Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 52
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Has anyone ever mentioned that you have a very perverse way of putting things?

    Crowley wasn't the only influence, and most of his stuff came from other sources. The most direct influence that gave rise to the Bible Wheel was the Jewish concept of the 231 gates taught in the Sepher Yetzirah, as you already know.

    As for drugs, the answer is yes as I explained in my article Debunking Myself - What A Long Strange Trip It's Been.
    I thought the number 66, gematria of "galgal"= wheel

    Why the number 231?

    Sefer Yetzirah mentions to this "oneg" and "nega" both with gematra 123

    I thought "The pleasure is the pain" of the New York band "The Shirts" ( with Annie Golden) was after this

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdHX3op6Fbk

    I saw her once life on our local pop-podium -- but that was rather disappointing

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    I thought the number 66, gematria of "galgal"= wheel

    Why the number 231?
    Why are you acting confused? The number 66 is both the value of the word "galgal" and the number of books in the Bible that fit in three cycles of 22 spokes on the galgal. This is trivial. This is obvious. You've known these elementary facts for over a decade.

    As for the number 231, you know that's from the description in the Sepher Yetzirah, which says: "Twenty-two Foundation letters: He placed them in a circle like a wall with 231 gates" which refers to the number of two letter combinations that can be made with the 22 Hebrew letters. I mentioned it because that text was the direct inspiration for the Bible Wheel. You knew this. Why are you acting confused?
    • 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. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Why are you acting confused? The number 66 is both the value of the word "galgal" and the number of books in the Bible that fit in three cycles of 22 spokes on the galgal. This is trivial. This is obvious. You've known these elementary facts for over a decade.

    As for the number 231, you know that's from the description in the Sepher Yetzirah, which says: "Twenty-two Foundation letters: He placed them in a circle like a wall with 231 gates" which refers to the number of two letter combinations that can be made with the 22 Hebrew letters. I mentioned it because that text was the direct inspiration for the Bible Wheel. You knew this. Why are you acting confused?
    I don't see what the number 231 has to do with your Bible Wheel

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,602
    As for me, I came to it via my Hebrew teacher at catholic university -- I went there because I wanted to know about what the bible is and about why I should become catholic.

    He mentioned Weinreb (in his lessons about the creation stories) -- "you can look at these texts in a completely different way, but then you must read Weinreb". But he wasn't allowed to go this way (Pope and Bishops forbade so. Gematria or numerology is from the devil.)

    So then I went to read Weinreb's "De Bijbel als Schepping" , which is based on his finding of the 1:4 ratio of the two trees in paradise.

    Next I found the number 666 in Genesis 1:31, just sittimg at the table looking in my Hebrew bible, under a lamp, for it was evening/night.

    That was for me a sure sign.

    Maybe I was stoned, because sometimes I did smoke hashish.

    I even thought that Hebrew "l'vonah", translated as incense, Greek "libanos" (one of the presents the sorcerers brought for the new born baby Jesus), must have been some kind of drug comparable to mariyuhana.

    I told Weinreb, who had very much welcomed my finding of the number 666 in Genesis 1:31, but he was absolutely not pleased with my suggestion.

    Since then I just go alone.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    I don't see what the number 231 has to do with your Bible Wheel
    I didn't say the number itself had anything to do with the Bible Wheel. I spoke specifically of the phrase "231 gates" found in the Sepher Yetzirah, as you well know. Here again is what I said:

    "The most direct influence that gave rise to the Bible Wheel was the Jewish concept of the 231 gates taught in the Sepher Yetzirah, as you already know. "

    Then you asked "Why the number 231?" as if you didn't know what I was talking about, so I gave you a more detailed answer, saying:

    "As for the number 231, you know that's from the description in the Sepher Yetzirah, which says: "Twenty-two Foundation letters: He placed them in a circle like a wall with 231 gates" which refers to the number of two letter combinations that can be made with the 22 Hebrew letters. I mentioned it because that text was the direct inspiration for the Bible Wheel. You knew this. Why are you acting confused?"

    Obviously, the number 231 itself had nothing to do with my point about the inspiration of the Bible Wheel. The direct inspiration came from the passage that spoke of the 22 Hebrew letters being placed in a circle (galgal) and that passage refers to the wheel (galgal) as "231 gates" and I used that phrase because any idiot with half a brain would have understood exactly what I meant. But you did not. Wow.

    If you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, please leave.
    • 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. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    There are two reasons why I think it might be an encoding (well, more, but that would take longer to explain).

    1. I believe that the Hebrew, Greek and English codes are all part of a larger Code (created as a single gestalt out of time but manifesting within time), and finding 'Jesus Christ' in English, Hebrew and Greek clustered together within the first twelve words of the Hebrew Genesis lends itself to that hypothesis. The cluster is fairly tight too. If as you say there is about a 50% chance of finding any given number around the middle of the range then the chances of finding 925, 754 and 2368 within the first 12 words are only about 12% (very roughly), although of course that is hardly stunning evidence. But . . .

    2. The words used to form the three numbers 925, 754 and 2368 sum to 2571, or 857 x 3. This is Theou Logos/God's Word, which seems to nicely tie them together and support the design argument.

    I agree though, it's not the best evidence. I'm working on a page of my findings in Hebrew and Greek for the website and wasn't sure whether or not to include this information, which is why I posted here. I also thought you all might like to see it. I think I'll leave it out for the moment - thanks for the analysis.
    Hey there Bill,

    I can see why you find these "coincidences" meaningful. I have a multilayered response that oscillates between evidence for and against your hypothesis. The first response is that your method looks meaningless because it generates so many numbers, and so it seems like you are just cherry picking from an essentially random set. But then I did a test by randomizing the input numbers and found that 100,000 randomized sets yielded only 1932 sets with both 888 and 1480, so the phenomenon is rather rather rare (about 1.9%). But then I thought about the fact that you had limited the sample size AFTER having found the result you were looking for, and that feels like a misleading way to do statistics. It's feels akin the "Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy" where you draw a circle around the place an arrow fell AFTER shooting it, creating the illusion of "prediction" when in fact nothing was predicted in a falsifiable way. We both know that if you had not found what you were looking for in that limited set of 8 words, you would have been happy to use the larger set. It appears that only "hits" have any meaning in your system which is essentially the root error shared by both selection bias and confirmation bias, which also are the root errors of all forms of numerology. This makes your system seem unfalsifiable and raises the question: How could anyone have any confidence in method that can only "confirm" what one wants to believe?

    Of course, I know you would say that a given hypothesis could be falsified, such as the hypothesis that a small region of the first words should contain the value of exalted title of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST = 3168. That hypothesis fails for the first 13 words, despite the fact that your method gives a coverage of 71% of all numbers in the range of 3100-3199. If we were to believe that the text was designed with the number 3168 in mind, we would have to conclude it was designed to exclude rather than include that number. If we then expand the range to include the 14th word, we finally get a hit (or rather four combinations that yield 3168) but this appears to be due to nothing but random chance since the coverage in that range is now at 94%.

    Now don't get me wrong. The fact that you found the values 888 and 1480 is a striking "coincidence" that supports your hypothesis, even though you didn't find 3168. But I also know that the sums generated from the words in Genesis 1:1 are not really independent. There are 23 multiples of 37 in the set of 127 combinations which is about seven times larger than expected. Now you could say this was "by design" to make a connection with Jesus Christ, but the Jews could agree about the "divine design" of Genesis 1:1 and also say that the connection with the Greek value of Jesus Christ is a meaningless coincidence, because obviously not all multiples of 37 were intended to be connected to Genesis 1:1. They would note that finding connections with random multiples of 37 would be inevitable, due to mere statistics. They could say this is the reason you could find 888 and 1480 but not 3168 (which doesn't share the common factor 37). They could totally agree with the "divine design" of Genesis 1:1 but reject your connection with Jesus Christ, just as you would probably reject the fact that JESUS = 74 = LUCIFER means Jesus is Lucifer. You could, in turn, reject their rejection as "bias" and that brings us back to my primary criticism of your method - it is based fundamentally on bias. Results are accepted or rejected based on preconceived beliefs. This is a problem shared by all humanity, and it is what the scientific method was designed to mitigate. Simply stated, I don't think that science will confirm your hypothesis.

    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

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I didn't say the number itself had anything to do with the Bible Wheel. I spoke specifically of the phrase "231 gates" found in the Sepher Yetzirah, as you well know. Here again is what I said:

    "The most direct influence that gave rise to the Bible Wheel was the Jewish concept of the 231 gates taught in the Sepher Yetzirah, as you already know. "

    Then you asked "Why the number 231?" as if you didn't know what I was talking about, so I gave you a more detailed answer, saying:

    "As for the number 231, you know that's from the description in the Sepher Yetzirah, which says: "Twenty-two Foundation letters: He placed them in a circle like a wall with 231 gates" which refers to the number of two letter combinations that can be made with the 22 Hebrew letters. I mentioned it because that text was the direct inspiration for the Bible Wheel. You knew this. Why are you acting confused?"

    Obviously, the number 231 itself had nothing to do with my point about the inspiration of the Bible Wheel. The direct inspiration came from the passage that spoke of the 22 Hebrew letters being placed in a circle (galgal) and that passage refers to the wheel (galgal) as "231 gates" and I used that phrase because any idiot with half a brain would have understood exactly what I meant. But you did not. Wow.

    If you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, please leave.
    Aryeh Kaplan:

    https://books.google.nl/books?id=aqc...20oneg&f=false

    "The word for "plague" , nega, is obtained from Oneg, by simple rotation.
    But it's not simple rotation, since in "nega" first letter is "nun", which is middle letter in "oneg", etc.

    https://rabbielimallon.wordpress.com...brew-alphabet/


    A "plague" like leprosy is a source of "ritual impurity." "Ritual Impurity" disallows us access to worship in the Temple - i.e. to G-d's Presence. The verse could then imply that "oneg" is the delight (i.e. delighting in what G-d does for us) that allows us closeness to G-d ; "nega" is what keeps us from G-d. They are opposite ends of what life offers, yet contain the same letters!

    On the surface, it might be taken for the kind of word-play that often appears in the Talmud: A pun is used to teach a homiletic lesson with a degree of ironic humor.

    But this teaching appears in the Sefer Yetzirah in the broader theme of G-d using the Hebrew letters as "agents of Creation." G-d creates the letters, which can then appear in the order N-G-O (O indicating ayin/ע) in "nega/plague" or as O-N-G in "oneg/delight." The Hebrew letters themselves are the means by which G-d appears as either "oneg" or "nega."

    "nega" is first mentioned in Genesis 12:17,
    And the Lord plagued ( "vaynaga") Pharaoh [with] great plagues ( "n'ga'im g'dolim") as well as his household, on account of Sarai, Abram's wife.




    It makes think of Epstein's Island with (cubic) "holy of holies"




    cf. Rabbi Ginsburgh on "entering the Temple"

    Last edited by sylvius; 08-18-2019 at 04:00 AM.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Cardiff, UK
    Posts
    2

    Responding to Richard's welcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Vernon Jenkins! Great to see you!

    This should be very interesting!
    Responding to Richard?s welcome.

    Hi Richard, great to be in touch again! But, reading your blog, I gather you?re not the man I once knew!

    My initial challenge to atheists is contained in my book ?The Second Edge: A Role for Numerical Coincidence in the Pursuit of truth?. This may be freely downloaded from www.whatabeginning.com/book.pdf

    A number of related papers have recently been published within Academia.edu. These include ?The Euclidean Imperative?, "Genesis 1:1 ? the Chain Tessellations? and ?Genesis 1:1 ? The Parametric Equations, and Beyond?. In the last ? and most recent ? of these I describe how the metric dimensions of an ISO standard for cut paper sizes (published in 1975) mirrors the numbers associated with the first 8 words of the Hebrew Bible. Keeping in mind also the fact that these words preceded the introduction of the Hebrew scheme of alphabetic numeration by a millennium, or so, can you suggest a naturalistic explanation?

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Bill,

    I can see why you find these "coincidences" meaningful. I have a multilayered response that oscillates between evidence for and against your hypothesis. The first response is that your method looks meaningless because it generates so many numbers, and so it seems like you are just cherry picking from an essentially random set. But then I did a test by randomizing the input numbers and found that 100,000 randomized sets yielded only 1932 sets with both 888 and 1480, so the phenomenon is rather rather rare (about 1.9%). But then I thought about the fact that you had limited the sample size AFTER having found the result you were looking for, and that feels like a misleading way to do statistics. It's feels akin the "Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy" where you draw a circle around the place an arrow fell AFTER shooting it, creating the illusion of "prediction" when in fact nothing was predicted in a falsifiable way.
    Yes, you're right about the sharpshooter fallacy, which applies to both 888/1480 and 925/754/2368 in the first twelve words. It's maddeningly difficult to analyse these patterns though. I am impressed by the clustering of the results in both cases, which we wouldn't expect from chance alone (or would we, since both 888 and 1480 share so many factors?). I'm also impressed by the fact that both 1480 and 888 are found within the first 8 words, and that 8 is the dominical number and associated with Christ. If we broaden the analysis to include these other numbers, surely that would improve the percentages? A single number is nothing. I think we'd both agree on that. but confluences of numbers - in this case, 888, 1480 and 8, make a far better case, I would say.

    We both know that if you had not found what you were looking for in that limited set of 8 words, you would have been happy to use the larger set.
    I tend to be conservative in that respect, but many others would have been, yes, and I probably have been guilty of it in my work.

    It appears that only "hits" have any meaning in your system which is essentially the root error shared by both selection bias and confirmation bias, which also are the root errors of all forms of numerology. This makes your system seem unfalsifiable and raises the question: How could anyone have any confidence in method that can only "confirm" what one wants to believe? [ . . . . . ]
    Simply stated, I don't think that science will confirm your hypothesis.
    Let's treat it as a scientific hypothesis then. One could ask the question "Given the patterns within Genesis 1.1, which seem to point to triangle 2701, is chance or design more likely? (let's leave out for now who the designer was).

    Based on a numerical reading of Genesis 1.1 - and only Genesis 1.1 - using the pre-existing system of alphabetic numeration used by the Jews (this bypassing selection bias), what are the chances of obtaining the following coordinated geometric properties?

    1. Words 1 to 7 sum to the 73rd non-centred numerical triangle and a G-triangle (1/3 of all non-centred triangles).

    2. Words 6 + 7 sum to the 37th G-triangle, which is the 'core' triangle of T73.

    3. Words 1 + 3 + 5 + 6 sum to 1801, the 25th centred hexagon formed by the self-intersection of T73.

    Including subtraction, we have

    4. Word 1 - word 4 - word 7 sums to 216, the perimeter of T73.

    5. Words (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) = words (5 + 6 + 7)sums to 505, the 13th trefoil, which fits snugly within T37 and therefore (when inverted) with T73.

    6. Words (1 + 2) - words (3 + 4 + 5) + words (6 + 7) sum to 937, the hexagram that fits snugly inside T73.

    7. Words (3 + 4 + 5 ) + words (6 + 7) - words ( 1 + 2) sum to 469, the hexagon that fits inside hexagram 937.

    If we expand to include G-triangle geometry in general, we have

    8. Word 1 - 2 + 3 - 4 + 5 - 6 + 7 = 679, a star tetrahedron based on G-triangle 91 (T13).

    9. Words 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 1585, the 23rd trefoil (antisnowflake equivalent of a hexagram). This is also the 33rd centred triangle and each of these can be created from the template of a G-triangle. See here. The G-triangle template for 1585 is 4753 (T97) and subtracting 1585 units gives 3168, Kurios Ihsous Christos. So 3168 may not be found in the first few words but it is implied - and within G1.1!

    All this and much more is found just from reading the first seven words as numbers and by the simple manipulations of those words - and nothing else.

    The Bible is not a natural object, but the numerical subtext can perhaps be treated as one, given the 'null hypothesis' that there is no relationship between the meaning of the words themselves and their numerical values. Given all of the above findings, I would hypothesise that there has been some level of design in the text, and that the designer is aware of the structural properties of G-triangles. We could further speculate (treating the Bible's numerical properties as 'natural') that nature itself may contain some deep level of design.

    It seems to me that the only way of disproving this hypothesis is by showing that it is a trivial matter to find the basic properties of a single geometric object within a single verse of seven words.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by Vernon View Post
    Responding to Richard?s welcome.

    Hi Richard, great to be in touch again! But, reading your blog, I gather you?re not the man I once knew!

    My initial challenge to atheists is contained in my book ?The Second Edge: A Role for Numerical Coincidence in the Pursuit of truth?. This may be freely downloaded from www.whatabeginning.com/book.pdf

    A number of related papers have recently been published within Academia.edu. These include ?The Euclidean Imperative?, "Genesis 1:1 ? the Chain Tessellations? and ?Genesis 1:1 ? The Parametric Equations, and Beyond?. In the last ? and most recent ? of these I describe how the metric dimensions of an ISO standard for cut paper sizes (published in 1975) mirrors the numbers associated with the first 8 words of the Hebrew Bible. Keeping in mind also the fact that these words preceded the introduction of the Hebrew scheme of alphabetic numeration by a millennium, or so, can you suggest a naturalistic explanation?
    Hey there Vernon,

    I'm really glad you shared that link. I have answered in a new thread so we can focus specifically on your work. It is called The Second Edge: A Role for Numerical Coincidence in the Pursuit of Truth

    See ya there!
    • 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
  •