Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 2127282930313233 LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 323
  1. #301
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    You didn't answer my question (as usual).

    How does the "1-4 principle" justify your belief in your 666 thing in Genesis?

    How does the "1-4 principle" justify your rejection of the relation between 66 and the Bible Wheel?
    Truth doesn't need to be justified



    "hashishi" is 434th word

    434 = "delet" door, name of the fourth letter.

    A door can be shut or open

    Genesis 19:5-6,
    And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us be intimate with them." And Lot came out to them to the entrance, and he shut the door behind him


    וְהַדֶּלֶת סָגַר אַחֲרָיו, "v'hadelet sagar acharav"

    You need a key to open it

    key = "mafteach" (= opener) = the 1-4 principle

    "hey"= 5 = gematria of "1-4" = "ed" (of Genesis 2:6), in LXX translated with πηγὴ

    πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπότιζεν πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς

    After this Revelation 21:6,
    καὶ εἶπέν μοι Γέγοναν. ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν. ὁ νικῶν κληρονομήσει ταῦτα,

  2. #302
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,620
    Genesis 14:14 is the only instance where gematria comes to the surface of the text.

    And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan.


    318 being gematria of the name Eliezer.

    Rashi:
    his trained men: Heb. חֲנִיכָיו. It is written חֲנִיכוֹ [in the singular], his trained man (other editions: It is read). This is Eliezer, whom he had trained to [perform the] commandments, and it [חֲנִיכָיו] is an expression of the initiation (lit. the beginning of the entrance) of a person or a utensil to the craft with which he [or it] is destined to remain,

    three hundred and eighteen: Our Sages said (Gen. Rabbah 43:2, Ned. 32a): It was Eliezer alone, and it [the number 318] is the numerical value of his name.

    It also says "born in his house" , יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ "y'lidiei veito"

    cf. Genesis 17:27,
    And all the people of his household, those born in his house and those bought with money from foreigners, were circumcised with him.

    those born in his house = i.e. Eliezer.

    i.e Torah secrets are just for the circumcised

    If you are not circumcised you cannot understand

  3. #303
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I can accept your reason for omitting woman and Eve, but your reason for omitting man makes no sense to me at all. Man is created in Genesis 1. I don't see how you could omit him without being inconsistent.
    It makes no difference to the final tally, but you are right to question it. My explanation is as above, though. If the text had stated that God had created simply 'man' I would have tested that. But it does not, because man was in a qualitively different state before the Fall. God did not create fallen man. He created man in his own image. If I extend the list to Genesis 2 it will have 'man'.

  4. #304
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I'm checking your list and found most of your pairs look correct so far, but I found an inconsistency in the Hebrew translated as "the gathered waters". The value 276 includes the lamed prefix, meaning "to" as discussed previously. The correct value without any conjunction or preposition would be 246.
    Thanks for that. I already knew it wasn't going to be a hit from the English value, so I didn't check the Hebrew as thoroughly I should have done.

  5. #305
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The Hebrew has the definite article, but the NIV (1984) did not translate it. I see you included it in the calculation of the Hebrew value. Is that your general policy for cases like this? If so, why? If we remove conjunctions and prepositions, why do we keep the definite article when it is not translated?
    I did it that way originally, but it should have been changed. Thanks for pointing it out. It makes no difference anyway, as both 322 and 317 are in the Garden.

  6. #306
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post

    If you are not circumcised you cannot understand
    That must be why Revelation 13:18,

    ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου

    Revelation 17:9,

    ὧδε ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἔχων σοφίαν

    νοῦς = the mind of circumcision or circumcised mind

  7. #307
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Bill,

    To my eye, it looks like you are deliberately designing your "principles" to get the result you want. It looks like a transparent form of data manipulation, not really different than cherry picking because first you look at the data, check to see what "fits" the pattern you are trying to prove, and then you craft "principles" that are designed to select that specific data you want.
    Perhaps you could tell me then why you also are getting hits well above the expected number. Your 43 gave 22% above the random average and your 31 gave 17% above it. In both cases the result was statistically significant according to the standard adopted in many areas of research. You seem to be turning a blind eye to your own results, and to widely-accepted standards of significance.

    YOU aren't trying to manipulate the data in the direction of greater hits, are you? The truth is, neither am I. The latest list, which you didn't see when you wrote this, should put your fears of data manipulation to rest, since I essentially put everything in it. With one proviso, I haven't cherry picked, or left things out. I did make a choice regarding what part of a noun phrase to test, but I tried to stick to the same principle throughout - the minimum number of words required to define the object. So for example I had to use 'the spirit of God' because 'the spirit' is not specific enough. Other principles could have been chosen, but if followed they would still have given substantially more than 55% hits. So there is no way to hide the 'statistical anomaly' present. Whatever we display, whatever we hide, the code comes shining through!

    This latest list of 70 is NOT a list of material I think is encoded. It's more like a list of everything in the text that might have been encoded. If there is no code, this list should have given about 55% hits. Instead it gave 69% hits, over two standard deviations above the expected mean (although that has still to be done).

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    And it seems that your list of 31 does not even follow those principles anyway. Just as God "manipulated" the water when he "separated the water under the expanse from the water above it" so also he "manipulated" the light and the darkness when he "separated the light from the darkness."
    'The water' was part of what God created and Genesis 1.7 describes a creative act involving water, which is why I included it, rather than 'the waters', which it doesn't state God created. 'The darkness' sounds like something that existed before creation, so not involved in God's creative acts. Separating water into two parts isn't quite the same thing as separating light from darkness, a non-'thing'. It's certainly arguable though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I will wait for you to produce a list that follows a clearly stated set of objective principles that are not obviously crafted to give the results you are hoping to find. Until you do that, the statistics will be meaningless.
    I do not claim that the lists are perfectly consistent. I don't think perfect consistency is possible. What I am claiming is that the 'code signal' is there no matter what principles we choose. What really is meaningless is dismissing the size of a statistical anomaly, when

    a) the significance you have been playing down (over 2SDs above the mean) is perfectly okay for the pharmaceutical industry, and
    b) the size of that anomaly is as critically dependent upon the number of items on the list as it is on percentage hits.



    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The translation of "arun" as "chest" in that instance is a perfect example of why I say the NIV (1984) is an inferior translation.
    What? I could just as easily point to the ambiguity in the Hebrew word arown. The chest of acacia wood God instructed the Isrealites to make is NOT the full Ark! At that early stage it didn't even have a cover. The NIV is not inferior here. It is SUPERIOR, because it discerns between the ark of the testimony and a plain, coverless box. Your bias here is obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    There is no justification to translate the same Hebrew word differently in that one verse than in every other place it occurs in reference to the ark. Simply stated, it is an inconsistent, misleading, confusing, bad translation.
    Discernment isn't bad. It's good. At what point does a chest become an ark? Whatever point that is, it is not stage 1, where all you have is a hollow chest without a cover. Is a car a car without doors, wheels, an engine, seats, etc? No, it's just a metallic shell. The NIV is better here, not worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And that is why every other English translation I have ever seen translates "arun" consistently as "ark" in Exodus 25:22. I'm talking about the 22 English translations listed on this page which includes Young's Literal Translation, the King James, the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, and even the NIV (2011), to name a few. They ALL translate "arun" as "ark." The NIV (1984) is the only English translation I've seen that differs on this point.
    This is a logical fallacy. The correctness or otherwise of the translation doesn't depend on how many other translations are done that way. This is the mentality of the mob, not thinking people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    The fact that the current version of the NIV corrected the mistranslation of arun as "chest" made me curious about what other changes were made in the NIV (2011) version, and why you are so adamant that your code depends specifically on the NIV (1984).
    I looked up arown in Strong's. It can mean ark, chest, money chest or even a coffin - which is where your argument belongs.

    http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/Strongs.php?Strongs=H0727

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It didn't take long to find the answer. I found this site that lists all the changes for the entire Bible. The changes in Exodus 25 are particularly destructive to your code, because not only does it translate arun as "ark" but it also changed "ark of the Testimony" to "ark of the covenant law", and neither "the ark of the covenant law" nor "ark of the covenant law" are found in the grid. If it was so important to God, why did he not influence the translators to protect his code? He supposedly had no trouble influencing the translators of the 1984 version. What happened? Can you explain this?
    Can you explain why you think I should be able to explain this? What I can explain is why only one version has the code. Versions are updated all the time, and since the code is critically dependent upon the wording, only one version COULD have a code. The NIV 1984 may now be out of print, but it is preserved online, and in millions of bibles across the English-speaking world. The 1984 edition (not version) was also the one that was current when the events the code explains were occurring: 9/11 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II. So it isn't just one of the many versions available and although it is in the past now, it was produced to COINCIDE with these two end-times events and was the best selling English Version at the time, English being the international language of choice. If God was going to put a code in the Bible, it would be that version, that edition and that language.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    And this brings up a huge issue with your claim that the NIV being the "most popular" and the "best selling" translation. That's an ambiguous statement. Yes, the NIV is the best seller, but which version? The NIV (1984) may have been the best seller for a while in the past, but not anymore, because that version (which your code critically depends upon) is OUT OF PRINT and has been since 2012. See this article The Death of The NIV 1984 Bible (1984-2012).
    Thanks for the link. I'll read it. It's irrelevant though, because it was alive at the time it mattered. You shoot a bird. You put it in a box (sorry, ark). Then you point to it and tell people it doesn't fly any longer so we can forget about it. What mattered was what it did when it was alive. That bird was a stork and the bore the new child the world has been waiting for. Luckily it delivered it before someone got out their blunderbuss.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Can you please explain why God would influence the translators of the 1984 version to encode his message, and then have that version taken out of print and replaced with a version that destroys the heart of his code? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
    The code isn't destroyed! It only had to be delivered once. IT'S ALL THERE! 9/11 is in the past too: do we have the memory of goldfish? Who has forgotten about 9/11? The code is information and the message only had to be delivered once. The miracle is that the message is there in the first place. You're like someone who sees an apparition of the Virgin Mary in church then complains that it didn't happen again the next week. Miracles are by their very nature rare things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I totally disagree. I see no sign of any code whatsoever. The slight statistical anomaly looks like the result of cherry picking and data manipulation (by carefully crafting "principles" that select the data that fits your pattern).
    Calling this a 'slight statistical anomaly' is wrong on every level and shows inexcusable bias from one so well educated in mathematics. I've shown you how the more we find the more unlikely it becomes. If we combine the latest list of 70 items with the 25 ark items, so there are no repetitions, giving 68 hits out of a possible 95, we find that the probability of random occurrence is now 1 in 1500. That is well over 3 SDs above the mean and a clear signal to those with ears to hear that the code is real. Those two lists are as fairly compiled as is possible, or pretty close to it, and the biggest list is heavily padded with items that probably aren't encoded anyway - and yet the 'code signal' is still there!

    When are you going to accept it?
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 05-20-2017 at 03:21 AM.

  8. #308
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Why did you omit "plants"? They seem as "general" as "vegetation."
    It's there in 'seed bearing plants'. I missed out 'trees' too and went for 'trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, and all the other versions. If there had been a verse that stated simply 'plants' or 'trees' then I would have put them in. Every different version that actually is there has been included though. That seems like a fair way to do it.

  9. #309
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    That must be why Revelation 13:18,

    ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου

    Revelation 17:9,

    ὧδε ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἔχων σοφίαν

    νοῦς = the mind of circumcision or circumcised mind
    It is what Paul mentioned "circumcion of the heart"

    (to mind something is a matter of the heart)

    Romans 2:25-29,
    Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law. One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.

  10. #310
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post

    And this brings up a huge issue with your claim that the NIV being the "most popular" and the "best selling" translation. That's an ambiguous statement. Yes, the NIV is the best seller, but which version? The NIV (1984) may have been the best seller for a while in the past, but not anymore, because that version (which your code critically depends upon) is OUT OF PRINT and has been since 2012. See this article The Death of The NIV 1984 Bible (1984-2012).

    Can you please explain why God would influence the translators of the 1984 version to encode his message, and then have that version taken out of print and replaced with a version that destroys the heart of his code? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.
    Have you read that article about the death of the NIV 1984? It doesn't exactly help your case that the 1984 edition is inferior. The writer loves that edition (as do I), laments it's passing and points to the link below for a critique of the changes made, mostly it seems to appease the politically correct and feminist lobbies.

    https://unlockingfemininity.wordpres...he-niv-2011-2/

    I couldn't agree more. I became aware of this issue with translation in 2011 (coincidentally when the above article was written, when I gave an early manuscript of my book about the code to a somewhat wise Christian, who immediately pounced on my own use of 'gender inclusive' language. I saw he was correct and changed mealy mouthed words like 'humankind' back to 'mankind', etc. It seems the NIV 2011 has been rewritten to conform to the literary requirements the politically correct would like to impose upon the rest of us, and in fact seems to not even be gender neutral but biased against men now - but they won't be complaining about that. I certainly won't be buying it. I liked the 1984 version before I even knew there was a code in it and it's the only version I ever want to have, other than an old KJV I was given for perfect Sunday School attendance. But that's mainly for sentimental reasons.
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 05-20-2017 at 06:31 AM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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