The New Bible Code

[thebluetriangle]

I think it would help a lot if you could state a few of the most egregious inconsistencies you see in my list. That way, you will have to both state your principle and show it in action. Hopefully, we will be able to come to an agreement about both the definition of your principles and how they are to be judged in action. That's the only way we will be able to settle the question of cherry picking and if your hypothesis is true.

The webpages I've done so far on the double witness phenomenon show God's creations and the components of the ark. Both are based on the 'first mention' principle, and for the Garden page I also kept to things God created (although I also included 'sky'), and one phrase for each created thing. That doesn't mean there isn't more there, but it was a theme for the page. That was the principle. For your list you did a lot more mixing of creating and naming and did a lot of chopping of phrases. It doesn't really matter though because as I said there is a lot of encoded material in there and the subsequent tests showed it didn't matter what we did - the lists always gave results better than chance. I started a list of every material thing in there, whether created, manipulated or named, and that might be the best way to proceed for a test, because if you miss nothing then, although it might be diluted by adding a lot of extra phrases, anything encoded will be there and so should be detectable. However, it was a big task and I only got as far as verse 12 before I had to go on to other things.

The tabernacle encodings are an easier case to discuss because there is a lot more consistency there. The principle I stuck to was the first instance in the Hebrew Bible and the NIV translation of every major part of the tabernacle and every component of the ark and the sacred items within/beside it. I stuck pretty strictly to that and after some tweaking we now have a list that should satisfy the requirements for a statistical test. Again though there is so much encoded in there that it hardly seems to matter what choices are made for the precise phrases, because results better than chance are always going to be found.

You have asked how we can discern between an encoded phrase and chance but I think given the probabilistic nature of the code that is the wrong question. It's the entire phenomenon that proves the code to be real, not an individual encryption. Testing long lists is useful, in part, because it is a more objective way of showing that the individual patterns are not purely due to chance.

I also said that the code is based on

a) meaning, and
b) improbability

and both can be recognised, although it takes both halves of the brain for that.


If we don't find agreement about the principles that define your data set, your hypothesis will remain insufficiently defined to draw any conclusion from the statistical analysis. The only thing the stats tell us is that there are a few more hits in the list than would be expected from chance. If the list is biased, that would explain the facts.

The stats are based on lists of a couple of dozen numbers or so and all our arguments about just how improbable the phenomenon is have been hamprered by lack of data. It may be that testing longer lists will settle that argument. Therefore it is imperative that we try a longer list or two, because I believe that the code is like a painting in that it becomes clearer when we look at it from a distance. Examining a Rembrant under a microscope won't show much. Stand back a few steps and the artist's vision comes into focus. I believe it's the same with the New Bible Code and with this part of it in particular. Any one part of the double witness phenomenon may not be far beyond chance, but if we look at the entire phenomenon we will then see that it really is far beyond chance. The first step in showing that or otherwise is testing the '69'. If that shows the phenomenon coming more into clarity then I'd like to compile an even larger list for testing.


This is extremely important because you are strongly biased in favor of your hypothesis, and you selected the list! And besides that, your site is saturated with claims which (to my mind) look like textbook examples of selection bias. This is inevitable because numerology and gematria are based fundamentally on the twin cognitive errors of SELECTION BIAS + CONFIRMATION BIAS.

You're stating as proven what you're trying to prove. Circular reasoning. You also have amply demonstrated that you are now strongly biased against gematria, so this kind of ad hominem attack works both ways. I'd rather put it the other way: despite our individual biases, we are both attempting to be as fair as we can be here. And that is good enough for me.


If the "code" is "too complex" to be statistically analysed, then you probably should stop appealing to statistics as proof of it.

The Signature phenomenon, the four Ark encodings proceeding from the first word and other parts can be analysed. For the four ark encodings, given the profound significance of the four items (ark, cherubim, atonement cover and altar of incense) in the context of the Day of Atonement, these being the only items in the Most Holy Place (Hebrews 9), then we can test them as a group and I found that the odds against them all proceeding from the first word are 1 in 100,000 (that was accepting that the ark was already there, or it would be 1 in 4 million). Your only counterargument was that similarly-related items could be found there, but you couldn't find anything remotely similar - which is why I say that the other side of the 'meaning' coin has to be 'improbability'. I believe some progress has also been made in analysing the double witness phenomenon (your input has been really valuable here). As I said I think codes are partially amenable to statistical analysis and that dead bird can still be weighed and measured. The code is validated by its meaning and the improbability of its occurrence and each part is equally important.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I think it would help a lot if you could state a few of the most egregious inconsistencies you see in my list. That way, you will have to both state your principle and show it in action. Hopefully, we will be able to come to an agreement about both the definition of your principles and how they are to be judged in action. That's the only way we will be able to settle the question of cherry picking and if your hypothesis is true.

The webpages I've done so far on the double witness phenomenon show God's creations and the components of the ark. Both are based on the 'first mention' principle, and for the Garden page I also kept to things God created (although I also included 'sky'), and one phrase for each created thing. That doesn't mean there isn't more there, but it was a theme for the page. That was the principle. For your list you did a lot more mixing of creating and naming and did a lot of chopping of phrases.

Bill,

You didn't answer my question. I followed your lead when I included names like "sky" and "seas". You didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it when you did it on your Garden page. Of course, you are correct that I did it more than you, but that's because I was following a consistent general principle that says if you use it once in a list, you must always use it in the list. I have no idea what you mean when you say that I "did a lot of chopping of phrases". Here is the list of 43 that we are talking about.

The Heavens 782 Hashamayam 395
The Earth 517 Haaretz 296
The Deep 297 Tehom 451
Darkness 370 V'choshek 334
The Waters 1109 Hamayim 95
Light 254 Aur 207
Day 705 Yom 56
Night 274 Lilah 75
An Expanse 882 Raquia 380
The Water 1009 Hamayim 95
Sky 820 Shamayim 390
Dry Ground 1305 Hayabbashah 322
Land 85 Aretz 291
Seas 206 Yomim 100
Vegetation 937 Deshe 305
Plants 451 Eseb 372
Seed bearing plants 729 Eseb mazri zera 976
Trees 400 Etz 160
Trees on the land that bear fruit 1920 Etz pri asher pri 1115
Lights 354 Marot 641
The Greater Light 865 Hamaur Hagadol 294
The Lesser Light 797 Hamaur Haqatan 416
The Stars 704 Hakokavim 103
Living Creatures 1299 Sheretz 590
Birds 205 V'oph 162
Creatures of the Sea 1179 Hatanninnim 555
The Great Creatures of the Sea 1695 Hatanninnim Hagedol 647
Living and Moving Thing 1400 Nephesh Hachayah v'haremeshet 1403
Every Living and Moving Thing 2600 Kol Nephesh Hachayah v'haremesht 1453
Winged Bird 680 Oph Kaneph 306
Every Winged Bird 1880 Kol Oph Kaneph 356
Livestock 827 Behemah 52
The Wild Animals 987 Chaiot Haaretz 714
Wild Animals according to their kinds 1756 Chaiot Haaretz L'minenu 849
The Wild Animals according to their kinds 1969 Chaiot Haaretz L'minenu 849
The Livestock according to their kinds 2022 Behemoth L'menu 192
Creatures 794 Remes 540
The Creatures 1007 Remes 540
All the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds 3836 Kol Remesh Ha'adamah l'minehu 786
MAN 91 ADAM 45
Man in our image 662 Adam b'tzelmenu 263
Man in our image in our likeness 1490 Adam b'tzelmenu k'damuthenu 789
Male and Female 218 Zecur v'nekavah 390

In post #249 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68755#post68755) you said that this list was "was far more inconsistent" than ANY of yours. How could you say that? It's obviously not true. Most of the elements in my list are found in your lists. The only real difference is that you stopped testing the first occurrence of the names of things God created because that generally doesn't help your statistics.

So will you now go on record with an answer to my question? Do you stand by your statement that my list is "far more inconsistent than any" of yours? If so, please state a few of the more egregious inconsistencies.

Thanks!



It doesn't really matter though because as I said there is a lot of encoded material in there and the subsequent tests showed it didn't matter what we did - the lists always gave results better than chance.

Not exactly true. It consistently gave results that were better than what we would expect by chance on average. The results for the various lists we've tested typically fall within about three standard deviations, which means we will find similar results by chance a few times in a hundred. That's what the graphs show. So the question is "What accounts for the consistent deviation from the norm?" The most likely possibility is selection bias because the difference between your lists and random lists is based on your omission of just two or three misses. If you included just a few more misses, the data would fall into the range expected by chance. This is why it is so important to establish the general principles that define your hypothesis. You did not follow consistent principles in the data you presented on the Garden page.

This is extremely important. Your lists are not like flipping a coin which can be executed without any bias of any kind. Your list is entirely different. We have been haggling over what to include or exclude for weeks now. It is highly subjective, and our choices strongly influence the statistical results. This is nothing like flipping a coin. You have your hands all over the data. You select what goes in and what goes out. This issue must be resolved if you want to use statistics to justify your assertions.



I started a list of every material thing in there, whether created, manipulated or named, and that might be the best way to proceed for a test, because if you miss nothing then, although it might be diluted by adding a lot of extra phrases, anything encoded will be there and so should be detectable. However, it was a big task and I only got as far as verse 12 before I had to go on to other things.

Sounds like the way to go. I look forward to reviewing your list, and testing it if we can agree that it consistently follows some general principles.



You have asked how we can discern between an encoded phrase and chance but I think given the probabilistic nature of the code that is the wrong question. It's the entire phenomenon that proves the code to be real, not an individual encryption. Testing long lists is useful, in part, because it is a more objective way of showing that the individual patterns are not purely due to chance.

I also said that the code is based on

a) meaning, and
b) improbability

and both can be recognised, although it takes both halves of the brain for that.

The lists we have tested are only slightly above what we would expect from chance. When I say "slightly" I mean that the inclusion of a mere three or four misses in a list of 43 items (a mere 10%) would obliterate any sign of statistical significance. The data is very fragile, which is what I would expect if it were cherry picked. Your lists are not like flipping coins and the statistics do not have the same force as if they were. You have a hand picked data list. So the whole thing comes down to the question if a few hand picked items might have been omitted due to negligence, poorly defined or inconsistently applied principles, selection bias, or some other reason. This totally changes the sense of statistical significance. Let me explain: If you could consistently predict the sequence of 43 coin flips in the range of thee sigma I would be impressed because there was no way you could influence the results, and the experiment could be repeated all day long. That's totally different than what's going on with a static list of hand picked items that are compared with randomized lists. The list itself is STATIC, not dynamic. If a small percentage of misses are omitted, it changes everything and there is no statistical test that would expose this error. This kind of error cannot happen with coin flips because the list is DYNAMIC and reproduced with each trial.

Your assertion that your "code" is based on "meaning and improbability" fails for two reasons:

1) Meaningless things often have small probability, so small probability cannot help discern between a "code" and meaningless random coincidences.
2) Meaning is subjective in general, and the meaning you have read into your "code" is exceedingly idiosyncratic. Different people would come up with different meanings using codes like yours (as is obvious from the history of Bible codes).

I get the impression that you agree that you have no way to discern between meaningless random coincidences and things that are "encoded." To my mind, this means there is no "code" at all. Just an ocean of random data that you project your imaginations upon, like drawing pictures by connecting random dots. This is my most sincere appraisal of what's really going on. I've seen it a thousand times, because it is the foundation of numerology and similar "Bible codes". Surely you've seen it too in the work of other code finders, right? And your method LOOKS totally random, and it gives a huge number of hits with randomized data, and if your lists included just a few more misses (say three or four) the statistical significance would be lost entirely. This is a pretty thin thread to hang a proclamation like "God encrypted the NIV Bible to proclaim the Second Coming of Christ." This is particularly problematic because there is no way to use your "code" to discern between on meaning and another. The actual "meaning" of the code seems entirely subjective and idiosyncratic.

Well, it's time to go for a nice little hike with my wife on this lovely sunny day in Yakima.

Great chatting,

:sunny:

[thebluetriangle]

Bill,

You didn't answer my question. I followed your lead when I included names like "sky" and "seas". You didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it when you did it on your Garden page. Of course, you are correct that I did it more than you, but that's because I was following a consistent general principle that says if you use it once in a list, you must always use it in the list. I have no idea what you mean when you say that I "did a lot of chopping of phrases". Here is the list of 43 that we are talking about.

The Heavens 782 Hashamayam 395
The Earth 517 Haaretz 296
The Deep 297 Tehom 451
Darkness 370 V'choshek 334
The Waters 1109 Hamayim 95
Light 254 Aur 207
Day 705 Yom 56
Night 274 Lilah 75
An Expanse 882 Raquia 380
The Water 1009 Hamayim 95
Sky 820 Shamayim 390
Dry Ground 1305 Hayabbashah 322
Land 85 Aretz 291
Seas 206 Yomim 100
Vegetation 937 Deshe 305
Plants 451 Eseb 372
Seed bearing plants 729 Eseb mazri zera 976
Trees 400 Etz 160
Trees on the land that bear fruit 1920 Etz pri asher pri 1115
Lights 354 Marot 641
The Greater Light 865 Hamaur Hagadol 294
The Lesser Light 797 Hamaur Haqatan 416
The Stars 704 Hakokavim 103
Living Creatures 1299 Sheretz 590
Birds 205 V'oph 162
Creatures of the Sea 1179 Hatanninnim 555
The Great Creatures of the Sea 1695 Hatanninnim Hagedol 647
Living and Moving Thing 1400 Nephesh Hachayah v'haremeshet 1403
Every Living and Moving Thing 2600 Kol Nephesh Hachayah v'haremesht 1453
Winged Bird 680 Oph Kaneph 306
Every Winged Bird 1880 Kol Oph Kaneph 356
Livestock 827 Behemah 52
The Wild Animals 987 Chaiot Haaretz 714
Wild Animals according to their kinds 1756 Chaiot Haaretz L'minenu 849
The Wild Animals according to their kinds 1969 Chaiot Haaretz L'minenu 849
The Livestock according to their kinds 2022 Behemoth L'menu 192
Creatures 794 Remes 540
The Creatures 1007 Remes 540
All the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds 3836 Kol Remesh Ha'adamah l'minehu 786
MAN 91 ADAM 45
Man in our image 662 Adam b'tzelmenu 263
Man in our image in our likeness 1490 Adam b'tzelmenu k'damuthenu 789
Male and Female 218 Zecur v'nekavah 390

In post #249 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68755#post68755) you said that this list was "was far more inconsistent" than ANY of yours. How could you say that? It's obviously not true. Most of the elements in my list are found in your lists.

You include 'day' and 'night', but miss out 'evening' and 'morning'. Why? If you're going to include the first two, consistency demands you include the other two. That's one example. Another example is your duplication. You have 'creatures' and 'the creatures', which is two instances in different verses. But it's supposed to be the first instance only. Then there's 'Wild Animals according to their kinds' and 'The Wild Animals according to their kinds'. Surely it has to be one or the other? Why did you stop at 'man'? You could have added 'fish' too, and 'green plant', since you were including every named type of plant and animal.

Whatever your choice, if the code still looks beyond chance - and it has so far - then you can't complain, because it was your list, or your take on my initial choices. There are a lot of differences though, so please don't claim it's my list with a few tweaks and additions. Let's review those figures.

Number of items: 43
Number of hits: 33
Number of overlaps: 25

That's way better than chance. There should have been about 23 hits, not 33, for instance. You can accuse me of deliberately avoiding consistency to bias the list if you like, but you can't accuse yourself of it. You certainly werent going out of your way to prove the code is real and yet your results are as good as any of mine.


The only real difference is that you stopped testing the first occurrence of the names of things God created because that generally doesn't help your statistics.

Are you referring, for instance, to my use of 'the water' instead of the earlier occurrence of 'the waters'? I didn't use the first one because it doesn't state in the text of Genesis that God created it. The same goes with 'darkness', 'the deep', etc. I did stick to a simple rule, as far as I could.


So will you now go on record with an answer to my question? Do you stand by your statement that my list is "far more inconsistent than any" of yours? If so, please state a few of the more egregious inconsistencies.
Thanks!

Already done.


Not exactly true. It consistently gave results that were better than what we would expect by chance on average. The results for the various lists we've tested typically fall within about three standard deviations, which means we will find similar results by chance a few times in a hundred. That's what the graphs show. So the question is "What accounts for the consistent deviation from the norm?" The most likely possibility is selection bias because the difference between your lists and random lists is based on your omission of just two or three misses. If you included just a few more misses, the data would fall into the range expected by chance. This is why it is so important to establish the general principles that define your hypothesis. You did not follow consistent principles in the data you presented on the Garden page.

A few times in a hundred? It should be a few times in a thousand and the graphics show exactly that. There was only one out of about 800 randomly generated lists that was better than any one of the biblical lists, and only three that were equal to that same one. None of the other three biblical lists you tested were beaten or equalled by any of the hundreds of random lists you ran. I'm sorry but you're putting your head in the sand here. Anyone can check your graphs, and anyone who knows a little about mathematics also knows that 3 standard deviations above the mean is the top 0.15%. Are you confusing it with 2 SDs above the mean? That's the top 2.5% and that would mean a few out of a hundred. But it's 2.5 to 3 (usually nearer 3), not 2.


This is extremely important. Your lists are not like flipping a coin which can be executed without any bias of any kind. Your list is entirely different. We have been haggling over what to include or exclude for weeks now. It is highly subjective, and our choices strongly influence the statistical results. This is nothing like flipping a coin. You have your hands all over the data. You select what goes in and what goes out. This issue must be resolved if you want to use statistics to justify your assertions.

You haven't commented on my last list of ark and tabernacle items. I think that is very consistent and good enough for a real statistical trial. The consistency of my approach - the first instance every time, the exact NIV translation of the Hebrew, the shortest phrase possible, with any exceptions justified because more words are needed to define the item in question - are exactly what you have been demanding.

And it is still 3 SDs above the mean.


Sounds like the way to go. I look forward to reviewing your list, and testing it if we can agree that it consistently follows some general principles.

Okay! I'm going on holiday for a few days tomorrow but I'll do it next week. I'll still be checking in and posting when I'm away though. In the meantime, could you run that '43 plus 26' combined test?


The lists we have tested are only slightly above what we would expect from chance. When I say "slightly" I mean that the inclusion of a mere three or four misses in a list of 43 items (a mere 10%) would obliterate any sign of statistical significance. The data is very fragile, which is what I would expect if it were cherry picked. Your lists are not like flipping coins and the statistics do not have the same force as if they were. You have a hand picked data list. So the whole thing comes down to the question if a few hand picked items might have been omitted due to negligence, poorly defined or inconsistently applied principles, selection bias, or some other reason. This totally changes the sense of statistical significance. Let me explain: If you could consistently predict the sequence of 43 coin flips in the range of thee sigma I would be impressed because there was no way you could influence the results, and the experiment could be repeated all day long. That's totally different than what's going on with a static list of hand picked items that are compared with randomized lists. The list itself is STATIC, not dynamic. If a small percentage of misses are omitted, it changes everything and there is no statistical test that would expose this error. This kind of error cannot happen with coin flips because the list is DYNAMIC and reproduced with each trial.

I know what you mean about it seeming fragile, ie sensitive to a few points more or less. However, that is an illusion. The data is consistent, including from the list that you drew up and are defending here. And it's consistently good! Another point needs to be reiterated. The lists are probably too short to give statistically meaningful results and we need to either combine them, as I've been asking, or get a new longer list, or both.


Your assertion that your "code" is based on "meaning and improbability" is fails for two reasons:

1) Meaningless things often have small probability, so small probability cannot help discern between a "code" and meaningless random coincidences.
2) Meaning is subjective in general, and the meaning you have read into your "code" is exceedingly idiosyncratic. Different people would come up with different meanings using codes like yours (as is obvious from the history of Bible codes).

Wrong on point 1. You proved yourself that you couldn't come up with anything that remotely approached the profound meaning and religious significance of the four ark and altar encodings. Their signifiance as a group is related to the Day of Atonement, which 9/11, the event that released the code, symbolised. Christ entered the temple and performed an atoning sacrifice. Partly right on point 2, but the meaning is inherent in the encodings, not personally subjective. So Atonement Cover and the six signatures of Christ cover exactly the same 24 words (24 being the reduced value of Ihsous, word, holy). The meaning? Christ is out atonement cover! That isn't personal or idiosyncratic. It is the truth.


I get the impression that you agree that you have no way to discern between meaningless random coincidences and things that are "encoded." If that is your impression then it is the wrong one. Life-saving drugs are launched on statistical data, not placebos -and they are often launched on the strength of data less impressive that the tests you've carried out so far. 2SDs above the mean is usually regarded as significant enough.


To my mind, this means there is no "code" at all. Just an ocean of random data that you project your imaginations upon, like drawing pictures by connecting random dots. This is my most sincere appraisal of what's really going on. You may be sincere, but your island of sincerity is quickly being submerged by a river of data showing the code is real. You've done four tests now and all four have shown the biblical lists are well clear of the random numbers (apart from the very occasional outlier).


I've seen it a thousand times, because it is the foundation of numerology and similar "Bible codes".

Fools gold and real gold.


Surely you've seen it too in the work of other code finders, right? All except a few, Vernon Jenkins especially.


And your method LOOKS totally random, and it gives a huge number of hits with randomized data, and if your lists included just a few more misses (say three or four) the statistical significance would be lost entirely.

1.It doesn't (and it would need to be more than 3 or 4), so this is merely a 'what if'. What is the value of that?
2. One of the variables that is affecting the results here is the length of the lists. Longer lists will help clarify the situation here, athough it's already becoming pretty clear.


This is a pretty thin thread to hang a proclamation like "God encrypted the NIV Bible to proclaim the Second Coming of Christ." This is particularly problematic because there is no way to use your "code" to discern between on meaning and another. The actual "meaning" of the code seems entirely subjective and idiosyncratic.

Well, it's time to go for a nice little hike with my wife on this lovely sunny day in Yakima.

Great chatting,

:sunny:

Well, you at least are admiting there is a real thread here. :signthankspin:

Once we look at longer lists you will hopefully see that thread grow into something much stronger. And we've only discussed a tiny part of the code! If you put down your microscope for a minute and take in the broad sweep of the code, you will understand what it is saying and appreciate that it is saying it with total clarity and almost alarming insistence. That thread is as strong as steel and it runs all the way through the bible.Once you pull it you will see that it draws together biblical prophecy, recent events and people to form a breathtaking tapestry.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Once we look at longer lists you will hopefully see that thread grow into something much stronger. And we've only discussed a tiny part of the code! If you put down your microscope for a minute and take in the broad sweep of the code, you will understand what it is saying and appreciate that it is saying it with total clarity and almost alarming insistence. That thread is as strong as steel and it runs all the way through the bible.Once you pull it you will see that it draws together biblical prophecy, recent events and people to form a breathtaking tapestry.
Could you please state exactly what you think that message is, and post a link to the most relevant page that sums it up?

Thanks!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Whatever your choice, if the code still looks beyond chance - and it has so far - then you can't complain, because it was your list, or your take on my initial choices. There are a lot of differences though, so please don't claim it's my list with a few tweaks and additions. Let's review those figures.

Number of items: 43
Number of hits: 33
Number of overlaps: 25

That's way better than chance. There should have been about 23 hits, not 33, for instance. You can accuse me of deliberately avoiding consistency to bias the list if you like, but you can't accuse yourself of it. You certainly werent going out of your way to prove the code is real and yet your results are as good as any of mine.

Why do you include the overlaps? The tests I ran show they are exactly what we would expect from random chance.

And since you disagree with the validity of the list of 43, saying it was more inconsistent than any of your lists, why do you cite its statistics?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You include 'day' and 'night', but miss out 'evening' and 'morning'. Why? If you're going to include the first two, consistency demands you include the other two. That's one example. Another example is your duplication. You have 'creatures' and 'the creatures', which is two instances in different verses. But it's supposed to be the first instance only. Then there's 'Wild Animals according to their kinds' and 'The Wild Animals according to their kinds'. Surely it has to be one or the other? Why did you stop at 'man'? You could have added 'fish' too, and 'green plant', since you were including every named type of plant and animal.

Good points. That's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. Thanks.

I left out evening and morning because they were not the names of created things per se. Light and darkness were created, and they were given names day and night. The text does not say the same thing about evening and morning. From this point of view, I see no inconsistency on that point. But on the other hand, it could be argued that all things that can be named should be included and that would be fine too. So this point is ambiguous. For the purposes of my test, I will include them.

As for duplication - I agree that a single list should not contain the same items with and without the articles. I included them because a complete statistical test would need to include the words with and without the articles. So we need to make two lists with and without the articles, and test them to see which is better. This would helps us see if your hypothesis about always including the articles is correct. I think this is very important since many of your "codes" depend critically on sometimes including and sometimes excluding the articles. I will create two tests - one using the articles as you typically do when they are in the NIV, and one when they are not. This should be an interesting test.

As for stopping at "man" - I was not trying to make a complete list. That would take a long time, as you know. This is another point of ambiguity: Where to stop? Should we include The Tree of Life? The Serpent? The Fig Leaves? Rivers? The list of created things is very long. In your test of the objects relating to the ark, you drew material from not just Exodus but also Deuteronomy. Does this mean we should use data from anywhere in the Bible? And what about the NT? You used the unique phrase "Cherubim of the Glory" from Hebrews. But the original text is Greek. Should we test for matches with the English/Greek pairs too?

Also, I'm not sure about including descriptive phrases like "male and female" so I'll drop those kinds of adjectival phrases. But this returns us to unresolved questions about consistency in the ark list. I would think we should be consistent. If we include "two stone" in the description of "tablets" we should also include "four gold" in the description of "rings."





The only real difference is that you stopped testing the first occurrence of the names of things God created because that generally doesn't help your statistics.

Are you referring, for instance, to my use of 'the water' instead of the earlier occurrence of 'the waters'? I didn't use the first one because it doesn't state in the text of Genesis that God created it. The same goes with 'darkness', 'the deep', etc. I did stick to a simple rule, as far as I could.

I don't understand your point because the verse you quoted does not state that God created "the water" either. It merely quotes God as saying "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear."

Now as for darkness, Isaiah says God created both it and light. So it does seem inconsistent to include the first mention of light but not of darkness, especially since God gave names to both light and darkness immediately after creating the light.

These ambiguities are a good example of why the few missing misses that push the lists slightly above random really don't seem significant. Any set of random pairs is going to get a lot of hits and there's too much ambiguity and inconsistency in the lists to know if that's what accounts for the statistics. I think a good test will be to refine the list a little more, and compare the two that do and do not include the articles.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Bill,

Preconceived beliefs are the most potent sources of bias, especially beliefs that are held to be "extremely significant" such as religious beliefs. A deep sense of "significance" can deeply skew our judgment despite our best efforts to be objective.

It is for this reason that I have chosen to test the word "shit" and all its synonyms as given on Thesaurus.com for presence in the grid. I trust you understand my point is not to offend, but rather to punch through the bias created by the sense of significance and preconceived values found in a religious text like the Bible. Obviously, "shit" is a perfect antonym of the concepts of "value" and "holiness" and "significance." So here's the test. I have taken the list as provided by the site (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/shit?s=t), so there is no "picking and choosing" of any kind. I simply took the data as provided. Here are the results. The misses are marked with the word [missing]:


shit
crap
poop
shite
BM [missing]
defecation
discharge
dung
excrement [missing]
excretion [missing]
fecal matter
feces
feculence
deuce
manure [missing]
number two [missing]
stool
waste

That's 13 hits and 5 misses, giving 13/18 x 100% = 72% hits.

Let's try another variation on this theme. I googled around and found this list of Shit, Ranked (http://deadspin.com/shit-ranked-1486653659). Again, there is no chance of cherry picking. I took the data as given:


Bullshit
Batshit
Chickenshit
Pigshit
Ripshit [missing]
Dog shit
Baby shit [missing]
Horseshit
Meteor shit
Dipshit
Bird shit
Dumbshit [missing]
Cat shit
Fuckshit
The goddamn Finkelstein shit kid
Shitfuck

This list has 13 hits and 3 misses, giving a 13/16 x 100% = 81% hits. The grid even encodes "The goddamn Finkestein shit kid!" That's a lot of shit! :lol:

The presence of Finklestein made wonder if the grid also contains "Jewish shit" (it does). And so I tested for Christian shit and Muslim shit and both of them were found too! And it has Hindu shit, Atheist shit, and even Scientology shit! It's also got Catholic shit and Protestant shit, but curiously, no Mormon shit. There's so much religious shit I checked for that phrase but didn't find it. But it does contain Buddhist shit. So this little test yields 9 out of 11 hits, or 81% It looks like we are getting a pretty good sense of what's going on with this grid. Contrary to your initial estimates, it looks like we can expect something like 70% to 80% of random English words and short phrases to be found.

A skeptic might say (with some justification), that the grid is literally "full of shit". Again, please take no offense. I am trying to help you see what I see when I look at your method. It looks totally random to me. It looks like a net that indiscriminately collects random flotsam from an ocean of chaos. The fact that you can cherry pick random bits and pieces to make patterns will never convince a rational skeptic. The statistical tests we have conducted with your lists of pairs don't help because most of your claims have nothing to do with those statistics, but rather the "meaning" you see in them. The problem with that is that anyone could make up any "meaning" they want.

Again, I hope you understand the reason for my "study in scatology." I am trying to punch through the strong bias that comes from religious belief. If so much random shit can be found in the grid, why would anyone think that the specific terms you made up, such as "second coming" and "second manifestation" (which are not even in the NIV Bible), should have any significance whatsoever?

Great chatting!

:sunny:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Bill,

I did a quick analysis of the distribution of numbers found in the grid to find out why there is a discrepancy between my experimental results of 70% - 80% and the theoretical result of 52% derived by dividing the total number of distinct numbers (1944) by the largest value (3764) = 1944/3764 = 51.6%. The answer is simple: the distribution is very far from uniform. The density of hits is much higher for smaller numbers, and tapers off towards 51.6% at the end. Here is the graph of the running density, which is the number of numbers found less than x divided by x:

1503

As it turns out, most of the numbers I tested happened to fall in the range near the peak density.

This graph shows that the expected number of hits varies greatly depending on the average value of the words being tested. If you test rather small values, you will get almost no hits, and if you test rather large values, the number of hits will be about 52%. But if you test values near the peak, which seems to be the range most heavily sampled in our tests, the expected value is around 75%.

Isn't great when things make sense?

:sunny:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Bill,

To get a more accurate sense of what is going on in the grid, I have produced this running average density. It shows the density averaged over a period of 20 values. As you can see, for values between 200 to 1500 there's around an 70% to 95% chance of finding a random number. The chances drop precipitously for values at the extremes, being near zero for the smallest and the largest. Understanding this graph is essential before you blindly plug in values into the online binomial calculators (which have given you spectacularly false results earlier in this thread).

1505

[thebluetriangle]

Why do you include the overlaps? The tests I ran show they are exactly what we would expect from random chance.

And since you disagree with the validity of the list of 43, saying it was more inconsistent than any of your lists, why do you cite its statistics?

I'm on holiday in sunny Belfast, with only my trusty iPad, so I won't be able to respond to everything (until Wednesday evening at least). On the overlaps, we hadn't come to an agreement about that. I was looking for the number of pairs in the lists that overlapped at least once, whereas you were testing the percentage overlaps. Two different concepts. I still think overlaps may be significant, but until I get the number of paired items having at least one overlap I can't be sure one way or the other.

On the second question, none of the lists have been completely consistent so far (although I think my latest list of the ark/tabernacle is as close to consistent as we will ever get). Moreover, you were definitely not biasing them to give more hits, so if that also showed more hits than random (which it did, and to the same degree as mine) then that seemed to me to be further evidence that the code is real.

[thebluetriangle]

Hey there Bill,

Preconceived beliefs are the most potent sources of bias, especially beliefs that are held to be "extremely significant" such as religious beliefs. A deep sense of "significance" can deeply skew our judgment despite our best efforts to be objective. undoubtedly so, but that also applies to 'rationalists', skeptics', materialists, scientific naturalists and others. Whatever you hold to be true is what you believe in and will be regarded as extremely significant to you. There is also a progression in the beliefs people hold over time, or sometimes a regression.



It is for this reason that I have chosen to test the word "shit" and all its synonyms as given on Thesaurus.com for presence in the grid. I trust you understand my point is not to offend, but rather to punch through the bias created by the sense of significance and preconceived values found in a religious text like the Bible. Obviously, "shit" is a perfect antonym of the concepts of "value" and "holiness" and "significance." So here's the test. I have taken the list as provided by the site (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/shit?s=t), so there is no "picking and choosing" of any kind. I simply took the data as provided. Here are the results. The misses are marked with the word [missing]:


shit
crap
poop
shite
BM [missing]
defecation
discharge
dung
excrement [missing]
excretion [missing]
fecal matter
feces
feculence
deuce
manure [missing]
number two [missing]
stool
waste

That's 13 hits and 5 misses, giving 13/18 x 100% = 72% hits

This is what I'd expect. For that range of values I had concluded it was about 75%.



Let's try another variation on this theme. I googled around and found this list of Shit, Ranked (http://deadspin.com/shit-ranked-1486653659). Again, there is no chance of cherry picking. I took the data as given:


Bullshit
Batshit
Chickenshit
Pigshit
Ripshit [missing]
Dog shit
Baby shit [missing]
Horseshit
Meteor shit
Dipshit
Bird shit
Dumbshit [missing]
Cat shit
Fuckshit
The goddamn Finkelstein shit kid
Shitfuck

This list has 13 hits and 3 misses, giving a 13/16 x 100% = 81% hits. The grid even encodes "The goddamn Finkestein shit kid!" That's a lot of shit! :lol:



Again, that's no surprise.



The presence of Finklestein made wonder if the grid also contains "Jewish shit" (it does). And so I tested for Christian shit and Muslim shit and both of them were found too! And it has Hindu shit, Atheist shit, and even Scientology shit! It's also got Catholic shit and Protestant shit, but curiously, no Mormon shit. There's so much religious shit I checked for that phrase but didn't find it. But it does contain Buddhist shit. So this little test yields 9 out of 11 hits, or 81% It looks like we are getting a pretty good sense of what's going on with this grid. Contrary to your initial estimates, it looks like we can expect something like 70% to 80% of random English words and short phrases to be found.

My initial estimate was two thirds, based on 60% plus a safety factor. You calculated that it was 52% and I based some of my own calculations (wrongly) on that. It then became clear to me that the spread of values is pretty much what your graphs show, a skewed distribution curve and that in the range of most items on our lists it would be about 75%. Since then I have based all of my calculations on that figure.

What you have not done yet is pair up the English words for shit with their Hebrew counterparts. That will give about 55% of pairs found in the Garden, which is what your random paired numbers have been achieving. Our biblical lists have all been achieving about 75% - 80% of paired hits. That is the signal of the code. I'll answer the rest later.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Preconceived beliefs are the most potent sources of bias, especially beliefs that are held to be "extremely significant" such as religious beliefs. A deep sense of "significance" can deeply skew our judgment despite our best efforts to be objective.

undoubtedly so, but that also applies to 'rationalists', skeptics', materialists, scientific naturalists and others. Whatever you hold to be true is what you believe in and will be regarded as extremely significant to you. There is also a progression in the beliefs people hold over time, or sometimes a regression.

Yes, of course we all have biases. That's why I used the word "our" in my comment. But there is a difference between people who aspire to knowledge based on evidence (rational skeptics) vs. "knowledge" based on "faith" (believers).

If it's difficult for rational skeptics to overcome their biases, how much more for those who have been taught (whether implicitly or explicitly) that blind belief is a virtue? I got the impression that you are suggesting there is some kind of "virtue" in simply believing the Bible without evidence when you said that you "think the code has been designed so that the freedom of those who wish to run from God is preserved. It will never be beyond doubt, because we live in a world designed to appear to function without divine intervention." It seems you want to have it both ways. You want to appeal to the "code" as verifiable evidence, unless it fails, in which case you say it was designed to appear to fail to give unbelievers freedom. Heads you win, tails I lose, eh? Nice game you got going there.

The funny thing is, I used exactly the same rationalization to deal with the failure of my evidence for the Bible Wheel. I truly believed that God had designed every aspect of the Bible, down to the very letters (which must be true if my numerology were true). But what about all the obvious errors, contradictions, and falsehoods in the Bible? I reasoned that God designed the Bible to have "everything a believer needs to believe, and everything an unbeliever needs to unbelieve."

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Once we look at longer lists you will hopefully see that thread grow into something much stronger. And we've only discussed a tiny part of the code! If you put down your microscope for a minute and take in the broad sweep of the code, you will understand what it is saying and appreciate that it is saying it with total clarity and almost alarming insistence. That thread is as strong as steel and it runs all the way through the bible.Once you pull it you will see that it draws together biblical prophecy, recent events and people to form a breathtaking tapestry.
Could you please state exactly what you think that message is, and post a link to the most relevant page that sums it up?

Thanks!

Any chance of getting a nice concise statement of "what it's all about" Bill? I think that would be very interesting.

[thebluetriangle]

Could you please state exactly what you think that message is, and post a link to the most relevant page that sums it up?

Thanks!

I'm working on a web page at the moment that will complete the New Bible Code, so I don't want to sum it all up here until that is finished. However, I was given a simple geometric puzzle to solve that revealed the essence of the message and how it was delivered. Here is the page.

http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437339.html

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I'm working on a web page at the moment that will complete the New Bible Code, so I don't want to sum it all up here until that is finished. However, I was given a simple geometric puzzle to solve that revealed the essence of the message and how it was delivered. Here is the page.

http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437339.html

Here's the conclusion you wrote on that page:

Encrypted within names, numbers and forms associated with the two structures at the heart of 9/11 is a multi-disciplinary puzzle, the solution to which provides a profound, disturbing and ultimately moving explanation for the carnage wrought on that day. September the 11th, 2001 was the prophesied final ?day of the Lord?, when our world was called to judgment by Jesus Christ, who came ?on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory? and destroyed the two most potent symbols of man?s sin.



I don't understand. How could it be the "day of the Lord" when life has continued pretty much as it always has? How do you understand this verse?

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

I guess you must be interpreting the Bible in an extremely symbolic way, since everyone knows those events have not literally happened.

How could anyone know if your interpretation were true? It seems entirely unfalsifiable. It reminds me of explanations date setters use to explain their failed predictions. Like when Harold Camping predicted that the Rapture would happen very literally on May 21, 2011. But then when his prediction failed, he said it actually did happen "spiritually." And the Seventh Day Adventists did the same thing when their prediction of Christ's return in 1844 failed. And the Jehovah's Witnesses said that Christ took his seat and "spiritually" judged the world in 1914 when their prediction of his literal return failed. It seems you skipped the literal part and went straight to the unverifiable "spiritual" interpretation.

So what is the value of your interpretation? Suppose it were true? What are we supposed to do in response? Why did God go through the bother of encoding all this information?

[thebluetriangle]

Hey there Bill,

I did a quick analysis of the distribution of numbers found in the grid to find out why there is a discrepancy between my experimental results of 70% - 80% and the theoretical result of 52% derived by dividing the total number of distinct numbers (1944) by the largest value (3764) = 1944/3764 = 51.6%. The answer is simple: the distribution is very far from uniform. The density of hits is much higher for smaller numbers, and tapers off towards 51.6% at the end. Here is the graph of the running density, which is the number of numbers found less than x divided by x:

1503

As it turns out, most of the numbers I tested happened to fall in the range near the peak density.

This graph shows that the expected number of hits varies greatly depending on the average value of the words being tested. If you test rather small values, you will get almost no hits, and if you test rather large values, the number of hits will be about 52%. But if you test values near the peak, which seems to be the range most heavily sampled in our tests, the expected value is around 75%.

Isn't great when things make sense?

:sunny:

Yes, this is pretty much what I worked out myself last week. Thanks for doing the work though. It's nice to have an accurate picture of what's going on in there.

[thebluetriangle]

Hey there Bill,

To get a more accurate sense of what is going on in the grid, I have produced this running average density. It shows the density averaged over a period of 20 values. As you can see, for values between 200 to 1500 there's around an 70% to 95% chance of finding a random number. The chances drop precipitously for values at the extremes, being near zero for the smallest and the largest. Understanding this graph is essential before you blindly plug in values into the online binomial calculators (which have given you spectacularly false results earlier in this thread).

1505

Again, thanks for doing the graph, which gives a more accurate picture of what I had already worked out. As I've already stated, I abandoned the 0.52 average over a week ago, after I realised how big a difference local averages made. I now use about 0.75 for the average hits and about 0.55 for the average paired hits, which gives binomial probabilities pretty much in line with your experimental results. In other words, we've got a fairly good view of the probabilities now and the recent binomial tests I quoted, showing the double-witness phenomena to be between about 1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 based on the small trials we've done so far, are not being run blindly any longer.

[thebluetriangle]

Yes, of course we all have biases. That's why I used the word "our" in my comment. But there is a difference between people who aspire to knowledge based on evidence (rational skeptics) vs. "knowledge" based on "faith" (believers).

You have continually described 'rational skeptics' as if they are some kind of elite who have seen through the superstitions of the masses and look down on them with compassion and pity. They are believers too, and intellect is their God.

There's a well trodden path from blind faith to doubt or disbelief then on to true belief. M. Scott Peck described them as stage 2 believers, stage 3 agnostics and stage 4 Mystics (it was based on the writings of theologian Matthew Fox). So you could say that in terms of what they believe, stage 2 believe what they have been told, stage 3 believe what their own intellects tell them, as I said above, and stage 4 have moved beyond belief to Knowledge (gnosis). You have repeatedly lumped together all religious believers, be they conventional exoteric believers or Mystics, into one illusory camp, the 'faithheads'. I don't personally completely subscribe to Peck's categories but they are useful for pointing out that some people (many people in my opinion) have had personal experiences that have confirmed the reality of The Spiritual for them. They are not 'faithheads' or fanatics, but honest searchers, as honest as the most rational skeptic and often more courageous. Skepticism can be a cop-out and often slides into cynicism. They are avoiding the truth, not seeking it out.



If it's difficult for rational skeptics to overcome their biases, how much more for those who have been taught (whether implicitly or explicitly) that blind belief is a virtue?

You'd think we were in the Middle Ages. I've never met a Christian who advocated 'blind belief'.



I got the impression that you are suggesting there is some kind of "virtue" in simply believing the Bible without evidence when you said that you "think the code has been designed so that the freedom of those who wish to run from God is preserved. It will never be beyond doubt, because we live in a world designed to appear to function without divine intervention."


God gave us free will, and He wants us come come back to him of our own free will. The world DOES appear to function without divine intervention, and yet those of us who have experienced the reality of the Divine know that there is something beyond the material world and that we are connected to it. Those who aren't ready will not have spiritual experiences and can ignore a bible code, which, because it is probabilistic, can never be proven in an absolute sense, but which will, to those who have 'ears to hear' be recognised as authentic.



It seems you want to have it both ways. You want to appeal to the "code" as verifiable evidence, unless it fails, in which case you say it was designed to appear to fail to give unbelievers freedom. Heads you win, tails I lose, eh? Nice game you got going there. The flip side of that is it can never be truly proven, as I stated. There will always be a 'get-out' for people who aren't ready. It works the same way with scientific theories, which are never absolutely proven.

What you are mischaracterising here, though, is the fact that the code is based on meaning AND improbability. SO IF IT IS SHOWN TO BE NO MORE PROBABLE THAN CHANCE THEN THERE IS NO CODE. Heads I win, tails you win.




The funny thing is, I used exactly the same rationalization to deal with the failure of my evidence for the Bible Wheel. I truly believed that God had designed every aspect of the Bible, down to the very letters (which must be true if my numerology were true). But what about all the obvious errors, contradictions, and falsehoods in the Bible? I reasoned that God designed the Bible to have "everything a believer needs to believe, and everything an unbeliever needs to unbelieve."

The New Bible Code, Vernon's Other Bible Code, and likely the Biblewheel and other codes were created as a single thought in the mind of God, Bohm's implicate order, then slowly manifested in the material realm over time, which only exists in this realm, the explicate order. That doesn't mean the Bible is 'perfect' in the sense you might like it to be, but it is perfect in the sense that deeper material, including any bible code within, is whole and complete. It was unconsciously encoded and therefore beyond man's tampering.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You have continually described 'rational skeptics' as if they are some kind of elite who have seen through the superstitions of the masses and look down on them with compassion and pity. They are believers too, and intellect is their God.

To my knowledge, I have never described "rational skeptic" beyond the meaning of the words "rational" and "skeptic". I do not think of them as a "group" any more than I think that people who like cats are a "group." I use the term to refer to the character of some individuals in contrast to those who advocate various kinds of unjustified beliefs (which are often contrary to the evidence).

It is ludicrous to assert that rational people who are skeptical of unfounded beliefs are equivalent to religious believers who take their intellect as their God. I do no such thing.

Everyone has beliefs. Knowledge can be understood as a form of belief called "justified true belief." There is a difference between unfounded belief in religious dogmas and knowledge. It is a mistake to confuse unjustified belief in unverifiable religious dogmas with justified belief based on reason and evidence.

Everyone is born ignorant and humanity in general is very superstitious. That's why everyone should be skeptical of beliefs received from our ignorant ancestors and should use reason to discern truth. The Bible is full of superstition and falsehood, just like all the other religions invented long ago. This is something we have yet to discuss in relation to your "codes". If it is a demonstrable fact that the Bible contains a lot of errors, why should we think God had anything to do with it at all? Why would he inspire a book so obviously filled with errors, contradictions, absurdities, and falsehoods?



There's a well trodden path from blind faith to doubt or disbelief then on to true belief. M. Scott Peck described them as stage 2 believers, stage 3 agnostics and stage 4 Mystics (it was based on the writings of theologian Matthew Fox). So you could say that in terms of what they believe, stage 2 believe what they have been told, stage 3 believe what their own intellects tell them, as I said above, and stage 4 have moved beyond belief to Knowledge (gnosis). You have repeatedly lumped together all religious believers, be they conventional exoteric believers or Mystics, into one illusory camp, the 'faithheads'. I don't personally completely subscribe to Peck's categories but they are useful for pointing out that some people (many people in my opinion) have had personal experiences that have confirmed the reality of The Spiritual for them. They are not 'faithheads' or fanatics, but honest searchers, as honest as the most rational skeptic and often more courageous. Skepticism can be a cop-out and often slides into cynicism. They are avoiding the truth, not seeking it out.

I have no disagreement with the idea that people go through stages of belief. And I have no problem with people who think that there is more to reality than meets the eye. There's more than enough space between scientific truths for plenty of speculation.

I do NOT lump together "all believers." There's a world of difference between a rational and irrational religious believers. Mysticism is nothing like religious fundamentalism, for example. A lot of confusion comes from the fact that there are two very different meanings of "faith" -

1) Belief without evidence, like "Jesus is the Son of God".

2) Belief based on evidence, like trusting the bank to give me my money when I ask for it.

The crazy thing about the two definitions of "faith" is that they are opposites in as much as one is explicitly based on evidence and the other is independent of (and often contrary to) evidence.

As I said, everyone has beliefs. The point is whether or not those beliefs are justified, or outside the realm of science (e.g. philosophy and metaphysics), or if they are contrary to evidence or even demonstrably false. I'm surprised I need to explain this too you. Are you seriously telling me you are not aware of Young Earth Creationists, people who deny science like evolution, geology, astronomy, etc., etc., etc.? Humanity is saturated to overflowing with all sorts of crazy beliefs. And they are on the rise. There are people who are preaching Flat Earth (link (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/flat-earth-rising/))! If you want to see the gory details of the kind of blind believe I'm talking about and what it does to the human mind, read my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/).

Your reaction to rational skepticism seems irrational to me.



You'd think we were in the Middle Ages. I've never met a Christian who advocated 'blind belief'.

I find that very hard to believe. The fact that they probably didn't explicitly advocate "blind belief" (using that phrase) doesn't mean that's not what they are advocating. I've seen it a million times. It is the heart and core of fundamentalism which sets itself directly against all knowledge that exposes the falsehood of their beliefs.

And its plainly taught throughout the Bible, in verses such as these:

NIV John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

An apologist tried to explain away this verse by saying that it is not "blind belief" to believe what we read in the Bible (link (http://coldcasechristianity.com/2016/did-jesus-commend-faith-that-is-blind/))! :rolleyes:

Jesus wasn't the only one who preached blind belief. It's a frequent theme in Paul's writings where he contrasted walking by "faith" vs. "sight". And perhaps the most explicit example:

Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Mark Twain hit the nail on the head when he said that "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." Of course, Twain was talking about the kind of faith that falsely takes the place of evidence, as is advocated throughout the Bible.


God gave us free will, and He wants us come come back to him of our own free will. The world DOES appear to function without divine intervention, and yet those of us who have experienced the reality of the Divine know that there is something beyond the material world and that we are connected to it. Those who aren't ready will not have spiritual experiences and can ignore a bible code, which, because it is probabilistic, can never be proven in an absolute sense, but which will, to those who have 'ears to hear' be recognised as authentic.

Now wait a minute. Are you saying that people who reject your code are rejecting God? If your code is rational and real, why does a person need to be open to "spiritual experience" to see it? What does that even mean? Could you describe what my experience would be like if I were "open" to it and could see the "code"?

I have ears to hear and eyes to see, and that's why I am extremely skeptical of your "codes". Gematria is based fundamentally on the twin cognitive errors of selection bias and confirmation bias which are the root of most delusions. Your grid is like a net that indiscriminately collects 75% of the random flotsam floating in the ocean of random words. You have no way to discern between a random meaningless coincidence and a deliberately designed code. Words appear or don't appear without rhyme or reason. There is no logical consistency to it that I can see.

How can I "come back" to a God who hides his message in "codes" and refuses to give clear directions? The most fervent believers cannot agree about what the plain texxt of the Bible actually says, how much less when it is "coded" in such an obtuse fashion? There are Catholics and Protestants and Mormons and JWs and Calvinists and Oneness Pentacostals ... its a bedlam of confused and contrary religions derived from the same book.The one thing they all have in common is that they are based on beliefs that cannot be verified (or are demonstrably false). God is not preserving anyone's freedom by cloaking his "true religion" in the rags of all the false religions and mystical speculations and codes that look like random numerology.



The flip side of that is it can never be truly proven, as I stated. There will always be a 'get-out' for people who aren't ready. It works the same way with scientific theories, which are never absolutely proven.

What exactly must I do to "be ready" to accept your codes? It sounds like you are saying I should believe them on blind faith since you admit that they cannot be proven.

Your introduction of the word "absolute" confuses the issue. Almost NOTHING can be proven "absolutely." That doesn't mean the tentative results of science are anything like your codes which are based fundamentally on selection bias and confirmation bias.

Is there one thing about your "message" about Christ judging the world that can be demonstrated to be true? If so, what? As far as I can tell, you have taken all the words as metaphorical without any testable impact on reality. If you really want to prove your case, the first thing you need to do is tell me what would prove you wrong. If there is nothing that could prove you wrong, then your words have no connection with observable reality. How then are they any different than any other fantasy not connected to reality?



What you are mischaracterising here, though, is the fact that the code is based on meaning AND improbability. SO IF IT IS SHOWN TO BE NO MORE PROBABLE THAN CHANCE THEN THERE IS NO CODE. Heads I win, tails you win.

If what can be shown to be no more probable? Even if the word pairs in the Garden are above what we would expect from random chance, that doesn't prove anything at all about the MESSAGE you have seen in the code. There is no way to estimate the probability that you could make up that message from random data, except that we all know that people have been doing things like that for centuries and every testable prediction they've ever made has totally failed. I do not know of a single instance when numerology has predicted anything or been shown to reveal any truth. And that's after CENTURIES of believers playing games with words and numbers.

So how exactly would "probability" prove that your interpretation of the events of 9/11 is true or false? Can you calculate the probability of a person making different connections using the same data set? What if I made up a contrary story? How would you prove mine is false and yours is true?

Great chatting!

Hope you are enjoying your vacation in sunny Belfast.

:sunny:

[thebluetriangle]

A skeptic might say (with some justification), that the grid is literally "full of shit". Again, please take no offense. I am trying to help you see what I see when I look at your method. It looks totally random to me. It looks like a net that indiscriminately collects random flotsam from an ocean of chaos. The fact that you can cherry pick random bits and pieces to make patterns will never convince a rational skeptic. The statistical tests we have conducted with your lists of pairs don't help because most of your claims have nothing to do with those statistics, but rather the "meaning" you see in them. The problem with that is that anyone could make up any "meaning" they want.

I am NOT taking random bits and pieces of anything. The four ark and altar encodings are hardly random and integrate with the larger message if the code. The last list I compiled is based on the structure of and furniture within the tabernacle. I didn't cherry pick. I just listed all the major parts, found the first mention of it in Exodus, took the minimum number of words to define it, took the NIV translation of those words and worked out the standard values of those words. Where is the cherry picking there?



Again, I hope you understand the reason for my "study in scatology." I am trying to punch through the strong bias that comes from religious belief. If so much random shit can be found in the grid, why would anyone think that the specific terms you made up, such as "second coming" and "second manifestation" (which are not even in the NIV Bible), should have any significance whatsoever?

Great chatting!

:sunny:

Bias goes both ways, for and against religious beliefs. I have found as much or more bias from those outside its walls than inside them, often stemming from profound ignorance of those very beliefs or the meaning of words like 'faith'. C.S. Lewis gave the best definition of faith I've heard " . . . The art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods and circumstances". Much of the seeming bias comes from a profound chasm between the worldview of Christians (and other religious people) and the prevailing materialism of the secular world. The Christian believes in a God who can and does perform miracles, and the existence of an encrypted message within God's Word is well within the realm of the possible. Their faith in that possibility comes not from bias but from revelation and (often) personal experience. I remember my first Alpha Course meeting. It was the first time I had really discussed Christian beliefs with actual Christians and people considering taking their initial steps into faith, and I was pleasantly surprised by how thoughtful and reasonable they were - nothing like the stereotypes that abound.

On phrases like 'Second Coming', as I stated before, the code is not limited to the words within the Bible, although when it is using biblical phrases only those from the NIV are there. The code speaks of our current age and uses modern phraseology when necessary. The very fact (to me) that there is an English gematria is proof of that possibility.

[thebluetriangle]

Richard, before we go any further, could you do what I've asked you to do several times now and run a test on the combined lists of 43 (with or without any changes you might wish to make) and 26. I believe that the statistical significance of the code will be more clearly visible if we use a longer list of items, and my own binomial probability tests support that contention. An actual trial with 100 random numbers would hopefully confirm it.

Thanks in advance. Your expertise and willingness to roll up your sleeves here have been greatly appreciated.

[thebluetriangle]

Here's the conclusion you wrote on that page:

Encrypted within names, numbers and forms associated with the two structures at the heart of 9/11 is a multi-disciplinary puzzle, the solution to which provides a profound, disturbing and ultimately moving explanation for the carnage wrought on that day. September the 11th, 2001 was the prophesied final ?day of the Lord?, when our world was called to judgment by Jesus Christ, who came ?on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory? and destroyed the two most potent symbols of man?s sin.



I don't understand. How could it be the "day of the Lord" when life has contuinued pretty much as it always has? How do you understand this verse?

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13 But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

I guess you must be interpreting the Bible in an extremely symbolic way, since everyone knows those events have not literally happened.

Much of Jewish and early Christian writing has this kind of hyperbole. The events they describe were based on visions they probably had and was framed in the language of the time. That does not mean that 9/11 was purely symbolic. I see the event, like the code itself, as a manifestation of the Second Coming. There was real destruction on the physical plane, not worldwide, but local. The real apocalypse, however, is internal, rather than external. Moreover its effect on the psyche of man was greatly magnified by the fact that the entire world was watching these events as they unfolded. One evening in 2002, as I was wondering what 9/11 meant, I had an open vision consisting of two words.

ARMS AVARICE

There are 11 letters. The ordinal value is 110 and AA is 11 again. The words are 51 (demon) and 59 (dragon). The letters in the words give 47 (beast). 11 means disorder, imperfection and disintegration in biblical numerics.

Arms is force of arms, the military force behind the USA's hegemony. Avarice is lust for money, and refers to the financial power it wields. The twin towers, or world trade centre and Pentagon, were the very horns of the beast itself, and were literally shattered, like Daniel's ram, on 9/11. 9/11 achieved maximum effect with minimum destruction and symbolised an event that is taking place in the psyche of man, the death of the old fear-driven mindset, the 'old man', and the birth of something finer within us, symbolised by the manchild. It was a sacrifice, representing the Day of Atonement and the Crucifixion in one. It was also a conception, as the Day of Atonement had symbolised from the start.

If 9/11 was the Crucifixion, which event was the Resurrection? It was the funeral of Pope John Paul II on 8/4/05. The two events (9/11 and the funeral were almost exactly 3.5 years apart, a period of time hinted at in Daniel and Revelation, and were the 254th and 1559th days of the new Millennium. Now look:

Our Lord Jesus Christ (o) = 254
Our Lord Jesus Christ (s) = 1559

These are the same two systems the Key taught me.



How could anyone know if your interpretation were true? It seems entirely unfalsifiable. It reminds me of explanations date setters use to explain their failed predictions. Like when Harold Camping predicted that the Rapture would happen very literally on May 21, 2011. But then when his prediction failed, he said it actually did happen "spiritually." And the Seventh Day Adventists did the same thing when their prediction of Christ's return in 1844 failed. And the Jehovah's Witnesses said that Christ took his seat and "spiritually" judged the world in 1914 when their prediction of his literal return failed. It seems you skipped the literal part and went straight to the unverifiable "spiritual" interpretation.

It's an interpretation of events that have already occurred and makes no predictions. It does, however state in unequivocal terms that the Second Coming has arrived. I am not saying it is over, but I am saying that it has begun.


So what is the value of your interpretation? Suppose it were true? What are we supposed to do in response? Why did God go through the bother of encoding all this information?

How you respond is up to you. It was done to save man from destroying himself, as he is close to doing, as a symbol of the internal apocalypse, the crucifixion of the ego mind (corrupted by the demon of economic imperialism, the dragon of consumerism and the false prophet of the global media) that is presently occurring on a scale never before seen in the world, our resurrection as higher consciousness is birthed within us, and more.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Much of Jewish and early Christian writing has this kind of hyperbole. The events they describe were based on visions they probably had and was framed in the language of the time. That does not mean that 9/11 was purely symbolic. I see the event, like the code itself, as a manifestation of the Second Coming. There was real destruction on the physical plane, not worldwide, but local. The real apocalypse, however, is internal, rather than external. Moreover its effect on the psyche of man was greatly magnified by the fact that the entire world was watching these events as they unfolded. One evening in 2002, as I was wondering what 9/11 meant, I had an open vision consisting of two words.

ARMS AVARICE

There are 11 letters. The ordinal value is 110 and AA is 11 again. The words are 51 (demon) and 59 (dragon). The letters in the words give 47 (beast). 11 means disorder, imperfection and disintegration in biblical numerics.

Bible Numerics? How exactly do you determine the "meaning" of a number like 11? Are you following a tradition that you have read, or do you have a method to discern the meaning? I was never impressed with most of the popular bible numerology even when I believed that the numbers had symbolic meaning in the Bible. For example, most pop bible numerics teach that 13 is the number of "sin and rebellion" because the first mention of "sinners" in the KJV is in Genesis 13:13, amplified by other cherry picked occurrences of 13 (which also happened to fit with the popular superstitions around that number). This totally contradicted what I "derived" from the fact that the Hebrew words for love and unity sum to 13, and I thought God used this in his design of the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians (The Love Chapter) which has 13 verses. It seems likely that the numbers are all random and people get an idea in their head and then cherry pick hits to "confirm" what they already believe.

Given that bible numerics is an essential aspect of your thesis, I think it would be good if you could justify your assertion about the meaning of the number 11.

[thebluetriangle]

Bible Numerics? How exactly do you determine the "meaning" of a number like 11? Are you following a tradition that you have read, or do you have a method to discern the meaning? I was never impressed with most of the popular bible numerology even when I believed that the numbers had symbolic meaning in the Bible. For example, most pop bible numerics teach that 13 is the number of "sin and rebellion" because the first mention of "sinners" in the KJV is in Genesis 13:13, amplified by other cherry picked occurrences of 13 (which also happened to fit with the popular superstitions around that number). This totally contradicted what I "derived" from the fact that the Hebrew words for love and unity sum to 13, and I thought God used this in his design of the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians (The Love Chapter) which has 13 verses. It seems likely that the numbers are all random and people get an idea in their head and then cherry pick hits to "confirm" what they already believe.

Given that bible numerics is an essential aspect of your thesis, I think it would be good if you could justify your assertion about the meaning of the number 11.

Certainly. It comes from the properties of the number itself and as its use within the Bible. 11 is one short of twelve, which in the Bible represents perfect government, for example the twelve disciples and twelve tribes. It's also one more than 10, considered to represent divine order and law. In either case the perfection/order is lost.

Here are two studies on eleven:

http://gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/the-biblical-meaning-of-numbers/chapter-3-numbers-11-20/

https://philologos.org/__eb-nis/eleven.htm

[thebluetriangle]

Richard,

Have you had time to run the test I requested?

To recap, I asked you to combine your version of the Genesis list of created things with my latest list of the parts of the tabernacle and the ark within it. There is no duplication across them so it will simply be a longer list of items than any you've tested so far.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

Have you had time to run the test I requested?

To recap, I asked you to combine your version of the Genesis list of created things with my latest list of the parts of the tabernacle and the ark within it. There is no duplication across them so it will simply be a longer list of items than any you've tested so far.
Hey there Bill,

Sorry for the slow response. The thing is, I felt it important to update my list of 43 before running the test because of your very valid criticism you gave back in post #253 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68779#post68779):


You include 'day' and 'night', but miss out 'evening' and 'morning'. Why? If you're going to include the first two, consistency demands you include the other two. That's one example. Another example is your duplication. You have 'creatures' and 'the creatures', which is two instances in different verses. But it's supposed to be the first instance only. Then there's 'Wild Animals according to their kinds' and 'The Wild Animals according to their kinds'. Surely it has to be one or the other? Why did you stop at 'man'? You could have added 'fish' too, and 'green plant', since you were including every named type of plant and animal.

So here is my updated list. I followed your suggestions to add evening and morning and to remove the duplicated items. The list now has 29 pairs:

The Heavens 782 Hashamayam 395
The Earth 517 Haaretz 296
The Deep 297 Tehom 451
Darkness 370 V'choshek 334
The Waters 1109 Hamayim 95
Light 254 Aur 207
Day 705 Yom 56
Night 274 Lilah 75
Evening 526 Arev 272
Morning 306 Boker 302
An Expanse 882 Raquia 380
Sky 820 Shamayim 390
Dry Ground 1305 Hayabbashah 322
Land 85 Aretz 291
Seas 206 Yomim 100
Vegetation 937 Deshe 305
Plants 451 Eseb 372
Trees 400 Etz 160
Lights 354 Marot 641
The Greater Light 865 Hamaur Hagadol 294
The Lesser Light 797 Hamaur Haqatan 416
The Stars 704 Hakokavim 103
Living Creatures 1299 Sheretz 590
Birds 205 oph 156
The Great Creatures of the Sea 1695 Hatanninnim Hagedol 647
Every Living and Moving Thing 2600 Kol Nephesh Hachayah v'haremesht 1453
Livestock 827 Behemah 52
The Wild Animals 987 Chaiot Haaretz 714
MAN 91 ADAM 45

For simplicity, I only included pairs found in the description of the six days in Genesis 1. I'm pretty sure a more detailed list would give similar results. Here is what I found running 100 randomized tests:

1512

As you can see, this list shows no statistically significant deviation from what we would expect in a random set of pairs.

I then combined my list with yours to get a set of 55 test pairs. Here is the result:

1513

I would be very surprised it the modest statistical variation were not due to cherry picking since the lists are hand picked and we have not found any objective general principles that unambiguously determine the content of the pairs. There is ambiguity in what to include in both the English and the Hebrew. You get about 30 hits for free from an average random data set, and you list only adds 12, so I really don't see anything that looks like "design" by an intelligent agent.

[sylvius]

The name of God consists of a "y-h"-part and a "v-h"-part.

"y-h"= 15
"v-h"= 11

Exodus 17:16,
And he said, For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal, [that there shall be] a war for the Lord against Amalek from generation to generation.

For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal = כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס יָהּ , "ki yad al kes yah"


Rashi:

For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal: Heb. כִּי-יָד עַל כֵּס יָ-הּ. The hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised to swear by His throne, to have a war and hatred against Amalek for eternity. Now what is the meaning of כֵּס [as opposed to כִּסֵא and also [why is] the Divine Name divided in half? [I.e., why is the Name יָ-הּ used instead of י-ה-ו-ה ?] [The answer is that] the Holy One, blessed be He, swore that[B] His Name will not be complete and His throne will not be complete until the name of Amalek is completely obliterated. And when his name is obliterated, the Divine Name will be complete, and the throne will be complete, as it is said: ?The enemy has been destroyed; swords exist forever (לָנֶצַח)? (Ps. 9:7); this [who they are referring to] is Amalek, about whom it is written: ?and kept their fury forever (נֶצַח)? (Amos 1:11). "And You have uprooted the cities-their remembrance is lost" (Ps. 9:7) [i.e., Amalek?s obliteration]. What does it say afterwards? ?And the Lord (וַיהוה) shall sit forever? (Ps. 9:8); thus [after Amalek is obliterated] the Name is complete. "He has established His throne (כִּסְאוֹ) for judgment" (Ps. 9:8). Thus the throne is complete [i.e., thus the throne, here spelled with an ?aleph,? is now complete]. ? [from Midrash Tanchuma, end of Ki Theitzei]

[thebluetriangle]

Hey there Bill,

Sorry for the slow response. The thing is, I felt it important to update my list of 43 before running the test because of your very valid criticism you gave back in post #253 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68779#post68779):

So here is my updated list. I followed your suggestions to add evening and morning and to remove the duplicated items.

I didn't say you should add them. I said that it was inconsistent to include day and night and exclude evening and morning. I don't agree with the rules by which you have been choosing your items, but even then you weren't being consistent.


The list now has 29 pairs:

The Heavens 782 Hashamayam 395
The Earth 517 Haaretz 296
The Deep 297 Tehom 451
Darkness 370 V'choshek 334
The Waters 1109 Hamayim 95
Light 254 Aur 207
Day 705 Yom 56
Night 274 Lilah 75
Evening 526 Arev 272
Morning 306 Boker 302
An Expanse 882 Raquia 380
Sky 820 Shamayim 390
Dry Ground 1305 Hayabbashah 322
Land 85 Aretz 291
Seas 206 Yomim 100
Vegetation 937 Deshe 305
Plants 451 Eseb 372
Trees 400 Etz 160
Lights 354 Marot 641
The Greater Light 865 Hamaur Hagadol 294
The Lesser Light 797 Hamaur Haqatan 416
The Stars 704 Hakokavim 103
Living Creatures 1299 Sheretz 590
Birds 205 oph 156
The Great Creatures of the Sea 1695 Hatanninnim Hagedol 647
Every Living and Moving Thing 2600 Kol Nephesh Hachayah v'haremesht 1453
Livestock 827 Behemah 52
The Wild Animals 987 Chaiot Haaretz 714
MAN 91 ADAM 45

For simplicity, I only included pairs found in the description of the six days in Genesis 1.

The problem with this list is that it is not about what God created. So you are not testing my original claim on the website, that the Garden reflects the text itself, by including the things the text states God made during the six days of Creation. This is another list entirely, a list of things in can be infered that God created, plus some things God named. Darkness is arguable, but even then the coding would not be in Genesis 1. By the same logic as the rest of the list is would be the word in the verse where it is stated God made the darkness!

In short, your list only partially reflects what I originally claimed. However, neither did your 43 and I asked you to combine it with mine. I see you've done that with the 29, so I'll comment on the combined list.


I'm pretty sure a more detailed list would give similar results.

This is painting a false picture, Richard. All else being equal, the p value (probability) is dependent on two things here

1) the percentage of hits - it should be as high as possible to show design
2) the length of the list - if the list is long and the percentage high then design is probable.

Your changes to the list have only lowered the percentage a little, from 77% to 72%, but they have shortened it considerably. So your 'more accurate' list, which really only gives one less hit than it would have if the percentages were the same, is mostly showing less statistical significance because it is shorter. That's all.

If we shortened the list to fifteen and the number of hits was 11, a slightly higher percentage than 21/29, then the statistical significance drops even lower. It becomes a 1 in 8 shot, instead of a 1 in 20 shot, as it is just now.

All you have done is shortened the list, not altered the percentage of hits, and this is why you are painting a false picture here.


Here is what I found running 100 randomized tests:

1512

As you can see, this list shows no statistically significant deviation from what we would expect in a random set of pairs.


Even at that the list does quite well, in the top 15% of pairs. Every single list of Biblical numbers either of us has compilled has given results better than average, all except one, this one, being 2.5 to 3 SDs above the mean (this one is just over 1 SD above the mean). Every one.

This is like trying to distinguish a Swedes from 100 pigmies by height. The pigmies vary in height but nearly all of them are shorter than the average Swede. Now you find a short Swede, little Olaf, find that 14 out of your 100 pigmies are taller than him, them claim that because of that he isn't a Swede and must be a pigmy. It's absurd. The Swedes vary in height too.

The variations in significance are because we are picking the biblical lists on different bases and because the lists are different lengths.

So now lets look at the longest list so far, the combined list of 55. . . .


I then combined my list with yours to get a set of 55 test pairs. Here is the result:

1513

I would be very surprised it the modest statistical variation were not due to cherry picking since the lists are hand picked and we have not found any objective general principles that unambiguously determine the content of the pairs.

What a load of crap.

There are several points here.

1. My list is based on the strictest set of rules either of us has devised yet: a) all the tabernacle parts and ark components, b) first biblical mention, c) shortest number of words to define the component, d) exact NIV translation. That leaves no room for maneuvre at all. None. Okay?

2. You list is just over 1 SD above the mean. Mine is just under 3 SDs above the mean. But the combined list is well over 3 Sds above the mean. How can me cherry picking my list have boosted the combined score higher than my own list? No, it's better because the list is longer! Even if my list was no better than your own the combined list would still be 2SDs above the mean.

3. You are totally ignoring the implications of the score above. This is the best result yet, about 3.5 SDs above the mean, better than 1 in 1000.

If we plotted the statistical significance of the biblical lists against random numbers with the length of those lists, we would find that it rose as the number rose - and this, my friend, is the signal of a genuine code.

How statistically significant would it be if there were 100 items on the list? I'll tell you, if the percentage of hits was the same, 76%, it would be a 1 in 90,000 shot! That would equate to about 5 standard deviations above the mean. And there is more encoded in the garden, so this is not a theoretical possibility.

The longer the list, the more obvious it becomes that the code is real and not a fluke, because the harder it is to keep beating the odds.


There is ambiguity in what to include in both the English and the Hebrew. You get about 30 hits for free from an average random data set, and you list only adds 12, so I really don't see anything that looks like "design" by an intelligent agent.

The lists were are using have been modified for testing, and, as I've been saying from the start, do not accurately capture what has actually been done. Because strict rules have to be applied for tests, there are 'misses'. But you cannot use those misses to say the code is not there, when they are reflecting the test method as much as the code, which is like a frost pattern in scripture, real but difficult to measure with crude instruments.

[thebluetriangle]

The name of God consists of a "y-h"-part and a "v-h"-part.

"y-h"= 15
"v-h"= 11

Exodus 17:16,
And he said, For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal, [that there shall be] a war for the Lord against Amalek from generation to generation.

For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal = כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס יָהּ , "ki yad al kes yah"


Rashi:

That is interesting, Sylvius. The chapter and verse indicators give 1716, which is 11 x 156. In fact it is 11 x 12 x 13.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I didn't say you should add them. I said that it was inconsistent to include day and night and exclude evening and morning. I don't agree with the rules by which you have been choosing your items, but even then you weren't being consistent.

I was following your lead Bill. You included the naming of the expanse "sky" on your garden page so I included the other things that were named like seas, day, and night. You then said if I included those things I should also include evening and morning, so that's what I did.

I trust you can see why I pressed so hard to get you to define the general principles you use to create your lists. Without well-defined general principles that can be consistently applied by people other than yourself, your claims cannot be tested objectively. You can't state, let alone test, a hypothesis if it has not been sufficiently well defined. And most importantly, there is no way to check for cherry picking if you don't have well defined general principles.



The problem with this list is that it is not about what God created. So you are not testing my original claim on the website, that the Garden reflects the text itself, by including the things the text states God made during the six days of Creation. This is another list entirely, a list of things in can be infered that God created, plus some things God named.
Again, YOU are the one who included the naming of "sky" in your list. I was was fallowing your lead. And you contradict yourself when you include "the water" which was NOT explicitly stated as something that God created.


Darkness is arguable, but even then the coding would not be in Genesis 1. By the same logic as the rest of the list is would be the word in the verse where it is stated God made the darkness!

Why wouldn't the coding of darkness be in Genesis 1 where we also find light? By that logic, the ark wouldn't be in Genesis 1 either!



All you have done is shortened the list, not altered the percentage of hits, and this is why you are painting a false picture here.

Not true. I did not merely "shorten" the list. I removed duplicated pairs, which is what you said I should do.



Even at that the list does quite well, in the top 15% of pairs. Every single list of Biblical numbers either of us has compilled has given results better than average, all except one, this one, being 2.5 to 3 SDs above the mean (this one is just over 1 SD above the mean). Every one.

Yeah, the top 15% of a RANDOM list! LOL. That's no sign of any "code". There is nothing coded. This is self-evident because you cannot discern between a "coded" text and a random text. Being in the top 15% of a RANDOM set is no sign of any code.

Is there anyway for you to know if a particular pair was "coded" or not? Nope! So where's the "code"? You have a "code" that doesn't actually code anything. It looks like all you are doing is trying to justify the stories you make up by showing that some words fit in the grid, as if you couldn't justify any story ever told that way. Seriously! I can use your method to justify ISLAM! The Grid contains the most important Islamic statement, the Basmala, as well as the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad. You dismissed those "codes" because you didn't like them, which proves that your method proves nothing at all.



1. My list is based on the strictest set of rules either of us has devised yet: a) all the tabernacle parts and ark components, b) first biblical mention, c) shortest number of words to define the component, d) exact NIV translation. That leaves no room for maneuvre at all. None. Okay?

Strict rules? Don't be ridiculous. You rightly complained about my list having "duplications" but then included three variations of the "ark" in your list!

the ark of the testimony 1754 arown eduwth 730
of this ark 494 arown 256
a chest 317 arown 257

All three of those pairs refer to the same object, the ark. You padded your list with duplications because you knew they were in the grid. And you omitted the most salient pair "ark/arown" because you knew it was not in the grid!

Your cherry picking is transparently obvious. Your list is rigged.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The name of God consists of a "y-h"-part and a "v-h"-part.

"y-h"= 15
"v-h"= 11

Exodus 17:16,
And he said, For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal, [that there shall be] a war for the Lord against Amalek from generation to generation.

For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal = כִּי יָד עַל כֵּס יָהּ , "ki yad al kes yah"


Rashi:

For there is a hand on the throne of the Eternal: Heb. כִּי-יָד עַל כֵּס יָ-הּ. The hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, was raised to swear by His throne, to have a war and hatred against Amalek for eternity. Now what is the meaning of כֵּס [as opposed to כִּסֵא and also [why is] the Divine Name divided in half? [I.e., why is the Name יָ-הּ used instead of י-ה-ו-ה ?] [The answer is that] the Holy One, blessed be He, swore that[B] His Name will not be complete and His throne will not be complete until the name of Amalek is completely obliterated. And when his name is obliterated, the Divine Name will be complete, and the throne will be complete, as it is said: ?The enemy has been destroyed; swords exist forever (לָנֶצַח)? (Ps. 9:7); this [who they are referring to] is Amalek, about whom it is written: ?and kept their fury forever (נֶצַח)? (Amos 1:11). "And You have uprooted the cities-their remembrance is lost" (Ps. 9:7) [i.e., Amalek?s obliteration]. What does it say afterwards? ?And the Lord (וַיהוה) shall sit forever? (Ps. 9:8); thus [after Amalek is obliterated] the Name is complete. "He has established His throne (כִּסְאוֹ) for judgment" (Ps. 9:8). Thus the throne is complete [i.e., thus the throne, here spelled with an ?aleph,? is now complete]. ? [from Midrash Tanchuma, end of Ki Theitzei]

Thanks for the quote sylvius. It shows the power of cherry picking. When I was a believer, I would have focused on the fact that Rashi's comments naturally link with the main ideas I used in my development of Spoke 11 of the Bible Wheel. The 11th letter is Kaph which Rabbi Munk says represents God's throne (kissey) of glory (kavod). I used this as the basis of my articles on Spoke 11, the first of which I called Kaph: The Throne of Glory (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Kaph_Glory.php). This fit very well with the story of King Solomon found in Book 11 corresponding to Kaph on the Bible Wheel where God "established" (kun) Solomon's throne (kissey).

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Kaph_KeyWords.jpg

Kaph literally means "open hand" or "palm of the hand" which naturally represents a person lifting their hands in prayer as mentioned in your quote (though the alternate word for had yad is used there). Here's a classic pic of Solomon when he lifted his kaph to heaven to pray to God in Book 11 on Spoke 11 of the Bible Wheel, as it is written in 1 Kings 8:22:

And Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands (kaph) toward heaven: And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart.

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Kaph_SolomonPraying.jpg

And so it was in Book 11 that God promised Solomon that " I will establish (kun) the throne (kissey) of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne (kissey) of Israel."

When I was a believer, I would have said that Kaph represents anything but "disorder, imperfection and disintegration" in that it represents the establishment of Solomon on his the throne of glory, which I took as a symbol of Christ on his eternal throne of glory.

So what do you think sylvius? Were my observations about the relation between Spoke 11 and the 11th letter valid? Or do you agree with the "biblical numerics" people who say that Kaph represents "disorder, imperfection, and disintegration"? Or do you think it represents something else? Or all these things? Or is it impossible to know?

[sylvius]

Thanks for the quote sylvius. It shows the power of cherry picking. When I was a believer, I would have focused on the fact that Rashi's comments naturally link with the main ideas I used in my development of Spoke 11 of the Bible Wheel. The 11th letter is Kaph which Rabbi Munk says represents God's throne (kissey) of glory (kavod). I used this as the basis of my articles on Spoke 11, the first of which I called Kaph: The Throne of Glory (http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Kaph_Glory.php). This fit very well with the story of King Solomon found in Book 11 corresponding to Kaph on the Bible Wheel where God "established" (kun) Solomon's throne (kissey).

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Kaph_KeyWords.jpg

Kaph literally means "open hand" or "palm of the hand" which naturally represents a person lifting their hands in prayer as mentioned in your quote (though the alternate word for had yad is used there). Here's a classic pic of Solomon when he lifted his kaph to heaven to pray to God in Book 11 on Spoke 11 of the Bible Wheel, as it is written in 1 Kings 8:22:

And Solomon stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands (kaph) toward heaven: And he said, LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee, in heaven above, or on earth beneath, who keepest covenant and mercy with thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart.

http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/Spokes/Kaph_SolomonPraying.jpg

And so it was in Book 11 that God promised Solomon that " I will establish (kun) the throne (kissey) of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne (kissey) of Israel."

When I was a believer, I would have said that Kaph represents anything but "disorder, imperfection and disintegration" in that it represents the establishment of Solomon on his the throne of glory, which I took as a symbol of Christ on his eternal throne of glory.

So what do you think sylvius? Were my observations about the relation between Spoke 11 and the 11th letter valid? Or do you agree with the "biblical numerics" people who say that Kaph represents "disorder, imperfection, and disintegration"? Or do you think it represents something else? Or all these things? Or is it impossible to know?

1) Where did you get that Rabbi Munk says that Kaph represents God's throne (kissey) of glory (kavod) ?

I don't find such in th 11th chapter of his "The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet".

He is working out the concept of crown "keter" like mentioned in the Talmud Shabbos 104a.

2) Kaph does not mean "open hand".

Rabbi Munk: "The name "kaf" means bent [ from "kafuf"]. for the letter derives its name from its bent shape. In fact many objects of a bent shape are called "kaf":
a spoon; the palm of the hand; the sole of the foot; palm branches; the hip socket."

1 Kings 8:22
And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands towards heaven.

וַיִּפְרֹשׂ כַּפָּיו הַשָּׁמָיִם, "vayifros kappav hashamayim"

"paras" = to spread, stretch out, expand
"paras et kappav" = to spread out the bent (hand)


3) It's quite arbitrary to assign the letter Kaph to the 11th book of the Torah. The only reason for that seems to be that it has to fit in your Bible Wheel.

[sylvius]

The final Kaph is special.

We saw it as last letter of the ten commandments (first version written with 620 letters) of which was said that it represents the stone of the crown "keter" (of which the first kletter is "kaf")

Final Kaph is called "kaf z'kifah" = erect Kaph.

"z'kifah" = (penile) erection

Genesis 32:26

When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob's hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him.

"hip socket" seems to be kind of eufemism

it is "kaf yarech" = כַּף יֶרֶךְ -- the palm of the hip

It is said to mean that Jacob since then couldn't get an erection any more.

[thebluetriangle]

I was following your lead Bill. You included the naming of the expanse "sky" on your garden page so I included the other things that were named like seas, day, and night.

It was on your suggestion I took sky out! I agreed that for the purposes of the test we should stick to things God did rather than names God chose. Now, it may be that the names are indeed encoded and there is nothing wrong with adding names to the list and testing an overall list of all of God's words and actions. But that should still exclude things like 'darkness', 'evening' 'morning'. If we are going to be consistent we really need several lists:

1. Things Genesis states that God made, such as 'the heavens', 'light', etc.
2. Things Genesis states God made and manipulated, which is the above list plus 'the water' which he separated.
3. Things Genesis states God made, manipulated and named, which now includes 'day', etc.
4. Things named in the narrative, which now includes 'darkness', etc.

There is also the question of what God commanded ('let there be light') and what happened (and there was light). However, testing the first instance of every word or phrase usually cares care of that issue.

As for duplication, you were initially arguing for including every version of created things (trees, trees that bear fruit, etc). I didn't do that in my webpage, and I'm still not sure whether all versions should be there or not. But again it doesn't seem to matter because whatever way the list is drawn up, results better than average are consistently found.

My last list (the 31) was done according to the second set of principles above, which seems perfectly logical to me. Your list is based on the fourth set of principles, but it wasn't consistently applying them. Neither did I at first, and it's very difficult to decide in any case, so I was not criticising, just observing that you had made much of my own lack of consistency, but weren't being consistent yourself.


You then said if I included those things I should also include evening and morning, so that's what I did.

Yes, by the logic of your own list, which does not test what i am claiming in the webpage. We have been trying lists based on other principles, and there's no reason why we shouldn't, but if we are testing my original claim, that the things God created are encoded, then that is what the lists should contain.


I trust you can see why I pressed so hard to get you to define the general principles you use to create your lists. Without well-defined general principles that can be consistently applied by people other than yourself, your claims cannot be tested objectively. You can't state, let alone test, a hypothesis if it has not been sufficiently well defined. And most importantly, there is no way to check for cherry picking if you don't have well defined general principles.

I agree that we should be as consistent as possible, yes. However, if we are finding that every list either of us creates is giving results better than average then we cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a real phenomenon. And this is what we are finding!


Again, YOU are the one who included the naming of "sky" in your list. I was was fallowing your lead. And you contradict yourself when you include "the water" which was NOT explicitly stated as something that God created.

No, but it was the object of a creative act, the separation of that body of water. That was why I included it.


Why wouldn't the coding of darkness be in Genesis 1 where we also find light? By that logic, the ark wouldn't be in Genesis 1 either!

1. Light is named in that narrative as being created. Darkness isn't.

2. The ark encodings are a different piece of code. There are lots of different encodings overlapping each other here. There are
a) 'regular' pieces of code, like the four ark encodings and the signature of Christ,
b) ELS codes,
c) double witness codes

The double witness ark codes cover different topics. God's creations are one topic, the tabernacle and ark within are another.


Not true. I did not merely "shorten" the list. I removed duplicated pairs, which is what you said I should do.

yes, but it did have the effect of shortening the list, and even though it did not lower the percentage of hits much, shortening the list changes the statistical significance. Look at the following list.

List 1 has 10 items, 7 of which are hits.
List 2 has 30 items, 21 of which are hits.
List three has 100 items, 70 of which are hits.

Now look at the binomial probabilities of obtaining the 70% hits we got in each case (using 0.55 as the probability of success):

List 1: p = 0.266, or 1 in 4
List 2: p = 0.0694, or 1 in 14
List 3: p = 0.00154, or 1 in 650

The same percentage of hits gives totally different levels of statistical significance, depending only on how many items were on the list.

Claiming that your new list of 29 shows nothing of significance is meaningless, in other words, because the percantage of hits was only slightly lower than we've been getting all along! What does mean something, however, is the demonstrable fact, demonstrable because you have amply demonstrated it in your own charted results, as I have with my binomial probabilities, which match your charts very well now, is that every list we have created has given results better than average! In other words, little Olaf was not a large pygmy at all, he is a small swede. In fact we didn't take his age into account. He is also a young swede, not fully grown, If we wait until he is older, equivalent to increasing the number of items on our list, we find that Olaf is about as tall as the average swede, well clear of pygmy territory.


Yeah, the top 15% of a RANDOM list! LOL. That's no sign of any "code". There is nothing coded. This is self-evident because you cannot discern between a "coded" text and a random text. Being in the top 15% of a RANDOM set is no sign of any code.

Well, I hope my previous comments put paid to this rubbish.


Is there anyway for you to know if a particular pair was "coded" or not? Nope! So where's the "code"? You have a "code" that doesn't actually code anything. It looks like all you are doing is trying to justify the stories you make up by showing that some words fit in the grid, as if you couldn't justify any story ever told that way. Seriously! I can use your method to justify ISLAM! The Grid contains the most important Islamic statement, the Basmala, as well as the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad. You dismissed those "codes" because you didn't like them, which proves that your method proves nothing at all.

But Richard, the words fit the grid more often than they should! That is the sign of the code! Remember, the longest list so far, the combined list with 55 items, gave about 3.5 standard deviations above the mean. That's one big Viking! 3.5 standard deviations above the mean is well above the minimum level of statistical significance required in the pharmaceutical industry, for example. It show a real effect, an effect that becomes more apparent as we lengthen the lists, because it becomes more and more difficult to beat the odds. Any gambler who could beat the odds by even 1 sd would soon be rich - and not by luck either: it would either be a systemhe had developed or inside information. Well, guess what? I have no system here, no cherries were picked. It was inside information. I was given the Key,I was shown where to look and I was given information as I went along to keep me on track. I was led directly to the field where the treasure is buried, given the spade and told where to dig.

How impressive is impressive? I dig with my spade and find an old battered coin. You look on, unimpressed, forgetting that I've already have a little pile of coins I've dug up. But the more I dig the more I find. I see you don't find 1 and a bit sd above the mean impressive, well neither do I. But nearly all of them have been 2.5 to 3 sd above the mean. The last one was 3.5 sd above the mean. A longer list will likely be even more impressive.

Yes, there are misses, and you are assuming that encoded material must give 100% results. But the 'misses' are caused by the changes we had to make to the lists to make them suitable for testing. As I said before, shooting a flying bird so you can measure it and stuff it in a cage stops it from flying in the first place. the code was not done by rote and there are subtleties we miss when we change a list so it conforms to tet requirements. However, there should still be something left to measure and that is what we find. The percentage above the mean we consistently find (about 20%) is the 'something left', the signal that there is a real live code here.


Strict rules? Don't be ridiculous. You rightly complained about my list having "duplications" but then included three variations of the "ark" in your list!

the ark of the testimony 1754 arown eduwth 730
of this ark 494 arown 256
a chest 317 arown 257

All three of those pairs refer to the same object, the ark. You padded your list with duplications because you knew they were in the grid. And you omitted the most salient pair "ark/arown" because you knew it was not in the grid!

Your cherry picking is transparently obvious. Your list is rigged.

I included 'the tabernacle' as well as the ark, but I justify both on account of the fact that this is the name of the complete structure in both cases. 'A chest' (of acacia wood) is not 'the ark of the testimony' - it is just the basic box, and a chest without a cover at that!. All the other items - the cover, the cherubim etc, add to it until we have the complete ark. I did mention this before and justified adding 'the ark of the testimony' because of it importance. It's certainly arguable though, so let's just leave it out, although I insist on leaving 'a chest' in, for the reasons stated above. We now have 25 on the lst, 20 of which are found in the Garden (80%). This gives a p value of 0.0085(1 in 118). Now if we add this to your own list of 29, we have 54 items giving 41 hits, giving a p value of 0.0012 (1 in 826).

As you see, the tabernacle list is going to survive any accusation of cherry picking you make. The probabilities may increase a bit, but not by much. More importantly, the larger the lists are going to be immune to any cherry picking, or for that matter hypothetical 'negative padding', by someone who desperately wants the code to be a mirage.

The code is no mirage though. It is real and invites you to drink from the Living Waters of God's Word.

[sylvius]

The final Kaph is special.

We saw it as last letter of the ten commandments (first version written with 620 letters) of which was said that it represents the stone of the crown "keter" (of which the first kletter is "kaf")

Final Kaph is called "kaf z'kifah" = erect Kaph.

"z'kifah" = (penile) erection

Genesis 32:26

When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob's hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him.

"hip socket" seems to be kind of eufemism

it is "kaf yarech" = כַּף יֶרֶךְ -- the palm of the hip

It is said to mean that Jacob since then couldn't get an erection any more.

cf. Genesis 47:29,

When the time drew near for Israel to die, he called his son Joseph and said to him, "If I have now found favor in your eyes, now place your hand beneath my thigh, and you shall deal with me with lovingkindness and truth; do not bury me now in Egypt


שִׂים נָא יָדְךָ תַּחַת יְרֵכִי, "sim na yadcha tachat y'reichi" = please place your hand beneath my hip

Rashi:

now place your hand beneath my thigh: And swear. ? [from Pirkei d?Rabbi Eliezer ch. 39] As explained in the narrative of Abraham and Eliezer (Gen. 24:2), he meant that Joseph should swear by covenant of the circumcision.

Genesis 24:2,
And Abraham said to his servant, the elder of his house, who ruled over all that was his, "Please place your hand under my thigh.

Rashi:

under my thigh: (Shev. 38) Since one who swears must take with his hand an article related to a mitzvah such as a Torah scroll or Tefillin, and circumcision was his first mitzvah, and he had fulfilled it with pain, it was dear to him; so he took it.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

1) Where did you get that Rabbi Munk says that Kaph represents God's throne (kissey) of glory (kavod) ?

I don't find such in th 11th chapter of his "The Wisdom in the Hebrew Alphabet".

From his book Wisdom of the Hebrew Alphabet, pg 138. Here is the full quote:

The ל is a majestic Letter, towering above the other Letters from its position in the center of the Alphabet. Thus it symbolizes the King of Kings, the Supreme Ruler. On one side Lamed is flanked by the כ (Kaph) which alludes to the kiseh hakavod, God's Throne of Glory, while on its other side stands מ (Mem), the Attribute of malkuth, God's Kingship. Together, these three Letters spell מלך (Melek, King).



He is working out the concept of crown "keter" like mentioned in the Talmud Shabbos 104a.

Yep. Because Keter starts with Kaph, like kissey (throne), kavod (glory), kun (establish), etc.



2) Kaph does not mean "open hand".

Rabbi Munk: "The name "kaf" means bent [ from "kafuf"]. for the letter derives its name from its bent shape. In fact many objects of a bent shape are called "kaf":
a spoon; the palm of the hand; the sole of the foot; palm branches; the hip socket."

1 Kings 8:22
And Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands towards heaven.

וַיִּפְרֹשׂ כַּפָּיו הַשָּׁמָיִם, "vayifros kappav hashamayim"

"paras" = to spread, stretch out, expand
"paras et kappav" = to spread out the bent (hand)

Your comments are consistent with the idea of an "open" hand. You can't see the palm if it is closed.



3) It's quite arbitrary to assign the letter Kaph to the 11th book of the Torah. The only reason for that seems to be that it has to fit in your Bible Wheel.
Indeed! Just like all your numerology is quite arbitrary.

Pot meet kettle. :lol:

[sylvius]

The final Kaph is special.

We saw it as last letter of the ten commandments (first version written with 620 letters) of which was said that it represents the stone of the crown "keter" (of which the first kletter is "kaf")

Final Kaph is called "kaf z'kifah" = erect Kaph.

"z'kifah" = (penile) erection

Genesis 32:26

When he saw that he could not prevail against him, he touched the socket of his hip, and the socket of Jacob's hip became dislocated as he wrestled with him.

"hip socket" seems to be kind of eufemism

it is "kaf yarech" = כַּף יֶרֶךְ -- the palm of the hip

It is said to mean that Jacob since then couldn't get an erection any more.


only that it is "kaf z'kufah"

http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?2235-Lucifer-in-Septuagint&p=68608#post68608

[sylvius]

Indeed! Just like all your numerology is quite arbitrary.

Pot meet kettle. :lol:

It's just that 666 happens to be gematria of "yom shishi" , i.e. "yom hashishi" without "hey"

[sylvius]

It's just that 666 happens to be gematria of "yom shishi" , i.e. "yom hashishi" without "hey"

The letter "hey" being the sign of circumcision, it is the letter that Abrahm got added to his name when he did circumcise himself and all the members of his household.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It's just that 666 happens to be gematria of "yom shishi" , i.e. "yom hashishi" without "hey"
Yep. Just like "it just so happens" that galgal (wheel) = 66 = the number of books in the Bible Wheel. :p

By what principle do you accept one as significant and ignore the other?

[sylvius]

Yep. Just like "it just so happens" that galgal (wheel) = 66 = the number of books in the Bible Wheel. :p

By what principle do you accept one as significant and ignore the other?


the "1-4 principle" that is expressed in the 1:4 ratio of the two trees

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yep. Just like "it just so happens" that galgal (wheel) = 66 = the number of books in the Bible Wheel. :p

By what principle do you accept one as significant and ignore the other?

the "1-4 principle" that is expressed in the 1:4 ratio of the two trees
You didn't answer my question (as usual).

How does the "1-4 principle" justify your belief in your 666 thing in Genesis?

How does the "1-4 principle" justify your rejection of the relation between 66 and the Bible Wheel?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It was on your suggestion I took sky out! I agreed that for the purposes of the test we should stick to things God did rather than names God chose. Now, it may be that the names are indeed encoded and there is nothing wrong with adding names to the list and testing an overall list of all of God's words and actions. But that should still exclude things like 'darkness', 'evening' 'morning'. If we are going to be consistent we really need several lists:

1. Things Genesis states that God made, such as 'the heavens', 'light', etc.
2. Things Genesis states God made and manipulated, which is the above list plus 'the water' which he separated.
3. Things Genesis states God made, manipulated and named, which now includes 'day', etc.
4. Things named in the narrative, which now includes 'darkness', etc.

<snip>

My last list (the 31) was done according to the second set of principles above, which seems perfectly logical to me. Your list is based on the fourth set of principles, but it wasn't consistently applying them. Neither did I at first, and it's very difficult to decide in any case, so I was not criticising, just observing that you had made much of my own lack of consistency, but weren't being consistent yourself.

Bill,

To my eye, it looks like you are deliberately designing your "principles" to get the result you want. It looks like a transparent form of data manipulation, not really different than cherry picking because first you look at the data, check to see what "fits" the pattern you are trying to prove, and then you craft "principles" that are designed to select that specific data you want.

And it seems that your list of 31 does not even follow those principles anyway. Just as God "manipulated" the water when he "separated the water under the expanse from the water above it" so also he "manipulated" the light and the darkness when he "separated the light from the darkness."

I will wait for you to produce a list that follows a clearly stated set of objective principles that are not obviously crafted to give the results you are hoping to find. Until you do that, the statistics will be meaningless.



I included 'the tabernacle' as well as the ark, but I justify both on account of the fact that this is the name of the complete structure in both cases. 'A chest' (of acacia wood) is not 'the ark of the testimony' - it is just the basic box, and a chest without a cover at that!. All the other items - the cover, the cherubim etc, add to it until we have the complete ark. I did mention this before and justified adding 'the ark of the testimony' because of it importance. It's certainly arguable though, so let's just leave it out, although I insist on leaving 'a chest' in, for the reasons stated above. We now have 25 on the lst, 20 of which are found in the Garden (80%). This gives a p value of 0.0085(1 in 118). Now if we add this to your own list of 29, we have 54 items giving 41 hits, giving a p value of 0.0012 (1 in 826).

The translation of "arun" as "chest" in that instance is a perfect example of why I say the NIV (1984) is an inferior translation. There is no justification to translate the same Hebrew word differently in that one verse than in every other place it occurs in reference to the ark. Simply stated, it is an inconsistent, misleading, confusing, bad translation. And that is why every other English translation I have ever seen translates "arun" consistently as "ark" in Exodus 25:22. I'm talking about the 22 English translations listed on this page (http://biblehub.com/exodus/25-10.htm) which includes Young's Literal Translation, the King James, the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, and even the NIV (2011), to name a few. They ALL translate "arun" as "ark." The NIV (1984) is the only English translation I've seen that differs on this point.

The fact that the current version of the NIV corrected the mistranslation of arun as "chest" made me curious about what other changes were made in the NIV (2011) version, and why you are so adamant that your code depends specifically on the NIV (1984). It didn't take long to find the answer. I found this site (http://www.biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/#002-025) that lists all the changes for the entire Bible. The changes in Exodus 25 are particularly destructive to your code, because not only does it translate arun as "ark" but it also changed "ark of the Testimony" to "ark of the covenant law", and neither "the ark of the covenant law" nor "ark of the covenant law" are found in the grid. If it was so important to God, why did he not influence the translators to protect his code? He supposedly had no trouble influencing the translators of the 1984 version. What happened? Can you explain this?

And this brings up a huge issue with your claim (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68120#post68120) that the NIV being the "most popular" and the "best selling" translation. That's an ambiguous statement. Yes, the NIV is the best seller, but which version? The NIV (1984) may have been the best seller for a while in the past, but not anymore, because that version (which your code critically depends upon) is OUT OF PRINT and has been since 2012. See this article The Death of The NIV 1984 Bible (1984-2012) (https://zusings.com/2013/01/22/the-death-of-the-niv-1984-bible-1984-2012/).

Can you please explain why God would influence the translators of the 1984 version to encode his message, and then have that version taken out of print and replaced with a version that destroys the heart of his code? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.



As you see, the tabernacle list is going to survive any accusation of cherry picking you make. The probabilities may increase a bit, but not by much. More importantly, the larger the lists are going to be immune to any cherry picking, or for that matter hypothetical 'negative padding', by someone who desperately wants the code to be a mirage.

The code is no mirage though. It is real and invites you to drink from the Living Waters of God's Word.
I totally disagree. I see no sign of any code whatsoever. The slight statistical anomaly looks like the result of cherry picking and data manipulation (by carefully crafting "principles" that select the data that fits your pattern).

[thebluetriangle]

I promised I would create a longer list of items from Genesis 1 and here it is. This is essentially every spiritual idea, material thing, quality and period of time refered to in the text, up to the end of the seventh day. So it runs from Genesis 1.1 to Genesis 2.3. The definite article is included with the noun if present in the NIV text, otherwise there are either no modifiers or the minimum required to define the concept. In the Hebrew, I took out any conjunctions and prepositions, if present. I avoided pronouns and verbs, and any adjectives and adverbs, unless they were part of the noun phrase. I included only the first mention of the particular phrasing of a concept and ignored it thereafter, but included alternative phrasings ('day', 'the day', etc), again taking only the first instance in each case, which appears to be the general principle for the double-witness encodings.

I am not claiming that every noun or noun phrase in Genesis 1 or elsewhere is encoded, so some dilution of the material that is encoded can be expected. However, if the code is real then we can expect a signal to be present, by which I mean that the percentage of paired English/Hebrew phrases present in the Garden (Genesis 1.1-5) should be higher than the 55% average (or thereabouts) we have come to expect. In fact if there is dilution then this may even be further evidence that there really is an anomally there, rather than the higher percentage of hits we have so far seen (about 75%) being caused by some incidental property of the text, or by the test itself.

Here is the list, which is 70 itsems long. I've given just the English word or phrase here, but the standard value of both the English and Hebrew versions (English first).

God 71/86
the heavens 782/395
the earth 517/296
darkness 370/328
the surface of the deep 1081/591
the spirit of God 828/300
the waters 1109/95
light 254/207
the light 467/212
the darkness 583/333
day 705/56
night 274/75
evening 526/272
morning 306/302
the first day 1323/69
an expanse 882/380
water 796/90
the expanse 1044/385
the water 1009/95
sky 820/390
the second day 1140/416
dry ground 1305/322
land 85/291
the gathered waters 1429/276
seas 206/100
vegetation 937/305
seed-bearing plants 329/976
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019/2439
trees bearing fruit with seed in it 2268/1609
the third day 1229/706
lights 354/641
the day 918/61
the night 487/80
signs 266/831
seasons 416/170
days 805/100
years 896/400
great lights 657/738
the greater light 865/778
the lesser light 797/416
the stars 704/103
the expanse of the sky 2143/775
the fourth day 1582/348
living creatures 1299/590
birds 205/156
the great creatures of the sea 1695/647
living and moving thing 1400/1403
winged bird 680/306
the seas 419/100
the birds 418/161
the fifth day 1147/424
livestock 827/52
creatures that move along the ground 2580/540
wild animals 774/715
the wild animals 987/714
the livestock 1040/57
man in our image 662/263
the face of the whole earth 1414/486
tree that has fruit with seed in it 2522/1678
the fish 336/407
the beasts 621/418
everything that has the breath of life in it 2895/453
the creatures that move on the ground 2755/942
green plant 508/682
the creatures that move along the ground 2793/1486
man in his own image 939/218
male and female 163/390
living creature that moves on the ground 3047/1364
the sixth day 1835/671
the seventh day 1686/453

I tested each one myself and found that 48 of the 70 items are found in the Garden, or 69%. In terms of binomial probabilities, p = 0.0143, or 1 in 70.

This is the lowest success rate either of us have acheived. The prevous lowest was 72% for your shortened list. However, given what I said at the start, a dilution of the encoded material by the inclusion of every noun phrase in there was only to be expected. Forty-eight hits out of seventy items is nine hits more than the expected 39 items (which is 56% of 70). Many of the items on the list are less important phrases, or simple paraphrases of others. I wouldn't expect them to be encoded, so their presence has had the effect of weakening the signal of the code, but not so much that it cannot be detected. It still shines through.

The binomial probability of 1 in 70 is over 2 standard deviations above the mean (assuming an expected 55% success rate), and so in a test against of 100 random lists we might expect only one or two random lists to beat it.

I said that higher numbers of items should show the code more clearly. For example, my list of 26 items gave 21 hits (81%), which was a 1 in 173 shot. For a list 70 items long 81% would have been 57 hits, which would have been a 1 in 300,000 shot! Your list of 29 items gave 21 hits (72%). For a list 70 items long that would have given 51 hits, which is a 1 in 600 shot.

We can compare the success rate with previous lists in terms of percentage hits above a putative mean of 55% hits.

My list of 31: 22% above the mean
My list of 26: 26% above the mean
Your list of 43: 22% above the mean
Your list of 29: 17% above the mean
My list of 70: 14% above the mean.

So you see the dilution effect here quite clearly. The 20% - 25% hits above the mean we have regularly been acheiving is not due to some inherent problem with the method or cherry picking, or some unanticipated feature of the text, but from dilution of the encoded material with other material that has not been encoded in the Garden. It also shows your latest list in a poor light, as it is closest to the 'base' level of 14% hits above the mean, and so looks as if it also contains more unencoded material than average.

I'd also like to point out that yet again we have a better result than average. If the numbers we are obtaining from the text are purely random, where are the results zero standard deviations above the mean? Where are the results 2 or 3 standard deviations below the mean? I think we can now state with surety that the Garden shows design features. It is not a wilderness of numbers, but has been landscaped.

The average percentage of hits above the 55% mean in our tests is 20%, giving 75% hits overall. Using that as a working average we can show just how unlikely it is that the double witness phenomenon (which is what we are measuring here) should have simply appeared within the text, by tabulating the possible number of encoded number pairs against the improbability of that occurrence. I am assuming that there should be 55% hits randomly acheived but that there are actually 75% hits acheived. The probabilities are cumulative (ie they show the probability of getting 75% hits or better).

For 20 possible Hebrew/English pairs in the Garden, 15 would be found there, a 1-in-18 shot.
For 40 possible Hebrew/English pairs in the Garden, 30 would be found there, a 1-in-135 shot.
For 60 possible Hebrew/English pairs in the Garden, 45 would be found there, a 1-in-900 shot.
For 80 possible Hebrew/English pairs in the Garden, 60 would be found there, a 1-in-5700 shot
For 100 possible Hebrew/English pairs in the Garden, 75 would be found there, a 1-in-35000 shot.
For 200 possible Hebrew/English pairs in the Garden, 150 would be found there, a 1-in-250 million shot.

In other words, the more Hebrew/English pairs from the Bible we find there (with a 3-to-1 hit-to-miss ratio) the less likely it is to be random - and of course the more likely it is to be a code. How many Hebrew/English pairs are actually likely to be found there? I don't know, but given that many different phrases share the same standard value, there is no upper limit to the number of phrases in English and Hebrew that might be found together in the Garden. I have found many more than I've shown in my site and I think it quite feasible that I've only scratched the surface of what might be there as double-witness codes, never mind everything else that has been encoded there.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I promised I would create a longer list of items from Genesis 1 and here it is. This is essentially every spiritual idea, material thing, quality and period of time refered to in the text, up to the end of the seventh day. So it runs from Genesis 1.1 to Genesis 2.3. The definite article is included with the noun if present in the NIV text, otherwise there are either no modifiers or the minimum required to define the concept. In the Hebrew, I took out any conjunctions and prepositions, if present. I avoided pronouns and verbs, and any adjectives and adverbs, unless they were part of the noun phrase. I included only the first mention of the particular phrasing of a concept and ignored it thereafter, but included alternative phrasings ('day', 'the day', etc), again taking only the first instance in each case, which appears to be the general principle for the double-witness encodings.

I am not claiming that every noun or noun phrase in Genesis 1 or elsewhere is encoded, so some dilution of the material that is encoded can be expected. However, if the code is real then we can expect a signal to be present, by which I mean that the percentage of paired English/Hebrew phrases present in the Garden (Genesis 1.1-5) should be higher than the 55% average (or thereabouts) we have come to expect. In fact if there is dilution then this may even be further evidence that there really is an anomally there, rather than the higher percentage of hits we have so far seen (about 75%) being caused by some incidental property of the text, or by the test itself.

Here is the list, which is 70 itsems long. I've given just the English word or phrase here, but the standard value of both the English and Hebrew versions (English first).

God 71/86
the heavens 782/395
the earth 517/296
darkness 370/328
the surface of the deep 1081/591
the spirit of God 828/300
the waters 1109/95
light 254/207
the light 467/212
the darkness 583/333
day 705/56
night 274/75
evening 526/272
morning 306/302
the first day 1323/69
an expanse 882/380
water 796/90
the expanse 1044/385
the water 1009/95
sky 820/390
the second day 1140/416
dry ground 1305/322
land 85/291
the gathered waters 1429/276
seas 206/100
vegetation 937/305
seed-bearing plants 329/976
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019/2439
trees bearing fruit with seed in it 2268/1609
the third day 1229/706
lights 354/641
the day 918/61
the night 487/80
signs 266/831
seasons 416/170
days 805/100
years 896/400
great lights 657/738
the greater light 865/778
the lesser light 797/416
the stars 704/103
the expanse of the sky 2143/775
the fourth day 1582/348
living creatures 1299/590
birds 205/156
the great creatures of the sea 1695/647
living and moving thing 1400/1403
winged bird 680/306
the seas 419/100
the birds 418/161
the fifth day 1147/424
livestock 827/52
creatures that move along the ground 2580/540
wild animals 774/715
the wild animals 987/714
the livestock 1040/57
man in our image 662/263
the face of the whole earth 1414/486
tree that has fruit with seed in it 2522/1678
the fish 336/407
the beasts 621/418
everything that has the breath of life in it 2895/453
the creatures that move on the ground 2755/942
green plant 508/682
the creatures that move along the ground 2793/1486
man in his own image 939/218
male and female 163/390
living creature that moves on the ground 3047/1364
the sixth day 1835/671
the seventh day 1686/453

I tested each one myself and found that 48 of the 70 items are found in the Garden, or 69%. In terms of binomial probabilities, p = 0.0143, or 1 in 70.


Any reason you left out "man" and "woman"?

[thebluetriangle]

Any reason you left out "man" and "woman"?

Yes, 'woman' doesn't appear until Genesis 2.22. I was sticking to Genesis 1.1 to 2.3, which covers the initial seven days. I chose 'man in our image' for the initial instance of the word 'man'. It doesn't matter in terms of hits because 'man'/adam' is there', but before the Fall man was pure, so 'man in our image' distinguishes Adam as he was created from simply 'man'.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, 'woman' doesn't appear until Genesis 2.22. I was sticking to Genesis 1.1 to 2.3, which covers the initial seven days. I chose 'man in our image' for the initial instance of the word 'man'. It doesn't matter in terms of hits because 'man'/adam' is there', but before the Fall man was pure, so 'man in our image' distinguishes Adam as he was created from simply 'man'.
I can accept your reason for omitting woman and Eve, but your reason for omitting man makes no sense to me at all. Man is created in Genesis 1. I don't see how you could omit him without being inconsistent.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I promised I would create a longer list of items from Genesis 1 and here it is. This is essentially every spiritual idea, material thing, quality and period of time refered to in the text, up to the end of the seventh day. So it runs from Genesis 1.1 to Genesis 2.3. The definite article is included with the noun if present in the NIV text, otherwise there are either no modifiers or the minimum required to define the concept. In the Hebrew, I took out any conjunctions and prepositions, if present. I avoided pronouns and verbs, and any adjectives and adverbs, unless they were part of the noun phrase. I included only the first mention of the particular phrasing of a concept and ignored it thereafter, but included alternative phrasings ('day', 'the day', etc), again taking only the first instance in each case, which appears to be the general principle for the double-witness encodings.

<snip>

the gathered waters 1429/276

I'm checking your list and found most of your pairs look correct so far, but I found an inconsistency in the Hebrew translated as "the gathered waters". The value 276 includes the lamed prefix, meaning "to" as discussed previously. The correct value without any conjunction or preposition would be 246.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I promised I would create a longer list of items from Genesis 1 and here it is. This is essentially every spiritual idea, material thing, quality and period of time refered to in the text, up to the end of the seventh day. So it runs from Genesis 1.1 to Genesis 2.3. The definite article is included with the noun if present in the NIV text, otherwise there are either no modifiers or the minimum required to define the concept. In the Hebrew, I took out any conjunctions and prepositions, if present. I avoided pronouns and verbs, and any adjectives and adverbs, unless they were part of the noun phrase. I included only the first mention of the particular phrasing of a concept and ignored it thereafter, but included alternative phrasings ('day', 'the day', etc), again taking only the first instance in each case, which appears to be the general principle for the double-witness encodings.

<snip>

dry ground 1305/322

The Hebrew has the definite article, but the NIV (1984) did not translate it. I see you included it in the calculation of the Hebrew value. Is that your general policy for cases like this? If so, why? If we remove conjunctions and prepositions, why do we keep the definite article when it is not translated?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

vegetation 937/305
seed-bearing plants 329/976
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019/2439
trees bearing fruit with seed in it 2268/1609
the third day 1229/706

Why did you omit "plants"? They seem as "general" as "vegetation."

[sylvius]

You didn't answer my question (as usual).

How does the "1-4 principle" justify your belief in your 666 thing in Genesis?

How does the "1-4 principle" justify your rejection of the relation between 66 and the Bible Wheel?

Truth doesn't need to be justified :winking0071:



"hashishi" is 434th word

434 = "delet" door, name of the fourth letter.

A door can be shut or open

Genesis 19:5-6,
And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us be intimate with them." And Lot came out to them to the entrance, and he shut the door behind him

וְהַדֶּלֶת סָגַר אַחֲרָיו, "v'hadelet sagar acharav"

You need a key to open it

key = "mafteach" (= opener) = the 1-4 principle

"hey"= 5 = gematria of "1-4" = "ed" (of Genesis 2:6), in LXX translated with πηγὴ

πηγὴ δὲ ἀνέβαινεν ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπότιζεν πᾶν τὸ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς

After this Revelation 21:6,
καὶ εἶπέν μοι Γέγοναν. ἐγὼ τὸ Ἄλφα καὶ τὸ Ὦ, ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ τὸ τέλος. ἐγὼ τῷ διψῶντι δώσω ἐκ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος τῆς ζωῆς δωρεάν. ὁ νικῶν κληρονομήσει ταῦτα,

[sylvius]

Genesis 14:14 is the only instance where gematria comes to the surface of the text.

And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan.

318 being gematria of the name Eliezer.

Rashi:

his trained men: Heb. חֲנִיכָיו. It is written חֲנִיכוֹ [in the singular], his trained man (other editions: It is read). This is Eliezer, whom he had trained to [perform the] commandments, and it [חֲנִיכָיו] is an expression of the initiation (lit. the beginning of the entrance) of a person or a utensil to the craft with which he [or it] is destined to remain,

three hundred and eighteen: Our Sages said (Gen. Rabbah 43:2, Ned. 32a): It was Eliezer alone, and it [the number 318] is the numerical value of his name.


It also says "born in his house" , יְלִידֵי בֵיתוֹ "y'lidiei veito"

cf. Genesis 17:27,
And all the people of his household, those born in his house and those bought with money from foreigners, were circumcised with him.

those born in his house = i.e. Eliezer.

i.e Torah secrets are just for the circumcised

If you are not circumcised you cannot understand

[thebluetriangle]

I can accept your reason for omitting woman and Eve, but your reason for omitting man makes no sense to me at all. Man is created in Genesis 1. I don't see how you could omit him without being inconsistent.

It makes no difference to the final tally, but you are right to question it. My explanation is as above, though. If the text had stated that God had created simply 'man' I would have tested that. But it does not, because man was in a qualitively different state before the Fall. God did not create fallen man. He created man in his own image. If I extend the list to Genesis 2 it will have 'man'.

[thebluetriangle]

I'm checking your list and found most of your pairs look correct so far, but I found an inconsistency in the Hebrew translated as "the gathered waters". The value 276 includes the lamed prefix, meaning "to" as discussed previously. The correct value without any conjunction or preposition would be 246.

Thanks for that. I already knew it wasn't going to be a hit from the English value, so I didn't check the Hebrew as thoroughly I should have done.

[thebluetriangle]

The Hebrew has the definite article, but the NIV (1984) did not translate it. I see you included it in the calculation of the Hebrew value. Is that your general policy for cases like this? If so, why? If we remove conjunctions and prepositions, why do we keep the definite article when it is not translated?

I did it that way originally, but it should have been changed. Thanks for pointing it out. It makes no difference anyway, as both 322 and 317 are in the Garden.

[sylvius]

If you are not circumcised you cannot understand

That must be why Revelation 13:18,

ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου

Revelation 17:9,

ὧδε ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἔχων σοφίαν

νοῦς = the mind of circumcision or circumcised mind

[thebluetriangle]

Bill,

To my eye, it looks like you are deliberately designing your "principles" to get the result you want. It looks like a transparent form of data manipulation, not really different than cherry picking because first you look at the data, check to see what "fits" the pattern you are trying to prove, and then you craft "principles" that are designed to select that specific data you want.

Perhaps you could tell me then why you also are getting hits well above the expected number. Your 43 gave 22% above the random average and your 31 gave 17% above it. In both cases the result was statistically significant according to the standard adopted in many areas of research. You seem to be turning a blind eye to your own results, and to widely-accepted standards of significance.

YOU aren't trying to manipulate the data in the direction of greater hits, are you? The truth is, neither am I. The latest list, which you didn't see when you wrote this, should put your fears of data manipulation to rest, since I essentially put everything in it. With one proviso, I haven't cherry picked, or left things out. I did make a choice regarding what part of a noun phrase to test, but I tried to stick to the same principle throughout - the minimum number of words required to define the object. So for example I had to use 'the spirit of God' because 'the spirit' is not specific enough. Other principles could have been chosen, but if followed they would still have given substantially more than 55% hits. So there is no way to hide the 'statistical anomaly' present. Whatever we display, whatever we hide, the code comes shining through!

This latest list of 70 is NOT a list of material I think is encoded. It's more like a list of everything in the text that might have been encoded. If there is no code, this list should have given about 55% hits. Instead it gave 69% hits, over two standard deviations above the expected mean (although that has still to be done).




And it seems that your list of 31 does not even follow those principles anyway. Just as God "manipulated" the water when he "separated the water under the expanse from the water above it" so also he "manipulated" the light and the darkness when he "separated the light from the darkness."

'The water' was part of what God created and Genesis 1.7 describes a creative act involving water, which is why I included it, rather than 'the waters', which it doesn't state God created. 'The darkness' sounds like something that existed before creation, so not involved in God's creative acts. Separating water into two parts isn't quite the same thing as separating light from darkness, a non-'thing'. It's certainly arguable though.


I will wait for you to produce a list that follows a clearly stated set of objective principles that are not obviously crafted to give the results you are hoping to find. Until you do that, the statistics will be meaningless.

I do not claim that the lists are perfectly consistent. I don't think perfect consistency is possible. What I am claiming is that the 'code signal' is there no matter what principles we choose. What really is meaningless is dismissing the size of a statistical anomaly, when

a) the significance you have been playing down (over 2SDs above the mean) is perfectly okay for the pharmaceutical industry, and
b) the size of that anomaly is as critically dependent upon the number of items on the list as it is on percentage hits.





The translation of "arun" as "chest" in that instance is a perfect example of why I say the NIV (1984) is an inferior translation.

What? I could just as easily point to the ambiguity in the Hebrew word arown. The chest of acacia wood God instructed the Isrealites to make is NOT the full Ark! At that early stage it didn't even have a cover. The NIV is not inferior here. It is SUPERIOR, because it discerns between the ark of the testimony and a plain, coverless box. Your bias here is obvious.



There is no justification to translate the same Hebrew word differently in that one verse than in every other place it occurs in reference to the ark. Simply stated, it is an inconsistent, misleading, confusing, bad translation.

Discernment isn't bad. It's good. At what point does a chest become an ark? Whatever point that is, it is not stage 1, where all you have is a hollow chest without a cover. Is a car a car without doors, wheels, an engine, seats, etc? No, it's just a metallic shell. The NIV is better here, not worse.


And that is why every other English translation I have ever seen translates "arun" consistently as "ark" in Exodus 25:22. I'm talking about the 22 English translations listed on this page (http://biblehub.com/exodus/25-10.htm) which includes Young's Literal Translation, the King James, the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, and even the NIV (2011), to name a few. They ALL translate "arun" as "ark." The NIV (1984) is the only English translation I've seen that differs on this point.


This is a logical fallacy. The correctness or otherwise of the translation doesn't depend on how many other translations are done that way. This is the mentality of the mob, not thinking people.



The fact that the current version of the NIV corrected the mistranslation of arun as "chest" made me curious about what other changes were made in the NIV (2011) version, and why you are so adamant that your code depends specifically on the NIV (1984).

I looked up arown in Strong's. It can mean ark, chest, money chest or even a coffin - which is where your argument belongs.

http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/Strongs.php?Strongs=H0727



It didn't take long to find the answer. I found this site (http://www.biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/#002-025) that lists all the changes for the entire Bible. The changes in Exodus 25 are particularly destructive to your code, because not only does it translate arun as "ark" but it also changed "ark of the Testimony" to "ark of the covenant law", and neither "the ark of the covenant law" nor "ark of the covenant law" are found in the grid. If it was so important to God, why did he not influence the translators to protect his code? He supposedly had no trouble influencing the translators of the 1984 version. What happened? Can you explain this?

Can you explain why you think I should be able to explain this? What I can explain is why only one version has the code. Versions are updated all the time, and since the code is critically dependent upon the wording, only one version COULD have a code. The NIV 1984 may now be out of print, but it is preserved online, and in millions of bibles across the English-speaking world. The 1984 edition (not version) was also the one that was current when the events the code explains were occurring: 9/11 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II. So it isn't just one of the many versions available and although it is in the past now, it was produced to COINCIDE with these two end-times events and was the best selling English Version at the time, English being the international language of choice. If God was going to put a code in the Bible, it would be that version, that edition and that language.




And this brings up a huge issue with your claim (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68120#post68120) that the NIV being the "most popular" and the "best selling" translation. That's an ambiguous statement. Yes, the NIV is the best seller, but which version? The NIV (1984) may have been the best seller for a while in the past, but not anymore, because that version (which your code critically depends upon) is OUT OF PRINT and has been since 2012. See this article The Death of The NIV 1984 Bible (1984-2012) (https://zusings.com/2013/01/22/the-death-of-the-niv-1984-bible-1984-2012/).

Thanks for the link. I'll read it. It's irrelevant though, because it was alive at the time it mattered. You shoot a bird. You put it in a box (sorry, ark). Then you point to it and tell people it doesn't fly any longer so we can forget about it. What mattered was what it did when it was alive. That bird was a stork and the bore the new child the world has been waiting for. Luckily it delivered it before someone got out their blunderbuss.



Can you please explain why God would influence the translators of the 1984 version to encode his message, and then have that version taken out of print and replaced with a version that destroys the heart of his code? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

The code isn't destroyed! It only had to be delivered once. IT'S ALL THERE! 9/11 is in the past too: do we have the memory of goldfish? Who has forgotten about 9/11? The code is information and the message only had to be delivered once. The miracle is that the message is there in the first place. You're like someone who sees an apparition of the Virgin Mary in church then complains that it didn't happen again the next week. Miracles are by their very nature rare things.



I totally disagree. I see no sign of any code whatsoever. The slight statistical anomaly looks like the result of cherry picking and data manipulation (by carefully crafting "principles" that select the data that fits your pattern).

Calling this a 'slight statistical anomaly' is wrong on every level and shows inexcusable bias from one so well educated in mathematics. I've shown you how the more we find the more unlikely it becomes. If we combine the latest list of 70 items with the 25 ark items, so there are no repetitions, giving 68 hits out of a possible 95, we find that the probability of random occurrence is now 1 in 1500. That is well over 3 SDs above the mean and a clear signal to those with ears to hear that the code is real. Those two lists are as fairly compiled as is possible, or pretty close to it, and the biggest list is heavily padded with items that probably aren't encoded anyway - and yet the 'code signal' is still there!

When are you going to accept it?

[thebluetriangle]

Why did you omit "plants"? They seem as "general" as "vegetation."

It's there in 'seed bearing plants'. I missed out 'trees' too and went for 'trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, and all the other versions. If there had been a verse that stated simply 'plants' or 'trees' then I would have put them in. Every different version that actually is there has been included though. That seems like a fair way to do it.

[sylvius]

That must be why Revelation 13:18,

ὁ ἔχων νοῦν ψηφισάτω τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦ θηρίου

Revelation 17:9,

ὧδε ὁ νοῦς ὁ ἔχων σοφίαν

νοῦς = the mind of circumcision or circumcised mind

It is what Paul mentioned "circumcion of the heart"

(to mind something is a matter of the heart)

Romans 2:25-29,
Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law. One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.

[thebluetriangle]

And this brings up a huge issue with your claim (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68120#post68120) that the NIV being the "most popular" and the "best selling" translation. That's an ambiguous statement. Yes, the NIV is the best seller, but which version? The NIV (1984) may have been the best seller for a while in the past, but not anymore, because that version (which your code critically depends upon) is OUT OF PRINT and has been since 2012. See this article The Death of The NIV 1984 Bible (1984-2012) (https://zusings.com/2013/01/22/the-death-of-the-niv-1984-bible-1984-2012/).

Can you please explain why God would influence the translators of the 1984 version to encode his message, and then have that version taken out of print and replaced with a version that destroys the heart of his code? That doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Have you read that article about the death of the NIV 1984? It doesn't exactly help your case that the 1984 edition is inferior. The writer loves that edition (as do I), laments it's passing and points to the link below for a critique of the changes made, mostly it seems to appease the politically correct and feminist lobbies.

https://unlockingfemininity.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/words-matter-why-we-cant-recommend-the-niv-2011-2/

I couldn't agree more. I became aware of this issue with translation in 2011 (coincidentally when the above article was written, when I gave an early manuscript of my book about the code to a somewhat wise Christian, who immediately pounced on my own use of 'gender inclusive' language. I saw he was correct and changed mealy mouthed words like 'humankind' back to 'mankind', etc. It seems the NIV 2011 has been rewritten to conform to the literary requirements the politically correct would like to impose upon the rest of us, and in fact seems to not even be gender neutral but biased against men now - but they won't be complaining about that. I certainly won't be buying it. I liked the 1984 version before I even knew there was a code in it and it's the only version I ever want to have, other than an old KJV I was given for perfect Sunday School attendance. But that's mainly for sentimental reasons.

[thebluetriangle]

After a lot of hard thinking I've come up with a list of nouns in Genesis 1.1 - 2.3 (the seven days of Creation) which is I hope close to truly consistent. In compiling these lists I've been influenced by my early work and the familiarity of the text, but I think I've finally seen past that and gotten a more consistent list. It's simpler to put in the noun or noun phrase without articles and also consistent with the four ark and altar encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html)also found there. Sticking to that principle made compiling the list a lot easier and the list itself is now managably short. I've included in the list only the first instance of every noun, although if the plural form was found later I put that in too. If the noun was part of a noun phrase or included an adjective, that form was used. The individual nouns within the phrase were also included.

Here's the list, which is 81 items long. My primary aim was to be as consistent as possible and avoid any cherry picking or similar errors. I was amazed to find I'd previously missed a few nouns that were sitting there in the text, one right at the beginning ('beginning'). My only excuse is to say that looking at the familiar with new eyes isn't easy. The discussions on this thread certainly helped here, so thanks for them, Richard.

beginning 189/911
God 71/86
heavens 569/390
earth 304/291
darkness 370.328
surface of the deep 868/591
surface 505/140
deep 84/451
spirit of God 615/300
spirit 478/214
waters 896/90
light 254/207
day 705/56
night 274/75
evening 526/272
morning 306/302
expanse 831/380
sky 820/390
dry ground 1305/317
ground 511/206
one place 224/199
place 109/186
land 85/291
seas 206/50
vegetation 937/305
seed-bearing plants 329/976
plants 451/372
seed 114/277
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019/2439
trees on the land that bear fruit
trees 400/160
fruit 605/290
lights 354/641
signs 266/831
seasons 416/170
days 805/100
years 896/400
two great lights 1417/1098
greater light 652/740
lesser light 584/411
stars 491/98
expanse of the sky 1930/775
water 796/90
living creatures 1299/590
creatures 794/590
birds 205/156
great creatures of the sea 1482/642
living and moving thing 1400/1403
winged bird 680/306
living creatures 1299/453
creatures 794/430
livestock 827/52
creatures that move along the ground 2580/540
creatures 794/540
wild animals 774/715
animals 231/430
man in our image, in our likeness 1490/789
likeness 319/450
man in our image 662/263
man 91/45
image of God 199/246
image 62/160
male and female 218/390
male 76/227
female 87/157
face of the whole earth 1201/486
face 15/140
whole earth 907/946
fish of the sea 508/462
fish 407/123
sea 106/50
birds of the air 584/551
air 100/390
breath of life 422/23
breath 306/430
life 50/23
green plant 508/682
food 130/56
vast array 1583/133
work 670/497
work of creating 921/91

Of these 81 items, 59 were found as pairs in the Garden, which is 73%. In terms of statistical significance, assuming a 55% success rate with random pairs, 73% equates to a 1 in 1360 shot. This is well above 3 Sds above the mean (p = 0.0007), which was a surprise even to me. It also depends on the expected success rate and if that varies even by 2& either way, we can expect the significance to go up or down by a factor of 3. This is still, at worst, likely to be about 3 SDs above the mean though.

If we combine this list with my tabernacle items (20 out of 25) to give a longer list of 106 items, 79 of which are found as pairs, the percentage hits increases to 75% and the significance now is 1 in 38200, which is over 4 SDs above the mean (a '4 sigma' result), depending of course on the mean success rate at finding random pairs being 55%.

[thebluetriangle]

The new Bible Code contains a lot of geometry, but the central figure in the code, harbouring its essential message, is a figure I call the September-11 Cube (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437339.html). Here it is.


1514

The September-11 Cube is created by taking the cube of 9, 729, and striking it through three times.

I found cube 729 (cephas, or rock, has a gematria of 729) in the gematria of the 9/11 targets:

The Pentagon (o) = 125, the cube of 5
The World Trade Centre (o) = 218, a cubic shell
218 + 125 + 343, the cube of 7.
The North Tower + The South Tower (o) = 386, another cubic shell
343 + 386 = 729, the cube of 9.

The striking throu was accomplished on 9/11, when three airplanes struck the North Tower from the north (flight 11), the South Tower from the south (flight 175) and the Pentagon from the west (flight 77). The formation of the September-11 cube is illustrated below:


1515

The struck through part is formed from 217 units.

The messsge is revealed by shining a light through the September-11 cube to reveal a hexagon with its internal Star of David, as illustrated below.


1516

The projected figure is hexagon 217 with Star of David 121 and this is the message they send

Christ's Second Coming (o) = 217
Second Coming (o) = 121

Incredibly, the internal structure of the figure is reflected in the words themselves. The three coloured areas in fact give

Christ's = 96 = six rhombuses
Second = 60 = six triangles
Coming = 61 = central hexagon

The Star of David is of course the perfect figure to announce the return of Christ, which was the essential message of 9/11, itself a manifestation of Christ's Second Coming.

One final thing: the three flight numbers, 11, 175 and 77, sum to 263

Messiah (s) = 263
Adam B'tselemenu(Heb) = 263

Just tonight, I realised that the September-11 Cube, its 2D (planar) projection, the event that created it and it's internal structure are all found together within the Garden, alongside Reshith (911) and 'Nine eleven' (609). Most of these numbers only occur once, where you see them. I haven't had time yet to show them all, but the clustering effect around '911' is obvious here.

Behold:


1517

Every single word string overlaps or touches the word string for Reshith, the beginning, with gematria 911. Finding them all in the Garden is a 1-in-20 shot, but finding them all in the second half of the Garden and all touching the 911 word string is far more improbable. Everything is there: cubes 125, 343 and 729, the two cubic shells representing the twin towers/WTC, hexagon 217 and the Star of David hidden inside - now revealed as the symbol of Christ's Second Coming.

Soli deo Gloria!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019/2439
trees on the land that bear fruit

Here there Bill,

I noticed that the numerical values are missing from "trees on the land that bear fruit" and when I went to add them for you I noticed that you included the numerical value of the Hebrew for "after its kind" but didn't include it in the English. I highlighted the word red:



עץ
160 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=160)


פרי
290 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=290)


עשה
375 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=375)


פרי
290 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=290)


למינו
136 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=136)


אשר
501 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=501)


זרעו
283 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=283)


בו
8 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=8)


על
100 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=100)


הארץ
296 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=296)



I think it's problematic to be chopping up the Hebrew in a way that breaks that natural grammar, but if that's what you want to do, OK.

[thebluetriangle]

Here there Bill,

I noticed that the numerical values are missing from "trees on the land that bear fruit" and when I went to add them for you I noticed that you included the numerical value of the Hebrew for "after its kind" but didn't include it in the English. I highlighted the word red:



עץ
160 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=160)


פרי
290 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=290)


עשה
375 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=375)


פרי
290 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=290)


למינו
136 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=136)


אשר
501 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=501)


זרעו
283 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=283)


בו
8 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=8)


על
100 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=100)


הארץ
296 (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=296)



I think it's problematic to be chopping up the Hebrew in a way that breaks that natural grammar, but if that's what you want to do, OK.

Yes, well spotted. To be consistent with the other items on the list I felt it was best to include the longest version: "trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it". But to also include "according to their various kinds" gave an value for the English phrase of over 4600, which was a larger ordinal value than the entire Garden. "According to their various kinds." is a clause at the end of the sentence in English but is found in the middle of the sentence in Hebrew, as you point out. This was the only time I had that issue, if I recall correctly, as that phrase is usually found at the end in both the English and the Hebrew. So it was a choice between adding to the end of the English encoding a phrase I hadn't added to any others, or leaving the equivalent Hebrew phrase in place, rather than cutting it out, and I thought the second option was best.

[sylvius]

It is what Paul mentioned "circumcion of the heart"

(to mind something is a matter of the heart)

Romans 2:25-29,
Circumcision, to be sure, has value if you observe the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. Again, if an uncircumcised man keeps the precepts of the law, will he not be considered circumcised? Indeed, those who are physically uncircumcised but carry out the law will pass judgment on you, with your written law and circumcision, who break the law. One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in the flesh. Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but from God.

Genesis 14:13,
And the fugitive came and he told Abram the Hebrew, and he was living by the oaks of Mamre the Amorite, the brother of Eshkol and the brother of Aner, who were Abram's confederates.

Abram's confederates = בַּעֲלֵי בְרִית אַבְרָם "balaei b'rit Avram"

Rashi:

They gave him advice concerning circumcision (Aggadath Bereishith 19:3), as is explained elsewhere) (below 18:1). [According to Aggadath Bereishith, the covenant mentioned is that of circumcision.]


Genesis 18:1, Now the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot.
Rashi:
He [Mamre] was the one who counseled him about circumcision. Therefore, He appeared to him [Abraham] in his [Mamre's] territory. [from Tan. Vayera 3])


the brother of Eshkol

אֶשְׁכֹּל = cluster (of grapes)

but see this:
http://i138.photobucket.com/albums/q262/suivlys/IMG_9898.jpg (http://s138.photobucket.com/user/suivlys/media/IMG_9898.jpg.html)

Eshkol build from "eshech"= testicles.

By the way, do you think that the priest of the most high was on psychedelics?

Genesis 14:18, And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.

[thebluetriangle]

I thought readers might like to see the 9/11 clustering effect I found in the Garden in more detail.

The new table shows every instance in the Garden of the numbers that define cube 729 and its internal structure, the September-11 Cube created from it by the three strikes, and the 2D projection that anounces Christ's Second Coming. Cube 729 was derived from the three 9/11 targets:

The Pentagon (o) = 125, the cube of 5
The World Trade Centre (o) = 218, a cubic shell that surrounds cube 125 to form cube 343
The North Tower + The South Tower (o) = 386, a cubic shell that surrounds cube 343 to form cube 729

The three strikes affected 217 of the 729 units in the cube to create the September-11 Cube, and the 2D projection that formed hexagon 217 and the Star of David 121.

The event that created the September-11 cube out of cube 729 was of course 9/11, or 'nine eleven'.



1518

Notice how all the word strings except one are clustered together on the right-hand side of the Garden, a very asymmetric pattern. I found and published the details of the September-11 Cube over a decade ago, but only found the Garden in December 2015. Yet every number that defines the cube, along with the event that created it, is there! A random pattern in the text would look nothing like this, and in fact at least a couple of the numbers would likely not be found in the text at all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But the number of overlaps, or the percentages of overlaps, is NOT what I've been stressing! You decided to go down that route. I stated that a single overlap or close proximity between two word strings was enough. That appeared to me at the time be the sign of an encoding. I still think it may be true, in fact, although as I also stated, the code has not been designed by some rote method and there are exceptions - but there are always good reasons for it. You refuse to highlight that in your tests. You are designing your own tests, based on your own (mis)understandings of what the code means, then claiming it means nothing. All you're really showing is that you haven't completely understood it in the first place, which has been true from the start. You are in fact guilty of exactly what I've been guilty of myself many, many times, going all the way back to 2001 when I began: Constructing flawed hypothesis based on limited and misunderstood information, guided not by the Holy Spirit but by your own prejudices, man-made theologies, imagined patterns and personal preferences. We're all guilty of that all the time, and its the hardest thing in the world to see beyond it and think clearly about anything.

<snip>

Whether or not it is significant is one of the things I have been trying to discover. It may be that overlapping is not statistically significant, but we need the actual data to find that out in the first place, data I have requested. I am still as certain as ever that the Garden phenomenon itself is statistically significant, but not so certain about overlapping. It looked important at first, but I had very limited information when I wrote the web page. Remember though, I am talking about a minimum of one single overlap somewhere in the table, not the percentage of overlaps. I never once asked you to test for that. The frequency of pairs with at least a single overlap, on the other hand, is something that can be tested for and its significance determined. This is the phenomenon I highlight on the page - a single overlap or close proximity. 'Close proximity' with or without overlaps is currently subjective, although it can be measured and I have already suggested a test for that. It is important to stress though that the presence of these number pairs in the Garden is just as important and may in fact be the phenomenon that I was meant to find.

You have not proved that at all! Your test comparing the percentage overlaps against randomised pairs did not list the number of single overlaps in each case, which is the information I wanted. Edit: I forgot to answer the most misleading part of your statement, that the numbers are no different from 'random chance'. the randomised pairs were all found in the garden already. They were randomised variants of the original data, all of which is found in there at considerable odds against 'random chance'.

Hey there Bill,

I ran the tests again on the list of 54 pairs (the combined list you asked me to make). I counted one "overlap" if there was at least one overlap. I then shuffled the pairs in the list and ran the test again. As with my original tests, the results are exactly what we would expect from random pairs. The non-randomized list had 31 overlaps, which is just barely (0.19) greater than one standard deviation from the mean.

1520

Now let's compare this to what you claim on you Garden page (link (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html)):



The New Bible Code in founded on a unique two-stage encryption-decryption process (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437272.html). Numbers have been encrypted within the text of the NIV Bible (and elsewhere) under the ordinal value system and are converted into words or phrases under the standard value system. The numbers 'planted' in the garden are no exception. However, in addition, each concept is encoded twice, the numbers coming from biblical Hebrew and modern English. These act as a double witness to the reality of the code. How do we know the two numbers are meant to witness together? Rather than being randomly scattered within the text, the word strings summing to these numbers are always very close to each other, usually overlapping. [5] This consistent close proximity between the two numbers is highly improbable - as is their very presence, because many numerical values are not found in the Garden. [6] As far as I am aware this double-witness phenomenon is another unique feature of the New Bible Code.

I believe the statement highlighted red has been proven to be false.

[sylvius]

I thought readers might like to see the 9/11 clustering effect I found in the Garden in more detail.

The new table shows every instance in the Garden of the numbers that define cube 729 and its internal structure, the September-11 Cube created from it by the three strikes, and the 2D projection that anounces Christ's Second Coming. Cube 729 was derived from the three 9/11 targets:

The Pentagon (o) = 125, the cube of 5
The World Trade Centre (o) = 218, a cubic shell that surrounds cube 125 to form cube 343
The North Tower + The South Tower (o) = 386, a cubic shell that surrounds cube 343 to form cube 729

The three strikes affected 217 of the 729 units in the cube to create the September-11 Cube, and the 2D projection that formed hexagon 217 and the Star of David 121.

The event that created the September-11 cube out of cube 729 was of course 9/11, or 'nine eleven'.



1518

Notice how all the word strings except one are clustered together on the right-hand side of the Garden, a very asymmetric pattern. I found and published the details of the September-11 Cube over a decade ago, but only found the Garden in December 2015. Yet every number that defines the cube, along with the event that created it, is there! A random pattern in the text would look nothing like this, and in fact at least a couple of the numbers would likely not be found in the text at all.

Has it anything to do with the workers of the eleventh hour of Matthew 20:6-9?

And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, Why do you stand here idle all day? They said to him, Because no one has hired us. He said to them, You go into the vineyard too. And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, Call the labourers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first. And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius.



cf. Matthew 23:18-21,

But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax. And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, Whose likeness and inscription is this? They said, Caesar's. Then he said to them, Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/154/421733652_9c001a377e_o.jpg

[sylvius]

https://twitter.com/haaretzcom/status/866647347534716928

Trump leaves a note in the Western Wall. What do you think he wished for?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAbzHlfXsAQe_Sc.jpg

Money, power and much sex :winking0071:

[thebluetriangle]

Hey there Bill,

I ran the tests again on the list of 54 pairs (the combined list you asked me to make). I counted one "overlap" if there was at least one overlap. I then shuffled the pairs in the list and ran the test again. As with my original tests, the results are exactly what we would expect from random pairs. The non-randomized list had 31 overlaps, which is just barely (0.19) greater than one standard deviation from the mean.

1520

Now let's compare this to what you claim on you Garden page (link (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html)):


I believe the statement highlighted red has been proven to be false.

Hi Richard.

Thanks for doing this work. One SD above the mean isn't exactly what we would expect, though. It's a little better than what we would expect, although not as good as I would have expected at the beginning of this discussion, when I wrote the webpage you quoted from.

You've shown that the Biblical list gives results 1 SD above the mean. This is on top of the improbability of finding them in the Garden and can only add more shine to the double witness phenomenon. I had moved away from claiming they overlapped and was using the phrase 'in close proximity' to describe them. They have to be in close proximity simply to be in the Garden, of course, so 'presence in the Garden' and 'proximity' or 'overlapping' may simply be different measures of the same phenomenon.

However, you have compared the biblical list with randomised lists of numbers already found there. If as I am saying many of them are encoded then they can hardly serve as a control set for testing the phenomenon. Only random number pairs can do that. The fairest test is to use random number pairs in the same range, as you have been doing for most of the other tests, then work out the percentage of biblical word pairs that have at least one overlap against the random number pairs.

There would then be two parts to this test:

1. Test the biblical pairs against random pairs as usual to see what percentage of each are found in the Garden. Call them B(g) and R(g).
2. Test the biblical pairs against the same random pairs to see what percentage of each have one overlap. Call them B(o) and R(o)

If B(o)/R(o) > B(g)/R(g), overlapping pairs in the Garden might be an even more statistically significant phenomenon than the presence of those pairs in the Garden. Your initial results suggest that might be the case.

Any chance you might do that test?

[thebluetriangle]

Has it anything to do with the workers of the eleventh hour of Matthew 20:6-9?

And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, Why do you stand here idle all day? They said to him, Because no one has hired us. He said to them, You go into the vineyard too. And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, Call the labourers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first. And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius.

cf. Matthew 23:18-21,

But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax. And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, Whose likeness and inscription is this? They said, Caesar's. Then he said to them, Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.


I worked out the ordinal value of Matthew 20.9:

'The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius.' (o) = 729

This is the number of spheres in the September-11 Cube, which we've just been discussing! The verse contains 'eleventh' and 209 itself (from 20.9) is a multiple of 11, so numbers clustered around 9/11 are found here. I'll certainly look into it. 9/11 was in many ways 'the eleventh hour' for mankind and was payment for sin.

[thebluetriangle]

As a coda to the above discussion, I would like to show everyone the 'code signal', as I call it.

This is based on the last set of 81 number-pairs I produced, reduced to 80. To obtain them I extracted every noun or noun phrase in the Hebrew Bible (of which there were 80), took its NIV equivalent and calculated the standard value of each Hebrew/English phrase, which gave 80 number-pairs. Then I looked for each number in the Garden (Genesis 1.1 - 5, NIV). If both numbers were found in the text as a word-string then it was counted as a YES result. If only one number, or neither number, was found there, then this was counted as a NO result.

I produced a graph of the expected results from hundreds of sets of randomised number pairs. We know from previous work done during this discussion that about 54% of the number-pairs in each set should be found. Like tossing a coin, each test gives a yes/no answer (because the pair is either found in the Garden or not), so the randomised results form a classic binomial distribution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution), which I've smoothed off here to produce a nice curve. Then I added the result for the set of bibical number-pairs, which was 73%, well beyond the bulk of randomised sets.


1539

The difference between the biblical result and the mean of the randomised results is the code signal, solid evidence that there is a code in the NIV Bible.

Edit: Because I tested every noun or noun phrase in Genesis 1.1 to 2.3 (the Creation narrative), not all of which would be on a list of created things, we would expect the code signal to be masked by the probable inclusion of much unencoded material. These pairs would have the same success rate for inclusion as randomised number pairs and so dilute the signal. This is the main reason why the success rate for the biblical list is 73& and not 100%.

For more details, please go to the new webpage (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html).

[Tim]

Hello Richard (and Bill)

I have enjoyed reading through this thread. Learned a lot - thank you for that. I just wanted to make one comment. You said that some muslims believe that the number 19 is encoded in the quran. I am not Muslim. I am a Christian, but I think that there is a very good chance that God did in fact encode the number 19 in the quran, and that it relates to the events of 9/11.
Time will tell. If I am correct, you will not need me to explain it to you. It will be obvious.