Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 159
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    1) The Bible Wheel.

    When I first browsed your book to get an overall understanding of where you were going with it, I was fascinated by the layering of repeated 22's, (kaballistic use of the Hebrew char's). And even though you showed many overlapping themes on the threads, I found them somewhat arbitrary, since I could see no reason why the third cycle would begin with Romans, and not Matthew. But it was rather ingenious how you grouped the 5, 12, 5 sets of books of the OT, plus gospels, so that Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, matched, Haggai, Zecharia, Malachi, the prophets of the restoration period. A further disconnect is that you had 12 OT history books in Cycle 1, but 5 NT history books in Cycle 2. Then you associated the 12 Historical books of the OT in Cycle 1, with 12 Minor Prophets of the OT in Cycle 2. Also, the 5 books of the Pentateuch in Cycle 1 don't seem to match with the 5 Major Prophets of Cycle 2. And then to group the remaining 22 books of the NT into Cycle 3, seems to be a bit arbitrary, especially beginning with Romans. Having said this, the numbered groupings of 5,12,5 seemed ordered, especially as they overlay the design of the Menorah.
    Hey there dpenn,

    Your comments are very enlightening. They show the fundamentally subjective nature of "meaningful patterns."

    Your comments seem to indicate that you think I "did something" to design the pattern. That's not correct. The order of the books follows the traditional pattern of the 66 book protestant canon, as exemplified in the KJV for example. I did nothing but "roll up" the list of books on a spindle wheel of 22 spokes. All the patterns follow from that one act. I discuss this in my article What is the Bible Wheel?.

    "kaballistic use of the Hebrew char's"

    Why do you think it is "kabbalistic"? (As an aside, it is spelled with two b's and one l). The meanings of the letters are fairly well established in the Bible (seven of the names of the letters appear in the Alphabetic Verses), by the roles they play in Hebrew grammar and etymology, and by historical Jewish commentary (see Chapter 7 of the Bible Wheel book). Did you intend that term in a pejorative sense?

    "I found them somewhat arbitrary, since I could see no reason why the third cycle would begin with Romans, and not Matthew"

    That's interesting. I've always felt that the structure of Spoke 1 was one of the most convincing patterns of "divine design." Did you read my review of Spoke 1? It seems to me that the book of Romans fits much more with Spoke 1 that would Matthew. But then again, given that Matthew is the first book of the NT, the case could be made for your suggestion that the whole design could have been vastly improved if God had added more books (and letters to the Hebrew alphabet) to make the kind of patter you would prefer.

    One of the patterns that impressed me most was the alignment on Spoke 1 of three books that are the "first books" of major portions of Scripture:



    Of course, the books could have been rearranged so that Matthew was aligned with Genesis and Romans. Or perhaps it would have been better if John aligned with Genesis, since both begin with "In the beginning." This again shows the arbitrary "post hoc" nature of pattern finding. People can always make up "reasons" for any pattern they find, and such reasons will often be based on arbitrary and subjective likes, dislikes, biases, and so forth.

    One of the most important things to understand is that the circular matrix of 66 cells imposes a sense of "design" by it's orderly structure. But that's an illusion because any arbitrary set of 66 objects could be displayed on such a matrix.

    "But it was rather ingenious how you grouped the 5, 12, 5 sets of books of the OT, plus gospels,"

    Ingenious? What are you talking about? I didn't do anything. That's how the pattern fell out on its own. I discovered it about four years after my initial discovery of the Wheel. I was quite stunned that the books naturally fall into those numerical categories. I had noticed that the first spoke consisted of the first books of three natural divisions of scripture, and this prompted me to check if there was a larger pattern. I described the process in detail in the thread called The Discovery of the Canon Wheel. I can assure you, I did nothing "ingenious."

    Of course, many folks have felt that the pattern is not real. There is no debate about the Torah having 5 books, or the 12 minor prophets. The most common challenges are that the 22 Epistles because they say that Revelation is a book of prophecy, not an epistle (it is, of course, both). And many people would prefer to separate Acts into its own category of "History" and the four Gospels as "biography" (or just "Gospels"). I argued that biographies are accurately categorized as history. And some people argued that the division of the books such as 1 & 2 Kings was arbitrary, and so there could be no significance to any "patterns" based on such things. I rejected that argument by asserting that the pattern exists, and the historical contingencies that led to it are irrelevant.

    "A further disconnect is that you had 12 OT history books in Cycle 1, but 5 NT history books in Cycle 2."

    Why is that a "disconnect"? It seemed to me that the point of the Canon Wheel was the tri-radiant halo that matched the halo of Christ, as well as the menorah. The three cycles and seven divisions always struck me as quite beautiful and amazing.

    Given your previous hint at anti-trinitarianism, I'm wondering if you find the tri-radiant halo "disturbing." I know other folks, particularly those who are into "Hebrew roots" and who reject traditional Christianity as "pagan" and "Babylonian," are profoundly disturbed by the correlation with ancient Christian iconography of Christ as God. I always thought it was an amazing confirmation of the Trinity. So again, we see how "pattern finding" is subjective and entirely unreliable as a proof of anything.

    "Then you associated the 12 Historical books of the OT in Cycle 1, with 12 Minor Prophets of the OT in Cycle 2. "

    I did no such thing. That pattern was determined entirely by the order of books in the Bible. You don't have to put them on the wheel to see it. You could display them in a rectangular grid with 22 columns and three rows and see the same thing.

    "Also, the 5 books of the Pentateuch in Cycle 1 don't seem to match with the 5 Major Prophets of Cycle 2."

    The "Law and the Prophets" doesn't ring any bells? You don't think they naturally go together?

    "And then to group the remaining 22 books of the NT into Cycle 3, seems to be a bit arbitrary, especially beginning with Romans."

    It seems you don't appreciate Romans as the "Chief book of the NT" as it has been described by many exegetes. I'm wondering if you have been influenced by the work of E. L. Martin and his "Restoring the Original Bible" in which he advocated the idea that the Epistles should start with James (the so-called "manuscript order.") I vigorously refuted that idea in my article called Restoring the Original Bible Refuted. This is extremely significant in the present context, because Martin was convinced that his pattern was God's pattern, and it directly contradicted the pattern I thought was divine. So once again, we see the arbitrary and subjective nature of such "pattern finding." I think such patterns are highly suspect as evidence of "divine design." Unfortunately, I wasted a lot of my life believing in the Bible and its God because of such patterns.

    I'll answer your other points in another post, since this one is already getting large.

    Again, let me thank you for taking the time to discuss these things with me. Your comments are very helpful.

    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

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    2. The Isaiah-Bible correlation seems to be much more than coincidental. I think back to Gambini's remarks on a recent post with you, and there sure are many more elements of intentional design than I was previously aware. And it does seem to express a mini hologram of the overall biblical text, at least at a very summary level.
    Do you have any principles by which to determine if a coincidence is merely a coincidence or if it was "intentionally designed"?

    I was always very impressed by the Isaiah Bible Correlation because of the overall fit coupled with some stunning "coincidences." But there are many books with no obvious connections to the corresponding chapter in Isaiah, so it's a mixed bag. And this raises a very important question: If it was designed by God, why would he do a half-assed job? What could be the purpose of making a pattern like that, and not make it clear that he designed it?

    There is good reason to doubt the "connections" are significant. In my last post, I mentioned how E. L. Martin redesigned the Bible to come up with an "amazing symmetry" similar, but contradictory, to mine. He was convinced it was God's design. The same thing has happened with the Isaiah Bible Correlation. I met a man who used the order of books in the Tanakh and did the same kind of analysis as I. He was convinced that God designed it that way. So in both cases, we have examples of people using entirely different orders of the books as the basis of "patterns" that they thought God designed. I think this is strong evidence of how selection bias can lead to false conclusions, and how looking for post hoc "patterns" in large data sets can not be relied upon as proof of anything. Have you seen the site Spurious Correlations? It shows how large data set commonly produce patterns that appear to be connected with in fact they are not.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    3. Biblical Holographs.

    My general thought about Biblical Enigma Machines, is that they seem to go just too far beyond what Jesus actually taught. His message was simple, yet profoundly wise. And when He did hint at a deeper truth that we should search out, it never suggested that we become masters of prime numbers, or magic squares, or magic squares of primes, or deeper hidden gnostic Gematria knowledge contained in the creation of the Hebrew letters. Obviously, numbers play a key and central part of the biblical message, but they don't become the driving force of interpretation. Even the famous, "here is the mind that has wisdom, count the number of the beast" doesn't appear to be some deep kaballistic encrypted code.

    Having said that, I must admit that I was quite startled at the precision of much of the Gematria Holographs. I must have lived quite a sheltered life, since I was not aware of most of this. I have come to realise the significant interplay with the Hebrew and Greek language and number systems, but I had no idea that there was such a profound overlap between the two systems (letter and number).
    I agree that the holographs "go far beyond what Jesus actually taught" but I don't see the relevance of that. On the contrary, I can't see any reason to think that an infinitely wise God would not design his word with such wonders in it. Well, there is one reason. The patterns are a kind of numerology, and an intelligent God would know that numerology is the playground for cranks. Why would he want to make his word look like that crap? And worse, it does not serve to convince anyone but the already convinced. The Muslims have their own numerology of the Quran that they think PROVES it to be the Word of Allah. So I really see no value in such things. It's really good for nothing but convincing people that are already convinced of things for the wrong, indeed delusional, reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    As an afterthought, when I first became a Christian, one of the biggest hurdles for me to get over was the suspicion that the Bible was a deeply intelligent engineered book to manage the working class by a ruling elite, much like the exoteric-esoteric divide. But somehow, the love and grace of God won my heart over to believe on Jesus Christ for my salvation. I think it is possible that if I was exposed to Talmudic Gematria and Kaballism, I very well might never have come to see Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour (but who knows, God is Sovereign, and not many wise are called, i.e. some are).
    Yeah, and if you were exposed to the common sort of Christian numerology, you may well have believed for all the wrong reasons. The vast majority of such numerology is filled with blatant inconsistencies and irrational assertions.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I am aware of many of the apparent contradictions of the Bible, but many of them have plausible answers and many others have been resolved over time. So I trust that the difficulties are in the process of being resolved, and God has His reasons for leaving us partially in the dark (thus the parables, etc).
    My experience was precisely the opposite. Reading the leading Christian apologists proves that the contradictions are real and the attempt to defend the Bible forces people to be dishonest and irrational. I'm not talking about you of course. Just what I've read.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    One final point, conspiracy theory MAY BE one of the most anti-intellectual accusations to make to write off many intelligent inquiries into the concealed actions of many secret societies. Why are they secret? And why do they take blood curdling oaths to assure their secrecy?
    If they are so powerful and so secret, how did you come to know about them? Have you not noticed the fundamentally fallacious logic they use?

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Jesus did all things publicly and spoke truthfully for all to see and hear. I don't know what truly caused you to stumble at that stone, but my hope and prayer, is that, given time you might reconsider His reality.
    I would be delighted to discuss the reasons with you. The most fundamental is this: God is not trustworthy. No one can actually TRUST God to do anything for anyone in this life. It is fundamentally delusional to "trust God." Parents who trust God for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions. If God were half as trustworthy as the average dentist, there would be no debate about his existence.

    And then there are all the contradictions, absurdities, errors in fact and logic, and most importantly, the moral abominations attributed to God in the Bible that makes it impossible for me to believe he could be the "true God." The folks who wrote the Bible were obviously primitive and ignorant in every sense of those words.

    But that's another topic. If you would like, we could start a new thread to discuss it.

    Great chatting!

    Shine on!



    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. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    288
    I am still on a learning curve, trying to intuitively anticipate how to respond via multiple quotes within a posting. So here goes ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Do you have any principles by which to determine if a coincidence is merely a coincidence or if it was "intentionally designed"?

    Richard
    Richard, you show amazing mathematical correlations between the Gen 1:1 Hebrew text being
    2701 = 73*37, manifesting in the Star of David, words: wisdom, unity, one, YHVH, etc. That is a little bit beyond coincidental, even if I don't have any scientific algorithms to support my observations. This is simply basic logical observation. But the things you like to brush aside as conspiracy theories that spawn the delusions of lesser minds, seems to me to be screaming out for intelligent design. So, if it is not a part of the divinely inspired text of the Bible, what alternative design are we left with?

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I agree that the holographs "go far beyond what Jesus actually taught" but I don't see the relevance of that.

    Richard
    I do see the relevance of that because Jesus Christ by the NT Scriptures claims to be God in flesh, fully God and fully man, yet one Lord Jesus Christ. If He is the model and example for all professing Christians, and He doesn't resort to Gematria Enigma Machine teaching methods, shouldn't we be a bit suspicious when a Talmudic, Kabbalistic (thanks for the spell check correction), Gematria driven highjacking of the Scriptures takes over?

    At the same time, I must be honest and say that there are obviously significant letter-number correlations throughout the Scriptures, and I simply don't have an adequate answer for that at this stage of my understanding. But the most obvious is usually very simplistic, even if it is profoundly intelligently designed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    If they are so powerful and so secret, how did you come to know about them? Have you not noticed the fundamentally fallacious logic they use?

    Richard
    Yes I have noticed the fallacious logic they use, the same fallacious logic many of the atheistic evolutionists use. It doesn't surprise me that many of the Luciferian Light Brigade of some of the secret societies come to see this pseudo-light as darkness and turn to the true Light of the Gospel, and then expose much of the secret society indoctrination that is corrupting the minds of many.

    Having said this, please don't think that I am not aware of many of these so-called escapees of the Illumined Light cults, could very well be intentional disinfo or misinfo agents. So each case needs to be evaluated in light of Biblical truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I would be delighted to discuss the reasons with you. The most fundamental is this: God is not trustworthy. No one can actually TRUST God to do anything for anyone in this life. It is fundamentally delusional to "trust God." Parents who trust God for the health of their children end up with dead children and manslaughter convictions. If God were half as trustworthy as the average dentist, there would be no debate about his existence.


    Richard
    When you say that No one can actually TRUST God, what you mean is I cannot TRUST God. Have you ever read the biography of George Mueller, a Baptist preacher from England in the 1800's. He opened multiple orphanages for children and operated as a Faith Ministry, that did not advertise their needs. And over the course of many years, raised funds to provide for the children, and see to their education. One interesting example, is when one morning, they were all sat down for a porridge breakfast, but were lacking milk. He proceeded to thank God that He had always provided for their needs, and shortly following the prayer, a milk wagon on the street had a broken wheel. Rather than let the milk go sour uselessly, they off-loaded it to the orphanage, providing timely milk for their morning breakfast. Add to that his many times receiving needed funds to the penny, right on time, and without notification, and you have one man who would contradict your no one can TRUST God.

    Even a simple example from my own life: As a young believer in Christ, I was so overwhelmed by God's answering my many prayers, I began keeping a prayer journal, stating my prayer requests and then listing the answers to prayer when they occurred. I was young and working a summer job with the city, where I was laid off at the end of the year. What followed was the only time I ever applied for a local job from the newspaper, as a managerial trainee in a retail store. Well I was hired and trained for 2 months. At that time, my sister, who was a single mother in another city in my province, became a Christian, but she was going through a very difficult time in her life. She came to visit me, and with tears asked if I could possibly move to her city and help her out for a while. I told her that we should pray, because I knew that God was very interested in providing for us. I said that I was up for a transfer anywhere in Canada in a couple of months and if it was His will, He would have me transferred to her city. This was a weekend, and the following Monday morning, my boss called me into the office and told me that there was a crisis in her city ... the assistant manager had just flipped out and quit suddenly, leaving the store. Could I take an immediate transfer to that city by mid-week Wednesday? I was convinced this was of God, so I took the transfer, and was able to stay with her for a couple of months and help out enough to get her on her feet again. Interestingly (and thankfully), I only worked at this job for a couple of months, as it was soon evident that this job was not a good match for where I wanted to go with my life.

    I could go on to list many such examples, which help me to TRUST God in everything in my life, but time would not permit, and you would probably be bored to death. There are many such promises in the Word of God, but unfortunately the name it and claim it crowd of the prosperity pseudo-church has turned prayer into sinful manipulations of people's sinful nature. Maybe this is why these are the fastest growing and richest churches today, but scandalously devoid of biblical doctrinal purity and truth.

    I also realise that this is somewhat off-topic, so I will leave this at that.

    Thanks for your open forum to dialogue about some off these important issues of life.

    dp
    Last edited by dpenn; 08-29-2014 at 11:17 AM.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    I am still on a learning curve, trying to intuitively anticipate how to respond via multiple quotes within a posting. So here goes ...
    Looks like you've got the hang of it. If you are interested, I explain how to quote quotes within quotes, as I do below, in this post.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    2. The Isaiah-Bible correlation seems to be much more than coincidental. I think back to Gambini's remarks on a recent post with you, and there sure are many more elements of intentional design than I was previously aware. And it does seem to express a mini hologram of the overall biblical text, at least at a very summary level.
    Do you have any principles by which to determine if a coincidence is merely a coincidence or if it was "intentionally designed"?
    Richard, you show amazing mathematical correlations between the Gen 1:1 Hebrew text being
    2701 = 73*37, manifesting in the Star of David, words: wisdom, unity, one, YHVH, etc. That is a little bit beyond coincidental, even if I don't have any scientific algorithms to support my observations. This is simply basic logical observation. But the things you like to brush aside as conspiracy theories that spawn the delusions of lesser minds, seems to me to be screaming out for intelligent design. So, if it is not a part of the divinely inspired text of the Bible, what alternative design are we left with?
    You will note that I was responding specifically to your comment about the Isaiah-Bible Correlation seeming to be "much more than coincidental." The holographs are very different in that they are not based on looking for thematic connections between different passages which could easily be biased and are difficult to judge objectively.

    Also, the "Creation Holograph" (Genesis 1:1) does not have anything to say about "unity, one, YHVH." Those connections are found in the Unity Holograph which is based on the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). But there is a general connection in that both holographs are based on star numbers (Genesis is based on star numbers 37 and 73, whereas the Unity Holograph is based on the star number 13).

    Your suggestion that your judgment is "simply basic logical observation" doesn't really mean anything because you didn't say how you discern between chance and design. People in general, and religious folk in particular, are quite prone to mistaking their own biases for "basic logical observation." For example, Muslims think that numerology proves that the Quran was "intelligently designed" by Allah. They think their judgments are based on "basic logical observation" too. Obviously, we need a better criterion.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    I agree that the holographs "go far beyond what Jesus actually taught" but I don't see the relevance of that.
    I do see the relevance of that because Jesus Christ by the NT Scriptures claims to be God in flesh, fully God and fully man, yet one Lord Jesus Christ. If He is the model and example for all professing Christians, and He doesn't resort to Gematria Enigma Machine teaching methods, shouldn't we be a bit suspicious when a Talmudic, Kabbalistic (thanks for the spell check correction), Gematria driven highjacking of the Scriptures takes over?

    At the same time, I must be honest and say that there are obviously significant letter-number correlations throughout the Scriptures, and I simply don't have an adequate answer for that at this stage of my understanding. But the most obvious is usually very simplistic, even if it is profoundly intelligently designed.
    The only relevance is if the design is valid. If it is valid, by which I mean that there is reason to believe that God himself designed it, then study of it would obviously be justified.

    Your use of the terms "highjacking," "Gematria Enigma Machine," "Talmudic," and "Kabbalistic" seem to indicate a very strong bias is affecting your judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Yes I have noticed the fallacious logic they use, the same fallacious logic many of the atheistic evolutionists use.
    Wow. Where did that come from? The science of evolution is nothing like conspiracy theories. Have you ever studied the actual science or have you foolishly filled your head with the lies spewed out by corrupt creationists? Sorry if this comes across harshly, but your comment demands it. To liken a modern science like General Relativity, Quantum Physics, or Evolution to a "conspiracy theory" is literally insane. Do you also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and Adam rode dinosaurs?
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    It doesn't surprise me that many of the Luciferian Light Brigade of some of the secret societies come to see this pseudo-light as darkness and turn to the true Light of the Gospel, and then expose much of the secret society indoctrination that is corrupting the minds of many.
    What are you talking about? There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name "Lucifer." That's nothing but a silly mistranslation that was imported from the Vulgate into the KJV.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Having said this, please don't think that I am not aware of many of these so-called escapees of the Illumined Light cults, could very well be intentional disinfo or misinfo agents. So each case needs to be evaluated in light of Biblical truth.
    Right. It is a CONSPIRACY theory, so everything is "explained" and "justified" by making up more imaginary conspiracies. Wow.

    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. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Daytona
    Posts
    1,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    Do you also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and Adam rode dinosaurs?

    What are you talking about? There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name "Lucifer." That's nothing but a silly mistranslation that was imported from the Vulgate into the KJV.


    Richard
    For Shame Richard, You know the Pre-Adamic Age is not refuted by Scripture. And when you say "There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name Lucifer (w/o reading further than Isa14), you fail to remember the many metaphors of satan and how he's also called "angel of light". 2Cor11:14.

    Careful dpenn, He'll do his best to throw you curves..
    Dux allows: "It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out the matter". Pr25:2

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You still don't get it. The correct analogy would be that you said there was a horse in your living room, and YOU WERE THE HORSE. If the horse does not exist, then neither could you be that horse.

    That doesn't make any difference. If I claim infallibility, and then make a false statement regarding my OWN nature, that would only demonstrate I am not infallible. It doesn't do ANYTHING to show I don't exist. The fact that there is mathematical design in the bible (and you GRANTED there is mathematical design in Genesis 1:1-5/John 1:1-5 and other key biblical passages) DEMONSTRATES the SENTIENT GOD revealed throughout the bible (who divinely inspired the Hebrew prophets) *EXISTS*. Your argument regarding the "errors" or "contradictions" associated with this SENTIENT GOD would only show he is fallible. That's it. It doesn't make a difference if the "errors" were made regarding his own nature. At the very least, we know this God, who interacted with the most unique people in the holy universe (the Israelites), is a SENTIENT GOD (by virtue of the fact that he inspired the Hebrew prophets to produce the mathematical design in the bible AND the fact that NOTHING in the bible contradicts the biblical claim that the God of Israel is a SENTIENT GOD).



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
    Give me an actual quote and we can talk.

    Here is an EXACT quote you made in the year 2008 AD (in the 49th post of the thread "the bible wheel?" over at www.christian-forum.net) ...


    "Now one of the PRIMARY objections people raise is the charge of "cherry picking". They suggest that the bible is such a book that anyone can make connections with anything, and therefore nothing like the bible wheel could have any real meaning. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE. God established the connections for us in the alphabetic verses, and the specific content of the books is an objective fact."


    So you were ALREADY claiming that one of the PRIMARY objections to the bible wheel was that it involves cherry picking AND you dismissed those charges as untrue (and then proceeded to explain why it was untrue). Now, as soon as I argued that even if ALL the problems you have with the bible were true, it would only demonstrate fallibility, all of a sudden you do a 180 and claim the bible wheel is a result of cherry picking the biblical data under the 22 spokes of the bible wheel.



    BINI
    Last edited by Gambini; 08-29-2014 at 02:16 PM.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    288
    Richard,

    thanks for the nested quotes link. This is almost becoming holographic. Btw, as an aside, I went through a short 5 year obsession with painting contemporary geometrical art on canvas. Three of those paintings were computerised fractal representations on canvas.

    Is there a way to insert a simple jpeg? I tried to show photos of these 3 paintings by a copy and paste, but it doesn't seem to be permitted. Am I missing something obvious?

    Back on track ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    You will note that I was responding specifically to your comment about the Isaiah-Bible Correlation seeming to be "much more than coincidental." The holographs are very different in that they are not based on looking for thematic connections between different passages which could easily be biased and are difficult to judge objectively.

    Also, the "Creation Holograph" (Genesis 1:1) does not have anything to say about "unity, one, YHVH." Those connections are found in the Unity Holograph which is based on the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). But there is a general connection in that both holographs are based on star numbers (Genesis is based on star numbers 37 and 73, whereas the Unity Holograph is based on the star number 13).
    I am sorry about the over-generalisation. I was merely fast tracking Isaiah-Bible Correlation, Creation Holograph, and Unity Holograph, (forgetting to include the star number 13). These are obviously very comprehensive and detailed on your website, and I didn't mean to cross them up and confuse their individual uniqueness. They are impressively done, and I sure didn't mean to detract from that. So your criticism is well taken.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your suggestion that your judgment is "simply basic logical observation" doesn't really mean anything because you didn't say how you discern between chance and design. People in general, and religious folk in particular, are quite prone to mistaking their own biases for "basic logical observation." For example, Muslims think that numerology proves that the Quran was "intelligently designed" by Allah. They think their judgments are based on "basic logical observation" too. Obviously, we need a better criterion. The only relevance is if the design is valid. If it is valid, by which I mean that there is reason to believe that God himself designed it, then study of it would obviously be justified.
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Your use of the terms "highjacking," "Gematria Enigma Machine," "Talmudic," and "Kabbalistic" seem to indicate a very strong bias is affecting your judgment.
    Yes, a very strong bias is affecting my judgement, but I thought you also agreed from an earlier post that this seems to go well beyond the simple teaching of Jesus in the Bible. So for me to group these Talmudic, Kabbalistic interpretations as highjacking sound biblical interpretation for me is justified. For you and many others, this is considered insulting, or at the bare minimum, out there somewhere.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    If they are so powerful and so secret, how did you come to know about them? Have you not noticed the fundamentally fallacious logic they use?
    Yes I have noticed the fallacious logic they use, the same fallacious logic many of the atheistic evolutionists use.
    Wow. Where did that come from? The science of evolution is nothing like conspiracy theories. Have you ever studied the actual science or have you foolishly filled your head with the lies spewed out by corrupt creationists? Sorry if this comes across harshly, but your comment demands it. To liken a modern science like General Relativity, Quantum Physics, or Evolution to a "conspiracy theory" is literally insane. Do you also believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and Adam rode dinosaurs?
    Notice that I didn't say all, but many of the atheistic evolutionists. And that certainly doesn't include all valid and real scientific knowledge and experimentation. I was merely addressing the atheistic evolutionary term. Please do not include General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, all scientifically verifiable, with the pseudo-science of Evolution. Mutational natural selection within kinds is accepted by all scientists, creationists and evolutionists alike, with half a brain, including my pea brain. However, big bang, chemical formation, star formation, godless chance formation of all matter, life from non-life evolution uses as fallacious arguments as any of these secret societies (obviously not the same arguments, but equally as invalid and deceptive). Yes, I think it is possible that the earth is as young as 6,000 years old. And Adam might have tried to ride a dinosaur (dragon), but probably didn't succeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    What are you talking about? There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name "Lucifer." That's nothing but a silly mistranslation that was imported from the Vulgate into the KJV.
    I have no reason to make a major issue over the KJV Lucifer term from Isaiah, but one thing is obvious, and that is this is referring to the fall of Lucifer "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" KJV. And you cannot deny that 33rd degree Head of Masonry, Albert Pike in Morals and Dogma, wrote: "LUCIFER, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of Darknesss! Lucifer, the Son of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable blinds feeble, sensual or selfish Souls ? Doubt it not!".

    I do appreciate your open and interactive debate on this subject. But sooner or later, I would like to hear about what you think is an alternative to the truth of the Bible, or the divine authorship of the Bible, so that what holy men of God wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, God said, through man.

    How do you determine right from wrong? How can you use non-material mathematics, and logic, and hold to a materialistic evolutionary model for all of reality? And if this isn't your view of evolution, what is? What was before the big bang? Where did information come from? I am sure you are quite aware of the impossible probability of the chance creation of life. How do you get life from non-life? Why, with the 150+ years of scientific attempts to validate evolutionary creation of all of life, even with the greatest minds, we still cannot come close to creating life from non-life. Oh sure, we can take life and cook it into something we can pretend is life, but the best they can do is take existing life and tweek it, for better or for worse.

    So, thus my opening question, what is the alternative to the Bible Wheel, Numerology, and Cognitive Bias?

    dp

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Careful dpenn, He'll do his best to throw you curves..
    Thanks for the heads up, but a curve ball is still a fair pitch, even if I might not have the current skill set to hit it. If, or when that becomes misinfo or disinfo, that is a different story. Hopefully, we are all pursuers of truth. I need constant challenging to keep me on the straight and narrow also.

    Btw, I personally do not hold to a pre-Adamic created order. There may be better scientifically sound answers to handle the apparent contradictions between hypothesised cosmological time vs biblical creation and genealogical time. Even quantised red-shift observation may suggest something other than the traditional Doppler Affect suggestion of an expanding universe. If this is ever completely verified, it would suggest different layers of energy levels, and the red-shift would be interpreted contrary to the velocity model. One thing cannot be denied, the genealogies in Gen 5 and 11 suggest a much shorter time to creation in Gen 1. In Gen 1, God looked on ALL He had created, and it was very good (I presume this included the original creation of the angelic realm too, before the fall of Lucifer/Satan).

    respectfully,

    dp

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel Mcgough
    You still don't get it. The correct analogy would be that you said there was a horse in your living room, and YOU WERE THE HORSE. If the horse does not exist, then neither could you be that horse.
    That doesn't make any difference. If I claim infallibility, and then make a false statement regarding my OWN nature, that would only demonstrate I am not infallible. It doesn't do ANYTHING to show I don't exist.
    You still don't get it. You are not even addressing the point that I've repeated at least four times now. I already agreed that it would not imply that YOU don't exist. I said that it would imply that you could not be the HORSE because the HORSE does not exist. Here again is how I explained the error that you are repeating back in post #47:

    You still do not understand. The point is this: If you wrote a book in which you described a person who had self-contradictory properties, such as being simultaneously male and female, then I would know that you could not be the person described in the book. Simple as that. It doesn't mean that you don't exist. It means you could not be the person described in the book because THAT person does not exist. Nothing could be simpler.

    How many times do I need to repeat myself? I explicitly said that it would not imply that YOU do not exist! Your response has nothing to do with what I wrote. How is it possible that you could be confused about something so plain and simple?
    • 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. #60
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    For Shame Richard, You know the Pre-Adamic Age is not refuted by Scripture. And when you say "There is no "fallen angel" that goes by the name Lucifer (w/o reading further than Isa14), you fail to remember the many metaphors of satan and how he's also called "angel of light". 2Cor11:14.
    I never said anything about any "Pre-Adamic Age" and I don't even know what you think you mean by that term. I could guess, but that would be foolish. If you want to make some sort of assertions about a "Pre-Adamic Age" and explain how that relates to my question about Adam riding dinosaurs, by all means, please do so.

    When I said that there is no "fallen angel" named Lucifer, I was not talking about "metaphors of satan." I was talking about the fact that there is no "fallen angel" named "Lucifer" in any accurate version of the Bible. The name got imported into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate. It is classic mistranslation based on a translation of the original Hebrew heylel to the Greek eosphoros in the Greek LXX to Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate which was copied into the English KJV. Look at that chain of confusion!

    Hebrew => Greek => Latin => English

    Anyone who thinks there is a real "fallen angel" named "Lucifier" is simply ignorant of the Bible. Of course, that includes probably at least 95% of fundamentalists.

    And there's a great irony here. The Latin Vulgate which introduced the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 used the same word in 2 Peter 1:19 -

    KJV 2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star [Lucifer] arise in your hearts:

    Vulgate: 2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris


    The Latin Bible tells you that you should pray for LUCIFER to rise in your heart!


    Quote Originally Posted by duxrow View Post
    Careful dpenn, He'll do his best to throw you curves..
    Actually, I'm a total straight shooter. But truth will seem to "curve" and the simplest things will see grossly distorted if you are living in a world twisted from reality, like a funhouse mirror:

    Name:  Fun-house-mirror.jpg
Views: 23
Size:  29.8 KB
    • 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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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