But of course something *has* been taken away. You said it yourself, the Bible Wheel is nothing more than a subset.



Here's a demonstration of what can (and does) happen when stuff is left out. Which letter of recommendation would you rather have written on your behalf... the entire letter below, or the one you'd get if you only used the odd-numbered lines:

__________________
Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

No, they don't.

Protestant scholars don't use those terms for anything but the Old Testament.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

That would be the "traditional order" among a certain subset of Protestants in a particular language which is not Hebrew . . . .

Last post in this thread from me . . . .not worth the effort.

__________________
"Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord." Heb. 12:14

Crossed the Tiber 1980 (no, I can't swim)

The study of the Wheel may awaken the interest of people from several different groups in the truth of Christ. As they examine the alphabetic connections that illustrate how the Old and the New Testaments are intertwined, they may realize the depths of God's wisdom, being attracted to the Church and thus being converted.

Consider the Jews in special. They only believe in the OT protocanonical books. As they find that their much cherished Bible seemlessly connects to the New Testament revelation by means of an unbreakable thematic alphabetic chain, they may be led to Christ and the Church.

And they are the ones who best know the symbolic meaning of the letters.

There was a group of devout Jews who once examined the Bible Wheel and they simply couldn't find a flaw on the alphabetic correlation between the books and the letters. They finally admitted that this impressive correlation could not be a product of "mere coincidence," but must have been designed. So they said that Jerome - who knew the meaning of the Hebrew letters and also had some measure of influence on the Bible book sequence when he assembled the Vulgate - silently contrived the correlation between the books and the letters. Then it was shown to them that it would be impossible for Jerome (or any human, for the matter) to orchestrate all of that, and they said that it was "a test from HaShem" to check if they would still adhere to their Jewish faith.

Just as alphabetic Psalm 37 speaks of the fate of sinners and the reward of the just from Aleph to Tav, Psalm 119 preaches the crucial importance of the Word of God from Aleph to Tav.

But you're right: The fate of sinners and the reward of the just should be what matters the most in our lives. Our desire for salvation instead of damnation is what should guide our paths. The study of the unity of Scripture, though very important, is secondary.

Thank you for you examplary demonstration of the beauty of the Christian character. It shines for all to see.

In the peace of the Lord Jesus Christ,
Victor

v1gilbert,

That is the precise form of examination that I was expecting. You're trying to think through the claims and seeing if they hold water.

Now let's begin with your first point: the author claims that the alphabetic correlation between the books and the letters "derives from Scripture and Scripture alone". But then you remind us that "his inspiration for using the 22 Hebrew letters in a circle was derived from his reading of the Sepher Yetzirah," which is not Scripture.

I actually have already responded to this objection on post #31. I will say it again using other words so as to perhaps make it clearer.

The Wheel shows how the sequential meanings of the Hebrew letters precisely correspond to the distinctive themes of the books. So it associates each Letter to three corresponding Books. So:

1. The meaning of the letters is found in Scripture (as in Psalm 119). (BTW, Jewish-Christian tradition also helps.)
2. The books are found in Scripture.

Therefore, the correlation between the meanings of the letters and the books "derives from Scripture and Scripture alone". Does it not? We're comparing two objects that both come from Scripture, so the study derives from Scripture only. The correlation between the books and the letters exists (or not) even when we don't display it on the form of a circle.

How in the world then does the Sepher Yetzirah enter in? Well, when you compare two sets of objects, it helps a lot for didactic purposes to put them on a table. That's what we do all the time when we want to arrange data: place it on a schematic table.

So when Richard noticed the correspondence between the books and the letters, he was obviously led to put them on a table to visually display the correlation. That's the inevitable corollary.

Now, he could have had simply placed the data on a rectangular table as we are most naturally prone to. A few columns and a few rows would do it. That's what I sort of did on my first post on this thread. But since Richard was familiar with Jewish thought, he knew of this millenium-old pious tradition that says that God 'placed the letters in a circle'.


The Alphabetic Circle

So he found it appropriate to place the book-letter correlation on a circular grid instead of your average rectangular matrix. The difference wouldn't matter anyway, for the gist of the study is the thematic correlation between the books and the letters.

But of course there is much beauty in visually displaying the correlation in circular form. The geometric form of the circle is a powerful visual aid when we want to represent unified data. (E.g. [1], [2])

If Richard hadn't found inspiration to systematize the circular correlation in a Jewish tradition, he could have found it for example on many beautiful cathedrals that illustrate biblical types and images in circular form, such as in the huge round dazzling stained glass windows and domes.

I have more to say on that but I'll only be able to continue tomorrow.

Not only that, Ronald Wilson Reagan (666) is the anti-Christ. It's right there, count the numbers!

I've got to come up with something like this. Thars gold in them tahr hills! And I might as well get some with the scholarship I can bring to bear.

I must say I am extremely disappointed in the display of "Christian Love" that has been exhibited by every poster on this thread except Victor, and Gilbert....

Gilbert began this thread with the sincere request of gathering information pertaining to the validity of the Bible Wheel....and what has he received from his brothers and sisters in Christ (except for Victor)? Nothing but mockery and derision of a man (Richard) none of you know, about a work that is nothing less that the Holy Bible itself (even if most of you think it's an incomplete version, none the less it still is the core of every Christian Bible).

If any of you would have truly desired to seek after the truth, you would have gone to Richard's website and found that there is nothing there but praise, and glory given to God, and His Son Jesus Christ.

I feel great shame that this is the way some of my fellow Christian choose to act...

As I mentioned in my last post, the idea of circular presentation is not necessary to verify the staggering and undeniable thematic correlation between the themes of the books and the meanings of the letters. It is just like the Bible itself -- no one needs to paint icons to teach the Faith, but they are a pious and powerful way to illustrate the truths of Christianity. Theology can be communicated in color and form.

And so it goes with this study of the Alphabetic Correlation. You can present it entirely without any need to resort to a visual aid, but you can display in a single glance the entire study by means of that visual aid.

The Sepher Yetzirah thus only gave a suggestion about how to display it. And it was a very good suggestion in line with all Christian tradition that arranges in visual form the great biblical doctrines, most specially by means of the form of the Circle.





I quote a passage from the Bible Wheel book:

Throughout history and across all cultures, artists and religious iconographers have recognized the Circle as the ideal symbol of completion, perfection, things Divine, and things eternal. No other figure expresses these ideas with such simple elegance. It is a universal symbol; an archetype from the Mind of God. We see it in the glorious rainbow roundabout God's throne (Ezek 1:28, Rev 4:1), in the halos above the heads of His saints, and even as a symbol of the very act of creation when God "placed a compass upon the face of the depth" (Prov 8:27). (...)

The Circle is uniquely qualified as the geometric form of God's eternal Word. It possesses significant properties found in no other two-dimensional figure. It is the most compact, meaning that the ratio of the perimeter to the area is less than any other figure. The Wheel, therefore, is the most compact two-dimensional representation possible by which the Bible may be geometrically integrated with the Hebrew alphabet. This follows the same minimization principle that characterizes many physical laws.

Note then how we can say that the present study springs from "Scripture only" at the same time as we can use an insight - the alphabetic circle - as an visual aid to illustrate what is going on.

Now we know that there are some suprising twists and turns in the study of God's Holy Word waiting for us. Case in point: during four years, Richard explored the thematic correlation between the books and the letters, finding many distinctive links between each book and the corresponding Hebrew letter. The circular form in nothing impacted the thematic network.

Then one day he thought about the Bible in terms of canonical divisions. You know, groups such as Torah, Major Prophets, etc. He mapped the canonical divisions on the circular table, and it was found that the pairs of canonical divisions delimited a three-fold radiance isomorphic to the one we find in most icons of the Incarnate Word.



That was completely unexpected! The thematic correlation between the books and the letters, when seen in terms of canonical divisions on the circular grid, displayed the same essential structure that generations of Christian artists spanning many centuires used to depict the Triune and cruciform glory of the Lord!

The circular structure of those Bible books was self-displaying the central message of the Bible message - the love of the Triune God manifested on the Cross! Now that touches my frail heart.

In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Amen!

I say this with all possible friendship.... You are entitled to your opinion, but for those of us that are Catholics and have been all of our lives, in my case 60 years,...when we are approached with another "attempt to disprove Catholicism by justifying Protestantism".... that feeling of "deja vu" just comes alive....and here we go again.

What you have to understand is that since the reformation, non-Catholics, specifically those who are adherents of the reformers...for the most part have been trying to disprove the Truth and reality of the Holy Catholic Church. You have to be just a tad more than "disingenuous" to believe that we can be led by our noses through a maze of your contrivance formulated to try and dissuade us from our beliefs. Rather than respect our beliefs, many non-Catholics spend tremendous amounts of time and money attacking our beliefs even to the point of spewing outright lies and using grandiose levels of propaganda and subterfuge.

I would respond to your statement regarding the "truth", you would instead seek to learn and understand what and why believe what we believe.

My friend and brother or sister in Christ, may God Bless you and lead you in all you do.

FreeButterfly,

I must say that I disagree with you. I cannot say that "every poster [sans v1gilbert and myself]" on this thread - except for a few - have been less that respectful in their conduct.

There are all kinds of reactions, and maybe some of them could adjust their tone. And even so I can understand why they react like that, since the very thread name sets up the conversation in terms of Catholic vs. Protestant debate, when the study of the Wheel is none of that.

In Christ the Word,
VictorInChristo

Thank you for responding with your heartfelt reasons my brother in Christ...

My main point is that in all the negative responses on this Thread, no one has taken the time to seek out who this man Richard is, and what is this Bible Wheel all about. If they would have, what they would have found is a man whose sole desire is to share a discovery he found on the beautiful design of the Bible. There is not one word on his Web-site that attacks or dismisses the Catholic faith or the Catholic Bible.

I must say that the title of this Thread is very misleading, as has been brought out by Victor. It is worded in such a way as to imply the sole reason for presenting the Bible in the form of the Bible Wheel is to prove the 66 book Protestant Bible is the correct version....that could not be farther from the truth. As has been explained by Victor, when Richard made his discovery of the beautiful pattern of the Bible, the one he was reading at the time was the 66 book Bible...that's it, no hidden motive involved.

My plea to all who wish to rebut the Bible Wheel is: please, please, find out what it is first, before you fling lame comments, and remarks at it, and Richard.

Hi, please help me understand why you say so. Many thanks.

It is not a "lack of Christian love" to disagree with someone. In fact, it would be most unloving to pretend to agree with him, merely to soothe his feelings. How would he gain anything from that?

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

Hold it,.... I did not post negative mail. In fact before something such as this can be understood, it has to be unravelled before one can agree with it, and that's just what we are doing.

Thank you Sunshine for taking the time to "unravel" what has been presented.

My post was intended only for those who were mocking, before they even knew what it was they were mocking.

FreeButterfly

My point was: before you disagree with someone, you need to know what you are disagreeing with, and that most certainly was not the case with the bulk of the negative posts on this Thread....random comments were thrown out in a mocking way, and that was what I was addressing.

FreeButterfly

Now who's being judgmental?

What you fail to comprehend is the extreme derision and incessant ignorance we face regarding the “extra books we added to the bible … like the Mormons”. THIS is sheer ignorance and hatred personified. If you people took ten minutes to research the true bible instead of wallowing in your own self-righteous assessment of what the bible ought to be; you’d comprehend the seeming animosity you’re getting.

Notice, when I called Victor out as to whether he or your OP or the originator of the “Bible Wheel” had ever read the books of the bible that they are throwing away – YES - THROWING AWAY (why can’t you see that???) there was nothing but silence.

It’s very childish to feel shame over the actions of others. You claim to be a truth seeker and I appreciate the desire; I’m just NOT seeing the follow through.

Shouldn’t we spend more time dwelling in God’s word than trying to jury-rig some added meaning to it?

Pray for discernment. The wolf does come in sheep’s clothing and just because one is praising God up and down does NOT make whatever they are pushing a good thing.
I’m sorry but the original posting is nothing but inflammatory, the claims of the “Bible Wheel” have been soundly refuted. To have people ignore the REAL truth that is laid before them in order to pursue a flashy new system that derides and demeans the truth that has been in place since before Christ is truly mindboggling.

The “Bible Wheel” should not call people to God. God calls people to God.
It is a fact of life that if you are only kind to the foolish, they NEVER learn… WE never learn. Yes I am still foolish about many things, but I KNOW the duteros and the rest of the so called “core” of the bible as do many of these other frustrated individuals. It’s like when my toddler insists that Thursday follows Monday. There is only so much patience I have for empty assertions.

Fact: the “core” of the bible is the bible- the whole thing. To make any claim to the contrary is to assert that the bible itself is not inspired. Take it all or nothing. It is sheer political foolishness to ignore THAT truth.

May the Peace and Love of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

OK, I apologize, Let me give a sincere answer to a sincere question, the Bible wheel doesn't prove anything except you can make money with stuff like this. I'd suggest Gilbert look toward the Councils of the Church.

Could you please elaborate on the statement you made about "the claims of the Bible Wheel being soundly refuted"?

I have not been able to find one single thing that's been refuted yet!

Peace to you,
FreeButterfly

Thank you. I guess the problem non-Jewish people have with understanding the Bible Wheel is the fact that most of us are not familiar with the significance of the symbolism represented by each Hebrew letter.

We should also realize that the author of the Wheel admitted that he "thought Jewish" so obviously one would deduct that he is a Messianic Jew relating to a protestant bible. His efforts caused him to realize the omnipotence of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. In fact he was struck with such awe that he wrote a book about it to share his discovery & amazement with others.

We should be happy that he found his way to his Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Also, please note that it is NOT HE WHO MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THE WHEEL PROVES THE CATHOLIC BIBLE INCORRECT.

Bear in mind that accusing him and his book of something he does not claim, causes us all to bear false witness against him which is extremely sinful and hurtful to our Lady and the Trinity.

v1gilbert,

I'll be back to your questions. Just allow me to make a comment on a recent post.

I have never claimed that the deuteros are “extra books we added to the bible … like the Mormons”. Never. If you think I did, just scan my posts and show me where I did it. You'll find nothing.

I don't mind about the "seeming animosity" that I get on this thread. I can perfectly put myself on the shoes of seasoned Catholics who are attracted to a thread that says that "the Protestant Canon is correct!!!!" I have been explaining over and over and over and over again that this thread title is incorrect and misleading. I have been continuously extending my hand in friendship to clear up the misunderstandings.

And I don't share FreeButterfly's assessment of the overall tone of the posters. That comment was not appropriate IMHO, as I immediately said. It only served to stir up flames.

Hey Carol, that shows how you don't seem to listen to what I have been saying all along. I said two things, among many others: that I want to ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS to the limit of my time, strength and ability. And that I reply to them according to the posting sequence. I didn't reach your post yet. So I'm not running away from anything. I'm sorry but I'm only one man, and with severe time constraints. Please try to appreciate my effort not to leave any question unanswered.

Very good! Scripture tells us to test everything. (1Th 5:21) We cannot quickly believe what a person claims. There are wolves in sheep's clothing.

So I expect skepticism, since I was myself very skeptic before I could accept the validity of this study.

I understand how you feel. And I love your line "It is a fact of life that if you are only kind to the foolish, they NEVER learn…" I totally agree with it!

I must interrupt again. Gotta do stuff now. I hope to be back soon.

Blessings,
Victor

Thank you again Sunshine for having such an open mind and loving spirit...

If a person takes the time to read through Richard's website, or his book they will only find praise and glory to God for the truly amazing wonders of His Word....and for that we should all say HALLELUJAH!

Your sister in Christ,
FreeButterfly

I invite you to please revisit post #’s: 2, 3, 7, 11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, especially 29, 30, especially 40, 44, especially 48, 61, 73 an on and on; I feel that I could sit here all night typing examples of what is wrong with the “Bible Wheel” but it would fall on deaf ears. For a powerful example of pattern application check out the Ron Howard film “A Beautiful Mind”.

You sidestep and ignore the meat of my post yet expect me to do all the work of obtaining wisdom for you. I’m sorry you wasted so much of your time studying this “Bible Wheel” maybe if you had spent more of it in contemplating the actual Word of God or even studying real Biblical origins you could see the pearls of wisdom that are spread before you. Why heap more into that pile that is being soundly ignored?

Please check out the Deuteros. I think you'll be shocked at what they contain.

Again, Peace be With You-

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

Read again what I said. I was not accusing you of saying that. I do however get it OFTEN from the good honest folk around here. To say Protestants have been misinformed is a gross understatement. They have been willfully and forcefully mislead and my heart aches for their loss and ignorance.

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

AH! Mea Culpa. Please forgive my impatience... It's been a bad week.

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

I went and re-read the posts you listed, and aside from post #48 (which itself refuted nothing concerning the validity of the Bible Wheel) none of them contained anything that could be considered a legitimate refutation of the Bible Wheel, because the Bible Wheel is just a representation of the Bible.

Addressing your statement of sorrow that I have wasted so much of my time studying the Bible Wheel...I find that quite bewildering, since the Bible Wheel is THE WORD OF GOD and as such contains all Its' wisdom.

When I look at the beautiful design of a butterfly's wing I praise God.....when I look at the beautiful design of the Bible I praise God...

Blessings,
FreeButterfly

"Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like 'a clanging cymbal' (I Cor 13: 1)."
-- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Homily

Hi Folks,

My name is Richard McGough. I am the author of the Bible Wheel book and website. I pray that the love, peace, grace, and humility of our Lord Jesus Christ guides our hearts and minds as we discuss the Holy Word.

I am happy to see this discussion of my work, though I am grieved by the title because it does not accurately represent the intent of my studies or anything that I have written. It is unnecessarily offensive, confrontational, and misleading. I am not interested in proving or disproving any sect of Christianity, Protestant or Catholic. I believe both Catholics and Protestants are Christians. I am not trying to prove anyone "wrong" about their faith tradition.

But let's be clear - if the Bible Wheel were accepted as "valid" there certainly would be some Protestants who would use it to "bash" the Catholic Magisterium. But this is not a valid argument against the Bible Wheel or any other theory. We see the same issue with the Theory of Evolution. Atheists have used it for a hundred years to "bash" all forms of theism. Did the Pope then declare that Evolution is false, merely because it could be used as a weapon against Catholicism? NO! He knew that the truth of God's Church could not be contradicted by the truth of the world that He created! So he was careful and wise and accepted the truth of evolution despite the fact that it is often used as a weapon against the Church. Exactly the same thing holds for the Bible Wheel. Indeed, folks who think it is a weapon against the Magisterium may have the tables turned on them since the origin of the Bible Wheel is found in the Catholic Bible. And for all anyone knows, there may be an undiscovered "meta-pattern" that confirms the deutero-canon. Therefore, the real implications of the Bible Wheel with regards to the endless Protestant/Catholic canon debate are neither simple nor obvious. But they certainly are premature since we have yet to establish whether there is any validity to this study in the first place.

Finally, it is extremely important to understand that I did not "invent" the Bible Wheel to "prove" anything at all. I simply "stumbled" upon it in 1995 as a way to view the Protestant canon of 66 books using the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet. The Catholic canon was not on my radar at all. I was a young Christian and most of the Bibles and commentaries I owned were produced by Protestants, so the Protestant Bible was the "default" body of Scripture for me.

I very much look forward to interacting with your serious and thoughtful criticisms.

I will now review and answer the arguments presented in thread.

All the very best,

Richard

No, it isn't. It's a representation of something that isn't quite the Bible, but looks enough like it to fool a lot of people who have no way of learning any better.

As mentioned several times already in this thread, the Bible is composed of 73 books - not 66. Furthermore, the 66 books represented are pretty much a random selection based on errors made by third-generation Protestants in England.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

I think this is an excellent example of how to critique a theory. It is very well-structured.

1. The Bible Wheel folks say there are 66 books (22 Hebrew letters x 3) in the Bible
This is not quite accurate. The "Bible Wheel folks" say there are 66 books in the traditional Protestant canon of 66 books. The Bible Wheel is merely a way to view those 66 books in the form of a two-dimensional circular grid. This is the definition of the Bible Wheel, and so there can be no dispute on this point.

2. Some Protestants are using the Bible Wheel "canon" as an argument against the Septuagint OT+NT canon (the 73 book Catholic Bible), and thus, against the authority of the Catholic Church
This may be true, but as far as I know, no one in this thread has done so. Certainly not myself.

3. BUT there are actually 65 books in the "Protestant" Bible because Ezra-Nehemiah was one book...
Actually, if we continued with your logic the number would continue to shrink because the two books of Samuel were originally one book, as were the two books of Kings and the two books of Chronicles. Of course, some argue that the four books of Samuel + Kings were originally considered "one book" so the number changes again. None of these issues touch anything concerning the Bible Wheel because it is defined as a two-dimensional representation of the traditional Protestant canon of 66 books. There is one and only one issue - does the Bible Wheel exhibit patterns that require explanation? For example, the first spoke consists of the books of Genesis, Isaiah, and Romans. These are the first books of three primary divisions of Scripture:

Genesis - first book of the Law
Isaiah - first book of the Prophets
Romans - first book of the Epistles.

Thus, the first Spoke consists of three primary "first books." I find such simplicity and elegance to be "unexpected" (and in need of explanation) if the distribution of the books on the Bible Wheel were "random" and not intelligently correlated in some way.

4. ... Until Jerome separated them in the Latin Vulgate
This is not correct. The books were divided in the LXX, long before Jerome was born.

5. The Latin Vulgate is a CATHOLIC BIBLE
Correct.

6. Thus the Protestants in (2) are in a Catch-22:
a. If Jerome was right to divide Ezra-Nehemiah, then the Wheel works... but then the Catholic Church must have had the authority to determine the canon so as to divide Ezra-Nehemiah, so the Wheel fails.
b. If Jerome was wrong, then there aren't enough books for the Bible Wheel to be complete, and it fails.
I LOVE THAT! The 22 Spokes of the Bible Wheel are a "Catch-22"!

But the argument here fails. The Bible Wheel is defined by the 66 book canon. The history of how that canon came to be has nothing to do with the validity of any patterns that may or may not be found therein.

7. ERGO: The Bible Wheel fails to define the canon and the Protestants making argument (2) are refuted.
I think this displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bible Wheel thesis. The Bible Wheel is defined as a two-dimensional view of the traditional 66-book canon. It does not itself "define the canon" - on the contrary, it is itself defined by the traditional 66-book canon.

Great chatting!

Thanks for the interesting argument.

Richard

That my friend is your opinion! Just because you state that the 73 book Catholic Bible is the correct Bible makes it no more true than the person who states the 66 book Protestant Bible is the correct one....both views are opinions.

The heart of every Christian Bible on the planet consists of the 66 books of the Proto-Canon, so in that sense every Christian has the core of Scripture as the foundation of their faith, and that my friend is pretty amazing. Now if all Christians would act like they share a common faith that would be even more amazing...

Blessings,
FreeButterfly

Sunshine, I get the symbolism… really. My real world job, before I became a SAHM was as a database designer in a very large financial corporation in San Francisco. I am a virtuoso at correlating data to make it look ANY way anyone wants it to look. It’s the same exact premise of the “Bible Wheel” that has so many people sucked in by astrology. Before you become offended by that statement, please think about it. We approach the world on a two dimensional level: cause, reaction; like amoebas. That is: basic existence; and a frightening number of people never seem to rise above that. God wants us to go beyond that to the next level: to see and experience the magnificence of HIS mighty creation. David was a man after God’s own heart because he recognized the vastness of wonder that God has laid before us all and he sought to praise God for it. Simply. Lovingly. … Absolute Praise. (I humbly invite others to explain this very important point better- but I’ll do my best.) The Devil seeks to make our lives so busy and complicated that we can not see the forest for the trees. God asks us to be still and know he is God. When we delve into pattern searching and application we have entered a VERY shaky realm of shifting sand and deluding smoke; it adds a level of complication that comes between us and the Almighty. Instead of seeking the Holy Spirit for inspiration we can look to any number of charts and guides that have been invented throughout the ages. “We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who are called by him according to His purpose”, but why make it harder?

Oh and I think "A Beautiful Mind" should be required viewing for all of us that may tend to look a little too deeply into what is given to us. There is a reason Jesus’ chosen 12 were not necessarily ...hmm... the "best and the brightest" shall we say. ~lol~
My Jewish friends would be highly offended by this statement … on several levels.
It contains both inherent prejudice and arrogance of assumption. "How does he know he thinks like me?"
It is not false witness to say that the “Bible Wheel” incorporates only the 66 books.

And don’t you have ANY red flags go up with the very first claim of on biblewheel.com: “View the Bible from a Higher Dimension”?

It’s there in black and white: Only 66 books; “Higher” claims of authority. One does not need the OP’s inflammatory title to reach the obvious conclusion that the website purports.

Here’s the Deal

Case 1: “A” is a compilation of writings wherein the inclusion of which was Holy Spirit inspired to a group of people sincerely intent on bringing God’s Word to His people in the manner He intended.
Case 2: “A” is a compilation of writings that a bunch of schmucks randomly picked as being “neat”.
Case 3: “A” is a compilation of writings that was artfully contrived to mislead the masses into subjugation through the opiate of religion.

Which do you believe?

If it’s case 1, than to take only a “subset” of that beautiful whole is like removing the fingers and toes from a beauty queen at the knuckle because you don’t like the nail polish she used. It’s an abomination.

ANYTHING that leads to or supports that kind of mutilation is sadly misguided at best, but certainly supportive if the Evil One’s ultimate goals.

There simply is no case 1.1 where: “A” is a compilation of writings wherein the inclusion of which was Holy Spirit inspired by a group of people sincerely intent on bringing Gods Word to His people in the manner He intended… and used for over a 1000 years by truly holy people of God … but oh wait… they got it wrong. Let’s throw out the book of “Wisdom”… that’s a good idea. Sirach? Never mind that it’s clearly stated therein that God gave us the physician to help us: that’s right all those little children that medicine-hating “Christians” allowed to suffer and die horribly wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on if the deuteros were in place. Oh, and the 400 years leading up to Christ’s virgin birth? They’re just dust in the wind to the ones who would side with the Jews who rejected, and continue to reject, Christ.

Please, just look and see.

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

I think you have seen it, but I have addressed the point above on post #71.

24 better than 22
24 elders in Rev
24 = 12 apostles x 2
144000 / 24 = 3 x 2 x 1000
new Jerusalem = 24 / 2 = 12 foundations (as well as 12 gates, 12 pearls)
12000 stades was the measure of each of the dimensions of new Jerusalem
= 12000 / 24 = 500

as far as the 22 Hebrew letters being 'special'

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

God used a language already spoken/written by the Hebrews, he didn't introduce a novel language to Moses up on the mount.

Plus tet/teth is missing in the decalogue so therefore its not 'special' ???

__________________
Hi there

Yes, but whatever pattern there may be, cannot have come from God, since the 66-book Bible itself did not come from God, but is the consequence of the errors of certain English-speaking heretics - because heresy is not from God, and nor is error.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

Actually, one of them is the view of the Successor of Peter, who is given the promise of infallibility (Matthew 16:18-19) - not to mention, the Bible itself, in its original form - and the other is not. We are promised that whatever Peter (or by implication, his successor) binds on earth (the 73-book canon of Scripture, for example) is bound in Heaven. So, there is more than just personal opinion at play here.

The English-speaking Protestants rely on no such promise - they do, in fact, have to rely on their personal opinions - and are often incorrect.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

Your comment contains three fundamental errors.

1) Most of the posts you cite do not even contain an attempt to refute the BW, let alone a valid refutation. Indeed, most of the posts you cite have little if anything to do with anything I have ever written! For example, the first post you cite (#2) begins with a string of unsupported assertions like it's "hogwash" and "a game that anyone can play." There is nothing in that post that actually engages any statement that I have ever made. It is therefore absurd in the extreme for you to include it in your list. Likewise, post #3 begins with the completely irrelevant comment that "The Bible is not a code to deciphered." Again, this has nothing to do with anything I have ever asserted about the BW. And the pattern continues. The next post your cite (#7) makes no direct statement about anything I have written. And the next post you cite (#11) makes the false assertion that I appealed to the Sepher Yetzirah as an authoritative basis for the BW. Victor corrected this error when he explained the obvious, namely, that the Sepher Yetzirah gave me an heuristic motivation to put the books in a circle. I have NEVER claimed it has any authority. I could go on like this through nearly every post your cited. Your list is absurd in the extreme. How in the world did you think you could fool people? Did you think that no one would actually read the posts you cited???

2) I am not deaf. On the contrary, I have been gifted with a most acute sense of "hearing" false arguments against the BW and I am always eager to answer any attempt at any refutation.

3) I read "A Beautiful Mind" and I saw the movie. Your implicit association of my work with the schizophrenic ravings of John Nash is outside the bounds of rational discourse. You owe me an apology.

You now have a choice. You can produce one serious refutation of something I have written, or you can admit that your feeling that you "could sit here all night typing examples of what is wrong with the Bible Wheel" is not based on fact. Personally, I hope you choose the former. It should be interesting. And besides, given your level of confidence, it should only take you a few minutes, right?

May God bless you richly,

Richard

And once again you are completely misusing the term "proto-canon" - please re-read my many previous posts on this subject.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

It would seem that by “refute” you want someone to claim that the correlations you claim God designed in the protestant bible that you happened to discover which are in fact completely contrived by you don’t exist; well that’s like the atheists’ arguments against God. When playing on your field with your rules, finding discrepancies is hard to say the least, but as it turns out, not impossible.

Note, it’s like post # 21 said regarding produce and prostitution in New York: of course we can’t refute that both are completely symmetrical, but to claim symbiosis is a leap in logic that should never be taken. Or we could throw out an appropriate Shakespeare quote: “O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space"; you can’t “refute” that.

Be that as it may: here we go.
You claim “There can be no conclusion but this structure was designed by the Lord God Almighty before the foundation of the world.”

~Phew~ Nope, sure can’t “refute” that by your definition; but I really think the scripture cited in post #3 strongly argues against such a claim. I could find more if you insist... Here’s one anyway: “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2Tim 3: 16-17). Paul was referring to the LXX here, not his own letters ~lol~. Yes the complete LXX, recent archeology has shown this to be fact.

Also, if God designed this structure, why wasn’t the NT its own wheel or set of wheels? A new covenant should have a new wheel to be truly symmetrical. By having wheel #2 include both the OT prophets and the Gospels plus Acts, a natural conclusion is that Jesus and the apostles were just more prophets in the chain.

You claim “…we immediately discover one of the greatest wonders ever seen in the history of Biblical studies. The structure of the Christian Canon is perfectly symmetric…”
and
“Issues relating to such things as other versions of the Bible and the Apocrypha, while interesting, do not impact any facts presented in this book.” p.25

These two statements clearly show your contempt for the Deuterocanonical writings, but the core of your contempt is truly revealed in your attack on Esther. (http://www.biblewheel.com/Canon/AddEsther.asp) Not only is your history completely skewed, but your use of the term “Apocrypha” is invalid and misleading. If you did a modicum of research you would see that there are hundreds of Apocryphal books, especially if you count the fragments. St. Jerome did his due diligence and noted the discrepancies between his version of the OT and the then current Tanakh(The Torah ("Teaching", also known as the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings")) but he recognized that despite all his arrogance he had not the authority to remove them from scripture. That is why he fought so hard to do so, and lost. Modern Archeology has proved the existence of the LXX to be the most accurate rendition of the scripture available in Jesus’ time.

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

Here’s the filtered significant points in #2:
-the conclusion does not necessarily follow. Just because someone includes something as true, doesn't mean they've made the "link" to show their desired conclusion. In this case, there is none. Is there somewhere in the Bible that talks about a "Bible wheel?" No, there isn't. It's all man-made.

- Historically, the Bible has had 73 books since the canon of the Bible was decided in the fourth century by the Magisterium of the Church (Pope + bishops united to him). Martin Luther changed it in 1517 A.D., by adopting the Hebrew canon, which was decided AFTER the start of Christianity. The Church's Old Testament was the Septuagent version, of which about 80% of the references in the New Testament come from.

- Here's a good video on the Origins of the Bible:
http://www.alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

(Did you watch it, or disregard it because the truth does not fit your worldview?)
Ah but you ignore the good points she DOES make in her post. Here, again, let me help:
-2 Peter 1:20: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,"

-2 Peter 3:15-16: "regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

-1 Peter 1:25: "the word of the Lord endures for ever. That word is the good news that was announced to you." [not some code a guy came up with 2000 years later]

-Moreover there is no satisfactory explanation to why almost all of the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint (which contains the deutero books), for the reference to 2 Maccabees 7 in Hebrews 11:35, etc.
Yes, but it speaks to your claim that the method which you are exhorting is divinely inspired.

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

[quote=RichardMcGough;7102602]And the next post you cite (#11) makes the false assertion that I appealed to the Sepher Yetzirah as an authoritative basis for the BW. Victor corrected this error when he explained the obvious, namely, that the Sepher Yetzirah gave me an heuristic motivation to put the books in a circle. I have NEVER claimed it has any authority.
Again you ignore the Word of God within the post. The REAL word of God and focus on your own minutia.

-We have it on high authority that Jewish traditions can be either good:
Quote: Originally Posted by Matthew 23:2-3
The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practise what they teach.
Or bad:
Quote: Originally Posted by Mark 7.11-13
But you say that if anyone tells father or mother, “Whatever support you might have had from me is Corban” (that is, an offering to God)— then you no longer permit doing anything for a father or mother, thus making void the word of God through your tradition that you have handed on. And you do many things like this.’

The point is that you claim a source, which claims a source. The poster pointed to the Sepher Yetzirah which IS a way the Protestants justify their mutilation of Holy Scripture. Ergo your said same.
I would invite you to do so, but I would ask you to pray first to put your pride aside for a small while and try to glean the wealth of wisdom you are pushing so hard against. What are you afraid of?
Hmm… Here we have good ol’ Proverbs 1 to fall back on ~sigh~:

20 Wisdom calls aloud in the street,
she raises her voice in the public squares;
21 at the head of the noisy streets she cries out,
in the gateways of the city she makes her speech:
22 "How long will you simple ones love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
23 If you had responded to my rebuke,
I would have poured out my heart to you
and made my thoughts known to you.
24 But since you rejected me when I called
and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand,
25 since you ignored all my advice
and would not accept my rebuke,
26 I in turn will laugh at your disaster;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you-
27 when calamity overtakes you like a storm,
when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind,
when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
28 "Then they will call to me but I will not answer;
they will look for me but will not find me.
29 Since they hated knowledge
and did not choose to fear the LORD,
30 since they would not accept my advice
and spurned my rebuke,
31 they will eat the fruit of their ways
and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
32 For the waywardness of the simple will kill them,
and the complacency of fools will destroy them;
33 but whoever listens to me will live in safety
and be at ease, without fear of harm."

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

………………………Part 4 of 4………………………
See previous post.
I apologize for the implication that you are schizophrenic. My reason for recommending “A Beautiful Mind” is that all of us, like John Nash, are prone to finding patterns and assigning them meaning where no true meaning exists.

Boy, I WISH that were true. Alas, I am accursed as a slow typist. Not enough video games in my upbringing, I guess. The bottom line is that the protestant 66 book canon is not correct, so your analysis of this false canon serves only to distract from the full revelation of the Catholic canon.
Thank you Richard.
Matthew 19:23-24 (New International Version)
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

I’d like to leave with the prayer of St. John Vianney:

I love You, O my God, and my only desire is to love You until the last breath of my life.
I love You, O my infinitely lovable God,
and I would rather die loving You, than live without loving You.
I love You, Lord and the only grace I ask is to love You eternally
My God, if my tongue cannot say in every moment that I love You,
I want my heart to repeat it to You as often as I draw breath.

THAT is where I want to be, not the “Bible Wheel”.

Peace and Grace be with you, sir; and please remember that I only desire that God’s will be done, not Carol’s.

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

v1gilbert,

You brought up a very important point.

There's no natural reason why the alphabetic verses should be viewed as anything other than a literary device used by God. But for those who are used to the history of interpretation of Scripture, this naturalistic approach is unsatisfying. While recognizing the acrostics as literary devices is valid and undeniable, it is an incomplete assessment, because it fails to appreciate the wisdom that Holy Spirit revealed when He designed them.

As we study Scripture, we should strive to hear all that God wants to say in a passage, otherwise we would be stuck at the literal sense of Scripture. When St. Augustine read Rahab's deliverance in the fall of Jericho, he couldn't help but see the sign of the blood of Christ prefigured in the scarlet thread that hanged from Rahab's window. From a strictly natural point of view, such an insight sounds as foolishness, but for the child of God this is additional evidence of the self-integration of the great symphony of Scripture.

The Bible is both human and divine, just like the Incarnate Word. So when people speak of Jesus as being a "good prophet," we cannot say that they are wrong, but we know that this is nothing less than an understatement! Christ is much more than that! So it goes with the Inspired Word -- when we face passages so prominent as Psalm 119 (about the Word of God no less!), we know that probably there is something more going on than the "human side" of the alphabetic pattern.

In the Capstone book of Scripture, God the Word chose to define Himself by means of an alphabetic epithet based on the first and last letters of the Alphabet. (Revelation 1:8) Note the parallelism between the Johannine prologue and the introduction to John's Revelation. In the fourth Gospel, the Son is revealed as the Word, and in Revelation He reveals Himself as the Alpha and the Omega. Both are linguistic images of the Lord. With the alphabet we write words. If He is both Word and the First and the Last of the Letters, we have good reason to think f Scripture in terms of both Word and Alphabet. From A to Z, so to speak.

The Fathers thought likewise -- they didn't think that the alphabetic passages were just a poetical device, but an inspired structure that would lead us to God. For example, no one less than Jerome, regarded by the Catholic Church as the patron saint of all biblical studies, thought exactly so. As he discussed the structure and meaning of the acrostics, he said that "by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast." (Introduction to Samuel and Kings) He took great value on the symbolic meaning of the letters, and believed that God embedded the alphabetic order in Scripture to symbolically teach the Gospel message, as we find in his thirtieth letter to his disciple Paula. In it he teaches the symbolic meanings of the letters as they relate to Scripture, going beyond the naturalistic approach that says that says that a given passage "means that and only that."

That's how it functions in our natural lives. We are "instructed in tender infancy" by the alphabet. Our parents and teachers associated each letter to words that started with that letter to teach us the alphabet, and chose among many words those that mattered to them (and to us).

And so does God teach His children. In the alphabetic passages, He chose the words that mattered to Him and to His children. They are the alphabet of the doctrine of God.

The great miracle of God is that the books of the Bible have distinctive themes and keywords that are described by the exact corresponding words of the alphabet! So God teaches us that D stands for Derek (way), and the book with the greatest number of references to "Way " in Scripture is Ezekiel, which falls on the letter D (Dalet) in the book-letter correlation! And this is not the only keyword that relates Dalet to Ezekiel.

In fact all the books' themes strikingly correspond to the Hebrew letters and keywords! And there is no ambiguity concerning the variety of keywords and book themes.

The coming example shall make it clear.

Victor

Good morning Carol,

I wanted to begin with this post because I believe that mutual respect is a primary requirement for fruitful discourse, and your apology shows that you also abide by this rule. Thank you. I accept your apology.

I also want to acknowledge upfront that your point has some validity, though John Nash certainly is an extreme example of obsessive pattern finding. But there is a fundamental aspect that you have missed - the ability to recognize patterns is one of the central elements of most IQ tests! Your implication that the BW patterns are meaningless because "patterns can be found in anything" is a canned argument well past its expiration date. I refuted it long ago. It is nothing but a meaningless canard without any content unless applied to a specific example of some pattern that I have presented. For example, in post 130 I presented the pattern of "first books" on the "first Spoke" - this is one of the primary patterns I use when introducing the topic because it is so obvious, elegant, and profound (note the categories of Law and Prophet which are used in Scriptures own the self-description):

Spoke 1 of the Bible Wheel
Genesis - first book of the Law
Isaiah - first book of the Prophets
Romans - first book of the Epistles.

Patterns like this abound on the Bible Wheel. They are "top-level" and "super-obvious" - especially to those familiar with Scripture. They can not be simply dismissed as "random" or "meaningless" without doing great violence to the very concepts of order and meaning.

Now in your first post in this series, you indicated that you did not understand how to test my claims. You wrote:

It would seem that by “refute” you want someone to claim that the correlations you claim God designed in the protestant bible that you happened to discover which are in fact completely contrived by you don’t exist; well that’s like the atheists’ arguments against God. When playing on your field with your rules, finding discrepancies is hard to say the least, but as it turns out, not impossible.

You are correct that I want you to refute the "correlations" since they represent the primary significance of the BW. But I am not asking you to "play on my field." I am asking only that you respond to the specific arguments and evidence that I have presented. Case in point: the books on Spoke 1. Can you see why I might find that pattern significant? Can you at the very least admit that there is a pattern there that strikes the mind as a simple, elegant, and apparently significant correlation between the three "first books" and their placement on the Wheel? If not, why not? Merely rejecting my every claim as unanswerable does nothing to further your case against the BW.

That is a beautiful prayer. Thanks for sharing. But your contradistinction of the Bible Wheel with that prayer is a "slug sandwich" entirely unworthy of our mutually respectful discourse. You know that I believe the Bible Wheel is nothing but a way to view Holy Scripture. Please consider how you would feel if I presented a similar prayer and then said "THAT is where I want to be, not with the 'Pope.'" Let us all strive to obey the Golden Rule, as taught by our Lord of Glory:

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

I very much appreciate (and share) you sentiment that it is God's will, not our own, that we should be pursing.

Many blessings to you my friend,

Richard

Hey there Carol,

I am mystified that you think yourself unable to refute arguments based on logic and facts. The "claim" you quote was given in the final paragraph of a long argument (11 pages when printed) presented in the article called Biblical Evidence of the Sevenfold Canon. Here it is in context:

When the Seven Canonical Divisions are displayed on the Bible Wheel, we immediately discover one of the greatest wonders ever seen in the history of Biblical studies. The structure of the Christian Canon is perfectly symmetric, and it looks like the tri-radiant halo - the Sign of Deity - seen in ancient icons of Christ! [See Art, Theology, and Prophecy] There can be no conclusion but this structure was designed by the Lord God Almighty before the foundation of the world. Praise His name now and forever! Amen

It is extremely easy to attempt a refutation of the conclusion of that argument - all you need to do is read the argument and show it has errors! Find a factual statement that is demonstrably false. What could be easier?

I am also mystified by why you would think that 2 Tim 3:16-17 somehow refutes the Bible Wheel. It doesn't say or imply anything having to do with the validity or invalidity of a two-dimensional representation of the 66 book canon.

Your assertions are false. Exactly what is there in those two statements that show "contempt for the Deuterocanonical writings?" The first claim concerns the amazing symmetry of the 66 book canon. Is there any contempt there? No. The second claim concerns the incontrovertible fact that the Bible Wheel is, by definition, a representation of the 66 book canon, and so any patterns (such as the symmetry) that are found in it are indeed found in it. How they got there has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are there. That is a different question. The question of how they got there does not and can not "impact any facts presented in this book" because the facts presented in the book concern facts - things that are there - regardless of how they got there.

Furthermore, you apparently read the article (Apocryphal Additions to Esther Refuted) so you know that I mentioned the Roman Catholic Church exactly once. Here is what I wrote:

The apocryphal additions to Esther consist of 107 verses in seven short chapters interspersed throughout the Greek Septuagint version. They were not found in the Hebrew text that Jerome used when he produced the Latin Vulgate (5th century) and he did not recognize them as Scripture, so he moved them to an appendix at the end of his translation. The Roman Catholic Church still considers the Vulgate to be the authoritative Latin version of the Bible. Its content - including all the apocrypha - was canonized by the Council of Trent in 1545 in reaction to the Protestant Reformation which held only to the protocanonical Books accepted by the Jews.

Where is the "contempt" in that??? I explicitly mentioned the Roman Catholic Church - did I say anything negative about it? Did I say that I was refuting the Magisterium or that I hated the Deuterocanonical books? No. I did not. So where is the contempt you accused me of? You owe me another apology. Your accusations are false.

Now as for my supposed "attack on Esther." That is another false accusation. I attacked nothing. I simply showed that the protocanonical book of Esther is supernaturally integrated with the design of the Bible Wheel and the corresponding Hebrew letter "Pey" in a way that is utterly astounding and convincing. I then showed that the deuterocanonical additions directly and explicitly contradict the specific details that demonstrate the supernatural design of the protocanonical portion of the book. I never said anything "contemptuous" about the deuterocanonical section. All I said was that it appears to be the work of "mere men" as opposed to the protocanonical section which bears many signs of divine design.

All the very best,

Richard

Hey there Carol,

Please give an example of the "completely skewed" history in my article so I can correct it. And in the future, please refrain from making accusations without presenting any supporting evidence. Thanks!

The term "apocryphal" is commonly used interchangeably with "deuterocanonical" - it is silly to quibble over that term. It seems pretty clear we all know we are talking about the seven books that distinguish between the Catholic and Protestant canons.

As for the LXX - that version did indeed play an important historical role in the formation of the Bible Wheel. I consider this an essential element in the proof that no human or group of humans could have "contrived" the Bible Wheel. Here is the argument:

1. God used the Jews to transmit the correct set of OT books via the Tanach
2. God used the Catholics to transmit the correct order of books via the Vulgate
3. God used the Protestants to manifest the correct canon of 66 books by taking the order of the Vulgate and the content of the Tanach.

This proves that no human or group of humans can take credit for the 66-book Bible that resulted from this process, or its amazing unity and integration with the Hebrew alphabet that has been revealed in the Bible Wheel. Personally, I DELIGHT in seeing how God used these three typically antagonistic groups in the production of His Word. It gives me great hope that this is the general direction of the Divine Will. Universal reconciliation in Christ and His Word. When we look back, we will see how God used all people in His great Drama of Redemption.

All the very best,

Richard

Hi, did you actually check the Bible Wheel Website out???????????? Next question....... Did you read Richard's post on this thread explaining everything.??? Just a question

I notice that you did go to www.bw.com etc.

Actual phrase taken from your link to the BW

It is hard to understand that you find this quote offensive.

Thank you Caral, so would we all.

Re your trying to prove the Protestant Bible false:
NIV Bible quote off the internett - Protestant bible. - Exactly same as your "Cahtolic"??? bible quote.

Quote:

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

According to the Douay Rheims (Catholic) 1899

Quote:

Then Jesus said to his disciples: Amen, I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Douay Rheims (Catholic) 1899

Please point out the falseness of the Protestant bible as apposed to the Douay Rheims (Catholic) Bible 1899.

Truth: Protestant demonimations use the Catholic Bible omitting several books in use by us. This failure does not cause the Protestant Bible not to be the Holy Spirit inspired Word of God.

The Bible was given to us in 405 AD by Pope Innocent I. It is a set of 73 books that are approved for use at Mass.

If the set is incomplete, it's not the Bible.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

In seeking truth, it generally help to open one's mind to the possability that the world is maybe a little bigger than you ever imagined; that God is bigger than any of us have any way of knowing.

WHY on Earth would you waste eveyone's time here postulating that I had not read the BW or that I find the above quote offensive????

Please TRY to think.

MAYBE it was THIS that I found "offensive":

Obviously, the aprocryphal additions are the work of mere humans who felt a need to thrust God into the story in which He Himself had clearly chosen to "hide His face." There are many lessons to be learned here. We must never think to "improve" on the Word of God. Many aspects of its design are hidden from us. If we try to "force-fit" anything to conform to our limited human understanding, we most certainly will distort the Work of God.

And ... Hey ... Maybe it's just the title: "Apocryphal Additions to Esther Refuted".

?!?

Really, I DO have a life and don't need to keep beating my head against a wall on this one.

Sunshine, can you help me here? Can you tell me how I can make things ANY clearer?

__________________
Crux sacra sit mihi lux! Nunquam draco sit mihi dux!
(May the holy cross be my light! May the dragon never be my guide!)

Sorry, but if Einstein's model is correct, then wherever you are in the universe, any experiment you perform will result in the appearance that you are at the center of the universe, so it is just as proper to say that the earth is the center as any other point in the universe.

Accordingly, the moon also goes around the earth in a straight line in warped four dimensional space-time, so the world is also flat according to Einsteinianism.

And if you wish to see convoluted math just look into the 11 or 21 dimensional model of string theory. It will make you wish for the simplicity of a geocentric model.

__________________
Wonder why the world seems so bad?
WORLD - WORD = L

Good grief, Dr Watson!
Someone has been trespassing at Hill Cumorah, I perceive......

Bible wheel,my foot.

__________________
Servant of Feline Forces

Without addressing the Bible wheel at all, this statement is false.

Elijah prophesied that here would be no rain until he spoke.

Water is a symbol of the Word of God. We renew our minds by the washing of his word... Jesus, the living water is the Word... etc.

So Elijah's prophecy is a foreshadowing of John the Baptist, since God was silent until John. But Matthew, written in Greek makes this plain to us, telling us that John's Father couldn't speak until John was born... there was no word until John. God was silent.. not speaking through kings, prophets, judges or priests until John. But John himself is just a shadow of Christ. There was no Word until the Word was made flesh. This also was written in Greek.

So Hebrew symbolism does carry through to the Greek.

__________________
Wonder why the world seems so bad?
WORLD - WORD = L

He was referring to the letter symbolism. Since there is no letter aleph in the Gospel of John, it makes no sense to say that the Gospel of John fulfills the symbol of aleph.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

Why would you be offended by an argument based on logic and facts? If I erred in a matter of logic or fact, show the error. It is ridiculous for you to be "offended" by my presentation of the truth as I see it. I wrote nothing with the intent to offend anyone.

Let's take a look at the quote you found offensive. Do you agree that I successfully showed the supernatural integration of the theme of Esther and its alignment with the letter Pey on the Wheel? If not, then you need to show where that argument breaks down. If so, then you need to tell me if you agree that the additional text found in the Catholic Bible directly and explicitly contradicts the specific details that I used to establish the supernatural integration of the protocanonical Esther with the letter Pey.

Let me make this really simple. The protocanonical book of Esther makes no mention of God. This is very rare for any book in the Bible and it fits perfectly with the Jewish and Christian understanding of Esther as revealing how God providentially cares for His people even when his "face is hidden." Scholars note that the name of Esther is itself a pun on the word "essater" meaning "I will hide" - which is very close to the form found when God's said "I will hide my face" from the Jews because of their sins (Deut 31:18) The word translated "face" is the fundamental Pey KeyWord panim which God established in many Alphabetic Verses corresponding to Pey. I explained this in great detail in my article on Esther called The Hidden Face of God (Hester Panim).

I included all these facts (and many more) in a wide variety of Spoke 17 articles on my site and in the Bible Wheel book. This was my understanding of the connection between the book of Esther and its position on the Wheel long before I reviewed the additions to Esther found in the LXX. The fact that they directly and explicitly contradict the the specific details that I used to establish the supernatural integration of the protocanonical Esther with the letter Pey justifies my conclusion that they are "obviously" the "the work of mere humans who felt a need to thrust God into the story in which He Himself had clearly chosen to "hide His face.""

I would be very interested if you, or anyone else in this forum, would like to challenge any of the statements of fact or the logical implications that I present in this argument.

All the very best,

Richard

You are starting with the assumption that your "Bible Wheel" is accurate. You object to the original more complete version of the Book of Esther, because it conflicts with the symmetry of your wheel.

If we take away the idea that the "Bible Wheel" is accurate, then we are left with two versions of the Book of Esther, the longer of which was used by the early Christians and Temple Jews, and the shorter of which is preferred by post-Temple Jews and Protestants.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

Your comment is rude. It contains nothing but your own opinion based on nothing but ignorance. You should be ashamed of yourself for publicly mocking something you know nothing of. It is a sin.

Sorry for being late on this discussion. I am working my way through it and trying to understand.

So far:

1. The title elicits knee jerk reactions in a Catholic forum as would be expected, so many of the rebuttal posts are just that based on the faith that the Catholic cannon is true, and therefor examination of the claim need not go further.

2. The claim backtracks a bit, so that it isn't that the rest of the RC cannon is false, but that the common portion of accepted scripture is true.

3. The best refute so far as I've read is simply that the book divisions are a late origin and therefor even the count of 66 books is subject to questioning.

4. Those who claim that God doesn't hide things are simply wrong:
Pr 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. Which is why the church has never been able to rid itself of allegory... pictures of Christ are hidden and he is foreshadowed in the OT.

5. Associating this with Bible codes and then dismissing it is not fair since they are two different claims. However, on the face it appears that the error may be similar. This error is one of statistical significance. There was a book out years ago that found patterns of seven throughout the scriptures. The method by which they were found was different in each instance, so there was not a universal rule that applied to finding them. Well statistically you would expect to find a multiple of seven one out of every seven ways you looked at it. And in fact, in the chapters of his own book I could find sevens everywhere demonstrating that it was a feature of the symbology of the language and simple statistics to produce such a thing.

There are so many themes and motifs in each of the books, that it may not be so difficult to arrange the books in any order and find them. To some this will demonstrate that the wheel is just a product of the rich themes of the Bible being repeated everywhere, and to others it would show that it is divine that it can occur in any arrangement.

It is an interesting mix of comments between those who assert it to be false on the basis of the authority of the church and those willing to have a conversation on the subject. A great saint once said something to the effect that truth is not fully embraced until heresy has been considered and rejected. So thanks to those who are adding to the dialog rather than lighting fires and driving stakes.

On the aleph...

In Hebrew aleph doesn't mean beginning. It means bull, teach or produce thousands. So the author is transposing a meaning from Greek back on to the Hebrew. I don't think this is proper and have never seen it done. I have often seen where the idea in Hebrew is brought forward to the Greek.

Having said that, in Hebrew there is a word that is not translated in Gen 1:1 which is the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. It is equivalent in form and meaning as the alpha and omega. And Gen 1 might rightly be translated "In the beginning God created the "eternal" heavens and the earth". Which implies that the creation account of Gen 1 occurred in a timeless eternity, to which time was added at the fall.

But the word for 'beginning' is Bereshit, which begins with a bet. So if the author of the BW produced a set of rules for interpretation, then abided by them, the error mentioned above would be avoided.

By the way, in Cabbalism the aleph represents the two waters of creation separated by the firmament. But Cabbalism was invented to distract people from Christ. When you see the marble rock or the white rock in Cabbalism, they are instructed not to say water, water. When they see Christ, they are not to call him the Torah in heaven and on earth.

So be careful when using "Jewish" symbolism. Jesus said they neither knew the scriptures nor the power of God.

__________________
Wonder why the world seems so bad?
WORLD - WORD = L

It appears that you did not read any of my arguments. You are wrong when you say "because it conflicts with the symmetry of your wheel." The LXX additions to Esther do not touch the "symmetry" of the Wheel in any way at all. It appears you are writing without having any understanding at all. Symmetry had nothing to do with my arguments about the LXX additions to Esther.

And what do you mean when you say the Bible Wheel is not "accurate"? Are you saying that the 66 books of the Protestant canon are not "accurately" represented on the Bible Wheel? What would that even mean? It's just a chart man! Just a chart! I could have used a rectangular chart with 3 rows and 22 columns, and then correlated the 22 columns with the Hebrew alphabet. And then I could have taken that rectangular chart and bent it into a circle to form the Bible Wheel. The concept of "accuracy" does not enter into these considerations at all, except in as much as I accurately follow the traditional order of the 66 books.

I am not starting with any "assumption" about the "accuracy" of the Bible Wheel. The Bible Wheel is simply a 2D representation of the Protestant canon. The "validity" or "invalidity" of the Protestant canon vis a vis the Catholic canon has nothing to do with the fact that Esther aligns with Pey on the Bible Wheel. That alignment is JUST A FACT. The book of Esther aligns with the letter Pey, the 17th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. I then showed that there is a profound independent correlation between the KeyWord panim (face) established in the Alphabetic Verses and the theme of Esther as understood by both Jews and Christians for centuries. This correlation gives strong evidence that the Bible was designed on the pattern of the alphabet because the it is very unlikely that such an lucid connection could just happen by chance.

The fact that the LXX additions directly and explicitly contradict the primary theme of the protocanonical Esther as understood WITHOUT reference to the Wheel and as confirmed strongly by the alignment with Pey on the Wheel gives strong evidence that the additions were not designed by the same mind that designed the rest of Scripture.

If you want to refute the Bible Wheel, you will need to find an error in some statement of logic or fact that I have made.And for that, you will need to actually read and understand something I have written.

Charts show things. What is your chart intended to show? Before you saw the correlations between the letters and what you thought they meant, what were you going to use it for?

This "traditional order" is found only in English-speaking Protestantism, and no where else. It did not come from God.

You are staring with the assumption that the meaning of the Book of Esther is the same as the meaning of "pey". Then, you are happily surprised that Esther lands on "pey," on your wheel. Thus "proving" that your original assumption about the meaning of the Book of Esther was correct, and, now that you've decided that that's true, you use that as the evidence that your wheel or chart is "correct."

What if the Book of Esther doesn't have that meaning at all? What if it's actually a story about faith in God? What if "pey" doesn't enter into it, at all?

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

Actually you have to. If you didn't believe that patterns were there, you wouldn't see them.

This particular bias is not damning to the theory. After all you expect the proponent of a theory to believe it.

The real question is: Are the patterns you observe the result of our ability to see patterns based on minimal amounts of information, even when they do not exist, such as finding faces in the shadows on the wall, or are they purposely placed there by God.

Here's a series of optical illusions concerning faces that I found fascinating and relevant to the discussion.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/sl...hats-in-a-face

__________________
Wonder why the world seems so bad?
WORLD - WORD = L

I am very thankful for the fair review of this thread! It is very helpful to all concerned.

But as for point 3 - the historical origin of the 66 books has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the patterns in the Bible Wheel. The 66 books of the Bible could have been invented out of whole cloth last weekend, and every statement of fact concerning the patterns on the Bible Wheel would remain true. And for those of us who accept the Bible as designed by God, we have no a priori reason to deny that the division of the books was by His hand no less than the content of the books.

Excellent example. I admonish everyone to be skeptical. The world has been filled with biblical balderdash. All I want is for folks to test my claims.

Agreed. That is the great challenge - how do we discern between chance and design?

But it's really not that daunting. The Bible is a very well structured book and the correlations between the books and the letters on the Wheel is in many cases extremely obvious and sometimes demonstrably optimal. For example, the books on the first Spoke are the first books of three primary divisions of Scripture:

Spoke 1 of the Bible Wheel
Genesis - First Book of the Law
Isaiah - First Book of the Prophets
Romans - First Book of the Epistles

Note also that all three categories (Law, Prophets, Epistles) are used by Scripture in its own self-description. Patterns as simple, elegant, and profound as this can not be dismissed as merely "random" or "meaningless" without doing great violence to our concepts of order and meaning.

These kinds of patterns saturate the Bible Wheel. I have written a 412 page book (free for download on my site) that lays out the "Big Picture" as well as the detailed correlations found on each Spoke. Having completed the book, I am 100% confident that the Bible Wheel is "optimal" in the sense that no rearrangement of the books could improve on the patterns it exhibits. Therefore, I have devised a way to help everyone discern between chance and design. I call it THE BIBLE WHEEL CHALLENGE which I state as follows:

THE BIBLE WHEEL CHALLENGE asserts that the Christian 66-book canon is truly perfect in the twofold sense that 1) no rearrangement of its books would improve upon the patterns discovered on the Bible Wheel, and 2) any rearrangement would cause an obvious degradation of existing patterns. The challenge is for the opponent to suggest a rearrangement and present arguments for why such a change would produce patterns equal to or superior to those presently seen in the Bible Wheel. This challenge simultaneously proves the invincibility of the Bible Wheel even as it demonstrates the vacuity of the skeptics canard that "patterns mean nothing because they can be found in anything." It is an extremely powerful challenge because it can not be refuted without interacting with the data, and the data is the touchstone that proves the Bible Wheel.

I've had this challenge online for years. I've presented it on many forums more hostile than this one. Folks have felt free to falsely assert that the Bible Wheel is invalid because "patterns can be found in anything" yet not one of my many vehement opponents (either Catholic or Protestant) has ever attempted the Bible Wheel Challenge.

On the contrary.
My comment was based on the fact that you are attempting to lead folks down the garden path, by proposing that we should up & accept what amounts to a re-make of Joseph Smith's "magical spectacles".
You also are insulting all the great Bible scholars of history, who have labored long and hard in order to bring us true scholarship.

I calls 'em as I see 'em.
And I call the so-called "Bible Wheel" nonsense. And anti-Christian nonsense at that.

__________________
Servant of Feline Forces

So I have reviewed the word peh.
It occurs 498 times in the OT. 498/66 = 7.5
By natural distribution we would expect the word to occur 7.5 times. Now that isn't exactly right because some books are bigger than others, so we might have to go back and calculate the probability based on book length.

But it only occurs in Ester once. And very heavily in Genesis. So why is it associated with Ester rather than Genesis?

__________________
Wonder why the world seems so bad?
WORLD - WORD = L

That is not correct. For example, I was not "looking for" the sevenfold symmetry of the Canon Wheel. I had no idea about that any such pattern might exist until I discovered it on one amazing morning in 1999, four years after the initial discovery of the Bible Wheel.

And what do you mean when you say that I must assume that the Bible Wheel is "accurate"? What do you mean by "accurate"? What does "accurate" have to do with noting patterns found in it?

I do not follow your argument. There is no need to believe in a theory to understand the theory. There is no need to have a bias that the Bible Wheel is "accurate" to note that the books on Spoke 1 are the first books of three primary divisions of Scripture.

Excellent question! I have developed the Bible Wheel Challenge to help folks discern if the patterns are real or imagined.

And thanks for the link. Those kinds of things always fascinate me.

Are you calling them "primary divisions" because that's where they land on your wheel, or because that's what you actually think are the primary divisions of Scripture, even without your wheel?

When I look at the Scriptures, I see only two main sections - the Old and the New Testaments.

I then see secondary divisions - the division between the Books of Moses, and the Books of Wisdom (which are also interspersed with books of history), followed by the Books of the Prophets. In the New Testament, I see the Gospels, the Book of Acts, the Pauline Epistles, the General Epistles, and the Book of the Apocalypse (aka the Book of Revelation).

I wouldn't consider either the Book of Isaiah or the Book of Romans to be the starting books of major divisions of the Bible. To my way of thinking, there are only two of these - Genesis, and Matthew.

But if we are going with the secondary divisions, then why does the wheel not account for the start of the Books of Wisdom, and the start of the Gospels? I should think that these two are more important, from the point of view of salvation history, than the start of the Pauline Epistles, in any case. Why place the Letter to the Romans in a higher priority than the Gospels, or the Book of Judges?

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

In 1991 I began to study the symbolic meaning of the Hebrew letters. I noticed the fascinating "coincidence" that the final letter Tav literally means a "mark" or "sign" and it was in the ancient script written as a cross - x - and sometimes like a t (as in the cross of Christ). Early church fathers saw this as a hint at the Gospel. I agreed, and thought it amazing that the symbolic alphabet which Jerome called "the alphabet of divine wisdom" ended in the cross. It reminded me of the words of our Lord, "It is finished" spoken from the cross.

This was my motivation for studying the alphabet. I had a deep intuition that it was connected to the Gospel. I then read about the Hebrew alphabetic circle, and began organizing my findings by using a circular grid. I naturally put Genesis on Spoke 1 with Aleph since it was the book of beginnings. And God's House (Bet) was first designed in Exodus, so I put Exodus on Spoke 2 with Bet. The rest just fell out effortlessly. That was my motivation.

The question of validity was quickly settled for me. And overwhelming fountain of top-level super-obvious highly-significant correlations immediately burst forth like a fountain of light.

False. The >>>ORDER<<< of the Protestant Bible originated in the LXX and was carried forth in the Vulgate. The only difference is in content - Catholic Bible has seven books interspersed amongst the books accepted by the Protestants.

False. I quoted a mountain of independent scholars who explicated the meaning of Esther. I had no choice in the matter whatsoever. The book means what it means. The discovery of the meaning of Esther came long after my initial discovery of the Wheel. It was one of the most stunning experiences to see such simple, obvious, and profound correlation between the meaning of the Hebrew letter Pey and the first book on the Spoke corresponding to that letter.

I had COUNTLESS experiences like this as I wrote the Bible Wheel book. The evidence for design in rock solid and extremely obvious.

What in the world do you mean by that??? If the book of Esther "has no meaning" then it could not be a "story about faith in God."

Exactly.
It's the old story of finding a button, and then sewing a vest for it.

__________________
Servant of Feline Forces

I said, what if it doesn't have that meaning? (That God is hidden.)

I didn't say that it has no meaning.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

Catholics did not add anything to the LXX, nor to the Vulgate - it was Protestants who removed books from the LXX, to conform it to their idea of what the Old Testament should have been.

__________________
According to Quentin Tarentino, (Kill Bill Volume 2) Clark Kent is Superman's opinion of the human race. It occurs to me that, using the same logic, Jesus of Nazareth is God's.

Tiber Swim Team - Class of 2001

The primary divisions of Scripture are common knowledge. I have used no categories that I have not found in other scholastic works. That's where I learned the divisions. Everyone familiar with the history of the Bible knows that the Hebrew OT was divided into Torah, Prophets, and Writings. That's where the word Tanakh comes from. It is an acronym for their categorical scheme. The books were arranged in a slightly different categorical system in the in the LXX and hence the Vulgate, and the Protestant Canon. This is the pattern I follow. I use no category not recognized in the literature.

Here is how I see the divisions of the Bible. It is from my article called A Complete Categorical View of the Bible:




Great! That's how I see things too. See the chart above.

Hummm ... that seems odd. I wonder if its a Catholic vs. Protestant thing. In the Protestant world, there is no greater book in all the Bible than Romans. Here are a few comments that I wrote in my article called Romans: The Cathedral of the Christian Faith:

If the major themes of Scripture find their root in Genesis and their branch in Isaiah, so they flower in Romans. Few books, if any, have received accolades quite like this "cathedral of the Christian faith" as it was called by Frederick Godet. In the introduction to his Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans he lists but a few of the prominent Christian leaders who have recognized the unique significance of the Book of Romans:

Coleridge calls the Epistle to the Romans "the profoundest book in existence." Chrysostom had it read to him twice a week. Luther, in his famous preface, says "This Epistle is the chief book of the New Testament, the purest Gospel. It deserves not only to be known word for word by every Christian, but to be the subject of his meditation day by day, the daily bread of his soul." ... Melanchthon, in order to make it more perfectly his own, copied it twice with his own hand. It is the book which he expounded most frequently in his lectures. The Reformation was undoubtedly the work of the Epistle to the Romans, as well as the epistle to the Galatians; and the probability is that every great spiritual revival in the church will be associated as effect and cause with a deeper understanding of this book.

Now granted, those are Protestant comments, so maybe Catholics have a different sense on the significance of Romans. I'll check into it and let you know what I find.

As for the alignment of Isaiah with Romans, you might find my article called Isaiah: The Romans of the Old Testament of interest.

It is great to be chatting!

Richard

Read my comment again. I didn't say that Catholics added anything.

Ah! Sorry, I missed that. Thanks for clarifying!

You are correct. Alternate possibilities of the meaning of Esther would have be discussed before we settle on any firm conclusions. But regardless, I have at the very least presented a plausible foundation for my argument since I have presented plenty of evidence that the meaning I use is accepted by many Jewish and Christian scholars. I did not invent it to fit the Wheel. On the contrary, I found that the commentaries of others were written as if they had a Bible Wheel in their hands! I tell you the truth - I was constantly astounded at how easily and gracefully the books fit with the corresponding letters.

And besides, your idea that the the meaning of Esther is to "teach faith in God" is entirely consistent with, and indeed implicit in, the interpretation I have offered and which is confirmed by its integration with the letter Pey on the Wheel.

Great chatting!

Richard

How does your comment apply to anything I have written?

What is the "button" you think I found?

What is the "vest" that I sewed around it?

How exactly does the alignment of the books on the first Spoke cohere with your assertion?

Spoke 1 of the Bible Wheel
Genesis - First Book of the Law
Isaiah - First Book of the Prophets
Romans - First Book of the Epistles

I think you making rude statements out of pure ignorance. I think you are opposing something you know nothing about. I think you are gravely sinning.

Your comments are utterly disconnected from reality. You give NO EVIDENCE for any of your false accusations. There is absolutely no connection of any kind with the "magical spectacles" of Joseph Smith, literally or figuratively. On the contrary, my claims about the Bible Wheel are open for all to test. I claim no "special knowledge" of any kind. I claim no authority of any kind. I am simply presenting arguments based on nothing but logic and facts and asking folks to test them.

Where do you get your animus against the Bible Wheel? It is obvious you are utterly ignorant of everything about it. So why do you presume to know that it is like Mormonism or is anti-Christian? Where is the evidence for your false accusations?

And as for the "scholars" - exactly how have I insulted them? Please be specific. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who is tired of your empty assertions void of all evidence.

And finally, tell me this: how many false accusations (lies) do you let yourself state in public on a typical day before you feel the burden of your sin and confess it to God and attempt a reconciliation with those whom you have wronged?

Just asking ...