Divine Inspiration of Bible

[HeIsLord]

What would it take to prove to you that God wrote the Bible?

Jesus said the dead could be raised and still some will not believe (how prophetic..).

Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 both claim God is the creator of "the heavens and the earth" and "everything that has been made".

What if in the few letters of those two verses you could estimate the first 5 digits of three famous numbers vital to geometry and physics?

What if in Bible times there was no one on planet earth who was even aware two of those numbers even existed?

The numbers I refer to are: Pi (ratio of circle to diameter), E (constant of the natural logarithm), and Alpha (the Fine Structure Constant of atomic physics).

At the time Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible Pi was only estimated to two digits (3.1) by the Egyptians. The Bible calculates it to 5 digits (3.1415).

If you are curious, please open the document "Divine Inspiration of the Bible" on my blog: www.biblenumbersforlife.com, under the page 3.0 Lessons.

If this demonstration of the wisdom of God does not convince you the Bible is not of human origin, I would like to know what would convince you.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What would it take to prove to you that God wrote the Bible?

Jesus said the dead could be raised and still some will not believe (how prophetic..).

Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 both claim God is the creator of "the heavens and the earth" and "everything that has been made".

What if in the few letters of those two verses you could estimate the first 5 digits of three famous numbers vital to geometry and physics?

What if in Bible times there was no one on planet earth who was even aware two of those numbers even existed?

The numbers I refer to are: Pi (ratio of circle to diameter), E (constant of the natural logarithm), and Alpha (the Fine Structure Constant of atomic physics).

At the time Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible Pi was only estimated to two digits (3.1) by the Egyptians. The Bible calculates it to 5 digits (3.1415).

If you are curious, please open the document "Divine Inspiration of the Bible" on my blog: www.biblenumbersforlife.com (http://www.biblenumbersforlife.com), under the page 3.0 Lessons.

If this demonstration of the wisdom of God does not convince you the Bible is not of human origin, I would like to know what would convince you.
Hey there, :yo:

I studied the gematria of Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5 for a number of years and have posted the results in a series of articles beginning with my article here (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Creation.asp). There is such a profound connection between those ten verses that it took many pages to explain all the details. I put all the results together in a single image which I called the Creation HyperHolograph (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Creation_Hyper.asp):

http://biblewheel.com/images/Creation_DDa.gif

The entire holograph is based on combinations of the set A = 27, B = 37, C = 73, and D = 137 = A + B + C. I call this the Holographic Generating Set (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Creation_Set.asp). The structure of Genesis 1:1 can be expressed in four simple ways using the first three of these numbers (where sum(n) denotes the nth triangular number:



Generating Set: Genesis 1.1


Gen 1.1
= BC
Prime composition of 2701.



= Sum(C)
Triangular Structure



= Sum(B)+ 2AB
Triangular Substructure



= A2 + AC + 1
Self-reflection of the GenSet



This set also gives a simple simple equation linking Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1

Genesis 1.1 + AB = 100B = John 1.1 + C

And the sum of those two passages is a simple function of those three numbers:

Genesis 1.1 + John 1.1 = C2 + AB

Furthermore, simple combinations of the elements of this set give the exact values of the first four convergents of the continued fraction representation of the Fine Structure Constant, explained here (http://biblewheel.com/GR/GR_FineStructure.asp).



Terms
Convergent
Error


1
http://biblewheel.com/images/confrac137_0.gif
0.0359997
(0.03%)


2
http://biblewheel.com/images/confrac137_1.gif
0.0010373
(0.0008%)


3
http://biblewheel.com/images/confrac137_2.gif
0.0002854
(0.0002%)


4
http://biblewheel.com/images/confrac137_3.gif
0.0000363
(0.00003%)



I think think is particularly significant because the creation passages (Gen 1, John 1) speak of the creation of light and matter, and the Fine Structure Constant is the number that governs the strength of the interaction between matter and light.

Concerning Pi and e:
I have known about the calculations of Pi and e from the letters of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 for a long time, but have never been very impressed with them for many reasons. 1) The calculations are rather complex, and I have no motivation to think that they should give any meaningful information. 2) I don't see any meaning in the appearance of those numbers in those contexts. They don't seem to fit into any larger patterns. 3) The system of equations seems to be over-determined. By this I mean that if the letters were specified to give the patterns I've shown above, the designer would have had no "degrees of freedom" left over to specify further information. 4) The "approximations" were off by many orders of magnitude, being multiplied by powers of 10. 5) Your article began by comparing these numbers with the approximations actually used by the Egyptians, but the Jews never used these numbers to actually approximate pi.

Given these reasons, I could never feel confident that we could clearly discern between chance and design in the appearance of these approximations to Pi and e.

Proof of Scripture?
Now I will address your primary question: "If this demonstration of the wisdom of God does not convince you the Bible is not of human origin, I would like to know what would convince you."

For over two decades, I was convinced that numerical patterns like those I've shown above, and especially the Bible Wheel (http://biblewheel.com/wheel/intro.asp) (which shows a unity to the entire body of Scripture), gave sufficient proof that the Bible was of divine origin. And during those two decades, no critic was ever able to show that there was any fundamental flaw or systematic error in the results I presented. So I felt perfectly confident that they were rock-solid and incontrovertible.

But then something else happened. I began to examine the "problematic" aspects of the Bible - the errors, contradictions, and moral abominations it attributes to God (e.g. genocide). The more I studied, the more I became convinced that it was simply impossible to assert that the Bible was the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." Therefore, I now am confronted with a profound paradox: All the evidence for something "supernatural" going on in the Bible remains, but the book itself cannot be trusted as the "Word of God." Indeed, the patterns, if they were consciously designed by a supernatural agent, imply that agent to be extremely intelligent. But when I read the words of the Bible, they seem more like the words of an ignorant, primitive, brutal Bronze age warlike tribe - essentially indistinguishable from what we read in other primitive documents from that time.

So that's the problem with the idea of "proving the Bible" through numbers and patterns. At best, you may be able to prove that the document was not consciously produced by the people who put it together, but this is a far cry from claiming it is proof of the Bible as the very Word of God.

I would be very interested in pursuing this topic with you since I am mystified by this paradox.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

What would it take to prove to you that God wrote the Bible?

Jesus said the dead could be raised and still some will not believe (how prophetic..).

Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 both claim God is the creator of "the heavens and the earth" and "everything that has been made".

What if in the few letters of those two verses you could estimate the first 5 digits of three famous numbers vital to geometry and physics?

What if in Bible times there was no one on planet earth who was even aware two of those numbers even existed?

The numbers I refer to are: Pi (ratio of circle to diameter), E (constant of the natural logarithm), and Alpha (the Fine Structure Constant of atomic physics).

At the time Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible Pi was only estimated to two digits (3.1) by the Egyptians. The Bible calculates it to 5 digits (3.1415).

If you are curious, please open the document "Divine Inspiration of the Bible" on my blog: www.biblenumbersforlife.com (http://www.biblenumbersforlife.com), under the page 3.0 Lessons.

If this demonstration of the wisdom of God does not convince you the Bible is not of human origin, I would like to know what would convince you.
It is curious that this thread died, since I showed that I have solid knowledge about the patterns in Scripture and answered the question "If this demonstration of the wisdom of God does not convince you the Bible is not of human origin, I would like to know what would convince you." It seems to me that it is an irrational lead to go from patterns that show "something supernatural" is going on in the Bible to the idea that Christian dogmas are true. I grant that there is an apparent paradox, but that doesn't justify all the paradoxes we encounter by presuming the Bible to be true.

As I said in my answer, I would be very interested in pursuing this topic with you since I am mystified by this paradox.

[Timmy]

It is curious that this thread died, since I showed that I have solid knowledge about the patterns in Scripture and answered the question "If this demonstration of the wisdom of God does not convince you the Bible is not of human origin, I would like to know what would convince you." It seems to me that it is an irrational lead to go from patterns that show "something supernatural" is going on in the Bible to the idea that Christian dogmas are true. I grant that there is an apparent paradox, but that doesn't justify all the paradoxes we encounter by presuming the Bible to be true.

As I said in my answer, I would be very interested in pursuing this topic with you since I am mystified by this paradox.

:yo:Aloha Big Kahuna!:icon_hello:

I really should have by now responded to GIA on that Illuminati thread as answers came to me concerning that issue when GIA first started ranting about that in this forum. It seems that GIA and affiliates wants to look for problems without either searching for answers or realizing that possibly...just possibly...they still might not have a complete picture. It is hoped either this is read or of personal volition looking further will be done before response comes from here.

Between learning to use a new touchpad and daily activities, many messages to B.W.F.A.(tm) and abroad have been lost in the intended making or sending. So familiar with a keyboard that sometimes things flow as fast as words form to now taking baby steps is challenging to say the least. It is not nearly as bad as having to teach a Cybersaur a lesson by throwing it down the stairway though. (BTW, that hole in the wall was patched and the dining room repainted mellow yellow, and trim is now antique white. The floor was redone with architectural sheeting that looks like hardwood flooring the color of fruitwood. I hate it, but if momma ain't happy, nobody is happy.)
:focus:
This thread was briefly read through focusing on your last post. It is under consideration here. I have always liked just the appearance of The Creation HyperHolograph, and from desktop it is intentioned to soon be hanging in my office/work area so a subliminal reminder will prompt thinking in that direction when busied with other tasks requiring conscious rational thinking is happening. Right now, I do not have a clue; however, we do concur "that it is an irrational leap to go from patterns that show "something supernatural" is going on in the Bible to the idea that Christian dogmas are true" paradox or not.

Pi, E, and Alpha hunh? Something about "the end declared from the beginning" seems fitting here as well, though Timmy is not now looking into it.



All the best to you bon ami.
It is hoped we can find the time to further investigate this with you. Currently, work is toward full containment and utilization of "stray" eddy currents from the strong EMF's created with the windgen unit. Shielding works efficiently enough, but the thought of collecting the unusable current created toward use just popped into this head at midnight on 010513. It will be interesting to see how on first attempt adding crystal batteries and parallel circuited capacitors will affect field variance and overall function of the three experimental units. I already have a general notion how things will turn out, but there is a need yet to consult Mr. Lenz and Mr. Faraday concerning this issue. (Desire is to put them into motion first, each with different configurations, and then obtain gauss readings before seriously proceeding further.)

Thank you for bringing this topic up again.

Timmy

[David M]

Hello Richard

This is an interesting subject and it is good you are continuing with it. I expect there are quite a few more interesting threads that just "stopped" and yet could continue. I have not looked through the archive for a long time as there seems too much to discuss at the present.

I do not bring much to this discussion by way of providing a solution to your paradox, though I have a question and a few thoughts of my own as a result of you starting this thread.


First of all, what other numbers are equally significant to the three numbers already brought to our attention?

Is the 'Golden Ratio' an equally significant number? The Golden Ratio seems to be a sort of natural constant by which things are seen in proportion.

The number "P"i is derived from the diameter (linear) of a circle (repetitive) and the circumference of a circle . Pi seems to be constant related to motion or do you see it as meaning something else?

What if anything can we associate the two other constants mentioned; 'e' and 'alpha'? What other constants are equally important?


The next thought that came to mind is that of the origin of numbers. Like the origin of language, where did numbers originate from? From the Bible perspective, language and numbers just are. The Bible does not say that God gave Adam and Eve language (nor any other creature), it was there already programmed in and God communicated in that language. After the creation of the first pair (of anything) language has to be learned and the language learned seems to be according to what can be vocalized. Telepathy is something else, which is communication without vocalization. That brings into mind the way God was able to communicate in vision.

One other point to mention is the number system that the Bible uses. It uses the numbers, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0 which is a decimal (base ten) system. As you know using the the same ten digits and even making up more by introducing letters, we can convert any number to a different base such and the hexadecimal system used in computers or other bases such as twelve that was used in the imperial measurement system which are of man's doing (?). We do have to credit God with giving us weeks made up 7days and months of 28 days based on the lunar cycle and we end up with twelve lunar months making up a year. These figures are not precise round number and so adjustments have to be made. Somehow, it seemed right by someone to divide the day and night into hours which at the equator is near enough 12 hours in each and the only mention of "twelve hours" in the Bible is that of Jesus in John 11:9


Numbers would have been known as part of Adam's language and by the time of Noah when he was told to build the ark, he was given specific dimensions. Therefore, Noah must have had a number system by which to count and measure. Numbers are naturally built into the Bible by which God communicates to us. I suppose we could say that mathematics; is the language of numbers and everything is defined ultimately by numbers. Communication uses language and to communicate numbers we have to use words. "In the beginning.." does not say God spoke although when God did speak (the word), this is seen as God creating (acting).

At the beginning when there was only God and no-one else and nothing had been created, then God did not communicate with anyone, He simply created. Does this now mean that numbers are more significant than words or that the creative act is more important than the spoken word? Creating the first particle(s) from which everything else is made is the most important thing; from then on (to use the expression) it is a "numbers game". The universe is defined by the the total number of fundamental particles making up all matter and everything that the universe contains. I find the Googolplex and interesting number. The mathematical representation of Googolplex is only 7 digits. The number 7 having a spiritual meaning of completion, could this be a measure as to the finiteness of this universe. Infinity and eternity are concepts the human mind cannot grasp and yet these are attributable to God.

In the Bible not only do we see the natural use of numbers by which to communicate quantities, but we also see numbers having a spiritual significance. And so it is, we have in words both a natural meaning and a spiritual meaning. It seems to me that whilst we have have our differences in understanding, and you are interested in facts and logic and numbers, I think you might be losing sight of the spiritual significance. God is defined as Spirit, therefore, God cannot be defined by logic and facts, the same as the terms hope and faith cannot be measured and defined by numbers . God is represented by the number "1" and by the word "ONE" (in whatever language those translate to).


I am intrigued as to what conclusions this discussion might lead to.

All the best

David

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard

This is an interesting subject and it is good you are continuing with it. I expect there are quite a few more interesting threads that just "stopped" and yet could continue. I have not looked through the archive for a long time as there seems too much to discuss at the present.

I do not bring much to this discussion by way of providing a solution to your paradox, though I have a question and a few thoughts of my own as a result of you starting this thread.


First of all, what other numbers are equally significant to the three numbers already brought to our attention?

Is the 'Golden Ratio' an equally significant number? The Golden Ratio seems to be a sort of natural constant by which things are seen in proportion.

The number "P"i is derived from the diameter (linear) of a circle (repetitive) and the circumference of a circle . Pi seems to be constant related to motion or do you see it as meaning something else?

What if anything can we associate the two other constants mentioned; 'e' and 'alpha'? What other constants are equally important?

Good morning David,

Sorry for the slow response. I've been busy redesigning my home page and writing a couple of big articles for it. Serious writing can be rather time consuming. The last one, called 2013 New Year Reflections: How Integrity led me into and drove me out of Evangelical Christianity (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2013/01/10/2013-new-year-reflections-how-integrity-drove-me-out-of-christianity/) took a solid day and a half to compose. But I'm very satisfied with it because it builds on the theme of integrity which in hindsight I now see dominates my research and writing for the last 20 years.

As for you questions: The numbers pi and e are the most prominent and fundamental mathematical constants I can think of off the top of my head. The Golden Ratio is not fundamental in the same way - it's more of an "applied math" constant because it appears in the mathematical description of many natural phenomena. It is not fundamental like e and pi which are embedded in the foundation of calculus and which are related to each other in what has been called the most beautiful equation to be found in mathematics:

714

This reveals the innate integrity of the relation between e and pi. But I don't see how this gives significance to the appearance of these numbers in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 because the results are derived through a complex method for which I have no motivation and which don't relate to anything else in the verses or their alphanumeric structure. Their appearance strikes me as a "curiosity" but it doesn't lead to any new ideas or new insight and doesn't integrate with any other results, so it seems of little interest to me. It seems more like "name dropping" with no obvious significance.

Most folks who play with gematria look for mere "matches" where the numerical value of one word matches another. That is fundamentally meaningless because such matches would be found in any arbitrary assignation of numbers to letters. There is no way to discern between chance and design. My research always focused on integrated self-reflective structures where a small set of numbers reveals the underlying unity of the whole. The prime example is the Holographic Generating Set consisting of the numbers (27, 37, 73) which sum to 27 + 37 + 73 = 137 = alpha (to a first approximation). I derived this set by studying the alphanumeric structure of Genesis 1:1-5 and John 1:1-5. The fact that such a large and complex set of numbers derived from those verses can be unified by the a set of just three numbers strongly suggests design. For example, denote the GenSet by A = 27, B = 37, C = 73, and D = 137. Here are a few of the identities (T(n) denotes the nth Triangular number):

Gen 1:1 = 2701 = 100A + 1 = BC = T(C) = T(B) + 2AB = 100B - AB = A2 + AC + 1

How could one number 2701 have so many internal relations reflecting back on the same set? It is because the GenSet has a deeply self-reflective nature, integrated with Base 10:



Selected Binary Products from the Holographic Generating Set


BC
37 x 73
2701
2700 + 1
A x 102 + 1


AD
27 x 137
3699
3700 - 1
B x 102 - 1


AA
27 x 27
729
730 - 1
C x 101 - 1


BB
37 x 37
1369
1370 - 1
D x 101 - 1


CD
73 x 137
10001
10000 + 1
....104 + 1


AB
27 x 37
999
1000 - 1
....103 - 1



And the same set gives the value of John 1:1:

John 1:1 = 3627 = 100B - C

Therefore, Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 are related by the GenSet:

Gen 1:1 + AB = 3700 = 100B = John 1:1 + C

Dividing this equation by A yields a second order approximation to the physical fine structure constant:

100B/A = D + 1/A = 137.037037037 ....

Note that 1/A = 0.037037037 ... (repeating digits of B) and 1/B = 0.027027027 .... (repeating digits of A). This is another profoundly self-reflective aspect of the GenSet.

And the sum of Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 yields the 112th Triangular number, and the number 112 is the value of THE LORD GOD (YHVH Elohim), and this value is a simple combination of binary products GenSet elements:

Gen 1:1 + John 1:1 = 6328 = T(112) = AB + C2

These are just the tip of the iceberg. I explain a lot more in my articles on The Holographic Generating Set (http://biblewheel.com//GR/GR_Creation_Set.php) and The Fine Structure Constant (http://biblewheel.com//GR/GR_FineStructure.php). It is this kind of profound mathematical integration that impresses my soul. Merely finding individual "matches" of of words and numbers means little.

As for e and alpha: The constant e is the base of the natural logarithm denoted ln(x). It is the inverse of the exponential function: x = eln(x)

It is of particular interest in calculus because it is its own derivative: ex = dex/dx

The fine structure constant alpha is entirely different. It is a physical constant. But it is like a mathematical constant because it has no units. Most physical constants have units, for example, the speed of light = c = 186,000 miles/sec = 299,000 meters/sec. The numerical value of the constant depends on the units. That's why alpha fascinated physicists so much. It gave them the sense that they had discovered a pure number - like a mathematical constant - in the heart of physics. And it is not just any constant. It is the constant the governs the strength of the interaction between light and matter, which is, of course, one of the most fundamental interactions there is. And that's why it seems so amazing to find alpha to be fundamentally integrated with Genesis and John and the creation of light and matter. The appearance of alpha in this context is amazing because it coheres with the plain meaning of the text.



The next thought that came to mind is that of the origin of numbers. Like the origin of language, where did numbers originate from? From the Bible perspective, language and numbers just are. The Bible does not say that God gave Adam and Eve language (nor any other creature), it was there already programmed in and God communicated in that language. After the creation of the first pair (of anything) language has to be learned and the language learned seems to be according to what can be vocalized. Telepathy is something else, which is communication without vocalization. That brings into mind the way God was able to communicate in vision.

Excellent synchronistic question! I'm working today on a new article called The Disintegration of Being and Knowing: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God where I will be discussing the question of the ontology of abstract things like numbers and morality. Craig argues that the objective "existence" of moral values necessarily implies a moral lawgiver (God). His argument depends critically upon what it means to say that an abstract thing "exists." So I will be beginning with an answer to the question you just raised: Where did numbers come from? Or to be more precise: What does it mean to say that numbers "exist" and are "real"? You'll have to wait till I finish that article for an answer. It's a very difficult question with much philopholistic confusion ....



One other point to mention is the number system that the Bible uses. It uses the numbers, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0 which is a decimal (base ten) system. As you know using the the same ten digits and even making up more by introducing letters, we can convert any number to a different base such and the hexadecimal system used in computers or other bases such as twelve that was used in the imperial measurement system which are of man's doing (?). We do have to credit God with giving us weeks made up 7days and months of 28 days based on the lunar cycle and we end up with twelve lunar months making up a year. These figures are not precise round number and so adjustments have to be made. Somehow, it seemed right by someone to divide the day and night into hours which at the equator is near enough 12 hours in each and the only mention of "twelve hours" in the Bible is that of Jesus in John 11:9

Yes, the Bible is certainly based on "Base 10". Just look at the idea of the tithe which means "tenth". And the round numbers are typically multiples of 10, 100, 1000, etc.

The number system of gematria is also base 10. The first 9 letters are the digits, the next 9 are the digits multiplied by 10, and the next are multiplied by 100.

As for crediting God for the week - that really doesn't make much sense to me. It looks more like humans derived it from the moon, which was their primary measure of time longer than a day. They used the sun rise and set for a day, the moon cycle for a month (note that the word "month" comes from "moon").



Numbers would have been known as part of Adam's language and by the time of Noah when he was told to build the ark, he was given specific dimensions. Therefore, Noah must have had a number system by which to count and measure. Numbers are naturally built into the Bible by which God communicates to us. I suppose we could say that mathematics; is the language of numbers and everything is defined ultimately by numbers. Communication uses language and to communicate numbers we have to use words. "In the beginning.." does not say God spoke although when God did speak (the word), this is seen as God creating (acting).

The idea that "All is number" goes all the way back to Pythagoras (http://www.storyofmathematics.com/greek_pythagoras.html) who famously said "All is number." And many modern physicists feel that they have rediscovered this in Quantum Physics which is largely based on the quantum which is counted with integers - simple whole numbers. And others have said things like "God is a geometer." The intuition that pure number, or pure mathematics, is the foundation of reality is quite fundamental to many people. That's why finding numerical patterns in the Bible makes it feel like a revelation of divine wisdom by which God created all things.



At the beginning when there was only God and no-one else and nothing had been created, then God did not communicate with anyone, He simply created. Does this now mean that numbers are more significant than words or that the creative act is more important than the spoken word? Creating the first particle(s) from which everything else is made is the most important thing; from then on (to use the expression) it is a "numbers game". The universe is defined by the the total number of fundamental particles making up all matter and everything that the universe contains. I find the Googolplex and interesting number. The mathematical representation of Googolplex is only 7 digits. The number 7 having a spiritual meaning of completion, could this be a measure as to the finiteness of this universe. Infinity and eternity are concepts the human mind cannot grasp and yet these are attributable to God.

I find it difficult to think of "at the beginning when there was only God and no-one else" - we don't know anything at all about such things, so I can't speak of them.

A googolplex is defined as ten to the 10100 which can be written using seven digits (10 to the 10 to the 100) but that's arbitrary and so I don't see any significance, especially since there is no reason to think it gives an accurate count of the total number of fundamental particles. That kind of "matching" doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't integrate with other results.



In the Bible not only do we see the natural use of numbers by which to communicate quantities, but we also see numbers having a spiritual significance. And so it is, we have in words both a natural meaning and a spiritual meaning. It seems to me that whilst we have have our differences in understanding, and you are interested in facts and logic and numbers, I think you might be losing sight of the spiritual significance. God is defined as Spirit, therefore, God cannot be defined by logic and facts, the same as the terms hope and faith cannot be measured and defined by numbers . God is represented by the number "1" and by the word "ONE" (in whatever language those translate to).

I am intrigued as to what conclusions this discussion might lead to.

Dude! You are speaking my language! It is the profound integration of number and meaning that so impresses me. The most stunning example is the Unity Holograph (http://biblewheel.com//GR/GR_Unity.php), which reveals the alphanumeric structure of what Jesus called the "first and greatest commandment." The passage is built on multiples of the Number 13 which is the value of the word "echad" which means "one". We have a series of identities:

1 x 13 = One (echad)
2 x 13 = YHVH (The Lord)
3 x 13 = YHVH Echad (The Lord is one)

And the sum of the entire Shema?

Sum of Shema = 1118 = 13 (One) x 86 (Elohim) = ONE x GOD

Thus, the sum of the verse mathematically reflects its central message, that there is ONE GOD.


http://biblewheel.com/images/UnityHolograph.gif

This is what I mean when I talk about INTEGRITY as the key to everything. It's how we know truth from falsehood. See my article Integrity as the Highest Value (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/12/31/on-integrity-as-the-highest-value/).

Great chatting!

Richard

[David M]

Hello Richard


Good morning David,

Sorry for the slow response. I've been busy redesigning my home page and writing a couple of big articles for it. Serious writing can be rather time consuming.
That is OK. I do not know how you manage to respond the way you do to so many people on this forum; just reading all the posts takes a lot of time and I do not read every post. I know it takes a long time to write original material and think about the way one should respond. I am sometimes guilty of not pondering on things before replying.

Thanks for the lengthy reply with the information of e and pi. There is nothing to argue about here. also thanks for the gematria information, it is not an area I delve into, but I appreciate the work that is done and that we have to be careful not to make more of the numbers than we should. The only true way is to have the original documents as they were first written down and form what we can from what we can. Just one thought; even though I believe men wrote things down as they were inspired to write and which fundamentally God must have condoned what was written, there is a subtle difference to what God would have written as in the examples of the ten commandments written by God on the tablets of stone. Also, we can maybe take phrases like "God said" or "the LORD said" and then take the quoted words of God as direct words from God. Maybe the quoted words of God have more gematria significance that plain inspired words.


Excellent synchronistic question! I'm working today on a new article called The Disintegration of Being and Knowing: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig's Moral Argument for God where I will be discussing the question of the ontology of abstract things like numbers and morality.
Great, I shall look forward to reading it when posted.


I find it difficult to think of "at the beginning when there was only God and no-one else" - we don't know anything at all about such things, so I can't speak of them.
We do not know what was at the very beginning except that God must have been there. If we start from a know point and either double or divide the same as stepping in steps of 10 or divide by 10 then in multiplication we have no end and ultimately we would reach the edge of the universe though that would not be the end of space. Just as with division we would not stop dividing space, but we would get to the smallest part after which there is nothing to divide except space itself.


A googolplex is defined as ten to the 10100 which can be written using seven digits (10 to the 10 to the 100) but that's arbitrary and so I don't see any significance, especially since there is no reason to think it gives an accurate count of the total number of fundamental particles. That kind of "matching" doesn't mean anything to me. It doesn't integrate with other results.
Instead to the term arbitrary, I would have used the word inaccurate. I doubt the number of atoms or finite particles would totalize such a round number. The marvellous thing about the fact that seven digits might be such a large number as to contain the total number of all finite particles that the number seven in scripture signifies completeness or wholeness. We could say that this is just a convenient coincidence that the whole of God's universe in which we are is related in some way to the spiritual significance to the number "7".



Dude! You are speaking my language! It is the profound integration of number and meaning that so impresses me. The most stunning example is the Unity Holograph (http://biblewheel.com//GR/GR_Unity.php), which reveals the alphanumeric structure of what Jesus called the "first and greatest commandment." The passage is built on multiples of the Number 13 which is the value of the word "echad" which means "one". We have a series of identities:

1 x 13 = One (echad)
2 x 13 = YHVH (The Lord)
3 x 13 = YHVH Echad (The Lord is one)

And the sum of the entire Shema?

Sum of Shema = 1118 = 13 (One) x 86 (Elohim) = ONE x GOD

Thus, the sum of the verse mathematically reflects its central message, that there is ONE GOD.
I cannot separate God from the power He has. God would not be God if He did not have power and I cannot envisage power alone without some form of intelligence behind that power. God + his power is what I understand as God is ONE. In you Unity Holograph I see no place of Jesus. Jesus is not shown. I wish we could agree these as fact and that we could agree that Jesus the son of God had a beginning (a genesis). The genealogy (from the same word "genesis") of Jesus tells us very simply the beginning of Jesus. Up until that genesis, Jesus was only ever mentioned in terms of prophecy relating to a future time to come. Moses never said that the prophet to come which God would raise up (and this could be many prophets or a single prophet) that the prophet was already living in Heaven. The metaphysical relationship between a fully formed spiritual Jesus living with God from the beginning and Jesus transforming into a baby and developing/growing at the normal rate of any other baby I find the metaphysical translation of Jesus far more difficult to understand than what seems very simple and God simply impregnated Mary's egg with a male sperm of God's making.
If you could try and understand the "beginning" and how that relates to the birth of Jesus. Your holograph tells me that Jesus was not there at the beginning before the universe was created. If you can accept this also, you would have to modify your thinking about those verses that are used to support the idea of a Trinity. It is fact that Jesus after his resurrection lives for ever and Jesus is now eternal as God is eternal. The fact also is that those who are resurrected to etenal life become eternal as God is eternal. Form a time of infinity into the future, looking back might seem as though all these people had lived forever, but the truth is they all had a beginning (a genesis) and that includes Jesus.
If you cannot accept this, I do not want to get into a discussion on it, unless you have a physical way of explaining this since we shall disagree on interpretation of scriptural verses.



This is what I mean when I talk about INTEGRITY as the key to everything. It's how we know truth from falsehood. See my article Integrity as the Highest Value (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2012/12/31/on-integrity-as-the-highest-value/).
I will try and find time to read that if I do not get forget and get distracted by something else. From my point of view, understanding the simple way Jesus came into existence at his birth does not affect the integrity of God's word.

Great chatting!

David