My God, My God, Ps22 [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

duxrow

03-06-2013, 07:42 AM

:sCh_copcar:Qua-Train -Lev17:11

You say you can't stand the thought of blood?
That the sight of it makes you faint?
Well, the timid and fearful must step to the rear--
a conquering Saint you sure ain't!

The blood is what keeps the good juices flowing,
so you'd better stop and think
How a portion of 'pulse' will nourish the soul
and help keep you in the pink.

"The life of the flesh is in the blood"
So why would you want to pollute it?
But Joy and Laughter and Pleasant Words
are the kind of medicine to suit it..

It's WORDS that will change your blood chemistry!
They'll make you blush or blanche..
If you're really listening to what is said,
and aren't sitting there in a trance.

The sounds that flow from the ears to the brain,
are like a train to carry the WORDS..
Unloading whatever you put inside -- including
those WORDS that are just "for the birds"..

If the words of men can do all that,
and cheer you up or make you feel bloated..
Just think what the WORD OF GOD can do,
if your train's not already loaded! :lol:

A disciple knows the first line of the 22nd Psalm, and for my money Jesus was calling attention to it so they could recognize the Golgotha scene. Earlier, he had said "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he." Jn8:28. The crucify word isn't used in Ps22, but the piercing of his hands and feet, and the casting of lots for his vesture, definitely describes what happened at Calvary. There would be no question but that Jesus was the Messiah and the Resurrection and the Lamb of God. And finally, David's "complaint" in that psalm could now be recognized as prophetic.

Jesus was quoting scripture! They would know for certain who he was, when they read the 22nd Psalm. and put two and two together. And so it is today... :yo:

sylvius

03-06-2013, 10:53 AM

How do you know that the Psalms were written after the Gospels?

duxrow

03-06-2013, 11:03 AM

How do you know that the Psalms were written after the Gospels?
Not so, Sylvie -- the Psalms preceded the Gospels by at least 500yrs. Those who read the Gospels and conclude that GOD "forsook" Jesus, just haven't taken account of the 22nd Psalm.
The number 22 being notable for acrostic as well; don't forget. :thumb:

sylvius

03-06-2013, 11:19 AM

Not so, Sylvie -- the Psalms preceded the Gospels by at least 500yrs. Those who read the Gospels and conclude that GOD "forsook" Jesus, just haven't taken account of the 22nd Psalm.
The number 22 being notable for acrostic as well; don't forget. :thumb:

How then do you know rhat the passion-story wasn't shaped by the Gospelswriters to make it fit to Psalms 22?

By the way, who is supposed to be the one to hear Jesus recite Psalsm 22:1?
All disciples had feld away.
And the ones who heard him were thinking that he was calling for Elijah.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-06-2013, 11:33 AM

How then do you know rhat the passion-story wasn't shaped by the Gospelswriters to make it fit to Psalms 22?

By the way, who is supposed to be the one to hear Jesus recite Psalsm 22:1?
All disciples had feld away.
And the ones who heard him were thinking that he was calling for Elijah.

Which came first? There is a dynamic interaction in the development of mythology.

It seems pretty obvious that the early Christians were combing through the OT Scriptures for proof texts to support their Christ mythology. But where did that mythology come from if not from the varieties of Jewish interpretations of the OT? So it's a dynamic feedback system.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-06-2013, 11:36 AM

Not so, Sylvie -- the Psalms preceded the Gospels by at least 500yrs. Those who read the Gospels and conclude that GOD "forsook" Jesus, just haven't taken account of the 22nd Psalm.
The number 22 being notable for acrostic as well; don't forget. :thumb:
I was always very impressed by the correlation of Psalm 22 with the 22 letter Tav which signifies the Cross of Christ.

And we see something similar in Genesis 22 with the joint debut of the concepts of love and the sacrifice of a beloved "only son."

This stuff runs deep. It's part of the mystery that remains even after the truth of the barbarity of the Biblical god is accepted.

Indeed, no one, especially a believer, is able to actually understand what the Bible says until they accept what it actually says.

sylvius

03-06-2013, 12:45 PM

I was always very impressed by the correlation of Psalm 22 with the 22 letter Tav which signifies the Cross of Christ.

How so does the letter Tav signify the cross, even the cross of Christ?

Cross is from Latin crux.

Greek NT has "stauros" - stake

Richard Amiel McGough

03-06-2013, 01:34 PM

How so does the letter Tav signify the cross, even the cross of Christ?

Cross is from Latin crux.

Greek NT has "stauros" - stake
You really need to learn the basic elements of Hebrew. The connection between the idea of a cross and the letter Tav is common knowledge amongst all informed people. Here' s a pic from Ben Yehuda's Pocket Hebrew dictionary that shows the ancient shapes of Tav:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Intro/images/tavDict.jpg

It blows my mind that anyone could choose to blind themselves the way you do.

sylvius

03-06-2013, 11:40 PM

You really need to learn the basic elements of Hebrew. The connection between the idea of a cross and the letter Tav is common knowledge amongst all informed people. Here' s a pic from Ben Yehuda's Pocket Hebrew dictionary that shows the ancient shapes of Tav:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Intro/images/tavDict.jpg

It blows my mind that anyone could choose to blind themselves the way you do.

It is a crosslike-sign, like our T, not a cross, let alone "the cross of Christ".

More, the Hebrew script is not the original script.

And more, also Greek has a cross-sign, not for "tau" but for "chi", χ.

Yet there might be something to say for "tav" as "cross of Christ" after its numerical value 400.

Genesis 15:13,
And He said to Abram, "You shall surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them, for four hundred years.

These 400 years seeming to be the years from Isaac's birth to the exodus (and revelation at Sinai).

So also here the "1-4" principle finds expression, since Abraham was 100 years by the time of Isaac's birth.

"1-4" -principle also in the 1:4 ratio of the two trees, in the one river that flowed from Eden and divided in four heads, in the "ed" that went up from the earth, without which nothing could grow or even be thought of (Genesis 2:-5-6),
and also in the letter "hey" that was both added to "shishi" and to Abram's name, and alos in the five final letters of the (original) Ashuri script, one square (final Mem) and four outstretched forms.

The binding of Isaac, Genesis 22, "aqeidah" meant the binding of the four to one (his two hands and two feet bound together).

http://insightfulwaffle.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/binding-of-isaac.jpg

Psalms 22:17, "like a lion at my hands and my feet" might refer to that.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-07-2013, 09:10 AM

It is a crosslike-sign, like our T, not a cross, let alone "the cross of Christ".

More, the Hebrew script is not the original script.

And more, also Greek has a cross-sign, not for "tau" but for "chi", χ.

Yet there might be something to say for "tav" as "cross of Christ" after its numerical value 400.

Genesis 15:13,
And He said to Abram, "You shall surely know that your seed will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will enslave them and oppress them, for four hundred years.

These 400 years seeming to be the years from Isaac's birth to the exodus (and revelation at Sinai).

You make arbitrary associations. For example, you go on and on and on about how the Greek Omega is supposed to be (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3354-Single-Molecule-Images-IBM-Scientists-Capture-Photographs-Showing-Chemical-Bonds&p=49744#post49744) the "23rd sign" and "the token of the covenant" and connected with the Hebrew "Ayin gadol" and whatever else you want to make up. But why would anyone believe you? When it comes to obvious meanings like the connection betweeen Tav and the cross of Christ, you totally change your standards and reject things that are totally obvious. You don't give any good reasons and your methodology is radically inconsistent. We've been going over the same things for many years. You just make up what you want without any rhyme or reason.

The reasons I give are well-grounded in logic, facts, and symbolism.

So also here the "1-4" principle finds expression, since Abraham was 100 years by the time of Isaac's birth.

"1-4" -principle also in the 1:4 ratio of the two trees, in the one river that flowed from Eden and divided in four heads, in the "ed" that went up from the earth, without which nothing could grow or even be thought of (Genesis 2:-5-6),
and also in the letter "hey" that was both added to "shishi" and to Abram's name, and alos in the five final letters of the (original) Ashuri script, one square (final Mem) and four outstretched forms.

Why should anyone believe the 1:4 principle? Your attempt to justify that idea directly contradicts your own words. You reject words/numbers I have presented on the pretext that they are not written exactly as such in Scripture, and then you invent your doctrine of 1:4 based on a word that is not written in Scripture. Your logic is illogical. There is no method to your madness. You just make up whatever you want, and then you make up whatever reasons you want. See here (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3354-Single-Molecule-Images-IBM-Scientists-Capture-Photographs-Showing-Chemical-Bonds&p=49557#post49557).

The binding of Isaac, Genesis 22, "aqeidah" meant the binding of the four to one (his two hands and two feet bound together).

Psalms 22:17, "like a lion at my hands and my feet" might refer to that.
Yeah, and if it refers to that, then it could also refer to the crucifixion just like Gen 22. So what's your point?

sylvius

03-07-2013, 09:26 AM

The reasons I give are well-grounded in logic, facts, and symbolism.

What a laugh!

Why should anyone believe the 1:4 principle? Yeah why?

Yeah, and if it refers to that, then it could also refer to the crucifixion just like Gen 22. So what's your point?

Yes but not to the cross-sign. "Crucifixion" is from Latin crux. Greek has "stauros" = pillory.

When your hands and feet are bound together you are powerless exposed to your butcher.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-07-2013, 10:02 AM

What a laugh!

That's what you always say. You have no logic or facts or any kind of rationality at all on your side, whereas my arguments are the essence of such. So you are free to reject reality and live in your own private Idaho. Who's to stop you?

I have proven my points a thousand times but you don't care about reality, so why should I care about your opinions?

Yes but not to the cross-sign. "Crucifixion" is from Latin crux. Greek has "stauros" = pillory.

Stauros can mean either "cross" or "stake."

You need to reflect on how irrational your arguments are. You make up all sorts of crazy stuff about the Greek Omega being related to the Hebrew "Ayin gadol" and being the "23rd sign" when there is no evidence for any of that stuff, and then you challenge the relation between the central tradition of Christianity (the cross) and the final letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Christ said it is finished on the cross)?!?!?!?

Why do you believe the stuff that you make up, but reject things that are established on logic and facts?

You mind seems entirely disordered. I've been explaining these things to you for years and you persist in your irrationality.

sylvius

03-07-2013, 10:51 AM

That's what you always say. You have no logic or facts or any kind of rationality at all on your side, whereas my arguments are the essence of such.

"THE BIBLE WHEEL: a Revelation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible" - you seemingly dropped the qualifications "Divine" and "Holy",

so left is : "
"THE BIBLE WHEEL: a Revelation of the Unity of the Bible" --

Revelation of something that had been veiled, even since the beginning of time? Or since the fixing of the protestant canon?

Anyway: "It is the Bible itself. It is new only because no one had ever noticed that such a unified view of the whole Bible lay implicit in its structure.".

Just you were the only one to notice.

Where is logic, what are the facts and what kind of rationality is it?

Richard, it is just stupidity.

So you are free to reject reality and live in your own private Idaho. Who's to stop you? Not you.

I have proven my points a thousand times in your own eyes.

but you don't care about reality, so why should I care about your opinions? you don't have to care.

Stauros can mean either "cross" or "stake." but that doesn't make it a cross-sign, like "tav".

You need to reflect on how irrational your arguments are. You make up all sorts of crazy stuff about the Greek Omega being related to the Hebrew "Ayin gadol" and being the "23rd sign" when there is no evidence for any of that stuff, and then you challenge the relation between the central tradition of Christianity (the cross) and the final letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Christ said it is finished on the cross)?!?!?!?

"It is finished" has nothing to do with the last letter "tav". You just made that up.

Greek Τετέλεσται from τελέω, I think does refer to the first word of Genesis 2 "vay'chulu" (of which the first letter "vav" constitutes the "vav" of the Tetragrammaton hidden in the inital letters of "yom hashishi vay'chulu hashamayim"
.

LXX Genesis 2:1,
καὶ συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν

Why do you believe the stuff that you make up, but reject things that are established on logic and facts? What then exactly is established on logic and facts?

You mind seems entirely disordered. I've been explaining these things to you for years and you persist in your irrationality. What things?

By the way, I doubt very much the last cross-sign in Ben Yehuda's Pocket Hebrew dictionary dates from BC, ore even that it was ever used by Jews.

http://www.biblewheel.com/Intro/images/tavDict.jpg

Richard Amiel McGough

03-07-2013, 11:31 AM

"THE BIBLE WHEEL: a Revelation of the Divine Unity of the Holy Bible" - you seemingly dropped the qualifications "Divine" and "Holy",

so left is : "
"THE BIBLE WHEEL: a Revelation of the Unity of the Bible" --

Revelation of something that had been veiled, even since the beginning of time? Or since the fixing of the protestant canon?

Anyway: "It is the Bible itself. It is new only because no one had ever noticed that such a unified view of the whole Bible lay implicit in its structure.".

Just you were the only one to notice.

Where is logic, what are the facts and what kind of rationality is it?

Richard, it is just stupidity.

I'm really glad you are trying to form a logical case, but you've got a ways to go.

The idea "revelation" implies nothing about the "beginning of time." The fact that you would introduce such an idea shows how your thinking is grossly distorted.

The fact that I was the first to notice the full pattern is likewise meaningless. Truth or falsehood has nothing to do with such ideas. Your thinking is grossly disordered.

You ask: Where is logic, what are the facts and what kind of rationality is it? The answer is staring you in the face and you know it. You know there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. You know that the Sepher Yetzirah says God placed them in a circle (galgal = 66). You know that the traditional Protestant Bible has 66 books. You KNOW all the FACTS but you pretend to be an ignorant buffoon with no understanding of anything. Why is that? Why do you choose to act like an utterly ignorant fool? You have been acting like this for years. You know better. You know that the facts totally support everything I claim. Yet you pretend that you don't know. This indicates that you have a profound psychological problem.

Your assertion that "it is just stupidity" refers only to your comments.

Like I said, I'm very glad that you are trying to form a logical argument. Unfortunately, you have a long ways to go.

"It is finished" has nothing to do with the last letter "tav". You just made that up.

Yeah, right. Try telling that to the rabbis. The alphabet is finished with the letter Tav. Nothing could be more obvious. Again, you are blinding yourself. Why is that? What motivates you to deny reality with such mindless audacity? Here is a snippet (http://www.inner.org/hebleter/tav.htm) of what Rabhi Ghinsberg says about Tav:
God's seal (in Creation) is truth (in Hebrew, emet, spelled out by the final letters of the three last words in the account of Creation: bara elokim la'asot," " ...God created ‘to do’"). The last letter or seal of the word emet, "truth," itself - the seal of God's seal - is the letter tav, simple faith, the conclusion and culmination of all twenty-two forces - letters - active in Creation.

The three letters which spell emet are the beginning, middle and ending letters of the alef-beit." The alef corresponds to one’s initial awareness of Divine paradox in the infinite source (where the higher and lower waters, joy and bitterness, are absolutely one). From this awareness issues mem, the fountain of Divine wisdom, ever- increasing power of insight into the mysteries of Torah. "The final end of knowledge is not to know." The culmination of the flow of Divine wisdom in the soul (after all is said and done) is the "majestic" revelation of the infinite "treasure-house" of simple faith in God's absolute omnipresence below innate in the soul of Israel. The culmination of truth simple faith is the secret of the "tav."

"The culmination of the flow of Divine wisdom in the soul (after all is said and done)" - that's TAV. Any child who knows anything at all about the symbolic meaning of the Hebrew alphabet knows that the idea of "end" is associated with Tav. This is trivial beyond description. Everything I've written about Tav cohere's perfectly with central rabbinic traditions concerning that letter. You are deliberately perverting knowledge, and you have been doing this for well over five years. What is you motive? Why do you pervert truth? You know that what I write is true and that it coheres precisely with Rabbinical teachings.

Why do you lie so much? I just don't get it. I mean, when you state BLATANT falsehoods like that, you know that everyone can see you are lying. So why do you do it? It's insane.

sylvius

03-07-2013, 11:58 AM

The idea "revelation" implies nothing about the "beginning of time." The fact that you would introduce such an idea shows how your thinking is grossly distorted.

You say that (divine) unity lays implicit in the structure of the protestant Bible, suggesting that this unity already existed before the 27 books of the NT had been written, or even before the 39 books of the Tanach were written, a suggestion that you illustrate with the 22 letters that after the Sefer Yetsirah were placed on a wheel, forming the 231 gates.

The fact that I was the first to notice the full pattern is likewise meaningless. You were taken away by your own imagination.

You ask: Where is logic, what are the facts and what kind of rationality is it? The answer is staring you in the face and you know it. You know there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. You know that the Sepher Yetzirah says God placed them in a circle (galgal = 66). You know that the traditional Protestant Bible has 66 books. You KNOW all the FACTS but you pretend to be an ignorant buffoon with no understanding of anything. Why is that?

I did live once in the Renbaanstraat number 22. Also a fact! In former times there had been a hippodrome , that's why the street was called that way. Also a fact! And there are many more facts, too many to name them.

You know better. You know that the facts totally support everything I claim. What exactly do you claim?

Yeah, right. Try telling that to the rabbis. The alphabet is finished with the letter Tav. So the rabbis agree with you that Jeus died on a "tav" ?

You know that what I write is true and that it coheres precisely with Rabbinical teachings. No, it doesn't

Why do you lie so much? I just don't get it. I mean, when you state BLATANT falsehoods like that, you know that everyone can see you are lying. So why do you do it? It's insane.

What is my lie?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-07-2013, 12:07 PM

You say that (divine) unity lays implicit in the structure of the protestant Bible, suggesting that this unity already existed before the 27 books of the NT had been written, or even before the 39 books of the Tanach were written, a suggestion that you illustrate with the 22 letters that after the Sefer Yetsirah were placed on a wheel, forming the 231 gates.

No, I don't say that any more. But yes, that is what I believed when I wrote the book. But even so, it is not a valid place to start any criticism because it is the conclusion of my argument, not an assumption. You are simply doing everything you can to confuse the issue because the truth is too plain and obvious and for some strange reason you are profoundly opposed to truth.

The facts are totally obvious and you know it. You have no refutation of any facts that I use in my argument.

You were taken away by your own imagination.

That's like saying 1 + 2 = 3 is just in my "imagination."

Why do you blind yourself to such basic facts?

I did live once in the Renbaanstraat number 22. Also a fact! In former times there had been a hippodrome , that's why the street was called that way. Also a fact! And there are many more facts, too many to name them.

Your comment is meaningless.

What exactly do you claim?

You know perfectly well what the claims are. I've presented the information many times. Why do you pretend to be so stupid?

So the rabbis agree with you that Jeus died on a "tav" ?

I never said that. Why do you pretend to be so stupid?

No, it doesn't

Of course it does. You are just denying what you know to be true. You do the same thing in all your arguments.

What is my lie?
Why do you pretend you don't know?

sylvius

03-07-2013, 12:48 PM

No, I don't say that any more. But yes, that is what I believed when I wrote the book. But even so, it is not a valid place to start any criticism because it is the conclusion of my argument, not an assumption. You are simply doing everything you can to confuse the issue because the truth is too plain and obvious and for some strange reason you are profoundly opposed to truth.

What truth?

The facts are totally obvious and you know it. You have no refutation of any facts that I use in my argument. What's your argument?

That's like saying 1 + 2 = 3 is just in my "imagination." No, that's not what I meant.
Maybe I should say: You were taken away by your own hallucination. The picture on page 401 "Zechariah's Vision of the whole Bible"is totally weird, including the word "et" (you should have written in Hebrew script...)
You did spend and are still spending lots of energy on it.
Maybe this illustrates perfectly what "sin" is, you miss the mark.

Why do you blind yourself to such basic facts? there is also a song: "Get your kicks on route 66" -- maybe a good title for a second edition.

You know perfectly well what the claims are. I've presented the information many times. Why do you pretend to be so stupid?

I am serious: what do your claim exactly?

I never said that. Why do you pretend to be so stupid? What did you say then?

Of course it does. Rabbi Ginsburgh is saying quite different things about "tav".

Richard Amiel McGough

03-07-2013, 01:52 PM

What truth?

Most of it.

What's your argument?

See the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php). If my claims are false, you should be able to prove it in minutes.

That's like saying 1 + 2 = 3 is just in my "imagination."
No, that's not what I meant.
Maybe I should say: You were taken away by your own hallucination. The picture on page 401 "Zechariah's Vision of the whole Bible"is totally weird, including the word "et" (you should have written in Hebrew script...)
You did spend and are still spending lots of energy on it.
Maybe this illustrates perfectly what "sin" is, you miss the mark.

We're not talking about that picture. This reveals how confused your mind really is. You can't keep track of a simple train of thought. You make random incoherent assertions that jump from topic to topic.

And your assertion that the picture is "weird" only shows how ignorant you are of the images found in the Bible since that is where the elements of the image came from.

And saying things like "it's totally weird" are meaningless - and quite ironic give the weirdness of your interpretations of the Bible.

You know perfectly well what the claims are. I've presented the information many times. Why do you pretend to be so stupid?
I am serious: what do your claim exactly?

Like I said, see the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php). If my claims are false, you should be able to prove it in minutes.

sylvius

03-10-2013, 09:28 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 09:39 AM

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/tav_seal.php

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tav_KeyWords2.gif

This is of course flat out false.

"tav" doesn't mean cross,

see also this:
http://soulmazal.blogspot.nl/2011/12/hebrew-shmeebrewwhere-does-it-come-from.html

On these Bar Kochba coins I don't see no Roman cross-signs, just X.

https://www.google.nl/search?q=Bar+kochba+coins&hl=nl&client=firefox-a&hs=9Tk&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VbQ8UdW_KrHY7AbE-oGYCA&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=934
An "X" is a cross.

Here's the first definition of "cross" (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS398US442&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sugexp=les%3Beappsweb&gs_rn=5&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=cross%20inside%20a%20halved%20potato&tok=7VF3IYGdiKk9p8vvN4jqBQ&cp=9&gs_id=2j&xhr=t&q=cross+definition&es_nrs=true&pf=p&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS398US442&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=cross+def&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.aWc&fp=2c2e1c1dabbb3761&biw=1352&bih=777&ion=1) that Google returns:
A mark, object, or figure formed by two short intersecting lines or pieces (+ or ×).
And I did not make up the forms of the crosses used in Ben Yehuda's Pocket Hebrew Dictionary:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Intro/images/tavDict.jpg

You can't defeat truth with lies. What is wrong with your brain?

You have been mindlessly attacking the Bible Wheel for seven years and have consistently failed.

That's why you are so afraid to answer the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php).

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 09:41 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 10:04 AM

sylvius

03-10-2013, 10:49 AM

An "X" is a cross.

Here's the first definition of "cross" (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS398US442&ion=1&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&sugexp=les%3Beappsweb&gs_rn=5&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=cross%20inside%20a%20halved%20potato&tok=7VF3IYGdiKk9p8vvN4jqBQ&cp=9&gs_id=2j&xhr=t&q=cross+definition&es_nrs=true&pf=p&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS398US442&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=cross+def&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.aWc&fp=2c2e1c1dabbb3761&biw=1352&bih=777&ion=1) that Google returns:
A mark, object, or figure formed by two short intersecting lines or pieces (+ or ×).
And I did not make up the forms of the crosses used in Ben Yehuda's Pocket Hebrew Dictionary:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Intro/images/tavDict.jpg

You can't defeat truth with lies. What is wrong with your brain?

You have been mindlessly attacking the Bible Wheel for seven years and have consistently failed.

That's why you are so afraid to answer the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php).

"tav" doesn't mean cross (on which someone can be nailed), but sign.

sylvius

03-10-2013, 10:52 AM

Here is the alphabet shown in that post (http://soulmazal.blogspot.nl/2011/12/hebrew-shmeebrewwhere-does-it-come-from.html). Note that Tav looks like a Latin cross with a slightly angled crossbar:

786

So there you go sylvius. Your attempt to refute the Bible Wheel only proves it true. It must be rather frustrating! :lmbo:

It's arbitrary:

http://soulmazal.blogspot.nl/2011/12/hebrew-shmeebrewwhere-does-it-come-from.html

Paleo-Hebrew was completely abandoned around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in the year 70 C.E. Except for the inscriptions on a few ancient Jewish coins, no remnant of Paleo-Hebrew remained.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 10:53 AM

"tav" doesn't mean cross (on which someone can be nailed), but sign.
I never said it referred to the physical cross upon which a person could be nailed. It is a SYMBOL. You are deliberately trying to confuse things. This is obvious because you constantly speak of things as symbols as opposed to literal so everyone can see you are being inconsistent.

And where is your answer to the Bible Wheel Challenge?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 10:55 AM

It's arbitrary:

http://soulmazal.blogspot.nl/2011/12/hebrew-shmeebrewwhere-does-it-come-from.html
There is nothing arbitrary about it. It is a fact of history.

Your rejection of something so obvious looks really stupid.

sylvius

03-10-2013, 10:56 AM

sylvius

03-10-2013, 10:59 AM

I've had this challenge on the net for about a decade.

No one can answer it.

Their opposition is a pathetic joke. It reveals something seriously wrong with their brains.

You just are deaf for any criticism.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 11:05 AM

You just are deaf for any criticism.
Don't be ridiculous. You have yet to present any valid criticism of any kind. And that's after seven years of trying!

You are radically inconsistent and irrational, and you refuse to admit the most obvious facts.

And of course you cannot answer the Bible Wheel Challenge.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 11:10 AM

I never said it referred to the physical cross upon which a person could be nailed. It is a SYMBOL. You are deliberately trying to confuse things. This is obvious because you constantly speak of things as symbols as opposed to literal. Everyone can see you are being inconsistent.

And where is your answer to the Bible Wheel Challenge?

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/tav_seal.php

In the rabbinic tradition, Tav is called the Seal of Truth (Bible Wheel book pg 37), and its form as a cross returns us to the central theme of all Scripture, the Gospel of Christ who sealed our salvation and bought us by the blood of His Cross!

What's your point? Tav is a >>>SYMBOL<<< of the cross. Nothing could be more obvious. :doh:

You are being RADICALLY INCONSISTENT. You don't understand the most basic elements of Biblical symbolism, yet you go on and on and on about symbols like the Greek Omega supposedly being the "23rd sign" which is the Hebrew Ayin gadol. Etc., etc., etc. You are obviously deliberately BLINDING yourself.

Why do you behave this way? It's insane.

sylvius

03-10-2013, 11:16 AM

What's your point? Tav is a >>>SYMBOL<<< of the cross. Nothing could be more obvious. :doh:

"Tav" is not a symbol, but a letter.

"Tav" as a word means sign or mark.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 11:31 AM

"Tav" is not a symbol, but a letter.

You can't be serious!

Letters are symbols.

sym·bol
[sim-buhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl] Show IPA noun, verb, sym·boled, sym·bol·ing or ( especially British )sym·bolled, sym·bol·ling.
noun 1.something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object) representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.
2.a letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au.
3.(especially in semiotics) a word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word), phrase, image (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/image), or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that whichis symbolized: usually conceived as deriving its meaning chiefly from the structure in which it appears,and generally distinguished from a sign.

Your moronism is as deep as the ocean.

:doh:

sylvius

03-10-2013, 11:51 AM

You can't be serious!

Letters are symbols.

sym·bol
[sim-buhhttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://static.sfdict.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl] Show IPA noun, verb, sym·boled, sym·bol·ing or ( especially British )sym·bolled, sym·bol·ling.
noun 1.something used for or regarded as representing something else; a material object (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/object) representing something, often something immaterial; emblem, token, or sign.
2.a letter, figure, or other character or mark or a combination of letters or the like used to designate something: the algebraic symbol x; the chemical symbol Au.
3.(especially in semiotics) a word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word), phrase, image (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/image), or the like having a complex of associated meanings and perceived as having inherent value separable from that which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) is symbolized, as being part of that which is symbolized, and as performing its normal function of standing for or representing that whichis symbolized: usually conceived as deriving its meaning chiefly from the structure in which it appears,and generally distinguished from a sign.

Your moronism is as deep as the ocean.

:doh:

ok, but Tav is NOT a symbol of the cross.

The cross Jesus was hanged on was a pillory, a wooden stake with sidebars, of which Tav is not a symbol.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 01:03 PM

ok, but Tav is NOT a symbol of the cross.

The cross Jesus was hanged on was a pillory, a wooden stake with sidebars, of which Tav is not a symbol.
I'm glad we agree that the letters are symbols. Your denial of this elementary fact made me doubt your sanity. You've been writing and thinking about the symbolic meaning of the letters for years. The Rabbis you cite frequently talk about the symbolic meaning of the letters. For example, you frequently quote Rabbi Ghinsburgh who said (http://www.inner.org/hebleter/gimmel.htm) "Our Sages teach that the gimel symbolizes a rich man running after a poor man, the dalet, to give him charity." This also shows how you have been constantly LYING about my work. I use this tradition about Gimel in my articles about Spoke 3 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Gimel_Spirit.php). I show how the Bible Wheel coheres with Rabbinic tradition in very profound (and obvious) ways. But you constantly LIE about my work and say that it does not cohere with Rabbinic traditions. Why do you lie? What is wrong with your soul? Why do you not admit the truth until I am FORCED TO SHOVE IT DOWN YOUR THROAT?

What is wrong with you? You've been perverting truth for seven years on this forum. Case in point: Nothing could be more obvious than the symbolic connection of the cross with the final letter Tav. Tav is the "seal of God" according to rabbinic tradition (http://www.inner.org/hebleter/tav.htm) while in Christianity the Cross is the symbol of the covenant that God sealed in Christ. Tav is the symbol of consummation and Christ said "it is finished" on the cross. Your denial that it relates to the cross is as insane as it is absurd and ignorant. The connection has been recognized since the beginning of Christianity. Here is what Origin said about it (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tav_Fulfillment.php) in the third century:
This [the Letter Tav] bears a resemblance to the figure of the cross; and this prophecy (Ezek. ix. 4) is said to regard the sign made by Christians on the forehead, which all believers make whatsoever work they begin upon, and especially at the beginning of prayers, or of holy readings.
You can deny reality all you want. You won't convince anyone but those who choose to follow your path of delusion and absurdity.

sylvius

03-10-2013, 01:51 PM

I'm glad we agree that the letters are symbols. Your denial of this elementary fact made me doubt your sanity. You've been writing and thinking about the symbolic meaning of the letters for years. The Rabbis you cite frequently talk about the symbolic meaning of the letters. For example, you frequently quote Rabbi Ghinsburgh who said (http://www.inner.org/hebleter/gimmel.htm) "Our Sages teach that the gimel symbolizes a rich man running after a poor man, the dalet, to give him charity." This also shows how you have been constantly LYING about my work. I use this tradition about Gimel in my articles about Spoke 3 (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Gimel_Spirit.php). I show how the Bible Wheel coheres with Rabbinic tradition in very profound (and obvious) ways. But you constantly LIE about my work and say that it does not cohere with Rabbinic traditions. Why do you lie? What is wrong with your soul? Why do you not admit the truth until I am FORCED TO SHOVE IT DOWN YOUR THROAT?

But he doesn't say that the sages teach that "tav" symbolzizes the cross of Christ.

What is wrong with you? You've been perverting truth for seven years on this forum. Case in point: Nothing could be more obvious than the symbolic connection of the cross with the final letter Tav. Tav is the "seal of God" according to rabbinic tradition (http://www.inner.org/hebleter/tav.htm) while in Christianity the Cross is the symbol of the covenant that God sealed in Christ. Tav is the symbol of consummation and Christ said "it is finished" on the cross. Your denial that it relates to the cross is as insane as it is absurd and ignorant. The connection has been recognized since the beginning of Christianity. Here is what Origin said about it (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tav_Fulfillment.php) in the third century:
This [the Letter Tav] bears a resemblance to the figure of the cross; and this prophecy (Ezek. ix. 4) is said to regard the sign made by Christians on the forehead, which all believers make whatsoever work they begin upon, and especially at the beginning of prayers, or of holy readings.
You can deny reality all you want. You won't convince anyone but those who choose to follow your path of delusion and absurdity.

Now we know where the Roman-cross shaped "tav" stems from.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-10-2013, 02:17 PM

But he doesn't say that the sages teach that "tav" symbolzizes the cross of Christ.

I never said he said that.

Now we know where the Roman-cross shaped "tav" stems from.
That's not correct. We know it did not begin with Origin because he reported that it was "the sign made by Christians on the forehead, which all believers make whatsoever work they begin upon, and especially at the beginning of prayers, or of holy readings." This means it was common practice amongst Christians from early time.

Why are you so opposed to the obvious connection between Tav and the cross? Your rejection of something so obvious suggests that there are profound errors in your thinking and that nothing you say is trustworthy.

sylvius

03-10-2013, 11:14 PM

I never said he said that.
No but you said so :
Tav is a >>>SYMBOL<<< of the cross. Nothing could be more obvious

That's not correct. We know it did not begin with Origin because he reported that it was "the sign made by Christians on the forehead, which all believers make whatsoever work they begin upon, and especially at the beginning of prayers, or of holy readings." This means it was common practice amongst Christians from early time.

Why are you so opposed to the obvious connection between Tav and the cross? Your rejection of something so obvious suggests that there are profound errors in your thinking and that nothing you say is trustworthy.

It stems from Christian practice.

sylvius

03-10-2013, 11:39 PM

Sign of the Cross:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm

The course of development seems to have been the following. The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless allusions in Patristic literature, and it was clearly associated in idea with certain references in Scripture, notably Ezekiel 9:4 (of the mark of the letter Tau); Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Apocalypse 7:3, 9:4 and 14:1.

sylvius

03-10-2013, 11:58 PM

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13785a.htm
The course of development seems to have been the following. The cross was originally traced by Christians with the thumb or finger on their own foreheads. This practice is attested by numberless allusions in Patristic literature, and it was clearly associated in idea with certain references in Scripture, notably Ezekiel 9:4 (of the mark of the letter Tau); Exodus 17:9-14; and especially Apocalypse 7:3, 9:4 and 14:1.

Ezekiel 9:4,

וְהִתְוִיתָ תָּו עַל מִצְחוֹת, "V'hitvita tav al mitschot" = you shall mark a sign upon the foreheads. NOT: you shall mark the letter Tav upon the foreheads. ALSO NOT: you shall mark a cross upon the foreheads.

sylvius

03-11-2013, 01:47 AM

Ezekiel 9:4,

וְהִתְוִיתָ תָּו עַל מִצְחוֹת, "V'hitvita tav al mitschot" = you shall mark a sign upon the foreheads. NOT: you shall mark the letter Tav upon the foreheads. ALSO NOT: you shall mark a cross upon the foreheads.

LXX:
καὶ δὸς τὸ σημεῖον ἐπὶ τὰ μέτωπα = and give the sign on the foreheads

Revelation13:16 seems to be after this:
καὶ ποιεῖ πάντας, τοὺς μικροὺς καὶ τοὺς μεγάλους, καὶ τοὺς πλουσίους καὶ τοὺς πτωχούς, καὶ τοὺς ἐλευθέρους καὶ τοὺς δούλους, ἵνα δῶσιν αὐτοῖς χάραγμα ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν τῆς δεξιᾶς ἢ ἐπὶ τὸ μέτωπον αὐτῶν

It forced all the people, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to be given a mark on their right hands or their foreheads

χάραγμα = mark, stamp

The writer of Revelation seeming to play with it,
Revealation 7:2-3,
καὶ εἶδον ἄλλον ἄγγελον ἀναβαίνοντα ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου, ἔχοντα σφραγῖδα θεοῦ ζῶντος καὶ ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ τοῖς τέσσαρσιν ἀγγέλοις οἷς ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς ἀδικῆσαι τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν, λέγων, Μὴ ἀδικήσητε τὴν γῆν μήτε τὴν θάλασσαν μήτε τὰ δένδρα ἄχρι σφραγίσωμεν τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ τῶν μετώπων αὐτῶν

Then I saw another angel come up from the East, holding the seal of the living God. He cried out in a loud voice to the four angels who were given power to damage the land and the sea, “Do not damage the land or the sea or the trees until we put the seal on the foreheads of the servants of our God.

σφραγίς= seal ;

Note Usccb

Seal: whatever was marked by the impression of one’s signet ring belonged to that person and was under his protection

So it seems to be all about "yom shishi" (gematria 666) versus "yom hashishi" (gematria 671) ...

sylvius

03-11-2013, 04:50 AM

So it seems to be all about "yom shishi" (gematria 666) versus "yom hashishi" (gematria 671) ...

The seal of the living God:

From "The Torah with the Baal Haturim's classic commentary"

http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/suivlys/ThesealofthelivingGod.jpg

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2013, 08:07 AM

sylvius

03-11-2013, 08:39 AM

Still waiting sylvius ....

Do you claim to be kind of a god, or at least a chosen one or beloved disciple, since you are the only one to discover the bible-wheel that was hidden throughout the ages?

duxrow

03-11-2013, 09:57 AM

sylvius

03-11-2013, 10:16 AM

Do you claim to be kind of a god, or at least a chosen one or beloved disciple, since you are the only one to discover the bible-wheel that was hidden throughout the ages?

By the way, don't you think I found some great thing today with χάραγμα τοῦ θηρίου versus σφραγίς, θεοῦ ζῶντος?

sylvius

03-11-2013, 10:35 AM

By the way, don't you think I found some great thing today with χάραγμα versus σφραγίς, θεοῦ ζῶντος?

Since the writer of Revelation must have known about "tav" as last letter of the Hebrew Alphabet there must be a correlation between his "I am the Alpha and the Omega" and his "seal of the living God" and "mark of the beast"

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2013, 11:14 AM

What's your argument?
See the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php). If my claims are false, you should be able to prove it in minutes.

I am serious: what do your claim exactly?
Like I said, see the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php). If my claims are false, you should be able to prove it in minutes.
Still waiting sylvius ....

Do you claim to be kind of a god, or at least a chosen one or beloved disciple, since you are the only one to discover the bible-wheel that was hidden throughout the ages?
No, I have never believed anything like that, and it does not follow from the mere act of discovery. Your question is both rude and irrational.

I'm still waiting ...

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2013, 11:54 AM

:highfive:
Hey Richard, Personally, I suspect you've been 'blessed' in an extraordinary way.. maybe like Nebuchadrezzar?

No Challenge for me--I agree with the 66 count, tho in my case it's mainly because of the 66 generations.. So I've put a link to your challenge on my 'acrostic' page (under 'perfect count'). I hear that added links help promote for search engines..

I think your preference for your pattern in the generations shows how folks tend to be much more impressed by things they discover for themselves. We see the same thing with sylvius' obsession with "yom shishi" = 666. Maybe this is what really impresses me about the Bible Wheel? I wonder what I would think of it if someone else discovered it ... :sCo_hmmthink:

Of course, there is something else to consider, namely, OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Your theory about the 66 generations is not convincing for many reasons. I've explained this many times and you just ignore it. So since you bring it up again, here again are the problems with it (copied from this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern&p=43259#post43259) in the The 33/66 Pattern (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern) thread from 4/18/2012).

The problem I have with the genealogies is that they are quite unreliable and confused. You have to manipulate the data to make it fit your pattern. That's why it doesn't seem like it's real. Here are the facts that make it look unreliable:

1) Luke contradicts your pattern when he says there are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.

2) Matthew contradicts your pattern when he says that Jospeh was Mary's "aner" (man/husband), whereas you say that Joseph was really Mary's father. This point alone makes the pattern very suspect since no translator agrees with your interpretation.

3) You include "Assir" as a son of Jechoniah whereas 9 out of the 15 translations of that verse listed on this page (http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/3-17.htm) don't agree that it is a name at all, but translate it as "prisoner" or "captive."

4) You omit Pedaiah who is explicitly stated to have been the father of Zerubabbel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 which contradicts the other texts that say he was the son of Salathiel. Believers have suggested various ways to harmonize this contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerubbabel#Son_of_Shealtiel_or_Pedaiah) by speculating about a possible Levirate marriage or that the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household." There is no way for us to know the true solution. It could just be another error like Luke's inclusion of Cainan.

Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors, and the genealogies are the least reliable of all. I don't see how anyone could have any confidence that there is a real pattern in the genealogies since you had to manipulate the data too much to get the pattern and your pattern directly contradicts the conclusions of many biblical scholars as well as the plain text of Scripture. If you have any regard for the Bible as the true "Word of God" how can you think that he would encode a message in such an uncertain, contradictory, and confusing way? Could any serious scholar have any confidence that the pattern is really there if it requires so much manipulation to make it appear? I think not.

That's what I told you last April. You never were able to answer those questions. Therefore, I have no reason to think that the pattern is legitimate.

Now compare this with the Bible Wheel. It requires no manipulation of the data at all. The patterns are quite plain and obvious, and the are deep and profound. Even as an unbeliever I am still impressed by this evidence. It is ten thousand light years beyond the little fragmentary pattern in the genealogy that you find so very convincing. So I guess my guess was correct. Folks are pretty much only impressed by things they discover for themselves ... except when it comes to real science like the Periodic Table, Atomic Theory, Relativity, and stuff like that.

BTW, hope your Bell's is healing rather than being rung. hah (wishin you well..) :yo:
Thanks! It's much better. I'm really glad the bell was "rung" - it woke me up to Spring time. It made me aware of how short life is so I appreciate it more.

Shine on!

:sunny:

sylvius

03-11-2013, 12:52 PM

Now compare this with the Bible Wheel. It requires no manipulation of the data at all. :

You just have to manipualte the books into the wheel, like driving sheep into a stable.

1 Corinthians must fit into spoke 3, if it's willing or not.

For else the whole system won't work

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2013, 01:17 PM

You just have to manipualte the books into the wheel, like driving sheep into a stable.

That's not a manipulation of any particular datum. It is a natural representation of the 66 books as a whole. It is mathematically equivalent to representing the 66 books as three columns of 22 books each. But the geometric representation as either a circular or rectangular matrix is not even necessary. It just make the patterns that are intrinsic to the one-dimensional list more obvious. For example, the one dimensional list is grouped 5 - 12 - 5 - 5 - 12 -5 - 22. The fact that these seven groups cohere into three cycles becomes self-evident when represented on the wheel or in a rectangular matrix.

Cycle 1: 22 books (5 - 12 - 5)
Cycle 2: 22 books (5 - 12 - 5)
Cycle 3: 22 books (22)

There would only be a "manipulation" if I had to change the order of books to make it work.

1 Corinthians must fit into spoke 3, if it's willing or not.

For else the whole system won't work

That not true. There is nothing that 1 Corinthians "must" fit. If you can show that some other book fits better on Spoke 2 and that the existing patterns are not optimal then you will have met the Bible Wheel Challenge and DEFEATED my claims. That's the whole point of the Bible Wheel challenge. You really should try it since all your opposition so far (for years!) has been mind numbingly idiotic and ignorant.

sylvius

03-11-2013, 01:37 PM

That's not a manipulation of any particular datum. It is a natural representation of the 66 books as a whole.

Natural? What do you mean by that?

Forced?

You forced the 66 books into a wheel with 22 spokes.

Although you say:

"Simply roll up the list of Sixty-Six Books like a scroll on a spindle Wheel of Twenty-Two Spokes (p.16)

It is easier said than done!

Try it, you won't succeed!

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2013, 03:39 PM

Natural? What do you mean by that?

Forced?

You forced the 66 books into a wheel with 22 spokes.

Although you say:

"Simply roll up the list of Sixty-Six Books like a scroll on a spindle Wheel of Twenty-Two Spokes (p.16)

It is easier said than done!

Try it, you won't succeed!

I forced nothing. The 66 books fit naturally into a circular array of 66 cells. I used the idea of "rolling up" the one dimensional list of books to make it clear that the order was not changed.

http://www.biblewheel.com/Intro/images/Scrollonscroll_640.gif

You are one of the most dense and obstinate opponents I've ever encountered.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2013, 03:45 PM

duxrow

03-11-2013, 04:12 PM

I think your preference for your pattern in the generations shows how folks tend to be much more impressed by things they discover for themselves. We see the same thing with sylvius' obsession with "yom shishi" = 666. Maybe this is what really impresses me about the Bible Wheel? I wonder what I would think of it if someone else discovered it ... :sCo_hmmthink:

Of course, there is something else to consider, namely, OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Your theory about the 66 generations is not convincing for many reasons. I've explained this many times and you just ignore it. So since you bring it up again, here again are the problems with it (copied from this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern&p=43259#post43259) in the The 33/66 Pattern (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern) thread from 4/18/2012).

The problem I have with the genealogies is that they are quite unreliable and confused. You have to manipulate the data to make it fit your pattern. That's why it doesn't seem like it's real. Here are the facts that make it look unreliable:
1) Luke contradicts your pattern when he says there are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.
2) Matthew contradicts your pattern when he says that Jospeh was Mary's "aner" (man/husband), whereas you say that Joseph was really Mary's father. This point alone makes the pattern very suspect since no translator agrees with your interpretation.
3) You include "Assir" as a son of Jechoniah whereas 9 out of the 15 translations of that verse listed on this page (http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/3-17.htm) don't agree that it is a name at all, but translate it as "prisoner" or "captive."
4) You omit Pedaiah who is explicitly stated to have been the father of Zerubabbel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 which contradicts the other texts that say he was the son of Salathiel. Believers have suggested various ways to harmonize this contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerubbabel#Son_of_Shealtiel_or_Pedaiah) by speculating about a possible Levirate marriage or that the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household." There is no way for us to know the true solution. It could just be another error like Luke's inclusion of Cainan. Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors, and the genealogies are the least reliable of all. I don't see how anyone could have any confidence that there is a real pattern in the genealogies since you had to manipulate the data too much to get the pattern and your pattern directly contradicts the conclusions of many biblical scholars as well as the plain text of Scripture. If you have any regard for the Bible as the true "Word of God" how can you think that he would encode a message in such an uncertain, contradictory, and confusing way? Could any serious scholar have any confidence that the pattern is really there if it requires so much manipulation to make it appear? I think not.
That's what I told you last April. You never were able to answer those questions. Therefore, I have no reason to think that the pattern is legitimate.

Now compare this with the Bible Wheel. It requires no manipulation of the data at all. The patterns are quite plain and obvious, and the are deep and profound. Even as an unbeliever I am still impressed by this evidence. It is ten thousand light years beyond the little fragmentary pattern in the genealogy that you find so very convincing. So I guess my guess was correct. Folks are pretty much only impressed by things they discover for themselves ... except when it comes to real science like the Periodic Table, Atomic Theory, Relativity, and stuff like that.
Thanks! It's much better. I'm really glad the bell was "rung" - it woke me up to Spring time. It made me aware of how short life is so I appreciate it more.
Shine on! :sunny:

:sFun_banghead2:Wrong, wrong, wrong. RAM, You have an irritating habit of ignoring any follow up to anything you've made your mind up concerning.. I've answered these points before; now I'll see if your English is as quick as your Babel:

#1 - The genealogy in Luke 3 is strictly showing the pedigree of Mary's husband and is NOT part of Jesus' pedigree. The Cainan of Lk3:36 must be a copyist error from 3:37 unless both the Genesis and 1Chr accounts have errors of omission. If there were indeed two (2) Cainan's, it would upset not only the sixty-six count, and the three "ten generation" count, but also the significance of the unique names in the pedigrees of David and Christ. The "two" Cainan's would be an anomaly! Accidentally on purpose, maybe, by our Holy Ghostwriter? Or copyist error..

#2 - having her husband in the genealogy of Jesus would seem to belie Jesus' true father. The Aramaic text uses the word "gavra" (mighty man: not necessarily a husband)) for the "husband" of Mary. The father of Mary's husband was Heli (Luke3:23), but the Joseph#64 in Matthew 1:16 had a father named Jacob. Mystery solved, because these two Joseph's cannot be the same! #3 - Assir is a good name, used by others, and he's #52 in Jesus Pedigree. Can't help what modern translation you prefer.

#4. - The Zerubbabel of 1Chr3:19 is the wrong one. The Jerusalem phase finishes with Jeconiah/Assir/Salathiel in 1Chr3:17, and then we pick up the correct Zerubbabel in Ezra3:2, where the 70 yrs of Babylon begin. I've answered these points before, and they're at http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm for anyone who wants to check further. Google, Bing, etc. have thus far listed it on their first page! It does have a pattern similar to the 3x14 of Matthew 1 (14+19 twice), and DOES reflect the three (3) Ten-Generation lists leading to David #33. The Triple-Acrostic match was what led me to the Bible-Wheel to begin with!

NO, the Bible is not filled with errors -- it has 'stumbling blocks' for the confusion of bumbling misbelievers, and the joy of believers who get answers from the
Holy Ghost! You don't WANT to believe, 'cause you Enjoy finding problems that support your confused agenda! :p

Richard Amiel McGough

03-11-2013, 05:51 PM

:sFun_banghead2:Wrong, wrong, wrong. RAM, You have an irritating habit of ignoring any follow up to anything you've made your mind up concerning.. I've answered these points before; now I'll see if your English is as quick as your Babel:

#1 - The genealogy in Luke 3 is strictly showing the pedigree of Mary's husband and is NOT part of Jesus' pedigree. The Cainan of Lk3:36 must be a copyist error from 3:37 unless both the Genesis and 1Chr accounts have errors of omission. If there were indeed two (2) Cainan's, it would upset not only the sixty-six count, and the three "ten generation" count, but also the significance of the unique names in the pedigrees of David and Christ. The "two" Cainan's would be an anomaly! Accidentally on purpose, maybe, by our Holy Ghostwriter? Or copyist error..

#2 - having her husband in the genealogy of Jesus would seem to belie Jesus' true father. The Aramaic text uses the word "gavra" (mighty man: not necessarily a husband)) for the "husband" of Mary. The father of Mary's husband was Heli (Luke3:23), but the Joseph#64 in Matthew 1:16 had a father named Jacob. Mystery solved, because these two Joseph's cannot be the same! #3 - Assir is a good name, used by others, and he's #52 in Jesus Pedigree. Can't help what modern translation you prefer.

#4. - The Zerubbabel of 1Chr3:19 is the wrong one. The Jerusalem phase finishes with Jeconiah/Assir/Salathiel in 1Chr3:17, and then we pick up the correct Zerubbabel in Ezra3:2, where the 70 yrs of Babylon begin. I've answered these points before, and they're at http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm for anyone who wants to check further. Google, Bing, etc. have thus far listed it on their first page! It does have a pattern similar to the 3x14 of Matthew 1 (14+19 twice), and DOES reflect the three (3) Ten-Generation lists leading to David #33. The Triple-Acrostic match was what led me to the Bible-Wheel to begin with!

Your frustration is not justified because I did not ignore the follow ups. On the contrary, I answered your follow ups and showed why they were not adequate.

Here, let me remind you.

1) Your response (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern&p=43261#post43261) to this point was "Really? You need to get more sleep, I think." So I answered by saying:
That's not an answer. You reject the fact that Luke says there were 21 generations from Adam to Abraham. You have said nothing to justify your rejection of that text. And oddly, you said that "Luke is not wrong" even as you say that Luke IS wrong! That doesn't make any sense at all.
My words were true. You really did say that Luke is wrong but that Luke is not wrong. Upon questioning further, you explained it by saying this:
Did not say Luke was wrong; neither the man nor the book. Guessed Copyist error.
How is a book with a copyist error not "wrong"? Your answer makes no sense at all. If the book of Luke contains a copyist error, maybe the other genealogies have errors too, which would explain why you have to manipulate the data so much. How would you know?

2) We had discussed this before (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2948-Benjamin-s-Cup&p=43030#post43030) on 4/10/12. Your response was to appeal to the Aramaic version of Matthew which uses the word "gavra" which could perhaps mean either husband or father. But there is no example anywhere in the Peshitta that I know of where that word is used to mean "father" whereas there are many examples where it is used in parallel with ba'al to mean "husband." So yes, this is a possible solution, but on the other hand it may be that the translator of the Peshitta was trying to fix the problem in the original Greek text. So we have no way to know if it is true or not. Your solution therefore is far from certain and so my criticism that your patterns are not well established stands. You must make assumptions, reject the Greek text, and explain away numerous problems to make your pattern work. That's why it is not convincing. And besides, why should I believe that God encoded something in such a confused way if he was perfectly willing to let the primary Greek text of the Bible be so BLATANTLY WRONG for most of Christian history? How many people did God let stumble over the gross confusion of 41 vs. 42 generations in Matthew, and the contradictions with the genealogy in Luke? Your concept of God's Wisdom seems very strange to me. You seem to think he strains at gnats of perfection while allowing herds of confused camels trample through his book.

3) You must choose to include Assir in the genealogy. You could have chosen not to. This gives you more wiggle room to make you pattern fit by manipulating data.

4) What evidence do you have to support that idea? It seems quite obvious that they are the same Zerubbabel since they the same ancestors and descendants. Again, you have to invent all sorts of improbably explanations to make your pattern work. And that's after lots of other improbable explanations. With each step, you must multiply the probability. So let's be generous and say each step has a 50/50 chance of being right. After four steps, the leaves you a probability of only .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 x 100% = 6.25%! That should not be sufficient to convince anyone.

Personally, I see all of this as a violation of Paul's command to avoid vain genealogies.

NO, the Bible is not filled with errors -- it has 'stumbling blocks' for the confusion of bumbling misbelievers, and the joy of believers who get answers from the
Holy Ghost! You don't WANT to believe, 'cause you Enjoy finding problems that support your confused agenda! :p

Ha! That's what I used to say when I was a believer. I would say that the Bible had everything a believer needed to believe and everything an unbeliever needed to unbelieve.

But your assertion is BLATANTLY FALSE. I do not "WANT" the Bible to be wrong. I was very happy as a BELIEVER until it became clear that the Bible was not true. The fact that Bible is false is incontrovertible. It is as obvious as any fact of reality. It's as certain as the fact of gravity. I've debated enough Christians to know with perfect certainty that no one can defend the Bible as true while retaining any intellectual integrity. That's just the way it is.

L67

03-11-2013, 06:40 PM

#1 - The genealogy in Luke 3 is strictly showing the pedigree of Mary's husband and is NOT part of Jesus' pedigree. The Cainan of Lk3:36 must be a copyist error from 3:37 unless both the Genesis and 1Chr accounts have errors of omission. If there were indeed two (2) Cainan's, it would upset not only the sixty-six count, and the three "ten generation" count, but also the significance of the unique names in the pedigrees of David and Christ. The "two" Cainan's would be an anomaly! Accidentally on purpose, maybe, by our Holy Ghostwriter? Or copyist error..

From Adam to Abraham, Luke determines that there are three sets of seven generations. But to achieve this Luke has to intrude a second Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah not found in Hebrew scripture (Luke 3.36 cf. Genesis 10.24; 11.12-13 / 1 Chronicles 1.24). This Cainan is found in the Septuagint (LXX) but is absent from the Hebrew Masoretic text. Clearly, Luke – like Matthew – was basing his genealogy on the Greek translation – and not a scroll that he found in the Temple!

#2 - having her husband in the genealogy of Jesus would seem to belie Jesus' true father. The Aramaic text uses the word "gavra" (mighty man: not necessarily a husband)) for the "husband" of Mary. The father of Mary's husband was Heli (Luke3:23), but the Joseph#64 in Matthew 1:16 had a father named Jacob. Mystery solved, because these two Joseph's cannot be the same! #3 - Assir is a good name, used by others, and he's #52 in Jesus Pedigree. Can't help what modern translation you prefer.

You didn't resolve the mystery! How you can say the genealogy is abouy Mary's husband and then say they aren't the same? They are suppose to be the same Joseph. There is a contradiction. Eusebius even recognized the contradiction and here is what he had to say. "Mattan, who was descended from Solomon, begat Jacob. And when Matthan was dead, Melchi, who was descended from Nathan begat Eli by the same woman. Eli and Jacob were thus uterine brothers. Eli having died childless, Jacob raised up seed to him, begetting Joseph, his own son by nature, but by law the son of Eli. Thus Joseph was the son of both." – Eusebius, History of the Church, 1.7.15.

Eusebius later when onto add that "we can urge no testimony in it's support".

Luke makes mention of it being about Joseph as well.

"In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary." – Luke 1.27-28.

"And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David ..." – Luke 2.4

Who else could Luke be referring to in the genealogy? Joseph. There is a contradiction. Do you know why? Because it was all made up! Eusebius tells us Herod burned all the genealogy records. They had no access to any records. They were writing many years after the fact. It's fiction.

"Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs .."

– Eusebius, History of the Church, 1.7. quoting Julius Africanus.

#4. - The Zerubbabel of 1Chr3:19 is the wrong one. The Jerusalem phase finishes with Jeconiah/Assir/Salathiel in 1Chr3:17, and then we pick up the correct Zerubbabel in Ezra3:2, where the 70 yrs of Babylon begin. I've answered these points before, and they're at http://www.cswnet.com/~duxrow/webdoc5.htm for anyone who wants to check further. Google, Bing, etc. have thus far listed it on their first page! It does have a pattern similar to the 3x14 of Matthew 1 (14+19 twice), and DOES reflect the three (3) Ten-Generation lists leading to David #33. The Triple-Acrostic match was what led me to the Bible-Wheel to begin with!

Wait a minute. You got that wrong. You forgot God's curse (Jeremiah, 22). Salathiel the son of Jeconiah did become ruler in Judah, as did Zerubbabel his grandson! Joseph is a descendant of a cursed line of kings! Your argument is God's curse on Jeconiah ended with the exile and that the "legal right" was transferred to "Salathiel of the house of Nathan". That is a blatant contradiction of Mathew 1:12. It also assumes that Zerubbabel and his father were different people entirely from their famous namesakes! By your logic Luke's bloodline circumvented the curse and "proved" the truth of the anathema from God.

NO, the Bible is not filled with errors -- it has 'stumbling blocks' for the confusion of bumbling misbelievers, and the joy of believers who get answers from the
Holy Ghost! You don't WANT to believe, 'cause you Enjoy finding problems that support your confused agenda! :p

The Bible is full of fiction and errors. I have just demonstrated that. The only ones who can't see that are the believers. For every problem solved in the Bible another one pops up. It's never ending.

L67

03-11-2013, 06:57 PM

4) What evidence do you have to support that idea? It seems quite obvious that they are the same Zerubbabel since they the same ancestors and descendants. Again, you have to invent all sorts of improbably explanations to make your pattern work. And that's after lots of other improbable explanations. With each step, you must multiply the probability. So let's be generous and say each step has a 50/50 chance of being right. After four steps, the leaves you a probability of only .5 x .5 x .5 x .5 x 100% = 6.25%! That should not be sufficient to convince anyone.

Great post. I just wanted so make a quick comment. They are the same Zerubbabel. Duxrow is flat out wrong! See my answer below yours.

sylvius

03-11-2013, 11:34 PM

I forced nothing. The 66 books fit naturally into a circular array of 66 cells. I used the idea of "rolling up" the one dimensional list of books to make it clear that the order was not changed.

http://www.biblewheel.com/Intro/images/Scrollonscroll_640.gif

You are one of the most dense and obstinate opponents I've ever encountered.

You come into problems where Aleph and Tav touch each other.

It doesn't roll smooth from Romans to Acts and from Isaiah to Song of Songs.

Like if there is a crack between different earthlayers, causing earthquakes.

duxrow

03-12-2013, 07:04 AM

OK, have it your way, Guys -- I've explained it best I know how and based on belief that Jesus is the COMPLETE "Word of God", all 66 books. Bring out the basin; after this I'll wash my hands.. :mmph:

A. Compare the father-son Salathiel/Zorobabel of Matthew to the same of Luke. They're different!
Lu:3:27: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel,
which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri..
Matt1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel, and Zorobabel begat Abiud..

B. Zerubbabel (with an 'e' - 1Chr3:19) was the son of Pedaiah, but in Ezra5:2 Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel. :eek:

C. The Enoch-II and Lamech-II of Gen5 are the 7th & 9th generation -- the mystery Jacob-II in the final four of Matt 1:16 would be the 63rd generation. If that doesn't numb your skull, then consider this 'final-four' diagram which gets no mention in today's church doctrines. :eek:

790

sylvius

03-12-2013, 12:24 PM

You come into problems where Aleph and Tav touch each other.

It doesn't roll smooth from Romans to Acts and from Isaiah to Song of Songs.

Like if there is a crack between different earthlayers, causing earthquakes.

Or are it quantum leaps?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-12-2013, 02:48 PM

Or are it quantum leaps?
There's any number of ways to interpret things like that.

That's why those kinds of questions aren't relevant to determining if the patterns are real or imaginary.

That's why I designed the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php).

Why don't you try to answer it? If your claims are true, you should be able to defeat my claims about the Bible Wheel in just a few minutes.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-12-2013, 04:49 PM

OK, have it your way, Guys -- I've explained it best I know how and based on belief that Jesus is the COMPLETE "Word of God", all 66 books. Bring out the basin; after this I'll wash my hands.. :mmph:

I don't want it "my way." I want it the "real" way - that is, I want to know what's REAL. I'm not interested in forcing things to fit patterns.

I agree that you have explained it as best you can. I don't think you could have done a better job. The problem is not with how well you explained it. The problem is that your explanation fails because the FACTS do not imply what you want them to imply.

And it is very weird to suggest that Jesus is the "66 books of the Bible." You need to use words with more care. Jesus is not a book.

A. Compare the father-son Salathiel/Zorobabel of Matthew to the same of Luke. They're different!
Lu:3:27: Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel,
which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri..
Matt1:12 And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel, and Zorobabel begat Abiud..

Yes, that's because the genealogies are full of confusions, errors, and contradictions. They are largely untrustworthy which is probably why Paul said "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain." (Titus 3:9).

B. Zerubbabel (with an 'e' - 1Chr3:19) was the son of Pedaiah, but in Ezra5:2 Zerubbabel was the son of Shealtiel. :eek:

But Shealtiel was an immediate ancestor of both of them:

1 Chr 3:19 Jechoniah -> Shealtiel -> Pedaiah -> Zerubbabel

Matt 1:12 Jechoniah -> Salathiel -> ______ -> Zerubabbel

The omission of Pedaiah in Matthew means nothing because everyone knows that Matthew OMITS lots of names in his genealogy. (Which by the way shows why genealogies are not reliable.)

C. The Enoch-II and Lamech-II of Gen5 are the 7th & 9th generation -- the mystery Jacob-II in the final four of Matt 1:16 would be the 63rd generation. If that doesn't numb your skull, then consider this 'final-four' diagram which gets no mention in today's church doctrines. :eek:

790

Well, I must admit that you have successful "numbed my skull"! Aligning a series of modern political figures with the ancient genealogies strikes me as blatantly absurd.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-12-2013, 05:05 PM

From Adam to Abraham, Luke determines that there are three sets of seven generations. But to achieve this Luke has to intrude a second Cainan between Arphaxad and Shelah not found in Hebrew scripture (Luke 3.36 cf. Genesis 10.24; 11.12-13 / 1 Chronicles 1.24). This Cainan is found in the Septuagint (LXX) but is absent from the Hebrew Masoretic text. Clearly, Luke – like Matthew – was basing his genealogy on the Greek translation – and not a scroll that he found in the Temple!

This is fascinating. I haven't ever thought much about Luke's motivation. But now when we compare Matthew and Luke, it seems pretty obvious that both were trying to force fit their genealogies to patterns based on the number 7.

Matt: 42 = 3 x 14 and 14 = 2 x 7 as well as the value of David (
דוד = 14)

Luke: 77 = 11 x 7

Given that Luke had to stick in some extra names to make the numbers work seems to confirm that he too was trying to force fit a pattern.

Thanks for the interesting info L67.

PS: I see that you copied and pasted your information from this site (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/genealogy-luke.html). In the future, please put a link to the source when copying. Thanks!

L67

03-12-2013, 06:26 PM

This is fascinating. I haven't ever thought much about Luke's motivation. But now when we compare Matthew and Luke, it seems pretty obvious that both were trying to force fit their genealogies to patterns based on the number 7.

Matt: 42 = 3 x 14 and 14 = 2 x 7 as well as the value of David (
דוד = 14)

Luke: 77 = 11 x 7

Given that Luke had to stick in some extra names to make the numbers work seems to confirm that he too was trying to force fit a pattern.

Thanks for the interesting info L67.

PS: I see that you copied and pasted your information from this site (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/genealogy-luke.html). In the future, please put a link to the source when copying. Thanks!

It is very interesting to say the least.

OMG thank you for that website. I had printed that info sometime ago and recently have been looking for that site. I will link my sources in the future. Sorry for the confusion.

Here is another interesting idea that Bart Ehrmans lists on his blog. Why does Lukes genealogy start in chapter 3? He gives pretty good reasons why there might not have been chapters 1 and 2 originally and that chapter one started with the genealogy like Mathew.

I can't link you to the source since you have to be a member to view all of it. Do you think it's ok copy and paste the info?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-12-2013, 07:12 PM

Here is another interesting idea that Bart Ehrmans lists on his blog. Why does Lukes genealogy start in chapter 3? He gives pretty good reasons why there might not have been chapters 1 and 2 originally and that chapter one started with the genealogy like Mathew.

I can't link you to the source since you have to be a member to view all of it. Do you think it's ok copy and paste the info?
Sure, it would be fine to post it. If you can't post a link, you can still cite the source.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 12:23 AM

There's any number of ways to interpret things like that.

So you admit it's not a simple rolling up of the 66 books of the protestant bible?

That's why those kinds of questions aren't relevant to determining if the patterns are real or imaginary.

In any case it's not an easy riding.

That's why I designed the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php).

Why don't you try to answer it? If your claims are true, you should be able to defeat my claims about the Bible Wheel in just a few minutes.

To stay on topic:

The 22nd letter of Hebrew alphabet is not "the seal of the whole Bible", that's where your wheel explodes.

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tav_Ring.php

The Bible Wheel is sealed on Spoke 22 with Tav = http://www.biblewheel.com/images/tcross_pic.gif
The tri-radiant cruciform http://www.biblewheel.com/images/tcross_pic.gif structure seals the whole Bible.
The last Book on Spoke 22, Revelation, forms an Inner Wheel of 22 Spokes that reiterates the whole Alphabetic Circle, from Aleph to Tav = http://www.biblewheel.com/images/tcross_pic.gif

All this conspires through the Spirit of God to declare that the Bible Wheel is even more than the Divine Seal and Capstone of the Holy Bible; it is God's Wedding Ring to His Bride the Church

In the language of Revelation your seal is more like the χάραγμα τοῦ θηρίου, the mark of the beast.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 02:47 AM

The Sefer Yetsirah doesn't present the letters in their alphabetical order, but as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Yetzirah

Three "Mother" Letters (אמש)
Seven "Doubles" (בגדכפרת)
Twelve "Simples" (הוזחטילנסעצק)

So also your Sefer Yetsirah wheel reflects just your own imagination:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/231Gates.php

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/231Gates.gif

sylvius

03-13-2013, 03:04 AM

The Sefer Yetsirah doesn't present the letters in their alphabetical order, but as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Yetzirah

So also your Sefer Yetsirah wheel reflects just your own imagination:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/231Gates.php

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/231Gates.gif

Yet your wheel might be used for easily finding the Atbash of words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheshach

Sheshach - (Jer. 25:26), supposed to be equivalent to Babel (Babylon), according to a secret mode of writing among the Jews of unknown antiquity, which consisted in substituting the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet for the first, the last but one for the second, and so on. Thus the letters sh, sh, ch become b, b, l, i.e., Babel (see: Atbash cipher).This code is called the Atbash Cipher and was used to decrypt.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 05:09 AM

Three "Mother" Letters (אמש), spell the word "asham", a word Mark does play with after Isaiah 53:10,

וַיהֹוָה חָפֵץ דַּכְּאוֹ הֶחֱלִי אִם תָּשִׂים אָשָׁם נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה זֶרַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים וְחֵפֶץ יְהֹוָה בְּיָדוֹ יִצְלָח
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand.

Rashi:

If his soul makes itself restitution, etc.: Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “I will see, if his soul will be given and delivered with My holiness to return it to Me as restitution for all that he betrayed Me, I will pay him his recompense, and he will see children, etc.” This word אָשָׁם is an expression of ransom that one gives to the one against when he sinned, amende in O.F., to free from faults, similar to the matter mentioned in the episode of the Philistines (I Sam. 6:3), “Do not send it away empty, but you shall send back with it a guilt offering (אָשָׁם).”

Mark 10:45,
καὶ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθεν διακονηθῆναι ἀλλὰ διακονῆσαι καὶ δοῦναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ λύτρον ἀντὶ πολλῶν.
For also the son of man didn't come to be served but to serve and to give his soul as ransom for many.

Mark 15:26,
καὶ ἦν ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ τῆς αἰτίας αὐτοῦ ἐπιγεγραμμένη, Ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων.
And the inscription of his gulit was inscribed: "The king of the Jews"

אָשָׁם can mean both: guilt and guilt-offfering = restitution-money= ransom.

Mark also plays here with the coin, the denarius, with image and inscription of Caesar, seemingly Caesar Domitianus, showing the number 666.

John had inscribed on the cross:"Jesus the Nazarene and the king of the Jews", seemingly hinting at Hebrew "Yeshu Notsri" (gematria 666) versus "Yeshu Hanotsri" (gematria 671).

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 07:56 AM

There's any number of ways to interpret things like that.
So you admit it's not a simple rolling up of the 66 books of the protestant bible?

No. Your comment is non sequitur.

That's why those kinds of questions aren't relevant to determining if the patterns are real or imaginary.
In any case it's not an easy riding.

Wrong again. Nothing could be simpler. That's why you have to struggle so hard to create imaginary problems even as you ignore the Bible Wheel Challenge.

That's why I designed the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php).

Why don't you try to answer it? If your claims are true, you should be able to defeat my claims about the Bible Wheel in just a few minutes.
To stay on topic:

The 22nd letter of Hebrew alphabet is not "the seal of the whole Bible", that's where your wheel explodes.

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Tav_Ring.php

The Bible Wheel Challenge is the topic. You are ignoring it and hunting desperately to find some imaginary problems.

Your "criticisms" are like those of a small child. You merely assert your opinions which have no foundation in any facts or serious knowledge.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 08:08 AM

The Sefer Yetsirah doesn't present the letters in their alphabetical order, but as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_Yetzirah

So also your Sefer Yetsirah wheel reflects just your own imagination:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/231Gates.php

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/231Gates.gif
Wrong again. The Sepher Yeztirah does not present the letters in that ORDER. It GROUPS them that way for discussion. It never says that they go in that order.

For you to suggest that the STANDARD ORDER OF THE HEBREW ALPHABET is the product of my own imagination reveals how utterly desperate, perverse, and corrupt you really are. There are no other words. It is a total lie to say that the standard order of the Hebrew alphabet is the product of my own imagination. It's even in the Talmud and the Bible you freaking moron!

Your assertion is utterly absurd and indicates you are utterly ignorant of the most basic facts concerning the Hebrew alphabet which is universally understood to be in the ORDER that I display on the Wheel.

You are obviously desperate to invent any ridiculous absurdity to avoid the force of the evidence. I've never seen anything so pathetic.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 08:27 AM

sylvius

03-13-2013, 08:53 AM

No. Your comment is non sequitur.
So that's your easy way, simply ignoring the facts.

Wrong again. Nothing could be simpler. That's why you have to struggle so hard to create imaginary problems even as you ignore the Bible Wheel Challenge.

Your whole wheel is fake from the outset. You cannot simply roll up the list of the 66 books like a scroll on a spindle wheel, but just in your dreams or hallucinations.

The Bible Wheel Challenge is the topic. You are ignoring it and hunting desperately to find some imaginary problems.

I thought the topic was Psalms 22.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 09:00 AM

Wrong again. The Sepher Yeztirah does not present the letters in that ORDER. It GROUPS them that way for discussion. It never says that they go in that order.

It also never says that they were placed in a circle in alphabetical order.

It is about the 231 gates = the 231 possible 2-letter combinations, which has nothing to do with alphabetical order.

By the way: I didn't know they were grouped that way FOR DISCUSSION :eek:

For you to suggest that the STANDARD ORDER OF THE HEBREW ALPHABET is the product of my own imagination reveals how utterly desperate, perverse, and corrupt you really are. There are no other words. It is a total lie to say that the standard order of the Hebrew alphabet is the product of my own imagination. It's even in the Talmud and the Bible you freaking moron!
.

I didn't say or suggest that.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 09:04 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 09:04 AM

So that's your easy way, simply ignoring the facts.

You stated no "facts." You made up an imaginary "problem" to avoid the facts.

Your whole wheel is fake from the outset. You cannot simply roll up the list of the 66 books like a scroll on a spindle wheel, but just in your dreams or hallucinations.

Your comment is absurd. You most certainly can roll up the list. But that's not the point. I've already explained that the "rolling up" idea is meant to show that I did not manipulate the order of the books when I placed them in the circular array of 66 cells.

The fact that you hang up on this point shows again that you are doing everything in your power BLIND yourself to the evidence.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 09:09 AM

OK - so I guess I also TOOK OVER THE MIND of Aryeh Kaplan - who was one of the worlds greatest scholars of the Kabbalah - and forced him to create exactly the same representation of the 231 Gates on page 111 of his commentary on the Sepher Yetzirah?

791

That's nice
Yes, it is very "nice" because it shows everyone that you are willing to pervert all truth in your effort to refute the Bible Wheel.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 09:10 AM

You stated no "facts." You made up an imaginary "problem" to avoid the facts.

In this case the fact of the "quantum leaps"

Your comment is absurd. You most certainly can roll up the list. But that's not the point. I've already explained that the "rolling up" idea is meant to show that I did not manipulate the order of the books when I placed them in the circular array of 66 cells.

Then you should have made a 66-spoke wheel.

The fact that you hang up on this point shows again that you are doing everything in your power BLIND yourself to the evidence.

What evidence?

That your wheel is God?

sylvius

03-13-2013, 09:12 AM

Yes, it is very "nice" because it shows everyone that you are willing to pervert all truth in your effort to refute the Bible Wheel.

who then was the inventor of the wheel?

Aryeh Kaplan or Richard Amiel McGough?

Who stole it from whom?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 09:17 AM

Then you should have made a 66-spoke wheel.

Another non sequitur.

Your mind is utterly disordered.

What evidence?

That your wheel is God?
Again, you reveal the deep perversion of your twisted, sick mind. I have never written anything that suggests the Bible Wheel is "God."

And your question "What evidence?" proves for the millionth time the absurdity of your mindless attack. I've answered your question many times. I present the evidence in the BIBLE WHEEL CHALLENGE (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php) which you are totally ignoring because you can't refute any of the evidence. :doh:

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 09:23 AM

who then was the inventor of the wheel?

Aryeh Kaplan or Richard Amiel McGough?

Who stole it from whom?
Again, your insanity is showing.

Neither Aryeh Kaplan nor Richard Amiel McGough invented the wheel. It's from the Sepher Yetzirah which has been around for many centuries.

Your moronism runs deep sylvius. You are utterly devoid of truth. Your light is darkness!

It would be wonderful if you could actually find some sort of evidence refuting the Bible Wheel because then I could be free from it, just like I am free from Christianity and the Bible itself (in the sense that I don't believe in Yahweh or that the Bible is his word). But you can't do that. Bummer.

Your idea that I "stole" something that didn't belong to Kaplan only shows the sick perversity of your mind that delights in false accusations.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 09:38 AM

Another non sequitur.

that's your easy way of ignoring facts.

Above the fact of ignoring the "quantum leaps" or "cracks" you also contend that the order of the books should coincide the order of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, yes even more, that they share the characteristics of those letters.
You just sucked that out of your thumb.

Again, you reveal the deep perversion of your twisted, sick mind. I have never written anything that suggests the Bible Wheel is "God." ok , you just said "Divine Unity of the whole body of Scripture", we all must bow for, for not being called freaking morons.

And your question "What evidence?" proves for the millionth time the absurdity of your mindless attack. I've answered your question many times. I present the evidence in the BIBLE WHEEL CHALLENGE (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php) which you are totally ignoring because you can't refute any of the evidence. :doh:

You are just in praise for your self all the time.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 09:41 AM

Again, your insanity is showing.

Neither Aryeh Kaplan nor Richard Amiel McGough invented the wheel. It's from the Sepher Yetzirah which has been around for many centuries.

Your moronism runs deep sylvius. You are utterly devoid of truth. Your light is darkness!

It would be wonderful if you could actually find some sort of evidence refuting the Bible Wheel because then I could be free from it, just like I am free from Christianity and the Bible itself (in the sense that I don't believe in Yahweh or that the Bible is his word). But you can't do that. Bummer.

Your idea that I "stole" something that didn't belong to Kaplan only shows the sick perversity of your mind that delights in false accusations.

The Sefer Yetsirah doesn't mention the alphabetical order.

It mentions 22 letters, of which 3 morthers, 7 double and 12 simple letters.

The Omega of Revelation being the 13th simple letter.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 09:54 AM

that's your easy way of ignoring facts.

Above the fact of ignoring the "quantum leaps" or "cracks" you also contend that the order of the books should coincide the order of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, yes even more, that they share the characteristics of those letters.
You just sucked that out of your thumb.

Your comment contains no content. You are just babbling. If you want to defeat the Bible Wheel, you need to show my claims are false. In other words, you need to meet the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php). I've brought this to your attention many times and you continue to ignore it.

ok , you just said "Divine Unity of the whole body of Scripture", we all must bow for, for not being called freaking morons.

There is a world of difference between saying that God designed something and saying that the thing is "God." This is typical of your comments. They are radically irrational and absurd. As well as rude. They are designed to deceive because you have an irrational hatred of the Bible Wheel but are utterly incapable of actually refuting any of the evidence. That is why you ignore the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php). You can't answer it and you apparently know it.

You are just in praise for your self all the time.
Again, you reveal your black twisted heart. I want no praise of any kind. I reject the freaking Bible. I reject the Christian concept of God. I don't want praise for anything. I would be absolutely delighted if you could show me any error in the Bible Wheel so I could reject it too. But you can't do that, so you make up PERVERSE LIES because you are utterly incapable of forming a coherent argument against the Bible Wheel.

All you need to do is answer the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php) and PROVE ME WRONG! What could be simpler? Why don't you do it?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 10:01 AM

ok , you just said "Divine Unity of the whole body of Scripture", we all must bow for, for not being called freaking morons.

YOU are presenting YOURSELF as a "freaking moron" when you pile LIES UPON LIES and when you assert absurdities over and over and over again.

I'm just stating what you are doing.

You are just in praise for your self all the time.
There you go again. Slandering me by falsely asserting that I want "praise." This reveals the DEEP SICK TWISTED DELUSION that is your brain.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 10:10 AM

There you go again. Slandering me by falsely asserting that I want "praise." This reveals the DEEP SICK TWISTED DELUSION that is your brain.

I didn't say you want praise, but that you praise yourself

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 10:10 AM

The Sefer Yetsirah doesn't mention the alphabetical order.

Not true. When discussing the GROUPS of letters, they are laid out in the standard order in the Sepher Yetzirah (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/yetzirah.htm):

IV.1. There were formed seven double letters, Beth, Gimel, Daleth, Kaph, Pe, Resh, Tau, each has two voices, either aspirated or softened. These are the foundations of Life, Peace, Riches, Beauty or Reputation, Wisdom, Fruitfulness, and Power. These are double, because their opposites take part in life, opposed to Life is Death; to Peace, War; to Riches, Poverty; to Beauty or Reputation, Deformity or Disrepute; to Wisdom, Ignorance; to Fruitfulness, Sterility; to Power, Slavery.

V.1. The simple letters are twelve, namely: He, Vau, Zain, Heth, Teth, Yod, Lamed, Nun, Samech, Oin, Tzaddi, and Quoph; they represent the fundamental properties, eight, hearing, smell, speech, desire for food, the sexual appetite, movement, anger, mirth, thought, sleep, and work. These symbolize also twelve directions in space: northeast, southeast, the east above, the east below, the northwest, southwest, the west above, the west below, the upper south, the lower south, the upper north, the lower north. These diverge to all eternity, and an as the arms of the universe.

Your comments are all LIES and ABSURDITIES that fall like flies spewed out of the mouth of Baalzebub. What's wrong with your brain? How could you think for a minute to deceive anyone with such absurdly obvious lies?

It would be GREAT if you could actually CHALLENGE the evidence that supports the Bible Wheel. Then maybe I could be free from it.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 10:14 AM

Your comment contains no content. You are just babbling. If you want to defeat the Bible Wheel, you need to show my claims are false. I did time after time.

There is a world of difference between saying that God designed something and saying that the thing is "God."

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God"

Or:

"In the beginning was the biblewheel, etc."?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 10:15 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 10:19 AM

Your comment contains no content. You are just babbling. If you want to defeat the Bible Wheel, you need to show my claims are false.
I did time after time.

More empty assertions. You have never shown any error in anything I have written about the Bible Wheel. If you think I am wrong, then you need to quote what I said and show the error.

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God"

Or:

"In the beginning was the biblewheel, etc."?
I never said that. You are just making up absurdities. That reveals the deep corruption of your soul. You lie as often as you breathe. I have been challenging you to answer the BIBLE WHEEL CHALLENGE and you have refused, and chosen rather to make up PERVERSE LIES about things I've never said.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 10:23 AM

Not true. When discussing the GROUPS of letters, they are laid out in the standard order in the Sepher Yetzirah (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/yetzirah.htm):

IV.1. There were formed seven double letters, Beth, Gimel, Daleth, Kaph, Pe, Resh, Tau, each has two voices, either aspirated or softened. These are the foundations of Life, Peace, Riches, Beauty or Reputation, Wisdom, Fruitfulness, and Power. These are double, because their opposites take part in life, opposed to Life is Death; to Peace, War; to Riches, Poverty; to Beauty or Reputation, Deformity or Disrepute; to Wisdom, Ignorance; to Fruitfulness, Sterility; to Power, Slavery.

V.1. The simple letters are twelve, namely: He, Vau, Zain, Heth, Teth, Yod, Lamed, Nun, Samech, Oin, Tzaddi, and Quoph; they represent the fundamental properties, eight, hearing, smell, speech, desire for food, the sexual appetite, movement, anger, mirth, thought, sleep, and work. These symbolize also twelve directions in space: northeast, southeast, the east above, the east below, the northwest, southwest, the west above, the west below, the upper south, the lower south, the upper north, the lower north. These diverge to all eternity, and an as the arms of the universe.

Your comments are all LIES and ABSURDITIES that fall like flies spewed out of the mouth of Baalzebub. What's wrong with your brain? How could you think for a minute to deceive anyone with such absurdly obvious lies?

It would be GREAT if you could actually CHALLENGE the evidence that supports the Bible Wheel. Then maybe I could be free from it.

The Sefer Yetsirah stressed the 231 possible 2-letter combinations, seemingly to state that:

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/231Gates.php

There is nothing in good higher than Delight (Oneg – ); There is nothing in evil lower than Plague (Nega – ),

Both having gematria 123.

It makes think of a song by the Shirts: "The pleasure is the pain".

sylvius

03-13-2013, 10:31 AM

More empty assertions. You have never shown any error in anything I have written about the Bible Wheel. If you think I am wrong, then you need to quote what I said and show the error.

You first must accept a false and absurd thing like the biblewheel and next find proof that is not false and absurd?

Makes think of: "We will do and we will hear" (Exodus 24:7).

At least in your opinion the Torah is false and absurd.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 10:42 AM

You first must accept a false and absurd thing like the biblewheel and next find proof that is not false and absurd?

Your assertion that the Bible Wheel is "false and absurd" is itself absurd. The Bible Wheel is nothing but a 2D representation of the traditional 66 book canon in a circular matrix of 66 cells. Such a thing cannot be "true" or "false." It just "is." It may reveal patterns that were implicit in the linear order, or it may not. That's to be determined by examining the evidence. That's the purpose of the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php) which you run from like a dog with your tail between your legs.

Your comment reveals that you understand neither the most basic meaning of words nor the most basic claims I make about the Bible Wheel.

And this is after seven years of mindless, moronic, and utterly ignorant opposition form you! You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about!

sylvius

03-13-2013, 11:04 AM

Your assertion that the Bible Wheel is "false and absurd" is itself absurd. The Bible Wheel is nothing but a 2D representation of the traditional 66 book canon in a circular matrix of 66 cells. Such a thing cannot be "true" or "false." It just "is." It may reveal patterns that were implicit in the linear order, or it may not. That's to be determined by examining the evidence. That's the purpose of the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php) which you run from like a dog with your tail between your legs.

Your comment reveals that you understand neither the most basic meaning of words nor the most basic claims I make about the Bible Wheel.

And this is after seven years of mindless, moronic, and utterly ignorant opposition form you! You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about!

Behind your Biblewheel lies the (protestant) dogma that the bible should be from cover to cover word of God.

I don't subscribe to that.

And more: not all books are of same weight or importance, and even not necessary to be taken up in the canon. It is arbitrary,

Many books could have been left out, like Jude, or 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Hebrews, or even Matthew.

Same with Tenach. The five books of Moses being most important.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 11:16 AM

I never said that. You are just making up absurdities..

You said:

View Post
There is a world of difference between saying that God designed something and saying that the thing is "God."

But John opened with an absurdity "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and God was the word"

The word, building of the 22 letters.

Or 23?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 11:22 AM

Behind your Biblewheel lies the (protestant) dogma that the bible should be from cover to cover word of God.

I don't subscribe to that.

Wrong again. There is no assumption of any kind about the bible as the word of God.

Proof: I don't subscribe to that idea either! :doh:

The issue is whether or not there are any patterns that require explanation, or if all the patterns can be explained as mere chance or the deliberate design of the humans who put the Bible together. Some of the patterns might be able to be explained this way, such as the sevenfold canon. But it seems that other patterns, such as the correlations with the Alphabetic Verses, cannot be explained that way.

That's the point of the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php) that you run and hide from like a little girl, proving that you know (on some level, perhaps unconsciously) that the evidence is strong and deep and invincible.

And more: not all books are of same weight or importance, and even not necessary to be taken up in the canon. It is arbitrary,

Yes, the canon LOOKS like it was arbitrary. That's why there should be no meaningful patterns in the Bible Wheel. And that's why you need to explain how those patterns got there. That's the point of the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php).

Why do I have to explain the same things over and over and over again year after year? What's wrong with your brain?

Many books could have been left out, like Jude, or 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Hebrews, or even Matthew.

Exactly correct! That's the whole POINT! Man, you are DENSE. I've been explaining this to you for seven years and yet you don't understand the most basic claims about the Bible Wheel.

There should be no patterns because it should all be random and arbitrary and meaningless. But the patterns are not random, arbitrary, or meaningless! That's the point of the Bible Wheel Challenge (http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php).

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 11:26 AM

sylvius

03-13-2013, 11:35 AM

Wrong again. There is no assumption of any kind about the bible as the word of God.

Proof: I don't subscribe to that idea either! :doh:

But you sarted with rolling up the list of 66 books of the protestant bible,

The issue is whether or not there are any patterns that require explanation or if all the patterns can be explained as mere chance or the deliberate design of the humans who put the Bible together.
Why?
What is the fun of that?

sylvius

03-13-2013, 11:38 AM

You need to answer this sylvius.

"No one can refute the bible wheel"

Ok I want praise too.

I did find some great things today about how Mark plays with "asham"

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 11:48 AM

But you sarted with rolling up the list of 66 books of the protestant bible,

So what? That does not mean that the Bible Wheel is based on the assumption that the protestant canon is inspired.

The issue is whether or not there are any patterns that require explanation or if all the patterns can be explained as mere chance or the deliberate design of the humans who put the Bible together.
Why?
What is the fun of that?

Why? Because you claim it is all "false and absurd."

Is there no bottom to the abyss of you absurdity? Are on medication? Are you institutionalized?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 11:50 AM

I didn't say you want praise, but that you praise yourself
Your accusation is false. I have never praised myself.

You now have obligated yourself to choosing one of three options:

1) Present evidence that I actually have "praised myself" (this requires direct quotes of where I have done that).

2) Admit that your statement is false.

3) Stand publicly convicted as a willful unrepentant LIAR.
You need to answer this sylvius.
"No one can refute the bible wheel"

Wrong again.

Stating the FACT that no one has yet been able to refute the Bible Wheel is not a "praise" of myself.

You need to find a quote where I "praised myself" or admit that your accusation is false.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 12:30 PM

So what? That does not mean that the Bible Wheel is based on the assumption that the protestant canon is inspired.

I even would never come to the idea to look for meaning in the number of books in the bible.

Why? Because you claim it is all "false and absurd."

You can't stand that.

sylvius

03-13-2013, 12:34 PM

Wrong again.

Stating the FACT that no one has yet been able to refute the Bible Wheel is not a "praise" of myself.

You need to find a quote where I "praised myself" or admit that your accusation is false.

It is not an accusation, but an observation.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-13-2013, 01:04 PM

Behind your Biblewheel lies the (protestant) dogma that the bible should be from cover to cover word of God.

I don't subscribe to that.

Wrong again. There is no assumption of any kind about the bible as the word of God.

Proof: I don't subscribe to that idea either! :doh:

But you sarted with rolling up the list of 66 books of the protestant bible,

So what? That does not mean that the Bible Wheel is based on the assumption that the protestant canon is inspired.

I even would never come to the idea to look for meaning in the number of books in the bible.

So what? The fact that it wouldn't occur to you does not justify your false assertion that "Behind your Biblewheel lies the (protestant) dogma that the bible should be from cover to cover word of God."

I quoted the whole sequence of this part of the conversation to show how you twist like a serpent with your perverse lies and insinuations. If you had any honesty or goodness in you, you would have admitted that you were wrong. But you never do that. I've proven you WRONG a dozen times in this thread but you just keep on lying and twisting and perverting truth.

Why? Because you claim it is all "false and absurd."
You can't stand that.
That is true. I can't stand perverse lying sick and twisted freaks like you. Never have, never will. People like you are the primary source of all that is wrong in the world.

How is it that you delight in perversity? What is wrong with you?

sylvius

03-13-2013, 11:32 PM

Bible Wheel book, p.400:

The Bible Wheel (...) is the Capstone of the Bible! Who can but cry "Grace, grace unto it"?

Richard Amiel McGough

03-14-2013, 07:40 AM

sylvius

03-14-2013, 10:50 AM

I'm still waiting ...

http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php

My great confidence in the invincibility of the Bible Wheel comes from two sources.

I know with absolute certainty that no rearrangement of the 66 books could ever improve the overall design of the Bible Wheel. The proof is final and complete. Praise God for the revelation of the divine perfection of His Holy Word!

There you have it.

By the way, I have no interest in improving your wheel, or rearrange the books.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-14-2013, 11:00 AM

http://www.biblewheel.com/Apologetics/BWChallenge.php

I know with absolute certainty that no rearrangement of the 66 books could ever improve the overall design of the Bible Wheel. The proof is final and complete. Praise God for the revelation of the divine perfection of His Holy Word!

There you have it.

There you have what?

That was my personal opinion about the implications of the evidence when I was a Christian. It does not support any of your false assertions about the Bible Wheel. I have refuted every argument you have presented. I have shown that you willfully LIED. For example, you attacked my graph of the 231 gates as made up by my own imagination, and then I proved you false by showing that Aryeh Kaplan had the same graph in his book on the Sepher Yetzirah. There is something deeply wrong with your mind and morals. You know you are lying, you know I know you are lying, you know that everyone reading this thread knows you are lying, yet you persist in it.

By the way, I have no interest in improving your wheel, or rearrange the books.

The fact that you cannot meet the Bible Wheel Challenge reveals the absurdity and falsehood of your mindless moronic opposition that you have spewed out for five years on this forum.

The case is closed. You have lost the debate. You have confirmed that you cannot refute any of the evidence supporting the Bible Wheel.

sylvius

03-14-2013, 11:51 AM

There you have what?

That was my personal opinion about the implications of the evidence when I was a Christian. It does not support any of your false assertions about the Bible Wheel. I have refuted every argument you have presented. I have shown that you willfully LIED. For example, you attacked my graph of the 231 gates as made up by my own imagination, and then I proved you false by showing that Aryeh Kaplan had the same graph in his book on the Sepher Yetzirah. There is something deeply wrong with your mind and morals. You know you are lying, you know I know you are lying, you know that everyone reading this thread knows you are lying, yet you persist in it.

I think the circle or wheel on which the letters were placed represents the 23rd letter.

Which has nothing to do with alphabetical order,

The 231 gates are also thus imagined:

http://kiamagic.com/wiki/images/2/2f/231.jpg.

The fact that you cannot meet the Bible Wheel Challenge reveals the absurdity and falsehood of your mindless moronic opposition that you have spewed out for five years on this forum.

The challenge reveals your own absurdism.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-14-2013, 12:25 PM

The challenge reveals your own absurdism.
You have passed the limit of my patience with your blatant lies and gross absurdities.

You have nothing of any value to contribute to this forum.

I should have banned you long ago.

Go troll elsewhere.

duxrow

03-25-2013, 07:46 AM

Of course, there is something else to consider, namely, OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Your theory about the 66 generations is not convincing for many reasons. I've explained this many times and you just ignore it. So since you bring it up again, here again are the problems with it (copied from this post (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern&p=43259#post43259) in the The 33/66 Pattern (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?3001-The-33-66-Pattern) thread from 4/18/2012).

The problem I have with the genealogies is that they are quite unreliable and confused. You have to manipulate the data to make it fit your pattern. That's why it doesn't seem like it's real. Here are the facts that make it look unreliable:

1) Luke contradicts your pattern when he says there are 21 generations from Adam to Abraham.

2) Matthew contradicts your pattern when he says that Jospeh was Mary's "aner" (man/husband), whereas you say that Joseph was really Mary's father. This point alone makes the pattern very suspect since no translator agrees with your interpretation.

3) You include "Assir" as a son of Jechoniah whereas 9 out of the 15 translations of that verse listed on this page (http://bible.cc/1_chronicles/3-17.htm) don't agree that it is a name at all, but translate it as "prisoner" or "captive."

4) You omit Pedaiah who is explicitly stated to have been the father of Zerubabbel in 1 Chronicles 3:19 which contradicts the other texts that say he was the son of Salathiel. Believers have suggested various ways to harmonize this contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerubbabel#Son_of_Shealtiel_or_Pedaiah) by speculating about a possible Levirate marriage or that the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household." There is no way for us to know the true solution. It could just be another error like Luke's inclusion of Cainan.

Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors, and the genealogies are the least reliable of all. I don't see how anyone could have any confidence that there is a real pattern in the genealogies since you had to manipulate the data too much to get the pattern and your pattern directly contradicts the conclusions of many biblical scholars as well as the plain text of Scripture. If you have any regard for the Bible as the true "Word of God" how can you think that he would encode a message in such an uncertain, contradictory, and confusing way? Could any serious scholar have any confidence that the pattern is really there if it requires so much manipulation to make it appear? I think not.

That's what I told you last April. You never were able to answer those questions. Therefore, I have no reason to think that the pattern is legitimate.

Now compare this with the Bible Wheel. It requires no manipulation of the data at all. The patterns are quite plain and obvious, and the are deep and profound. Even as an unbeliever I am still impressed by this evidence. It is ten thousand light years beyond the little fragmentary pattern in the genealogy that you find so very convincing. So I guess my guess was correct. Folks are pretty much only impressed by things they discover for themselves ... except when it comes to real science like the Periodic Table, Atomic Theory, Relativity, and stuff like that.

Thanks! It's much better. I'm really glad the bell was "rung" - it woke me up to Spring time. It made me aware of how short life is so I appreciate it more.

Shine on!

:sunny:

1) No disrespect to Luke, but someone inserted an added 'Cainan' in v.36; prob a copyist error from the true Cainan of v.37. The OT records all confirm Abram as 20th.

2) No hassle with Matthew, but translators have it wrong IMO--you don't think Mary could've had a father and husband both named Joseph?

3) See Ex6:24 AND 1Chr6:22 for Assir, son of Korah, and 1Chr6:23 AND 6:37 for son of Ebiasaph. So 'Assir' is legit name. :p

4) Phooey! Consider the move to Babylon and how the correct Zerubbabel is found in Ezra 3:2 AND 5:2.

Richard says: Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors..

WRONG! But as long as you persist in that attitude, you'll probably 'see' even more. Adjusting the POV of these four points will enable you to understand how the Holy Ghostwriter has 64 different names in the Pedigree of Jesus; only the name of Jacob found twice, both times as the father of Joseph.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-25-2013, 09:00 AM

1) No disrespect to Luke, but someone inserted an added 'Cainan' in v.36; prob a copyist error from the true Cainan of v.37. The OT records all confirm Abram as 20th.

Great! We agree that Luke's genealogy has at least one error. No news there. It is common knowledge that the genealogies are not reliable for many reasons. For example, we know they contain many gaps so we know that we don't have any way of knowing if any of them are complete. If Matthew skips over generations, how many others skip generations that we know nothing about?

2) No hassle with Matthew, but translators have it wrong IMO--you don't think Mary could've had a father and husband both named Joseph?

Matthew skips generations. That's a pretty big problem if you are asserting that the 66 generations are all the generations.

3) See Ex6:24 AND 1Chr6:22 for Assir, son of Korah, and 1Chr6:23 AND 6:37 for son of Ebiasaph. So 'Assir' is legit name. :p

Scholars differ - some agree, some disagree. There's no way to know who is correct. And we both know with perfect certainty that you would flip your position if it were necessary to force the genealogy to fit a pattern of 66. That's called the fallacy of "special pleading" - it's called a fallacy because it means that your conclusion does not follow.

4) Phooey! Consider the move to Babylon and how the correct Zerubbabel is found in Ezra 3:2 AND 5:2.

As noted in my comment, BELIEVERS DIFFER about how to solve the contradiction. I get the impression you did not follow the link. Here is the info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerubbabel#Son_of_Shealtiel_or_Pedaiah):
Various attempts have been made to show how both genealogies could be true. One explanation suggests Shealtiel died childless and therefore Pedaiah, his brother, married his widow according to a Jewish law regarding inheritance (Deuteronomy 25:5-6). If so, Zerubbabel would be the legal son of Shealtiel but the biological son of Pedaiah.

The other speculation suggests the title "son of Shealtiel" does not refer to being a biological son but to being a member in Shealtiel's "household" (Hebrew: בית‎, bet). The Hebrew term "father" (Hebrew: אב‎, av) can refer to a father of a household, similar to the Latin term paterfamilias. In this sense, a man who is the "father" of a household can therefore be referred to as the "father" of his own biological siblings, nephews and nieces, or anyone else who cohabitates in his "household". Zerubbabel (and possibly his father Pedaiah) could be called a "son" if they lived in Shealtiel's household.

Perhaps both speculations could be true. Zerubbabel could be the legal son of Shealtiel and therefore also a member of his household. Notably, if Shealtiel had no biological children, Zerubbabel as a legal son would have inherited Shealtiel's household and become its new "father" with authority of over the other members of the household.

Yet another speculation simply suggests that the text which identifies Zerubbabel as a son of Pedaiah could be a scribal error. It occurs in a part of the text where the Hebrew seems discongruent and possibly garbled (1 Chronicles 3:16-21).[22] The expected mention of Shealtiel being a father seems accidentally omitted, and thus his children became confused with Pedaiah's. There may be other problems with these verses as well.
So there are THREE speculations right there. Do any of them fit your genealogy? Nope. They all understand there to be only one Zerubabbel. Therefore, we have THREE GUESSES from the scholars that don't fit your pattern. So either you invented your own solution for the specific purpose of force-fitting the genealogy to your pattern, or you found a scholar who speculated that they were two different Zerubbabels. Which is it? Did you make it up yourself, or did you find a scholar who suggested it?

Any one of these four problems is sufficient to destroy the pattern you have found. The four of them together make your pattern entirely unbelievable. That's why the whole thing seems vain to me. The Bible is filled with errors..
WRONG! But as long as you persist in that attitude, you'll probably 'see' even more. Adjusting the POV of these four points will enable you to understand how the Holy Ghostwriter has 64 different names in the Pedigree of Jesus; only the name of Jacob found twice, both times as the father of Joseph.
My "attitude" has absolutely nothing to do with validity of the facts I presented. You need to deal with the EVIDENCE since you have chosen to make a case based on evidence. To make a variation on a Biblical theme, "If you live by the evidence, you will die by the evidence." :p

How would "adjusting my POV" change any of the evidence?

Shine on!

:sunny:

duxrow

03-25-2013, 11:07 AM

:ranger:
1)You call it error--I call it 'problems' or 'stumbling block' enroute to "Study" and understanding. "Common Knowledge" about the Bible is not so common, as the multiple denoms confirm. Many don't even care about genealogy, let alone know about the Bible Wheel 'evidence' for the 66 books. hah.

2)Hey buddy, I'm talkin Pedigree of Jesus here--tracing of father to son from Adam to Jesus, but since that final Joseph had only the one daughter (Mary), compare to Noah w 3 sons/no dau, compares to Joseph w 2 sons(Manasseh/Ephraim)/no dau, and to Judah's 5 sons/no dau. Can't you see the foundation here for the one daughter/no sons of Matthew??

3) No question about my liking how "The Word" identifies with Jesus and the 66 books. The Triple-Acrostic of Lamentations and the 66 chapters of Isaiah don't fit your 'fallacy' reasoning.

4) For Pete's sake, don't you ever pay attention? :mad: Matthew is Mary's genealogy and Luke is her husband's genealogy, IAW the stipulation of Numbers 36 for girls w/o brothers. Following the Num26 re Zelophehad who had 5 daughters but no sons. Gimme a break... :rolleyes:

Loaded question like "have you stopped beating your wife?", and even though Young's doesn't list two Zerubbabel's, it's plain to me that 1Chr3:19 and Ezra3:2 are writing of two different persons! More than one Baruch, more than one Joseph, and many curious and interesting facts concerning the Names of Bible Characters! Never mind your so-called scholars -- read the Word!
Shine on! OK, will shine-on, but thinking am wasting breath on ET or brain-dead canary, and 'Can this discourse have any benefit?' :eek: