The Bible Wheel, Numerology, and Cognitive Bias

[Gambini]

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

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



BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty simple stuff.

[Gambini]

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

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


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


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



BINI

[Snakeboy]

The " god " in the Bible can't be " righteous " and " evil " at the same time ?

Then what does the Tzaddik do ?

[Gambini]

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

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


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


What say you???



BINI

[Gambini]

The " god " in the Bible can't be " righteous " and " evil " at the same time ?

Then what does the Tzaddik do ?

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

[Snakeboy]

Now you're just being silly Gambini, God is going to fall out of a cloud riding a horse

Btw, something else I thought interesting about Genesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalm 119:137 - 119:144 = Tsaddi

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

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

[Richard Amiel McGough]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard

[Snakeboy]

Oh yeah, forgot

John 1:1 uses " logos " three times

Logos = 373

373 x 3 = 1119

[Richard Amiel McGough]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great chatting!

Shine on!



Richard