Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

Closed Thread
Page 33 of 117 FirstFirst ... 232930313233343536374383 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 1162
  1. #321
    Ok, so its not relevant ?

    Can you give us some reasons of why. And the first words or CW does not hit nr 137 & 729 everywhere like you would like us to believe.

  2. #322
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmild View Post
    Ok, so its not relevant ?

    Can you give us some reasons of why. And the first words or CW does not hit nr 137 & 729 everywhere like you would like us to believe.
    I already gave you the reasons. I explained it twice and you never responded. It has nothing to do with the first word or CW hitting 137 and 729. Where did you get that idea? Why don't you quote the words I actually wrote and respond to them?
    • 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. #323
    But what about the absolutely idiotic absurdity of your "connections" between the index of the first word and the first letter with the number 729? You had said:

    - The first word ("In the beginning" = 913) of Gen 1:1 when counted by rotation is nr = 729 (a Alpha) & it starts with letter nr 729 by rot.

    The same thing could be said for every sentence ever written! It is no sign of design! It has absolutely nothing to do with the specific sentence found in Genesis 1. All you are saying is that 729 mod 28 = 1. There is no sign of design. Your numerology is utterly moron
    Ok, we are going to make a rule.
    When I say counted by rotation or "rot."
    Then it means that I counted in cycles in that verse until I arrived to the number we want regarding a word/letter of that verse.

    Its as simple as that.

    I am not going to use the "mod" term for reasons of simplicity.
    I get confused by the word "mod", I know of too many things that are related to the word "mod"
    Like a "mod" to a game
    Like a "mod" to a program
    Like a "weapon-mod"

    So I prefer "by rotation" when I address that method.

    Now on the absurdity of my "connections"

    I don't understand how the connection to the first word when counted by rot. = 729
    and that the first letter when counted by rot. = 729
    is "absurd".

    Neither do I understand that the CW of Gen 1:1 when counted by rot. = 137
    also is "absurd".

    All you are saying is that 729 mod 28 = 1
    Well see the way you put that up there. That is confusing.

    Its better to say: Letter nr 1 (by rot) = 729
    much more simple and neat.

  4. #324
    And if we want the most neat way of displaying it:


    L/W.nr Y (by rot) = X

  5. #325
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmild View Post
    Ok, we are going to make a rule.
    When I say counted by rotation or "rot."
    Then it means that I counted in cycles in that verse until I arrived to the number we want regarding a word/letter of that verse.

    Its as simple as that.
    Your rule is missing an essential piece of information. You need to specify the number you are using in your "rotation." It is frustrating and confusing to have to guess if you are using 7, 28, or some other number.


    Quote Originally Posted by Desmild View Post
    Now on the absurdity of my "connections"

    I don't understand how the connection to the first word when counted by rot. = 729
    and that the first letter when counted by rot. = 729
    is "absurd".

    Neither do I understand that the CW of Gen 1:1 when counted by rot. = 137
    also is "absurd".


    Well see the way you put that up there. That is confusing.

    Its better to say: Letter nr 1 (by rot) = 729
    much more simple and neat.
    Your words are not true. Letter nr 1 is the second letter Bet. It is not equal to 1 by rot. It is equal to 2. Of course, what you really meant to say is that the positional INDEX of the first letter is 1, and that is the same as 729 "by rot."

    It would be absurd to say that is a sign of design because it is true for every sentence ever written. The first word and first letter are always indexed by the number 1. So there is no sign of design in this example.

    As for the CW, I didn't mention that when I spoke of the absurdity of your connection. I was speaking specifically of the absurdity of thinking there is design in the fact that the index of the first word and first letter is 1.
    • 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. #326
    Your rule is missing an essential piece of information. You need to specify the number you are using in your "rotation." It is frustrating and confusing to have to guess if you are using 7, 28, or some other number.
    Well my rule includes the given fact that when I count by rotation in a verse, I always use the "specified number" which is the sum of the nr of words (usually) or letters.
    There is really nothing more to it.

    So if its the center word of verse nr x we are talking about, I usually give you the nr of words to that verse also so you can check.

    I think this is a simple & good way of doing it.

  7. #327
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmild View Post
    Neither do I understand that the CW of Gen 1:1 when counted by rot. = 137
    also is "absurd".
    The CW or Gen 1:1 has the value 401. It is not equal to 137 by rotating either by 7 or 28.

    What you actually meant was that 137 mod 7 = 4 and 4 is the positional index of the center word. You need to state what you mean with clarity.

    Of course, it is also true that the number 4 is equivalent to 11, 18, 25, 32, 39, 46, 53, 60, etc., etc., etc. using your method. You just cherry pick numbers you like from a mountain of random numbers.

    I see no sign of any design in that trivial coincidence which is true for any sentence consisting of 7 words.

    For example, the CW of this sentence is in position 4:

    You numerology is absurd and meaningless crap.
    • 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. #328
    Well I think it is very clear that it is significant.

    "Aleph & Tav" is Jesus since he is the first and last.

    But Aleph & Tav is also word nr 137 by rotation in Genesis 1:1
    a ALpha is connected to light.

    That is why we see:

    Center word of verse nr 401 = 16X 23 (ordinal of the first & last letter in Hebrew which is Aleph & Tav)
    First & last words of verse nr 401 = 397 "Jesus" (Hebrew)

    In verse nr 137+401
    - First word = 257 = CW of Vs(207 "light" in Hebrew)
    - Last word = 373 "Word" (Jesus)
    - First & Last word = 7 X 90 "king"
    - CW = 7 X (Prime order of 37 + Prime order of 73)
    - Total value = 7 X 137 "In the beginning"


    So maybe that's why Aleph & Tav is word nr 137 by rot.
    So the message is: In the beginning Aleph & Tav

    But you can always cherry pick what you think is significant.
    We know already know you have a habit of doing that.

    You numerology is absurd and meaningless crap
    Nope. You are meaningless and absurd. I have lots of info that tells me that I am right

  9. #329
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Desmild View Post
    Well I think it is very clear that it is significant.

    "Aleph & Tav" is Jesus since he is the first and last.

    But Aleph & Tav is also word nr 137 by rotation in Genesis 1:1
    a ALpha is connected to light.
    Aleph and Tav just happens to be the fourth word in the sentence. Your "connection" to 137 is meaningless because it is also "connected" to the numbers 11, 18, 25, 32, 39, 46, 53, 60, (etc., etc., etc. to infinity) using your method. You are cherry picking from an infinite set. There is no reason to think it is a sign of design. One out of every seven integers is "connected" to 137 using your method! It is totally meaningless.

    • 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. #330
    No its not meaningless. Don't be stupid.

Closed Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 28 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 28 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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