Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 33 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 322
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    205

    The New Bible Code

    Hi Richard.

    First of all,congratulations for getting your website up and running again. In my opinion it's the best forum of its kind on the internet (and certainly one of the most polite). You also have the best gematria database on the 'net, without a doubt. I use it quite a lot, so I was especially glad when that appeared again - although when it was down I was forced to become more proficient in Hebrew gematria, so it wasn't all bad.

    Before we start, I have one quick question for you that's been nagging me for a while. I took the opportunity over the last couple of weeks to read several of your articles, and fascinating they were too. In one of them you spoke about the early dream you had where you were asked by a woman ARE YOU LOOKING FOR DUMBO? 12 X 44.

    My question is this: were all the words spoken to you or did you see any part of them as words in your visual field?



    Here are the emails we exchanged a week ago.

    Hi Richard,

    I've just completed two new webpages you may find interesting.

    The Garden is the most important discovery I've been led to in fifteen years of working on the New Bible Code, a holographic watermark imprinted on Scripture that witnesses in Hebrew and English to God's infinite creative power. http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html

    Glorious Geometry shows how the measurements, situation and construction materials of the biblical Ark of the Covenant point to a hidden, fourth dimension, and indicates how we may access it. http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3637226.html

    In Christ,

    Bill Downie


    Hey there Bill,

    Good to hear from you. As you know, I think all your results are the
    product of random chance. I cannot see anything that suggests any
    deliberate design. Have you found any way to discern between a totally
    random text and a text that has been "designed" according to your
    methods? If so, please share it. If not, why would anyone believe your
    patterns are anything but the product of random chance?

    All the best,

    Richard


    Hi Richard.

    Thanks for replying. You're always willing to debate these issues and that's fine by me. As you've said yourself, all we have to lose are our illusions.

    In the 'Garden' page you'll se that I did a control check with five pairs of random numbers, which produced almost none of the clustering effect seen with the paired encodings. In fact, four of the ten randomly-chosen numbers (and I know you can't really get truly random numbers, but they were produced by my calculator) weren't even present. That's nowhere near enough to satisfy us that there really is a pairing effect here. But it's a start.

    The key to understanding the New Bible Code is meaning. It is meaning that makes the difference between a code and none, between intelligent design and the winds of chance, since no natural process can create meaning. So the pairing of the numbers 296/517 and 395/782 in the first couple of verses of the NIV means nothing, until you see that they are the standard values of 'the heavens' and 'the earth' in Hebrew/English. The injection of meaning makes all the difference in the world.

    There were several limiting factors that challenge any suggestion of cherry picking.
    1) the numbers are found in word strings very close to the beginning of Genesis, not somewhere in the middle of the Bible. If we start looking for numbers where we begin reading the text of the Bible (a natural assumption) then there is very little room for a random pairing to make its appearance.
    2) the languages are always Biblical Hebrew (Masoretic) and modern English.
    3) the same decoding procedure is used throughout
    4) the words and phrases are always the first found in the Hebrew Bible, which prevents us looking for alternative spellings.
    5) the theme of these encodings is the subject of the plaintext itself, God's creative acts.
    6) everything is found within the first five verses, which are marked with the geometry of G-triangles (used here as a metaphor for God's creative power, since they give rise to hexagrams, trefoils and fractal snowflakes and antisnowflakes) and which are themselves the first day of Creation!

    So you see there was very little wiggle room here. Do you also see how it is meaning that holds it all together?

    Possibly the best evidence I have that there really is a code in the NIV is the encodings of 'ark of the testimony', 'atonement cover', 'cherubim of the glory' and 'altar of incense', all proceeding from the first word - all in the same word string, in other words. Note that there is no definite article used and the wording is always the NIV. All are meaningfully related, of course, and according to Hebrews 9 the altar was also part of the Most Holy Place (which is itself encoded in the string beginning at word 3). Since the average word ordinal value here is 45, the chances of them all being there are 1 in 4 million. Or if you accept that 'ark of the testimony' is chance, then 1 in 90000 of the other three items being there. There are the items within and beside the ark, of course, which aren't found in the first string, but they are all there in early strings! See this page

    http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3283109.html

    I think the code has been designed so that the freedom of those who wish to run from God is preserved. It will never be beyond doubt, because we live in a world designed to appear to function without divine intervention. God's ability to intervene is limited by the beliefs or consciousness of the majority, so presently he is found in the cracks in this reality and when you are ready you Begin to notice them. This sounds elitist and I have angered atheists with this observation, but it's the truth.

    One thing I certainly can't prove to you is that I have been led to many of my findings by dreams, visions, synchronicities and outright miracles. The two-stage decoding procedure was given to me by my Alpha Course director. She was reading her NIV Bible when a voice twice told her THIS IS FOR BILL. She had no idea what was meant by this but was perturbed by the words. She put down her bible, made a cup of tea and put a bookmark at the page. When she came back the two verses she had been reading (1 Thess 5.23-24) were printed on the bookmark, between DEAR BILL and LOVE PAUL. The two verses are the standard values of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST and THE LORD GOD. The total is the standard value of Genesis 1.1. The words were shaped like a key, believe it or not, and she was sitting in a cafe called The Open Door. That day I twice heard The overture to Verdi's opera La Forza deal Destino. This and many other signs and incidents were the reason I began working on the code. I didn't intend to do it, I was given it as an assignment. Do you have a mundane explanation for any of that?

    Nice talking to you.

    Bill

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,727
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Hi Richard.

    First of all,congratulations for getting your website up and running again. In my opinion it's the best forum of its kind on the internet (and certainly one of the most polite). You also have the best gematria database on the 'net, without a doubt. I use it quite a lot, so I was especially glad when that appeared again - although when it was down I was forced to become more proficient in Hebrew gematria, so it wasn't all bad.
    Thanks for the good words Bill. My only regret is that I lost a couple years of posts. The company that used to host this site keeps telling me that there is some hope of recovering them all, but I doubt it now that we are in the second month.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Before we start, I have one quick question for you that's been nagging me for a while. I took the opportunity over the last couple of weeks to read several of your articles, and fascinating they were too. In one of them you spoke about the early dream you had where you were asked by a woman ARE YOU LOOKING FOR DUMBO? 12 X 44.

    My question is this: were all the words spoken to you or did you see any part of them as words in your visual field?
    I was in a semi-lucid dream state, floating in blank space. A woman appeared (visual) and said "Are you looking for Dumbo? 12 x 44." I heard those words spoken in the dream. There were no visuals other than the woman with long flowing black hair and a red knitted sweater.

    Here's the thread where I discuss it: Looking for Dumbo

    As for the rest of your post, I'll have to pick that up later as time permits (still at work ...).
    • 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. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    205
    Reading your 'Looking for Dumbo' post I had to smile, because your initial experiences and the enthusiasm they generated were exactly like my own experiences in the early days. My own journey began with a hypnopomic vision of three brilliant discs in triangular formation, one of which I merged with for one glorious second, making contact with what seemed to be a higher realm, filled with love and light. After that I read hundreds of books on religion, spirituality, the paranormal, etc. Three and a half years later, during a period when I seemed to be at the centre of a storm of synchronicities and more, I made my first code find and a week or so later I wrote a two-page article which I (naively) thought was all I was to do. I went to a pub that night to read it over and over a beer consider how I was going to get it published. I wasn't even on the Internet at the time and imagined myself running around with pamphlets and giving talks. That was the beginning of a long, long journey. I should have known better because was told a couple of years earlier I'd spent twenty-four years on something and now I was going to spend twenty years on something else, symbolised by two tree stumps below me which were close together and overrun with scurrying ants. I think it was in part prophesying an event that hadn't occurred yet - 9/11.

    Your own dream and the information you received intrigued me, because in my experience words in dreams and visions, whether spoken or seen, embody numbers through gematria, usually the ordinal value system for English. The numbers are then the standard value of an important word or phrase. For instance, I once had a powerful vision of a 'wise child', who simultaneously radiated a sense of youth and great age and seemed very determined. He (I think it was a he)spoke very quickly, saying I'M TWENTY-SIX AND I'M HERE FOR YOU. This was in 2001, around the time I began studying gematria. The ordinal value of these words is 358, which meant nothing after I'd worked out the ordinal value, because I didn't know the standard value system. However I eventually discovered that it means Mashiach in Hebrew gematria. 'Twenty-six' is an obvious reference to YHVH/God, both of which sum to 26. Importantly, this and many other such words taught me that numbers in spoken words are meant to be numerated as words, not as numerals. So I did the same with your word and got the following:

    ARE YOU LOOKING FOR DUMBO? TWELVE TIMES FORTY FOUR

    This has an ordinal value of 559, which is one of your featured numbers.

    http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_559.php

    559 also factorises as 13 x 43, which is suspiciously close to 12 x 44 and I think a hint that this is the correct interpretation. I agree with your own interpretation too though. You were given the key, as was I. Dumbo looks to be informative too, re. Ganesh, associated with the Highest, and the deva of wisdom, intelligence and beginnings (and maybe even Dumbo the elephant). I'm sure some or all of that would have occurred to you too though.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,727
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Hi Richard.

    Thanks for replying. You're always willing to debate these issues and that's fine by me. As you've said yourself, all we have to lose are our illusions.

    In the 'Garden' page you'll se that I did a control check with five pairs of random numbers, which produced almost none of the clustering effect seen with the paired encodings. In fact, four of the ten randomly-chosen numbers (and I know you can't really get truly random numbers, but they were produced by my calculator) weren't even present. That's nowhere near enough to satisfy us that there really is a pairing effect here. But it's a start.

    The key to understanding the New Bible Code is meaning. It is meaning that makes the difference between a code and none, between intelligent design and the winds of chance, since no natural process can create meaning. So the pairing of the numbers 296/517 and 395/782 in the first couple of verses of the NIV means nothing, until you see that they are the standard values of 'the heavens' and 'the earth' in Hebrew/English. The injection of meaning makes all the difference in the world.

    There were several limiting factors that challenge any suggestion of cherry picking.
    1) the numbers are found in word strings very close to the beginning of Genesis, not somewhere in the middle of the Bible. If we start looking for numbers where we begin reading the text of the Bible (a natural assumption) then there is very little room for a random pairing to make its appearance.
    2) the languages are always Biblical Hebrew (Masoretic) and modern English.
    3) the same decoding procedure is used throughout
    4) the words and phrases are always the first found in the Hebrew Bible, which prevents us looking for alternative spellings.
    5) the theme of these encodings is the subject of the plaintext itself, God's creative acts.
    6) everything is found within the first five verses, which are marked with the geometry of G-triangles (used here as a metaphor for God's creative power, since they give rise to hexagrams, trefoils and fractal snowflakes and antisnowflakes) and which are themselves the first day of Creation!

    So you see there was very little wiggle room here. Do you also see how it is meaning that holds it all together?

    Possibly the best evidence I have that there really is a code in the NIV is the encodings of 'ark of the testimony', 'atonement cover', 'cherubim of the glory' and 'altar of incense', all proceeding from the first word - all in the same word string, in other words. Note that there is no definite article used and the wording is always the NIV. All are meaningfully related, of course, and according to Hebrews 9 the altar was also part of the Most Holy Place (which is itself encoded in the string beginning at word 3). Since the average word ordinal value here is 45, the chances of them all being there are 1 in 4 million. Or if you accept that 'ark of the testimony' is chance, then 1 in 90000 of the other three items being there. There are the items within and beside the ark, of course, which aren't found in the first string, but they are all there in early strings! See this page

    http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3283109.html
    Hey there Bill,

    There are many interlocking aspects to your work, and I can see why you find them convincing. But I also see a lot of points that seem weak, so we'll need to walk through them one by one to see how they stand on their own. Let's start with what you see as some of your "best evidence" - your article called The Ark of the Testimony. Here's the graphic you put together:

    Attachment 1357

    I understand that the colored blocks are the "standard values" (s.v.) of the English phrases they contain, and that their numerical value is the same as the sum of the "ordinal values" (o.v.) of the words from Genesis 1 that align with the same block. Folks interested in confirming your numbers can use a little app I wrote here: http://biblewheel.com/GR/EnglishGematria.htm. You can type or copy/paste the text and then highlight the part you are interested in to get the numerical values.

    I also note that three of the phrases come from Hebrews 9:4-5. Here it is in context (with relevant phrases highlighted):

    NIV Hebrews 9:1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

    Now to get a sense of the "what are the chances" we need to look at the full set of possibilities, and compare that with what you actually found.

    Here are the s.v. of those relevant phrases. Note that we must also consider the adjectives such as "stone tablets of the covenant" and "gold jar of manna" as well as the values that do and do not contain the definite article. Thus, we have this set of possibilities, with the three you chose (cherry picked?) highlighted red on the left, and the ones actually found on the right:

    lampstand 496
    the lampstand 709
    table 238
    the table 451
    consecrated bread 623
    the consecrated bread 836
    the table and the consecrated bread 1342
    Holy Place 907
    The Holy Place 1120
    Most Holy Place 1307
    The Most Holy Place 1520
    altar of incense 610
    golden altar of incense 766
    the golden altar of incense 979
    ark 111
    the ark 324
    ark of the covenant 1159
    the ark of the covenant 1372
    jar of manna 309
    Aaron's staff 615
    tablets of the covenant 1586
    stone tablets of the covenant 2001
    the stone tablets of the covenant 2214
    cherubim of glory 1410
    the cherubim of glory 1623
    atonement cover 1169
    the atonement cover 1382

    And here are the list of the 37 numbers that can be derived by adding words beginning with the first word of Genesis 1:1 -


    23
    56
    137
    163
    219
    252
    326
    345
    378
    430
    482
    515
    567
    610
    717
    736
    815
    906
    949
    1009
    1042
    1115
    1136
    1169
    1199
    1218
    1251
    1342
    1363
    1389
    1432
    1530
    1590
    1623
    1709
    1728
    1754

    We have therefore two sets of numbers. We have the set of 27 numbers made from the 27 "significant phrases" highlighted in Hebrews 9, and we have the set of 37 numbers generated by adding the standard values of consecutive words in Genesis 1.

    As you can see, these two sets have four numbers in common, highlighted red. So the question is this: What is the probability of finding four hits in two random sets of 27 and 37 numbers when generated by a system such as your gematria?

    I don't have time do to the calculation right now, but it seems pretty obvious that those 4 hits is not very unlikely, certainly nothing like the one chance in four million like your page suggests. I'll do the math tomorrow.

    Great chatting! I love thinking about these kinds of questions. I'm really glad you want to discuss them.

    Shine on!

    • 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. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Bill,

    There are many interlocking aspects to your work, and I can see why you find them convincing. But I also see a lot of points that seem weak, so we'll need to walk through them one by one to see how they stand on their own. Let's start with what you see as some of your "best evidence" - your article called The Ark of the Testimony.
    Instead of this page I would ask you to look at one I just completed, which is more suitable for this type of discussion and which includes a lot of the information in the earlier one. I wrote it after recently reading your article on The Law of Truly Large Numbers, and realising I had to address it. Here's the new page.

    http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I understand that the colored blocks are the "standard values" (s.v.) of the English phrases they contain, and that their numerical value is the same as the sum of the "ordinal values" (o.v.) of the words from Genesis 1 that align with the same block. Folks interested in confirming your numbers can use a little app I wrote here: http://biblewheel.com/GR/EnglishGematria.htm. You can type or copy/paste the text and then highlight the part you are interested in to get the numerical values.
    You understand the word blocks perfectly. Thanks for the little app. too, which I'm sure people will find useful. I've never used any kind of software, prefering a hands-on, low-tech approach (a calculator and a lot of perspiration). In fact in principle I could have done nearly all of it with nothing more than pencil, paper and mental arithmetic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I also note that three of the phrases come from Hebrews 9:4-5. Here it is in context (with relevant phrases highlighted):

    NIV Hebrews 9:1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
    Here is where I take issue with you. You spend a lot of effort on Hebrews 9.4 (which I barely mention in my website). Yes, three of the titles - atonement cover, cherubim of the glory and altar of incense - are found there. But you are picking all the phrases from there and asking how many of them would be found in word strings proceeding from the first word of Genesis. You seem to be asking "Why is this number or that number not there?" I understand why you are taking this approach, because it's going to give you the answer you want. But that's not the question I asked of the NIV bible. I looked at what was actually there in the first few words of Genesis: I found the numbers, saw they were all furnishings within the Most Holy Place, saw they made a pattern and integrated with patterns already there, then worked out the probabilities.

    Now, on probability, it all depends on the question you ask. If I ask "What is the simple probability of those four numbers (610, 1169, 1623, 1754) being there?" then the answer is indeed about 1 in 4 million. But I agree with the comment you made that this is far too generous and it's a post hoc analysis. In fact there are about twenty names for the ark in the NIV and therefore there is about a 50% chance of finding one of them there. On top of that there are other important biblical concepts, such as the new Jerusalem, the tabernacle, Jesus Christ and much more. I was virtually certain to find something. Given that the ark is there, it can then be asked "What is the probability of the two main ark components also being present" I actually did ask that question and found the atonement cover, the cherubim and the altar too, which I didn't expect. That's more realistic and two of the items I found were specified a priori. In my new page I try to define it more accurately still, because the altar of incense is less strongly related to the ark than its own structure. I ended up with a 'guestimate' of 1 in 10000 against a chance occurence. Addendum: I've amended the Ark of the Testimony page to reflect what I just said about probabilities in the new page and here. I only finished the new page last night so there hasn't been time to amend any other old pages.

    Now, given that, we can then look at how it integrates with other patterns already there. It integrates beautfully with The Signatures of Christ, as I show on the page you highlighted, and consciously references the Christian belief in Christ as our 'atonement cover'. Under the lid are six different single-word names by which we know Jesus, all found by taking the 24 words over which 'atonement cover' is encoded then splitting it into 4 six-word segments. Six numbers then appear as if by magic, in three pairings, all encoded over six or twelve words:

    Jesus/Yehoshua
    Word/Word
    Messiah/Messiah

    Here is The Signature of Christ page

    http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html

    Now, I know there are about seventy single word names and titles for Jesus in the Bible, but even including all of these as possibilities gives a binomial probability of 1 in 1200 for chance occurence - not including the Hebrew word Yehoshua. These are all near the top of the list though, less ambiguous, so this is surely too stiff a test. If we reduce it to the top twenty words the odds against increase to 50000 to 1. And don't forget that 'Jesus', the name at the top of any such list, is the first one we find!

    You also add adjectives, the definite article, etc, giving a very large list of possibilities. But there is no reason why all of them should be there. In fact that would be impossible as there are a very limited number of word-level encodings possible if we restrict ourselves to strings proceeding from the first word. The first five verses of Genesis will produce only 83 numbers, and anyway, by word 50 or so we will be beyond the range of nearly all of the phrases. What you see with the ark encodings is the kind of order, integration, consistency, elegance, economy and self-referencing that are the mark of intelligent design:

    a) they are all given without the definite article
    b) they are the same four names we find in the NIV and nowhere else. It's the only version out of 48 I tested that has these four names.
    c) They integrate with the Signature of Christ, with other encodings of Jesus' names, with ELS encryptions, with the text numbers and more, and they do it in a meaningful, theologically accurate way.
    d) Three of them form a little 14-24-34 pattern
    e) They are the first (or only) formal names given. Some may disagree on what is a formal title, but I did my best! The NIV translators use three of them in their notes, so there is some agreement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    We have therefore two sets of numbers. We have the set of 27 numbers made from the 27 "significant phrases" highlighted in Hebrews 9, and we have the set of 37 numbers generated by adding the standard values of consecutive words in Genesis 1.

    As you can see, these two sets have four numbers in common, highlighted red. So the question is this: What is the probability of finding four hits in two random sets of 27 and 37 numbers when generated by a system such as your gematria?
    That's your question, not the question I would ask, and totally irrelevant to the code. The one advantage your method could have is that it is an a priori analysis, trying to predict what might be there. However, codes, by their very nature, are not initially amenable to that kind of analysis, because we don't know what is encoded or how it might be encoded. They can only be decoded by a combination of post hoc reasoning and a priori hypotheses. I wandered up cul de sacs time and again, but was kept on track through dreams and visions. And they can only be found in the first place through revelation. I had no idea there was a code in the NIV Bible and wasn't even really interested in the subject. I was led to it. That doesn't prove one is there, but it may help you understand why I've spent fifteen years of my life on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I don't have time do to the calculation right now, but it seems pretty obvious that those 4 hits is not very unlikely, certainly nothing like the one chance in four million like your page suggests. I'll do the math tomorrow.

    Great chatting! I love thinking about these kinds of questions. I'm really glad you want to discuss them.
    I too love discussing it. As you once were about your Biblewheel I am totally convinced of the reality of the code. I've spent a lot of time in the past arguing my case with atheists on Richard Dawkins old forum and others like it, so I know the kind of arguments to expect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Shine on!

    You too. We may presently disagree on a few things, but I find myself in broad agreement with you on many others. I'm not a Bible thumping fundamentalist, but I do support all varieties of Christianity and the church as a body, which, although it has a chequered past, quietly goes about doing a huge amount of good work in the world.
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 03-30-2017 at 02:50 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    205
    Hi Richard.

    I'm interested to hear what you thought of my post regarding your 'looking for dumbo' word, especially since it seems to have been a critical moment for you. 559 is 'The Father' in Greek, of course, and my own words from the Father have always been revelatory. I'm absolutely convinced that gematria is a second information channel and that all such words are encoded.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,727
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Instead of this page I would ask you to look at one I just completed, which is more suitable for this type of discussion and which includes a lot of the information in the earlier one. I wrote it after recently reading your article on The Law of Truly Large Numbers, and realising I had to address it. Here's the new page.

    http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html
    Hey there Bill,

    I am happy to follow your lead on this, especially since you wrote that article as a response to the kinds of analysis I am doing.

    We'll have to take it bit by bit since there are many assumptions and assertions that needed to be reviewed. I begin with your estimation of probability:

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Downie
    But what if we place restrictions upon our search for encoded numbers? We have already placed one restriction on ourselves by numerating only complete words, rather than strings of letters. But we can do more. For example, we can numerate only the word strings that proceed from the Bible's first word. So we have word 1 as the first string, words 1 and 2 as the second string, words 1, 2 and 3, as the third, etc. This reduces the number of word strings in Genesis 1.1 from 55 to 10 and the number of word strings in the first five verses of Genesis from 3486 to a mere 83, which is only 2.4% of 3486! Individual ordinal values vary widely, but the average word ordinal value in the first few verses of Genesis is 45. So as we calculate from first word we will have about the same 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how far into the text we go.

    To summarise, if we are free to choose any string of words within the first few verses of Genesis, we are almost certain to hit any given word standard value within the first ten or twelve verses. But if we pin ourselves down to the string beginning at word 1, then we only have about a 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how long the string. This is the basis of my argument, but there are details I'll add as I go along.
    Your estimation of the probability does not make any sense. If you want to use probability to justify your claims, you are going to have to learn the basics of Probability Theory. To calculate probability, we must begin with the sample space of all possible outcomes and calculate the probability as the ratio of the possible number of "hits" to the total number of possibilities. For example, consider flipping a coin. The sample space is the set {heads, tails}. If the coin is fair, there is an equal chance of getting either result, so a single coin toss has a probability of 1/2 to get either result. If we repeat the experiment, the sample space doubles and we get {{H,H}, {H,T},{T,H}, {T,T}} for a total of four possibilities. The probability of any one of those events is therefore 1/4. If we don't care about the order, the possibility of getting both a heads and a tail is 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2.

    Likewise, the sample space of a six sided die is the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} and a fair die will have a 1/6th chance of hitting any one of those faces. Roll two dice and the sample space doubles to give us 36 unique possibilities. Thus, the possibility of rolling snakes eyes is 1/36, whereas there are six ways {{1,6}, {6,1}, {2,5},{5,2},{3,4}, {4,3}} to roll a 7 so 7 is the "luckiest" number in the sense that it is the most likely outcome with a probability of 6/36 = 1/6.

    Now to calculate the probability of the sums of words strings, we need to look at the sample space of all possibilities. To get an estimate of that, we would need to consider the set of all possible word values. The smallest of course is a = 1. There is no way to get a word with value 2 because neither "aa" nor "b" is a word. We could get a 3 if we accept words like ab and ba. And on it goes. We have to know the actual distribution of words, which I have done by analyzing an English dictionary. As you probably recall, this is something I did long ago when debating the validity of English gematria. Here is the result from the thread GOD'S GEMATRIA, THE VICTORS, SONGS AND "HARPS":

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The problem with English Gematria calculated from the place values is based on the fact that 83% of all the words are compressed into a numerical range between 50 and 150. I analyzed a dictionary with about 79,000 words, and found that about 66,000 of them had a value between 50 and 150. Here is a graph that shows the distribution:



    This means that all the information stored in the pattern of the letters is lost. Any structure that could have been there has been compressed to such an extent that all distinctions are lost and we have nothing but a meaningless smooshed mess o' porridge.

    Note in particular that most of the numbers ccc used in his post - 73, 74, and 88 - are found near the peak of the distribution where there were over 700 choices to choose from. And that's not counting the foreign transliterated words like Y'shua (note that he could have chosen Yeshua if that had fit the pattern he was looking for).

    Now don't mistake what I am trying to demonstrate here. Lists of words can be useful if the reality of divine design based on gematria has already been proven by other means. But such lists, especially when based on ordinal systems which have an extremely high compression ratio, lose too much information to be useful by themselves.

    Richard
    This graph gives an empirical measure of the expected value of a random English word. The largest value for the ordinal value of an English word is around 250, so the total range for all 79,000 words in the English dictionary I analysed is pretty small - about 250 possibilities. Note that the distribution is NOT a uniform (like what we would we would have with a coin toss or rolling a die). There are lots more words with values near the center (around 100). It's rather like a normal distribution (Bell curve) skewed a bit. It shows that's its very unlikely to get a word with a value near zero or much larger than about 200.

    The fact that the distribution is not uniform makes the calculation of probability rather complicated. Rather than simply assuming the numbers have equal probability (like a coin or die) we must account for the fact that some numbers in a random English sentence will be found more frequently than others. But there's no need to do the calculation because none of this really matters anyway, because calculating the probability of cherry picked coincidences is utterly, totally, and absolutely meaningless. Such calculations will never tell you that something is "designed" because RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

    Let me repeat: RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

    Therefore, small probabilities are not themselves signs of design. This is the primary error of all numerologists who try to justify their collection of cherry-picked results by showing that their particular set of cherry picked results had a "small probability." It wouldn't matter what set of results were picked from the ocean of possibilities. They ALL would have a small probability. So the small probability tells us NOTHING about whether they were designed.

    Let me repeat: ANY RANDOM SET OF WORDS generated by your methods will occur with a very small probability. Therefore, the fact that the probability is small tells us nothing about whether or not the set was "put there" by a designer.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    You understand the word blocks perfectly. Thanks for the little app. too, which I'm sure people will find useful. I've never used any kind of software, prefering a hands-on, low-tech approach (a calculator and a lot of perspiration). In fact in principle I could have done nearly all of it with nothing more than pencil, paper and mental arithmetic.
    When I first started playing with numerology back in 1990, I too did it all by hand. I really enjoyed it. It was quite meditative. I would be meditating on the meaning of the text and the beauty of the numbers and found it quite mesmerizing. But then I wanted to be able to do it more efficiently so I began using computers.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Here is where I take issue with you. You spend a lot of effort on Hebrews 9.4 (which I barely mention in my website). Yes, three of the titles - atonement cover, cherubim of the glory and altar of incense - are found there. But you are picking all the phrases from there and asking how many of them would be found in word strings proceeding from the first word of Genesis. You seem to be asking "Why is this number or that number not there?" I understand why you are taking this approach, because it's going to give you the answer you want. But that's not the question I asked of the NIV bible. I looked at what was actually there in the first few words of Genesis: I found the numbers, saw they were all furnishings within the Most Holy Place, saw they made a pattern and integrated with patterns already there, then worked out the probabilities.
    Yes, I do ask why it is the way it is if it was designed, because the central term "ark of the testimony" is NOT found in the context of Hebrews 9 whereas a different term "ark of the covenant" is found there. Why would an intelligent God design it so that the numbers DO NOT match? That makes no sense to me at all. It directly contradicts the idea that the numbers were put there by design so that we could recognize the design.

    Also, it is very uncharitable for you to say that I am taking a an approach not because it is what truth demands, but because it will give me the answer I want. It would be best if we could have this conversation without casting aspersions at each others' motives.

    The fact that you "worked out the probabilities" for a tiny set of numbers after the fact means they are meaningless. Probabilities are only significant when the data set is large enough. For example. you could never draw any conclusion by calculating the probability of a single toss of a coin. You would have to toss the coin hundreds of times and note if the frequency is 50/50 or not. Likewise, you cannot draw any meaningful conclusion by calculating the probability that the word strings would match some other phrases. As explained above, any words you find would have similar small probabilities, so the small probabilities tell you nothing about whether or not they were designed.

    Here is the key: If a text is actually CODED then the code must account for the entire text. For example, here is a truly coded text:

    Uijt ufyu jt dpefe cz tijgujoh fbdi mfuufs gpsxbse cz pof.

    When decoded, it says

    This text is coded by shifting each letter forward by one.

    Every letter is accounted for. We know with perfect certainty that it was encoded, and how. There is nothing like this in any of the "Bible codes". The kinds of "codes" you are looking for are indistinguishable from what we would expect in a random uncoded text.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Now, on probability, it all depends on the question you ask. If I ask "What is the simple probability of those four numbers (610, 1169, 1623, 1754) being there?" then the answer is indeed about 1 in 4 million. But I agree with the comment you made that this is far too generous and it's a post hoc analysis. In fact there are about twenty names for the ark in the NIV and therefore there is about a 50% chance of finding one of them there. On top of that there are other important biblical concepts, such as the new Jerusalem, the tabernacle, Jesus Christ and much more. I was virtually certain to find something. Given that the ark is there, it can then be asked "What is the probability of the two main ark components also being present" I actually did ask that question and found the atonement cover, the cherubim and the altar too, which I didn't expect. That's more realistic and two of the items I found were specified a priori. In my new page I try to define it more accurately still, because the altar of incense is less strongly related to the ark than its own structure. I ended up with a 'guestimate' of 1 in 10000 against a chance occurence. Addendum: I've amended the Ark of the Testimony page to reflect what I just said about probabilities in the new page and here. I only finished the new page last night so there hasn't been time to amend any other old pages.

    Now, given that, we can then look at how it integrates with other patterns already there. It integrates beautfully with The Signatures of Christ, as I show on the page you highlighted, and consciously references the Christian belief in Christ as our 'atonement cover'. Under the lid are six different single-word names by which we know Jesus, all found by taking the 24 words over which 'atonement cover' is encoded then splitting it into 4 six-word segments. Six numbers then appear as if by magic, in three pairings, all encoded over six or twelve words:

    Jesus/Yehoshua
    Word/Word
    Messiah/Messiah

    Here is The Signature of Christ page

    http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html
    "Integration" with other cherry picked results proves nothing.

    This is the problem you need to address. How do you discern between a random text and a coded text? That's the question you must answer. Merely collecting lots of "hits" from an essentially infinite ocean of random numbers proves nothing. That is the root error of all numerology. It is based on the cognitive error of CHERRY PICKING by definition. You begin by trolling through an ocean of numbers looking for "hits" that you can use to make "patterns." Different people almost always "find" (i.e. create) different patterns because the patterns are very idiosyncratic and their meaning is very subjective.

    Sorry for the slow response, but there are so many issues that must be cleared up, such as how to calculate probabilities, why the probabilities would even matter given that any random set of words would have a low probability, how do discern between random vs. coded texts, etc., etc., etc.

    Great chatting!

    • 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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Bill,

    I am happy to follow your lead on this, especially since you wrote that article as a response to the kinds of analysis I am doing.

    We'll have to take it bit by bit since there are many assumptions and assertions that needed to be reviewed. I begin with your estimation of probability:

    Your estimation of the probability does not make any sense. If you want to use probability to justify your claims, you are going to have to learn the basics of Probability Theory. To calculate probability, we must begin with the sample space of all possible outcomes and calculate the probability as the ratio of the possible number of "hits" to the total number of possibilities. For example, consider flipping a coin. The sample space is the set {heads, tails}. If the coin is fair, there is an equal chance of getting either result, so a single coin toss has a probability of 1/2 to get either result. If we repeat the experiment, the sample space doubles and we get {{H,H}, {H,T},{T,H}, {T,T}} for a total of four possibilities. The probability of any one of those events is therefore 1/4. If we don't care about the order, the possibility of getting both a heads and a tail is 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2.

    Likewise, the sample space of a six sided die is the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} and a fair die will have a 1/6th chance of hitting any one of those faces. Roll two dice and the sample space doubles to give us 36 unique possibilities. Thus, the possibility of rolling snakes eyes is 1/36, whereas there are six ways {{1,6}, {6,1}, {2,5},{5,2},{3,4}, {4,3}} to roll a 7 so 7 is the "luckiest" number in the sense that it is the most likely outcome with a probability of 6/36 = 1/6.

    Now to calculate the probability of the sums of words strings, we need to look at the sample space of all possibilities. To get an estimate of that, we would need to consider the set of all possible word values. The smallest of course is a = 1. There is no way to get a word with value 2 because neither "aa" nor "b" is a word. We could get a 3 if we accept words like ab and ba. And on it goes. We have to know the actual distribution of words, which I have done by analyzing an English dictionary. As you probably recall, this is something I did long ago when debating the validity of English gematria. Here is the result from the thread GOD'S GEMATRIA, THE VICTORS, SONGS AND "HARPS":

    This graph gives an empirical measure of the expected value of a random English word. The largest value for the ordinal value of an English word is around 250, so the total range for all 79,000 words in the English dictionary I analysed is pretty small - about 250 possibilities. Note that the distribution is NOT a uniform (like what we would we would have with a coin toss or rolling a die). There are lots more words with values near the center (around 100). It's rather like a normal distribution (Bell curve) skewed a bit. It shows that's its very unlikely to get a word with a value near zero or much larger than about 200.

    The fact that the distribution is not uniform makes the calculation of probability rather complicated. Rather than simply assuming the numbers have equal probability (like a coin or die) we must account for the fact that some numbers in a random English sentence will be found more frequently than others. But there's no need to do the calculation because none of this really matters anyway, because calculating the probability of cherry picked coincidences is utterly, totally, and absolutely meaningless. Such calculations will never tell you that something is "designed" because RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

    Let me repeat: RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

    Therefore, small probabilities are not themselves signs of design. This is the primary error of all numerologists who try to justify their collection of cherry-picked results by showing that their particular set of cherry picked results had a "small probability." It wouldn't matter what set of results were picked from the ocean of possibilities. They ALL would have a small probability. So the small probability tells us NOTHING about whether they were designed.

    Let me repeat: ANY RANDOM SET OF WORDS generated by your methods will occur with a very small probability. Therefore, the fact that the probability is small tells us nothing about whether or not the set was "put there" by a designer.
    Thanks for your reply. I see you've spent some time considering it, for which I'm grateful. You begin here by giving some background on probability theory, which is fine. I've done a little of that too and even considered taking a course in statistics and probability to help me. In the end, though, I avoided doing much of that for the simple reason that some top-drawer probability theorists have analysed the Torah codes and there is as yet no agreement on whether or not they are authentic. Each side seems to have used their specialist knowledge to prove what deep down they wanted to be true. So it seemed to me to be a pointless exercise going very far down that route. If they can't agree, what chance do you and I have? I'd like to make a few points here though.

    1. You say that ordinal values have a very narrow spread, or small standard deviation, if you like. This is true, but the New Bible Code is based on the standard values (sv) of the encoded words and phrases, which have a much wider spread (although again there is a bunching in the centre). So about 1 in 90 words have a value of 74 (Jesus (o)), but maybe about a tenth of that number, 1 in 1000, have an ov of 515 (Jesus (s)) - something of that order. In other words, there is much less uncertainty about what word a number is meant to represent (assuming conscious intent) if we use standard values. The lexicon of the English language is now over a million words, so there will be quite a few, but it's groups of words and phrases that count, as well as context, in this case biblical. There may be uncertainty about what one word to replace a number by, but if we can find several that are meaningfully related, forming a regular pattern within scripture, they support each other, by the fact they are synonyms, by the fact that they are related to the text itself, and by the order inherent in the pattern, which is less likely than a disordered pattern. So the signatures of Christ, for example, are found by taking the first twenty-four words, splitting them into four groups of six words, and replacing the numbers we see by Jesus and three of its synonyms, to give six numbers in a very tight pattern. Yes the law of truly large numbers will tell us it had to happen in a 24-word string somewhere in the NIV. There are 726583 strings of 24 words in the NIV, giving plenty of opportunities for an impressive random configuration. But why did it happen within the first 24 words? Why do those 24 words happen to be the sv of Atonement Cover, Jesus being our atonement cover? We don't need to become proficient in probability theory to see that this is a highly unusual occurence, because we can see great meaning in it, and the winds of chance do not configure numbers into meaningful patterns - only the wind of Spirit. We can also see that the law of truly large numbers has been starved of its prey. This one escapes it. The numbers here are configured in accordance with what is in our minds, so we can (rightly) suspect that another mind that knows what is in our minds, or Mind at large, or Spirit, if you like, has done the configuring. We see that Spirit can influence matter and it opens up all kinds of other possibilities to us.

    I've had people argue that the first 24 words are no different from any other 24 word string, and on one level they are correct. The probability is the same wherever it's found - that's just another way of stating what you said below, that all random events have a low probability. But if you assume that the strings are counted in the order we read a book, a very natural assumption, then do your checking in that order, you can ask what the probability is of it just happening to appear on the first check, word 1 to 24. If there is a 1 in 100000 probability of the signature pattern appearing randomly (and I think it may very well be about that), then the chances of it appearing in the first 24 words is 1 in 100000. It may appear another 6 or 7 times in other word trings, but they will very likely all be buried in obscure passages, not in the first 24 words of scripture, the most important words ever written. God put them there not because he wanted to hide them but because he wanted us to find them!

    Addendum: I forgot to add the most important part here. If we ask the question, "Given p = 0.00001 for the signature phenomenon, how many times would we expect it to appear in 24-word strings within the Bible, given 726583 such strings?" the answer is going to be around 7 times. But if we ask "Given p = 0.00001 for the signature phenomenon, what is the probability of it appearing in the first 24-word string within the Bible?" then the answer of course is p = 0.00001, or 1 in 100000. In other words we shoud not expect to have found in in the forst string. It depends on the question you ask as much as anything. There are many other other possible patterns that would be impressive and that would increase the odds, so the probability of finding something there with some kind of order and apparent meaning is certainly greater, but probably beyond calculation. However, it is the integration of the signatures with other parts of the code, such as the atonement cover encoding, the number six, the Creation Snowflake, etc, that makes it so unlikely that this particular pattern would have formed. It all stands or falls together and the glue that holds it up is meaning.

    Anyway, I would like to show you that I was guided to look there, at the beginning of Genesis, and shown how to decode the numbers, by a very special type of key. I'll do it in a later post.

    Seeing that there are patterns at the start of the Bible, you might then suspect that there are patterns at the end of the Bible or even at the bigining and end of each testament. You'd be right. I documented some of them in the Bookend Encodings.

    I think you're almost right about ordinal values being too close together for there to be any useful informational content. I think there is a little, but not enough. Anyway, as I said in the New Bible Code ordinal values are reduced for the most part to the role of carrying standard values in strings of words. They nearly always take on meaning as standard values (as do words I receive, and probably everyone else - this is a universal key, I believe). And the spread of standard values is much larger. It's also congruent with the most important, historically attested scheme of Hebrew gematria, the absolute or standard value system. Simplicity is key, because when the number of different substitution systems multiplies, so do the probabilities of random hits.

    2. On the odds against hitting a number as we calculate along the text being 1 in 45. The numbers are encoded as the ordinal values (ov), and since standard values are much larger several words are required to encode the number. So Jesus (s) = 515. This is the ov of the first twelve words of the NIV. The average ov of the words is about 45. These vary from 1 to over 100 (you said you found one that was 250 - was it floccinaucinihilipilification?), but they will average out somewhat over twelve words. The average ov for the first twelve words is 42.9, for the first thriteen it's 43.6, for the first 37 it's 47.4 - so you see for most of the words and phrases encoded there, which require at least five or six plaintext words, the average chance of a hit is still around 1 in 45.

    On small probabilities, if you find, as I have, patterns within the first few words of the NIV, proceeding from the first word (I can highlight in red too), then you can calculate probabilities based on them starting from that first word, based on the idea of looking for strings of encoded numbers from word 1, then word 2, then word 3, etc, etc. If you base your calculations on that procedure, then my results do stand. There was a 1 in 45 chance of hitting 'ark of the testimony' (s). There are twenty names for the ark so there is about a 50% chance hitting one of them, but this one is the first used and appears more often than any other except one of them, which appears later. That counts for something, but let's assume it doesn't and continue. What then are the chances of hitting its two most significant components, atonement cover and cherubim of the glory. Again it's1 in 45 and both appear, so it is reasonable to conclude that there was a 1 in 2025 chance of this happening. There is the same chance of any other numbers appearing but what is different about these numbers is that they are thematically related to the ark. They are important components of the ark too, on the same levelof significance as the ark, and not any of the contents. 'Altar of incense' is there too, and is thematically related to the ark because, according to Hebrews 9, both were in the Most Holy Place. The chances now decrease to 1 in 90000. One could argue that I wasn't including the poles and rings, but these are of much less significance and not mentioned as much (they are encoded elsewhere though). But it really goes beyond number crunching, because the relationship is more hazy now. Some accounts put the altar in the Holy Place. For that and other reasons I settled for 1 in 10000, a) to show that I think it is a real, statistically improbable phenomenon, and b) to concede that 1 in 90000 was too optimistic. The real probabilities are beyond calculation, but I just wanted the reader to get the idea that those four numbers being there is improbable.

    You seem to be arguing along the lines that any other four numbers you happen to choose that are in the same range would be equally improbable, and that is true. On that basis there is nothing unusual about them being there because the chances of finding any set of four such numbers would be the same. But how many of those sets would be the standard values of phrases meaningfully related to each other and to the bible, written without the definite article and worded like that only in that version? Very, very few, if any. That is the difference between a code and randomness. That's another reason I gave up doing a lot of probability testing, because the significance and meaning carried by these phrases is very difficult to quantify. The human mind can see it though. that's what we do all the time.

    We are pattern seeking creatures and in everyday life we are very good at detecting them and sensing when something is out of the ordinary. The fact that we get it wrong sometimes, for example when we hear of a lottery machine somewhere giving the same six numbers a couple of months apart, which is perfectly normal, is the kind of exception that proves the rule. So if we are walking along and see a nickel heads up on the ground on the edge of the sidewalk we would think that someone dropped it. Nothing unusual in that. If we then found another nickel six paces on, again on the edge of the sidewalk and heads up, then another nickel another six paces on, etc, we begin to suspect someone is doing it deliberately. It may be that someone has a pocket full of nickels and every six paces another one drops out, and they all just happen to roll to the same part of the sidewalk, but we instinctively know it is unusual and we may even want to investigate. Likewise with the code, we can never be sure these aren't chance arrangements, so there is room for doubt. But the more we investigate the less likely chance seems, not just because we find more patterns, but because they meaningfully relate to each other. The reasonable conclusion is that there might be something going on here and that we might want to investigate. The unreasonable conclusion is that it's all chance and, without investigating further, dismissing it. But I know you want to investigate further!

    Now, you state that ark of the testimony is not found in Hebrews 9. True, but I never claimed that they were all in Hebrews 9. I claimed, and it's the truth, that the four phrases are all found only in the NIV. The fact that three of them are found in Hebrews 9 is irrelevant, a red herring. Only one of them, cherubim of the glory, is exclusively found in Hebrews 9. And they are either the only formal title used or the first. I've found in the code that the first name is often used for encodings, for example, here.

    I didn't mean to insult you with my remark about you finding what you want to find. Please accept my apologies.

    I need some sleep. I'll answer the rest of it tomorrow.
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 04-01-2017 at 07:23 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,727
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Thanks for your reply. I see you've spent some time considering it, for which I'm grateful. You begin here by giving some background on probability theory, which is fine. I've done a little of that too and even considered taking a course in statistics and probability to help me. In the end, though, I avoided doing much of that for the simple reason that some top-drawer probability theorists have analysed the Torah codes and there is as yet no agreement on whether or not they are authentic. Each side seems to have used their specialist knowledge to prove what deep down they wanted to be true. So it seemed to me to be a pointless exercise going very far down that route. If they can't agree, what chance do you and I have? I'd like to make a few points here though.

    Hey there my friend,

    The biggest problem we humans have is self-deception. It's not like we want to believe falsehood, that would be absurd. It's just that the human brain has a "confirmation bias" - a tendency to believe things if they support what we already believe or want to believe, and to disbelieve things when they don't. This is just one of a host of cognitive errors that befuddle the human brain. We are all subject to them. That's why science was invented - to find a way to discern between true and false claims, and to get past our tendency to deceive ourselves. The fruit of the scientific method is obvious. It's all around us. It has transformed the world.

    As for Torah codes, I think they have been soundly refuted by qualified experts (source). The fact that believers refuse to accept the science is not surprising. That's par for the course when it comes to religious beliefs, wouldn't you say? Harold Camping was absolutely certain that he had decoded the Bible to find the date of the Rapture was May 21, 2011. He said the only way he could be wrong was if the Bible was wrong. History is littered with similar false beliefs. Muslims think Allah encoded the Quran with the Number 19. And on and on it goes. Such beliefs are common as dirt and very difficult to dislodge once they are believed.

    I do not think it is fair to say that the scientists who debunked Torah Codes were anything like the believers who "used their specialist knowledge to prove what deep down they wanted to be true". They use real science, logic, and facts to justify their position. They found similar codes in the Unibomber's manifesto (it "encodes" MAIL BOMBS for example) and secular works like War and Peace. On the face of it, the Torah Codes look exactly like what we would expect from random chance. There is no coherent "message" that can be discerned. At best, the believers were able to find some statistical anomalies. That is NOTHING like what I would expect if there really were an intelligent God deliberately designing a code. I could do it ten thousand times better. The Torah Codes are not worthy of God in my estimation. And so what good are they? Very, very few people could even understand the statistics, and there is no way to actually get a "message" of any meaning that could be objectively verified. Why would an intelligent God design his codes to look exactly like what we would expect from random chance? Why would he use the same methods that failed numerologists have used for centuries. I cannot think of any reason anyone would take them seriously if you really think about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    1. You say that ordinal values have a very narrow spread, or small standard deviation, if you like. This is true, but the New Bible Code is based on the standard values (sv) of the encoded words and phrases, which have a much wider spread (although again there is a bunching in the centre). So about 1 in 90 words have a value of 74 (Jesus (o)), but maybe about a tenth of that number, 1 in 1000, have an ov of 515 (Jesus (s)) - something of that order. In other words, there is much less uncertainty about what word a number is meant to represent (assuming conscious intent) if we use standard values. The lexicon of the English language is now over a million words, so there will be quite a few, but it's groups of words and phrases that count, as well as context, in this case biblical. There may be uncertainty about what one word to replace a number by, but if we can find several that are meaningfully related, forming a regular pattern within scripture, they support each other, by the fact they are synonyms, by the fact that they are related to the text itself, and by the order inherent in the pattern, which is less likely than a disordered pattern. So the signatures of Christ, for example, are found by taking the first twenty-four words, splitting them into four groups of six words, and replacing the numbers we see by Jesus and three of its synonyms, to give six numbers in a very tight pattern. Yes the law of truly large numbers will tell us it had to happen in a 24-word string somewhere in the NIV. There are 726583 strings of 24 words in the NIV, giving plenty of opportunities for an impressive random configuration. But why did it happen within the first 24 words? Why do those 24 words happen to be the sv of Atonement Cover, Jesus being our atonement cover? We don't need to become proficient in probability theory to see that this is a highly unusual occurence, because we can see great meaning in it, and the winds of chance do not configure numbers into meaningful patterns - only the wind of Spirit. We can also see that the law of truly large numbers has been starved of its prey. This one escapes it. The numbers here are configured in accordance with what is in our minds, so we can (rightly) suspect that another mind that knows what is in our minds, or Mind at large, or Spirit, if you like, has done the configuring. We see that Spirit can influence matter and it opens up all kinds of other possibilities to us.
    The "probabilities" are meaningless because any random set of words would have a small probability (as you noted in your post). So why mention probability at all? I don't see how it adds to your case. And as for "meaning" and "mutual confirmation" and "synonyms" what do you make of this example?

    JESUS = 74 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD

    Or if you want to use a different form of gematria (which many people do) you could start with a = 9, b = 18, c = 27 ... and get this set:

    JESUS = 666 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD

    There's plenty of "meaning" and "mutual confirmation" for some pretty weird beliefs that I'm sure you would reject. This shows how subjective numerology really is. You are impressed because of your own personal experiences that convinced you that the 1984 version of the NIV was "coded by God." Without those personal experiences, it's very unlikely anyone would be impressed, let alone convinced, by your methods. And I am certain that no person with any knowledge of probability would be convinced because any random set of words would be equally unlikely, and you can always find "confirmation" with other words that "make a pattern" that confirms what you want to believe.

    As for the specifics of the Signatures of Christ, I'll review them in another post. This one is meant to be more high level. It's all too easy to get lost in the "weeds" of detailed analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I've had people argue that the first 24 words are no different from any other 24 word string, and on one level they are correct. The probability is the same wherever it's found - that's just another way of stating what you said below, that all random events have a low probability. But if you assume that the strings are counted in the order we read a book, a very natural assumption, then do your checking in that order, you can ask what the probability is of it just happening to appear on the first check, word 1 to 24. If there is a 1 in 100000 probability of the signature pattern appearing randomly (and I think it may very well be about that), then the chances of it appearing in the first 24 words is 1 in 100000. It may appear another 6 or 7 times in other word trings, but they will very likely all be buried in obscure passages, not in the first 24 words of scripture, the most important words ever written. God put them there not because he wanted to hide them but because he wanted us to find them!
    Again, the "probability" is irrelevant. If you didn't find the pattern you found, would that prove the Bible was not designed? If not, then how do you discern between a random text and a designed text? How do you know you couldn't find similarly "improbable" words in the Quran or Book of Mormon?

    It's really important to dig down and settle this point. Calculating the probability of cherry picked patterns is utterly meaningless. That's not what probability theory was designed to do. It is a tool to PREDICT things and to find correlations in data sets. You are not using it that way at all. Your "data set" is a small collection of results cherry picked from a huge ocean of possibilities, so it proves nothing. Again, I point out this relation and ask "What is the probability?"

    JESUS = 666 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD

    Why did God encode these names and numbers, if indeed he designed the English language to encode things?

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Anyway, I would like to show you that I was guided to look there, at the beginning of Genesis, and shown how to decode the numbers, by a very special type of key. I'll do it in a later post.
    If you are talking about the ELS that says "HERE ARK" - I've already read that and do not find it convincing at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Seeing that there are patterns at the start of the Bible, you might then suspect that there are patterns at the end of the Bible or even at the bigining and end of each testament. You'd be right. I documented some of them in the Bookend Encodings.
    If there were a God of infinite intelligence who coded the Bible, I would not expect it to be anything like the "codes" you have found. They are not worthy of God because they look like the typical kind of numerology that believers have been making up for centuries. They all have the same character of not really being a "code" at all. You are creating the patterns by cherry picking words that you like and ignoring the vast majority of "hits" that don't fit the pattern you like. It looks exactly like how people delude themselves. Please take no offense, as you know I intend nothing but the best. I'm just telling you how it looks to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I think you're almost right about ordinal values being too close together for there to be any useful informational content. I think there is a little, but not enough. Anyway, as I said in the New Bible Code ordinal values are reduced for the most part to the role of carrying standard values in strings of words. They nearly always take on meaning as standard values (as do words I receive, and probably everyone else - this is a universal key, I believe). And the spread of standard values is much larger. It's also congruent with the most important, historically attested scheme of Hebrew gematria, the absolute or standard value system. Simplicity is key, because when the number of different substitution systems multiplies, so do the probabilities of random hits.
    But the only meaning they can have is the meaning you select when you choose the words you like while ignoring all the others.

    Well, this is getting too long. I'll answer more in another post.

    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,727
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    2. On the odds against hitting a number as we calculate along the text being 1 in 45. The numbers are encoded as the ordinal values (ov), and since standard values are much larger several words are required to encode the number. So Jesus (s) = 515. This is the ov of the first twelve words of the NIV. The average ov of the words is about 45. These vary from 1 to over 100 (you said you found one that was 250 - was it floccinaucinihilipilification?), ut they will average out somewhat over twelve words. The average ov for the first twelve words is 42.9, for the first thriteen it's 43.6, for the first 37 it's 47.4 - so you see for most of the words and phrases encoded there, which require at least five or six plaintext words, the average chance of a hit is still around 1 in 45.
    Yes, the average value of the first 37 words of Genesis is 1754/37 = 47.4. But that has almost nothing to do with the probability of finding a hit. It affects the probability only because a large average would make hitting small numbers unlikely or impossible, and a small average would make it unlikely (or impossible) to hit large numbers. Your estimation of this probability is completely misguided. This is why I went into a detailed explanation of probability. The question to be answered is this (where the word strings are calculated using your method, starting with the first word):

    What is the probability that a word string generated from a random set of n words would have the value m?

    We need to calculate that probability and then plug in the numbers for Genesis 1 (n < 38) and see if they are different than what we would expect from a random set. That's how statistics is supposed to work.

    So what is the probability of a word string having the value of m? That's easy in principle, but complicated in practice. The probability for a single word to sum to m is just the total number of words that sum to m divided by the total number of words in the vocabulary. Denote this number as

    p1(m) = the probability that the first word sums to m.

    Things get more complicated if the word string has two words, because then we must add the probability for every possible pair of words that sum to m. This is given by the formula:

    p2(m) = SUM p1(a) + p1(b) | where a + b = m

    I.e. it is the sum of [p1(m-1) + p1(1)] + [p1(m-2) + p1(2)] + [p1(m-3) + p1(3)] ... + [p1(1) + p1(m-1)]

    Next, we would have to do the same thing for all triplets that sum to m:

    p3(m) = SUM p1(a) + p1(b) + p1(c) | where a + b + c = m

    And so on until we get to n.

    Now here is where most people's intuition fails them. The number of ways to add positive integers to get a given sum grows incredibly fast. The value is given by the Partition Function. If m = 100 the value is 190,569,292 (that's 190 million ways to combine numbers that sum to m). Of course, many of those combinations might involve more than n numbers, such as when you write 100 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 .... + 1 and n is 37. And many would be meaningless, such as a string of a hundred letters "a". So an accurate calculation would have to take that into account (which is answered by "how many ways are there to add x numbers that sum to m, and do that for 0 < x < n). But in any case, the number of possible combinations is ASTRONOMICALLY HUGE! Remember, you are looking at numbers as large as 1754, and the partition function for just 1000 is 24,061,467,864,032,622,473,692,149,727,991 or approximately 2.4x1031.

    But that's only the beginning! All those numbers tell us how many ways there are to find m using the Ordinal Values (o.v.) of the text of Genesis 1. We have to do the same calculation for the number of ways to find m using the standard values (s.v.) of the entire vocabulary of the NIV too! The number of possibilities is smaller in this case since you typically use only 2, 3 or 4 words. But still, the possibilities are amplified far beyond what you would guess if you didn't understand concepts from probability and combinatorics.

    I don't know the exact values, but I can see that the numbers are astronomical and the probability of finding pretty much anything given enough time and effort is essentially UNITY. I.e. you have a probability near 1 of finding anything you might be looking for.

    This is why I enjoy discussing these things so much. It's really fun digging deep to find the truth.

    Great chatting!

    • 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 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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