The Bible Wheel, Numerology, and Cognitive Bias

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Oh yeah, forgot

John 1:1 uses " logos " three times

Logos = 373

373 x 3 = 1119

I always thought that was pretty cool.

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

[Gambini]

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

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

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

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



SHALOMness

[Richard Amiel McGough]

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

Then what does the Tzaddik do ?

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

[Gambini]

Oh yeah, forgot

John 1:1 uses " logos " three times

Logos = 373

373 x 3 = 1119

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



BINI

[Richard Amiel McGough]

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

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

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

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

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

[Snakeboy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living a life of " sin ", etc

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

[Richard Amiel McGough]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Living a life of " sin ", etc

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

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

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

[Gambini]

Why should anyone believe he exists?

I just told you ...


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


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



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



BINI

[Snakeboy]

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

This requires that we ask who is responsible ?

The Tzaddik wouldn't have knowingly volunteered...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I just told you ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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