TORH/YHVH Code in First 5 Books Question

[why1942]

Hi,

I'm new to the forum and had a question about Chuck Missler's claim on the TORH / YHVH code in the first five books of the bible.

He (and others) claim that the word TORH is found in ELS of 50 (49 spaces between letters) in Genesis and Exodus. Likewise, the word, spelled backwards (HROT), is found in Numbers and Deuteronomy in ELS of 50. In Leviticus, TORH is not found, but YHVH is located in ELS at 8 (or 7 spaces between letters). They claim that the Torah always points to the name of God.

I used The Keys to the Bible Software to confirm the occurrences in Genesis and Exodus. Manually looking at the grid of Genesis 1, I find at the first "T" the code TORH at 50 ELS (49 spaces). Exodus 1 is exactly the same.

My problems begin when I go to Numbers. It is no longer the first "H" that I come to, but the 3rd "H" where TORH is spelled in reverse, in ELS of 50 (49 spaces). Then going to Deuteronomy, I get lost. HROT doesn't show up at an ELS of 50 until chapter 5:16.

I then go to Leviticus, and YHVH is found there at an ELS of 8 (7 spaces between letters) starting with the first "Y".

When I sit back and look at this information, Missler's hypothesis is tentatively affirmed. The word TORH is found in Genesis and Exodus. The word HORT is found in Numbers and Deuteronomy (albeit not perfectly arranged as in Genesis and Exodus). In addition, the word YHVH is found in Leviticus at the prescribed interval.

Trouble arises for this hypothesis, though, on further searches. I also found TORH and HROT at 50 ELS in all 5 books (in fact in all the OT books). I also found YHVH throughout the OT at 8 ELS. This means that not only does the Torah point to YHVH, it also points away from it at the same time.

Further, when I open the ELS sequences from 2 to 50 or above, all these words and word orders are found throughout the OT thousands of times. Wouldn't this point to the conclusion that these codes are not supernatural in origin, but simply random patterns? (I'm not referring to any other bible codes, just this Torah code and the claim that the Torah always points to the name of God).

I will add that I am not a skeptic or a non-believer. I am simply trying to understand the evidence I have found from my own inquiry into the matter.

Thank you for any help you can provide,

why1942

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi,

I'm new to the forum and had a question about Chuck Missler's claim on the TORH / YHVH code in the first five books of the bible.

He (and others) claim that the word TORH is found in ELS of 50 (49 spaces between letters) in Genesis and Exodus. Likewise, the word, spelled backwards (HROT), is found in Numbers and Deuteronomy in ELS of 50. In Leviticus, TORH is not found, but YHVH is located in ELS at 8 (or 7 spaces between letters). They claim that the Torah always points to the name of God.

I used The Keys to the Bible Software to confirm the occurrences in Genesis and Exodus. Manually looking at the grid of Genesis 1, I find at the first "T" the code TORH at 50 ELS (49 spaces). Exodus 1 is exactly the same.

My problems begin when I go to Numbers. It is no longer the first "H" that I come to, but the 3rd "H" where TORH is spelled in reverse, in ELS of 50 (49 spaces). Then going to Deuteronomy, I get lost. HROT doesn't show up at an ELS of 50 until chapter 5:16.

I then go to Leviticus, and YHVH is found there at an ELS of 8 (7 spaces between letters) starting with the first "Y".

When I sit back and look at this information, Missler's hypothesis is tentatively affirmed. The word TORH is found in Genesis and Exodus. The word HORT is found in Numbers and Deuteronomy (albeit not perfectly arranged as in Genesis and Exodus). In addition, the word YHVH is found in Leviticus at the prescribed interval.

Trouble arises for this hypothesis, though, on further searches. I also found TORH and HROT at 50 ELS in all 5 books (in fact in all the OT books). I also found YHVH throughout the OT at 8 ELS. This means that not only does the Torah point to YHVH, it also points away from it at the same time.

Further, when I open the ELS sequences from 2 to 50 or above, all these words and word orders are found throughout the OT thousands of times. Wouldn't this point to the conclusion that these codes are not supernatural in origin, but simply random patterns? (I'm not referring to any other bible codes, just this Torah code and the claim that the Torah always points to the name of God).

I will add that I am not a skeptic or a non-believer. I am simply trying to understand the evidence I have found from my own inquiry into the matter.

Thank you for any help you can provide,

why1942
Hey there why1942,

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome:

I love your critical thinking skills! :thumb:

I agree that Missler's observations are more or less correct, but his interpretation could be completely wrong, for the reasons you mention. I do believe that aspects of the text show evidence of design, but the ELS are highly problematic. The frequencies of the letters in TORH and YHWH are very high, and so there are thousands of "hits." This makes a careful statistical analysis mandatory before any solid conclusions are drawn.

The best analysis I have read is called Who Wrote the Bible Code (http://www.ingermanson.com/books/wwtbc.php) by Randall Ingermanson PhD (in Physics). He wrote code to test the hypothesis by measuring the "entropy" of the text. He concluded that there were no meaningful ELS structures in the overall body of Scripture, and I am convinced he is correct. But that would not necessarily imply that there are not some localized patterns, like the ones you asked about. But I doubt they are significant for the statistical reasons you mentioned.

All the best,

Richard

PS: I have found some patterns that appear when the text is laid out in a grid, but it is different than the ELS. See The Wheel of Light (http://biblewheel.com/InnerWheels/WheelOfLight.asp).

[NumberX]

Years ago I read about it that it was like this, if I remember it well, but can't find it back, it's not in the two books I have about the subject written by the professionals ("Computorah" and "The Bible Code"):

ELS of 49 or 50
> YHVH
> YHVH
- TORAH
< HVHY
< HVHY

[gilgal]

It bothers me that Missler or others don't go any further on the subject. But whether or not it's real I'm determined to open a web page to search the bible code online. Be patient! I'm still working on it.

In the mean time read these posts:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2001
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=236

[gilgal]

try this out. It's still a rough draft:
http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php

[NumberX]

Oh now I understand it some more. One has to wait a while and then it shows under the text. Some suggestions for improvement:
- Larger input hebrew signs
- A link to Wikipedia or other site's Hebrew 'Alphabet'
- "Book no." otherwise one writes Gen or Genesis
- Text "You have to wait some seconds and scroll down

When I entered Yod Heh Wav Heh the last Heh did nog show in the grid..

[why1942]

Hey Everyone,

Thanks for the responses. I finished up the Findings Report on this project and posted it today. I have to say I'm a bit disillusioned at the discoveries I made, finding that the very symmetrical appearances that Missler speaks so readily about really do not occur. The way he describes it makes it sound very plausible that it is valid evidence for divine authorship. I can't believe it has taken me over 15 years to get around to verifying the information. Just makes me wonder what other 2nd or 3rd hand teaching/doctrine/beliefs I hold that are unverified and ultimately unfounded.

It's an interesting contradiction, since Missler repeatedly encourages people to not take his word for it. I suppose most simply do anyway. I know I did for so long. Just never made the time to look into it.

Here is the Findings Report (http://why1942.byethost10.com/hermitstudies/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Research-Report-001-TORH-YHVH-Bible-Code-HermitStudies.tk.pdf) if anyone would like to read it. Thanks again for the responses.

why1942

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey Everyone,

Thanks for the responses. I finished up the Findings Report on this project and posted it today. I have to say I'm a bit disillusioned at the discoveries I made, finding that the very symmetrical appearances that Missler speaks so readily about really do not occur. The way he describes it makes it sound very plausible that it is valid evidence for divine authorship. I can't believe it has taken me over 15 years to get around to verifying the information. Just makes me wonder what other 2nd or 3rd hand teaching/doctrine/beliefs I hold that are unverified and ultimately unfounded.

It's an interesting contradiction, since Missler repeatedly encourages people to not take his word for it. I suppose most simply do anyway. I know I did for so long. Just never made the time to look into it.

Here is the Findings Report (http://why1942.byethost10.com/hermitstudies/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Research-Report-001-TORH-YHVH-Bible-Code-HermitStudies.tk.pdf) if anyone would like to read it. Thanks again for the responses.

why1942
Excellent report.

You opened a very large can of squirming worms when you said "Just makes me wonder what other 2nd or 3rd hand teaching/doctrine/beliefs I hold that are unverified and ultimately unfounded." Once you go down that road, there ain't no turning back. Traditional "fundamentalist" conceptions about the Bible like "inerrancy" and "infallibility" are quickly dispelled as unfounded myths. And almost all Christian apologetics is based on faulty logic and is fundamentally worthless.

Perhaps you can help me. I am in a very strange position. I wrote a 412 page book and developed a website with hundreds of pages to explain the Bible Wheel. During that time, I was convinced that the Bible Wheel "proved" the divine origin of Holy Scripture. I still believe that is true (in as much as I am not aware of any errors in my work), but I no longer believe that the Bible is literally true. It seems more like a supernatural "historical novel." I do not even believe that there is a "personal" God as described in that book. I'm not an atheist, but I do not believe in a god who intervenes in human affairs and judges souls for sins in this life, or that folks even need "salvation" in the traditional sense.

It would be very interesting if you reviewed my work to see if it stands up under your scrutiny. Perhaps your skeptical eye will help me see something I have missed. I have sought serious criticism from many Christians on the internet over the years, but have yet to be shown any fundamental flaw or systematic error in my work. You can download the book for free here (http://biblewheel.com/Book/eBook.asp) if you are interested.

All the best,

Richard

PS: Why 1942?

[why1942]

Hi Richard,

After I made my post, I bowed to my curiosity and skimmed the Bible Wheel website, including downloading your book. I would be happy to read through it and provide feedback.

Would you like my responses to be available to the public (on the forum) or privately by email? Along those lines, would you grant me permission to post my review of your book on my website as one of my research projects (I would also provide a link to your book and website)? If not, I would still be happy to review it privately.

I agree with you about the can of worms. I used to think that I had only 1st hand doctrinal beliefs, but came to the realization that most if not all of my beliefs are 2nd or 3rd hand. I've never fit well with traditional Christian denominationalism (primarily Baptist, but also Church of Christ, some independent progressive churches, etc) there always seems to be something in their teaching/doctrine that they obsessively focus on that is extra-biblical.

At any rate, I will provide my feedback soon. Point of interest,though. You described the bible as a "supernatural historical novel". Did you mean that you accept the idea that there is a supernatural realm (i.e. God exists) and he/she/it has communicated with/to us via a historical novel (i.e. providing spiritual guidance through fictional stories) or do you mean that you discount a supernatural realm (i.e. no actual God) and consider the bible to be a creation of human intellect, no different than the writings of other religions (or John Grisham's latest novel)?

The way you describe your beliefs (as I understand it) sounds very similar to a Deistic world-view.

why1942

P.S. Why1942? It has actually no historical significance. I was changing my email address about a year ago and had to come up with something. At the time I was in grad school, majoring in history, so I just picked a random year and asked why. I get asked that question frequently. ;-)

[NumberX]

try this out. It's still a rough draft:
http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php

Yeah I like to search for leper, leprosy and contagious (that's what leprosy is).
That's TSoR'aTH (90-200-70-400). Don't know why, but suddenly I remember this post of mine (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1722&highlight=leper).

[gilgal]

Yeah I like to search for leper, leprosy and contagious (that's what leprosy is).
That's TSoR'aTH (90-200-70-400). Don't know why, but suddenly I remember this post of mine (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1722&highlight=leper).
It depend where you want to search:
http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php?skiprow=50&word=%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%AA&frombook=3&fromchapter=13&tobook=3&tochapter=13

Correct the book and chapter section if you wish.

Keep in mind that there are some place, as you read in the text above you'll notice that there are two kinds of brackets {} and [] and show a word spelled in two different ways. This might mess up the els. So if the els is short it's safer. I have to fix that giving the searcher the ability to choose.

I could use some help in this web page if you have the patience and knowledge in coding NumberX. It's not so much different than VB. I've taken VB courses in the past. Javascript and PHP have many things in common. Let me know if you're interested.

[gilgal]

Hi,

I'm new to the forum and had a question about Chuck Missler's claim on the TORH / YHVH code in the first five books of the bible.

He (and others) claim that the word TORH is found in ELS of 50 (49 spaces between letters) in Genesis and Exodus. Likewise, the word, spelled backwards (HROT), is found in Numbers and Deuteronomy in ELS of 50. In Leviticus, TORH is not found, but YHVH is located in ELS at 8 (or 7 spaces between letters). They claim that the Torah always points to the name of God.

I used The Keys to the Bible Software to confirm the occurrences in Genesis and Exodus. Manually looking at the grid of Genesis 1, I find at the first "T" the code TORH at 50 ELS (49 spaces). Exodus 1 is exactly the same.

My problems begin when I go to Numbers. It is no longer the first "H" that I come to, but the 3rd "H" where TORH is spelled in reverse, in ELS of 50 (49 spaces). Then going to Deuteronomy, I get lost. HROT doesn't show up at an ELS of 50 until chapter 5:16.

I then go to Leviticus, and YHVH is found there at an ELS of 8 (7 spaces between letters) starting with the first "Y".

When I sit back and look at this information, Missler's hypothesis is tentatively affirmed. The word TORH is found in Genesis and Exodus. The word HORT is found in Numbers and Deuteronomy (albeit not perfectly arranged as in Genesis and Exodus). In addition, the word YHVH is found in Leviticus at the prescribed interval.

Trouble arises for this hypothesis, though, on further searches. I also found TORH and HROT at 50 ELS in all 5 books (in fact in all the OT books). I also found YHVH throughout the OT at 8 ELS. This means that not only does the Torah point to YHVH, it also points away from it at the same time.

Further, when I open the ELS sequences from 2 to 50 or above, all these words and word orders are found throughout the OT thousands of times. Wouldn't this point to the conclusion that these codes are not supernatural in origin, but simply random patterns? (I'm not referring to any other bible codes, just this Torah code and the claim that the Torah always points to the name of God).

I will add that I am not a skeptic or a non-believer. I am simply trying to understand the evidence I have found from my own inquiry into the matter.

Thank you for any help you can provide,

why1942
I have read somewhere that the scribes who copied the Torah would count letters to make sure that they haven't missed a letter. So counting and discovering els patterns shouldn't be a strange thing to them. I have Missler's book called the Cosmic Codes. While he talks about many interesting things from the Chinese Alphabet, Daniel's writing on the wall, the bible codes...(I don't remember if Genesis 22-24 was mentioned, the Akida, is this how it's spelled?) the way the rabbis and scholars interpreted that text and how it relates to Jesus Christ, the "Gospel in Genesis" the names of Genesis 5... all interesting. But I notice he doesn't go that much into details. It's as if they're in it to make money not a work of a true scholar.

Also I wonder many things about texts. The Torah is said to be the best preserved text compared to the rest of the bible. A copy was left in the Ark of the Covenant. But we don't have the Ark. Revelation 11 says that it was in heaven. On the other hand the Ethiopians claim to have it (or a copy of the Ark). Ron Wyatt claimed to have found the Ark under the Temple. Michael Rood supported that claim and says that the blood of Jesus was spilled on the Ark when the earthquake happened. I don't know. But we should take the Revelation 11 more seriously.

But in Josiah's time the Torah was found while cleaning the temple showing that it was lost for a period.

But if we are not willing to believe the torah->torah-> yhwh<-harot<-harot because, obviously there are many els findings of torah in the TORAH (1st 5 books). The 1st 2 books, Genesis and Exodus, to me is amazing enough that with 50-letter skips spells out TORH, torah. But I also accept that sometimes our anticipations on patterns don't work. Because God has his ways. Looking ourselves in the mirror, our bodies are not 100% symmetrical either. You may have a birth mark on one side and don't have it on the other...Some people are right-handed and some left-handed...So the bible shouldn't be expected to be 100% symmetrical either. But God has his ways.

[NumberX]

Ah this is what this thread is about. I found it by Google and we can easely count and check the findings for ourselves in the text if we want. See http://www.ancientpaths.org/APJTbiblecode.html. "For example, if you start with Gen. 1:1" etc.

Here is the first finding (http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php?skiprow=50&word=%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94&find=5,55,105,155&frombook=1&fromchapter=1&tobook=1&tochapter=5) on the page of Gilgal, the word Torah is written in red, you have to wait a few seconds and scroll down.
Now I understand the page also better. You have to enter the text in the search fields, click "search this", wait for the page to load, scroll down and click the els (50 in this case) and wait again a few seconds and then the red text is shown where you are looking for. And you can copy and pase the link. This manual is necessary I think, or the first top left input field is not necessary.

Really nice, to be able to do so.

This is the second finding (http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php?skiprow=50&word=%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94&find=7,57,107,157&frombook=2&fromchapter=1&tobook=2&tochapter=3), Torah at els of 50 in the second book.

This (http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php?skiprow=50&word=%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94&find=2261,2311,2361,2411&frombook=4&fromchapter=1&tobook=4&tochapter=3) is Torah at els of 50 in the fourth book and here it is (http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php?skiprow=50&word=%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94&find=2399,2449,2499,2549&frombook=5&fromchapter=1&tobook=5&tochapter=3) in the fifth book. But these two had to be spelled backwards, did not look for that, you do that.

I only searched in the first three chapters of each book by the way.

[gilgal]

Ah this is what this thread is about. I found it by Google and we can easely count and check the findings for ourselves in the text if we want. See http://www.ancientpaths.org/APJTbiblecode.html. "For example, if you start with Gen. 1:1" etc.

Here is the first finding (http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php?skiprow=50&word=%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94&find=5,55,105,155&frombook=1&fromchapter=1&tobook=1&tochapter=5) on the page of Gilgal, the word Torah is written in red, you have to wait a few seconds and scroll down.
Now I understand the page also better. You have to enter the text in the search fields, click "search this", wait for the page to load, scroll down and click the els (50 in this case) and wait again a few seconds and then the red text is shown where you are looking for. And you can copy and pase the link. This manual is necessary I think, or the first top left input field is not necessary.

Really nice, to be able to do so.

This is the second finding (http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php?skiprow=50&word=%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94&find=7,57,107,157&frombook=2&fromchapter=1&tobook=2&tochapter=3), Torah at els of 50 in the second book.

This (http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php?skiprow=50&word=%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94&find=2261,2311,2361,2411&frombook=4&fromchapter=1&tobook=4&tochapter=3) is Torah at els of 50 in the fourth book and here it is (http://www.gbgrafix.com/thewheelofgod/bible-code-search/examples/mybcode10.php?skiprow=50&word=%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94&find=2399,2449,2499,2549&frombook=5&fromchapter=1&tobook=5&tochapter=3) in the fifth book. But these two had to be spelled backwards, did not look for that, you do that.

I only searched in the first three chapters of each book by the way.
There's something wrong with the coding that the first chapters of the last two books don't show the results properly.

But this concept:
TORH-->TORH-->YHWH<--HROT<--HROT
can be seen in this:

Mat 1:1 βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ -->Jesus Christ<--
Genesis 1:1
בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ׃ The Testaments point to Jesus Christ.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

After I made my post, I bowed to my curiosity and skimmed the Bible Wheel website, including downloading your book. I would be happy to read through it and provide feedback.

Would you like my responses to be available to the public (on the forum) or privately by email? Along those lines, would you grant me permission to post my review of your book on my website as one of my research projects (I would also provide a link to your book and website)? If not, I would still be happy to review it privately.

Public would be best by far. I delight in serious reviews of my work, and there are far too few of them out there. (Almost none, actually. :mad:) You have permission to post reviews, criticisms, synopses, or whatever you like from my work on your site, with the only condition being that you properly cite the source and notify me so I can respond, of course. Other than that, go to it! You can copy/paste, use my graphics, whatever. All in good faith, of course. :thumb:



I agree with you about the can of worms. I used to think that I had only 1st hand doctrinal beliefs, but came to the realization that most if not all of my beliefs are 2nd or 3rd hand. I've never fit well with traditional Christian denominationalism (primarily Baptist, but also Church of Christ, some independent progressive churches, etc) there always seems to be something in their teaching/doctrine that they obsessively focus on that is extra-biblical.

I had always been "non-denominational" myself until I finally quit going to churches a few years ago. I used to be pretty fundamentalistic, as you can see by my old "statement of faith":
Are you a Christian? Protestant? Catholic?

Praise God, I am a man saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesian 2:8). I am a non-denominational blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian. I believe that the true "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) is well stated in the early creeds of the church that Christ founded.
I no longer call myself a Christian. I can't even conceive of a "personal" Zeus-style god who intervenes in human affairs. Too much evidence against it. And as it turns out, my only two solid reasons for thinking there is anything to Christianity are 1) the witness of the fulfilled prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and 2) The witness of the supernatural design of the Scripture provided by the Bible Wheel. The irony is that neither of those witnesses mean anything at all to the vast majority of Christians.



At any rate, I will provide my feedback soon. Point of interest,though. You described the bible as a "supernatural historical novel". Did you mean that you accept the idea that there is a supernatural realm (i.e. God exists) and he/she/it has communicated with/to us via a historical novel (i.e. providing spiritual guidance through fictional stories) or do you mean that you discount a supernatural realm (i.e. no actual God) and consider the bible to be a creation of human intellect, no different than the writings of other religions (or John Grisham's latest novel)?

The way you describe your beliefs (as I understand it) sounds very similar to a Deistic world-view.

Very pertinent questions! :thumb:

I'm currently trying to figure out what I believe. I've eliminated traditional Christian theism as incoherent and hence impossible. It is also unbiblical. Most Christians believe in the philosophical theism created by the scholastic theologians in the middle ages. That "god" is not much like anything we see of the God of the Bible. Their extreme philosophical categories, like the doctrine that God is "absolutely simple" lead absurdities. Even the doctrine of God's absolute omniscience leads directly to a non-personal God, because such a God was never able to make a decision since he already knew what he would choose before he chose it. That god is some sort of "abstract principle" or "law of nature." But certainly nothing like a person that can love and be loved.

I've got a lot more to say - that is, to work out while thinking out loud - but I got to go run an errand.

Great chatting!

Richard

[gilgal]

Public would be best by far. I delight in serious reviews of my work, and there are far too few of them out there. (Almost none, actually. :mad:) You have permission to post reviews, criticisms, synopses, or whatever you like from my work on your site, with the only condition being that you properly cite the source and notify me so I can respond, of course. Other than that, go to it! You can copy/paste, use my graphics, whatever. All in good faith, of course. :thumb:


I had always been "non-denominational" myself until I finally quit going to churches a few years ago. I used to be pretty fundamentalistic, as you can see by my old "statement of faith":
Are you a Christian? Protestant? Catholic?

Praise God, I am a man saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesian 2:8). I am a non-denominational blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian. I believe that the true "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) is well stated in the early creeds of the church that Christ founded.
I no longer call myself a Christian. I can't even conceive of a "personal" Zeus-style god who intervenes in human affairs. Too much evidence against it. And as it turns out, my only two solid reasons for thinking there is anything to Christianity are 1) the witness of the fulfilled prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and 2) The witness of the supernatural design of the Scripture provided by the Bible Wheel. The irony is that neither of those witnesses mean anything at all to the vast majority of Christians.


Very pertinent questions! :thumb:

I'm currently trying to figure out what I believe. I've eliminated traditional Christian theism as incoherent and hence impossible. It is also unbiblical. Most Christians believe in the philosophical theism created by the scholastic theologians in the middle ages. That "god" is not much like anything we see of the God of the Bible. Their extreme philosophical categories, like the doctrine that God is "absolutely simple" lead absurdities. Even the doctrine of God's absolute omniscience leads directly to a non-personal God, because such a God was never able to make a decision since he already knew what he would choose before he chose it. That god is some sort of "abstract principle" or "law of nature." But certainly nothing like a person that can love and be loved.

I've got a lot more to say - that is, to work out while thinking out loud - but I got to go run an errand.

Great chatting!

Richard
I question how God answers prayer. For instance God had appeared in Acts to Paul after he got arrested in Jerusalem in a dream that he must stand before Ceasar in Rome. But there was a storm and the ship was wrecked. But because God promised Paul to get there alive he was confident that he wouldn't die.

I think God promised to David to be king before he was persecuted by Saul and was always victorious in battles, though I don't know where in 1 Samuel God promised him. On the other hand Uriah the Hittite had the same heart towards God but David killed him and God didn't protect Uriah. But God cursed David because of that.

Now what kind of assurance do WE have that when we pray for something that God will do it?

There were occasions that when I was looking for a few jobs I prayed for it and ALMOST got the job but then slipped away for different reasons.

I know someone who won scholarships in school since he prayed but I don't think he has a job in his field.

In the gospels it was said that if we ask for an egg we won't get a serpent...Maybe we stopped asking.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I question how God answers prayer. For instance God had appeared in Acts to Paul after he got arrested in Jerusalem in a dream that he must stand before Ceasar in Rome. But there was a storm and the ship was wrecked. But because God promised Paul to get there alive he was confident that he wouldn't die.

I think God promised to David to be king before he was persecuted by Saul and was always victorious in battles, though I don't know where in 1 Samuel God promised him. On the other hand Uriah the Hittite had the same heart towards God but David killed him and God didn't protect Uriah. But God cursed David because of that.

Those events bring up some very serious questions about the "morality" of God's behavior. Why did God kill an innocent child because of his father's sin? Why did God allow David to live? The law said that he should be stoned, not only for adultery but also for murder. And why did God kill 70,000 men of Israel as punishment for Davids sin of taking a census of his armies?

None of it makes any moral sense at all. No one should follow God as a moral example! Think about it! We humans know that we can not follow the example set by God himself in the Bible??? What's up with that? God does not follow his own rules. His actions appear to be unjust.



Now what kind of assurance do WE have that when we pray for something that God will do it?

Absolutely NONE.

Now there was a time when I believed God answered prayers, and it may be true that he did. But I never have had any assurance that he would answer any prayer. None whatsoever. And you know why? Because he almost never answers prayers, and that's just the plain truth that any honest person must admit. It's very easy to prove. Keep a record of "prayer requests" and you will see that they are almost never answered, and that the ones that are "answered" could just as well be mere coincidence.

For example, years ago when I was single I met a lot of single Christian women who were constantly praying for God to give them a mate. I talked to women who had been faithfully waiting for years. They were already past the flower of their age, and God did not answer them.



There were occasions that when I was looking for a few jobs I prayed for it and ALMOST got the job but then slipped away for different reasons.

I know someone who won scholarships in school since he prayed but I don't think he has a job in his field.

That's because God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers.




In the gospels it was said that if we ask for an egg we won't get a serpent...Maybe we stopped asking.
It's not because we stopped asking. Folks have asked for their prayers to be answered for years and got no response from God. The Bible also says that when two or three agree he will grant whatever is asked. Those words are false.

I think it's best to be brutally honest. Folks claim that the Bible is the Word of God that teaches absolute truth. Therefore, we would be total fools to not speak the truth about our experience with that book. It does not deliver what it promises.

Now consider: The primary promise of the Bible is that if you pray, then Jesus will save your soul. But we know no other prayers are ever answered, so why should we believe that one?

Truth is harsh.

[gilgal]

Those events bring up some very serious questions about the "morality" of God's behavior. Why did God kill an innocent child because of his father's sin? Why did God allow David to live? The law said that he should be stoned, not only for adultery but also for murder. And why did God kill 70,000 men of Israel as punishment for Davids sin of taking a census of his armies?

None of it makes any moral sense at all. No one should follow God as a moral example! Think about it! We humans know that we can not follow the example set by God himself in the Bible??? What's up with that? God does not follow his own rules. His actions appear to be unjust.


Absolutely NONE.

Now there was a time when I believed God answered prayers, and it may be true that he did. But I never have had any assurance that he would answer any prayer. None whatsoever. And you know why? Because he almost never answers prayers, and that's just the plain truth that any honest person must admit. It's very easy to prove. Keep a record of "prayer requests" and you will see that they are almost never answered, and that the ones that are "answered" could just as well be mere coincidence.

For example, years ago when I was single I met a lot of single Christian women who were constantly praying for God to give them a mate. I talked to women who had been faithfully waiting for years. They were already past the flower of their age, and God did not answer them.


That's because God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers.



It's not because we stopped asking. Folks have asked for their prayers to be answered for years and got no response from God. The Bible also says that when two or three agree he will grant whatever is asked. Those words are false.

I think it's best to be brutally honest. Folks claim that the Bible is the Word of God that teaches absolute truth. Therefore, we would be total fools to not speak the truth about our experience with that book. It does not deliver what it promises.

Now consider: The primary promise of the Bible is that if you pray, then Jesus will save your soul. But we know no other prayers are ever answered, so why should we believe that one?

Truth is harsh.

Well God's promises cause his punishment to be delayed. Look at Rachel who stole the Teraphim from his father. Jacob unknowingly cursed the person who did that saying, "Let hime not live". It turned out to be his beloved wife who was pregnant with Benoni/Benjamin and sitting on the idols while his father was searching out her tent.

But BECAUSE God promised her another son, which is why her firstborn was named Joseph, meaning "he will add" another son to her her death was delayed. But when she gave birth she had a hard labor that she died of the pain. Benoni (son of sorrows) and Benjamin (son of the right hand) reflects Jesus Christ. But God's promise and punishment is shown on Rachel.

[CWH]

Public would be best by far. I delight in serious reviews of my work, and there are far too few of them out there. (Almost none, actually. :mad:) You have permission to post reviews, criticisms, synopses, or whatever you like from my work on your site, with the only condition being that you properly cite the source and notify me so I can respond, of course. Other than that, go to it! You can copy/paste, use my graphics, whatever. All in good faith, of course. :thumb:


I had always been "non-denominational" myself until I finally quit going to churches a few years ago. I used to be pretty fundamentalistic, as you can see by my old "statement of faith":
Are you a Christian? Protestant? Catholic?

Praise God, I am a man saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesian 2:8). I am a non-denominational blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian. I believe that the true "faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) is well stated in the early creeds of the church that Christ founded.
I no longer call myself a Christian. I can't even conceive of a "personal" Zeus-style god who intervenes in human affairs. Too much evidence against it. And as it turns out, my only two solid reasons for thinking there is anything to Christianity are 1) the witness of the fulfilled prophecy concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and 2) The witness of the supernatural design of the Scripture provided by the Bible Wheel. The irony is that neither of those witnesses mean anything at all to the vast majority of Christians.


Very pertinent questions! :thumb:

I'm currently trying to figure out what I believe. I've eliminated traditional Christian theism as incoherent and hence impossible. It is also unbiblical. Most Christians believe in the philosophical theism created by the scholastic theologians in the middle ages. That "god" is not much like anything we see of the God of the Bible. Their extreme philosophical categories, like the doctrine that God is "absolutely simple" lead absurdities. Even the doctrine of God's absolute omniscience leads directly to a non-personal God, because such a God was never able to make a decision since he already knew what he would choose before he chose it. That god is some sort of "abstract principle" or "law of nature." But certainly nothing like a person that can love and be loved.

I've got a lot more to say - that is, to work out while thinking out loud - but I got to go run an errand.

Great chatting!

Richard

I am stunt by Richard's statement! I am beginning now to wonder if the Bible Wheel is God inspired. God will not inspire works of a non-Christian not to say the prayer of a non-Christian.

Prayer is a hallmark of a Christian which is why Jesus encouraged us to pray, "OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN, HALLOWED BE THY NAME...". If prayer is useless, why are we encouraged to pray. Prayers come unanswered are due to many reasons, some are too profound....perhaps God has a better plan for us. I do have many answered and unanswered prayers and I am sure many of us have such experiences too. And whether my prayers went answered or unanswered, I always give thanks to Him and expects Him to do the best for me whatever the outcome. Prayer is related to faith, trust and love in God and an expression of our love and concern for fellow Christians and non-Christians.

The Lord's Prayer is a powerful tool designed for Christians to prevent/protect us from temptation and from evil". It also entice and remind us to strive for His will and His kingdom, strive for God's knowledge (daily bread), forgive others so as to obtain forgiveness for our sins.

9 “This, then, is how you should pray:

“‘Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10 your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us today our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation,[a]
but deliver us from the evil one.[b]’

I am sure the BW is an answered prayer fulfilled and the work of a Christian...if not, should people trust the BW? I apologised in advance if I misunderstood your statement. Richard obviously needs our prayers:pray::pray:

Many Blessings.:pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am stunt by Richard's statement! I am beginning now to wonder if the Bible Wheel is God inspired. God will not inspire works of a non-Christian not to say the prayer of a non-Christian.

Ha! That's hilarious Cheow. :lol:

Your doubt about the Bible Wheel is nothing new. As far as I know (from years of reading your posts), you never thought it was inspired.

And you seem to have missed my fundamental point. The Bible Wheel and Preterism are the only two verifiable factual witnesses to the truth of the Bible! The fulfillment in 70 AD is the only provable prophecy, and the Bible Wheel is the only proof of divine design of the whole book.

This is very ironic. Almost all Christians reject or are ignorant of the only two things that personally give me reason to think there is something to the Bible.

And your comment about whom God would use is false. There is no reason God would not use an unbeliever to accomplish whatever he wants. But your opinion is wrong anyway because I was a very fundamentalist Christian believer when I wrote the Bible Wheel book, as you can see in my former statement of faith.



Prayer is a hallmark of a Christian which is why Jesus encouraged us to pray, "OUR FATHER WHO ART IN HEAVEN, HALLOWED BE THY NAME...". If prayer is useless, why are we encouraged to pray. Prayers come unanswered are due to many reasons, some are too profound....perhaps God has a better plan for us. I do have many answered and unanswered prayers and I am sure many of us have such experiences too. And whether my prayers went answered or unanswered, I always give thanks to Him and expects Him to do the best for me whatever the outcome. Prayer is related to faith, trust and love in God and an expression of our love and concern for fellow Christians and non-Christians.

You are absolutely correct that "prayer is a hallmark of a Christian." Unfortunately, that has very bad implications when we realize that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. I explained this in the post just before yours in answer to gilgal:



Now there was a time when I believed God answered prayers, and it may be true that he did. But I never have had any assurance that he would answer any prayer. None whatsoever. And you know why? Because he almost never answers prayers, and that's just the plain truth that any honest person must admit. It's very easy to prove. Keep a record of "prayer requests" and you will see that they are almost never answered, and that the ones that are "answered" could just as well be mere coincidence.

For example, years ago when I was single I met a lot of single Christian women who were constantly praying for God to give them a mate. I talked to women who had been faithfully waiting for years. They were already past the flower of their age, and God did not answer them.

That's because God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers.
Your explanation about why God usually doesn't answer prayer only confirms my point that God usually doesn't answer prayer. But please note that I admit he may have answered some prayers.

Now the use of prayer as a "an expression of our love and concern for fellow Christians and non-Christians" is not the kind of prayer I am talking about. Unbelievers who never pray say things like "our thoughts and prayers are with you" when someone is suffering. It's just a way of talking. It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not God really answers prayers.



I am sure the BW is an answered prayer fulfilled and the work of a Christian...if not, should people trust the BW? I apologised in advance if I misunderstood your statement. Richard obviously needs our prayers:pray::pray:

Many Blessings.:pray:
Thanks for your prayers Cheow, but I would really like to know precisely what you are praying for. Please be specific. Are you praying that I will start to believe that God really does answer a significant number of prayers? Are you praying that I will quit questioning the truth of the Bible? Are you praying I will quit questioning the traditional concepts of God? What exactly are you praying for?

All the best,

Richard

[CWH]

Ha! That's hilarious Cheow. :lol:

Your doubt about the Bible Wheel is nothing new. As far as I know (from years of reading your posts), you never thought it was inspired.

And you seem to have missed my fundamental point. The Bible Wheel and Preterism are the only two verifiable factual witnesses to the truth of the Bible! The fulfillment in 70 AD is the only provable prophecy, and the Bible Wheel is the only proof of divine design of the whole book.

This is very ironic. Almost all Christians reject or are ignorant of the only two things that personally give me reason to think there is something to the Bible.

And your comment about whom God would use is false. There is no reason God would not use an unbeliever to accomplish whatever he wants. But your opinion is wrong anyway because I was a very fundamentalist Christian believer when I wrote the Bible Wheel book, as you can see in my former statement of faith.


You are absolutely correct that "prayer is a hallmark of a Christian." Unfortunately, that has very bad implications when we realize that God does not, as a general rule, answer prayers. I explained this in the post just before yours in answer to gilgal:


Your explanation about why God usually doesn't answer prayer only confirms my point that God usually doesn't answer prayer. But please note that I admit he may have answered some prayers.

Now the use of prayer as a "an expression of our love and concern for fellow Christians and non-Christians" is not the kind of prayer I am talking about. Unbelievers who never pray say things like "our thoughts and prayers are with you" when someone is suffering. It's just a way of talking. It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not God really answers prayers.


Thanks for your prayers Cheow, but I would really like to know precisely what you are praying for. Please be specific. Are you praying that I will start to believe that God really does answer a significant number of prayers? Are you praying that I will quit questioning the truth of the Bible? Are you praying I will quit questioning the traditional concepts of God? What exactly are you praying for?

All the best,

Richard

I am obviously praying that you would not give up Christianity, that would be the biggest mistake you have made in your life. To constantly question the truth of the Bible is the same as doubting the Words of God and that will eventually lead you to reject the Words of God. That is also why I presented the Lord's prayer which is a tool designed to prevent one from falling into temptations and the evil one. Say the Lord's prayer everyday and you will soon find yourself rejuvenated with a faith lift. I believe you are now living like in the church of Ephesus who have lost their first love -- the love of God.

1TO THE angel (messenger) of the assembly (church) in Ephesus write: These are the words of Him Who holds the seven stars [which are the messengers of the seven churches] in His right hand, Who goes about among the seven golden lampstands [which are the seven churches]:
2I know your industry and activities, laborious toil and trouble, and your patient endurance, and how you cannot tolerate wicked [men] and have tested and critically appraised those who call [themselves] apostles (special messengers of Christ) and yet are not, and have found them to be impostors and liars.

3I know you are enduring patiently and are bearing up for My name's sake, and you have not fainted or become exhausted or grown weary.

4But I have this [one charge to make] against you: that you have left (abandoned) the love that you had at first [you have deserted Me, your first love].

5Remember then from what heights you have fallen. Repent (change the inner man to meet God's will) and do the works you did previously [when first you knew the Lord], or else I will visit you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you change your mind and repent.

6Yet you have this [in your favor and to your credit]: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans [what they are doing as corrupters of the people], which I Myself also detest.

7He who is able to hear, let him listen to and give heed to what the Spirit says to the assemblies (churches). To him who overcomes (is victorious), I will grant to eat [of the fruit] of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.(A)

Many Blessings.:pray::pray:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am obviously praying that you would not give up Christianity, that would be the biggest mistake you have made in your life. To constantly question the truth of the Bible is the same as doubting the Words of God and that will eventually lead you to reject the Words of God. That is also why I presented the Lord's prayer which is a tool designed to prevent one from falling into temptations and the evil one. Say the Lord's prayer everyday and you will soon find yourself rejuvenated with a faith lift. I believe you are now living like in the church of Ephesus who have lost their first love -- the love of God.

Hey there Cheow,

I understand your concern. But there must be "something" for me to "not give up" and that "something" does not seem to exist.

How can I not give it up if it doesn't exist?

The spell is broken Cheow. It's like what happens when a bubble pops.

The fact that no one can have genuine confidence that God will answer a prayer to heal their sick child, to find a mate, to feed a starving person, or to do anything in REALITY no matter how desperately it is needed carries the "unfortunate" implication that we can not trust God to answer our prayer for spiritual salvation in Jesus. If God refuses to respond to our real and desperate needs in the physical world, why should we believe he answers us in the invisible spiritual world where nothing can be verified?

All the best,

Richard

[gilgal]

Unless I misunderstood you RAM, on your stand on this issue, my answer is yes. In my experience prayer binds us together. It exalts the lowly or humble and casts down the proud and arrogant. Take the prophet Daniel for example.

He wasn't a David that God would promise him an offspring. As far as I know he was a eunuch.

He wasn't as Paul to be thrown in the sea by a storm on his way to Rome with a promise that he would stand before Caesar.

But he still had an influence in a Gentile environment around several Kings.

God knows even before we asks things but he still encourages us to pray that we don't lose hope in him.

And not just prayer...diligent prayer. To pursue after rather than be half hearted if you're asking for a good thing.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Unless I misunderstood you RAM, on your stand on this issue, my answer is yes. In my experience prayer binds us together. It exalts the lowly or humble and casts down the proud and arrogant. Take the prophet Daniel for example.

He wasn't a David that God would promise him an offspring. As far as I know he was a eunuch.

He wasn't as Paul to be thrown in the sea by a storm on his way to Rome with a promise that he would stand before Caesar.

But he still had an influence in a Gentile environment around several Kings.

God knows even before we asks things but he still encourages us to pray that we don't lose hope in him.

And not just prayer...diligent prayer. To pursue after rather than be half hearted if you're asking for a good thing.
It sounds like you are thinking of prayer as a means of character development. That's cool. But I was talking about prayer in the sense of requesting that God do things to help us, like healing our diseases, supplying the necessities of life like food, shelter, and safety from enemies. You know, the kinds of things the Bible tells us to pray for, but which God almost never answers.

That was my point. If we admit the truth, we know that God does not, in general, answer our prayers. I know because there have been hard times in my life when I begged God for help and I ended up just having to help my self or suffer through things. I can not honestly say that life for Christians is any different than life for anyone else. In other words, there is no evidence for God in peoples lives. No evidence of consistent answers to prayers. And that's the problem - all Christians probably have a good number, say ten or twenty or even a hundred "answered" prayers. That sounds impressive until you take the ratio of the unanswered prayers to those answered. I believe you will find the ratio something like a million to one.

[gilgal]

It sounds like you are thinking of prayer as a means of character development. That's cool. But I was talking about prayer in the sense of requesting that God do things to help us, like healing our diseases, supplying the necessities of life like food, shelter, and safety from enemies. You know, the kinds of things the Bible tells us to pray for, but which God almost never answers.

That was my point. If we admit the truth, we know that God does not, in general, answer our prayers. I know because there have been hard times in my life when I begged God for help and I ended up just having to help my self or suffer through things. I can not honestly say that life for Christians is any different than life for anyone else. In other words, there is no evidence for God in peoples lives. No evidence of consistent answers to prayers. And that's the problem - all Christians probably have a good number, say ten or twenty or even a hundred "answered" prayers. That sounds impressive until you take the ratio of the unanswered prayers to those answered. I believe you will find the ratio something like a million to one.
I find that Christians fall in a dilemma. There HAVE been persecutions in the past simply because people go by the name "Christian" maybe their life shows it or not, but Smyrna's church wasn't saved from a persecution but rather the encouragement to be faithful unto death to receive the crown of life.

Often among bible studies some are tempted to think that the ones who fell in persecutions throughout the centuries was simply because they weren't faithful enough to God. Had they been faithful they might have been able to sense something is wrong and flee from a coming persecution.

As for financial problems, Revelation 6's 3rd Horseman and the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 16 and Luke 21) showed that famines are coming. But when a famine came in Jerusalem in Acts 13 (I think) the church in Antioch sent relief to Jerusalem. But in our time we try to stay away from establishments to guard ourselves from false doctrines and oppressions. But I am also reminded of the book of Judges that God didn't deliver the Amorites and others in the hands of Israel right away. People are not able to save themselves from financial problems right away. Also if you look around you everything is more expensive. You are charged for things which were free before. More taxes, more this more that. Cops stop you for not buckling up. They give you tickets for not stopping at the Stop sign properly. Cops are not here to stop criminals but to oppress you.

Of course you can't get out of debt!!!

[Gematria]

Everyone has a choice. (Some) Christians choose to adhere to a faith which provides them with no methodology whereby to achieve self knowledge, consciousness, or real connection with the Christ or God.

(Some) Christians choose to believe their parents and priests, rather than explore the various interpretations of the bible for themselves. They choose blind faith and blind belief as their answer for everything. Deep down these people live in darkness and fear. Confronted with the numerous paradoxes and anomalies that a literal interpretation of the bible causes within them, they suppress their doubt with ever more fervent forms of denial.

This is obvious when having a discussion with the orthodox or fanatics of any religion. They tend to only have a few answers for every question, and none of them explain anything or make any sense. Furthermore, none of these people exemplify the principles embodied in their religion, but are typically filled with hate, fear, malice, denial, and so forth.

These people believe that there are no answers, or that the answers are not for us to know. They believe that self knowledge is not a virtue, nor is the pursuit of wisdom possible for us, nor is the vision of god accessible to us. Thus they themselves cut themselves off from these possibilities through their blind belief and refusal to open their minds.

The primary reason why Christianity in general is being rejected more and more is because people are realizing it does not offer a way to spiritually connect and develop. Christ himself developed in such a way, and taught his disciples how to also develop in these ways. Christ himself would want nothing more than for all his followers to seek him through those ways- but his followers reject those ways (which Christ himself learned and taught) as essentially Evil or useless.

There are two primary ways to interpret the Bible which lead to spiritual growth and insight, one is Kabbalah, the other is Gnosticism. Christian Kabbalah blends with Christian Alchemy, but they too are valid interpretations of the Bible.

Christianity in its modern form is an empty shell (devoid of spiritual Light, which is to say, the proper interpretation of the text and the practices which accompany it), and those who follow that path to its end are, like a shell, almost always left feeling empty and without God.

If this were not the case, so many would not turn away from it.
If this were not the case, more Christians would be virtuous.
If this were not the case, more Christian families would be cohesive, close- rather than dysfunctional and divorced.
If this were not the case, so many Priests would not have fallen not merely into Lust, but very dark and twisted forms of Lust at that.
The list goes on...

[gilgal]

(Some) Christians choose to believe their parents and priests, rather than explore the various interpretations of the bible for themselves. They choose blind faith and blind belief as their answer for everything. Deep down these people live in darkness and fear. Confronted with the numerous paradoxes and anomalies that a literal interpretation of the bible causes within them, they suppress their doubt with ever more fervent forms of denial.


Judas Iscariot trusted in the priests and hung himself. Peter trusted in God and Jesus Christ and was forgiven when he denied Jesus Christ.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Everyone has a choice. (Some) Christians choose to adhere to a faith which provides them with no methodology whereby to achieve self knowledge, consciousness, or real connection with the Christ or God.

(Some) Christians choose to believe their parents and priests, rather than explore the various interpretations of the bible for themselves. They choose blind faith and blind belief as their answer for everything. Deep down these people live in darkness and fear. Confronted with the numerous paradoxes and anomalies that a literal interpretation of the bible causes within them, they suppress their doubt with ever more fervent forms of denial.

This is obvious when having a discussion with the orthodox or fanatics of any religion. They tend to only have a few answers for every question, and none of them explain anything or make any sense. Furthermore, none of these people exemplify the principles embodied in their religion, but are typically filled with hate, fear, malice, denial, and so forth.

These people believe that there are no answers, or that the answers are not for us to know. They believe that self knowledge is not a virtue, nor is the pursuit of wisdom possible for us, nor is the vision of god accessible to us. Thus they themselves cut themselves off from these possibilities through their blind belief and refusal to open their minds.

The primary reason why Christianity in general is being rejected more and more is because people are realizing it does not offer a way to spiritually connect and develop. Christ himself developed in such a way, and taught his disciples how to also develop in these ways. Christ himself would want nothing more than for all his followers to seek him through those ways- but his followers reject those ways (which Christ himself learned and taught) as essentially Evil or useless.

There are two primary ways to interpret the Bible which lead to spiritual growth and insight, one is Kabbalah, the other is Gnosticism. Christian Kabbalah blends with Christian Alchemy, but they too are valid interpretations of the Bible.

Christianity in its modern form is an empty shell (devoid of spiritual Light, which is to say, the proper interpretation of the text and the practices which accompany it), and those who follow that path to its end are, like a shell, almost always left feeling empty and without God.

If this were not the case, so many would not turn away from it.
If this were not the case, more Christians would be virtuous.
If this were not the case, more Christian families would be cohesive, close- rather than dysfunctional and divorced.
If this were not the case, so many Priests would not have fallen not merely into Lust, but very dark and twisted forms of Lust at that.
The list goes on...
Very well stated. :thumb:

[Rose]

Everyone has a choice. (Some) Christians choose to adhere to a faith which provides them with no methodology whereby to achieve self knowledge, consciousness, or real connection with the Christ or God.

(Some) Christians choose to believe their parents and priests, rather than explore the various interpretations of the bible for themselves. They choose blind faith and blind belief as their answer for everything. Deep down these people live in darkness and fear. Confronted with the numerous paradoxes and anomalies that a literal interpretation of the bible causes within them, they suppress their doubt with ever more fervent forms of denial.

This is obvious when having a discussion with the orthodox or fanatics of any religion. They tend to only have a few answers for every question, and none of them explain anything or make any sense. Furthermore, none of these people exemplify the principles embodied in their religion, but are typically filled with hate, fear, malice, denial, and so forth.

These people believe that there are no answers, or that the answers are not for us to know. They believe that self knowledge is not a virtue, nor is the pursuit of wisdom possible for us, nor is the vision of god accessible to us. Thus they themselves cut themselves off from these possibilities through their blind belief and refusal to open their minds.

The primary reason why Christianity in general is being rejected more and more is because people are realizing it does not offer a way to spiritually connect and develop. Christ himself developed in such a way, and taught his disciples how to also develop in these ways. Christ himself would want nothing more than for all his followers to seek him through those ways- but his followers reject those ways (which Christ himself learned and taught) as essentially Evil or useless.

There are two primary ways to interpret the Bible which lead to spiritual growth and insight, one is Kabbalah, the other is Gnosticism. Christian Kabbalah blends with Christian Alchemy, but they too are valid interpretations of the Bible.

Christianity in its modern form is an empty shell (devoid of spiritual Light, which is to say, the proper interpretation of the text and the practices which accompany it), and those who follow that path to its end are, like a shell, almost always left feeling empty and without God.

If this were not the case, so many would not turn away from it.
If this were not the case, more Christians would be virtuous.
If this were not the case, more Christian families would be cohesive, close- rather than dysfunctional and divorced.
If this were not the case, so many Priests would not have fallen not merely into Lust, but very dark and twisted forms of Lust at that.
The list goes on...

More, and more I'm beginning to feel that the true purpose of the Bible is that of a guide....leading and drawing those who are looking into deeper understanding, by compelling us to search out those things that seem to conflict with our sense of reason.

The literal words of the Bible were given in the language of those who lived in its various time periods, so the people of those times could understand....I don't believe it was intended for us now to try and literally follow those words, but rather to use those words to inspire our minds to reach greater heights of knowledge.

Don't let the Bible be a cage that keeps you in bondage, but rather burst forth from its cocoon like the butterfly, and freely soar into the heavens.

Blessings,
Rose

[why1942]

I received this email about a week ago and thought I would post it here in response to my findings on the TORH/YHVH Code in the Torah.


Dear [why1942],

Thank you for your email. I haven't heard of anyone having an issue with the Numbers ELS sequence, but many do stumble on the Deuteronomy, due to a couple anomolies with it that are "explained away" by the Rabbis. This is from Chuck's book, Cosmic Codes:

There are actually two ostensible discrepancies regarding the patterns of Deuteronomy in the Torah, as footnoted in my book, Cosmic Codes – Hidden Messages From the Edge of Eternity.

While the pattern in each of the other three (excepting Leviticus) begin with the first tau, in Deuteronomy it begins with the 5th verse. Also, the interval is reduced from 50 to 49. The rabbinical authorities have various rationales for this deviation.

1) The Hebrew sage Villa Gaon wrote in Aderet Eliyahu that Deuteronomy actually starts from the 5th verse, while the first 4 verses correspond to the first four books.

2) Furthermore, the 5th verse opens, 'On this side Jordan, in the land of Moab, began Moses to declare this law, saying…' It is claimed that Moshe Rabbenu (Moses our Teacher) was given 49 out of the 50 gates of wisdom. Since the subsequent exposition of the Torah is given from the mouth of Moshe, the interval is 49 rather than 50.

Excerpted from an article by Daniel Michelson, 'Codes in the Torah,' B’or Ha’Torah, No. 6, 1987, published by SHAMIR, the Association of Religious Professionals from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe in Israel, Jerusalem, Israel.

Hopefully this will help. As in everything, let the Holy Spirit confirm this in your heart...don't take Chuck's word for it and if it's too far of a reach, then toss it--the Bible surely has enough in it to defend itself without the TORH/YHVH code.

Blessings,

--
General Questions
questions@khouse.org
K-House

[why1942]

Public would be best by far. I delight in serious reviews of my work, and there are far too few of them out there. (Almost none, actually. :mad:) You have permission to post reviews, criticisms, synopses, or whatever you like from my work on your site, with the only condition being that you properly cite the source and notify me so I can respond, of course. Other than that, go to it! You can copy/paste, use my graphics, whatever. All in good faith, of course. :thumb:

Hi Richard,

I have read through all the chapters that are available in the online version, but I have found there are actually only a couple chapters available. The current PDF version available online is locked. I was wondering if you had an unlocked copy or even a text copy so I can run it through my text to speech reader? The current PDF version will not allow me to do so.

why1942

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I have read through all the chapters that are available in the online version, but I have found there are actually only a couple chapters available. The current PDF version available online is locked. I was wondering if you had an unlocked copy or even a text copy so I can run it through my text to speech reader? The current PDF version will not allow me to do so.

why1942
Actually, there are eight chapters available in html format online. Here is the link to the chapter index (also available as a dropdown menu below the icon of the book on the home page):

http://biblewheel.com/book/chapters/index.asp

I just checked the PDF and it seems fine.

http://www.biblewheel.com/book/BibleWheel_Book_web.pdf

But the print feature is locked to protect copyright since the entire book is contained in the PDF document. I am guessing this also disables the speech to text feature, though that seems odd.

I will send you a link to a printable version in you PM in a few minutes. Let me know if that fixes it for your text to speech reader.

[why1942]

Hi Richard,

I received the pdf and it works fine now. I will continue on and will let you know when I'm finished. It is so far a very good read, though it is obviously the result of a great deal of research and somewhat technical. Maybe not for the general reader.

Have you/are you in the process of getting it published by a mainstream publisher?

why1942

[why1942]

Hi Richard,

I was looking over your resume on the website and wondered why you chose not to finish your PhD?

why1942

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I was looking over your resume on the website and wondered why you chose not to finish your PhD?

why1942
I had chosen the wrong topic for a PhD dissertation. I was trying to "solve" the entire problem of Irreversibility in Quantum Physics which is an absurd goal for a PhD student because the problem is much too wide-ranging and fundamental. Most physicists don't even think there is a problem to be solved because they believe that statistical mechanics givens an adequate explanation even if it is not fully spelled out yet. But my adviser, who influenced me greatly, was into the philosophy of science and felt that the strict law of entropy (which always increased with time) was a violation of the fundamental equations of Quantum Mechanics which were reversible. So I decided to work on that problem. It was one of the worst decisions of my life. I burned myself out spinning my wheels and finally just quit. And the problems were exacerbated by a lot of personal life issues, like a divorce after a miserable three year marriage.

So I quit school and went to live with my uncle for a few weeks in a little cabin in the Cascade mountains while trying to figure out what to do next. One day while driving down the road I saw a bicyclist and had an epiphany ~ so I bought a bike and rode down the coast from Seattle to Los Angeles ... and back. It was one of the best decisions of my life. It transformed me physically and psychologically.

Then I found myself hanging out in Seattle wondering what to do next, and a friend mentioned he was going to the national forest in Texas for the 1988 rainbow gathering. I went with him and had some more transformative experiences. He chose to return to Seattle before I was ready to leave, so I ended up hitchhiking back to Seattle from Texas and ran into the same wonderful crazy hippies I had hung out with in the forest at a Grateful Dead concert while passing through Santa Cruz. I met some more wonderful folks and copped a ticket for the show. It was absolutely wonderful. My new friends were from Connecticut (they had flown out to the west coast for the show) so I decided to hitch back to the east coast to visit them. They introduced me to George McNiel who ran a little organic semi-communal farm and juice company so I sold basil and tomatoes and fruit juice for a year while trying to figure out what I was going to do next.

When that gig ran its course, George gave me an old 1971 VW bus that had been sitting on his farm for a few years, and I fired it up and headed back to the west coast, stopping in Utah for the 1989 Rainbow gathering.

And that's how my long strange trip began ... I got further and further away from my interest in Physics. Had a bunch of mystical experiences that led to the discovery of the Bible Wheel and became enthralled with that for a decade, writing the book and the website.

[why1942]

I only ask because I started a graduate program last year, but dropped out after three classes because I felt as if I had learned nothing in my 4 years of undergraduate work (except how to cite papers and jump through hoops). Of course, I get tremendous familial pressure to go on and get an advanced degree in "something" or "anything" as a means to legitimize my life/goals/occupation. Neither one of my parents got a college education, and my siblings all went on to get several degrees - so needless to say I'm a bit of a black sheep in the family. Of course, most of them can't seem to keep a checkbook balanced to save their life - but they are "legitimate" because they have degrees and high paying jobs.

While enrolled in my graduate program, I was also enrolled at NationsU, an unaccredited bible college in the Church of Christ tradition, simply because it interested me and wanted to get my MDiv (though I doubt I will actually use it for a pastor or church related job in the future).

I have a tremendous interest in several subjects: biblical research, many areas in science, mathematics and history (which is what I got my undergrad in), but my K-12 education was substandard resulting in many, many gaps (especially in mathematics), rendering any serious study implausible at best.

So I dropped out of school and now run a small business that affords me most of my daily time to re-do my secondary and undergrad education, while still pursuing my MDiv at Nations.

I had initially intended to get my MA in History and teach as an adjunct, but the cost vs. payoff potential seems quite unbalanced. With my self-employment opportunities (that I fell backward into), I will be able to retire in 10 years and fund my own independent research (albeit with the inherent stigma of illegitimacy or "amateurism" that often accompanies those doing research outside of academia - especially in the sciences).

In reality, having (or in the process of having) my own funding, and with the explosion of educational resources online, the only issue that I'm still wrestling with is the idea of credibility. Without being properly credentialed, any work I do will surely be marginalized. Of course, many scholars in academia today live in total obscurity their entire careers. Likewise, the areas of science that I'm most keenly drawn to are areas of fringe science (such as ID/Creationist World View applications), so whether I was considered creditable or not, as soon as any mention of criticism of evolution, your reputation is scuttled.

So, I think I'm on the right path (for me), even though there is little to no opportunity to participate in mainstream academia if I continue down this path. This is not to say I can't publish in academic journals - there are many independent researchers/scholars - it will just depend on whether I have anything original to say. At the moment, I don't.

Nonetheless, when I was looking over your resume, I saw that you were an ABD and was curious about why. Thank you for the background. Your life has been quite interesting.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Given your desire to have folks take your research seriously, I would strongly recommend doing whatever it takes to get accreditation. The world is filled to the brim with independent nut-jobs, especially in this internet age, so your chances of being taken seriously without accreditation are essentially null. It is hard enough with accreditation since most folks know that a wing-nut can get a PhD as easily as the next person. But without accreditation it is about as likely as winning a multimillion dollar lottery.

That's my take on it anyway.

[why1942]

Given your desire to have folks take your research seriously, I would strongly recommend doing whatever it takes to get accreditation. The world is filled to the brim with independent nut-jobs, especially in this internet age, so your chances of being taken seriously without accreditation are essentially null. It is hard enough with accreditation since most folks know that a wing-nut can get a PhD as easily as the next person. But without accreditation it is about as likely as winning a multimillion dollar lottery. That's my take on it anyway.

I agree with you that, in order to be taken seriously, I would need to get credentialed. The difficulty I'm struggling with is 1. the fact that is is so difficult even with the degrees to be taken seriously in what is considered the fringe areas anyway, and 2. what is my real reason for wanting to be taken seriously. Do I even want to be involved in the scientific/academic communities anyway, given their horrific track record of being highly close-minded to any criticism of their secular world-view.

In my thinking, I would be better off to pursue work in the ecclesiastical community, except that it is likewise riddled with its own biases, hierarchy, etc. Sadly it seems much of Christendom today is modeled after secular Western society, especially in the US, so it becomes the same creature just a different dress.

This leaves me with the depressing alternative of embracing the crack-pot label and just running with it. In the last few years I've drawn closer to eremitic monasticism simply because I find no place in either secular academia or Christian evangelicalism. Yet, even the desert theology I find a little unsuitable, given that I embrace technology and modernity rather than feel called to shun it. In the end I think I find myself falling into rank and file with the likes of the crack-pot, neo-monastic wanderers, what St. Benedict calls a gyratory monk. Though I do not wander from monastery to monastery (i.e. I provide for my own necessities), I do enjoy a certain level of comfort and the simple pleasures of life (i.e. food, warmth, entertainment, etc). There is opportunity for me to possibly enter a monastery once I'm finished with my business responsibilities, but I find the prospects of a nomadic life much more appealing.

So, in the end, I'm not sure where I will land. I'm thankful that, at least tentatively, my financial needs are met and I have an opportunity to pursue my educational goals as I see fit into the foreseeable future. Likewise, if I am able to accomplish my financial objectives, I will have no concern for funding basic necessities and research requirements in the future, so I have no need for academia - except for credibility - and then I have to really question why the approval of others is so important in the first place.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I agree with you that, in order to be taken seriously, I would need to get credentialed. The difficulty I'm struggling with is 1. the fact that is is so difficult even with the degrees to be taken seriously in what is considered the fringe areas anyway, and 2. what is my real reason for wanting to be taken seriously. Do I even want to be involved in the scientific/academic communities anyway, given their horrific track record of being highly close-minded to any criticism of their secular world-view.

In my thinking, I would be better off to pursue work in the ecclesiastical community, except that it is likewise riddled with its own biases, hierarchy, etc. Sadly it seems much of Christendom today is modeled after secular Western society, especially in the US, so it becomes the same creature just a different dress.

This leaves me with the depressing alternative of embracing the crack-pot label and just running with it. In the last few years I've drawn closer to eremitic monasticism simply because I find no place in either secular academia or Christian evangelicalism. Yet, even the desert theology I find a little unsuitable, given that I embrace technology and modernity rather than feel called to shun it. In the end I think I find myself falling into rank and file with the likes of the crack-pot, neo-monastic wanderers, what St. Benedict calls a gyratory monk. Though I do not wander from monastery to monastery (i.e. I provide for my own necessities), I do enjoy a certain level of comfort and the simple pleasures of life (i.e. food, warmth, entertainment, etc). There is opportunity for me to possibly enter a monastery once I'm finished with my business responsibilities, but I find the prospects of a nomadic life much more appealing.

So, in the end, I'm not sure where I will land. I'm thankful that, at least tentatively, my financial needs are met and I have an opportunity to pursue my educational goals as I see fit into the foreseeable future. Likewise, if I am able to accomplish my financial objectives, I will have no concern for funding basic necessities and research requirements in the future, so I have no need for academia - except for credibility - and then I have to really question why the approval of others is so important in the first place.
Wow - we've got a lot in common!

And you are correct that credentials won't really help much if you are working in a "fringe" area which is any subject that has been "judged and found wanting" by the academic community. For example, my brother in law is a very well known professor of the Philosophy of Science and Religion at Messiah College. He wrote a highly technical four page introduction to the Bible Wheel giving strong reasons it should be reviewed by competent scholars. He sent it to a famous Christian apologist who specializes in advanced philosophical arguments for the faith. He wrote back to my brother and rejected everything out of hand, calling it "preposterous" and saying how he couldn't believe how a professor of my brother's caliber could consider the Bible Wheel for one second. He basically mocked him for even looking at it! Talk about closed minded!

The same thing happened to established scholar Casper Labuschange when he began reporting on the numerical structures of passages in the Tanakh. I wrote about in this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=739#post739) discussing the triple menorah structure of Psalm 37.




Casper J. Labuschagne: His homepage (http://www.labuschagne.nl/) has links to various studies, most notably his online study Numerical Features of the Psalms: A Logotechnical Quantitative Structural Analysis (http://www.labuschagne.nl/psalms.htm). His highly detailed numerical analysis of Psalm 37 is found here (http://www.labuschagne.nl/ps037f.pdf). I own his book called Numerical Secrets of the Bible: Rediscovering the Bible Codes (http://www.amazon.com/Numerical-Secrets-Bible-Rediscovering-Codes/dp/0941037673/ref=sr_1_1/102-6349673-4582526?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1183222927&sr=1-1). In it, he has a "Personal Note" that is very enlightening as to the darkness that reigns over the minds of almost all "modern academic biblical scholars." You see, Casper Labuschagne is himself a serious academic biblical scholar. But he was caught completely unawares by his colleagues visceral and fundamentally irrational response to his studies. Here is how he put it:


When I began to carry out my scholarly investigations into the numerical aspects of the Bible from approximately 1981 onwards, I was not sufficiently aware of the recent upsurge in kabbalistic mathematical exercises, number speculations, and other types of numerological practices and number juggling. Neither did I realize how deeply sceptical the biblical scholarly world was about numerical matters in general. What I could not sense either, was the danger of be associated with such unscholarly practices and having my work rejected out of hand. With hindsight, one of th mistakes I made in the beginning was that I failed to demarcate my numerical research at the outset clearly from these dubious numerological activities. It was only ten years later, in the Dutch version of the present book, that I dissociated myself explicitly from such practices. It is hard to say where that would have changed the course of events. [RAM: No, it is not hard to say at all. Take my word for it Casper, it would not have helped one iota! The academic rejection is not based on reason, evidence, or logic. It is nothing but a visceral and irrational rejection of the Bible as the Word of God.]

What I did not realize and could not possible foresee, was the plain fact that my embarking on numerical research would put my scholarly reputation at risk and that I would be sidetracked from the inner circle of serious biblical scholarship. Knowing what happened to the Austrian orientalist and biblical scholar Claus Schedl during the sixties and seventies, whose numerical investigations were greeted with ridicule on the part of colleagues and summarily rejected, I was naively confident that the evidence I presented would enjoy favorable acceptance. However, I was faced with a very different reality from the outset by the totally unexpected negative reaction by two British scholars, P. R. Davies and D. M. Gunn, to my presentation of the numerical patterns of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch in 1982.

I was sobered up particularly by the adverses response on the art of the majority of my colleagues to the two papers I read in the summer of 1983. ... In Louvain I was rather rudely reproached by the chairman of the session: "Do you want to lead us back to the Kabbalah?" After the lecture, only one Deuteronomy scholar, Duane Christensen [see above], approached me to discuss my paper. Another colleague shook my hand saying: "Thanks for the lesson in mathematics, but I don't believe you!"

During my lecture in Salamanca, my wife and son, who were in the audience, counted no less than eleven attendants at the session who left the hall rather demonstratively. Some of them crumpled up my handouts and threw them on the floor [RAM: like snotty adolescents, I might add!] The tone of the discussion following the presentation of the paper was set by a colleague who expressed his disappointment that a reputed scholar could get himself involved in such futile activities. My work was greeted with such disbelief and contempt [RAM: Yep! That's the root problem, alright!] that I began to realize that it was destined to be ridiculed and dismissed.

After the session, I found myselfcompletely alone, standing there on the square, out of earshot surrounded by groups of gesticulating colleagues obviously discussing the problem of Labuschagne. Nobody wanted to talk to me or to be seen in my company. There was one exception: the next day, during an excursion it Avila, a Jewish scholar laid his hand gently upon my arm and whispered the following words, which I would cherish during the years to come: "The ways of the Almighty are wonderful. To think that, after goys like Wellhausen and his followers had dissected the Torah, He once again uses a goy to open our eyes to its unity."

It was in Salamanca that I fathomed the significance of the word outcast, and during the years that followed, I would also perceive what it means to he held up as an object of ridicule behind one's back. However, there was no doubt in my mind that if this was the price I had to pay for a scholarly discovery I believed in and considered significant, I was fully prepared to pay dearly. Any alternative would mean sacrificing my scholarly conscience. Therefore, despite the expectation among some of my colleagues that I would come to my senses and stop such activities, I confidently persisted in pursuing my numerical research, encouraged by what I discovered all along.

What I am presenting in this book is only a fraction of my discoveries, and merely the tip of the iceberg of undetected secrets of the biblical text. I have no illusions about any immediate effect my pleas may have on biblical scholars, but I do have confidence in the convincing power of truth on the basis of the massive amount of evidence i hereby lay on their desks.

As you can see, the academic community is none too friendly to information that doesn't fit it's paradigm, regardless of the supporting evidence. Real breakthroughs typically go through three stages:

1) They are ignored.

2) They are mocked.

3) They are accepted as self-evident.

The Bible Wheel has gone through the first two stages.

Great chatting,

Richard

[why1942]

Wow - we've got a lot in common!

I'm beginning to thinks so....

I also have Casper Labuschange's book, "Numerical Secrets of the Bible". I was not shocked when I read about the reaction in the Preface, but I always struggle to understand academia's ability to be "willingly ignorant" of so many verifiable issues.

Also, I would be very interested in reading your brother-in-law's introduction to the Bible Wheel. Is it available somewhere online?

why1942

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm beginning to thinks so....

I also have Casper Labuschange's book, "Numerical Secrets of the Bible". I was not shocked when I read about the reaction in the Preface, but I always struggle to understand academia's ability to be "willingly ignorant" of so many verifiable issues.

Also, I would be very interested in reading your brother-in-law's introduction to the Bible Wheel. Is it available somewhere online?

why1942
My attitude has changed a lot since I wrote that comment back in June of 2007. I no longer think that the academic scholars are driven by "a visceral and irrational rejection of the Bible as the Word of God." I now realize there are plenty of rational reasons to reject the Bible as the Word of God. Indeed, the Bible Wheel is one of the few things stopping me from doing the same thing, the others being the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks, the holographs, and the powerful typology and symbolic structure which seems to be beyond mere chance.

I'll see if I can find that letter and post it. It's been a few years.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Also, I would be very interested in reading your brother-in-law's introduction to the Bible Wheel. Is it available somewhere online?


Here's the letter (with footnotes, no less!):



Dear __________,

I am writing to introduce this very interesting book written by my brother-in-law Richard McGough, a book which I think you will be particularly interested in. Richard was my best friend as an undergraduate, and I can testify that he is one of the smartest and level-headed people I know. In this book, Richard elaborates what seems to be a highly significant pattern of apparent design running throughout the Protestant Canon, what he calls the 'Bible Wheel.' I know the claim that there are such high-level patterns in the Bible is no longer taken seriously by most mainstream academics (though people like the famous literary critic Northrop Frye are the exception[1]), both because of the zeitgeist of our modern age and because of the past history of such attempts. But I think Richard has actually discovered the real thing. I can testify that when I occasionally do have doubts about Christianity, this is one of the two or three pieces of evidence that take me aback from my doubts and cause me to doubt my doubts. So, I take the pattern he has discovered very seriously.

As you know, the Protestant cannon contains 66 books. What Richard has discovered is that if you roll the 66 books in a circle, as though you were rolling up a scroll, you get three consecutive circles of books, forming 22 spokes. (See page 23 of his book.) The first interesting thing is that there are 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, which each have a traditional Jewish meaning (see page 21) and which the Jews attached great religious significance to. Further, each of these letters is traditionally arranged in a certain specific order, just as our alphabet is ordered from A to Z. (This order is embedded in various places in Scripture, most clearly in Psalm 119, in which the whole alphabet is arranged in the standard order from Aleph to Tav – see pp. 108-109.) Each of these letters can then be lined up with the spokes in a non-arbitrary way, with the first Hebrew letter, Aleph, being lined up with the first spoke (which has on it Genesis, Isaiah, and Romans). The fact that this can be done is itself of some significance. But there is more. Richard claims that the themes/content of the books put together on each spoke not only naturally go together, but go together with one of the few traditional meanings of the corresponding Hebrew letter. This is at least quite clear for the first and last spokes. Many commentators have claimed that Genesis, Isaiah, and Romans naturally go together, seeing a common theme between them, as Richard documents (see pages 60-68). But that they go together is also obvious for another, somewhat independent, reason. Genesis is the first book of the law, Isaiah is the first book of the prophets, and Romans is the first book of the New Testament letters. These three "first books" line up with the first letter Aleph, which being the first letter of the alphabet is a natural symbol of first things. That the books on the last spoke, #22, go together is also obvious. The Song of Songs, Acts, and Revelation all deal with the theme of consummation. We see the marriage metaphor common to the Song of Songs and Revelation, and in Acts we see the giving of the Holy Spirit (birth of the Church – the Bride) and the historical consummation of that which 'all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken' (Acts 3:24, see page 79). It is particularly striking that both Stephen (Acts 7) and Paul (Acts 13) made the consummation explicit in their sermons by retracing the entire story of the Bible from Genesis to its fulfillment in Christ (see page 80). Not surprisingly, Tav, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, is symbolically associated with completion and consummation, much as the Greek letter Omega. (See pp. 365 and following).

A particularly stunning example is of the alignment of the symbolic meaning (or one of the main symbolic meanings) of the 18th Hebrew letter, Tzaddi. Rabbinic tradition testifies that Tzaddi symbolizes righteousness. Indeed, according to Richard, 'many Jews know the Eighteenth Letter by the name Tzaddik, the Righteous one' (p. 320), and various derivatives based off this letter, are associated with righteousness (p. 319) – e.g., Tzedek means righteousness. Each of the books on the eighteenth spoke (Job, Matthew, and 1 John) fit beautifully with this theme of Righteousness – e.g., Job is the preeminent Old Testament example of a righteous man, and the book of Job deals with righteousness and the problem of evil. Further, Richard did a word count of the number of times the word 'righteousness' occurs in the Gospels and Acts, and it occurs in Matthew more than it does in all the other books combined (p. 323). Richard gives similar evidence for each of the Spokes, though I have not had a chance to thoroughly examine the correlations that Richard claims occur on the other spokes, so I cannot say that I know they hold up to scrutiny. All I can say is that Richard is a very careful operator in this regard.

My biggest worry is that of 'cherry picking,' after the fact reading some common theme into the books that are grouped together on a given spoke. What particularly impresses me about the three spokes I mentioned above is that the common theme clearly seems to arise out of the content of the books and further it is associated with one of the few main meanings of the corresponding Hebrew Letter. So, at least in these cases, the 'cherry picking' explanation seems inadequate. [2]

The other major designlike pattern that stands out in my mind, which I actually find the most impressive as potential evidence for design because one can perform a straightforward calculation of mathematical odds, is what Richard calls the Canon Wheel. (See chapter 3.) When the books are rolled up, the various groupings of the books form a perfectly symmetrical two-dimensional pattern, as illustrated on pages 31 and 32. You will notice that the Torah and Wisdom Books symmetrically fall on either side of the dividing line between spoke 1 and 22, with the number of books in each of these divisions being 5. The same goes for New Testament History and the Major Prophets, each also lining up with the Wisdom and Torah, respectively. You will also notice that the other divisions of books contribute to this symmetric pattern. Finally, as illustrated on page 33, these divisions line up with the 'Tri-Radiant Halo,' a classic depiction of Christ. Richard and I calculated the probability of such a symmetry (or any other significant symmetry of the same magnitude) occurring by chance – that is, by randomly dividing up 66 books into seven divisions. The chance is one in 688,324 (Richard goes through the calculation on his website, at http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp), and this does not include the fact that the symmetry Richard has discovered matches a significant religious symbol , such as the 'Tri-radiant' halo, which would put the odds at more like one in 82 million. Probabilities like this are very difficult to simply dismiss. (As an aside, notice that there are seven divisions, and that the books form 3 circles, numbers of obvious religious significance for Christians, both denoting completeness – seven days of creation and the Holy Trinity. This further adds to the impressive character of the canon wheel pattern.)

To see the significance of the above patterns, we could imagine the Bible containing more books, say the Old Testament Apocrypha in addition to those in the Protestant canon. In that case, one could not even get started: The Bible could not be rolled up to form three concentric circles of 22 books a piece, as would be needed to match the letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Or, one could imagine the divisions being changed by one or more books. In this case, the symmetric pattern would be entirely lost. Or, one could imagine the order of the books being slightly different, in which case the alignment of the books on the spokes – such as the three mentioned above--would likely be lost. Thus, the number of books, the divisions they fall into, the order of the books, and the content of the books all must be extraordinarily fine-tuned in order for the sort of pattern Richard has discovered to emerge.

So, that is the basics of the book. There is much more to it, but I cannot go into it here, except to say that other interesting patterns pop out when the book is rolled up as Richard has done, such as the fact that the last Hebrew letter, Tav, which means 'seal' among other things, is identical to the traditional form of the cross (p. 37), thus signifying that Jesus fulfilled, completed, and sealed God’s revelation. There is also the intriguing fact that the central letters of the alphabet, which spell the word melek (king), align with the books of Kings (p. 105). People often object to Richard claiming that the choice of the number and order of the books is arbitrary, along with the divisions of scripture. Richard’s response is two-fold: (i) The arrangement in the Protestant cannon flows from the natural divisions already in scripture, along with their order; and (ii) Since Christians already believe that God guided the formation of the books, and what books were selected to be canonized, there is no reason to think that God would not have also been involved in guiding the way the Bible was divided and the order of the books.

Let me elaborate a little on point (ii). First, Christians should not find it surprising that God left marks in the Bible of divine design. Those sympathetic to intelligent design, both at the cosmic and biological level, should especially not find this surprising. If the Bible really is 'God’s book,' this would complete the 'fingerprints of God' in creation – cosmos, bios, and then the Bible. One natural place to leave a mark of design is the overall structure of the Bible, since Christians believe that God is the ultimate author of the entire book, and thus the entire book – in its holistic aspects, not just its individualistic aspects -- should reflect that authorship. Further, that authorship is likely to extend to the entire process of the formation of the present Bible, including the arrangement of the books. Since creation testifies to the fact that God is a great artist, who likes elegant and beautiful patterns, one would even expect that to occur in the Bible, if it indeed is 'God’s book.' This pattern, however, also can be seen as serving another theological purpose, that of divinely authenticating and 'sealing' the canon of Scripture. Given that this pattern withstands scrutiny as not being explicable by chance, but requiring divine design, it would resolve the debates about the validity of the (Protestant) canon.[3] It could also offer an additional hermeneutical tool for understanding the unity and thematic interlinking of Scripture, which is at the heart of how Richard understands the significance of the Bible Wheel. For all these reasons, it theologically makes a lot of sense that God would guide the formation of our current canon, with its current order, to produce this sort of pattern.

Finally, it is interesting to see what happens if we do a Bayesian analysis. Call H the hypothesis that the Bible has such an overall pattern that is discernible by us. Given Christianity is true, the prior probability of H, P(H), is not small. Further, given H, the pattern, E, that Richard discovered, would also not be highly improbable: that is, P(E/H) is not small. Finally, as we saw above, P(E/C) is very, very small, where C is the hypothesis that the pattern occurred by chance. Just considering the symmetrical pattern of the cannon Wheel itself leaves us with a chance of around one in five hundred thousand, let alone the other patterns, such as the lining up of the content of some of the spokes. Thus, we have: P(E/H)/P(E/C) is enormous – on the order of 500, 000 – giving us a huge Bayes’s factor. Since by the odds form of Bayes’s theorem, P(H/E)/P(C/E) = P(H)/P(C) x P(E/H)/P(E/C), it follows that P(H/E)/P(C/E) is going to be on the order of 500,000 times larger than P(H)/P(C). So, unless one thought that the a priori probability of H was super low, it follows that P(H/E)/P(H/C) >> 1, and hence P(H/E) ~ 1, given that H and C are one’s only alternatives. The burden is thus on the skeptic to either provide an alternative explanation or to argue that the a priori probability of H is extremely low, not just assume that it is, since there are clear reasons to think that it is not.

So, a simple Bayesian analysis tells me there is really something important going on here. I know that finding patterns like this is out of fashion, given the past history of related sorts of things, such as the Bible code. But, I think that this is on an entirely different plane, and has a significant a priori probability, unlike the Bible code and similar sorts of things. (That God would encode information in the Bible to predict things about Rabbi’s seems on the face of it quite implausible, and thus has a very small a priori probability, unlike the kind of pattern Richard has found.) The reason I present the Bayesian analysis is that such an analysis places our judgment of whether this pattern as being intentionally designed by God on objective grounds that bypass those initial dismissals based on the fashion of the day. I must confess that, emotionally, I am somewhat subject to these fashions myself, and I am often struck with incredulity that Richard could have really discovered such a divine design. But, I find myself being unable to deny, among other things, the mathematical odds and the compelling nature of the sort of objective analysis that I presented above. [4]

I should end by saying that the book is as well documented as most books that are published with major university presses. The difference is that the topic is entirely out of fashion in our modern academic world, and Richard has written the book in a style that mixes careful argument and documentation with his obvious religious enthusiasm for what he is seeing, something that might be off-putting to some people. One should not allow that to deter one from the main content of the book, however. Not only is the book fascinating reading in its own right for just the wealth of information it contains, but more importantly, if the apparent design-like features of the pattern Richard has discovered hold up to careful scrutiny as not explicable by chance, which I am confident that many of them will, this would be an enormously important discovery.

[1] See, Frye, The Great Code: The Bible and Literature

[2] The 'cherry picking' explanation seems least adequate in the cases of the first and last spoke since for other spokes one could argue that given enough spokes, one could always find one or more on which the books and Hebrew letter seemed naturally integrated together more than would be expected by chance. The first and last spokes, however, stand out among all the spokes because of their special locations, and so the fact that such an integration occurs on them cannot be adequately explained by 'cherry picking' the spokes one looks at. These are the first spokes one would look at to test the claims of the Bible wheel.

[3] Interestingly, the final book of Revelation makes the Bible Wheel complete, giving it 66 books. Revelation not only is the only book in the New Testament that speaks of not adding or subtracting from God’s revelation, but uses the language of 'seal' (e.g., the seven seals) much more than any other book in the Bible (p. 366). Further, as mentioned above, the Hebrew letter Tav corresponding to this spoke not only has as one of its meanings 'seal' but is written in the shape of a Cross – and thus is symbolically associated with the idea of being 'sealed by the blood' of the Lamb and Jesus statement on the Cross that 'it is finished.'

[4] It should also be noted that if a pattern like this were found in some author like Shakespeare, most people would take this as evidence of Shakespeare’s brilliance in designing his literary works, as long as the pattern was not beyond human capability. In fact, people have looked for such patterns in great authors, expecting this sort of thing from truly great literary minds since such minds love producing elegant and clever high-level patterns. If we expect exceedingly brilliant human authors to do this, how much more should we expect this of a divine author. In any case, it is important that we apply the same standards of credulity or incredulity in this case as in the human case.


The response to this long detailed letter by an esteemed professional colleague consisted of little more than a mindless ejaculation of the word "preposterous!"

[why1942]

Thanks for posting this. I have added it to my supporting documentation and have read through it once now. I will go through it more closely once I finish the book and start my analysis.

why1942

[Brad777C]

Very interested in more info on this. I have a video called "Why God Used A Rib To Make Eve" that is basically my only real explosion thus far. But looking into the Missler Torah Codes. I still find it strange that Genesis and Exodus have this 50 spaced code.....then that Numbers Duet have this 50 spaced code in reverse spelling TORH. Now I get that its not exactly like Missler states it.....I"ve looked at it myself. But just because its not as HE claims it....doesnt stop it from existing. The YHVH in Leviticus is cool....but I also get that it could be just chance. However to have 4 mirrored 50 spaced TORH HROT dividing the Pentateuch seems quite fascinating to me. But thats me.....I think Missler is brilliant....but hes human.....and I dont agree with everything he does....and thats okay. I am also interested in that you said the name YHVH appears thousands of times in code throughout the Old Testament.....would this be the same for the New Testament? Also would this pattern of YHVH be found in say Moby Dick? Thanks again for your research. Its helped me avoid errors in my future presentation of this.






Hi Richard,

After I made my post, I bowed to my curiosity and skimmed the Bible Wheel website, including downloading your book. I would be happy to read through it and provide feedback.

Would you like my responses to be available to the public (on the forum) or privately by email? Along those lines, would you grant me permission to post my review of your book on my website as one of my research projects (I would also provide a link to your book and website)? If not, I would still be happy to review it privately.








I agree with you about the can of worms. I used to think that I had only 1st hand doctrinal beliefs, but came to the realization that most if not all of my beliefs are 2nd or 3rd hand. I've never fit well with traditional Christian denominationalism (primarily Baptist, but also Church of Christ, some independent progressive churches, etc) there always seems to be something in their teaching/doctrine that they obsessively focus on that is extra-biblical.

At any rate, I will provide my feedback soon. Point of interest,though. You described the bible as a "supernatural historical novel". Did you mean that you accept the idea that there is a supernatural realm (i.e. God exists) and he/she/it has communicated with/to us via a historical novel (i.e. providing spiritual guidance through fictional stories) or do you mean that you discount a supernatural realm (i.e. no actual God) and consider the bible to be a creation of human intellect, no different than the writings of other religions (or John Grisham's latest novel)?

The way you describe your beliefs (as I understand it) sounds very similar to a Deistic world-view.

why1942

P.S. Why1942? It has actually no historical significance. I was changing my email address about a year ago and had to come up with something. At the time I was in grad school, majoring in history, so I just picked a random year and asked why. I get asked that question frequently. ;-)