The 23 multiples of 37 in Genesis 1:1

[Gambini]

Ever since I found out about the 23 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are multiples of 37, which is way beyond mathematical probability, I always asked myself "why 23???" ...

There are 22 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are multiples of 37 + the entire verse itself. Aside from the importance of 22 (corresponding with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet), this pattern actually fits the human chromosome pattern, which is very fitting since the human genome itself is mathematically encoded with the number 37. Observe ...

22 word value combinations as multiples of 37 + the entire verse.

22 pairs of human chromosomes + the sex chromosomes.

EACH of the seven word values of Genesis 1:1 are used EXACTLY 12 times in making up the 23 word value combinations that are multiples of 37! AND the value of Genesis 1:1 (2701) times 12 = the total sum of the 23 word value combinations that are multiples of 37! Moreover, 2701 is the ONLY value out of the 23 multiples of 37 that divides their total combined sum EVENLY ...

2701 x 12 = 32412 (the sum of the 23 multiples of 37) and 3 + 2 + 4 + 1 + 2 = 12.

The 12th prime = 37 and the 37th prime = the 12th Emirp prime (primes whose reflections are also primes).

The Nazarene had 12 disciples.

The total sum of the 23 multiples of 37 = the 876th multiple of 37.

876 + 12 = 888 (the Greek New Testament value of JESUS).

876 has exactly 12 divisors.

876 is the exact midpoint between 864 (the FRACTAL diameter of the sun in miles) and 888 (the difference between 864 and 888 = 8 + 8 + 8).

The sum of the 23 multiples of 37 = 32412 and the difference between 8 x 7 x 6 and 3 x 2 x 4 x 1 x 2 = 2 x 3 x 6 x 8 ( 2368 is the Greek New Testament value of JESUS CHRIST).

3 + 2 + 4 + 1 + 2 = Prime order of 37 and 8 + 7 + 6 = Prime order of 73.

2701 (the value of Genesis 1:1) is the 73rd triangle (73 x 12 = 876).

876 + 37 = the value of the very FIRST word in Genesis 1:1.

23 + 32 (its reflection) = 55 (the exact midpoint between 37 and 73).

2 x 3 = 6 (Genesis 1:1 introduces the 6 days of creation).

2^2 x 3^2 = the difference between 37 and 73.

The cube of 2 times the cube of 3 = the perimeter of the Genesis 1:1 triangle (216).

23^2 = 529 and 5^2 + 2^2 + 9^2 = 37 + 73.

The reflection of 23^2 = 925 (the number of integers between the values of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1).

The sum of the 6 permutations of 876 (remember that the 23 multiples of 37 = 876 x 37) = a reflection of 888 + 888 + 888. Observe ...

876 + 867 + 786 + 768 + 687 + 678 = 4662 and 2664 = 888 + 888 + 888.

4662/6 = (3 x 7) x 37.

When we place the 23 multiples of 37 in numerical order, the sum of the 12th multiple of 37 (1406) and the 21st multiple of 37 (2294) = 37 raised by a factor of 100 (37 is the 12th prime and 73 is the 21st prime).

Here is a list of the 23 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are multiples of 37 in numerical order ...

296
407
481
703
777
888
999
999
1184
1295
1295
1406
1406
1517
1702
1702
1813
1924
1998
2220
2294
2405
2701

The DIFFERENCE between the 12th multiple of 37 and the 21st multiple of 37 = 888 (the Greek NT value of JESUS).

The sum of the THIRD multiple of 37 and the SEVENTH multiple of 37 = 1480 (the Greek NT value of CHRIST).

The DIFFERENCE between the total sum of every THIRD number on the list and the total sum of every SEVENTH number on the list = 137 x 37 (all the bible wheel kiddies should already know the importance of 137).

The 6th number on the list is 888 and 888/6 = 148 (148 x 10 = 1480). Btw, besides the 1st number, only the 6th and 20th number on the list divides EVENLY by its place number on the list. So this is definitely significant. And what about that 20th number on the list? Well, let us see ...

2220/20 = 111.

The sum of the digital roots for the 23 multiples of 37 = 111.

111 is the value of the FIRST Hebrew letter when it is fully spelled out.

The EXPONENTIAL CONSTANT squared by PI = 23. This is significant because both of these values are encoded in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 (the two CREATION verses) through THE EXACT SAME mathematical formula AND both to the SAME accuracy of 5 digits (any written expansion of either of these fundamental constants necessarily has to end at some point because both of their values go on for infinity).

Clearly, it is very fitting that God would encode PRECISELY 23 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of 37!

The total number of word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 (regardless of whether it is a multiple of 37) is 127.

The sum of the digital roots of the first 23 composite numbers = 127!

The total number of name value combinations on the breastplate of the high priest that are multiples of 37 is 127 (and the total value of the 12 names on the breastplate is exactly 37 x 100)!

The sum of the digital sums of the 12 name values on the breastplate of the high priest is 127!

The total value of the 127 name value combinations on the breastplate of the high priest that are multiples of 37 is precisely 2368 x 100 (the Greek NT value of JESUS CHRIST is 2368)!

Btw, the sum of the digital roots of all the primes up to 23 is 37!

Clearly, one would have to be batshit crazy to deny that the book of all books is truly supernatural.

BINI SPEAKING TO GOD: Why O Master of creation did you encode 23 multiples of 37 in the introductory verse of your written word?

GOD SPEAKING TO BINI: O young BINI, go and search out that there are 23 x 10 unique space groups describing all possible crystal symmetries.

BINI SPEAKING TO GOD: O Master of creation, I am happy with your answer.

GOD SPEAKING TO BINI: Good because 23 x 10 is the 37th HAPPY number.

JESUS IS GOD (aren't you happy?)!

I am Gambini and I am NOT God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ever since I found out about the 23 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are multiples of 37, which is way beyond mathematical probability, I always asked myself "why 23???" ...

There are 22 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are multiples of 37 + the entire verse itself. Aside from the importance of 22 (corresponding with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet), this pattern actually fits the human chromosome pattern, which is very fitting since the human genome itself is mathematically encoded with the number 37. Observe ...

22 word value combinations as multiples of 37 + the entire verse.

22 pairs of human chromosomes + the sex chromosomes.

EACH of the seven word values of Genesis 1:1 are used EXACTLY 12 times in making up the 23 word value combinations that are multiples of 37! AND the value of Genesis 1:1 (2701) times 12 = the total sum of the 23 word value combinations that are multiples of 37! Moreover, 2701 is the ONLY value out of the 23 multiples of 37 that divides their total combined sum EVENLY ...

2701 x 12 = 32412 (the sum of the 23 multiples of 37) and 3 + 2 + 4 + 1 + 2 = 12.

The 12th prime = 37 and the 37th prime = the 12th Emirp prime (primes whose reflections are also primes).

The Nazarene had 12 disciples.

The total sum of the 23 multiples of 37 = the 876th multiple of 37.

876 + 12 = 888 (the Greek New Testament value of JESUS).

876 has exactly 12 divisors.

876 is the exact midpoint between 864 (the FRACTAL diameter of the sun in miles) and 888 (the difference between 864 and 888 = 8 + 8 + 8).

The sum of the 23 multiples of 37 = 32412 and the difference between 8 x 7 x 6 and 3 x 2 x 4 x 1 x 2 = 2 x 3 x 6 x 8 ( 2368 is the Greek New Testament value of JESUS CHRIST).

3 + 2 + 4 + 1 + 2 = Prime order of 37 and 8 + 7 + 6 = Prime order of 73.

Hey there Gambini,

I agree that there are some very intriguing connections between the gematria of Genesis and the genetic code. But you seem to be fishing for any random connection which is not helpful because it obscures the more convincing results. For example, it seems pretty nuts to be making a connection to "the FRACTAL diameter of the sun in miles" since miles are an arbitrary unit and what is a "fractal diameter" anyway? Errors like this tend to repulse serious mathematically minded thinkers.

Another cherry picked manipulated result is when you write numbers like 2 x 3 x 6 x 8 as if there were any meaning to that. The problem is that there are many other ways to write that product. The canonical form is 25 x 32. You could write it 8 x 3 x 2 x 6 = 3 x 6 x 8 x 2 etc., etc., etc. It seems ridiculous to cherry pick one particular arbitrary form of the factors as if that were particularly significant. Again, let me remind you of how such cherry picking is the primary fallacy commit by folks who play with gematria. It is a major alrarm that indicates an unprincipled mind which is the antithesis of a principled mathematical mind.



2701 (the value of Genesis 1:1) is the 73rd triangle (73 x 12 = 876).

876 + 37 = the value of the very FIRST word in Genesis 1:1.

23 + 32 (its reflection) = 55 (the exact midpoint between 37 and 73).

2 x 3 = 6 (Genesis 1:1 introduces the 6 days of creation).

2^ x 3^ = the difference between 37 and 73.

The cube of 2 times the cube of 3 = the perimeter of the Genesis 1:1 triangle (216).

23^ = 529 and 5^ + 2^ + 9^ = 37 + 73.

The reflection of 23^ = 925 (the number of integers between the values of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1).

Now a mathematician would be disturbed by your notation. You forgot to write the exponent! The square of 23 is written 23^2 = 529. You dropped the 2, the exponent. I'd understand if you did it just once, but you did it in all cases.

Also, have you noticed the buttons in the editor on the third row? They enable you to post exponents and subscripts like this: 232 and xn.



The sum of the 6 permutations of 876 (remember that the 23 multiples of 37 = 876 x 37) = a reflection of 888 + 888 + 888. Observe ...

876 + 867 + 786 + 768 + 687 + 678 = 4662 and 2664 = 888 + 888 + 888.

This does not seem like a significant result because the sum of all permutations of any three digit number will be a multiple of 111. For example:

123 + 132 + 213 + 231 + 312 + 321 = 1332 = 12 x 111

Again, it seems like you are dropping principles in favor of finding any random connection. This is problematic. And I doubt you would give any significance to any of this if it did not "confirm" your religious presuppositions. For example, there is strong evidence of some "mystical" connection of the number 19 with the Quran. I doubt you would find it convincing no matter how strong it might be.



The DIFFERENCE between the total sum of every THIRD number on the list and the total sum of every SEVENTH number on the list = 137 x 37 (all the bible wheel kiddies should already know the importance of 137).

What's up with your use of derogatory language like "bible wheel kiddies"? I ignored it the first time you used it. This is the second time, so it seems obvious that you are trying to insult me.



The EXPONENTIAL CONSTANT squared by PI = 23. This is significant because both of these values are encoded in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 (the two CREATION verses) through THE EXACT SAME mathematical formula AND both to the SAME accuracy of 5 digits (any written expansion of either of these fundamental constants necessarily has to end at some point because both of their values go on for infinity).

Now your displaying some serious confusion about basic mathematics. First, the phrase "EXPONENTIAL CONSTANT squared by PI" is utterly meaningless. The word "squared" means "raised to the power of 2". What you meant to say is "the value of the e raised to the power of pi is 23." But that's not even true since the value is actually

eπ = 23.14069 ...

Why should anyone think that is significant? It is a necessary fact completely independent of all the contingent facts involved in the design of Genesis. Those are the only things that need explaining since necessary facts are already explained by logical necessity. In other words, there is no reason to think that the author of Genesis 1:1 designed the verse to conform to the relation between e and pi, even if that author were God who deliberately designed its mathematical structure. Your data set is way over determined, like a set of m linear equations in n variables, where m > n.



The total number of word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 (regardless of whether it is a multiple of 37) is 127.

The sum of the digital roots of the first 23 composite numbers = 127!

The number 127 = 128 - 1 = 27 - 1 is a necessary fact determined by Genesis having seven words.

The problem with your presentation is that you are approaching this study like a potpourri. You are serving up a mishmash that mixes random meaningless results with significant results, resulting in a polluted soup of confusion.



The total number of name value combinations on the breastplate of the high priest that are multiples of 37 is 127 (and the total value of the 12 names on the breastplate is exactly 37 x 100)!

The sum of the digital sums of the 12 name values on the breastplate of the high priest is 127!

The total value of the 127 name value combinations on the breastplate of the high priest that are multiples of 37 is precisely 2368 x 100 (the Greek NT value of JESUS CHRIST is 2368)!

Btw, the sum of the digital roots of all the primes up to 23 is 37!

Clearly, one would have to be batshit crazy to deny that the book of all books is truly supernatural.

Your assertion is a non-sequitur. You have only worked on two passages so you can't jump to a conclusion about the "whole book". The Catholics could say the same thing using the same evidence because it is in their Bible too which is different than yours.

And since the Bible describes God as absolutely BATSHIT CRAZY it is impossible to accept it "truly supernatural" in the way you do.



BINI SPEAKING TO GOD: Why O Master of creation did you encode 23 multiples of 37 in the introductory verse of your written word?

GOD SPEAKING TO BINI: O young BINI, go and search out that there are 23 x 10 unique space groups describing all possible crystal symmetries.

BINI SPEAKING TO GOD: O Master of creation, I am happy with your answer.

GOD SPEAKING TO BINI: Good because 23 x 10 is the 37th HAPPY number.

JESUS IS GOD (aren't you happy?)!

I am Gambini and I am NOT God.
Now that's just plain silly. "Happy numbers" have nothing to do with the idea of "happiness." This reminds me of the nut job James Harrison who wrote The Pattern and the Prophecy. He thought it was some sort of miracle that Jacob brought Esau 220 goats as a peace offering because the number 220 is known as a "Friendly number". His book was filled with absurdities like that. He used his silly number game to predict the Apocalypse would happen in the year 2000. What a pathetic joke.

But getting back to the main topic - I'm really glad you are bringing up all these results. I would like to see if we can separate the wheat from the chaff.

Great chatting,

Richard

[Gambini]

"It seems pretty nuts to be making a connection to "the FRACTAL diameter of the sun in miles" since miles are an arbitrary unit and what is a "fractal diameter" anyway?"

The mile, foot and inch are not arbitrary units. We know this because those units are hidden in the biblical text ...

Genesis records that God made TWO great lights (the SUN and the MOON) ... The biblical dimensions for the ARK of Noah translates to 864,000 x 10 SQUARE INCHES at its base (diameter of SUN = 864,000 miles) and the biblical dimensions for the ARK of the covenant translates to 2,160 SQUARE INCHES at its base (diameter of moon = 2,160 miles). The two ARKS in the bible are shadows of the SUN and the MOON ...

Jericho means " City of the MOON" ... God made the Israelites walk AROUND the city of Jericho once a day for six days ... 360 degrees x 6 = 2160 (the diameter of the MOON in miles) ...

The biblical dimensions of the New Jerusalem coming down to EARTH in the book of Revelation translates to 7,920 (diameter of EARTH in miles) x 1000 feet ...

Even nature itself connects the dots ... The moon inscribed in a square has a perimeter of 8,640 miles (8,640 x 100 = diameter of SUN in miles) ...

There are 86,400 seconds in a day (86,400 x 10 = diameter of SUN in miles) ...

There are 2,160 years in a Zodiac age (2,160 = diameter of MOON in miles) ...

There are tons of other correlating examples. Basically, these measurements are actually ancient measurements ordained by the Creator. The British selected this particular system out of a whole variety of ancient systems (EACH of which is demonstrably related to the divinely ordained system).

What is a "fractal" diameter? A number with zeros after it that simply has its zeros dropped. Hence, 864,000 with its zeros dropped = 864 (a "fractal" representation of 864,000).

"Another cherry picked manipulated result is when you write numbers like 2 x 3 x 6 x 8; You could write it 8 x 3 x 2 x 6 = 3 x 6 x 8 x 2 etc., etc., etc."

It's not cherry picked for two plain reasons ...

1) The number 2368 ITSELF is connected to Genesis 1:1 AND the Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 Triangle.
2) Lining up the digits as 2368 puts them in ASCENDING ORDER.

"Now a mathematician would be disturbed by your notation. You forgot to write the exponent!"

My mistake. You're right.


"This does not seem like a significant result because the sum of all permutations of any three digit number will be a multiple of 111. For example:

123 + 132 + 213 + 231 + 312 + 321 = 1332 = 12 x 111"

I think it's very significant because in this PARTICULAR case, it yields the value 888 + 888 + 888 (the Greek NT value of JESUS = 888). And we're dealing with a biblical passage that we already know is clearly supernaturally inspired.

"What's up with your use of derogatory language like "bible wheel kiddies"? I ignored it the first time you used it. This is the second time, so it seems obvious that you are trying to insult me"

Not at all. I was referring to the entire bible wheel forum family (skeptic and believer alike). It wasn't intended as an insult towards anyone.


"What you meant to say is "the value of the e raised to the power of pi is 23."

Sure. That's precisely what I meant ...

"But that's not even true since the value is actually 23.14069"

Richard, stop being silly man. That OBVIOUSLY rounds off to 23. We round off numbers all the time. Here's the deal ... We are justified in using round numbers IF the value we are trying to represent consists of an infinite expansion of digits. You don't think that's fair?

"Why should anyone think that is significant?"

Because those two fundamental constants in creation are both encoded in the two CREATION VERSES of the bible through the EXACT SAME mathematical formula (and BOTH accurate to 5 digits, which is the SAME accuracy for the encoding of the fine structure constant in the combined values of Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 as well). And the fact that raising one of those constants by the value of the other one = 23 (rounded off) is significant because Genesis 1:1 is sealed with 23 word value combinations that are perfect multiples of 37, which is way beyond probability. The number 23 is linked to Genesis 1:1 in many other ways as well.


"The number 127 is a necessary fact determined by Genesis having seven words"

Sure but the OUTSIDE examples linking 23 to 127 are INDEPENDENT of that. For example, the sum of the digital roots of the first 23 COMPOSITE numbers = 127. You don't see how that connects to the 23 multiples of 37 out of the 127 word value combinations of Genesis 1:1??? And breaking numbers down to their digital roots isn't some game. If we break down all the numbers of the Fibonacci sequence to their digital roots, we get an infinitely repeating set of 24 digits. So we know that breaking numbers down to their digital roots is a legitimate mathematical study.

"The problem with your presentation is that you are approaching this study like a potpourri. You are serving up a mishmash that mixes random meaningless results with significant results, resulting in a polluted soup of confusion"

You may have a point as far as information overload. Sometimes less is more. I personally don't have a problem taking in all the information but I can see how that could turn some ppl off. In fact, I think that's the main reason biblical gematria isn't as well known among Christians as it should be ...

One thing I think you fail to take into account is that the lesser significant results are THEMSELVES bolstered by the highly significant results. In other words, a given result may not appear that significant IN THE ABSENCE OF the significant results BUT they become much more significant when taken together with the more established results.

"You have only worked on two passages so you can't jump to a conclusion about the "whole book". The Catholics could say the same thing using the same evidence because it is in their Bible too which is different than yours"

We already know the WHOLE book is supernaturally inspired ...

1) One of the passages we're dealing with happens to be the very OPENING of the bible (that in itself speaks volumes).
2) The fact that the 66 book canon corresponds with the 66 chapters of Isaiah (Isaiah is a miniature version of the WHOLE bible) demonstrates the supernaturally inspired nature of the 66 book canon (and refutes the Catholic canon).
3) The bible wheel demonstrates the supernaturally inspired nature of the 66 book canon (and refutes the Catholic canon).

"And since the Bible describes God as absolutely BATSHIT CRAZY it is impossible to accept it as "truly supernatural" in the way that you do"

Sure it is. In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to not accept it as supernaturally inspired. If you believe the supernatural author of the bible is "crazy", then that's on you. That does absolutely nothing to discredit the undeniable evidence backing up the supernatural nature of the bible.

"Now that's just plain silly. "Happy numbers" have nothing to do with the idea of "happiness"

I wasn't saying that, Richard lol. I was linking the number 23 x 10 with the number of unique space groups that describe all possible crystal symmetries and the fact that this number happens to be the 37th happy number. Why is this significant? Because there are 23 word values of Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of 37!

Btw, there are precisely 3 x 7 orders of magnitude for the number of primes under 10 to the 23rd power!

I am Gambini (aka The Spiritual Sniper) and I am NOT God.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"It seems pretty nuts to be making a connection to "the FRACTAL diameter of the sun in miles" since miles are an arbitrary unit and what is a "fractal diameter" anyway?"

The mile, foot and inch are not arbitrary units. We know this because those units are hidden in the biblical text ...

Genesis records that God made TWO great lights (the SUN and the MOON) ... The biblical dimensions for the ARK of Noah translates to 864,000 x 10 SQUARE INCHES at its base (diameter of SUN = 864,000 miles) and the biblical dimensions for the ARK of the covenant translates to 2,160 SQUARE INCHES at its base (diameter of moon = 2,160 miles). The two ARKS in the bible are shadows of the SUN and the MOON ...


Where did you get your information? The best data seems to be that the mean radius of the sun is 1.392684 x 106 km = 865,373 miles. Your number is off by more than a thousand miles.

So if you want to convince anyone of anything, you need to get your facts straight first.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Where did you get your information? The best data seems to be that the mean radius of the sun is 1.392684 x 106 km = 865,373 miles. Your number is off by more than a thousand miles.

So if you want to convince anyone of anything, you need to get your facts straight first.
I see you've been posting in other threads. Are you avoiding the truth? There are only two possibilities that I can see: Either you were ignorant of the truth about the diameter of the sun, or you are LYING. Which is it?

[Gambini]

"I see you've been posting in other threads. Are you avoiding the truth?"

Hardly. I just don't find your objections worth the time to be honest.

"Either you were ignorant of the truth about the diameter of the sun, or you are LYING. Which is it?"

Neither. First of all, to claim that I am "lying" in saying the diameter of the sun = 864,000 miles is ridiculous. That is the value given by MOST of the sites online. Most of them will say "about 864,000" miles. A 2012 article from UniverseToday uses that value. Even a Twitter post from NASA used that value! ...

As far as me being wrong, that's also ridiculous because we can't pinpoint the EXACT diameter of such a massive object that is nearly 100 million miles away, Richard. So the study you're pointing to from 2006 is perfectly consistent with a value of 864,000 (which is why that value is still used) because there are always assumptions and details involved in these measurements (a change in any of these details would have an effect on the value) ...

Besides that, the 2006 study fits the value of 864,000 by over 99%! So given that AND the correlating relationship with the number 864 in the bible (and the natural world itself), we can safely say that the value of 864,000 is closer to the truth.

Here are some more biblical values linking the FRACTAL diameter of the sun in estimated miles (864) with the FRACTAL diameter of the earth in estimated miles (792) ...

John 1:1 = 39 x 93 ...

39 = 13 x 3 and 13^2 = 169

93 = 31 x 3 and 31^2 = 961

The difference between 13^2 and 31^2 = 792!

The difference between 39 and 93 + The difference between 13 and 31 + The difference between 169 and 961 = 864!

8^3 + 6^3 + 4^3 = 792!

The digital roots of the central title of Jesus in the NT (Lord Jesus Christ) = 864!

Lord = 800 (8 + 0 + 0 = 8)

Jesus = 888 (8 + 8 + 8 = 24 and 2 + 4 = 6)

Christ = 1480 (1 + 4 + 8 + 0 = 13 and 1 + 3 = 4)

Also, "Lord Jesus Christ" = 3168 and the product of 3168 (3 x 1 x 6 x 8) = 144 ...

144 x 6 (the 1st "Perfect Number" and number of creation "days") = 864 (or 144,000 x 6 = 864,000)!

And we already saw how the total value of the 23 word value combinations of Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of 37 = the 876th multiple of 37 (876 is the exact midpoint between 864 and 888).

The world receives its light from the sun ...

864 + (8 + 8 + 8) = 888!

Jesus is the LIGHT of the world!

[mary]

Where did you get your information? The best data seems to be that the mean radius of the sun is 1.392684 x 106 km = 865,373 miles. Your number is off by more than a thousand miles.

So if you want to convince anyone of anything, you need to get your facts straight first.

hi where do we find the facts? in nirvana/heaven does every servant have the same jobs? or would ego like to be the knower of all things some times? would YHWH The Creator Create any servant that knows all things? does that tend to Create any sort of inter dependance atoll in any ecosystem?--for how many years was a book called Genesis? what is an Ester? what is a bond servant? what is a RO mans? what is a e PH ains? what is a day to YHWH? what does many false prophets shall arise mean? for instance very common one Levi 20:13 X Y their blood shall be upon them--what is hemophilla? ---how would any servant know what the measurement of the sun is? would YHWH know since YHWH Created it? thank you for your reply also let us reason together not fight---is not the monetary system and the oppressive governments doing enough in terms of division? do not we all want Truth and YHWH have different ways of directing servants?

[mary]

Ever since I found out about the 23 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are multiples of 37, which is way beyond mathematical probability, I always asked myself "why 23???" ...

There are 22 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are multiples of 37 + the entire verse itself. Aside from the importance of 22 (corresponding with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet), this pattern actually fits the human chromosome pattern, which is very fitting since the human genome itself is mathematically encoded with the number 37. Observe ...

22 word value combinations as multiples of 37 + the entire verse.

22 pairs of human chromosomes + the sex chromosomes.

EACH of the seven word values of Genesis 1:1 are used EXACTLY 12 times in making up the 23 word value combinations that are multiples of 37! AND the value of Genesis 1:1 (2701) times 12 = the total sum of the 23 word value combinations that are multiples of 37! Moreover, 2701 is the ONLY value out of the 23 multiples of 37 that divides their total combined sum EVENLY ...

2701 x 12 = 32412 (the sum of the 23 multiples of 37) and 3 + 2 + 4 + 1 + 2 = 12.

The 12th prime = 37 and the 37th prime = the 12th Emirp prime (primes whose reflections are also primes).

The Nazarene had 12 disciples.

The total sum of the 23 multiples of 37 = the 876th multiple of 37.

876 + 12 = 888 (the Greek New Testament value of JESUS).

876 has exactly 12 divisors.

876 is the exact midpoint between 864 (the FRACTAL diameter of the sun in miles) and 888 (the difference between 864 and 888 = 8 + 8 + 8).

The sum of the 23 multiples of 37 = 32412 and the difference between 8 x 7 x 6 and 3 x 2 x 4 x 1 x 2 = 2 x 3 x 6 x 8 ( 2368 is the Greek New Testament value of JESUS CHRIST).

3 + 2 + 4 + 1 + 2 = Prime order of 37 and 8 + 7 + 6 = Prime order of 73.

2701 (the value of Genesis 1:1) is the 73rd triangle (73 x 12 = 876).

876 + 37 = the value of the very FIRST word in Genesis 1:1.

23 + 32 (its reflection) = 55 (the exact midpoint between 37 and 73).

2 x 3 = 6 (Genesis 1:1 introduces the 6 days of creation).

2^2 x 3^2 = the difference between 37 and 73.

The cube of 2 times the cube of 3 = the perimeter of the Genesis 1:1 triangle (216).

23^2 = 529 and 5^2 + 2^2 + 9^2 = 37 + 73.

The reflection of 23^2 = 925 (the number of integers between the values of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1).

The sum of the 6 permutations of 876 (remember that the 23 multiples of 37 = 876 x 37) = a reflection of 888 + 888 + 888. Observe ...

876 + 867 + 786 + 768 + 687 + 678 = 4662 and 2664 = 888 + 888 + 888.

4662/6 = (3 x 7) x 37.

When we place the 23 multiples of 37 in numerical order, the sum of the 12th multiple of 37 (1406) and the 21st multiple of 37 (2294) = 37 raised by a factor of 100 (37 is the 12th prime and 73 is the 21st prime).

Here is a list of the 23 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are multiples of 37 in numerical order ...

296
407
481
703
777
888
999
999
1184
1295
1295
1406
1406
1517
1702
1702
1813
1924
1998
2220
2294
2405
2701

The DIFFERENCE between the 12th multiple of 37 and the 21st multiple of 37 = 888 (the Greek NT value of JESUS).

The sum of the THIRD multiple of 37 and the SEVENTH multiple of 37 = 1480 (the Greek NT value of CHRIST).

The DIFFERENCE between the total sum of every THIRD number on the list and the total sum of every SEVENTH number on the list = 137 x 37 (all the bible wheel kiddies should already know the importance of 137).

The 6th number on the list is 888 and 888/6 = 148 (148 x 10 = 1480). Btw, besides the 1st number, only the 6th and 20th number on the list divides EVENLY by its place number on the list. So this is definitely significant. And what about that 20th number on the list? Well, let us see ...

2220/20 = 111.

The sum of the digital roots for the 23 multiples of 37 = 111.

111 is the value of the FIRST Hebrew letter when it is fully spelled out.

The EXPONENTIAL CONSTANT squared by PI = 23. This is significant because both of these values are encoded in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 (the two CREATION verses) through THE EXACT SAME mathematical formula AND both to the SAME accuracy of 5 digits (any written expansion of either of these fundamental constants necessarily has to end at some point because both of their values go on for infinity).

Clearly, it is very fitting that God would encode PRECISELY 23 word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 that are perfect multiples of 37!

The total number of word value combinations in Genesis 1:1 (regardless of whether it is a multiple of 37) is 127.

The sum of the digital roots of the first 23 composite numbers = 127!

The total number of name value combinations on the breastplate of the high priest that are multiples of 37 is 127 (and the total value of the 12 names on the breastplate is exactly 37 x 100)!

The sum of the digital sums of the 12 name values on the breastplate of the high priest is 127!

The total value of the 127 name value combinations on the breastplate of the high priest that are multiples of 37 is precisely 2368 x 100 (the Greek NT value of JESUS CHRIST is 2368)!

Btw, the sum of the digital roots of all the primes up to 23 is 37!

Clearly, one would have to be batshit crazy to deny that the book of all books is truly supernatural.

BINI SPEAKING TO GOD: Why O Master of creation did you encode 23 multiples of 37 in the introductory verse of your written word?

GOD SPEAKING TO BINI: O young BINI, go and search out that there are 23 x 10 unique space groups describing all possible crystal symmetries.

BINI SPEAKING TO GOD: O Master of creation, I am happy with your answer.

GOD SPEAKING TO BINI: Good because 23 x 10 is the 37th HAPPY number.

JESUS IS GOD (aren't you happy?)!

I am Gambini and I am NOT God.

hello why may a prophet have been sent to this site think? what is the very worst thing to say to any servant in this servant's opinion? um crazy, nuts, God is not telling you that--so what we do actual awake servants is come back to center talk it out with YHWH sometimes we get mad and write about it but don't let asleep people get under your skin too much---been doing this a very long time--there shall be mockers--sleep means sleep--so someone doesn't understand what you are conveying it does well to just say that--John Nash had a lot of numbers as well and an updated wiki as to how he is not actually mentally ill

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"I see you've been posting in other threads. Are you avoiding the truth?"

Hardly. I just don't find your objections worth the time to be honest.

"Either you were ignorant of the truth about the diameter of the sun, or you are LYING. Which is it?"

Neither. First of all, to claim that I am "lying" in saying the diameter of the sun = 864,000 miles is ridiculous. That is the value given by MOST of the sites online. Most of them will say "about 864,000" miles. A 2012 article from UniverseToday uses that value. Even a Twitter post from NASA used that value! ...

As far as me being wrong, that's also ridiculous because we can't pinpoint the EXACT diameter of such a massive object that is nearly 100 million miles away, Richard. So the study you're pointing to from 2006 is perfectly consistent with a value of 864,000 (which is why that value is still used) because there are always assumptions and details involved in these measurements (a change in any of these details would have an effect on the value) ...

Besides that, the 2006 study fits the value of 864,000 by over 99%! So given that AND the correlating relationship with the number 864 in the bible (and the natural world itself), we can safely say that the value of 864,000 is closer to the truth.

Hey there Gambini,

Thank you for taking the time to try to answer my objections. Unfortunately, your answer proves you were being anything but "honest" when you said that you don't find them "worth the time" to answer. The truth is plain for all to see - you cannot give an answer without committing blatant errors in both logic and fact. Let me begin with the logic of your answer. There are two fundamental fallacies. First, you employed the fallacy of Appeal to Popular Opinion when you attempted to justify your claims by saying that it is "the value given by MOST of the sites online." This is particularly ironic because GourmetDan, who has peppered this site with fallacious accusations of logical fallacies, totally ignored this blatant fallacy when you committed it, saying that your posts were "good stuff" merely because they confirmed his cognitive bias. In other contexts, such as when he is rejecting results from the same scientific community, he pounces upon anything that can be misconstrued as an application of this fallacy. Here is a typical example of his bias:





Here is a quote from Wiki, "Evolution is a scientific theory used by biologists. It explains how living things changed over a long time, and how they have come to be the way they are" and a link to their page explaining all aspects of evolution... http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

What is that? The fallacy of Appeal to Popular Opinion?


Of course, the really pathetic thing is that Rose was not appealing to "popular opinion" at all, but rather established scientific results (of which GourmetDan has yet to show any knowledge).

Now your fallacy is particularly egregious because it also is based on an outrageously false assertion. Searching Google for "sun 864,000 miles" vs. "sun 865,000 miles" returns the following results:

sun 864,000 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+sun+diameter&oq=nasa+sun+diameter&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7142j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=sun+864%2C000+miles) : about 17,500 results
sun 865,000 miles (https://www.google.com/search?q=nasa+sun+diameter&oq=nasa+sun+diameter&aqs=chrome..69i57j0.7142j0j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=sun+865%2C000+miles) : about 162,000,000 results

That's 162 MILLION vs. a mere seventeen thousand, which equates to over NINE THOUSAND TO ONE against your claim. Your assertion therefore is not merely wrong, it is wrong by a factor of over nine thousand! It is utterly absurd. And worse, it is inexcusable because it is something that you could have easily checked for yourself. The fact that you didn't bother to check, or did check and omitted to mention, proves again that you are either ignorant or lying. There are no other possibilities. This proves, yet again, that you have no interest of any kind in truth. Nothing could be more ironic to come from a man who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ who is recorded as saying "I am the truth". From a Christian perspective, you piss on Christ when you piss on truth.

Yet this is but the beginning of the endless absurdity of your claims. Your second logical fallacy is that you contradict your own claims when you say that "we can't pinpoint the EXACT diameter of such a massive object". If that is the case, then you don't know if it is 863,000, 864,000, 865,000, or whatever. And worse, you contradict the very science that you appeal to (even as you display your ignorance of it) because scientific results are reported with error estimates! Case in point, the best scientific measurement of the sun - 865,373 miles - has an estimated error of only 40 miles! This means that you would have to find a HUGE error in their measurement process (which all the scientists who reviewed their research missed) to justify your claim that they are off by at least ten times that amount to bring the true diameter of the sun into a range where you could legitimately round it down to 864,000 miles. And then it would still be a gross approximation.

And this brings us to the crowning absurdity of your assertions. You claim that the Omniscient God designed his Eternal Word using the false value of 864,000 miles as the diameter of the sun, as if he didn't know its true diameter or thought "it's good enough for God's work!" Nothing could be more absurd. You make your God look every bit as deluded and disinterested in truth as you have shown yourself to be.

Richard

[GourmetDan]

First, you employed the fallacy of Appeal to Popular Opinion when you attempted to justify your claims by saying that it is "the value given by MOST of the sites online." This is particularly ironic because GourmetDan, who has peppered this site with fallacious accusations of logical fallacies, totally ignored this blatant fallacy when you committed it, saying that your posts were "good stuff" merely because they confirmed his cognitive bias. In other contexts, such as when he is rejecting results from the same scientific community, he pounces upon anything that can be misconstrued as an application of this fallacy.


As I have already posted to you, it was a philosophical discussion and not a scientific one. Your personal biases lead you to engage in the fallacy of poisoning the well here.




Of course, the really pathetic thing is that Rose was not appealing to "popular opinion" at all, but rather established scientific results (of which GourmetDan has yet to show any knowledge).


Rose was appealing to 'popular opinion' as support for belief in a theory and there is nothing scientific about opinions. The really pathetic thing is that you again commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent for assuming that scientific observations prove that evolution is true.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

As I have already posted to you, it was a philosophical discussion and not a scientific one. Your personal biases lead you to engage in the fallacy of poisoning the well here.

Bullshit. You were talking about the science of evolution. If you want to say that you were talking about the "philosophy of science" then fine, your comments apply equally to the blatant logical fallacies exhibited in Gambini's posts. Sorry man, your blatant duplicity cannot be buried under more duplicitous words. You gave Gambini a pass on blatant logical fallacies and egregious errors in fact because his claims "confirm" your cognitive bias. Nothing could be more obvious - to folks who don't share your delusions anyway.



Rose was appealing to 'popular opinion' as support for belief in a theory and there is nothing scientific about opinions. The really pathetic thing is that you again commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent for assuming that scientific observations prove that evolution is true.

Ha! There you go again. Do you really think that any rational person would take your absurd claims seriously?

You just see what you want to see an ignore truth and reality. It's ironic that we are having this conversation on the birthday of Hermann Rorschach (http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/11/08/google-doodle-honors-hermann-rorschach-inkblot-test-inventor/) who is being honored today by Google, which btw was instrumental in proving the utter absurdity of Gambini's Appeal to Popular Opinion (which you have conveniently overlooked, which is itself a fallacy) when he said that "MOST WEBSITES" support his assertion that the sun has a diameter of 864,000 miles. The truth? He was only off by 9000 to 1!

:lmbo:

Man, your delusions run very very deep! What do you see in this picture? Proof of God and that all modern science is based on "logical fallacies" - :hysterical:

992

[Timmy]

Bullshit.

That one word alone from The Lone Suaranger says more than 10,000,0000 wordZ.

Sintillatingluearly,

Toronto Nuwanda

[GourmetDan]

Bullshit. You were talking about the science of evolution. If you want to say that you were talking about the "philosophy of science" then fine, your comments apply equally to the blatant logical fallacies exhibited in Gambini's posts. Sorry man, you blatant duplicity cannot be buried under more duplicitous words. You gave Gambini a pass on blatant logical fallacies and egregious errors in fact because his claims "confirm" your cognitive bias. Nothing could be more obvious - to folks who don't share your delusions anyway.



Bullshit. Gambini and I were not talking about the science of evolution. That's an oxymoron. Evolution is a philosophy, not a science. You cannot have a philosophical discussion without engaging in logical fallacy. That's why evolution is philosophical, it is dependent on logical fallacy.

Dude, your blatant duplicity cannot be buried under more duplicitous words. It's obvious to people who don't share your delusional views anyway.



Ha! There you go again. Do you really think that any rational person would take your absurd claims seriously?

You just see what you want to see an ignore truth and reality.


There you go again. Do you really think that any rational person can't see that you constantly engage in logical fallacy as if it is a legitimate 'defense of evolution'. They all can see that you want to ignore truth and reality for your favorite delusion. Is your refusal to deal with reality unexpected? Not at all... :lmbo:



Man, your delusions run very very deep! What do you see in this picture? Proof of God and that all modern science is based on "logical fallacies"

Dude, your delusions run to the core if you believe that posting pictures has anything to do with the fact that evolution is nothing more than logical fallacy. :hysterical:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The really pathetic thing is that you again commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent for assuming that scientific observations prove that evolution is true.
Affirming the consequent? You remind me of a famous quote from inimitable Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI

But seriously, if you want to prove your point, then you need to quote some words I actually have written, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you don't do that, then your words will be proven, yet again, to be no more significant than the flatulence of an elephant:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR2p9p21Q8M

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Bullshit. You were talking about the science of evolution. If you want to say that you were talking about the "philosophy of science" then fine, your comments apply equally to the blatant logical fallacies exhibited in Gambini's posts. Sorry man, you blatant duplicity cannot be buried under more duplicitous words. You gave Gambini a pass on blatant logical fallacies and egregious errors in fact because his claims "confirm" your cognitive bias. Nothing could be more obvious - to folks who don't share your delusions anyway.



Bullshit. Gambini and I were not talking about the science of evolution. That's an oxymoron. Evolution is a philosophy, not a science. You cannot have a philosophical discussion without engaging in logical fallacy. That's why evolution is philosophical, it is dependent on logical fallacy.

Dude, your blatant duplicity cannot be buried under more duplicitous words. It's obvious to people who don't share your delusional views anyway.



Ha! There you go again. Do you really think that any rational person would take your absurd claims seriously?

You just see what you want to see an ignore truth and reality.


There you go again. Do you really think that any rational person can't see that you constantly engage in logical fallacy as if it is a legitimate 'defense of evolution'. They all can see that you want to ignore truth and reality for your favorite delusion. Is your refusal to deal with reality unexpected? Not at all... :lmbo:



Man, your delusions run very very deep! What do you see in this picture? Proof of God and that all modern science is based on "logical fallacies"

Dude, your delusions run to the core if you believe that posting pictures has anything to do with the fact that evolution is nothing more than logical fallacy. :hysterical:
Like I said, robot troll is as robot troll does.

And the really crazy thing is that he continues to confirm the truth of my words with his every post! :doh:

[GourmetDan]

Affirming the consequent? You prompt me to present a variation of a famous quote from inimitable Inigo Montoya in the Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."


And you keep pretending that you have an argument but consistently fail to present one.



But seriously, if you want to prove your point, then you need to quote some words I actually have written, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you don't do that, then your words will be proven, yet again, to be no more significant than the flatulence of a Mexican Elephant who ate too many


I'm sure that you know more about elephant farts than everybody put together. You are the one who is unable to prove that your 'evidence' for evolution is empirical. It is simple logical fallacy and you fail once again to show otherwise.

[GourmetDan]

Like I said, robot troll is as robot troll does.

And the really crazy thing is that he continues to confirm the truth of my words with his every post!

And being caught in another misrepresentation, the troll comes through once again.

But the really crazy thing is that he continues to prove what a troll he is with every post! :doh:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

And you keep pretending that you have an argument but consistently fail to present one.

Nice dodge. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.



I'm sure that you know more about elephant farts than everybody put together. You are the one who is unable to prove that your 'evidence' for evolution is empirical. It is simple logical fallacy and you fail once again to show otherwise.
Another dodge. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.

[Timmy]

Bullshit. Gambini and I were... :hysterical:So, whoze the trolla?nd whoze the shill...or is this an ongoing process?

[GourmetDan]

Nice dodge. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.


Let's make it easy. If you would like to admit that the scientific evidence does not support evolution without engaging in logical fallacy, feel free to do so. At least you would be correct for once in your life. If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.



Another dodge. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.


Another dodge. If you would like to admit that the scientific evidence does not support evolution without engaging in logical fallacy, feel free to do so. At least you would be correct for once in your life. If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.

[GourmetDan]

So, whoze the trolla?nd whoze the shill...or is this an ongoing process?

Are you already confused, troll?

[Timmy]

Ahhhem, gotta gondo some stuuf but
993

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Nice dodge. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.
Let's make it easy. If you would like to admit that the scientific evidence does not support evolution without engaging in logical fallacy, feel free to do so. At least you would be correct for once in your life. If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.

Ha! There you go again. You have repeatedly LIED about me "affirming the consequent" and you know you are a liar so you are trying to dodge by mimicking my challenge! How. Freaking. Pathetic.



Another dodge. If you would like to admit that the scientific evidence does not support evolution without engaging in logical fallacy, feel free to do so. At least you would be correct for once in your life. If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.
Sorry. The words of self-professed pathological liars mean nothing.

You know what you must do if you want to redeem yourself. And don't forget you are using your "nom de plume" which you have now publicly sullied. You have no options or everyone who ever Googles your pen name will instantly find proof that you are an unrepentant liar.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ahhhem, gotta gondo some stuuf but
993


LOL! That one picture proves the delusional nature of evangelical Christianity.

[Timmy]

Are you already confused, troll?
Speak for yourself scarecrow...

(that one couldn7't wait)

[GourmetDan]

Ha! There you go again. You have repeatedly LIED about me "affirming the consequent" and you know you are a liar so you are trying to dodge by mimicking my challenge! How. Freaking. Pathetic.


There you go again. You would have to admit that the scientific evidence does not support evolution without engaging in logical fallacy to avoid being a LIAR and you again fail to do so.

Freaking. Pathetic.



Sorry. The words of self-professed pathological liars mean nothing.


As you have now proved yourself to be.



You know what you must do if you want to redeem yourself. And don't forget you are using your "nom de plume" which you have now publicly sullied. You have no options or everyone who ever Googles your pen name will instantly find proof that you are an unrepentant liar.


You could just admit that the scientific evidence does not support evolution without engaging in logical fallacy if you really wanted to redeem yourself. But your philosophy won't allow you to be honest.

And don't forget that you have identified yourself by name which is now publicly proven to be equivalent to a liar. Should do wonders for book sales...

[GourmetDan]

Speak for yourself scarecrow...

(that one couldn7't wait)

You were the one asking me to remove your confusion, not the other way around...

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Ha! There you go again. You have repeatedly LIED about me "affirming the consequent" and you know you are a liar so you are trying to dodge by mimicking my challenge! How. Freaking. Pathetic.
There you go again. You would have to admit that the scientific evidence does not support evolution without engaging in logical fallacy to avoid being a LIAR and you again fail to do so.

Fallacy of Non Seuqitur. I do not "have to admit" anything. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.

The mindlessness of your mimicry is truly stunning.

You are proving yourself a UNREPENTANT WILLFUL LIAR over and over again as you refuse to answer. If you continue to refuse to provide any evidence of your accusation against me, you may have to go elsewhere. I have no reason to suffer a fool like you on this forum.

[Timmy]

LOL! That one picture proves the delusional nature of evangelical Christianity.

YUP,

Thought you'd get a kick outa' dat.

Beback, hopefully when the actual flamewar beginZ.

Toronto Nuwanda
Out

[GourmetDan]

Fallacy of Non Seuqitur. I do not "have to admit" anything. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be proven a liar.

The mindlessness of your mimicry is truly stunning.

You are proving yourself a UNREPENTANT WILLFUL LIAR over and over again as you refuse to answer. If you continue to refuse to prove your accusation against me, you may have to go elsewhere. I have no reason to suffer a fool like you on this forum.

You want to pretend that your belief in evolution is not based on logical fallacy but refuse to simply say that. That's because you know it is but aren't honest enough to admit it.

The mindlessness of your refusal is truly stunning.

You have proved yourself an UNREPENTANT WILLFUL LIAR over and over again as you refuse to answer. As you continue refuse to admit to the truth, of course you must threaten to ban those who expose your lies. You have no other option if you are to maintain the lie that is this site.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You want to pretend that your belief in evolution is not based on logical fallacy but refuse to simply say that. That's because you know it is but aren't honest enough to admit it.

The mindlessness of your refusal is truly stunning.

You have proved yourself an UNREPENTANT WILLFUL LIAR over and over again as you refuse to answer. As you continue refuse to admit to the truth, of course you must threaten to ban those who expose your lies. You have no other option if you are to maintain the lie that is this site.
Wow. Robot troll really is as robot troll does.

You are still dodging. Amazing.

Can you give me one reason I should allow a BLATANT LIAR like you to continue to post on this forum? It is helpful because you serve as a horrible example of how religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers, but you've already proven that so I don't see much reason to allow you to post more evidence on that point.

I'll give you one more chance. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be confirmed as an utterly unrepentant and insane liar and I will ban you. Simple as that.

[GourmetDan]

Wow. Robot troll really is as robot troll does.

You are still dodging. Amazing.

Can you give me one reason I should allow a BLATANT LIAR like you to continue to post on this forum? It is helpful because you serve as a horrible example of how religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers, but you've already proven that so I don't see much reason to allow you to post more evidence on that point.

I'll give you one more chance. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be confirmed as an utterly unrepentant and insane liar and I will ban you. Simple as that.

And you are still dodging the fact that evolution is firmly based in logical fallacy. You know this but simply refuse to admit it. This makes you a BLATANT LIAR and banning me won't change that fact. It only shows that your beliefs are too weak to deal with simple truths.

Banning me will only confirm that you are the one who is the utterly unrepentant and insane liar.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'll give you one more chance. You need to quote some words I actually wrote, break them down into the form of a classical syllogism, and show how I "affirmed the consequent." If you can't or won't do that, then you will be confirmed as an utterly unrepentant and insane liar and I will ban you. Simple as that.

And you are still dodging the fact that evolution is firmly based in logical fallacy. You know this but simply refuse to admit it. This makes you a BLATANT LIAR and banning me won't change that fact. It only shows that your beliefs are too weak to deal with simple truths.

Banning me will only confirm that you are the one who is the utterly unrepentant and insane liar.
More false assertions won't help your case dude. You have publicly declared yourself to be an utterly insane unrepentant lying troll freak like few I've ever encountered in the wild wild world of the nutty internet. I gave you a dozen chances to redeem yourself by providing evidence of your false accusations against me and you simply refused. So you are done here. If you ever regain your sanity and want to repent from all the lies you have spewed here, write me an email and I will consider allowing you to post again. Till then, I truly hope that you find a way out of the darkness that has encompassed your heart and mind.

Richard

[Gambini]

"Your answer proves you were being anything but "honest" when you said that you don't find them "worth the time" to answer"

I actually meant that. The only reason I replied to it is because you complained about me dodging something. This will be my final response regarding this particular issue ...

"You employed the fallacy of Appeal to Popular Opinion when you attempted to justify your claims by saying that it is "the value given by MOST of the sites online."

Negative. I meant most AUTHORITATIVE sites ...

I wasn't aware of the number of sites mentioning the 865,000 but that most likely has to do with all of the news feeds that simply reported on the 2006 study. It doesn't necessarily mean that most authoritative sites favor that specific value. The main point is that the value 864,000 is a number that is still used by authoritative sources. So I'm perfectly justified in using it.

"If that is the case, then you don't know if it is 863,000, 864,000, 865,000, or whatever"

I'm not saying we can't know the ESTIMATED diameter of the sun. I'm saying we can't pinpoint to within the accuracy you're claiming WITHOUT making assumptions.

"The best scientific measurement of the sun - 865,373 miles - has an estimated error of only 40 miles"

That's the estimated error GIVEN PRIOR ASSUMPTIONS that are already in place. Bottom line, the value 864,000 is still in use by authoritative sources (hence, I am justified in using it) AND all the correlating biblical links with that value (and correlating links from nature itself) makes the 864,000 value much more likely.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"You employed the fallacy of Appeal to Popular Opinion when you attempted to justify your claims by saying that it is "the value given by MOST of the sites online."

Negative. I meant most AUTHORITATIVE sites ...

You just made that up. You have not presented any evidence supporting the statistical distribution of those numbers on the web, let alone whether they came from "authoritative" sites or not. You are proving your word to be entirely unreliable, which is typical of fundamentalist Bible believing Christians. The only thing you are interested in is defending your false belief. You have destroyed your own witness. You have proven your word worthless. Nothing could be more ironic, absurd, and pathetic, given that you claim to "worship" the truth in the person of Jesus Christ. From all that you have written, I can come to no conclusion but that you utterly despise the truth.



I wasn't aware of the number of sites mentioning the 865,000 but that most likely has to do with all of the news feeds that simply reported on the 2006 study. It doesn't necessarily mean that most authoritative sites favor that specific value. The main point is that the value 864,000 is a number that is still used by authoritative sources. So I'm perfectly justified in using it.

That's the fallacy of Ad Hoc explanation, aka irrational RATIONALIZATION. You are just making things up to defend your delusion. We both know with perfect certainty that if the numbers were reversed and supported your beliefs, and I tried to explain them away using exactly the same logic as you, you would reject absolutely the very explanation you just gave! This shows, yet again, that you have corrupted your mind in service of your false beliefs.



"If that is the case, then you don't know if it is 863,000, 864,000, 865,000, or whatever"

I'm not saying we can't know the ESTIMATED diameter of the sun. I'm saying we can't pinpoint to within the accuracy you're claiming WITHOUT making assumptions.

Your statement is totally incoherent. Any estimate is meaningful only if we know how accurate it is. And worse, you just made up more crap! What assumptions are you talking about, and why are they wrong, and how is it that an ignorant Bible believer knows about this error but the whole community of advanced astrophysicists don't? Everyone you write proves over and over and over again that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and you don't give a shit about truth.



"The best scientific measurement of the sun - 865,373 miles - has an estimated error of only 40 miles"

That's the estimated error GIVEN PRIOR ASSUMPTIONS that are already in place. Bottom line, the value 864,000 is still in use by authoritative sources (hence, I am justified in using it) AND all the correlating biblical links with that value (and correlating links from nature itself) makes the 864,000 value much more likely.
Again, you are making up crap and not even trying to present any evidence. What "prior assumptions" ruin the error estimate but don't ruin the estimate of the diameter?

Your appeal to the "authoritative sites" is absurd because any "authoritative site" that says 864,000 miles is clearly out of date. You have shown no error of any kind in the latest data that has been tested and accepted. I wish there were a way for you to see the irony of your appeal to the AUTHORITY of NASA even as you REJECT their results merely because they don't fit your silly little pattern.

Your use of the number 864,000 is not "justified" in any way at all. And worse, your attempt to defend its use is filled with errors in both logic and fact which you have not addressed, let alone refuted. And the crowning absurdity of your claims is that you claim that the Omniscient God designed his Eternal Word using the false value of 864,000 miles as the diameter of the sun, as if he didn't know its true diameter or thought "it's good enough for God's work!" Nothing could be more absurd. You make your God look every bit as deluded and disinterested in truth as you have shown yourself to be.

Get a grip Gambini.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

"Your answer proves you were being anything but "honest" when you said that you don't find them "worth the time" to answer"

I actually meant that. The only reason I replied to it is because you complained about me dodging something. This will be my final response regarding this particular issue ...

That only confirms that you have a confirmation bias. You apparently don't care if what you say is true or false. You and I are complete opposites. When I was studying gematria as a believing Christian, my primary concern was TRUTH and I went to extreme lengths to ensure that my statements were accurate. That's why my results stand even though I am an atheist now. I have always respected truth. You don't seem to care about truth at all.



"If that is the case, then you don't know if it is 863,000, 864,000, 865,000, or whatever"

I'm not saying we can't know the ESTIMATED diameter of the sun. I'm saying we can't pinpoint to within the accuracy you're claiming WITHOUT making assumptions.

"The best scientific measurement of the sun - 865,373 miles - has an estimated error of only 40 miles"

That's the estimated error GIVEN PRIOR ASSUMPTIONS that are already in place. Bottom line, the value 864,000 is still in use by authoritative sources (hence, I am justified in using it) AND all the correlating biblical links with that value (and correlating links from nature itself) makes the 864,000 value much more likely.

You really need to educate yourself about how the measurements are made. Here is a good place to start:

http://www.eanweb.com/2012/solar-diameter-with-2012-venus-transit/

Abstract. The role of Venus and Mercury transits is crucial to know the past history of the solar diameter. Through the W parameter, the logarithmic derivative of the radius with respect to the luminosity, the past values of the solar luminosity can be recovered. The black drop phenomenon affects the evaluation of the instants of internal and external contacts between the planetary disk and the solar limb. With these observed instants compared with the ephemerides the value of the solar diameter is recovered. The black drop and seeing effects are overcome with two fitting circles, to Venus and to the Sun, drawn in the undistorted part of the image. The corrections of ephemerides due to the atmospheric refraction will also be taken into account. The forthcoming transit of Venus will allow an accuracy on the diameter of the Sun better than 0.01 arcsec, with good images of the ingress and of the egress taken each second. Chinese solar observatories are in the optimal conditions to obtain valuable data for the measurement of the solar diameter with the Venus transit of 5/6 June 2012 with an unprecedented accuracy, and with absolute calibration given by the ephemerides. Fruitful observations can be obtained also by amateur astronomers, by following the instructions in this paper.

[Timmy]

Not much time Danny bouy,

Checked briefly this morning and had to respond to this...
And yet now only have seconds to post and will be off:biking_better:again

Though having trotted back here for a few seconds, reading your profound ignorance, we just had to bear the teeth briefly.
You're a huge fool if you think internet troll-sites are reality...

You are a huge fool if you think anything materail is reality.
What is 'materail' troll?

mate + rail = materail
Materail is what you have deluded yourself into imagining to be real: each imaginative 'mate', you and Gambiteeny, with arms imaginarily flailing up and down pumping that imaginary hand car down the imaginary 'rail' you two are taking nowhere.

You are sorely mistaken ignorantly assigning the Timmy with a title you uphold as your own: TROLL.

Aren't you are the one who imaginarily rides that imaginary hand car on that imaginary rail imaginarily having cast that imaginary fishing pole, while your imaginary hook, line, and sinker imaginarily drag through the dirt. You and your imaginary mate just keep on imaginarily pumping away down that imaginary rail imaginarily pumping away on that imaginary hand car imaginarily pumping away imagining to be traveling imaginarily pumping from one imaginary place to the imaginary next, imaginarily pumping your way through Cyberia.



Breaking new: You two are going nowhere fast. This is "Home Sweet Home" for many here, as well as Timmy. Trolling shills like you are nothing more or less than amusement...
...9,000:1 odds and all.

DogfoodDan said something like:

“Hey there Gambiteeny, that's some really super duper clever specially deft cheating at solitaire. You deserve a medal of honor you are so good at divination. Count me in with you promoting your IPO in divinatory expertise.

Did Ivan learnded you how to cheat like that?”

You have better odds just to let go and quit pumping those arms. Get off from that hand car, and leave that little gambit man who cheats at solitaire divining imaginary answers and then bragging away about the significance...as though his braggart rubbish means anything but that, "Yes indeed, I'm the best cheater at solitaire I know of, so everybody watch, listen, and learn how it's done."

Might it be suggested DogfoodDan imaginarily lay down on that imaginary rail and imagine falling into an imaginary deep permanent sleep?

Bet you would love to unmuzzle that snout, if you could first get free from your restrainer.

...and so new to troll along into our beloved Acropolis, then bring along your mate of a lying bragging cheater at solitaire, trying to shill hir off as credible in this arena; and, so quick to receive your restraining orders. You are right up there with the extremely few top notch delusional deluders.


You certainly really don't know us,
so here's a really special momento,
a picture so you can't forget us:
995



Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

p.s.:signthankspin:Richard, a rousing round of ping pong duck would make this evening interestibling!!!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Breaking new: You two are going nowhere fast. This is "Home Sweet Home" for many here, as well as Timmy. Trolling shills like you are nothing more or less than amusement...
...9,000:1 odds and all.

DogfoodDan said something like:
“Hey there Gambiteeny, that's some really super duper clever specially deft cheating at solitaire. You deserve a medal of honor you are so good at divination. Count me in with you promoting your IPO in divinatory expertise.

Did Ivan learnded you how to cheat like that?”

You have better odds just to let go and quit pumping those arms. Get off from that hand car, and leave that little gambit man who cheats at solitaire divining imaginary answers and then bragging away about the significance...as though his braggart rubbish means anything but that, "Yes indeed, I'm the best cheater at solitaire I know of, so everybody watch, listen, and learn how it's done."

Might it be suggested DogfoodDan imaginarily lay down on that imaginary rail and imagine falling into an imaginary deep permanent sleep?

Bet you would love to unmuzzle that snout, if you could first get free from your restrainer.

...and so new to troll along into our beloved Acropolis, then bring along your mate of a lying bragging cheater at solitaire, trying to shill hir off as credible in this arena; and, so quick to receive your restraining orders. You are right up there with the extremely few top notch delusional deluders.


You certainly really don't know us,
so here's a really special momento,
a picture so you can't forget us:
995



Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2:

p.s.:signthankspin:Richard, a rousing round of ping pong duck would make this evening interestibling!!!
Hey there Sir Timotheos! :yo:

I don't know if you noticed, but GourmetDan threw himself into the dog pit to be eaten. They were a little disappointed since he was such a small bite, but they ate him up anyway. He won't be acoming back any time soon, since the condition I set was too high (I demanded he actually support his assertions with logic and facts, and he found that absolutely unacceptable). It's a bit sad, since he provided such low hanging fruit to pluckingly mock, but he served his purpose as a horrible example and his time is now done.


And yes, it most certainly would be fun to have a rousing round of ping pong duck with you. Maybe some day we will find a way beyond the confines of this electronic medium. A pitcher of beer and conversation with you would be a delight I am sure.

Richard

[Timmy]

Hey there Sir Timotheos!:yo:

I don't know if you noticed, but GourmetDan threw himself into the dog pit to be eaten. They were a little disappointed since he was such a small bite, but they ate him up anyway. He won't be acoming back any time soon, since the condition I set was too high (I demanded he actually support his assertions with logic and facts, and he found that absolutely unacceptable). It's a bit sad, since he provided such low hanging fruit to pluckingly mock, but he served his purpose as a horrible example and his time is now done.:yo:Aloha Big Kahuna,:icon_hello:

Well, actually our mentioning the "restraining order" was inferring GD couldn't do squat about tje Timmy until your challenge was met. The adgitating words were in hopes of scratching further, so that there might be at least a good ole pre-school try in facing up to your challenge...and i still miss the Queen of the South.

We were completely unaware Danny had already "gone to the dawgz" STS...then again, you often leave hardly enough room to even squirm when presenting your case:clap2:

Seriously, it was thought DogfoodDan was way out of his league presenting an argument against evolution to you from the start. Timmy's name calling in reference to "scarecrow" was that strawman approach, appearing to not have even ever thought it through for himself, made so obvious when his attempts toward rebuttal were working backwards for him.

His simple failure to respond in kind showed those words he was slobbering were probably nothing but parrotry. Then remembering back how Gambiteeny was being promoted spurred the notion G was the troll and GD was more of a mindless shill.


And yes, it most certainly would be fun to have a rousing round of ping pong duck with you. Maybe some day we will find a way beyond the confines of this electronic medium. A pitcher of beer and conversation with you would be a delight I am sure.

Richardi hope this time shall appear. It will be more than a pleasure, conversation probably carrying on for some time about what never shows from the LEDscreens.

I've been thinking seriously about keeping pit vipers again, as it is a very profitable business milking them. It's that and of late there seems to be too much vermin around these parts. Don't get me wrong. There is nothing enjoyed more than watching a hawk or eagle swoop down and sweep back up with a writhing rabbit or sqirrel to munch; but those serpens,t just by having them penned in at home, it is seriously doubtful even the raccoons would come around...

My dog has killed another one this year, and yet every time he gets into it with those masked mauraders, he is down for at least three days recovering from bites and cuts. Egyptian Aloe works wonders, but an ounce of prevention is preferred...ya' know? I used to trap them and sell the pelts with the meat until one of those growling crazies tore into me. While carrying it in a trap it reached though the caging wire and tore through my flesh a three claw trail about five inches in length. That was enough. Now i just shoot 'em when i see 'em. The pelt and meat are damaged sometimes, but I'm not and the dog usually remains untouched.

I love living on the edge
of town, because often is
seen more wildlife than
out in the boondocks;
But these rodents have gotZ to go.

...ok...i'll stop for now.

If not back tonight, have a good one, bro :shine:

And until then...
when we chance to play ping ping duck,

Þ.Œ.:sBo_reflection2