biblewheel.com

bluetriangle wrote: Sat Oct 18, 2025 3:07 pm I’m glad you like it. I wasn’t sure if this was what you wanted. It’s strangely difficult to articulate principles you are abiding by, even when you are using them all the time. I think this thread could be of great value, particularly to new researchers, as I had no such guidance and made many mistakes at first. The nearest I had to a mentor was Vernon, who did us all a great service with the quality of his work.

That's where you and I differ Bill. I think the principles are very easy to articulate and follow.

My first principle is that real patterns should be discoverable by independent researchers. I think the patterns uniting Genesis 1.1-5, John 1.1-5, Hebrews 4.12-13 & Deuteronomy 6:4-5 meet this criteria. The patterns you have found relating to Osama bin Ladin and Pope John Paul II do not seem to meet it. How could anyone make those connections from the text itself?

My second principle is that any patterns should contain strong clues to their own decryption. This was central to the design of the Arecibo message. Astrophysicists designed the message to be exactly 1679 = 23 x 73 bits. The idea was that the semiprime would suggest a rectangular layout of the message. If laid out as 23 rows by 73 columns, not image would appear (just chaos). But if laid out as 73 rows by 23 columns, a clearly symmetric decipherable message would appear. I believe this God used this principle in Genesis 1.1. The figurate geometry is implied in the factorization, and would be discovered by any competent intellect.

2. Simplicity (but not over-simplicity)
Agreed, 100%! That's why if I were to create a presentation designed to convince a skeptic, I would limit myself to the original Hebrew/Greek text analyzed with a single gematria method (standard). I also would limit the analysis to words found in the text being analyzed.

So would I. In fact that is exactly what I have done at times in my writings and at the very least I will always feature the Hebrew Genesis 1.1, what I call the Creation Seal (G1.1 + John 1.1) and the Logos Star within what I call the Creation Snowflake.

Yes, that principle works where our analysis overlaps. But I don't think it works where our analysis diverges.

All that interests me is the truth. If you want to discuss cherry picking then I’m happy to do that (maybe on another thread).

Yes, it is critical to discuss cherry picking. It seems to be central to your codes. The foundational aspect of my work does not use cherry picking at all. I avoid that by using only words in the actual text and their relations based on standard gematria alone. Of course, my site is full of "cherry picked" identities that I collected over the years, but they are not foundational to my presentation of the primary biblical holographs. They stand alone on their own merit and are completely invulnerable to the charge of cherry picking. I don't see that in your work, but will be happy to discuss it with you.

I would argue that the ‘weakness’ isn’t so much a flaw as a necessary minimum number of languages and systems to convey the information it contains. Most of the code is in a translation of words already written, so the task of conveying new information through it necessitated using more systems of gematria (I was taught the combined system as I worked on the code).

Yes, if the code actually entails modern political figures, then obviously you must reach outside the Bible.

The amount of information encoded within Gen. 1.1-5 is incredible and must have employed something akin to fractal compression or holography. The Bible is founded on the rock of mathematical truth and it offers us a valuable glimpse of the Mind of God.

I agree. I've never seen anything like it in any other analysis of any text. This is what sets it apart from mere numerology that depends critically upon cherry picking.

I was shown who these two men really were, or represented, in a vision in 2002 and obeyed the Spirit’s directives in this and many other ways. I could never have done this without an enormous amount of spiritual assistance. What people make of it is up to them but I will say that these men exemplified the two Divine attributes of justice and mercy recognised by all three Abrahamic religions. The lives of both men were encoded to an extraordinary degree and you may recall that they were connected in the end by the death of bin Laden on the same day that Pope John Paul II was beatified. That day, 5/1/11, was the most npencoded date I have ever found. For example it was the 3773rd day of the 3rd Millennium.

We should start a new thread to discuss your interpretation of those names.

Great chatting!

Richard

RAMcGough wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 6:27 pm
My first principle is that real patterns should be discoverable by independent researchers. I think the patterns uniting Genesis 1.1-5, John 1.1-5, Hebrews 4.12-13 & Deuteronomy 6:4-5 meet this criteria. The patterns you have found relating to Osama bin Ladin and Pope John Paul II do not seem to meet it. How could anyone make those connections from the text itself?

I agree with most of this. Much of my work is reproducible. For example, Gen. 1.1 (NIV, o) sums to 430. This is a trefoil based on three conjoined rhombii of 144 counters and derives from triangle 595, with links to the related concepts of transgression and sanctification, which I develop elsewhere. 430 has 43 and 86 as important factors, linking to Elohim, Yehoshua HaMashiach and Jesus Christ. 430 also links to the concepts of number (arithmos) and law (nomes). So we immediately see rich seams of possibilities and links to Biblical Greek and Hebrew as well as modern English. Trefoils 430 (verse 1) and 970 (verse 5) also frame the “first-day” verses, which I call The Garden (and that is encoded too) and link up to further geometry within those verses. I think anyone could have made those connections.

The only difficulty for another researcher would be my extensive use of the ordinal value-to-standard value scheme, but I was taught that by the Key. I think a two system encryption/decryption process, similar to public key cryptography, was necessary to timelock the code until certain events had taken place. In fact I realised a few years ago that the code didn’t fully exist until then. 9/11 seeded the code with numbers that fertilised it, like a sperm fusing with an egg to create a zygote. However, large parts of it could have been found before then.

As for the Pope and bin Laden, I was directed to look at them through dreams, words and visions. The opening words of the NIV contain reflective codes that confirm it. https://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106743.html

My second principle is that any patterns should contain strong clues to their own decryption. This was central to the design of the Arecibo message. Astrophysicists designed the message to be exactly 1679 = 23 x 73 bits. The idea was that the semiprime would suggest a rectangular layout of the message. If laid out as 23 rows by 73 columns, not image would appear (just chaos). But if laid out as 73 rows by 23 columns, a clearly symmetric decipherable message would appear. I believe this God used this principle in Genesis 1.1. The figurate geometry is implied in the factorization, and would be discovered by any competent intellect.

Again, and notwithstanding what I just wrote, I agree in principle. What I love about G1.1 in the Hebrew Bible is that it is self contained. Triangle 2701, its internal structure and other geometries, such as the compound Star of David, the trefoil pairs and other figures I found, are all implied within the verse itself, which reminds me of a fractally compressed file.

You might find this hard to believe, but it’s critical to understand that a lot of my finds have been given to me through ‘downloads’. I never got seriously involved with the Hebrew codes until October 2014, when I had an enormous download, which took about a half hour. Over the next three weeks I made several new discoveries in G1.1 and sent them all to Vernon, who used a couple in his own work. This phenomenon has happened to me many times. After I get one, I know I’m about to make a major code find.

2. Simplicity (but not over-simplicity)
Agreed, 100%! That's why if I were to create a presentation designed to convince a skeptic, I would limit myself to the original Hebrew/Greek text analyzed with a single gematria method (standard). I also would limit the analysis to words found in the text being analyzed.

So would I. In fact that is exactly what I have done at times in my writings and at the very least I will always feature the Hebrew Genesis 1.1, what I call the Creation Seal (G1.1 + John 1.1) and the Logos Star within what I call the Creation Snowflake.

Yes, that principle works where our analysis overlaps. But I don't think it works where our analysis diverges.

The main criticisms you and Leo seem to be levelling at my work are that I cherry pick and that I stray from mathematics into names and events, using gematria far more liberally than many. While I love the purity of a solely mathematical approach, such as Leo uses, I was pushed in other directions.

All that interests me is the truth. If you want to discuss cherry picking then I’m happy to do that (maybe on another thread).

Yes, it is critical to discuss cherry picking. It seems to be central to your codes. The foundational aspect of my work does not use cherry picking at all. I avoid that by using only words in the actual text and their relations based on standard gematria alone. Of course, my site is full of "cherry picked" identities that I collected over the years, but they are not foundational to my presentation of the primary biblical holographs. They stand alone on their own merit and are completely invulnerable to the charge of cherry picking. I don't see that in your work, but will be happy to discuss it with you.

I hope so, because I strongly disagree that I cherry pick (although I’m sure my exegesis isn’t oerfect). The danger of cherry picking is far greater in my work, but it is an unavoidable burden. I think I can prove in certain instances that I do not cherry pick. The integrity of the rest of the code follows naturally.

But Richard (and Leo), might you not be guilty of bias here, in your hawkish attitude to the idea of a code in a mere translation? For example, you stated that you believe God would not encode a modern translation and that this is “of very low a priori probability”. Based on what?

I was shown who these two men really were, or represented, in a vision in 2002 and obeyed the Spirit’s directives in this and many other ways. I could never have done this without an enormous amount of spiritual assistance. What people make of it is up to them but I will say that these men exemplified the two Divine attributes of justice and mercy recognised by all three Abrahamic religions. The lives of both men were encoded to an extraordinary degree and you may recall that they were connected in the end by the death of bin Laden on the same day that Pope John Paul II was beatified. That day, 5/1/11, was the most npencoded date I have ever found. For example it was the 3773rd day of the 3rd Millennium.

We should start a new thread to discuss your interpretation of those names.

Agreed. I’ll start one today.

Geert van den Bos wrote: Fri Oct 17, 2025 3:19 am
John 1:14,
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν

The word that was an alphanumeric construct became flesh = edible/understandable

and dwelled in us

Most translators have "among us"
https://biblehub.com/john/1-14.htm
which proves their idolatry

cf. John 14:20,
ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ γνώσεσθε ὑμεῖς ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί μου καὶ ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν.

I'm sorry... but how does the translation of "among us" prove idolatry? The Greek word, ἐν, is not as strict as the English word "in". It would be a better approximation to the words, "in the midst of".

An example is...

Luke 10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves.

Same word, but the word "in" might sound more like...

Luke 10:3 Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs in wolves... (for a tasty treat).

Another...

1Thess 2:7 But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children:

Did Paul become someone's lunch?

I do, however, like the observation that we could translate that the Word became flesh and dwelt IN us... in the sense that...

John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I [am] in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

... describing something that is far more intimate than being just face to face.

However, proving one's idolatry... I'm not following you.

Wade

Luke 10:3 and 1 Thessalonians 2:7 have ἐν μέσῳ

Luke 10:3, ὑπάγετε· ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ὡς ἄρνας ἐν μέσῳ λύκων.

1 Thessalonians 2:7, δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι, ἀλλὰ ἐγενήθημεν νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν. ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα

Moreover, "flesh" doesn't mean "man".

Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said,
Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I AM hath sent me unto you.

Moses I AM THAT I AM משה אהיה אשר אהיה (Original Text) 888

Jesus Christ המשיח יהושע (Standard Hebrew) = 754
Jesus Christ Ιησου Χριστου (Standard Greek) = 2368
------------------------------------------------------------
2368 / 754 = 314

The Apostle Peter was appointed/ordained to preach to the Jews.
The Apostle Paul was appointed/ordained to preach to the Gentiles.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=KJV

The first occurrence of ordained in the New Testament appears in Mark 3:14
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1otxBtl ... drive_link

Mark 3:14
He (Jesus Christ) appointed/ordained twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach.
https://biblehub.com/text/mark/3-14.htm

The English word
He (Capitalized Case Sensitive) just happens to appears precisely 754 times in the 1769 KJB.
Jesus Christ Ιησου Χριστου (Standard Greek) = 2368
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rDuBEw ... drive_link

The English names
Peter + Paul appear exactly 314 times within the King James 1769 New Testament.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dtN1vB ... drive_link

The First 3 (Hebrew Words) have exactly 14 Hebrew Letters.
------------------------------------------
In the beginning God created
בראשית ברא אלהים

The English words
Jesus is _ the name appear exactly 314 times within the Entire King James 1769 Bible!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vqEROE ... drive_link

The First 8 Digits of Pi = 3.1415926

The first occurrence of 31415926 in Pi appears at position 50,366,472.
301431972971594170053141592609521470412250941070
.............................^ <-- 50,366,472

50 + 366 + 472
888

Math Does Prove God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKpcvKQnREY

Bk 4 John 17:24
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am;
that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

4 x 17 x 24 = 1632

1632 (Mirror Image) 2361
1632 + 2361
3993

by Glen » Sun Oct 26, 2025 5:19 pm

"Math Does Prove God"

But who or what does prove that math does prove God?

And who is the God that has to be or can be proven?

Glen wrote: Sun Oct 26, 2025 8:19 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKpcvKQnREY

Bk 4 John 17:24
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am;
that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Greek
Πάτερ, ὃ δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν μετ' ἐμοῦ, ἵνα θεωρῶσιν τὴν δόξαν τὴν ἐμὴν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι, ὅτι ἠγάπησάς με πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου.

makes think of Jewish prayer "adon olam"

"adon olam asher malach beterem kol yetzir nivra"
eternal master who reigned when nothing had yet been created

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adon_Olam

Geert van den Bos wrote: Sun Oct 26, 2025 11:40 am by Glen » Sun Oct 26, 2025 5:19 pm

"Math Does Prove God"

But who or what does prove that math does prove God?

And who is the God that has to be or can be proven?

Maths can’t prove anything in the real world, it’s a system of rational knowledge. The world is known and understood through empirical knowledge, of which science is the best example.

Maths is entirely logical and so the rules of logic compel us to believe that if maths proves God exists then insofar as we are rational beings we have to accept it.

But the codes don’t literally prove that God exists. They ‘prove’ that the Bible is encoded with numbers. But the codes do not offer proof in the mathematical sense (even there, no system of maths can within itself prove every proposition - some are “undecidable”). They offer ‘proof’ by repetition based on probability, getting ever closer to 100% certainty without actually reaching it. It’s more than evidence but less than a mathematical proof. However, since the codes are based on mathematics (a glimpse of the Mind of God), that is the closest we can ever come to proof in a world ruled by empirical evidence. Mathematical thinking can structure that evidence into hypotheses, theories and even laws, but as with science the codes can never be proven in an absolute sense. It has to be this way, so that the freedom of those who deny God exists is preserved. If we are compelled by absolute proof that God exists we lose our free will.

If we accept that the codes are real, then there is the question of how it was done. It had to have been done by some intelligence working through the unconscious minds of the writers, editors and translators, an intelligence that can transcend space, time and language. This comes very close to proof that God encoded it, since He has the characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. The codes are a kind of authenticating watermark on Scripture, so we are therefore directed to study the Bible, whereupon we can learn more about God and His relationship to us.

Geert van den Bos wrote: Fri Oct 24, 2025 10:43 pm Luke 10:3 and 1 Thessalonians 2:7 have ἐν μέσῳ

Luke 10:3, ὑπάγετε· ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς ὡς ἄρνας ἐν μέσῳ λύκων.

1 Thessalonians 2:7, δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς Χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι, ἀλλὰ ἐγενήθημεν νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν. ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα

Moreover, "flesh" doesn't mean "man".

Okay. I can see the ἐν μέσῳ. I was trying to logically figure out how the translation of "among" proves idolatry. What I had said was true, that the Greek word ἐν is equivalent to "in the midst of" vs. a strict "inside of". I hadn't researched my examples as thoroughly as you have pointed out, but my question is not one so much as a challenge, but one that is seeking to understand how one derives idolatry from a translator's choice of using the word "among" when I haven't seen one translation that chose the word "in".

The logical conclusion of your statement is that all translators are idolators which is not a sound conclusion. I do think that translators will make translation decisions based on their limited understanding of the mind of God, and if they are translating honestly based on the sphere of their understanding, they will only produce a work that reflects what they understand.