Interesting conjecture, Richard

On one hand, we have a book which many claim is supernaturally influenced, or " divine " in origin, and that each and every word is ordained, and thus the order of every book, chapter and verse would be part of this " divine " design, leading to apparent " structure " like your " Biblewheel " discovery.

On the other hand, we have a book that is a conglomeration of many myths and legends, drawn from many texts and text fragments, I don't think anybody with some comparative religion studies would debate that.

Obviously there are many different versions of the bible, and they don't all have the same exact words, books, chapters, verses, etc, in the same order.

For example, " wisdom " being mentioned 222 times, is not in all versions. In versions like the KJV, this " seems " to " mesh " quite well with the overall story, and indeed we do find that verses like Isaiah 22:22, etc, do seem to be part of an extended family of simple sets.

So, all of a sudden, we are faced with the glaring reality that these " divinely inspired " numerical " structures are not completely identical between versions.

Then we have to ask " If God meant for all this to prove something, then why is it not consistent in every version ? "

It does indeed make it seem that the " all-powerful , all-knowing God " has half-assed it.

If God meant for the gematria and all the other numerical " coincidences " to prove something, and math is indeed the tool we use to probe what is " true " Vs. " not true ", then why do we find inconsistency ?

Why do we not find the identical biblical numerical structures in books like the Quran or the Vedas ?

For that matter, why didn't God just use a simple cipher to make all the numbers from front to back spell out something like " I am god, I wrote this book through men and it's infallible " ?

Why wouldn't god just get over the woo and spit it out in clear and concise terms ?

Why the apparent need to " hide " hidden meanings with numbers, or rely on the work of translators and scribes to conceal things ?

It really seems to make no sense...

Given that there are indeed many numerical " oddities " and " coincidences ", which you say you think might just basically be the product of the human minds which have been responsible for compiling the book over the years ( due to the human mind's proclivity to seek and correlate patterns ) this would mean that the apparent numerical structure was somehow unconsciously reinforced by the writers.

Now, did all these scribes and writers study or have intimate knowledge of gematria ?

It's entirely likely that many did, the concept of gematria is quite old, and ciphers and such do not owe their existence to the Bible, obviously numbers pre-date the KJV, predate the Torah, predate oral traditions,

Were portions, or all, of the book written to maintain these " coincidences " ?

This is also a possible scenario, however ,this starts to rely on the prospect that they were well aware of the mathematical " links " that could be " hidden " in the texts themselves ( using gematria ), which would then be counter to the idea that the writers and scribes were subconsciously influenced by their own innate pattern-seeking.

Then we are facing the prospect that some of them may have been familiar with gematria, whereas some of them weren't, and we have to ask how the apparent numerical coincidences became what they were as a joint product:

~ Some scribes and writers used gematria to " hide " things, and were well aware of what they were doing

~ Some scribes and writers were subconsciously influenced, and were not aware of what they were doing

Now we are stepping into conspiracylandia, because in order for the scribes and writers of the Bible to have purposefully " engineered " these numerical " coincidences ", they would have had to be in agreement, which means that each and every writer/scribe would have to be aware of what was really going on.

If we look at the book:

We have a conglomerate of oral tradition and written tradition, written and compiled, by people who were both aware of what they were doing, and people who were not ( subconsciously biased towards patterns )

It seems a bit iffy to say that the final structure of the book is " accidental " when we take these things into consideration.

This is like saying two hands wrote a book, inspired by god himself, but the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing.

You'd think a text prepared in this manner would be completely willy-nilly and offer absolutely no numerical " coincidences " whatsoever, yet, there they are.

If all the " coincidences " are indeed purposefully placed there by people playing number games, then this would be perhaps the largest secret to have ever been kept.

...which defies logic, as we know secrets don't last long in human hands.

If it is indeed " divinely ordained " by god, then we have to ask why it's concealed.

I do not find this question unreasonable , as " concealing " ," covering up ", " hidden "..is a very common theme in the bible, it's not like we don't know the meaning of the word " Kaballah ".

One of the things I've noticed , where books like the Bible are concerned, is that their readers maintain that the books are " supernatural " in origin.

A book that is supernatural in origin, and contains " hidden " meanings and messages would not give up it's " hidden secrets " merely at a glance, or after one reading, yet you'll commonly see readers of such books claim to know the " absolute truth " about their books.

Knowing the " absolute truth " of the Bible would make one infallible, and according to the followers of the book itself, only god is infallible ( even though he changes his mind several times, lol )

Myself,.. I've been wrong about a great many things in my life, ...acknowledging this is what helps me probe the limits of my own ignorance.

What I didn't consider, is that sometimes I have been wrong about being wrong, ie, I was actually right in the beginning.

I've seen enough debunking of " biblecodes ", ELS, etc, ( love reading about debunking, actually ) and can see that the general case here is that numbers can do all sorts of strange things sometimes, patterns appear, or can be teased out of a block of text with enough wrangling.

Now if all the numerical " coincidences " between things in the Bible are just a statistical inevitability arising from using the base 10 counting system, and we are including here, the alphabetical cardinality of the Hebrew and Greek languages, the cardinality of the bible itself ( it's order ), ...

...and all of that hinges directly on the gematria values of the words themselves, then it should be easy to apply a set of different bases to the alphabets and produce a multitude of the exact same " coincidences "

If it's all a product of statistical inevitability, then it should be a product of statistical inevitability with another set of bases, no ?

Couldn't you easily debunk your own work by showing this to be true ?

Like, instead of the normal set of bases for the alphabet {1-9, 10-90, 100-900 } iirc did you ever see what happens when you try another set of bases, ie, did the " Biblewheel " show up again ?

Did you ever try ?

I've been very curious about this.

For that matter, did you ever consider that the reason you got so much shit for your work was because it pretty much does invalidate the bulk of fundamentalist zealot doctrines ?

I think people felt threatened by your work, because it shows that where the Bible is concerned, all is not what it seems, and your work could actually be the basis for eventually effectively debunking the book's status of being " divinely inspired ".



-------------------

On another note, regardless of whatever religious implications all this may or may not have, I still have yet to hear an explanation for the bijections between Strong's cardinality, pi cardinality in base 10, gematria values, word frequencies, and the cardinality of the bible itself.

I know for certain that these numerical relationships exist, as I have made rather large hierarchical maps using the stand-alone numerical sets ( no hebrew, pictures of jesus, etc, but just maps similar to an " Issue tree ", using sets of sums, powers, factors, roots, squares, cubes, etc )

All of which are precisely centered on relationships between 666 and Pi

Pi wasn't even calculated over 100 digits until the work of the mathematician John Machin in the 1700's, so you know damn well that it's an incredible " coincidence "

That this pre-existing extended family of sets coincidentally happens to be the same family of sets derivable from the bible, reeks of the hand of men, does it not ?

Has this escaped your eyes, that you have possibly uncovered what could ultimately prove the mathematical " coincidences " of the book are completely contrived from pre-existing mathematical knowledge, of Pi in base 10 , which subsequently became " lost " or " forgotten " somehow ?

If I had a degree in mathematics, I could probably make myself famous in the world of math, just by this alone.

Who wouldn't want to be the person credited with those discoveries ?

Debunk the bible, or at the very least the Genesis account of creation and prove Pi was actually calculated quite accurately by some unknown means, 1000's of years ago, in one shot.

Granted, I know it's a slippery slope, because discussing mathematics with other mathematicians ( or even novices like myself ) is all fine and good until you bring the bible into the discussion, then it goes to shit, and they can longer focus on the original premise of the work.

I've seen this demonstrated quite clearly on math forums, as even atheist and agnostic mathematicians seem to lose 50 IQ points the minute " 666 " is mentioned.

No need to mention the bible or god, jesus, etc, at all, ...just say " 666 " and it all goes downhill from there, there is no rational discussion to be had, even with the supposed rational-minded.