Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 23 of 33 FirstFirst ... 13192021222324252627 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 323
  1. #221
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Richard,

    I'm sorry you feel the need to question my honesty here. Surely you must be aware that I wrote that page before any of the work we've just done! I wrote it based on the information I had at the time, and in good faith. It will be revised in the light of these discussions, and in line with the clearer understanding they have given me. I do not agree with your own conclusions, though, or the way you sometimes present your own results. I'll answer your comments in the same candid way you wrote them.
    Hey there my friend,

    Please accept my apology. I'm very, very sorry that you thought I was questioning your honesty. I have no doubt that you firmly believed what you wrote. And you have been very admirable in your response to the new information we have been discovering. I see no conscious effort to deceive, but rather errors produced by things like selection bias, confirmation bias, and so forth. There is no doubt that you were flabbergasted by the "coincidences" that got you started down this path, just like I was. I can completely relate to what you believe and why. But I also am convinced that the meaning of your codes is illusory. I hope you can see that all my criticism is aimed at the objective claims you make, not you as a person.

    I have to go to work so can't answer more right now, but I wanted to be sure that you know I do not question your honesty or good intentions.

    All the best to you my friend,

    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. #222
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230

    The '31'

    Since you're busy, I've been doing my own analysis of my 31 created things against random numbers. I chose the random numbers two ways. First, I used the numerical profile I developed yesterday to produce 62 random numbers in pairs. Second, I used your own method of adding and subtracting 10 from the biblical values. Here are the results. All I've had time to do is the easiest analysis for me with my little calculator - calculating how many pairs are in the Garden (Genesis 1.1-5, NIV).A hit is both pairs in the Garden (not necessarily overlapping, just there).

    Bill's List of 31 Hebrew English Pairs: 25 hits out of 31 (81%)
    Random list 1: 16 hits out of 31 (52%)
    Random list 2: 17 hits out of 31 (55%)

    Let's compare that with your own list of 43.

    Richard's List of 43 Hebrew/English Pairs: 33 hits out of 43 (77%)

    So the lists are giving about the same percentages of hits, which isn't surprising, since they overlap so much.

    What is interesting, though, is that again the number of hits is much higher than the average (although there are only two random lists, not 100 this time, so that is conditional). The probability of an individual hit is looking to be about 70-75%, which is not far from what I had originally I'd anticipated. I originally thought it would be about two thirds. You calculated it was 52%, but of course the lower numbers are found much more frequently, and these lists are full of single words and short phrases. It may be worth trying longer phrases to see what that produces.

    The average percentage of paired hits from my two random lists is 53%. Based on that figure, the binomial probability of acheiving 33 or better out of a possible 43 hits (your list) is 1 in 900. For my list the probability of acheiving 25 or better out of a possible 31 hits is 1 in 800. I think that's a good indication that we may be dealing with an anomalous phenomenon here. In other words, the double witness phenomenon looks real. It needs more work though.
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 05-09-2017 at 02:24 PM.

  3. #223
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there my friend,

    Please accept my apology. I'm very, very sorry that you thought I was questioning your honesty. I have no doubt that you firmly believed what you wrote. And you have been very admirable in your response to the new information we have been discovering. I see no conscious effort to deceive, but rather errors produced by things like selection bias, confirmation bias, and so forth. There is no doubt that you were flabbergasted by the "coincidences" that got you started down this path, just like I was. I can completely relate to what you believe and why. But I also am convinced that the meaning of your codes is illusory. I hope you can see that all my criticism is aimed at the objective claims you make, not you as a person.

    I have to go to work so can't answer more right now, but I wanted to be sure that you know I do not question your honesty or good intentions.

    All the best to you my friend,

    Richard
    Thanks for that. Like you, I'm only interested in getting to the truth. All the way along it has been maddeningly difficult to decide whether what I'm finding is real or not. Without dreams, visions and words given to myself and others - and of course the Key to the code itself - I would never have gotten this far with it. My earliest efforts were embarrassing to me now and it was through coming across the work of people like Vernon Jenkins and yourself that I learned to 'aim higher', rather than become just another numerologist. I still make mistakes too, but I learned that it's better to quickly admit to them and move on.

    We currently disagree on whether the code itself is one big Mistake, of course, and I understand that having decided your own work was fatally flawed you are anxious to save others from the same errors you believe you made. Maybe we can talk about that at some point, because like many others who have admired the Biblewheel over the years, I believe you have 'thrown out the baby with the bathwater' there and that there was something to your work after all. If you believe in synchronicity then you already accept the mechanism by which Bible codes are inserted therein - through a sophisticated weave of synchronicity. If you beleive in some kind of higher consciousness that can influence us through our unconscious minds, then you can appreciate how the writers and translaters of the Bible and its versions could have been guided in what they wrote by their daimon.

  4. #224
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Thanks for that. Like you, I'm only interested in getting to the truth. All the way along it has been maddeningly difficult to decide whether what I'm finding is real or not. Without dreams, visions and words given to myself and others - and of course the Key to the code itself - I would never have gotten this far with it. My earliest efforts were embarrassing to me now and it was through coming across the work of people like Vernon Jenkins and yourself that I learned to 'aim higher', rather than become just another numerologist. I still make mistakes too, but I learned that it's better to quickly admit to them and move on.
    Discerning truth and reality is one of the greatest challenges in this life. Despite our best efforts, we can never fully free ourselves from illusions born of our desires, fantasy, hopes, fears, dreams, and illusions. We are born ignorant, conditioned by our culture before we have the ability to make reasoned choices, and die in a state not far removed from that into which we were born. But the situation is not hopeless. We can make progress in our efforts to come closer to the truth. Quickly admitting error certainly is an essential habit.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    We currently disagree on whether the code itself is one big Mistake, of course, and I understand that having decided your own work was fatally flawed you are anxious to save others from the same errors you believe you made. Maybe we can talk about that at some point, because like many others who have admired the Biblewheel over the years, I believe you have 'thrown out the baby with the bathwater' there and that there was something to your work after all. If you believe in synchronicity then you already accept the mechanism by which Bible codes are inserted therein - through a sophisticated weave of synchronicity. If you beleive in some kind of higher consciousness that can influence us through our unconscious minds, then you can appreciate how the writers and translaters of the Bible and its versions could have been guided in what they wrote by their daimon.
    I think we would both benefit from discussing my reasons for concluding that I was wrong about the Bible Wheel. We should probably start a new thread for that conversation. It wasn't an easy or a quick decision. It took three full years after realizing I no longer believed in the God of the Bible before I had the clarity of mind to see the errors that led to my delusions about the Bible Wheel and numerology. And even now, I freely admit that there are some intriguing "coincidences" that I'm not sure i could explain. But strange things happen all the time, and they are not sufficiently coherent to form a foundation for a worldview.

    Synchronicity, dreams, and visions played a central role in my "fall" from objective science to mysticism and numerology, so I know where you are coming from. I can certainly imagine there could be a "higher intelligence" guiding things "in the background" since that's how I thought for many years. But now I look at that as "magical thinking" and I am glad to be free from it. But that's for another thread. So now I'll answer your other posts.
    • 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. #225
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    But the number of overlaps, or the percentages of overlaps, is NOT what I've been stressing! You decided to go down that route. I stated that a single overlap or close proximity between two word strings was enough. That appeared to me at the time be the sign of an encoding. I still think it may be true, in fact, although as I also stated, the code has not been designed by some rote method and there are exceptions - but there are always good reasons for it. You refuse to highlight that in your tests. You are designing your own tests, based on your own (mis)understandings of what the code means, then claiming it means nothing. All you're really showing is that you haven't completely understood it in the first place, which has been true from the start. You are in fact guilty of exactly what I've been guilty of myself many, many times, going all the way back to 2001 when I began: Constructing flawed hypothesis based on limited and misunderstood information, guided not by the Holy Spirit but by your own prejudices, man-made theologies, imagined patterns and personal preferences. We're all guilty of that all the time, and its the hardest thing in the world to see beyond it and think clearly about anything.
    There is no shame in creating a flawed hypothesis! That is the essence of the scientific method. It is very rare for anyone to guess the correct hypothesis on the first try. The Scientific Method is a cyclical process as described in this wiki article (where I found this image):

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	scientific_method.JPG 
Views:	34 
Size:	89.2 KB 
ID:	1491

    So my question to you is this: How did you find out that your hypotheses were false? What tests did you conduct? From what you have shared on your website, your primary method looked like a combination of selection bias (cherry picking) and confirmation bias. If something fit your hypothesis, you counted it as "evidence" and if it didn't fit your hypothesis, you explained it away (rationalization). This is why I focused so much on the general principles you use when deciding what to include or exclude. The only way you could avoid the problem of bias would be to adhere to a truly consistent set of general principles. As far as I can tell, you have not yet been able to state them as such.

    We've discussed many of the inconsistencies I perceived in the lists you created for your "test." In my opinion, that's probably the main reason your list gets more hits than the random data. I believe the statistical test is actually a test that reveals that you cherry picked your list to fit the data. Without clearly stated, objective, consistent GENERAL PRINCIPLES there can be no objective test of your hypothesis. As long as you allow for "exceptions" then the code is no "code" at all, but rather a tool to delude yourself as is typical of numerology.

    For example, I find it very difficult to believe that you would omit "the waters" and include "the water" if the first were found in the grid and the second not. Your insistence on excluding "the waters" looks like it is motivated by the fact it doesn't fit your hypothesis. The same thing goes for the "darkness." Isaiah quotes God as saying "I formed the light, and created darkness" but you include "light" but not "darkness" even though both are mentioned. I could go on, but there is no need. You have not been able to state an objective, coherent set of general principles by which to define what is or is not included in your hypothesis, so in truth you have no hypothesis to test.

    A true statistical test would not depend upon subjective judgments about what should or should not be included. That's not science. That's numerology. This is why scientists developed the DOUBLE BLIND experiment to prevent biases from distorting their conclusions. Let's face it, you WANT your hypothesis to be true. I know, I felt the same way about mine. And I spent many hours looking for statistical tests to prove it, and never succeeded.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I have no right to ask you for anything, and believe me, I'm grateful for the effort you've put into our discussion. But when I have requested something you generally have not given me what I requested, but test results that are often less relevant to our discussion than what was originally requested and which appear to suit your purposes rather than mine. For example, you presented the results of your '43' as misses rather than hits. Why? Why would you do that?
    As explained before, there is no difference in counting "misses" or "hits" because they are complimentary variables. If your list had more hits, it also would have less misses, and vice versa. So there is no bias of any kind in choosing one over the other. They convey precisely the same information.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    It was hard to tell whether you were testing pairs of numbers (which I had requested) or the individual numbers, because the number of misses in the pairs (10 out of 43) is the same as the number of misses in the individual numbers (10 out of 86). I had to work that out myself and almost missed it at first. And of course it made the fact that my results were better than 100 random trials look less impressive, although that may have been accidental.
    I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I was only testing for the total number of misses, i.e. the number of missing English terms + the number of missing Hebrew terms. Given your more detailed explanation of what you are looking for, I will count the total number of pairs FOUND (i.e. the number of pairs in which both are found in the grid).

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    Whether or not it is significant is one of the things I have been trying to discover. It may be that overlapping is not statistically significant, but we need the actual data to find that out in the first place, data I have requested.
    I've already shown that the overlap is not statistically significant. My analysis was based on the assumption that both pairs were found, since obviously there cannot be an overlap if one or both are missing from the grid.

    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I am still as certain as ever that the Garden phenomenon itself is statistically significant, but not so certain about overlapping. It looked important at first, but I had very limited information when I wrote the web page. Remember though, I am talking abouta minimum of one single overlap somewhere in the table, not the percentage of overlaps. I never once asked you to test for that. The frequency of pairs with at least a single overlap, on the other hand, is something that can be tested for and its significance determined. This is the phenomenon I highlight on the page - a single overlap or close proximity. 'Close proximity' with or without overlaps is currently subjective, although it can be measured and I have already suggested a test for that. It is important to stress though that the presence of these number pairs in the Garden is just as important and may in fact be the phenomenon that I was meant to find.
    You really need to state your hypothesis clearly. As far as I understand it, your hypothesis is this: The number of English/Hebrew pairs describing created things will be found in the grid more than we would expect from chance. If that's your hypothesis, then the best you can get is something around three standard deviations from the mean, which is NOTHING like one chance in a trillion like you stated earlier. The tests I've done so far indicate that the real probability is around 3 or 4 in 100.

    The problem, of course, is defining which "created things" we should test. You accept light but reject darkness, even though both are mentioned. You say you reject darkness because it is not explicitly mentioned as being "created" in Genesis. But the same goes for "the water." And "dry ground" which you do include was not "created" per se, but rather made to "appear" because of the gathering of the water. And on and on it goes. Your hypothesis is much too subjective to test objectively. You need to state the principles in a way that leaves no dispute about which should be included and which should be excluded.

    Well, it's late. I'll try to find more time tomorrow.

    Great chatting,

    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

  6. #226
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Hey there Bill,

    The more I review your work, the more I see inconsistent logic. On your Ark page you showed that "two stone tablets" pair are found in the grid:

    The Lord said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
    Ex. 34.1
    Name:  1002x168.jpg
Views: 31
Size:  28.2 KB


    But then in the same article, you go looking only for "rings" rather than "four gold rings" (which just happen to be missing from the grid) -

    Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other.
    Ex. 25.12
    Name:  1000x174.jpg
Views: 31
Size:  27.0 KB


    How is it possible to believe that a God of infinite intelligence would expect us to believe he designed such inconsistent codes?
    • 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

  7. #227
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Hey Bill,

    I was reviewing your ark page, and found this typo you probably want to correct. The correct Hebrew is "badi etsi shittim" and the value is 545. But the position is correct, so it's just a typo.

    Name:  1416x246.jpg
Views: 31
Size:  82.8 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

  8. #228
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Bill,

    The more I review your work, the more I see inconsistent logic. On your Ark page you showed that "two stone tablets" pair are found in the grid:

    The Lord said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
    Ex. 34.1
    Name:  1002x168.jpg
Views: 31
Size:  28.2 KB


    But then in the same article, you go looking only for "rings" rather than "four gold rings" (which just happen to be missing from the grid) -

    Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other.
    Ex. 25.12
    Name:  1000x174.jpg
Views: 31
Size:  27.0 KB


    How is it possible to believe that a God of infinite intelligence would expect us to believe he designed such inconsistent codes?

    Actually, both versions of the tablets are there! Look how nicely stacked the word blocks are too. This is why I was so impressed with the idea of overlap - because it happens so much. There is also the possible phenmenon of clusters of overlaps, of which this is an example. I'll show more encodings of the tablets later.

    Name:  Two Stone Tablets.jpg
Views: 30
Size:  63.0 KB

    I think I chose the longer one because the tablets are far more significant than the rings, especially the fact that there are two of them. I could have put that one in though! I wanted to keep the tables short so I always chose just one example. In fact there were a plethora of different wordings to choose from here. I found more instances of tablets, tablets of stone, etc, than anything else other than the ark itself. The more important the concept the more it was found in there - meaning again! The table above shows all the instances in the Garden of the two Hebrew/English pairs.

    I'm sure you appreciate the fact that it was the second set of stone tablets that were found in the Garden, rather than the first set, which Moses broke after discovering his people worshipping the golden calf. The first set of tablets are not encoded.

    In other words this is not encoding by rote. It is just what we would expect from a God of infinite intelligence!
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 05-09-2017 at 11:35 PM.

  9. #229
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey Bill,

    I was reviewing your ark page, and found this typo you probably want to correct. The correct Hebrew is "badi etsi shittim" and the value is 545. But the position is correct, so it's just a typo.

    Name:  1416x246.jpg
Views: 31
Size:  82.8 KB
    Thanks! You'll probably find a lot of bad Hebrew grammar. I think I was using an online Hebrew/English study bible at that time and the wordings were in Englush order rather than the original Hebrew.

  10. #230
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Discerning truth and reality is one of the greatest challenges in this life. Despite our best efforts, we can never fully free ourselves from illusions born of our desires, fantasy, hopes, fears, dreams, and illusions. We are born ignorant, conditioned by our culture before we have the ability to make reasoned choices, and die in a state not far removed from that into which we were born. But the situation is not hopeless. We can make progress in our efforts to come closer to the truth. Quickly admitting error certainly is an essential habit.


    I think we would both benefit from discussing my reasons for concluding that I was wrong about the Bible Wheel. We should probably start a new thread for that conversation. It wasn't an easy or a quick decision. It took three full years after realizing I no longer believed in the God of the Bible before I had the clarity of mind to see the errors that led to my delusions about the Bible Wheel and numerology. And even now, I freely admit that there are some intriguing "coincidences" that I'm not sure i could explain. But strange things happen all the time, and they are not sufficiently coherent to form a foundation for a worldview.

    Synchronicity, dreams, and visions played a central role in my "fall" from objective science to mysticism and numerology, so I know where you are coming from. I can certainly imagine there could be a "higher intelligence" guiding things "in the background" since that's how I thought for many years. But now I look at that as "magical thinking" and I am glad to be free from it. But that's for another thread. So now I'll answer your other posts.
    I agree with most of your words here, although I would say that my own journey into belief wasn't a 'fall' but my destiny and a move 'up' to a higher level of awareness. I think our journeys have been similar in many ways. Like you I had a difficult early life, with many trials. I was raised in a mildly Christian home and sent to Sunday School (Baptist) from the age of seven until I decided I no longer believed in God at age eleven. That was the beginning of a 27-year love affair with science, during which I adopted a naturalistic worldview and worked in commercial laboratories. Richard Dawkins was one of my intellectual heroes and I devoured books on popular science, seeing myself like Dawkins as a 'defender of the faith' in a world still steeped in superstition and ignorance. I began to find the materialist worldview stifling though, and, after reading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila, both of which had a revelatory effect on me, began to broaden my education, reading books on economics, philosophy and many other topics, with the notable exception of religion and spirituality, which I thought was for people who needed a crutch to get through life. Even being inside a church made me feel queasy and uncomfortable.

    However, in my mid-thirties, during which time I was studying for a physics degree with the Open University (unfinished), I began to have spiritual experiences. In fact the first one happened after I returned from a great OU Summer School in 1995, after which I 'came to myself' for the first time in my life. The glory of those days is still there within me. I slowly began to open to the idea that there might be something more than was apparent to the senses and began to widen my reading to include the paranormal (but not religion). Then in April 1998, I had a hypnogogic vision of great power, during which I briefly merged with a golden light, one of three in triangular formation. I knew instantly that there was a God and that far from being a 'skin' encapsulated ego' I was part of something much larger. My journey was not a 'fall' back to a superstitious mindset and simple belief in a heavenly Father, but the breaking down of an internal wall I had built up, and consequent exposure to new and breathtaking vistas. It was a hatching.

    After that I read hundreds of books on religion and spirituality and instinctively avoided the popular science books and magazines I used to devour (it was five years before my new worldview had settled in enough for me to read one again - it was The God Delusion, which now struck me as preachy, narrow minded and very weak on mysticism). I also had many mystical experiences, which have continued to this day, and which were a tour-de-force of spiritual phenomena. None of this was the result of psychotropic substances (although I'm sure my own naturally-produced DMT played a part), but i did twice try iboga, the African root bark, in 2012. They were physical ordeals but very, very interesting experiences. For sixteen hours, every time I shut my eyes I found myself inside an African hut. A shutter to the left would open, the light would flood in and I would be taken on another 'journey'. I've since then been warned away from psychedelics by the Holy Spirit. They are traps.

    There is no question that the spiritual journey has dangers even without drugs, and that we need the constant guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit through prayer. In my view, rather than escaping superstition you have gone back to the 'safety' of a more intellectual outlook, although I would say that once Pandora's box has been opened, it can never really be shut again. Once your worldview has been expanded, can it ever really be contracted again? But yes, this is really for another thread. It's too easy to get sidetracked in these discussions - and lets face it, there is nothing more interesting than discussing the meaning of life!

+ Reply to Thread

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
  •