# Thread: Value of Pi in Matthew ...

1. Originally Posted by GourmetDan
You're a huge fool if you think internet troll-sites are reality...
You are a huge fool if you think anything materail is reality.

2. Banned
Join Date
Oct 2013
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Timmy
You are a huge fool if you think anything materail is reality.
What is 'materail' troll?

3. Senior Member
Join Date
Mar 2012
Posts
278
"First, get your facts straight. The spelling of Matthew that fits your pattern sums to 340, not 342, and it has 8 letters, not 6"

There actually is a variant Greek spelling of Matthew that has a value of 342 and 6 letters. But even if we go with the variant you're pointing to, it still sums to 348.

"So you are rejecting the TR as an accurate representation of the original manuscripts since it consistently errs on the spelling of Matthew throughout"

Not at all. ALL ancient manuscripts contain variant spellings of words. That doesn't make it an inaccurate representation of the autographs. And variant spellings aren't errors.

"The fact that you can't even understand that this is significant"

I'm saying the fact that Moses + The number of letters in his name = a LEGITIMATE Greek spelling of Matthew + The number of letters in his name is an extremely minor point in my argument here. That's why I asked why you're so fixated on that. The real argument is all the correlating evidence linking all the encoded constants and the fact that they are all accurate to the SAME number of digits. Hell, I'll give you another one ...

We see that Pi and the exponential constant are encoded in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 through the SAME mathematical formula and how their combined values produces the fine structure constant (all to FIVE digits). We also saw how Matthew 20:5 (the ONLY instance of a word with the same value as Genesis 1:1 and whose verse value = an anagram of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1) encodes Pi to FIVE digits as well by simply multiplying its value with its number of letters. And now let's look at ANOTHER value in Genesis 1:1 that is accurate to FIVE digits ...

The product of every word value in Genesis 1:1 divided by the product of every letter value = The ratio for a squared circle to FIVE digits! This is also significant because the actual dimensions of the earth with the moon produces a squared circle (and Genesis 1:1 introduces the creation). And again, this is all happening in biblical passages we already know is supernaturally inspired from wholly independent lines of evidence. So it shouldn't shock you to find FIVE different encoded values and each of them to the same accuracy.

"You appeal to erroneous websites as sufficient reason to claim that God designed the Bible on the false "fact" that the sun is really 864,000 miles in diameter"

You mean erroneous sources like UniverseToday, which used the 864,000 value in 2012! Or NASA, which recently used that value on a Twitter post???

"The scientific measurements come with error estimates, and the error estimate in the diameter of the sun is 865,373 +/= 40 miles"

No, that is the error estimate GIVEN ASSUMPTIONS already in place. That's the point. We can't pinpoint the diameter of the sun with that degree of accuracy WITHOUT making assumptions.

You're pointing to a single study from 2006 and yet the value 864,000 is STILL used (I gave two examples). And the value given by that study fits the value of 864,000 by over 99%! So given that and the correlating evidence from the bible (and nature itself), we can safely say that the value 864,00 is closer to the truth. Observe another biblical link ...

The value of "SUN AND MOON" (from Psalm 148:3) = 864!

4. Originally Posted by Gambini
"First, get your facts straight. The spelling of Matthew that fits your pattern sums to 340, not 342, and it has 8 letters, not 6"

There actually is a variant Greek spelling of Matthew that has a value of 342 and 6 letters. But even if we go with the variant you're pointing to, it still sums to 348.
Really? Where did you find it and how do you spell it? I have only seen the two variations we have been discussing.

Originally Posted by Gambini
"So you are rejecting the TR as an accurate representation of the original manuscripts since it consistently errs on the spelling of Matthew throughout"

Not at all. ALL ancient manuscripts contain variant spellings of words. That doesn't make it an inaccurate representation of the autographs. And variant spellings aren't errors.
It makes it an obviously inaccurate representation of the secret codes you are talking about. The TR consistently spells Matthew in a form that has the value 631 (in the nominative case) so for a user of the TR, your pattern doesn't exist.

It sounds like you are asserting that you can use your patterns to determine the autographs. Does this mean that you think that your spelling of Matthew was in the autographs?

Originally Posted by Gambini
"The fact that you can't even understand that this is significant"

I'm saying the fact that Moses + The number of letters in his name = a LEGITIMATE Greek spelling of Matthew + The number of letters in his name is an extremely minor point in my argument here. That's why I asked why you're so fixated on that. The real argument is all the correlating evidence linking all the encoded constants and the fact that they are all accurate to the SAME number of digits. Hell, I'll give you another one ...
I'm not "fixated" on this one point in your potpourri of cherry picked facts. I can only talk about one thing at a time and I wanted this point to be answered.

Here's the fundamental error of your entire study: You have no way to discern between random chance and meaningful design. Got it? That's your error. It is fundamental, and it makes all your results suspect. It is absurd for you to simply assert that ALL the results in your grab bag of random results are proof of anything.

Originally Posted by Gambini
We see that Pi and the exponential constant are encoded in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 through the SAME mathematical formula and how their combined values produces the fine structure constant (all to FIVE digits).
So what? What does it mean? What does it prove? Here is what the Bible believing fundamentalist Christian code finder Chuck Missler said about that "encoding" -

Originally Posted by Chuck Missler
Each of these is another of those puzzling ostensible “coincidences” that are too astonishing to dismiss, and yet present challenges in suggesting any real significance.3 And taken together, they do evoke some conjectures. There are, however, at least two problems: why just four decimal places (they both deviate from the fifth place onwards) and what do you do with all the “extra zeroes”?

I frankly don’t know. Nevertheless, I thought it would be an excellent conversation piece as we return to our academic schedules this month. The rabbis would suggest that each of these may simply be aremez , a hint of something deeper.
Another fundamental problem with your presentation is that you constantly overstate the implications of the patterns you find.

Originally Posted by Gambini
We also saw how Matthew 20:5 (the ONLY instance of a word with the same value as Genesis 1:1 and whose verse value = an anagram of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1) encodes Pi to FIVE digits as well by simply multiplying its value with its number of letters. And now let's look at ANOTHER value in Genesis 1:1 that is accurate to FIVE digits ...
You are revealing your sloppy thinking again. You didn't check for textual variations. Matthew 20:5 has the value of 6579 in the NA27 (where you find the spelling of Matthew that you like). You didn't bother to check. It has the value of 6283 in the TR. They can't both be right. But you refuse to choose. So you have more random data to cherry pick. This is yet another fundamental flaw in your presentation.

And the fact that the value of the verse in the TR is a metathesis of 6328 is meaningless. It's just another random coincidence. But you can't see that because you have no knowledge of statistics and you wouldn't care if you did because all you care about is collecting random facts that confirm your cognitive bias. I've seen hundreds of people with your mental malady. It is exceedingly common and easy to diagnose. Muslims are just as prone to it as Christians. They think the appearance of the number 19 in the Quran proves it is from Allah.

Originally Posted by Gambini
The product of every word value in Genesis 1:1 divided by the product of every letter value = The ratio for a squared circle to FIVE digits!
The "ratio of a squared circle"? What are you blathering about? Your ignorance of basic mathematics is showing yet again.

Originally Posted by Gambini
"You appeal to erroneous websites as sufficient reason to claim that God designed the Bible on the false "fact" that the sun is really 864,000 miles in diameter"

You mean erroneous sources like UniverseToday, which used the 864,000 value in 2012! Or NASA, which recently used that value on a Twitter post???
I was talking about the erroneous assertions on those sites. You should have understood this since the phrase "erroneous website" has no meaning as such.

I'm really looking forward to your response to my refutation of your claims about the sun in the other thread. E.g. your claim that "MOST websites" say the sun has a diameter of 864,000 miles is utterly ridiculous. I checked google, and the ratio is 162 MILLION that say 865,000 to a mere 17,500 that say 864,000.

Originally Posted by Gambini
"The scientific measurements come with error estimates, and the error estimate in the diameter of the sun is 865,373 +/= 40 miles"

No, that is the error estimate GIVEN ASSUMPTIONS already in place. That's the point. We can't pinpoint the diameter of the sun with that degree of accuracy WITHOUT making assumptions.
And so you can't know it is 864,000 and your entire thesis bites the dust. Yet again. It's amazing how many failings there are in your posts.

5. Originally Posted by Gambini
You mean erroneous sources like UniverseToday, which used the 864,000 value in 2012! Or NASA, which recently used that value on a Twitter post???
Oh you mean UniverseToday that says the earth is 870,000 miles in diameter. http://www.universetoday.com/94252/c...cs-of-the-sun/

The diameter of the Sun is 1.391 million kilometers or 870,000 miles.

and then only a few paragraphs later it says this.

Diameter of the Sun in kilometers: 1,391,000 km
Diameter of the Sun in miles: 864,000 miles
Diameter of the Sun in meters: 1,391,000,000 meters
Diameter of the Sun compared to Earth: 109 Earths

or how about the number listed on another page of UniverseToday that says 865,000 miles. http://www.universetoday.com/16338/

The Sun’s diameter is 1,392,000 kilometres or 865,000 miles;

That screams credible all the way.

6. Originally Posted by L67
Oh you mean UniverseToday that says the earth is 870,000 miles in diameter. http://www.universetoday.com/94252/c...cs-of-the-sun/

The diameter of the Sun is 1.391 million kilometers or 870,000 miles.

and then only a few paragraphs later it says this.

Diameter of the Sun in kilometers: 1,391,000 km
Diameter of the Sun in miles: 864,000 miles
Diameter of the Sun in meters: 1,391,000,000 meters
Diameter of the Sun compared to Earth: 109 Earths

or how about the number listed on another page of UniverseToday that says 865,000 miles. http://www.universetoday.com/16338/

The Sun’s diameter is 1,392,000 kilometres or 865,000 miles;

That screams credible all the way.

Thanks L67! What a hoot! That's a very effective demonstration. Well done.

Gambini's definition of authority: "Any website that has at least one page that supports what I want to believe, regardless of how many other contradictory pages it may contain."

It's also interesting that Gambini is following exactly the same errors we see on this site - thefirmament.org - which is one of the primary proponents of the absurd assertion that the Omniscient God designed his Eternal Word on the assumption that the actual diameter of the sun is 864,000 miles:

Originally Posted by The Lunatic Christian Freak Show
What confirmation do you have that the Sun's diameter is 864,000 miles?

There are many sites that purport the Sun's diameter in different measures ranging from under 864,000 miles to as much as 870,000 miles across. The Sun expands and contracts at different stages of its cycles and therefore what can seem to be differences in size. However, the mean diameter is 864,000 miles. If you Google "Sun 864,000 miles" you'll get about 6,000 hits referring to the diameter of the Sun being 864,000 miles. As well as the recognized astronomical authorities such as Astonomy Magazine (see second paragraph under "SIZE") and NASA (located under the second picture of the Sun).
I took their suggestion, and Googled both numbers:

sun 864,000 miles : about 17,500 results
sun 865,000 miles : about 162,000,000 results

That's 162 MILLION to a mere 17 thousand against their claim. They were only off by NINE THOUSAND TO ONE!

7. Originally Posted by Gambini
You're pointing to a single study from 2006 and yet the value 864,000 is STILL used (I gave two examples). And the value given by that study fits the value of 864,000 by over 99%! So given that and the correlating evidence from the bible (and nature itself), we can safely say that the value 864,00 is closer to the truth. Observe another biblical link ...
Say what? The value of 864,000 has been proven to be wrong! You remind me of Sir Arthur Eddington. He was a famous and highly respected astronomer. Unfortunately, he went a little nutty with numerology. He was highly impressed by the fact that the inverse Fine Structure Constant was dimensionless and very near the perfect integer 136. So he developed an elaborate theory to "prove" it had the exact value of 136. And then the experimental results were refined and the number was found to be closer to 137. So what did he do? He refined his theory to "predict" the new value! And this earned him the nickname Sir Arthur Adding-One.

This is the fatal flaw in your claims about the Bible and the diameter of the sun. You are basing your entire argument on an ephemeral scientific estimate that lasted for only about a century at best. It is now out of date, and there will never again be a time when an informed person could agree that 864,000 miles is the best estimate (to three significant digits) of the diameter of the sun.

You complain that I cited a "single study"? Well that study I cited contains a review of all the modern data from 1970 to 2012. They concluded that the solar radius is 696,342 ± 65km which translates to a diameter of 1,392,684 km or 865,373 ± 80 miles.

MEASURING THE SOLAR RADIUS FROM SPACE DURING THE 2003 AND 2006 MERCURY TRANSITS [PDF]

And here is their table of the results for the last 32 years with error estimates (the dotted line is the current adopted value of in the ephemerides):

The value you say is "justified" must lie between 863,500 and 864,500 if you want to round it to the nearest three digits and get 864,000. This means the radius must be between 6.948 km to 6.956 km. Those values are supported by only a few measurements on the graph. The vast majority are above that range. Your claims have been refuted.

You have taken up the sword of science in an attempt to justify your faith. That was not wise. You would do well to heed the words of Jesus on this matter:

Matthew 26:52: Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

8. Senior Member
Join Date
Mar 2012
Posts
278
Richard, why did you google diameter of sun 865,000??? That's not your argument. You're saying that the diameter of the sun is 865,373 miles (with an error of over and below 40 miles), right? And since my only access to the web right now is through my smartphone and I CAN'T see how many hits a particular google search has (it doesn't show for some reason), how many hits does the value you're actually arguing for (865,373) give???

Regardless, I'm ABSOLUTELY justified in using the value of 864,000 for the simple fact that the value is STILL USED by authoritative sources. That's all I need.

Btw, if you believe we can pinpoint the diameter of the sun to 865,373 miles, then surely you believe we can pinpoint the diameter of the moon and distance to the sun, right? Well, the diameter of the moon (2160 miles) and the mean distance of the sun (400 times further than the moon) has to be precise in order to have a true solar eclipse ...

2160 x 400 = 864,000!
Last edited by Gambini; 11-10-2013 at 06:50 PM.

9. Originally Posted by Gambini
Richard, why did you google diameter of sun 865,000??? That's not your argument. You're saying that the diameter of the sun is 865,373 miles (with an error of over and below 40 miles), right?
I Googled 864,000 and 865,000 because I was responding to your claim that the best estimate (to three significant digits) for the diameter of the sun is 864,000. And that's the three digit number that would be used if the six digit diameter really was 865,373. Duh.

The more precise number, 865,373, is perfectly consistent with 865,000 because it rounds down to that number. It is not consistent with yoru claim of 864,000.

Originally Posted by Gambini
And since my only access to the web right now is through my smartphone and I CAN'T see how many hits a particular google search has (it doesn't show for some reason), how many hits does the value you're actually arguing for (865,373) give???
You can take my word for it. I just clicked the links I put in that post and the numbers are about the same. The often change a bit. The current values are 173 MILLION to 15,900.

Originally Posted by Gambini
Regardless, I'm ABSOLUTELY justified in using the value of 864,000 for the simple fact that the value is STILL USED by authoritative sources. That's all I need.
That makes you look utterly deluded to me. Only a person totally lost in the abyss of absurd rationalization could assert such a thing.

Originally Posted by Gambini
Btw, if you believe we can pinpoint the diameter of the sun to 865,373 miles, then surely you believe we can pinpoint the diameter of the moon and distance to the sun, right? Well, the diameter of the moon (2160 miles) and the mean distance of the sun (400 times further than the moon) has to be precise in order to have a true solar eclipse ...

2160 x 400 = 864,000!
So what? Those are approximations. The real value is 865,000 (rounded to three significant digits). I have proven this, and you have demonstrated, yet again, that you don't give a shit about truth. I've seen this a thousand times in folks afflicted with your mental malady. It exemplifies how religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. Nothing could be more ironic ... or pathetic.

10. Senior Member
Join Date
Mar 2012
Posts
278
"So what? Those are approximations"

So we can only give "approximations" for the diameter of the CLOSEST body in the solar system and the distance to the sun BUT we can physically measure the diameter of the sun to within an error of 40 miles (give or take)??? If we can physically measure the diameter of the sun with that much accuracy, then surely we can measure the diameter of the moon and the distance of the sun with as much accuracy (if not MORE so) ...

And like I stated, IF there are STILL authoritative sources that STILL use the value 864,000 (which there are), then THAT in itself warrants using that value. My three main points justifying my use of 864,000 are ...

1) The value is STILL used by authoritative sources.
2) The diameter of the moon (2160) has to match PRECISELY with the distance of the sun (which is 400 times farther than the moon) in order to have a total solar eclipse (2160 x 400 = 864,000).
3) The correspondence between the biblical links (and links from nature itself) to a solar diameter of 864,000.

And you said nothing about the biblical links with the diameter of the moon or the diameter of the earth ...

God had the Israelites march around the city of Jericho once for each of six days ... 360 degrees x 6 = 2160 (diameter of the moon) and Jericho itself means "City of the MOON"! ...

The book of Revelation describes New Jerusalem coming down to the EARTH. The dimensions given for the New Jerusalem in the book of Revelation translates to a diameter of 7920 (diameter of the EARTH in miles) x 1000 feet! And this goes back to my point about the mile, foot and inch not being arbitrary units of measure. Every single ancient system of measurement is related to our modern system.

Btw, I really wish you would stop repeating this ridiculous line of yours about religion having a negative effect on morals. That's the DUMBEST shit I've ever heard. Your own personal experiences of religious people don't mean anything. If your assertion that religion has negative effects on people is true, then the data should back that up ...

The HIGHEST level of statistical studies are studies involving META-ANALYSIS (where instead of looking at individual studies, we look at ALL the extant studies and make a conclusion by taking ALL the studies into account). Well, let's do that ...

A 2006 META-ANALYSIS by Alexander Moreira-Almeida, Francisco Lotufo Neto and Harold G. Koerig (which looked at 850 separate studies!) concludes that people who are more religious are LESS likely to use drugs, abuse alcohol, suffer depression or attempt suicide (hence, NONRELIGIOUS people are MORE likely to use drugs, abuse alcohol, suffer from depression or attempt suicide) ...

A 2002 META-ANALYSIS by Bryan Johnson and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania (which looked at nearly 500 separate studies!) concluded that religious people have LOWER levels of hypertension and clinical delinquency ...

Matter fact, MENTAL ILLNESS is MORE common among ATHEISTS! For example, AUTISM is more common among atheists than among other groups ...

A 2002 paper by Jesse Bering noted that people with high-functioning autism were more likely to view God as nothing more than a principle (rather than a being with actual personhood) ...

A 2011 paper presented at a conference by Catherine Caldwell-Harris and collaborators at Boston University showed that people with high-functioning autism were MORE likely to be ATHEISTS and LESS likely to belong to an organized religion ...

A 2012 paper by Ara Norenzayan and Will Gervais of the University of British Columbia and Kali Trzensniewski at UC DAVIS reports on FOUR different studies that replicate the findings of the BU research.

Btw, did you know that NONRELIGIOUS people are the most MISERABLE people on earth??? ...

In fact, surveys from Gallup, the National Opinion Center and the Pew Organization all conclude that religious people are TWICE as likely to report being "VERY HAPPY" than nonreligious people ...

A 2009 study done in France by Andrew E. Clark and Orsolya Leikes (which surveyed 90,000 people in 26 European countries) showed that religious people are more likely to be happy with their lives ...

On a side note, a 2003 META-ANALYSIS by Timothy Smith, Michael McCullough and Justin Poll (which looked at over 200 studies!) showed that among other things, RELIGIOUS people report a HIGHER satisfaction with their SEX LIFE! HELL YEA BABY!

A 2001 META-ANALYSIS by C.J. Bauer and B.R. Wright (which looked at 60 separated studies!) concludes that religious people are LESS likely to engage in criminal activity! This particular META-ANALYSIS is especially delicious because it demonstrates how DISHONEST atheists are. Atheists like to point out that most people in prison are self described Christians when they know damn well that most self described Christians aren't deeply religious. Nobody is saying if you put a shirt on that says "I'm a Christian", all of a sudden you'll be a saint. The point is that the more religiously devoted someone is, the LESS likely they are to engage in crime (and this is precisely what the META-DATA shows) ...

A COMPREHENSIVE study released in 2007 by Harvard Professor Robert Putnam and University of Notre Dame associate Professor David Campbell reveals that religious people are more likely to give to charity AND that 40% of REGULAR church goers volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly (compared to only 15% who never attend religious services)!

So let's see, Richard ... According to the META-DATA, the MORE religious you are, the LESS likely you are to use drugs, abuse alcohol, engage in criminal acts of violence, suffer hypertension, suffer depression, be diagnosed with clinical delinquency or attempt suicide. Further, the MORE likely you are to give to charity, volunteer to help the poor and elderly and more likely to be HAPPY in life (not to mention have a more satisfying sex life).

Now can you please stop spouting your bullshit lies about religiosity having a negative effect on the individual lives of religious people?

Several studies have shown that the MOST religious people on earth are West Africans. For example, a 2012 poll by the Win-Gallup International Religiosity Index (which interviewed 52,000 people in over 50 countries around the world) showed that West Africans are THE most religious people on earth. Well ...

Can you guess who are THE most college educated members of society in America? Jews? WRONG! Asians? WRONG! ... The MOST educated members of American society are West Africans (THE most religious people on earth)!

Guess who the MOST educated people in Canada are ... West Africans!

Guess who the MOST educated people in the UK are ... West Africans!

In EVERY SINGLE WESTERN COUNTRY that has a sizable West African community (and that has performed this study), the MOST educated members of society just happen to be THE most religious people on earth! Whoops!!!

Btw, if you love science so much, then you should be thanking Christianity day and night. It was CHRISTIAN SOCIETIES that made science what it is today. Hell, virtually every single scientific field of study was originated by Christians! Matter fact, the MOST religious nation in the West (America) just happens to be THE world leader in the advancement of science.
Last edited by Gambini; 11-12-2013 at 12:27 PM.

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

#### Posting Permissions

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