### Bible Wheel Book

1. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
208
Hi Richard.

It is wonderful to be discussing this with you - I LOVE your openness to examine the facts without any sense of defensiveness or rancor. Just seeking the truth. It is good to have you here.
The same goes for me. I've been on too many forums where disagreement rapidly leads to mudslinging. I like your statement that all we have to lose are our errors. Amen to that!

Have you listed the 70 names and their values in one place on your site? That would be helpful in our evalutation of the stats.
Here are the names:

Advocate, Almighty, Alpha, Amen, Anointed, Apostle, Beloved, Blameless, Branch, Bread, Bridegroom, Carpenter, Christ, Cornerstone, Counsellor, Creator, Deliverer, David, Door, Faithful, Flesh, Foundation, Fountain, Friend, God, Governor, Guide, Head, Holy, Immanuel, Intercessor, Jesus, Judge, King, Lamb, Life, Light, Lord, Master, Mediator, Messiah, Nazarene, Omega, Priest, Prince, Prophet, Pure, Rabbi, Rabboni, Ransom, Rod, Root, Redeemer, Righteous, Rock, Ruler, Salvation, Saviour, Servant, Son, Star, Shepherd, Shiloh, Teacher, True, Truth, Vine, Way, Wonderful, Word.

These are nearly all the names by which Jesus is known in the NIV Bible. There may be a few more. I compiled them for a debating opponent who offered to statistically test the signature phenomenon. We got as far as creating a test protocol, but then he withdrew for some reason.

This formula gives the probability of getting exactly k successes in n trials, where p is the probability of a single success. I understand why you chose p = 70/1201 since you began with 70 possible name values relating to Christ that that range from 18 to 1201. But if you use this range, I suppose that we should have used 1201 - 18 = 1183 which gives only a slightly higher probability. The number 10 refers to the 10 values of the 10 strings, and k = 6 refers to finding six values that match.

Now I plugged these numbers into the formula, and got a slightly different result than you:

Pn(k) = 0.00000647

The number is very close to yours, but it is different and I double checked it and it seems to be correct, so you might want to check your calculations. But this is a fine point that doesn't really matter since the conclusions are about the same.
You're correct. I got exactly the same probability as yourself, but somehow typed in the wrong figure. It's the same odds of about 1 in 150000. I couldn't remember whether the denominator should be 1201 or 1183 so thanks for confirming the correct figure.

When you used p = 70/1201 you were implicitly assuming a uniform distribution. But the likelihood of the value 1201 is about one fourth that of say 300. A proper statistical analysis would have to use this empirical probability distribution as a starting point. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I am sure that they would yield a much higher probability.
Agreed. My calculation was just a 'back of an envelope' effort.

But none of these probabilities mean very much to me anyway because if God designed something it should be self-evident and not dependent upon complex calculations with results that always contain uncertainty, and are meaningless to the vast majority of people anyway. The truly wonderful results of the Greek and Hebrew gematria such as the Creation Holograph are self-confirming and so don't require probability calculations to convince.
Yet you occasionally back up your own arguments with probability calculations!

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Probabilities.asp

Like you, I'm not keen on doing too much in the way of probabilities, although I would give other reasons. For one thing, the calculations rapidly become very complex and I don't have the expertise to handle them; for another, expert mathematicians on both sides of the ELS codes debate can't agree on their validity, which doesn't bode well for anyone else. Nevertheless, I believe that the occasional simple probability calculation can be useful in giving the reader a feel for the improbability of certain phenomena.

The truly wonderful results of the Greek and Hebrew gematria such as the Creation Holograph are self-confirming and so don't require probability calculations to convince. They are coherent self-reflective structures that are truly beautiful on many levels and become more beautiful the more one meditates upon them. For example, Genesis 1:1 has a self-similarity

Gen 1:1 = 2701 = 37 x 73 = Tri(73) = Tri(37) + 2 x 27 x 37

I highlighted the numbers (27, 37, 73) which form the Holographic Generating Set. Note that 73 = Star(4) and 37 = Star(3) = Hex(4), and that the text of Gen 1:1 subdivides in accordence with its grammatical structure to be self-reflective. Note also that 37 and 73 are reflective primes and that they are both star numbers, and that the digits 3 and 7 play a very significant role. And so on and so forth - this is just the beginning, the beauty of the Creation Holograph is endless, and goes as deep as deep can go.
The elegance and harmony displayed by the Creation Holograph is indeed a very convincing testament to its divine origin. I am also impressed by the reflectivity between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, where their numerical values sum to Tri(112) (Yahweh Elohim) and they encode pi, e and alpha. The implications are profound.

Even here, though, the scientific naturalist will cry 'coincidence!', accuse us of cherry picking, delusion, sophistry, etc and refuse to engage with any discussion about these wonders. I once thought that the internal harmony of the encoded material itself might be enough to convince them. Then I thought that speaking the language of science by using probability arguments might help convince. But now I see that no argument will work until someone is internally ready to accept it. I think the codes primarily exist to strengthen the believer and perhaps to encourage those who are ready to take the leap of faith.

It can be meditated upon and its intrinsic beauty always blossoms into new insights and wonder. It truly is "worthy of God" by which I mean that it displays His infinite wisdom in ten thousand ways. As yet, I do not see such beauty in the "signature" that we are exploring in the NIV. None of my conclusions about the Creation Holograph depend upon "probabilites" - the fact of its "design" is self-evident to everyone once they take the time to understand whats really going on.
Well, I hope to convince you that such beauty also exists within the NIV. As I have stated, the NBC has a single message, which it broadcasts clearly, insistently and through several different channels. One of these channels is the Creation Snowflake, which is the sign and seal of the Code:

http://www.thenewbiblecode.co.uk/the...snowflake.html

Six months ago I found that the standard, ordinal and reduced values of the name 'Jesus Christ' can be rendered as snowflakes (what a beautiful symbol for Christ!) and that these can all be cut from the Creation snowflake, moreover, fitting into its basic platelet structue of hexagon 19 and hexagram 37:

http://www.thenewbiblecode.co.uk/chr...owflakes1.html

I also found that the standard values of the names Ihsous, Yehoshua, Word, Immanuel (NIV spelling) could be rendered as snowflakes, again, all fitting within the Creation snowflake:

http://www.thenewbiblecode.co.uk/chr...owflakes2.html

Now I haven't actually published this yet, but I've found that the Creation snowflake beautifully symbolises Christ's Second Coming.

The number of units in the snowflake is 1279, which is the sum of 391 (Yehoshua) and 888 (Ihsous). But these numbers are also the standard value of the following phrases:

Second Coming (s) = 391
The Lord's Second Coming (s) = 888

Remember that these numbers can be rendered as snowflakes and so the Creation snowflake can be geometrically partitioned into

Second Coming (391) + Ihsous (888) = 1279
Or
Yehoshua (391) + The Lord's Second Coming (888) = 1279

Incredibly, we also have

Yehoshua Ha-Massiach (754) + Second Appearing (525) = 1279
The Lord (397) + Second Advent (882) = 1279

The snowflake is the sum of the sv of Jesus in Hebrew and Greek. However, the outer ring of the Creation snowflake has 906 units and is the sum of Jesus in English and Greek!

Jesus (515) + Yehoshua (391) = 906.

Therefore we also have

Jesus (515) + Second Coming (391) = 906

This is in fact encoded over the first 18 words of the NIV, partitioned into the first 12 words (515) and the next six words (391).

The snowflake ring is actually comprised of six smaller snowflakes of 151 units, each symbolising Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit

Jesus Christ (o) = 151
Holy Spirit (o) = 151

This snowflake also sits within snowflake 373, your logos star. Incidentally, I discovered the star independantly of yourself, but didn't realise its gematric significance until I found your website in 2003. So I thank you for that.

At the centre of snowflake 1279 is hexagram 37, reduced value of 'The Lord' and 'Spirit'. The outlines of each figure also represent significance numerical values, particularly the outline of the logos star, which has 108 units.

The Lord God (o) = 108

Finally, 1279 is the standard value of this name

The Almighty God (s) = 1279

There is much more to the Creation snowflake even than this, but that will do for now. The Creation Snowflake is saturated with the gematria of the divine and in fact must have been the reference source for the guidance of the evolution of several English names by which we know the Trinity. It is a kind of divine mandala, symbolising the Creator and His creations, divine beauty, harmony and truth and Jesus Christ and His Second Coming.

Is this miracle not by God's design?

In Christ,

Bill
Last edited by thebluetriangle; 12-20-2008 at 05:33 AM.

2. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Hi Richard.

The same goes for me. I've been on too many forums where disagreement rapidly leads to mudslinging. I like your statement that all we have to lose are our errors. Amen to that!
Hey there Bill,

Yes, I remember that you received the same depraved abuse as I on www.TheologyWeb.com. That's the worst forum I have ever seen on the internet. The folks who run it actively promote wicked violent abuse and mindless moronic mockery of anyone they disagree with. They have a "pack mentality" like a villainous gang of maladjusted adolescents who have found a victim to torment. And torment they do - with a glee that seems truly satanic. They even have a thread where they attempt to justify their wilfull abuse on the pretext that it is their Christian duty to "shame" folks whom they have judged to be in "error." That site is a absolute abomination. It is a travesty utterly opposed to everything taught by Christ and the Bible.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle

Here are the names:

Advocate, Almighty, Alpha, Amen, Anointed, Apostle, Beloved, Blameless, Branch, Bread, Bridegroom, Carpenter, Christ, Cornerstone, Counsellor, Creator, Deliverer, David, Door, Faithful, Flesh, Foundation, Fountain, Friend, God, Governor, Guide, Head, Holy, Immanuel, Intercessor, Jesus, Judge, King, Lamb, Life, Light, Lord, Master, Mediator, Messiah, Nazarene, Omega, Priest, Prince, Prophet, Pure, Rabbi, Rabboni, Ransom, Rod, Root, Redeemer, Righteous, Rock, Ruler, Salvation, Saviour, Servant, Son, Star, Shepherd, Shiloh, Teacher, True, Truth, Vine, Way, Wonderful, Word.

These are nearly all the names by which Jesus is known in the NIV Bible. There may be a few more. I compiled them for a debating opponent who offered to statistically test the signature phenomenon. We got as far as creating a test protocol, but then he withdrew for some reason.
Thanks for the list. But I notice that many variations on those names are missing. For example, Jesus is called "Alpha Omega", not just Alpha. And I think we should include the variations introduced by the article "the" (which you include in all your other analyses). Thus we would have "The Alpha Omega" and "The Advocate" and "The Almighty" etc, as well as "Sure Foundation" and so on. And we should use "and" in such titles as "Alpha and Omega." The list seems very far from complete, and when we fill it out, I think it will be at least tripled or quadrupled in size.

But .... the fact that your pattern links to his primary name "Jesus" is definitely a strong point in its favor.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
You're correct. I got exactly the same probability as yourself, but somehow typed in the wrong figure. It's the same odds of about 1 in 150000. I couldn't remember whether the denominator should be 1201 or 1183 so thanks for confirming the correct figure.
Excellent! That's why its so important to have someone to work with, to help catch those simple little errros - or to use my favorite metaphor, "To help weed out errors from your garden of Truth."

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Agreed. My calculation was just a 'back of an envelope' effort.
Yes, I understood that, and think it was an appropriate starting point.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Originally Posted by RAM
But none of these probabilities mean very much to me anyway because if God designed something it should be self-evident and not dependent upon complex calculations with results that always contain uncertainty, and are meaningless to the vast majority of people anyway. The truly wonderful results of the Greek and Hebrew gematria such as the Creation Holograph are self-confirming and so don't require probability calculations to convince.
Yet you occasionally back up your own arguments with probability calculations!

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Probabilities.asp

Like you, I'm not keen on doing too much in the way of probabilities, although I would give other reasons. For one thing, the calculations rapidly become very complex and I don't have the expertise to handle them; for another, expert mathematicians on both sides of the ELS codes debate can't agree on their validity, which doesn't bode well for anyone else. Nevertheless, I believe that the occasional simple probability calculation can be useful in giving the reader a feel for the improbability of certain phenomena.
You are absolutely correct my friend. There is a place for probability calculations. But I have rarely used them with regards to gematria because I have felt the results often fail to be convincing if the calculations involve probabilities that are not "self-evident." For example, I use probablity in the analysis of the structure of Genesis 1:1 becuase the result elegantly displays an indubitable fact that the frequency of the Number 37 as a factor is MUCH higher than random chance allows:

I discuss this in my article The Number 37. The meaning and validity of this graph is self-evident to anyone who understands it, and it accounts for all possible cases without any ambiguity. The results are certain and have no ambiguity. This is very different from the kinds of calculations required to support the "signature" because the "signature" is based upon a selection of words not found in the text, and the values of those words have distributions that "cluster" and there are many different ways you could have parsed the NIV text, and the values that you found in that text all fall within the expected ranges, and so on .... the results are simply not as "direct" or "obvious" or "convincing" in such cases.

I also use probability calculations for the Canon Wheel, and again, it is because I am able to do precise calculations with absolutely no ambiguity at all. The results are certain because I am able to count the exact number of possible "sevenfold canons" as well as the exact number of "symmetric sevenfold canons" and so can arrive at an exact probability with no ambiguity whatsoever. And this build upon a "top level" pattern that represents the entirety of the object being studied, whereas the "signature" is found in a fragmentary division of a fragmentary text found in one of hundred modern translations.

Well, that's enough for one post. I'll respond to the rest of your comments in another.

Many blessings to you my friend!

Richard

3. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle

Originally Posted by RAM
The truly wonderful results of the Greek and Hebrew gematria such as the Creation Holograph are self-confirming and so don't require probability calculations to convince. They are coherent self-reflective structures that are truly beautiful on many levels and become more beautiful the more one meditates upon them. For example, Genesis 1:1 has a self-similarity

Gen 1:1 = 2701 = 37 x 73 = Tri(73) = Tri(37) + 2 x 27 x 37

I highlighted the numbers (27, 37, 73) which form the Holographic Generating Set. Note that 73 = Star(4) and 37 = Star(3) = Hex(4), and that the text of Gen 1:1 subdivides in accordence with its grammatical structure to be self-reflective. Note also that 37 and 73 are reflective primes and that they are both star numbers, and that the digits 3 and 7 play a very significant role. And so on and so forth - this is just the beginning, the beauty of the Creation Holograph is endless, and goes as deep as deep can go.
The elegance and harmony displayed by the Creation Holograph is indeed a very convincing testament to its divine origin. I am also impressed by the reflectivity between Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, where their numerical values sum to Tri(112) (Yahweh Elohim) and they encode pi, e and alpha. The implications are profound.
We are in perfect agreement there, except that I don't find the calculations of pi and e very convincing because there is no "connectedness" between those numbers and the Creation holograph. Unlike the number 137, they don't play any role in its numerical structure.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Even here, though, the scientific naturalist will cry 'coincidence!', accuse us of cherry picking, delusion, sophistry, etc and refuse to engage with any discussion about these wonders. I once thought that the internal harmony of the encoded material itself might be enough to convince them. Then I thought that speaking the language of science by using probability arguments might help convince. But now I see that no argument will work until someone is internally ready to accept it. I think the codes primarily exist to strengthen the believer and perhaps to encourage those who are ready to take the leap of faith.
Yes, you are exactly correct that the vast majority reject any finding of any supernatural patterns in Scripture because they simply do not believe that God would do such a thing. But I give them some slack because the whole study of such patterns is filled with countless examples of chicanery and false claims, and it takes some effort to check out the results, and the bad track record gives them reason to think its not worth their time to debunk such claims. But that does not explain their absolute closed-mindedness or the wicked abuse they spew on anyone suggesting the reality of such patterns.

All this exemplifies why it is so important to focus upon patterns that are truly "self-evident" and that can be rigorously tested with unambiguous results. Nothing less will convince. That is one reason I have not been interested in English Gematria. All the results I have seen, except yours, are nothing more than a "cherry-picking" of words that happen to have the same numerical values. No one has ever found anything like the integrated, self-confirming structures like the holographs derived from the Greek and Hebrew original texts. Your "signature" is perhaps the best attmept I have seen in this regards, but it still is very fragmentary and can be supported only my complex probability calculations. It does not seem to me to be "self-evident" nor "self-confirming" and that's why it is not yet convincing to me. It actually feels like it si probably due to chance, or if not, I have not seen anything that makes it feel like it was designed.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Originally Posted by RAM
It can be meditated upon and its intrinsic beauty always blossoms into new insights and wonder. It truly is "worthy of God" by which I mean that it displays His infinite wisdom in ten thousand ways. As yet, I do not see such beauty in the "signature" that we are exploring in the NIV. None of my conclusions about the Creation Holograph depend upon "probabilites" - the fact of its "design" is self-evident to everyone once they take the time to understand whats really going on.
Well, I hope to convince you that such beauty also exists within the NIV. As I have stated, the NBC has a single message, which it broadcasts clearly, insistently and through several different channels. One of these channels is the Creation Snowflake, which is the sign and seal of the Code:

http://www.thenewbiblecode.co.uk/the...snowflake.html

Six months ago I found that the standard, ordinal and reduced values of the name 'Jesus Christ' can be rendered as snowflakes (what a beautiful symbol for Christ!) and that these can all be cut from the Creation snowflake, moreover, fitting into its basic platelet structue of hexagon 19 and hexagram 37:

http://www.thenewbiblecode.co.uk/chr...owflakes1.html

I also found that the standard values of the names Ihsous, Yehoshua, Word, Immanuel (NIV spelling) could be rendered as snowflakes, again, all fitting within the Creation snowflake:

http://www.thenewbiblecode.co.uk/chr...owflakes2.html
This brings up another issue I was hoping to discuss with you. The correlation between numbers and geometry in your system is fundamentally different than what we find in the Creation Holograph. In the Creation Holograph, the geometry of the numbers forms self-integrated and complete patterns that encompass the whole. They exhibit the fractal self-similarity over scale that follows the natural grammar of the text. For example,

2701 = In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth
703 = and the earth

2701 = Tri(73) = 37 x 73
703 = Tri(27) = 19 x 37

Thus we have a triangle within a triangle of Genesis 1:1 and the indexes of the two triangles are a pair of palindromic primes 37 and 73:

Furthermore, both of these primes are Star numbers:

37 = Star(3)
73 = Star(4)

But 37 also is the fourth centerer hexagonal number that resides in the heart of Star(4) = 73:

All this structure is built in to the text of Genesis 1:1 and it all forms a total and complete and coherent unity. This is is why it is "convincing." And this is just the "tip of the iceburg" of course.

Now getting back to my point - in your work it appears that you have not found a text with an internal self-coherent structure represented by stars and hexagons, but have merely linked the stars and hexagons with the values of a variety of words that you yourself chose from the nearly infinite sea of possibilities. Thus, the ony way you can "prove" that the connections with the geometry are significant is to do advanced probability calculations that are almost certainly going to fail to convince. The fundamental problem is that stars and hexagons and their variations account for a huge proportion of all numbers. You can probably find a way to represent any number of the form 6n + (-1,0,1) in using variations on the hex/star pattern, which means that you can represent one half (50&#37 of all numbers using "pretty pictures" that are based on those patterns. Thus, if the patterns are not built into the text itself, it looks like another exercise in "cherry picking" because the probabilities are just too high.

As always, it is wonderful to be working with you on these important questions,

Richard

4. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Well, I hope to convince you that such beauty also exists within the NIV. As I have stated, the NBC has a single message, which it broadcasts clearly, insistently and through several different channels. One of these channels is the Creation Snowflake, which is the sign and seal of the Code:

http://www.thenewbiblecode.co.uk/the...snowflake.html
Hey there Bill,

I took a look at that page and found that you started your presentation with these three identities:

The source (o) ...........= 114
The beginning (o) ......= 114
The tabernacle (o) .....= 114

Here you are using the ordinal values and included the article "the" which has the value the (o) = 33. The basic words have the value 81. In my analysis of English Gematria, I found that there are 718 words with this value up to about halfway through the "s" section (my program stopped there because of limitations of Excel). Here is the list:

abandoning
abatement
abducting
abettor
absconder
acceptor
acolyte
actions
activate
aerofoil
agnation
airdrop
airiest
allaying
allegiant
always
amphibole
amputee
analeptic
analysed
angelfish
annular
annuls
anomaly
another
antennal
appealing
appeaser
arbitrage
arbitral
archangelic
arrest
arrival
asafoetida
ascendant
assailable
attune
audiences
audience's
augment
avoiding
aweather
awesome
awkward
axioms
axiom's
baguette
bakery's
ballonet
ballots
ballot's
bandwagon
bargepole
barkeeper
battens
beatniks
bedazzle
bedpost
beginning
bergamot
bespangle
betokened
betony
beveller
bimorph
biochips
blackbirds
blackheart
blaspheme
blastoff
blesses
blighter
bogwood
bombings
bonhomie
bonzes
bootblack
boozer
borders
boxboard
bracteole
branchiate
brandling
brawly
breezy
breveted
brimful
browned
brumby
buckets
buggy's
bulgur
busts
byplay
cablegrams
cahoots
canary's
candlefish
canteens
capitals
carbolated
cardinals
carotene
carriages
carriage's
cartful
caryatid
catechism
causerie
cellaring
census
centipede
cerebrated
cervix
cheerers
chelonian
chemises
chewers
chicory
chimerical
chopper
chorales
chortle
chromes
churls
clansmen
clarifier
clasping
clearances
clearance's
cleveite
climbers
clocklike
coaster
coaters
coattail
cocotte
cofactor
coincides
colleague
colonial
competed
compos
concerned
concluded
confess
confiding
congener
consign
coopered
coquet
cornmeal
cortical
cosset
cotter
coulomb
course
cousin
cowardice
crewmen
cringing
critics
crocheted
crooks
crust
curst
cutlet
cutup
cypsela
dainties
decalcomania
decollated
decouple
defection
defensible
deflator
defoliated
deliberate
delicacy's
delimited
delouse
demotes
denounce
deprecated
deriver
designer
deskilled
desolate
despaired
despised
detachably
detailing
diatoms
dictates
digress
dilapidate
dimmers
dimmer's
discerned
diseases
dishabille
disused
diviner
divorcee
dockyard
dogwatch
dollars
dominate
doubts
downy
drapers
drawler
droning
druidical
duckling
echelons
effective
effuses
egomaniacal
ejection
elderly
elective
elegises
elephant
eligibly
embedment
embower
emulated
enclaves
encumber
enemy's
enflaming
engendered
enigmatic
enlarges
enliven
enosis
enriches
enters
enticing
entrain
envoy
equipage
erecting
evacuees
evincible
evolve
exalts
excavate
excitable
excused
execrate
exerted
expels
expired
explain
explode
extended
eyeballs
facsimiled
factional
falters
fantast
farrow
fashioned
fatalism
feasting
feldspar
ferment
ferreted
ferrite
fidgeting
fillers
finessed
firebrick
firefly
fishnet
fixers
flagellate
flapping
flatfish
flatling
flights
flight's
floured
flyboat
foggily
foliose
fondling
footpace
footy
forbiddance
forbidder
forenamed
foreside
forgot
fraught
freshet
galleys
galley's
gaudery
generals
general's
genocides
gentler
gerenuk
gerfalcon
germicidal
gestated
gleesome
glimpse
glints
glooms
glossed
godless
goldbrick
googly
gooney
goosy
gotten
govern
grainier
grandly
graphics
graspable
gravies
griller
grimacing
grivet
grouched
grout
grudges
grudge's
guarding
gunny
halftone
halogens
hammerer
handicapped
handlers
haphtarah
harmonic
hazily
hearings
hecklers
hematite
heretical
hermetic
hideous
highborn
highway
hinderer
hinting
hitchhike
hogwash
holders
holily
honest
honkies
hooligan
hooter
hosts
host's
hounds
hours
hour's
hovels
hovel's
howler
humbly
hydrate
imitated
immoral
impacts
impaling
imposed
incandesced
inclinable
incredible
indefinable
indexical
indolence
inducing
inductee
inefficacy
inferno
infix's
ingrained
inherence
injured
inmates
inmate's
interface
intoned
invoiced
iodinated
ironical
irony
isolate
jackanapes
jillion
joggers
joggling
jollier
jostle
juggles
jumbuck
junket
junky
keelson
keeshond
keyboard
keyhole
kingcup
kinsman
kisser
kittled
knout
knuckled
lactates
lagniappe
lambskin
lamellate
landlocked
largess
latex's
lavender
lazuli
leanings
leasehold
legions
legion's
lesbians
levers
lever's
lewdly
libellees
ligament
likelier
likening
likings
lingoes
litany
lobular
locating
lolling
loony
loots
lowland
lugsail
lumps
luring
lurks
machismo
mainlined
maintain
manageably
managerial
manuals
manual's
marauder
margins
margin's
marinate
masons
mason's
mastoid
matron
mechanised
medially
medicines
medicine's
meditated
mercers
mescaline
messy
metrical
mitten
mitts
moderate
moneyed
mongered
monocled
motor
moult
mourn
mowing
muffler
mulches
murex
mussed
myopic
narrated
nautical
navy's
negligence
nester
nevus
newts
nibblers
niftier
ninepin
noises
nosebleed
novella
nucleate
nursed
oarsman
oblique
obtainable
officers
officer's
onetime
ongoing
onstage
oozy
opting
ordure
orient
orphaned
outpace
ovary
oxcart
oxtail
packagers
palsies
paltered
panderer
panting
papery
papist
parsecs
pastiche
pasty
pauses
pedagogue
pedicure
penalise
penchant
percent
permit
pianism
pickers
pickling
piercing
piggyback
pillages
piloted
pinecone
pinfish
pintail
pitchy
plagues
plastid
playoff
plenum
plodding
plums
plum's
poetical
pondered
porgy
potpie
pouted
powder
preaching
preceding
predawn
predecease
predicate
prelude
prepay
probated
probing
problem
procaine
profile
prosaic
puddles
punks
queens
queen's
quieted
racially
railcars
raincoat
rankly
rapping
rarest
raster
ratfish
rattail
realty
reasoned
rebukes
recalling
reclaimable
recoils
redesign
redolence
redound
reducing
referees
referee's
refills
refuges
regional
renaming
replete
rescinded
resent
residue
resigned
rests
resume
revels
revive
ricochet
ridicule
riffling
rights
riots
ripens
riptide
ritual
rivals
rocketed
romps
ropier
rounded
ruins
ruling
saccharine
sailboard
sandwich
scalping
scanning
scarify
scathing
scheduled
schematic
schooled
scooted
scowled
scrabbles
scrapes
scratched
scribing
scudding
seafowl
seashell
seaweeds
secants
seesawed
seethes
senses
service
settle
shakers
shamus
sharpen
sharps
shearing
shelly
shifts
shiplap
shiver
shots
shot's
shovel
shredder
shrive
shucks
shuffled
shuns
sidings
signals
silicon
similar

Given this vast array of words, I don't seen how choosing three of them could show any sign of "design" in the language. What do you think about this?

Richard

5. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
208
Hi Richard.

Thanks for the list. But I notice that many variations on those names are missing. For example, Jesus is called "Alpha Omega", not just Alpha. And I think we should include the variations introduced by the article "the" (which you include in all your other analyses). Thus we would have "The Alpha Omega" and "The Advocate" and "The Almighty" etc, as well as "Sure Foundation" and so on. And we should use "and" in such titles as "Alpha and Omega." The list seems very far from complete, and when we fill it out, I think it will be at least tripled or quadrupled in size.
I may have misled you here. These are single-word names by which Jesus is known. It's 70 words long because my debating opponent asked for a minimum of 70 words and it's single words because the signatures are all single words. It's suitable for testing the signature phenomenon but not comprehensive, although I believe most of the names are there.

But .... the fact that your pattern links to his primary name "Jesus" is definitely a strong point in its favor.
Yes! Of all names, why would the sv of 'Jesus' be encoded over the first 12 words? Incidentally, the first 12 words of Exodus also sum to 515.

I discuss this in my article The Number 37. The meaning and validity of this graph is self-evident to anyone who understands it, and it accounts for all possible cases without any ambiguity. The results are certain and have no ambiguity.
I agree that the 37 spike is indicative of design and support the Creation Holograph.

This is very different from the kinds of calculations required to support the "signature" because the "signature" is based upon a selection of words not found in the text,
Yes, but they are meaningfully related to the text and to the overarching theme of the Bible. The fact that I'm taking ordinal values effectively prevents the kind of integration you seek, because large strings of words are required to encode the numbers. Perhaps this encoding method was an inevitable result of a translation being used, since the text was fixed to some degree, and this would limit the encoding options. I don't think this invalidates the NBC, though.

and the values of those words have distributions that "cluster" and there are many different ways you could have parsed the NIV text, and the values that you found in that text all fall within the expected ranges, and so on .... the results are simply not as "direct" or "obvious" or "convincing" in such cases.
Yes, but as I hope I've shown, the signatures are statistically unlikely. That is difficult to explain. Now you're right. Many different word-string lengths could be chosen. From what I've seen, other word-string lengths have about the expected frequency of numbers related to Jesus Christ. Only multiples of 6 words have the phenomenon (although multiples of 8 words also seem to be encoded with Pope John Paul II's name). This is itself unusual, and when you factor in the link between 6 and the Creation story it suddenly makes perfect sense! Moreover, the Creation snowflake is also integrated with these encodings and is linked to further gematria of the Trinity through its numerical properties. Ignore meaning and the code falls apart; it is meaning that holds it all together.

What do you think of the encodings of Beelzebub, Satan and 216 in Rev. 13:18? They are perfectly integrated with the text structure.

I also use probability calculations for the Canon Wheel, and again, it is because I am able to do precise calculations with absolutely no ambiguity at all. The results are certain because I am able to count the exact number of possible "sevenfold canons" as well as the exact number of "symmetric sevenfold canons" and so can arrive at an exact probability with no ambiguity whatsoever.
I appreciate that you can get an exact probability here. I was just making the point that there is a place for probability calculations. I think we are agreed on that, though.

And this build upon a "top level" pattern that represents the entirety of the object being studied, whereas the "signature" is found in a fragmentary division of a fragmentary text found in one of hundred modern translations.
It is a fragment, but it is a meaningful one in that the number 24, reduced value of Ihsous, is meaningfully related to the signatures, also of Jesus, and to the Creation Snowflake. The NIV is certainly only one translation, but it is the world's most popular modern English translation, nglish being the international language of choice. The version 'given' to me for decoding is the 2001 edition, the year of 9/11.

I'll get to your other two postings tomorrow.

God bless!

Bill

6. Hi Bill,

I don't mean to overwhelm you with posts, but I'll just keep commenting as time permits. I find this discussion very interesting
Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Hi Richard.
Originally Posted by RAM
Thanks for the list. But I notice that many variations on those names are missing. For example, Jesus is called "Alpha Omega", not just Alpha. And I think we should include the variations introduced by the article "the" (which you include in all your other analyses). Thus we would have "The Alpha Omega" and "The Advocate" and "The Almighty" etc, as well as "Sure Foundation" and so on. And we should use "and" in such titles as "Alpha and Omega." The list seems very far from complete, and when we fill it out, I think it will be at least tripled or quadrupled in size.
I may have misled you here. These are single-word names by which Jesus is known. It's 70 words long because my debating opponent asked for a minimum of 70 words and it's single words because the signatures are all single words. It's suitable for testing the signature phenomenon but not comprehensive, although I believe most of the names are there.
I understand your point, but I don't see any way to justify the idea that the single words are more "suitable" for a signature than more specific double words like "Jesus Christ" or even triple words like "Lord Jesus Christ." I'm pretty sure you would be just as happy, if not moreso, to find such exalted titles in the signature.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Originally Posted by RAM
This is very different from the kinds of calculations required to support the "signature" because the "signature" is based upon a selection of words not found in the text,
Yes, but they are meaningfully related to the text and to the overarching theme of the Bible. The fact that I'm taking ordinal values effectively prevents the kind of integration you seek, because large strings of words are required to encode the numbers. Perhaps this encoding method was an inevitable result of a translation being used, since the text was fixed to some degree, and this would limit the encoding options. I don't think this invalidates the NBC, though.
Yes, they are meaningfully related to the text, but so are many other words and phrases. I grant that the two you found are on the "short list" of the best "meaningful phrases" but since we are attempting to evalutate the probability we need to consider how many other possibilities there are. This does not "invalidate" the NBC, but it may invalidate your attempt to prove the NBC with stats. Of course, that is yet to be determined. We are still in the process of trying to lock down the number of possibilities so we can get a firm handle on the real probability.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Originally Posted by RAM
and the values of those words have distributions that "cluster" and there are many different ways you could have parsed the NIV text, and the values that you found in that text all fall within the expected ranges, and so on .... the results are simply not as "direct" or "obvious" or "convincing" in such cases.
Yes, but as I hope I've shown, the signatures are statistically unlikely. That is difficult to explain. Now you're right. Many different word-string lengths could be chosen. From what I've seen, other word-string lengths have about the expected frequency of numbers related to Jesus Christ. Only multiples of 6 words have the phenomenon (although multiples of 8 words also seem to be encoded with Pope John Paul II's name). This is itself unusual, and when you factor in the link between 6 and the Creation story it suddenly makes perfect sense! Moreover, the Creation snowflake is also integrated with these encodings and is linked to further gematria of the Trinity through its numerical properties. Ignore meaning and the code falls apart; it is meaning that holds it all together.
Yes, the meaning is very important, and the Number 6 links directly to the contextual meaning, so there is some support from that angle. But it is a weak level of support that will be seen as meaningful only if we can find some solid support for the idea of the signature in the first place. Since you are using small numbers to divide the words, there is a one in ten chance of finding a pattern based on any number from one to ten. We need something stronger to establish the reality of the signature itself, which still "feels like" a chance occurrence to me.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
What do you think of the encodings of Beelzebub, Satan and 216 in Rev. 13:18? They are perfectly integrated with the text structure.

Here it is again:
Rev. 13:18 (NIV)
This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
Rev. 13:18 (o) = 1151
Beelzebub (s) = 1151
'let him calculate the number of the beast' (o) = 352
Satan (s) = 352
'for it is man's number' (o) = 216 = 6 x 6 x 6
All three encodings are integrated with the text structure. There are further number encoded here too.
I was able to validate all your results except for the value of the entire verse which I calculate to be 1133 + "666" which you apparently interpreted as "1133 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 1151. That is not entirely out of line and it does have some post hoc confirmation (since it works), but it is not a direct encoding along the lines of other things you have done. My first thought would have been that you would add 666 to 1133 to get 1799. That number seems far more likely as the number "encoded" (if any). It looks like you are using the ordinal value for the words and the reduced value for the string "666". I have a problem with the fact that you had to invent a new "rule" to make this work. That strongly erodes my confidence that it was designed by God. Is this the best example you have of an "integrated structure"?

Well, it's time for dinner.

God bless you my friend,

Richard

7. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
208
Hi Richard.

We are in perfect agreement there, except that I don't find the calculations of pi and e very convincing because there is no "connectedness" between those numbers and the Creation holograph. Unlike the number 137, they don't play any role in its numerical structure.
I'm not here to defend Vernon's findings, but isn't the fact that pi and e are there at all convincing evidence of design? That they are the two most important mathematical absolutes? That each are encoded by the same simple method? That these verses are in extremely prominent locations and are reflective of each other? I don't see why they have to be part of the Creation Holograph (perhaps they are simply ornamentation?) to be convincing, or why we have to understand the reason for their presence for it to be convincing. The improbability of their occurence, their location, their importance in mathematics, science and technology and the other phenomena at these locations is surely good evidence of some kind of intelligent design. The fact that, as far as we know, e and alpha were unknown in biblical times cannot be explained from a naturalistic perspective and points to supernatural design.

All the results I have seen, except yours, are nothing more than a "cherry-picking" of words that happen to have the same numerical values.
I agree with that. In seven years, and with perhaps one exception, I don't recall coming across anyone working with English gematria with whom I've felt I could properly discuss my findings. Most seem to be stuck at the level of finding numerical equivalencies under the ordinal value system, which has too narrow a spread of values to be of much use. I was guilty of cherry picking myself at first (and my work still isn't perfect) but I was lucky enough to have an early effort severely criticised by Vernon Jenkins, which helped raise my consciousness and for which I am grateful.

This brings up another issue I was hoping to discuss with you. The correlation between numbers and geometry in your system is fundamentally different than what we find in the Creation Holograph. In the Creation Holograph, the geometry of the numbers forms self-integrated and complete patterns that encompass the whole. They exhibit the fractal self-similarity over scale that follows the natural grammar of the text. For example,

2701 = In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth
703 = and the earth

2701 = Tri(73) = 37 x 73
703 = Tri(27) = 19 x 37

Thus we have a triangle within a triangle of Genesis 1:1 and the indexes of the two triangles are a pair of palindromic primes 37 and 73:

Furthermore, both of these primes are Star numbers:

37 = Star(3)
73 = Star(4)

But 37 also is the fourth centerer hexagonal number that resides in the heart of Star(4) = 73:

All this structure is built in to the text of Genesis 1:1 and it all forms a total and complete and coherent unity. This is is why it is "convincing." And this is just the "tip of the iceburg" of course.
Agreed!

Now getting back to my point - in your work it appears that you have not found a text with an internal self-coherent structure represented by stars and hexagons, but have merely linked the stars and hexagons with the values of a variety of words that you yourself chose from the nearly infinite sea of possibilities.
What I found in the first two verses of Genesis was three numbers that corresponded to three important structural properties of a fractal snowflake, two of which integrated with the signatures. The snowflake itself is very strongly linked to the Trinity through the three systems of gematria we have been discussing and in fact seems to have been the reference for many important numerical values related to the Trinity and especially to Jesus Christ and the Second Coming. This geometric element strengthens the alphanumerical connections, or, if you like, the alphanumerical connections point to the figure. That is remarkable enough because of its extreme improbability - a rough estimate is 1 in 54 million against chance occurrence - The fact that this figure is then found to be encoded in the same place as the signatures, and is also stamped with the number 6, is surely highly significant.

Isn't it also interesting that the Creation Snowflake can be constructed entirely from hexagram 37 and its internal hexagon? That it can be grown using an iterative process that mimics the 6-plus-1 days of Creation? That it is encoded within the Creation narrative? That the seed for this process and the figure that sits gloriously in the centre of the snowflake is none other than hexagon 37?

Thus, the ony way you can "prove" that the connections with the geometry are significant is to do advanced probability calculations that are almost certainly going to fail to convince.
If they indicate that the probability of occurrence is low, why should they not at least help to convince? I notice that your argument against Christ's snowflakes is that the probabilities are too high. Surely it works both ways!

Thus, the ony way you can "prove" that the connections with the geometry are significant is to do advanced probability calculations that are almost certainly going to fail to convince. The fundamental problem is that stars and hexagons and their variations account for a huge proportion of all numbers. You can probably find a way to represent any number of the form 6n + (-1,0,1) in using variations on the hex/star pattern, which means that you can represent one half (50&#37 of all numbers using "pretty pictures" that are based on those patterns. Thus, if the patterns are not built into the text itself, it looks like another exercise in "cherry picking" because the probabilities are just too high.
There is a 1-in-3 chance of a number giving some kind of snowflake and a 1-in-6 chance of it giving a snowflake with a solid centre. But most of the snowflakes I found also fit onto the hexagon 19/hexagram 37 platelet structure. The numbers that give some of the most well-proportioned snowflakes are important gematria values related to Jesus Christ - and some of the the best of all (although this is a subjective judgment) are those relating to the standard, ordinal and reduced values of the name 'Jesus Christ'.

I haven't worked out the probability of

1) the sv, ov and rv of 'Jesus Christ' all giving solid-centre snowflakes (that would be 1 in 216)
and
2) these all integrating with the platelet structure of the Creation Snowflake (unknown)

but it must be low and that must be significant, adding to all the other connections between Jesus Christ and the Creation Snowflake.

Bill
Last edited by thebluetriangle; 12-20-2008 at 08:05 PM.

8. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
208
Hi Richard.

I took a look at that page and found that you started your presentation with these three identities:

The source (o) ...........= 114
The beginning (o) ......= 114
The tabernacle (o) .....= 114

Here you are using the ordinal values and included the article "the" which has the value the (o) = 33. The basic words have the value 81. In my analysis of English Gematria, I found that there are 718 words with this value up to about halfway through the "s" section (my program stopped there because of limitations of Excel).Given this vast array of words, I don't seen how choosing three of them could show any sign of "design" in the language. What do you think about this?
These are under the ordinal value system and so the connections will be weak at best. It's an old page that is due to be updated and I am far more cautious now about using ordinal values in that way than I was then. In fact I knew I shouldn't have put them in at the time, but couldn't resist doing so. Those identities will soon be gone, as will a few more further down the page. They are not, however, central to the argument and don't really impact it. The site is a work in progress...

I think there is some design in the English language, but that it is less obvious than under Hebrew and Greek. Modern English has a huge vocabulary but I think that words and phrases describing fundamental or emotive concepts show some level of design. In fact that may be how gematria was encoded. The psychic energy behind words with great meaning to us might be used by a higher power to encode them.

9. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
208
Hi Richard.

Yes, they are meaningfully related to the text, but so are many other words and phrases. I grant that the two you found are on the "short list" of the best "meaningful phrases" but since we are attempting to evalutate the probability we need to consider how many other possibilities there are. This does not "invalidate" the NBC, but it may invalidate your attempt to prove the NBC with stats. Of course, that is yet to be determined. We are still in the process of trying to lock down the number of possibilities so we can get a firm handle on the real probability.
One empirical way of demonstrating the unusual degree of order in the signatures is to look for 'signatures of Christ' in control texts (the first 24 or so words of any novel, newspaper article etc) and visually compare them with the NIV. The 70 words would be good for this exercise. From the little I've done a few 'signatures' can be found in other texts, but the NIV is unique in that the signatures are highly ordered. It's not just the high number of them that is significant, it's the tight structure within which they are held.

Yes, the meaning is very important, and the Number 6 links directly to the contextual meaning, so there is some support from that angle. But it is a weak level of support that will be seen as meaningful only if we can find some solid support for the idea of the signature in the first place.
It seems to me that the support comes from the other encodings that link to the signatures and the overall message of the code. It all stands or falls together. Perhaps I should show you some other evidence so you can get a wider feel for the NBC. But it's 3;45am here so I need to be getting some sleep! I'll get back to this tomorrow. But finally,

Rev. 13:18 (NIV)
This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666.
Rev. 13:18 (o) = 1151
Beelzebub (s) = 1151

'let him calculate the number of the beast' (o) = 352
Satan (s) = 352

'for it is man's number' (o) = 216 = 6 x 6 x 6

All three encodings are integrated with the text structure. There are further number encoded here too.

I was able to validate all your results except for the value of the entire verse which I calculate to be 1133 + "666" which you apparently interpreted as "1133 + 6 + 6 + 6 = 1151.
Yes. In my experience numbers are to be summed as the individual digits, just as if they were letters. This is perfectly logical and appears to hold throughout the NBC. However, the value indicated by the numerals can also be used as a secondary means of obtaining a number. So 1151 is the correct value, with 1799 perhaps giving supplimentary information.

That is not entirely out of line and it does have some post hoc confirmation (since it works), but it is not a direct encoding along the lines of other things you have done. My first thought would have been that you would add 666 to 1133 to get 1799. That number seems far more likely as the number "encoded" (if any). It looks like you are using the ordinal value for the words and the reduced value for the string "666". I have a problem with the fact that you had to invent a new "rule" to make this work. That strongly erodes my confidence that it was designed by God. Is this the best example you have of an "integrated structure"?
I'm not using the reduced value of 666, I'm simply taking the ordinal value of the individual digits, as if they were FFF. So there is no new rule invented. It's ordinal values all the way. Experience has taught me that this is how numerals are to be treated. However, it has also taught me that numbers, especially in tables, are to be summed as they are. I'll give you examples of both tommorow. I'll also give you another example of an integrated structure.

Goodnight and God bless,

Bill

10. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Hi Richard.

Originally Posted by RAM
I took a look at that page and found that you started your presentation with these three identities:

The source (o) ...........= 114
The beginning (o) ......= 114
The tabernacle (o) .....= 114

Here you are using the ordinal values and included the article "the" which has the value the (o) = 33. The basic words have the value 81. In my analysis of English Gematria, I found that there are 718 words with this value up to about halfway through the "s" section (my program stopped there because of limitations of Excel).Given this vast array of words, I don't seen how choosing three of them could show any sign of "design" in the language. What do you think about this?
These are under the ordinal value system and so the connections will be weak at best. It's an old page that is due to be updated and I am far more cautious now about using ordinal values in that way than I was then. In fact I knew I shouldn't have put them in at the time, but couldn't resist doing so. Those identities will soon be gone, as will a few more further down the page. They are not, however, central to the argument and don't really impact it. The site is a work in progress...
Hi Bill,

This is why I am enjoying the conversation so much - you are a true seeker of truth. You are not "afraid of the facts" and you learn from your interactions with others. It is a very good example for all of us.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
I think there is some design in the English language, but that it is less obvious than under Hebrew and Greek. Modern English has a huge vocabulary but I think that words and phrases describing fundamental or emotive concepts show some level of design. In fact that may be how gematria was encoded. The psychic energy behind words with great meaning to us might be used by a higher power to encode them.
That is interesting, and worthy of discussion. Have you published any evidence concerning the design of the words relating to "emotive concepts"?

Richard

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

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