Word (s)) both appear twice in those sentence fragments:

    Name:  signature5.jpg
Views: 23
Size:  17.1 KB


    But are those numbers unusual or unexpected in an English text? No, not by any means. To see just how very common those numbers are in English Gematria, I analyzed the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. I found three of the four numbers you found the first 24 words of Genesis:

    515 = Jesus (s)
    263 = Messiah (s)
    391 = Yehoshua (Jesus in Hebrew, appears twice)

    I also found two occurrences of 386 = Yeshua, the variant of Yehoshua that you mention in your database and one occurrence of 353 (cross (s)) which appears a lot in you analyses. Note that I didn't overlap any of the text. I just read it straight through, dividing it according to "interesting" values. I marked "uninteresting" values with an x:
    x When
    391 (Yehoshua) in the course of human events, it becomes
    391 (Yehoshua) necessary for one people to dissolve
    386 (Yeshua) the political bands which have connected them
    x with
    263 (Messiah) another, and to assume among
    353 (Cross) the powers of the earth, the separate
    x and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a
    515 (Jesus) decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
    386 (Yeshua) that they should declare the causes which
    x impel them to the separation.
    Look at that! Most of the text is "coded" with very significant numbers pointing to Jesus as Messiah! Amazing! Or is it? It certainly doesn't seem so to me. It feels like a mere meaningless coincidence. Of course this is just one example (the first I tried) and maybe it is significant and I just don't know it. I tried a few others and didn't find anything so striking. To settle this question we would need to do some real statistical analysis of the frequency of numbers in English sentences.
    Yes, I've done this kind of work myself - but it only convinced me that the code is real! In fact your example is further evidence for that! Yes, in every text you will find interesting numbers. I did it with my wife's crime novels and was disconcerted to discover some familiar numbers there. However, what I did not find - and what you haven't found - are confluences of meaningfully related patterns. For instance, the signatures are associated with the number 6, because all of the encoded numbers are found over six or twelve words, all found by simply bisecting the first 24 words into two 12-word strings, then bisecting these to give four 6 word strings. In your example the numbers are encoded over 8, then 6, then 7, then 5 words, with gaps in between and starting on the second word. Mine are encoded over 6, 6, 6, 12, 12 and 12 words, sterting on the first word, with no gaps or overlaps (yours remind me of the DNA 'code', with 'useful' introns separated by 'junk' extrons). It's a tightly organised pattern, which is meaningfully related to the six days of Creation and which harmonises with other encodings at the same location I haven't even shown you and elsewhere (such as the bookend encodings in my first posting). That is what makes it non-random. Remember too that these are the very first 24 words of scripture and that the fact they start from the very beginning, rather than word 2, or 3, or 298, or whatever, is further evidence they are real, because there are a huge number of 24-word strings within the Bible. It would be ridiculously easy to find a similarly encoded 24-word string somewhere within the NIV, or within any book, but that would be meaningless, because the number of strings to search through would be extremely high. The fact that the signatures within the first 24 words is a beacon shouting out that these are not random. It's the difference between going to a library, searching for an hour and finding the book you want, and going to the library and finding that the first book you pull out is the one you want. The latter case might be considered synchronicity in some circumstances.

    It would be interesting to see i there were more 'divine' numbers in the DOE than would be expected by chance. I noticed this when I was searching through my wife's books. The opening words of crime novels gave about what I would have expected by chance. But I also tried the opening words of a famous work of literature - I forget what it was now - and discovered more of these numbers. That led me to think that the key to the encoding was inspiration. I would think that Dostoevsky was more inspired writing Crime and Punishment than any writer of pulp fiction. Similarly the writers and translaters of the Bible were also likely to have been more inspired (I would say the most inspired of all). That leads me to the hypothesis that the level of inspiration the wrietrs were feeling is the key here, as if this opened the door to the transfer of encoded information. It might be a testable one too.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    You seem to have an odd definition of "real." As far as I can tell, you just said that nothing is "real" except your consciousness. No wonder I have trouble understanding you!
    Is it so odd? You seem to think I'm a solipsist, but I'm not. I'm very close to A Course in Miracles and the Advaita Vedanta - and not so far from gnosticism and Buddhism. I recommended ACIM to you before and I still do. ACIM and the AV say that All that is real is God/the Brahmin - everything else is illusion. I suppose, then, that the code is more real than the world into which is was inserted, since it came from Ultimate Reality or perhaps a stage closer to it. ACIM, if I understand it correctly, says that the difference between God and our universe is the difference between rational knowledge and empirical knowledge or between mathematical theorems and scientific theories. Nothing in this world is certain, but God deals only in certainty. Perhaps that's why the code (and yours and Vernon's) is based on numbers and geometric figures.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    And when you say "only in the most superficial way do I believe what I am writing here" I have but one response:
    Again, you're misunderstanding me! I have a conscious mind and an unconscious mind. Consciously, I may think it possible to walk on water, but my unconscious mind has been accumulating a lifetime's worth of experiences, such as the influence of the force of gravity, and my unconscious expectation of sinking into the water would overcome any conscious belief that I could walk upon it. However, at an even deeper level (the Self/God) I know it's all a dream. So if I could reconnect with God ("I and thr father are one"), like a great saint or mystic, I could perform miracles.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    That is false. I would have a many solid answers. Yes, people are free to say "it's a fluke" without giving any logic or facts to back up their claim. But that is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. I have many good reasons supporting the holographs. And I also have many good reasons for my impression that your findings have resulted from random chance.
    Okay then, what do you say to this guy?

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I'm still not clear on what the "message" really is. What does it mean to say that "9/11 and other events were manifestations of the Second Coming"?

    I don't understand. How can connecting words with numbers show something like that?
    Yes, 9/11 was a manifestaton and the announcement of the Second Coming - but far from all of it. The announcement was made principally through the drama enacted on 9/11 and through encoded numbers, which the New Bible Code interprets. I'll go into more detail later, as this post is getting too long.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Yes, the "Second Coming" is the "most anticipated event" amongst fundamentalist Christians. But they aren't the only Christians out there, indeed, they are a minority of the world's Christians. And their concept of the "Second Coming" is false anyway, so why would a "higher intelligence" encode a falsehood in the NIV1984?
    This is an interesting question, which I too have pondered, but as I said the posting is getting too long. I'll get back to you on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Well, I like to think I am on "your side" whether or not I come to agree with the story you are telling. And I hope we can continue this conversation long enough to really understand each other.

    Great chatting, my friend,
    Same here.
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 01-24-2012 at 08:29 AM.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I said "objective verifiability is impossible" because in an absolute sense there is nothing 'out there' and so the metaphysical suppositions behind the idea of objectivity, based on 'common sense' or the old Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm, are, in that same absolute sense, wrong. That was all I meant by the statement. But I've obviously given you the impression that I exist in some world where every viewpoint is equally valid. That's not the case. The fact remains, though, that the code (as with gematria in general) rests upon an intangible: meaning. If you ignore meaning the code evaporates into randomness. But if you take meaning and relationships into account the code come sharply into focus. I was insistent on the objectivity point because atheists I've argued with have taken the same tack as yourself and steered the discusion onto their territory, because they know that makes it easier to attack the code.
    The concept of "reality" is not limited to "the old Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm." Metaphyscal speculations about "ultimate reality" have nothing to do with the questions I have posed. It's a complete distraction. We all know what we mean by "objective verifiability." If we are talking about whether or not there is a car in the driveway, it is absurd to look and say "I see the image of a car, and I can feel a solid object where the image is, but that doesn't mean anything because no sensible objects are "absolutely real." Please don't be offended, but I feel like you have totally obfuscated the discussion with philosophical nonsense.

    You language seems completely convoluted and self-contradictory. Immediately after you denied the existence of an "facts" in an aboslute sense, you then said "The fact remains." If there are no "facts" in your view of reality, then it seems pretty silly to speak of facts.

    I agree that "meaning is intangible" in a literal sense, since we cannot physically touch it. But that too seems irrelevant to this discussion. We are humans with the ability to understand and evaluate "meaning" - it is not arbitrary and the truth or falsehood of such "intangibles" can be discerned. It seems like you've developed this philosophy to avoid dealing with the fact that while "objective meaning" in general can be discerned, it is missing from the NBC.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Yes, I've done this kind of work myself - but it only convinced me that the code is real! In fact your example is further evidence for that! Yes, in every text you will find interesting numbers. I did it with my wife's crime novels and was disconcerted to discover some familiar numbers there. However, what I did not find - and what you haven't found - are confluences of meaningfully related patterns. For instance, the signatures are associated with the number 6, because all of the encoded numbers are found over six or twelve words, all found by simply bisecting the first 24 words into two 12-word strings, then bisecting these to give four 6 word strings. In your example the numbers are encoded over 8, then 6, then 7, then 5 words, with gaps in between and starting on the second word. Mine are encoded over 6, 6, 6, 12, 12 and 12 words, sterting on the first word, with no gaps or overlaps (yours remind me of the DNA 'code', with 'useful' introns separated by 'junk' extrons). It's a tightly organised pattern, which is meaningfully related to the six days of Creation and which harmonises with other encodings at the same location I haven't even shown you and elsewhere (such as the bookend encodings in my first posting). That is what makes it non-random. Remember too that these are the very first 24 words of scripture and that the fact they start from the very beginning, rather than word 2, or 3, or 298, or whatever, is further evidence they are real, because there are a huge number of 24-word strings within the Bible. It would be ridiculously easy to find a similarly encoded 24-word string somewhere within the NIV, or within any book, but that would be meaningless, because the number of strings to search through would be extremely high. The fact that the signatures within the first 24 words is a beacon shouting out that these are not random. It's the difference between going to a library, searching for an hour and finding the book you want, and going to the library and finding that the first book you pull out is the one you want. The latter case might be considered synchronicity in some circumstances.
    I've already granted that the pattern in the first 24 words of Genesis is the most impressive of your findings. But even so, it has severe shortcomings in that it is based on meaningless sentence fragments and numerical values that are common in English sentence fragments. Thus, we have some evidence of design, and some evidence of meaningless random chance. I don't see how it can function as anything more than a "hint" that maybe the text is coded. If you found additional integrated structures - like the holographs - then you could start building your case. But as far as I know, such structures are not common in you study, are they? Are not most of your results simply collections of words like "George Bush" and "New York" and "Osama Bin Laden?" If so, you have "left the reservation" and are now cherry picking words from newspaper headlines that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible (in contradistinction to the signature in Genesis).

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    You seem to have an odd definition of "real." As far as I can tell, you just said that nothing is "real" except your consciousness. No wonder I have trouble understanding you!
    Is it so odd? You seem to think I'm a solipsist, but I'm not. I'm very close to A Course in Miracles and the Advaita Vedanta - and not so far from gnosticism and Buddhism. I recommended ACIM to you before and I still do. ACIM and the AV say that All that is real is God/the Brahmin - everything else is illusion. I suppose, then, that the code is more real than the world into which is was inserted, since it came from Ultimate Reality or perhaps a stage closer to it. ACIM, if I understand it correctly, says that the difference between God and our universe is the difference between rational knowledge and empirical knowledge or between mathematical theorems and scientific theories. Nothing in this world is certain, but God deals only in certainty. Perhaps that's why the code (and yours and Vernon's) is based on numbers and geometric figures.
    We are very similar here. I find Vedanta, Buddhism, and Gnosticism compelling worldviews. But such things have absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the objective validity of anything, whether it be Newtonian vs. Relativistic mechanics or the NBC.

    I think your view of those philosophies is flawed. Yes, all is an "illusion" in a sense, but not in the sense that you seem to be asserting.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    And when you say "only in the most superficial way do I believe what I am writing here" I have but one response:
    Again, you're misunderstanding me! I have a conscious mind and an unconscious mind. Consciously, I may think it possible to walk on water, but my unconscious mind has been accumulating a lifetime's worth of experiences, such as the influence of the force of gravity, and my unconscious expectation of sinking into the water would overcome any conscious belief that I could walk upon it. However, at an even deeper level (the Self/God) I know it's all a dream. So if I could reconnect with God ("I and thr father are one"), like a great saint or mystic, I could perform miracles.
    If you were truly united with God, why would you be interested in causing one ego-identity such as "Bill Downie" to "perform miracles" as opposed to some other ego-identity such as "Bill Clinton?" That's the thing that many folks forget. Sure, "they" would have all the power of God if they could properly "connect" but then "they" wouldn't be interested in giving their ego-identity a mansion and a million dollars.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    That is false. I would have a many solid answers. Yes, people are free to say "it's a fluke" without giving any logic or facts to back up their claim. But that is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. I have many good reasons supporting the holographs. And I also have many good reasons for my impression that your findings have resulted from random chance.
    Okay then, what do you say to this guy?
    You've got to be joking! Have you read that article? I shredded his "arguments" here. He acknowledged the validity of my refutation when he silently deleted most of the article that I refuted. Holding is one of the most pathetic caricatures of Christian apologist I've ever seen. His primary tactic is adolescent ad hominem delivered with the elegance of a monkey on crack. He is a "cartoon apologist" who has been caught lying and making up stuff. He is the poster child of how religious fundamentalism destroys both the mind and the morals of those who adhere to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I'm still not clear on what the "message" really is. What does it mean to say that "9/11 and other events were manifestations of the Second Coming"?

    I don't understand. How can connecting words with numbers show something like that?
    Yes, 9/11 was a manifestaton and the announcement of the Second Coming - but far from all of it. The announcement was made principally through the drama enacted on 9/11 and through encoded numbers, which the New Bible Code interprets. I'll go into more detail later, as this post is getting too long.
    OK - sounds good. It would really help if you could explain how you go from Bible numbers to George Bush, 9/11, and the Second Coming.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    This is an interesting question, which I too have pondered, but as I said the posting is getting too long. I'll get back to you on it.
    Great. I look forward to it.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    And how does it differ from erroneously seeing meaningful patterns in random data? I haven't seen anything yet that makes me think "Oh, that's a message." I don't see any reason for many of the connections you make, and many of them are based on concepts that I think are fundamentally fallacious (like the whole idea that we are in the "end times" and that there will be a "Second Coming of Christ). And to make claims like "the Manchild was conceived on 9/11" doesn't make a lick of sense to me. How do you know that? What proof do you have? Some number patterns? Why would you think that number patterns are "proof" of something you can't see? Have you ever seen any successful prediction using "number patterns" like those of the NBC? I never have. So why believe them? That's what made Harold Camping go insane. He was ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED that the "time line of history" that he invented (based on all sorts of nutter numerology and other errors) was proof that the Rapture would happen on May 21, 2011. At least his stuff was "objectively verifiable." If he had not been so closed-minded he could have seen the errors of his ways before he was publicly humiliated by "objectively verifiable" Reality.
    Hey there Bill,

    I think you may have overlooked this question (highlighted bold above). I think it is of great importance. I've been watching folks over on fivedoves.com erroneously predicting the rapture for the last ten years using "number patterns" from gematria and whatnot. They've always been wrong, and no one has ever successfully predicted anything using such number patterns. So why do you think your study is different? Why do you have any confidence that your number patterns could "predict" or "proclaim" something if no such system has ever been shown to work before?

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    The concept of "reality" is not limited to "the old Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm." Metaphyscal speculations about "ultimate reality" have nothing to do with the questions I have posed. It's a complete distraction. We all know what we mean by "objective verifiability." If we are talking about whether or not there is a car in the driveway, it is absurd to look and say "I see the image of a car, and I can feel a solid object where the image is, but that doesn't mean anything because no sensible objects are "absolutely real." Please don't be offended, but I feel like you have totally obfuscated the discussion with philosophical nonsense.
    Objective reality has been defined as "that which our belief system cannot change". But miracles (see below) are evidence that belief can change 'reality' and that therefore it is not objectively real.

    You talk as if I were being obscurantist and hiding behind philosophical ideas, but I'm not. I just wanted to not be put in the 'objectivity' trap. One's worldview goes right to the heart of things here, though. Understanding that the mind (or Mind) is creating our experience of reality is essential for understanding how a code could have been placed in the Bible, because it's that same Mind that created the code. I realised a long time ago, from a discussion on a forum, when an atheist adversary and I couldn't even agree on a method of testing the signature phenomenon, that the question of the reality of the code is tied up with how you view reality itself. The code and the synchronicities on which it is founded are I believe evidence of a higher unity behind the world of seemingly separate objects. It is an ingression into this universe by a higher realm, which is ultimately a mental realm. I can't see how mind/matter dualism can be correct and believe that there is either mind or matter. Synchronicity is one reason why I believe it has to be mind that is real, and if so, then this precludes the possibility of a totally objective reality that can be studied. If you believe that only matter is real, then you will not have a metaphysical basis for even accepting the possibility of a Bible code. As I said before, you can treat the world around us as if it were objectively real, and that will get you so far in studying it, but ultimately, whether you are a physicist trying to understand the "collapse of the wavefunction", or a person simply trying to decide whether a bible code or a synchronicity is real or not, you come up against the possibility that mind influences matter and that therefore objectivity is a myth.

    Let me give you another example of how the code is based on meaning. On 9/11 the number 11 seemed to pop up everywhere, such as in the flight number, the date, the shape of the towers, etc. But in fact there are millions of numbers that could have been extracted from the events of 9/11 and I doubt whether there actually were an unusually large number of elevens or multiples of eleven. This would be evidence for a materialist that the eleven phenomenon was a chimera. However, the numbers that seemed to be connected with eleven were often the most important and visible numbers. A materialist might say "So what? That's just a subjective judgment." The number of the flight might be important to some people, but the serial number of the airplane with no elevens in it will be just as important to an engineer. But someone who believes that synchronicities are real and therefore has "ears to hear" would see them and say "Aha!" That looks like a sign from On High, and investigate further. If you believe in objective reality and if you get me to agree that objective reality exists, then you will not recognise that the essential attribute of the code or the elevens on 9/11 is the meaning they have. You will just call it "subjective judgment" or something similar. If I disagree and point to meaningful coincidence then you will remind me that I have agreed that objective reality exists, that science is how we study that reality that I therefore have to come up with something more scientific than 'meaningful coincidence' to be taken seriously. In fact I won't even have a metaphysical basis upon which to argue for the possibility of a code, because how can mind (an epiphenomenon of brain activity and not real) affect matter, which is real? I believe that reality is exactly the opposite: mind is real and therefore matter is not real. It's mind-generated hologram.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    You language seems completely convoluted and self-contradictory. Immediately after you denied the existence of an "facts" in an aboslute sense, you then said "The fact remains." If there are no "facts" in your view of reality, then it seems pretty silly to speak of facts.
    Oh come on. I use the langauge with which we are all familiar, just as I cross the road avoiding traffic like everyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I agree that "meaning is intangible" in a literal sense, since we cannot physically touch it. But that too seems irrelevant to this discussion. We are humans with the ability to understand and evaluate "meaning" - it is not arbitrary and the truth or falsehood of such "intangibles" can be discerned. It seems like you've developed this philosophy to avoid dealing with the fact that while "objective meaning" in general can be discerned, it is missing from the NBC.
    Again, no. I wanted to be able to prove the reality of the code using mathematical tools, but found it came down to probabilities and meaning. It's a communication between two minds, the Mind of God and our ego mind. Put another way it's a communication from one part of Mind to another, currently lost in the illusion of separation from God but beginning to awaken. A better question about the NBC might be: does it tell us anything? I think it does and that this information is consistent throughout the NIV Bible, 9/11 and elsewhere, showing that the same source created it all.

    The code is actually very simple, repeating the same message over and over again: the Second Coming has manifested. It takes real persistence to mantain that you don't hear it. In fact I'm afraid that it is you who is being obstinate, for instance, dismissing the idea of a Second Coming as an unbiblical myth based on your own beliefs on the subject. Plenty of intelligent, thoughtful Christians would disagree with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    I've already granted that the pattern in the first 24 words of Genesis is the most impressive of your findings. But even so, it has severe shortcomings in that it is based on meaningless sentence fragments and numerical values that are common in English sentence fragments.
    This is a complete misrepresentation of the Signature phenomenon which is based on

    1. confluences of highly ordered numerical patterns that are independent of each other but which create an integrated matrix of numbers,
    2. relationships between the patterns and the plaintext words mediated through the number six,
    3. the significance of the location of the phenomenon,
    4. the biblical significance of the names and titles the numbers appear to be implying,
    5. relationships to other encoded numbers,
    6. relationships to other patterns that are superimposed upon the Signature phenomenon.

    You seem to be wanting the code to be something else, then dismissing it because it isn't. Please just look at what the Signature phenomenon actually is and try to see how unlikely it would be for all this to just fall into place, to give such an integrated whole.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Thus, we have some evidence of design, and some evidence of meaningless random chance. I don't see how it can function as anything more than a "hint" that maybe the text is coded. If you found additional integrated structures - like the holographs - then you could start building your case. But as far as I know, such structures are not common in you study, are they? Are not most of your results simply collections of words like "George Bush" and "New York" and "Osama Bin Laden?" If so, you have "left the reservation" and are now cherry picking words from newspaper headlines that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible (in contradistinction to the signature in Genesis).
    Well maybe I have to look more closely at your holographs to understand them better and see if I have something similar. I think we could both benefit from a study of each other's work. Admitedly, you haven't seen much of my latest work, as I kept it for the book, but I'd be happy to send you the entire manuscript.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    We are very similar here. I find Vedanta, Buddhism, and Gnosticism compelling worldviews. But such things have absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the objective validity of anything, whether it be Newtonian vs. Relativistic mechanics or the NBC.
    Well I have to disagree with your second point, because surely a Vedantist would surely regard his object of study to be an illusion in the first place! Yes, he could try to understand it better, but it would still be an illusion, no more real than an exquisitely-rendered dream. If he came upon a code in the Baghavad Gita, and noticed that it was statistically improbable and meaningful within his tradition, he might regard that as a message from the Brahmin placed within the (illusory) book and that its purpose is to shake us out of our illusions. He wouldn't regard the code or the Baghavad Gita as objectively real, but he would see that the code contained a second tier of information superimposed upon the original words. It would be its meaning that would alert him to that. The code is real because it contains new information, but a dream can also contain new information - that doesn't make the dream world real.

    Incidentally I think it is the Newtonian-Cartesian worldview that has led us so astray (necessary though it might have been at one point) and is now leading us into a souless, materialistic hell and driving many religious people to fundamentalism because the alternative as they see it would be to accept scientific naturalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    If you were truly united with God, why would you be interested in causing one ego-identity such as "Bill Downie" to "perform miracles" as opposed to some other ego-identity such as "Bill Clinton?" That's the thing that many folks forget. Sure, "they" would have all the power of God if they could properly "connect" but then "they" wouldn't be interested in giving their ego-identity a mansion and a million dollars.
    I never said I'd be interested in doing any of that - I just said it would then be possible! You're completely off the point here, which was that God and the Godly can perform miracles, which show that the mind has power over matter and natural law, which casts a lot of doubt on the 'objective reality' of matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    You've got to be joking! Have you read that article? I shredded his "arguments" here. He acknowledged the validity of my refutation when he silently deleted most of the article that I refuted. Holding is one of the most pathetic caricatures of Christian apologist I've ever seen. His primary tactic is adolescent ad hominem delivered with the elegance of a monkey on crack. He is a "cartoon apologist" who has been caught lying and making up stuff. He is the poster child of how religious fundamentalism destroys both the mind and the morals of those who adhere to it.
    Look, I'm on your side here. I just thought his argument that the connections between books lined up on the Biblewheel you'd found were in your imagination was interesting, since it showed how the integrity of the Biblewheel depended on...intangibles.

    I'll answer your last two questions tomorrow. If I haven't convinced you by then I might have something I'm going to give this up, as I have a lot to do elsewhere and these discusions soak up a lot of time and energy. [/QUOTE]

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by RAM View Post
    Hey there Bill,

    I think you may have overlooked this question (highlighted bold above). I think it is of great importance. I've been watching folks over on fivedoves.com erroneously predicting the rapture for the last ten years using "number patterns" from gematria and whatnot. They've always been wrong, and no one has ever successfully predicted anything using such number patterns. So why do you think your study is different? Why do you have any confidence that your number patterns could "predict" or "proclaim" something if no such system has ever been shown to work before?

    Great chatting!

    Richard
    Yes, I did miss it. It's a fairly simple one to answer though. The New Bible Code predicts nothing; it interprets recent events. However, based on what I knew I was able to anticipate that something important might happen on 1 May, 2011, because of the numbers it throws up - in fact I have never found a date which, in relationship to dates important to the code, produced so many familiar numbers. This was the day Pope John Paul II was beatified. Now I knew that the beatification was going to be on that date but I wrote in the first version of the book (in February) that I had never come across such an important date in all my research. It turned out to be the day (in the US and UK calenders) that Osama bin Laden was killed. The entire weekend was important in fact, because of the wedding of William and Kate. I think these three events were all very symbolic and showed that the Pope and Osama bin Laden were linked by a thread of divine will that in the end drew them tightly together. So that was a future event flagged up by the code.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Yes, the "Second Coming" is the "most anticipated event" amongst fundamentalist Christians. But they aren't the only Christians out there, indeed, they are a minority of the world's Christians. And their concept of the "Second Coming" is false anyway, so why would a "higher intelligence" encode a falsehood in the NIV1984?
    Firstly, you're surely not implying that most Christians don't believe in some kind of Second Coming are you? Come on. I know you were a Preterist when you were a Christian, but that is itself a minority view. Secondly, please don't present your opinion as fact then ask me a loaded question.

    The code is proclaiming the Second Coming, that's pretty clear to me, as I've found the same message over and over again. If that conflicts with your beliefs then I'm afraid it looks to me as if your beliefs are wrong here. In truth, I think that 9/11 and the other events fulfilled in a general sense Christian (and Muslim) expectations of a Second Coming, just as Jesus' First Coming fulfilled Jewish expectations of a Messiah (except that most of them didn't recognise him for what he was, as they were expecting a political or military leader). It doesn't fit any of the eschatologies I know about, but then I think that just shows how easy it has been to misinterpret the Bible. In fact that's why a code was necessary in the first place: so we could recognise the event when it occurred.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,148
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Objective reality has been defined as "that which our belief system cannot change". But miracles (see below) are evidence that belief can change 'reality' and that therefore it is not objectively real.

    You talk as if I were being obscurantist and hiding behind philosophical ideas, but I'm not. I just wanted to not be put in the 'objectivity' trap. One's worldview goes right to the heart of things here, though. Understanding that the mind (or Mind) is creating our experience of reality is essential for understanding how a code could have been placed in the Bible, because it's that same Mind that created the code. I realised a long time ago, from a discussion on a forum, when an atheist adversary and I couldn't even agree on a method of testing the signature phenomenon, that the question of the reality of the code is tied up with how you view reality itself. The code and the synchronicities on which it is founded are I believe evidence of a higher unity behind the world of seemingly separate objects. It is an ingression into this universe by a higher realm, which is ultimately a mental realm. I can't see how mind/matter dualism can be correct and believe that there is either mind or matter. Synchronicity is one reason why I believe it has to be mind that is real, and if so, then this precludes the possibility of a totally objective reality that can be studied. If you believe that only matter is real, then you will not have a metaphysical basis for even accepting the possibility of a Bible code. As I said before, you can treat the world around us as if it were objectively real, and that will get you so far in studying it, but ultimately, whether you are a physicist trying to understand the "collapse of the wavefunction", or a person simply trying to decide whether a bible code or a synchronicity is real or not, you come up against the possibility that mind influences matter and that therefore objectivity is a myth.
    Hey there Bill,

    I think this conversation started off on the wrong foot. As you know, I am sympathetic to the worldview that you are sharing. But philosophical questions about the ultimate nature of "objective reality" do not seem relevant at this point because we are not talking about how the code may have been put there, but rather if there is a code or not. The question of "is there a code" can be discussed regardless of our take on the nature of ultimate reality. If we then find that there is a code, questions about how it got there become relevant.

    As I mentioned a number of times, I am very sympathetic to the unified worldview which sees everything as ultimately a manifestation of Mind. So I don't have any objection to the ideas of synchronicity or texts coded by a higher intelligence. Therefore, such things are not "blocking" my abibility to see the code if it is really there. The question is only "is there a code?".

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Let me give you another example of how the code is based on meaning. On 9/11 the number 11 seemed to pop up everywhere, such as in the flight number, the date, the shape of the towers, etc. But in fact there are millions of numbers that could have been extracted from the events of 9/11 and I doubt whether there actually were an unusually large number of elevens or multiples of eleven. This would be evidence for a materialist that the eleven phenomenon was a chimera. However, the numbers that seemed to be connected with eleven were often the most important and visible numbers. A materialist might say "So what? That's just a subjective judgment." The number of the flight might be important to some people, but the serial number of the airplane with no elevens in it will be just as important to an engineer. But someone who believes that synchronicities are real and therefore has "ears to hear" would see them and say "Aha!" That looks like a sign from On High, and investigate further. If you believe in objective reality and if you get me to agree that objective reality exists, then you will not recognise that the essential attribute of the code or the elevens on 9/11 is the meaning they have. You will just call it "subjective judgment" or something similar. If I disagree and point to meaningful coincidence then you will remind me that I have agreed that objective reality exists, that science is how we study that reality that I therefore have to come up with something more scientific than 'meaningful coincidence' to be taken seriously. In fact I won't even have a metaphysical basis upon which to argue for the possibility of a code, because how can mind (an epiphenomenon of brain activity and not real) affect matter, which is real? I believe that reality is exactly the opposite: mind is real and therefore matter is not real. It's mind-generated hologram.
    Yes, a "materialist" might answer that way, but so might I and I'm not a materialist! It looks like your years of disputes with materialists has colored your view so now your response is designed to answer them.

    Here is the fundamental issue - I can grant (for the sake of discussion) that reality is a "mind-generated hologram." Does that imply that every claim by every person is automatically to be accepted as true? Of course not! Does it imply that any all requests for "objective verification" must be rejected? Of course not! So we agree some things we say are "true" and others "false" and that it makes sense to seek objective verification to discern between them, right? I hope so. That's all we need to establish to discuss the validity of the NBC.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    You language seems completely convoluted and self-contradictory. Immediately after you denied the existence of an "facts" in an aboslute sense, you then said "The fact remains." If there are no "facts" in your view of reality, then it seems pretty silly to speak of facts.
    Oh come on. I use the langauge with which we are all familiar, just as I cross the road avoiding traffic like everyone else.
    Yes, you do "use the langauge with which we are all familiar" - until I ask about the NBC. That's why were going through this laborious discussion about abstract philosophy and getting tangled in contradictions. This is the "wrong foot" we got off on. I was trying to understand you, and you answered by denying objective reality which led to these unnecessarily laborous posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I agree that "meaning is intangible" in a literal sense, since we cannot physically touch it. But that too seems irrelevant to this discussion. We are humans with the ability to understand and evaluate "meaning" - it is not arbitrary and the truth or falsehood of such "intangibles" can be discerned. It seems like you've developed this philosophy to avoid dealing with the fact that while "objective meaning" in general can be discerned, it is missing from the NBC.
    Again, no. I wanted to be able to prove the reality of the code using mathematical tools, but found it came down to probabilities and meaning. It's a communication between two minds, the Mind of God and our ego mind. Put another way it's a communication from one part of Mind to another, currently lost in the illusion of separation from God but beginning to awaken. A better question about the NBC might be: does it tell us anything? I think it does and that this information is consistent throughout the NIV Bible, 9/11 and elsewhere, showing that the same source created it all.

    The code is actually very simple, repeating the same message over and over again: the Second Coming has manifested. It takes real persistence to mantain that you don't hear it. In fact I'm afraid that it is you who is being obstinate, for instance, dismissing the idea of a Second Coming as an unbiblical myth based on your own beliefs on the subject. Plenty of intelligent, thoughtful Christians would disagree with that.
    Great! Let's explore that question. It touches my intuitive reason for not understanding the message. You claim that the Christian Bible is coded with a message about the "Second Coming" but you then appear to deny that the "Second Coming" has any relevance to the traditional Christian meaning of that term. Obviously, the "Second Coming" as understood by Christians did not happen in the events of 9/11. I find this very confusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I've already granted that the pattern in the first 24 words of Genesis is the most impressive of your findings. But even so, it has severe shortcomings in that it is based on meaningless sentence fragments and numerical values that are common in English sentence fragments.
    This is a complete misrepresentation of the Signature phenomenon which is based on

    1. confluences of highly ordered numerical patterns that are independent of each other but which create an integrated matrix of numbers,
    2. relationships between the patterns and the plaintext words mediated through the number six,
    3. the significance of the location of the phenomenon,
    4. the biblical significance of the names and titles the numbers appear to be implying,
    5. relationships to other encoded numbers,
    6. relationships to other patterns that are superimposed upon the Signature phenomenon.

    You seem to be wanting the code to be something else, then dismissing it because it isn't. Please just look at what the Signature phenomenon actually is and try to see how unlikely it would be for all this to just fall into place, to give such an integrated whole.
    I grant all those six points. But you did not answer my point. The fact that the code is based on sentence fragments that are not in themselves meaningful is what I meant when I called them "meaningless sentence fragments."

    And there is another problem. The numbers have no meaning in and of themselves. What does 515 have to do with Jesus? What does 654 have to do with Word? This seems like a fundamental shortcoming because in my experience with the holographs the numbers are related to numerical archetypes and figurate numbers as well as the central meaning of the text being analyzed. For example, the Unity Holograph shows that the Shema is coherently built upon nested multiples of 13 with the sum of the entire verse being 1118 = 13 x 86 which is One (Echad = 13) x God (Elohim = 86) and this reiterates the meaning of plain text of the passage. Furthermore, the the three prime factors (2, 13, 43) of the sum of the Shema form pairs that give the three primary titles of God in the Bible which relate to the three persons of the Trinity and this is all expressed in the digits of the number 13, One and Three. And besides all that, the number 13 is a Star number which is the basis of other holographs such as those discovered Genesis 1:1 and Heb 4:12. I don't see anything like this kind of coherence in the NBC.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Thus, we have some evidence of design, and some evidence of meaningless random chance. I don't see how it can function as anything more than a "hint" that maybe the text is coded. If you found additional integrated structures - like the holographs - then you could start building your case. But as far as I know, such structures are not common in you study, are they? Are not most of your results simply collections of words like "George Bush" and "New York" and "Osama Bin Laden?" If so, you have "left the reservation" and are now cherry picking words from newspaper headlines that have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible (in contradistinction to the signature in Genesis).
    Well maybe I have to look more closely at your holographs to understand them better and see if I have something similar. I think we could both benefit from a study of each other's work. Admitedly, you haven't seen much of my latest work, as I kept it for the book, but I'd be happy to send you the entire manuscript.
    Yes, I think we would benefit a lot by looking at our respective methodologies. I am confident that mine will stand the test of objevtive verification. And this is the reason I have rejected English Gematria in general (not just your work). I've never seen anything in it that satisfies the rigorous standards I adhere to in my studies.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    We are very similar here. I find Vedanta, Buddhism, and Gnosticism compelling worldviews. But such things have absolutely nothing to do with evaluating the objective validity of anything, whether it be Newtonian vs. Relativistic mechanics or the NBC.
    Well I have to disagree with your second point, because surely a Vedantist would surely regard his object of study to be an illusion in the first place! Yes, he could try to understand it better, but it would still be an illusion, no more real than an exquisitely-rendered dream. If he came upon a code in the Baghavad Gita, and noticed that it was statistically improbable and meaningful within his tradition, he might regard that as a message from the Brahmin placed within the (illusory) book and that its purpose is to shake us out of our illusions. He wouldn't regard the code or the Baghavad Gita as objectively real, but he would see that the code contained a second tier of information superimposed upon the original words. It would be its meaning that would alert him to that. The code is real because it contains new information, but a dream can also contain new information - that doesn't make the dream world real.
    Great! So your New Bible Code is an illusion too.

    Where does that get us?

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Incidentally I think it is the Newtonian-Cartesian worldview that has led us so astray (necessary though it might have been at one point) and is now leading us into a souless, materialistic hell and driving many religious people to fundamentalism because the alternative as they see it would be to accept scientific naturalism.
    I agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    You've got to be joking! Have you read that article? I shredded his "arguments" here. He acknowledged the validity of my refutation when he silently deleted most of the article that I refuted. Holding is one of the most pathetic caricatures of Christian apologist I've ever seen. His primary tactic is adolescent ad hominem delivered with the elegance of a monkey on crack. He is a "cartoon apologist" who has been caught lying and making up stuff. He is the poster child of how religious fundamentalism destroys both the mind and the morals of those who adhere to it.
    Look, I'm on your side here. I just thought his argument that the connections between books lined up on the Biblewheel you'd found were in your imagination was interesting, since it showed how the integrity of the Biblewheel depended on...intangibles.
    His argument was moronic. I'm surprised you can't see that.

    The Bible Wheel is not based on "intangibles." It is objectively verifiable. It seems you have been forced to dismiss all reality as "illusion" and all meaning as "intangible" because the NBC lacks objective verifiability.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I'll answer your last two questions tomorrow. If I haven't convinced you by then I might have something I'm going to give this up, as I have a lot to do elsewhere and these discusions soak up a lot of time and energy.
    Like I said, this conversation got off on the wrong foot. You have wasted a lot of energy refuting things I don't believe. I'm not a materialist. I am sympathetic to your worldview. We should talk about the meaning of the NBC and see if that goes anywhere.

    Thanks for taking the time to try to help me understand. I really appreciate it.

    All the best,

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Hi Richard.

    Yes, we did get off on the wrong foot and I'm happy to have one last stab at convincing you that the code is genuine. To that end I refer you back to the Signature phenomenon and your analysis of the DOE. The answer I gave is shown below, but I don't think you really engaged with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Yes, I've done this kind of work myself - but it only convinced me that the code is real! In fact your example is further evidence for that! Yes, in every text you will find interesting numbers. I did it with my wife's crime novels and was disconcerted to discover some familiar numbers there. However, what I did not find - and what you haven't found - are confluences of meaningfully related patterns. For instance, the signatures are associated with the number 6, because all of the encoded numbers are found over six or twelve words, all found by simply bisecting the first 24 words into two 12-word strings, then bisecting these to give four 6 word strings. In your example the numbers are encoded over 8, then 6, then 7, then 5 words, with gaps in between and starting on the second word. Mine are encoded over 6, 6, 6, 12, 12 and 12 words, sterting on the first word, with no gaps or overlaps (yours remind me of the DNA 'code', with 'useful' introns separated by 'junk' extrons). It's a tightly organised pattern, which is meaningfully related to the six days of Creation and which harmonises with other encodings at the same location I haven't even shown you and elsewhere (such as the bookend encodings in my first posting). That is what makes it non-random. Remember too that these are the very first 24 words of scripture and that the fact they start from the very beginning, rather than word 2, or 3, or 298, or whatever, is further evidence they are real, because there are a huge number of 24-word strings within the Bible. It would be ridiculously easy to find a similarly encoded 24-word string somewhere within the NIV, or within any book, but that would be meaningless, because the number of strings to search through would be extremely high. The fact that the signatures within the first 24 words is a beacon shouting out that these are not random. It's the difference between going to a library, searching for an hour and finding the book you want, and going to the library and finding that the first book you pull out is the one you want. The latter case might be considered synchronicity in some circumstances.
    It's confluences of patterns that are the hallmark of the code and I showed that the gematria values of the signatures are conflated with the number six and its mutliple 12, which was conspicuously absent in your counterexample. Now the length of word strings is independent of the standard values of word strings, yet the number six is clearly associated with them - there are also six 'signatures'. According to Bullinger biblically six can mean "the completion of Creation as God's work", and God's creation of heaven and earth just happens to be the subject of the opening words, so there is a link to the creation story. Twelve is the number of perfect governance. Now I think that this is itself enough to distinguish the signatures from your counterexample, but there is much much more in than location, all meaningfully interelated, amounting to a kind of holographic seal on the first words of the NIV. For instance,

    1. It also contains the first of the four 'bookend encodings', over the first 18 and last 14 words of the OT and the first 14 and last 18 words of the NT. These are encoded over the first 12 and the next 6 words and so are perfectly integrated with the signatures.

    2. The Creation Snowflake is also encoded here. The outline of 252 units and outer ring of 906 units are the first 6 and 18 words, again integrating with the Signatures. The full snowflake is the ordinal value of Genesis 1:2. Now the snowflake is six sided, which again links to the number 6. Here's how they look.

    Name:  Table.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  39.9 KB

    Note that the inclusion of the complete snowflake to the table highlights the standard value of The Messiah (476), which I hadn't seen before.

    Incidentally, summing the first and last verses of the NIV Bible give 430 + 458 = 888

    The Lord's Second Coming (s) = 888

    3. Recalling my assertion that the funeral of Pope John Paul II represented the Reurrection, splitting the first 24 words into 8 + 8 + 8 gives this table:

    Name:  Table 2.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  57.3 KB

    Incidentally, the reduced value of Ihsous in Greek is 24.

    4. There's much more in this one location, all integrating with the ideas of Christ and the Second Coming. Here's a couple more. The word 'God' is highlighted three times in the first three verses. Now if we sum the place values of these three 'God's, a) relative to the start of the Bible and b) relative the start of each verse, we obtain the number 71 and 26. These are the standard and ordinal values of the word 'God', which are the very two systems the key showed me! If we now do the same with the individual letter values we obtain 888 and 303

    The Lord's Second Coming (s) = 888
    Appearing (s) = 303

    5. Here is a beautiful ELS code which ends on the last letter of the 24th word.

    Name:  Table 5.8.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  47.9 KB

    6. You might also like this one, which shows the letters of God encoded in skip value of 8 (implying 888), again at the same location:

    Name:  Table 5.5.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  29.8 KB

    7. This gives a beautiful little cross at the beginning of the Bible:

    Name:  Table 5.6.jpg
Views: 14
Size:  26.3 KB

    which is repeated in John with a skip interval of 29 (= Messiah (r)). This was the only part of the code not discovered by me. Gary val Tenuta found it.

    This isn't the half of it, but I hope you can now see why I say this amounts to a holographic seal on the code.
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 01-25-2012 at 02:06 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •