The New Bible Code [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

thebluetriangle

03-29-2017, 08:54 AM

Hi Richard.

First of all,congratulations for getting your website up and running again. In my opinion it's the best forum of its kind on the internet (and certainly one of the most polite). You also have the best gematria database on the 'net, without a doubt. I use it quite a lot, so I was especially glad when that appeared again - although when it was down I was forced to become more proficient in Hebrew gematria, so it wasn't all bad.

Before we start, I have one quick question for you that's been nagging me for a while. I took the opportunity over the last couple of weeks to read several of your articles, and fascinating they were too. In one of them you spoke about the early dream you had where you were asked by a woman ARE YOU LOOKING FOR DUMBO? 12 X 44.

My question is this: were all the words spoken to you or did you see any part of them as words in your visual field?

Here are the emails we exchanged a week ago.

Hi Richard,

I've just completed two new webpages you may find interesting.

The Garden is the most important discovery I've been led to in fifteen years of working on the New Bible Code, a holographic watermark imprinted on Scripture that witnesses in Hebrew and English to God's infinite creative power. http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html

Glorious Geometry shows how the measurements, situation and construction materials of the biblical Ark of the Covenant point to a hidden, fourth dimension, and indicates how we may access it. http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3637226.html

In Christ,

Bill Downie

Hey there Bill,

Good to hear from you. As you know, I think all your results are the
product of random chance. I cannot see anything that suggests any
deliberate design. Have you found any way to discern between a totally
random text and a text that has been "designed" according to your
methods? If so, please share it. If not, why would anyone believe your
patterns are anything but the product of random chance?

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard.

Thanks for replying. You're always willing to debate these issues and that's fine by me. As you've said yourself, all we have to lose are our illusions.

In the 'Garden' page you'll se that I did a control check with five pairs of random numbers, which produced almost none of the clustering effect seen with the paired encodings. In fact, four of the ten randomly-chosen numbers (and I know you can't really get truly random numbers, but they were produced by my calculator) weren't even present. That's nowhere near enough to satisfy us that there really is a pairing effect here. But it's a start.

The key to understanding the New Bible Code is meaning. It is meaning that makes the difference between a code and none, between intelligent design and the winds of chance, since no natural process can create meaning. So the pairing of the numbers 296/517 and 395/782 in the first couple of verses of the NIV means nothing, until you see that they are the standard values of 'the heavens' and 'the earth' in Hebrew/English. The injection of meaning makes all the difference in the world.

There were several limiting factors that challenge any suggestion of cherry picking.
1) the numbers are found in word strings very close to the beginning of Genesis, not somewhere in the middle of the Bible. If we start looking for numbers where we begin reading the text of the Bible (a natural assumption) then there is very little room for a random pairing to make its appearance.
2) the languages are always Biblical Hebrew (Masoretic) and modern English.
3) the same decoding procedure is used throughout
4) the words and phrases are always the first found in the Hebrew Bible, which prevents us looking for alternative spellings.
5) the theme of these encodings is the subject of the plaintext itself, God's creative acts.
6) everything is found within the first five verses, which are marked with the geometry of G-triangles (used here as a metaphor for God's creative power, since they give rise to hexagrams, trefoils and fractal snowflakes and antisnowflakes) and which are themselves the first day of Creation!

So you see there was very little wiggle room here. Do you also see how it is meaning that holds it all together?

Possibly the best evidence I have that there really is a code in the NIV is the encodings of 'ark of the testimony', 'atonement cover', 'cherubim of the glory' and 'altar of incense', all proceeding from the first word - all in the same word string, in other words. Note that there is no definite article used and the wording is always the NIV. All are meaningfully related, of course, and according to Hebrews 9 the altar was also part of the Most Holy Place (which is itself encoded in the string beginning at word 3). Since the average word ordinal value here is 45, the chances of them all being there are 1 in 4 million. Or if you accept that 'ark of the testimony' is chance, then 1 in 90000 of the other three items being there. There are the items within and beside the ark, of course, which aren't found in the first string, but they are all there in early strings! See this page

http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3283109.html

I 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's ability to intervene is limited by the beliefs or consciousness of the majority, so presently he is found in the cracks in this reality and when you are ready you Begin to notice them. This sounds elitist and I have angered atheists with this observation, but it's the truth.

One thing I certainly can't prove to you is that I have been led to many of my findings by dreams, visions, synchronicities and outright miracles. The two-stage decoding procedure was given to me by my Alpha Course director. She was reading her NIV Bible when a voice twice told her THIS IS FOR BILL. She had no idea what was meant by this but was perturbed by the words. She put down her bible, made a cup of tea and put a bookmark at the page. When she came back the two verses she had been reading (1 Thess 5.23-24) were printed on the bookmark, between DEAR BILL and LOVE PAUL. The two verses are the standard values of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST and THE LORD GOD. The total is the standard value of Genesis 1.1. The words were shaped like a key, believe it or not, and she was sitting in a cafe called The Open Door. That day I twice heard The overture to Verdi's opera La Forza deal Destino. This and many other signs and incidents were the reason I began working on the code. I didn't intend to do it, I was given it as an assignment. Do you have a mundane explanation for any of that?

Nice talking to you.

Bill

Richard Amiel McGough

03-29-2017, 09:48 AM

thebluetriangle

03-29-2017, 11:32 AM

Reading your 'Looking for Dumbo' post I had to smile, because your initial experiences and the enthusiasm they generated were exactly like my own experiences in the early days. My own journey began with a hypnopomic vision of three brilliant discs in triangular formation, one of which I merged with for one glorious second, making contact with what seemed to be a higher realm, filled with love and light. After that I read hundreds of books on religion, spirituality, the paranormal, etc. Three and a half years later, during a period when I seemed to be at the centre of a storm of synchronicities and more, I made my first code find and a week or so later I wrote a two-page article which I (naively) thought was all I was to do. I went to a pub that night to read it over and over a beer consider how I was going to get it published. I wasn't even on the Internet at the time and imagined myself running around with pamphlets and giving talks. That was the beginning of a long, long journey. I should have known better because was told a couple of years earlier I'd spent twenty-four years on something and now I was going to spend twenty years on something else, symbolised by two tree stumps below me which were close together and overrun with scurrying ants. I think it was in part prophesying an event that hadn't occurred yet - 9/11.

Your own dream and the information you received intrigued me, because in my experience words in dreams and visions, whether spoken or seen, embody numbers through gematria, usually the ordinal value system for English. The numbers are then the standard value of an important word or phrase. For instance, I once had a powerful vision of a 'wise child', who simultaneously radiated a sense of youth and great age and seemed very determined. He (I think it was a he)spoke very quickly, saying I'M TWENTY-SIX AND I'M HERE FOR YOU. This was in 2001, around the time I began studying gematria. The ordinal value of these words is 358, which meant nothing after I'd worked out the ordinal value, because I didn't know the standard value system. However I eventually discovered that it means Mashiach in Hebrew gematria. 'Twenty-six' is an obvious reference to YHVH/God, both of which sum to 26. Importantly, this and many other such words taught me that numbers in spoken words are meant to be numerated as words, not as numerals. So I did the same with your word and got the following:

ARE YOU LOOKING FOR DUMBO? TWELVE TIMES FORTY FOUR

This has an ordinal value of 559, which is one of your featured numbers.

http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_559.php

559 also factorises as 13 x 43, which is suspiciously close to 12 x 44 and I think a hint that this is the correct interpretation. I agree with your own interpretation too though. You were given the key, as was I. Dumbo looks to be informative too, re. Ganesh, associated with the Highest, and the deva of wisdom, intelligence and beginnings (and maybe even Dumbo the elephant). I'm sure some or all of that would have occurred to you too though.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-29-2017, 10:01 PM

Hi Richard.

Thanks for replying. You're always willing to debate these issues and that's fine by me. As you've said yourself, all we have to lose are our illusions.

In the 'Garden' page you'll se that I did a control check with five pairs of random numbers, which produced almost none of the clustering effect seen with the paired encodings. In fact, four of the ten randomly-chosen numbers (and I know you can't really get truly random numbers, but they were produced by my calculator) weren't even present. That's nowhere near enough to satisfy us that there really is a pairing effect here. But it's a start.

The key to understanding the New Bible Code is meaning. It is meaning that makes the difference between a code and none, between intelligent design and the winds of chance, since no natural process can create meaning. So the pairing of the numbers 296/517 and 395/782 in the first couple of verses of the NIV means nothing, until you see that they are the standard values of 'the heavens' and 'the earth' in Hebrew/English. The injection of meaning makes all the difference in the world.

There were several limiting factors that challenge any suggestion of cherry picking.
1) the numbers are found in word strings very close to the beginning of Genesis, not somewhere in the middle of the Bible. If we start looking for numbers where we begin reading the text of the Bible (a natural assumption) then there is very little room for a random pairing to make its appearance.
2) the languages are always Biblical Hebrew (Masoretic) and modern English.
3) the same decoding procedure is used throughout
4) the words and phrases are always the first found in the Hebrew Bible, which prevents us looking for alternative spellings.
5) the theme of these encodings is the subject of the plaintext itself, God's creative acts.
6) everything is found within the first five verses, which are marked with the geometry of G-triangles (used here as a metaphor for God's creative power, since they give rise to hexagrams, trefoils and fractal snowflakes and antisnowflakes) and which are themselves the first day of Creation!

So you see there was very little wiggle room here. Do you also see how it is meaning that holds it all together?

Possibly the best evidence I have that there really is a code in the NIV is the encodings of 'ark of the testimony', 'atonement cover', 'cherubim of the glory' and 'altar of incense', all proceeding from the first word - all in the same word string, in other words. Note that there is no definite article used and the wording is always the NIV. All are meaningfully related, of course, and according to Hebrews 9 the altar was also part of the Most Holy Place (which is itself encoded in the string beginning at word 3). Since the average word ordinal value here is 45, the chances of them all being there are 1 in 4 million. Or if you accept that 'ark of the testimony' is chance, then 1 in 90000 of the other three items being there. There are the items within and beside the ark, of course, which aren't found in the first string, but they are all there in early strings! See this page

http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3283109.html

Hey there Bill,

There are many interlocking aspects to your work, and I can see why you find them convincing. But I also see a lot of points that seem weak, so we'll need to walk through them one by one to see how they stand on their own. Let's start with what you see as some of your "best evidence" - your article called The Ark of the Testimony (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html). Here's the graphic you put together:

1357

I understand that the colored blocks are the "standard values" (s.v.) of the English phrases they contain, and that their numerical value is the same as the sum of the "ordinal values" (o.v.) of the words from Genesis 1 that align with the same block. Folks interested in confirming your numbers can use a little app I wrote here: http://biblewheel.com/GR/EnglishGematria.htm. You can type or copy/paste the text and then highlight the part you are interested in to get the numerical values.

I also note that three of the phrases come from Hebrews 9:4-5. Here it is in context (with relevant phrases highlighted):

NIV Hebrews 9:1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

Now to get a sense of the "what are the chances" we need to look at the full set of possibilities, and compare that with what you actually found.

Here are the s.v. of those relevant phrases. Note that we must also consider the adjectives such as "stone tablets of the covenant" and "gold jar of manna" as well as the values that do and do not contain the definite article. Thus, we have this set of possibilities, with the three you chose (cherry picked?) highlighted red on the left, and the ones actually found on the right:

lampstand
496

the lampstand
709

table
238

the table
451

consecrated bread
623

the consecrated bread
836

the table and the consecrated bread
1342

Holy Place
907

The Holy Place
1120

Most Holy Place
1307

The Most Holy Place
1520

altar of incense
610

golden altar of incense
766

the golden altar of incense
979

ark
111

the ark
324

ark of the covenant
1159

the ark of the covenant
1372

jar of manna
309

Aaron's staff
615

tablets of the covenant
1586

stone tablets of the covenant
2001

the stone tablets of the covenant
2214

cherubim of glory
1410

the cherubim of glory
1623

atonement cover
1169

the atonement cover
1382

And here are the list of the 37 numbers that can be derived by adding words beginning with the first word of Genesis 1:1 -

23
56
137
163
219
252
326
345
378
430
482
515
567
610
717
736
815
906
949
1009
1042
1115
1136
1169
1199
1218
1251
1342
1363
1389
1432
1530
1590
1623
1709
1728
1754

We have therefore two sets of numbers. We have the set of 27 numbers made from the 27 "significant phrases" highlighted in Hebrews 9, and we have the set of 37 numbers generated by adding the standard values of consecutive words in Genesis 1.

As you can see, these two sets have four numbers in common, highlighted red. So the question is this: What is the probability of finding four hits in two random sets of 27 and 37 numbers when generated by a system such as your gematria?

I don't have time do to the calculation right now, but it seems pretty obvious that those 4 hits is not very unlikely, certainly nothing like the one chance in four million like your page suggests. I'll do the math tomorrow.

Great chatting! I love thinking about these kinds of questions. I'm really glad you want to discuss them.

Shine on!

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

03-30-2017, 01:47 AM

Hey there Bill,

There are many interlocking aspects to your work, and I can see why you find them convincing. But I also see a lot of points that seem weak, so we'll need to walk through them one by one to see how they stand on their own. Let's start with what you see as some of your "best evidence" - your article called The Ark of the Testimony (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html).

Instead of this page I would ask you to look at one I just completed, which is more suitable for this type of discussion and which includes a lot of the information in the earlier one. I wrote it after recently reading your article on The Law of Truly Large Numbers, and realising I had to address it. Here's the new page.

http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html

I understand that the colored blocks are the "standard values" (s.v.) of the English phrases they contain, and that their numerical value is the same as the sum of the "ordinal values" (o.v.) of the words from Genesis 1 that align with the same block. Folks interested in confirming your numbers can use a little app I wrote here: http://biblewheel.com/GR/EnglishGematria.htm. You can type or copy/paste the text and then highlight the part you are interested in to get the numerical values.

You understand the word blocks perfectly. Thanks for the little app. too, which I'm sure people will find useful. I've never used any kind of software, prefering a hands-on, low-tech approach (a calculator and a lot of perspiration). In fact in principle I could have done nearly all of it with nothing more than pencil, paper and mental arithmetic.

I also note that three of the phrases come from Hebrews 9:4-5. Here it is in context (with relevant phrases highlighted):

NIV Hebrews 9:1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

Here is where I take issue with you. You spend a lot of effort on Hebrews 9.4 (which I barely mention in my website). Yes, three of the titles - atonement cover, cherubim of the glory and altar of incense - are found there. But you are picking all the phrases from there and asking how many of them would be found in word strings proceeding from the first word of Genesis. You seem to be asking "Why is this number or that number not there?" I understand why you are taking this approach, because it's going to give you the answer you want. But that's not the question I asked of the NIV bible. I looked at what was actually there in the first few words of Genesis: I found the numbers, saw they were all furnishings within the Most Holy Place, saw they made a pattern and integrated with patterns already there, then worked out the probabilities.

Now, on probability, it all depends on the question you ask. If I ask "What is the simple probability of those four numbers (610, 1169, 1623, 1754) being there?" then the answer is indeed about 1 in 4 million. But I agree with the comment you made that this is far too generous and it's a post hoc analysis. In fact there are about twenty names for the ark in the NIV and therefore there is about a 50% chance of finding one of them there. On top of that there are other important biblical concepts, such as the new Jerusalem, the tabernacle, Jesus Christ and much more. I was virtually certain to find something. Given that the ark is there, it can then be asked "What is the probability of the two main ark components also being present" I actually did ask that question and found the atonement cover, the cherubim and the altar too, which I didn't expect. That's more realistic and two of the items I found were specified a priori. In my new page I try to define it more accurately still, because the altar of incense is less strongly related to the ark than its own structure. I ended up with a 'guestimate' of 1 in 10000 against a chance occurence. Addendum: I've amended the Ark of the Testimony page to reflect what I just said about probabilities in the new page and here. I only finished the new page last night so there hasn't been time to amend any other old pages.

Now, given that, we can then look at how it integrates with other patterns already there. It integrates beautfully with The Signatures of Christ, as I show on the page you highlighted, and consciously references the Christian belief in Christ as our 'atonement cover'. Under the lid are six different single-word names by which we know Jesus, all found by taking the 24 words over which 'atonement cover' is encoded then splitting it into 4 six-word segments. Six numbers then appear as if by magic, in three pairings, all encoded over six or twelve words:

Jesus/Yehoshua
Word/Word
Messiah/Messiah

Here is The Signature of Christ page

http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html

Now, I know there are about seventy single word names and titles for Jesus in the Bible, but even including all of these as possibilities gives a binomial probability of 1 in 1200 for chance occurence - not including the Hebrew word Yehoshua. These are all near the top of the list though, less ambiguous, so this is surely too stiff a test. If we reduce it to the top twenty words the odds against increase to 50000 to 1. And don't forget that 'Jesus', the name at the top of any such list, is the first one we find!

You also add adjectives, the definite article, etc, giving a very large list of possibilities. But there is no reason why all of them should be there. In fact that would be impossible as there are a very limited number of word-level encodings possible if we restrict ourselves to strings proceeding from the first word. The first five verses of Genesis will produce only 83 numbers, and anyway, by word 50 or so we will be beyond the range of nearly all of the phrases. What you see with the ark encodings is the kind of order, integration, consistency, elegance, economy and self-referencing that are the mark of intelligent design:

a) they are all given without the definite article
b) they are the same four names we find in the NIV and nowhere else. It's the only version out of 48 I tested that has these four names.
c) They integrate with the Signature of Christ, with other encodings of Jesus' names, with ELS encryptions, with the text numbers and more, and they do it in a meaningful, theologically accurate way.
d) Three of them form a little 14-24-34 pattern
e) They are the first (or only) formal names given. Some may disagree on what is a formal title, but I did my best! The NIV translators use three of them in their notes, so there is some agreement.

We have therefore two sets of numbers. We have the set of 27 numbers made from the 27 "significant phrases" highlighted in Hebrews 9, and we have the set of 37 numbers generated by adding the standard values of consecutive words in Genesis 1.

As you can see, these two sets have four numbers in common, highlighted red. So the question is this: What is the probability of finding four hits in two random sets of 27 and 37 numbers when generated by a system such as your gematria?

That's your question, not the question I would ask, and totally irrelevant to the code. The one advantage your method could have is that it is an a priori analysis, trying to predict what might be there. However, codes, by their very nature, are not initially amenable to that kind of analysis, because we don't know what is encoded or how it might be encoded. They can only be decoded by a combination of post hoc reasoning and a priori hypotheses. I wandered up cul de sacs time and again, but was kept on track through dreams and visions. And they can only be found in the first place through revelation. I had no idea there was a code in the NIV Bible and wasn't even really interested in the subject. I was led to it. That doesn't prove one is there, but it may help you understand why I've spent fifteen years of my life on it.

I don't have time do to the calculation right now, but it seems pretty obvious that those 4 hits is not very unlikely, certainly nothing like the one chance in four million like your page suggests. I'll do the math tomorrow.

Great chatting! I love thinking about these kinds of questions. I'm really glad you want to discuss them.

I too love discussing it. As you once were about your Biblewheel I am totally convinced of the reality of the code. I've spent a lot of time in the past arguing my case with atheists on Richard Dawkins old forum and others like it, so I know the kind of arguments to expect.

Shine on!

:sunny:

You too. We may presently disagree on a few things, but I find myself in broad agreement with you on many others. I'm not a Bible thumping fundamentalist, but I do support all varieties of Christianity and the church as a body, which, although it has a chequered past, quietly goes about doing a huge amount of good work in the world.

thebluetriangle

03-31-2017, 04:08 AM

Hi Richard.

I'm interested to hear what you thought of my post regarding your 'looking for dumbo' word, especially since it seems to have been a critical moment for you. 559 is 'The Father' in Greek, of course, and my own words from the Father have always been revelatory. I'm absolutely convinced that gematria is a second information channel and that all such words are encoded.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-31-2017, 01:42 PM

Instead of this page I would ask you to look at one I just completed, which is more suitable for this type of discussion and which includes a lot of the information in the earlier one. I wrote it after recently reading your article on The Law of Truly Large Numbers, and realising I had to address it. Here's the new page.

http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html

Hey there Bill,

I am happy to follow your lead on this, especially since you wrote that article as a response to the kinds of analysis I am doing.

We'll have to take it bit by bit since there are many assumptions and assertions that needed to be reviewed. I begin with your estimation of probability:

But what if we place restrictions upon our search for encoded numbers? We have already placed one restriction on ourselves by numerating only complete words, rather than strings of letters. But we can do more. For example, we can numerate only the word strings that proceed from the Bible's first word. So we have word 1 as the first string, words 1 and 2 as the second string, words 1, 2 and 3, as the third, etc. This reduces the number of word strings in Genesis 1.1 from 55 to 10 and the number of word strings in the first five verses of Genesis from 3486 to a mere 83, which is only 2.4% of 3486! Individual ordinal values vary widely, but the average word ordinal value in the first few verses of Genesis is 45. So as we calculate from first word we will have about the same 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how far into the text we go.

To summarise, if we are free to choose any string of words within the first few verses of Genesis, we are almost certain to hit any given word standard value within the first ten or twelve verses. But if we pin ourselves down to the string beginning at word 1, then we only have about a 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how long the string. This is the basis of my argument, but there are details I'll add as I go along.

Your estimation of the probability does not make any sense. If you want to use probability to justify your claims, you are going to have to learn the basics of Probability Theory. To calculate probability, we must begin with the sample space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_space) of all possible outcomes and calculate the probability as the ratio of the possible number of "hits" to the total number of possibilities. For example, consider flipping a coin. The sample space is the set {heads, tails}. If the coin is fair, there is an equal chance of getting either result, so a single coin toss has a probability of 1/2 to get either result. If we repeat the experiment, the sample space doubles and we get {{H,H}, {H,T},{T,H}, {T,T}} for a total of four possibilities. The probability of any one of those events is therefore 1/4. If we don't care about the order, the possibility of getting both a heads and a tail is 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2.

Likewise, the sample space of a six sided die is the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} and a fair die will have a 1/6th chance of hitting any one of those faces. Roll two dice and the sample space doubles to give us 36 unique possibilities. Thus, the possibility of rolling snakes eyes is 1/36, whereas there are six ways {{1,6}, {6,1}, {2,5},{5,2},{3,4}, {4,3}} to roll a 7 so 7 is the "luckiest" number in the sense that it is the most likely outcome with a probability of 6/36 = 1/6.

Now to calculate the probability of the sums of words strings, we need to look at the sample space of all possibilities. To get an estimate of that, we would need to consider the set of all possible word values. The smallest of course is a = 1. There is no way to get a word with value 2 because neither "aa" nor "b" is a word. We could get a 3 if we accept words like ab and ba. And on it goes. We have to know the actual distribution of words, which I have done by analyzing an English dictionary. As you probably recall, this is something I did long ago when debating the validity of English gematria. Here is the result from the thread GOD'S GEMATRIA, THE VICTORS, SONGS AND "HARPS" (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?156-GOD-S-GEMATRIA-THE-VICTORS-SONGS-AND-quot-HARPS-quot&p=1868#post1868):

The problem with English Gematria calculated from the place values is based on the fact that 83% of all the words are compressed into a numerical range between 50 and 150. I analyzed a dictionary with about 79,000 words, and found that about 66,000 of them had a value between 50 and 150. Here is a graph that shows the distribution:

http://www.biblewheel.com/images/EnglishGemGraph.gif

This means that all the information stored in the pattern of the letters is lost. Any structure that could have been there has been compressed to such an extent that all distinctions are lost and we have nothing but a meaningless smooshed mess o' porridge.

Note in particular that most of the numbers ccc used in his post - 73, 74, and 88 - are found near the peak of the distribution where there were over 700 choices to choose from. And that's not counting the foreign transliterated words like Y'shua (note that he could have chosen Yeshua if that had fit the pattern he was looking for).

Now don't mistake what I am trying to demonstrate here. Lists of words can be useful if the reality of divine design based on gematria has already been proven by other means. But such lists, especially when based on ordinal systems which have an extremely high compression ratio, lose too much information to be useful by themselves.

Richard

This graph gives an empirical measure of the expected value of a random English word. The largest value for the ordinal value of an English word is around 250, so the total range for all 79,000 words in the English dictionary I analysed is pretty small - about 250 possibilities. Note that the distribution is NOT a uniform (like what we would we would have with a coin toss or rolling a die). There are lots more words with values near the center (around 100). It's rather like a normal distribution (Bell curve) skewed a bit. It shows that's its very unlikely to get a word with a value near zero or much larger than about 200.

The fact that the distribution is not uniform makes the calculation of probability rather complicated. Rather than simply assuming the numbers have equal probability (like a coin or die) we must account for the fact that some numbers in a random English sentence will be found more frequently than others. But there's no need to do the calculation because none of this really matters anyway, because calculating the probability of cherry picked coincidences is utterly, totally, and absolutely meaningless. Such calculations will never tell you that something is "designed" because RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

Let me repeat: RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

Therefore, small probabilities are not themselves signs of design. This is the primary error of all numerologists who try to justify their collection of cherry-picked results by showing that their particular set of cherry picked results had a "small probability." It wouldn't matter what set of results were picked from the ocean of possibilities. They ALL would have a small probability. So the small probability tells us NOTHING about whether they were designed.

Let me repeat: ANY RANDOM SET OF WORDS generated by your methods will occur with a very small probability. Therefore, the fact that the probability is small tells us nothing about whether or not the set was "put there" by a designer.

You understand the word blocks perfectly. Thanks for the little app. too, which I'm sure people will find useful. I've never used any kind of software, prefering a hands-on, low-tech approach (a calculator and a lot of perspiration). In fact in principle I could have done nearly all of it with nothing more than pencil, paper and mental arithmetic.

When I first started playing with numerology back in 1990, I too did it all by hand. I really enjoyed it. It was quite meditative. I would be meditating on the meaning of the text and the beauty of the numbers and found it quite mesmerizing. But then I wanted to be able to do it more efficiently so I began using computers.

Here is where I take issue with you. You spend a lot of effort on Hebrews 9.4 (which I barely mention in my website). Yes, three of the titles - atonement cover, cherubim of the glory and altar of incense - are found there. But you are picking all the phrases from there and asking how many of them would be found in word strings proceeding from the first word of Genesis. You seem to be asking "Why is this number or that number not there?" I understand why you are taking this approach, because it's going to give you the answer you want. But that's not the question I asked of the NIV bible. I looked at what was actually there in the first few words of Genesis: I found the numbers, saw they were all furnishings within the Most Holy Place, saw they made a pattern and integrated with patterns already there, then worked out the probabilities.

Yes, I do ask why it is the way it is if it was designed, because the central term "ark of the testimony" is NOT found in the context of Hebrews 9 whereas a different term "ark of the covenant" is found there. Why would an intelligent God design it so that the numbers DO NOT match? That makes no sense to me at all. It directly contradicts the idea that the numbers were put there by design so that we could recognize the design.

Also, it is very uncharitable for you to say that I am taking a an approach not because it is what truth demands, but because it will give me the answer I want. It would be best if we could have this conversation without casting aspersions at each others' motives.

The fact that you "worked out the probabilities" for a tiny set of numbers after the fact means they are meaningless. Probabilities are only significant when the data set is large enough. For example. you could never draw any conclusion by calculating the probability of a single toss of a coin. You would have to toss the coin hundreds of times and note if the frequency is 50/50 or not. Likewise, you cannot draw any meaningful conclusion by calculating the probability that the word strings would match some other phrases. As explained above, any words you find would have similar small probabilities, so the small probabilities tell you nothing about whether or not they were designed.

Here is the key: If a text is actually CODED then the code must account for the entire text. For example, here is a truly coded text:

Uijt ufyu jt dpefe cz tijgujoh fbdi mfuufs gpsxbse cz pof.

When decoded, it says

This text is coded by shifting each letter forward by one.

Every letter is accounted for. We know with perfect certainty that it was encoded, and how. There is nothing like this in any of the "Bible codes". The kinds of "codes" you are looking for are indistinguishable from what we would expect in a random uncoded text.

Now, on probability, it all depends on the question you ask. If I ask "What is the simple probability of those four numbers (610, 1169, 1623, 1754) being there?" then the answer is indeed about 1 in 4 million. But I agree with the comment you made that this is far too generous and it's a post hoc analysis. In fact there are about twenty names for the ark in the NIV and therefore there is about a 50% chance of finding one of them there. On top of that there are other important biblical concepts, such as the new Jerusalem, the tabernacle, Jesus Christ and much more. I was virtually certain to find something. Given that the ark is there, it can then be asked "What is the probability of the two main ark components also being present" I actually did ask that question and found the atonement cover, the cherubim and the altar too, which I didn't expect. That's more realistic and two of the items I found were specified a priori. In my new page I try to define it more accurately still, because the altar of incense is less strongly related to the ark than its own structure. I ended up with a 'guestimate' of 1 in 10000 against a chance occurence. Addendum: I've amended the Ark of the Testimony page to reflect what I just said about probabilities in the new page and here. I only finished the new page last night so there hasn't been time to amend any other old pages.

Now, given that, we can then look at how it integrates with other patterns already there. It integrates beautfully with The Signatures of Christ, as I show on the page you highlighted, and consciously references the Christian belief in Christ as our 'atonement cover'. Under the lid are six different single-word names by which we know Jesus, all found by taking the 24 words over which 'atonement cover' is encoded then splitting it into 4 six-word segments. Six numbers then appear as if by magic, in three pairings, all encoded over six or twelve words:

Jesus/Yehoshua
Word/Word
Messiah/Messiah

Here is The Signature of Christ page

http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html

"Integration" with other cherry picked results proves nothing.

This is the problem you need to address. How do you discern between a random text and a coded text? That's the question you must answer. Merely collecting lots of "hits" from an essentially infinite ocean of random numbers proves nothing. That is the root error of all numerology. It is based on the cognitive error of CHERRY PICKING by definition. You begin by trolling through an ocean of numbers looking for "hits" that you can use to make "patterns." Different people almost always "find" (i.e. create) different patterns because the patterns are very idiosyncratic and their meaning is very subjective.

Sorry for the slow response, but there are so many issues that must be cleared up, such as how to calculate probabilities, why the probabilities would even matter given that any random set of words would have a low probability, how do discern between random vs. coded texts, etc., etc., etc.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

03-31-2017, 05:43 PM

Hey there Bill,

I am happy to follow your lead on this, especially since you wrote that article as a response to the kinds of analysis I am doing.

We'll have to take it bit by bit since there are many assumptions and assertions that needed to be reviewed. I begin with your estimation of probability:

Your estimation of the probability does not make any sense. If you want to use probability to justify your claims, you are going to have to learn the basics of Probability Theory. To calculate probability, we must begin with the sample space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_space) of all possible outcomes and calculate the probability as the ratio of the possible number of "hits" to the total number of possibilities. For example, consider flipping a coin. The sample space is the set {heads, tails}. If the coin is fair, there is an equal chance of getting either result, so a single coin toss has a probability of 1/2 to get either result. If we repeat the experiment, the sample space doubles and we get {{H,H}, {H,T},{T,H}, {T,T}} for a total of four possibilities. The probability of any one of those events is therefore 1/4. If we don't care about the order, the possibility of getting both a heads and a tail is 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2.

Likewise, the sample space of a six sided die is the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} and a fair die will have a 1/6th chance of hitting any one of those faces. Roll two dice and the sample space doubles to give us 36 unique possibilities. Thus, the possibility of rolling snakes eyes is 1/36, whereas there are six ways {{1,6}, {6,1}, {2,5},{5,2},{3,4}, {4,3}} to roll a 7 so 7 is the "luckiest" number in the sense that it is the most likely outcome with a probability of 6/36 = 1/6.

Now to calculate the probability of the sums of words strings, we need to look at the sample space of all possibilities. To get an estimate of that, we would need to consider the set of all possible word values. The smallest of course is a = 1. There is no way to get a word with value 2 because neither "aa" nor "b" is a word. We could get a 3 if we accept words like ab and ba. And on it goes. We have to know the actual distribution of words, which I have done by analyzing an English dictionary. As you probably recall, this is something I did long ago when debating the validity of English gematria. Here is the result from the thread GOD'S GEMATRIA, THE VICTORS, SONGS AND "HARPS" (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?156-GOD-S-GEMATRIA-THE-VICTORS-SONGS-AND-quot-HARPS-quot&p=1868#post1868):

This graph gives an empirical measure of the expected value of a random English word. The largest value for the ordinal value of an English word is around 250, so the total range for all 79,000 words in the English dictionary I analysed is pretty small - about 250 possibilities. Note that the distribution is NOT a uniform (like what we would we would have with a coin toss or rolling a die). There are lots more words with values near the center (around 100). It's rather like a normal distribution (Bell curve) skewed a bit. It shows that's its very unlikely to get a word with a value near zero or much larger than about 200.

The fact that the distribution is not uniform makes the calculation of probability rather complicated. Rather than simply assuming the numbers have equal probability (like a coin or die) we must account for the fact that some numbers in a random English sentence will be found more frequently than others. But there's no need to do the calculation because none of this really matters anyway, because calculating the probability of cherry picked coincidences is utterly, totally, and absolutely meaningless. Such calculations will never tell you that something is "designed" because RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

Let me repeat: RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

Therefore, small probabilities are not themselves signs of design. This is the primary error of all numerologists who try to justify their collection of cherry-picked results by showing that their particular set of cherry picked results had a "small probability." It wouldn't matter what set of results were picked from the ocean of possibilities. They ALL would have a small probability. So the small probability tells us NOTHING about whether they were designed.

Let me repeat: ANY RANDOM SET OF WORDS generated by your methods will occur with a very small probability. Therefore, the fact that the probability is small tells us nothing about whether or not the set was "put there" by a designer.

Thanks for your reply. I see you've spent some time considering it, for which I'm grateful. You begin here by giving some background on probability theory, which is fine. I've done a little of that too and even considered taking a course in statistics and probability to help me. In the end, though, I avoided doing much of that for the simple reason that some top-drawer probability theorists have analysed the Torah codes and there is as yet no agreement on whether or not they are authentic. Each side seems to have used their specialist knowledge to prove what deep down they wanted to be true. So it seemed to me to be a pointless exercise going very far down that route. If they can't agree, what chance do you and I have? I'd like to make a few points here though.

1. You say that ordinal values have a very narrow spread, or small standard deviation, if you like. This is true, but the New Bible Code is based on the standard values (sv) of the encoded words and phrases, which have a much wider spread (although again there is a bunching in the centre). So about 1 in 90 words have a value of 74 (Jesus (o)), but maybe about a tenth of that number, 1 in 1000, have an ov of 515 (Jesus (s)) - something of that order. In other words, there is much less uncertainty about what word a number is meant to represent (assuming conscious intent) if we use standard values. The lexicon of the English language is now over a million words, so there will be quite a few, but it's groups of words and phrases that count, as well as context, in this case biblical. There may be uncertainty about what one word to replace a number by, but if we can find several that are meaningfully related, forming a regular pattern within scripture, they support each other, by the fact they are synonyms, by the fact that they are related to the text itself, and by the order inherent in the pattern, which is less likely than a disordered pattern. So the signatures of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html), for example, are found by taking the first twenty-four words, splitting them into four groups of six words, and replacing the numbers we see by Jesus and three of its synonyms, to give six numbers in a very tight pattern. Yes the law of truly large numbers will tell us it had to happen in a 24-word string somewhere in the NIV. There are 726583 strings of 24 words in the NIV, giving plenty of opportunities for an impressive random configuration. But why did it happen within the first 24 words? Why do those 24 words happen to be the sv of Atonement Cover, Jesus being our atonement cover? We don't need to become proficient in probability theory to see that this is a highly unusual occurence, because we can see great meaning in it, and the winds of chance do not configure numbers into meaningful patterns - only the wind of Spirit. We can also see that the law of truly large numbers has been starved of its prey. This one escapes it. The numbers here are configured in accordance with what is in our minds, so we can (rightly) suspect that another mind that knows what is in our minds, or Mind at large, or Spirit, if you like, has done the configuring. We see that Spirit can influence matter and it opens up all kinds of other possibilities to us.

I've had people argue that the first 24 words are no different from any other 24 word string, and on one level they are correct. The probability is the same wherever it's found - that's just another way of stating what you said below, that all random events have a low probability. But if you assume that the strings are counted in the order we read a book, a very natural assumption, then do your checking in that order, you can ask what the probability is of it just happening to appear on the first check, word 1 to 24. If there is a 1 in 100000 probability of the signature pattern appearing randomly (and I think it may very well be about that), then the chances of it appearing in the first 24 words is 1 in 100000. It may appear another 6 or 7 times in other word trings, but they will very likely all be buried in obscure passages, not in the first 24 words of scripture, the most important words ever written. God put them there not because he wanted to hide them but because he wanted us to find them!

Addendum: I forgot to add the most important part here. If we ask the question, "Given p = 0.00001 for the signature phenomenon, how many times would we expect it to appear in 24-word strings within the Bible, given 726583 such strings?" the answer is going to be around 7 times. But if we ask "Given p = 0.00001 for the signature phenomenon, what is the probability of it appearing in the first 24-word string within the Bible?" then the answer of course is p = 0.00001, or 1 in 100000. In other words we shoud not expect to have found in in the forst string. It depends on the question you ask as much as anything. There are many other other possible patterns that would be impressive and that would increase the odds, so the probability of finding something there with some kind of order and apparent meaning is certainly greater, but probably beyond calculation. However, it is the integration of the signatures with other parts of the code, such as the atonement cover encoding, the number six, the Creation Snowflake (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437341.html), etc, that makes it so unlikely that this particular pattern would have formed. It all stands or falls together and the glue that holds it up is meaning.

Anyway, I would like to show you that I was guided to look there, at the beginning of Genesis, and shown how to decode the numbers, by a very special type of key. I'll do it in a later post.

Seeing that there are patterns at the start of the Bible, you might then suspect that there are patterns at the end of the Bible or even at the bigining and end of each testament. You'd be right. I documented some of them in the Bookend Encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2465906.html).

I think you're almost right about ordinal values being too close together for there to be any useful informational content. I think there is a little, but not enough. Anyway, as I said in the New Bible Code ordinal values are reduced for the most part to the role of carrying standard values in strings of words. They nearly always take on meaning as standard values (as do words I receive, and probably everyone else - this is a universal key, I believe). And the spread of standard values is much larger. It's also congruent with the most important, historically attested scheme of Hebrew gematria, the absolute or standard value system. Simplicity is key, because when the number of different substitution systems multiplies, so do the probabilities of random hits.

2. On the odds against hitting a number as we calculate along the text being 1 in 45. The numbers are encoded as the ordinal values (ov), and since standard values are much larger several words are required to encode the number. So Jesus (s) = 515. This is the ov of the first twelve words of the NIV. The average ov of the words is about 45. These vary from 1 to over 100 (you said you found one that was 250 - was it floccinaucinihilipilification?), but they will average out somewhat over twelve words. The average ov for the first twelve words is 42.9, for the first thriteen it's 43.6, for the first 37 it's 47.4 - so you see for most of the words and phrases encoded there, which require at least five or six plaintext words, the average chance of a hit is still around 1 in 45.

On small probabilities, if you find, as I have, patterns within the first few words of the NIV, proceeding from the first word (I can highlight in red too), then you can calculate probabilities based on them starting from that first word, based on the idea of looking for strings of encoded numbers from word 1, then word 2, then word 3, etc, etc. If you base your calculations on that procedure, then my results do stand. There was a 1 in 45 chance of hitting 'ark of the testimony' (s). There are twenty names for the ark so there is about a 50% chance hitting one of them, but this one is the first used and appears more often than any other except one of them, which appears later. That counts for something, but let's assume it doesn't and continue. What then are the chances of hitting its two most significant components, atonement cover and cherubim of the glory. Again it's1 in 45 and both appear, so it is reasonable to conclude that there was a 1 in 2025 chance of this happening. There is the same chance of any other numbers appearing but what is different about these numbers is that they are thematically related to the ark. They are important components of the ark too, on the same levelof significance as the ark, and not any of the contents. 'Altar of incense' is there too, and is thematically related to the ark because, according to Hebrews 9, both were in the Most Holy Place. The chances now decrease to 1 in 90000. One could argue that I wasn't including the poles and rings, but these are of much less significance and not mentioned as much (they are encoded elsewhere though). But it really goes beyond number crunching, because the relationship is more hazy now. Some accounts put the altar in the Holy Place. For that and other reasons I settled for 1 in 10000, a) to show that I think it is a real, statistically improbable phenomenon, and b) to concede that 1 in 90000 was too optimistic. The real probabilities are beyond calculation, but I just wanted the reader to get the idea that those four numbers being there is improbable.

You seem to be arguing along the lines that any other four numbers you happen to choose that are in the same range would be equally improbable, and that is true. On that basis there is nothing unusual about them being there because the chances of finding any set of four such numbers would be the same. But how many of those sets would be the standard values of phrases meaningfully related to each other and to the bible, written without the definite article and worded like that only in that version? Very, very few, if any. That is the difference between a code and randomness. That's another reason I gave up doing a lot of probability testing, because the significance and meaning carried by these phrases is very difficult to quantify. The human mind can see it though. that's what we do all the time.

We are pattern seeking creatures and in everyday life we are very good at detecting them and sensing when something is out of the ordinary. The fact that we get it wrong sometimes, for example when we hear of a lottery machine somewhere giving the same six numbers a couple of months apart, which is perfectly normal, is the kind of exception that proves the rule. So if we are walking along and see a nickel heads up on the ground on the edge of the sidewalk we would think that someone dropped it. Nothing unusual in that. If we then found another nickel six paces on, again on the edge of the sidewalk and heads up, then another nickel another six paces on, etc, we begin to suspect someone is doing it deliberately. It may be that someone has a pocket full of nickels and every six paces another one drops out, and they all just happen to roll to the same part of the sidewalk, but we instinctively know it is unusual and we may even want to investigate. Likewise with the code, we can never be sure these aren't chance arrangements, so there is room for doubt. But the more we investigate the less likely chance seems, not just because we find more patterns, but because they meaningfully relate to each other. The reasonable conclusion is that there might be something going on here and that we might want to investigate. The unreasonable conclusion is that it's all chance and, without investigating further, dismissing it. But I know you want to investigate further!

Now, you state that ark of the testimony is not found in Hebrews 9. True, but I never claimed that they were all in Hebrews 9. I claimed, and it's the truth, that the four phrases are all found only in the NIV. The fact that three of them are found in Hebrews 9 is irrelevant, a red herring. Only one of them, cherubim of the glory, is exclusively found in Hebrews 9. And they are either the only formal title used or the first. I've found in the code that the first name is often used for encodings, for example, here (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html).

I didn't mean to insult you with my remark about you finding what you want to find. Please accept my apologies.

I need some sleep. I'll answer the rest of it tomorrow.

Richard Amiel McGough

03-31-2017, 08:59 PM

Thanks for your reply. I see you've spent some time considering it, for which I'm grateful. You begin here by giving some background on probability theory, which is fine. I've done a little of that too and even considered taking a course in statistics and probability to help me. In the end, though, I avoided doing much of that for the simple reason that some top-drawer probability theorists have analysed the Torah codes and there is as yet no agreement on whether or not they are authentic. Each side seems to have used their specialist knowledge to prove what deep down they wanted to be true. So it seemed to me to be a pointless exercise going very far down that route. If they can't agree, what chance do you and I have? I'd like to make a few points here though.
Hey there my friend,

The biggest problem we humans have is self-deception. It's not like we want to believe falsehood, that would be absurd. It's just that the human brain has a "confirmation bias" - a tendency to believe things if they support what we already believe or want to believe, and to disbelieve things when they don't. This is just one of a host of cognitive errors that befuddle the human brain. We are all subject to them. That's why science was invented - to find a way to discern between true and false claims, and to get past our tendency to deceive ourselves. The fruit of the scientific method is obvious. It's all around us. It has transformed the world.

As for Torah codes, I think they have been soundly refuted by qualified experts (source (http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/statsci/)). The fact that believers refuse to accept the science is not surprising. That's par for the course when it comes to religious beliefs, wouldn't you say? Harold Camping was absolutely certain that he had decoded the Bible to find the date of the Rapture was May 21, 2011. He said the only way he could be wrong was if the Bible was wrong. History is littered with similar false beliefs. Muslims think Allah encoded the Quran with the Number 19. And on and on it goes. Such beliefs are common as dirt and very difficult to dislodge once they are believed.

I do not think it is fair to say that the scientists who debunked Torah Codes were anything like the believers who "used their specialist knowledge to prove what deep down they wanted to be true". They use real science, logic, and facts to justify their position. They found similar codes in the Unibomber's manifesto (it "encodes" MAIL BOMBS for example) and secular works like War and Peace. On the face of it, the Torah Codes look exactly like what we would expect from random chance. There is no coherent "message" that can be discerned. At best, the believers were able to find some statistical anomalies. That is NOTHING like what I would expect if there really were an intelligent God deliberately designing a code. I could do it ten thousand times better. The Torah Codes are not worthy of God in my estimation. And so what good are they? Very, very few people could even understand the statistics, and there is no way to actually get a "message" of any meaning that could be objectively verified. Why would an intelligent God design his codes to look exactly like what we would expect from random chance? Why would he use the same methods that failed numerologists have used for centuries. I cannot think of any reason anyone would take them seriously if you really think about it.

1. You say that ordinal values have a very narrow spread, or small standard deviation, if you like. This is true, but the New Bible Code is based on the standard values (sv) of the encoded words and phrases, which have a much wider spread (although again there is a bunching in the centre). So about 1 in 90 words have a value of 74 (Jesus (o)), but maybe about a tenth of that number, 1 in 1000, have an ov of 515 (Jesus (s)) - something of that order. In other words, there is much less uncertainty about what word a number is meant to represent (assuming conscious intent) if we use standard values. The lexicon of the English language is now over a million words, so there will be quite a few, but it's groups of words and phrases that count, as well as context, in this case biblical. There may be uncertainty about what one word to replace a number by, but if we can find several that are meaningfully related, forming a regular pattern within scripture, they support each other, by the fact they are synonyms, by the fact that they are related to the text itself, and by the order inherent in the pattern, which is less likely than a disordered pattern. So the signatures of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html), for example, are found by taking the first twenty-four words, splitting them into four groups of six words, and replacing the numbers we see by Jesus and three of its synonyms, to give six numbers in a very tight pattern. Yes the law of truly large numbers will tell us it had to happen in a 24-word string somewhere in the NIV. There are 726583 strings of 24 words in the NIV, giving plenty of opportunities for an impressive random configuration. But why did it happen within the first 24 words? Why do those 24 words happen to be the sv of Atonement Cover, Jesus being our atonement cover? We don't need to become proficient in probability theory to see that this is a highly unusual occurence, because we can see great meaning in it, and the winds of chance do not configure numbers into meaningful patterns - only the wind of Spirit. We can also see that the law of truly large numbers has been starved of its prey. This one escapes it. The numbers here are configured in accordance with what is in our minds, so we can (rightly) suspect that another mind that knows what is in our minds, or Mind at large, or Spirit, if you like, has done the configuring. We see that Spirit can influence matter and it opens up all kinds of other possibilities to us.

The "probabilities" are meaningless because any random set of words would have a small probability (as you noted in your post). So why mention probability at all? I don't see how it adds to your case. And as for "meaning" and "mutual confirmation" and "synonyms" what do you make of this example?

JESUS = 74 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD

Or if you want to use a different form of gematria (which many people do) you could start with a = 9, b = 18, c = 27 ... and get this set:

JESUS = 666 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD

There's plenty of "meaning" and "mutual confirmation" for some pretty weird beliefs that I'm sure you would reject. This shows how subjective numerology really is. You are impressed because of your own personal experiences that convinced you that the 1984 version of the NIV was "coded by God." Without those personal experiences, it's very unlikely anyone would be impressed, let alone convinced, by your methods. And I am certain that no person with any knowledge of probability would be convinced because any random set of words would be equally unlikely, and you can always find "confirmation" with other words that "make a pattern" that confirms what you want to believe.

As for the specifics of the Signatures of Christ, I'll review them in another post. This one is meant to be more high level. It's all too easy to get lost in the "weeds" of detailed analysis.

I've had people argue that the first 24 words are no different from any other 24 word string, and on one level they are correct. The probability is the same wherever it's found - that's just another way of stating what you said below, that all random events have a low probability. But if you assume that the strings are counted in the order we read a book, a very natural assumption, then do your checking in that order, you can ask what the probability is of it just happening to appear on the first check, word 1 to 24. If there is a 1 in 100000 probability of the signature pattern appearing randomly (and I think it may very well be about that), then the chances of it appearing in the first 24 words is 1 in 100000. It may appear another 6 or 7 times in other word trings, but they will very likely all be buried in obscure passages, not in the first 24 words of scripture, the most important words ever written. God put them there not because he wanted to hide them but because he wanted us to find them!

Again, the "probability" is irrelevant. If you didn't find the pattern you found, would that prove the Bible was not designed? If not, then how do you discern between a random text and a designed text? How do you know you couldn't find similarly "improbable" words in the Quran or Book of Mormon?

It's really important to dig down and settle this point. Calculating the probability of cherry picked patterns is utterly meaningless. That's not what probability theory was designed to do. It is a tool to PREDICT things and to find correlations in data sets. You are not using it that way at all. Your "data set" is a small collection of results cherry picked from a huge ocean of possibilities, so it proves nothing. Again, I point out this relation and ask "What is the probability?"

JESUS = 666 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD

Why did God encode these names and numbers, if indeed he designed the English language to encode things?

Anyway, I would like to show you that I was guided to look there, at the beginning of Genesis, and shown how to decode the numbers, by a very special type of key. I'll do it in a later post.

If you are talking about the ELS that says "HERE ARK" - I've already read that and do not find it convincing at all.

Seeing that there are patterns at the start of the Bible, you might then suspect that there are patterns at the end of the Bible or even at the bigining and end of each testament. You'd be right. I documented some of them in the Bookend Encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2465906.html).

If there were a God of infinite intelligence who coded the Bible, I would not expect it to be anything like the "codes" you have found. They are not worthy of God because they look like the typical kind of numerology that believers have been making up for centuries. They all have the same character of not really being a "code" at all. You are creating the patterns by cherry picking words that you like and ignoring the vast majority of "hits" that don't fit the pattern you like. It looks exactly like how people delude themselves. Please take no offense, as you know I intend nothing but the best. I'm just telling you how it looks to me.

I think you're almost right about ordinal values being too close together for there to be any useful informational content. I think there is a little, but not enough. Anyway, as I said in the New Bible Code ordinal values are reduced for the most part to the role of carrying standard values in strings of words. They nearly always take on meaning as standard values (as do words I receive, and probably everyone else - this is a universal key, I believe). And the spread of standard values is much larger. It's also congruent with the most important, historically attested scheme of Hebrew gematria, the absolute or standard value system. Simplicity is key, because when the number of different substitution systems multiplies, so do the probabilities of random hits.

But the only meaning they can have is the meaning you select when you choose the words you like while ignoring all the others.

Well, this is getting too long. I'll answer more in another post.

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

03-31-2017, 09:38 PM

2. On the odds against hitting a number as we calculate along the text being 1 in 45. The numbers are encoded as the ordinal values (ov), and since standard values are much larger several words are required to encode the number. So Jesus (s) = 515. This is the ov of the first twelve words of the NIV. The average ov of the words is about 45. These vary from 1 to over 100 (you said you found one that was 250 - was it floccinaucinihilipilification?), ut they will average out somewhat over twelve words. The average ov for the first twelve words is 42.9, for the first thriteen it's 43.6, for the first 37 it's 47.4 - so you see for most of the words and phrases encoded there, which require at least five or six plaintext words, the average chance of a hit is still around 1 in 45.

Yes, the average value of the first 37 words of Genesis is 1754/37 = 47.4. But that has almost nothing to do with the probability of finding a hit. It affects the probability only because a large average would make hitting small numbers unlikely or impossible, and a small average would make it unlikely (or impossible) to hit large numbers. Your estimation of this probability is completely misguided. This is why I went into a detailed explanation of probability. The question to be answered is this (where the word strings are calculated using your method, starting with the first word):

What is the probability that a word string generated from a random set of n words would have the value m?

We need to calculate that probability and then plug in the numbers for Genesis 1 (n < 38) and see if they are different than what we would expect from a random set. That's how statistics is supposed to work.

So what is the probability of a word string having the value of m? That's easy in principle, but complicated in practice. The probability for a single word to sum to m is just the total number of words that sum to m divided by the total number of words in the vocabulary. Denote this number as

p1(m) = the probability that the first word sums to m.

Things get more complicated if the word string has two words, because then we must add the probability for every possible pair of words that sum to m. This is given by the formula:

p2(m) = SUM p1(a) + p1(b) | where a + b = m

I.e. it is the sum of [p1(m-1) + p1(1)] + [p1(m-2) + p1(2)] + [p1(m-3) + p1(3)] ... + [p1(1) + p1(m-1)]

Next, we would have to do the same thing for all triplets that sum to m:

p3(m) = SUM p1(a) + p1(b) + p1(c) | where a + b + c = m

And so on until we get to n.

Now here is where most people's intuition fails them. The number of ways to add positive integers to get a given sum grows incredibly fast. The value is given by the Partition Function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(number_theory)). If m = 100 the value is 190,569,292 (that's 190 million ways to combine numbers that sum to m). Of course, many of those combinations might involve more than n numbers, such as when you write 100 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 .... + 1 and n is 37. And many would be meaningless, such as a string of a hundred letters "a". So an accurate calculation would have to take that into account (which is answered by "how many ways are there to add x numbers that sum to m, and do that for 0 < x < n). But in any case, the number of possible combinations is ASTRONOMICALLY HUGE! Remember, you are looking at numbers as large as 1754, and the partition function for just 1000 is 24,061,467,864,032,622,473,692,149,727,991 or approximately 2.4x1031.

But that's only the beginning! All those numbers tell us how many ways there are to find m using the Ordinal Values (o.v.) of the text of Genesis 1. We have to do the same calculation for the number of ways to find m using the standard values (s.v.) of the entire vocabulary of the NIV too! The number of possibilities is smaller in this case since you typically use only 2, 3 or 4 words. But still, the possibilities are amplified far beyond what you would guess if you didn't understand concepts from probability and combinatorics.

I don't know the exact values, but I can see that the numbers are astronomical and the probability of finding pretty much anything given enough time and effort is essentially UNITY. I.e. you have a probability near 1 of finding anything you might be looking for.

This is why I enjoy discussing these things so much. It's really fun digging deep to find the truth.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

04-01-2017, 04:06 AM

Hey there Bill,
Let me repeat: RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

Therefore, small probabilities are not themselves signs of design. This is the primary error of all numerologists who try to justify their collection of cherry-picked results by showing that their particular set of cherry picked results had a "small probability." It wouldn't matter what set of results were picked from the ocean of possibilities. They ALL would have a small probability. So the small probability tells us NOTHING about whether they were designed.

Let me repeat: ANY RANDOM SET OF WORDS generated by your methods will occur with a very small probability. Therefore, the fact that the probability is small tells us nothing about whether or not the set was "put there" by a designer.

There are two scenarios

1. Ignoring the meaningful relationships between words and phrases, and
2. Taking meaningful relationships into account.

I think this key distinction has to be recognised, because without it we will be at cross purposes. The ark of the testimony has great significance to readers of the Bible and therefore, although the numbers 1754,1623, 1169 and 610 are in scenario 1 no more important than any other numbers, in scenario 2 they are very important. They are only related to the furniture within the Most Holy Place in the NIV and this is where we find them, therefore this has to be significant. If we take that significance into account in our probability calculations, we will to some extent be able to quantify it.

In calculating probabilities the question you ask is key. When I found the number 1754 and realised that it was the sv of 'ark of the testimony' I then predicted that atonement cover and cherubim of the glory would also be there. This was an a priori prediction, based on the fact that the two numbers, 1623 and 1169, had no more chance of being there under scenario 1 than any other number. But both were there, which stunned me, because it showed, as it has shown many times since, that I was on the right track and could to some extent predict what values might be present and where they might be found. This is detective work, as much as anything, and a detective shows his expertise by results. What was I predicting here? I wasn't predicting that 'mercy seat' or 'lid' would be there. I was predicting that 'atonement cover' would be there, because I already knew that this is found in the NIV and that the code is self referential. I could narrow it down to one phrase, as I could with cherubim of the glory. Finding altar of incense too was an unexpected bonus. So the question I formulated out of my prediction was "Given that ark of the testimony is present, what are the chances of finding atonement cover and cherubim of the glory there?" This is a legitimate question because it could be reduced to two numbers: 1623 and 1169. Based on nothing more than finding 1754, I could predict that those two other numbers would be there! It was legitimate then to say that the chances of finding them there were about 1 in (45 x 45), or 1 in 2025, which gave the probability of them just being there randomly. None of that is proof, but it was highly suggestive, a neon sign that something non-random was going on. You could ask about the other components of the ark: the moulding, poles and rings. These are of less importance that the cover and cherubim though, which are of great ritual significance within the Most Holy Place. So again I think the calculation stands. We might argue about the exact probability, but surely you can see that something improbable has happened. The winds of chance couldn't have blown meaning into first few words of Genesis. Given enough text you'd find it somewhere, but not in the first few words (probably). Given enough monkeys and typewriters you'll get the complete works of Shakespeare, but there were very few monkeys and typewriters. The NIV, incidentally, is the most popular English version (English being the international language of choice), now outselling even the KJV. If God wanted to put a code somewhere, this would be the language and the version.

One could possibly find three interelated concepts, of similar import, in the NIV wording, starting from word 1, with those four values (1754, 1623, 1169, 610), but given my stipulations, you can intuit that there will be very few. Similarly, you might find three other numbers found in the first 50 words or so with similar properties, and in fact there are others there, but they are part of the code too! Given that I'm stipulating that we start from the beginning, there just aren't that many possibilities. There are a few 'rolls of the dice', and I think that probability calculations therefore have some value, but not a huge number. The law of truly large numbers just doesn't get a look in.

When I first started playing with numerology back in 1990, I too did it all by hand. I really enjoyed it. It was quite meditative. I would be meditating on the meaning of the text and the beauty of the numbers and found it quite mesmerizing. But then I wanted to be able to do it more efficiently so I began using computers. I'd call it gematria, not numerology, which has different connotations. I agree though, it is very meditative. I have an inbuilt resistance to using too much technology though. I like to get a feel for it, and using software removes one from the coalface. A miner digging at the coalface will find more fossils than someone blasting it with dynamite.

Yes, I do ask why it is the way it is if it was designed, because the central term "ark of the testimony" is NOT found in the context of Hebrews 9 whereas a different term "ark of the covenant" is found there. Why would an intelligent God design it so that the numbers DO NOT match? That makes no sense to me at all. It directly contradicts the idea that the numbers were put there by design so that we could recognize the design. As I said, this is a red herring. The principle here is that they are found in the NIV, and ONLY in the NIV, not in Hebrews 9. You can't ask why God hasn't encoded the numbers you think should be encoded, or by the method you would like them to be encoded, or in the places you thik they should be encoded. You're trying to tell God what to do here. And because he hasn't done it the way you think it should be done, you are denying he could have done it. Why not just actually look at what is there? I know it's basically post hoc, or a posteriori reasoning thereafter. But little a priori predictions can be made, as I showed above. This is a scientific problem, in its broadest sense, and showing the code is (probably) real could be seen as an exciting challenge. I just don't have the time or all of the skills necessary to do it. I've done my best, but this needs a team of experts and years of analysis. I understand that advances have been made in incorporating intangibles like meaning into calculations, and that may be the way forward. A reductionist "analysis" will only show what it is designed to show, a meaningless set of numbers in a meaningless world. But take meaning into account and everything changes. Gematria is a reflection of the meanings we ascribe to words; the code is using meaning to communicate with us. As to why I believe the code is real, that will have to wait until I can show you how I was given the Key, and what the Key contains.

The fact that you "worked out the probabilities" for a tiny set of numbers after the fact means they are meaningless. Probabilities are only significant when the data set is large enough. For example. you could never draw any conclusion by calculating the probability of a single toss of a coin. You would have to toss the coin hundreds of times and note if the frequency is 50/50 or not. Likewise, you cannot draw any meaningful conclusion by calculating the probability that the word strings would match some other phrases. As explained above, any words you find would have similar small probabilities, so the small probabilities tell you nothing about whether or not they were designed. I agree with you in part, but in fact there are a large number of encoded word strings, the equivalent of coin tosses. I've just shown you a few. Since many or even all are connected by meaning, location, import, NIV spelling, etc, then there is some justification for counting them as one string of coin tosses - although perhaps with a factor of some kind included to account for ambiguity in meaning, etc. That's what I mean when I say the encodings stand or fall together. The exact method is far from being established and an accurate methodology might be an impossibility. Notwithstanding what I said above, because I'd love to try it, I don't think the code is designed to be 'proven'. I think that it is designed to appeal to people who are already convinced by other means, such as personal revelation, of the reality of God and their connection to him. It is the disconnected who have trouble with the code, because they experience cognitive disonnance when they see evidence that their entire worldview is wrong.

Here is the key: If a text is actually CODED then the code must account for the entire text. For example, here is a truly coded text:

Uijt ufyu jt dpefe cz tijgujoh fbdi mfuufs gpsxbse cz pof.

When decoded, it says

This text is coded by shifting each letter forward by one.

Every letter is accounted for. We know with perfect certainty that it was encoded, and how. There is nothing like this in any of the "Bible codes". The kinds of "codes" you are looking for are indistinguishable from what we would expect in a random uncoded text. That's certainly one kind of code, but again you are trying to tell God what to do! In fact the New Bible Code uses more than one kind of encoding method. There are Equidistant Letter Sequence (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2477016.html) codes too. These support the gematria codes and because they are independent of them they act as an independent 'witness' to the reality of the code. On witnessing, my most recent pages show that the entire ark, its every component and its contents, are all found in the forst five ferses of Genesis, in both English and Hebrew (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html). This is another form of independent witnessing, since these are two different languages. Can anyone explain why the two numbers representing the Hebrew and English words are consistently found together in the text? I always chose the first instance of the Hebrew word in the Masoretic and its exact NIV translation.

Yes, finding patterns in texts is fraught with dangers, but so is believing you know what kind of code God should have created!

Integration" with other cherry picked results proves nothing.

This is the problem you need to address. How do you discern between a random text and a coded text? That's the question you must answer. Merely collecting lots of "hits" from an essentially infinite ocean of random numbers proves nothing. That is the root error of all numerology. It is based on the cognitive error of CHERRY PICKING by definition. You begin by trolling through an ocean of numbers looking for "hits" that you can use to make "patterns." Different people almost always "find" (i.e. create) different patterns because the patterns are very idiosyncratic and their meaning is very subjective.

I answer the charge of cherry picking on my site. The small portion of text, its high profile location at the very beginning of the NIV, the fact that all the ark numbers all proceed from word 1, the fact that I always took the NIV spelling, the fact that some of the words and phrases are exclusive to the NIV, the fact that I used exactly the same decoding procedure and that they are the simplest scheme and the most historically attested scheme, the import of the words - all these together answer the charge of cherry picking. Cherries grow in bunches, incidentally, so I'm not sure that's the best analogy. Yes, it's possible that another group of meaningfully-related phrases or similar import could fit there, but I'm still waiting on someone showing it.

Probability analysis is so hard here that I thought a better method of showing the code it real would be to take the first few words of other texts, such as say crime novels, would be a better method, attempting to prove in other words that the code is statistically improbable. I did this with the Signature of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html) (the six numbers found under the atonement cover all relating to jesus Christ) and found that although individual vaues came up quite often (more often than I wanted - it was quite revealing about the code and about my own desire to see it 'proven') there was never any larger pattern. What it taught me was that it is patterns or confluences of encoded numbers that make a code, not individual numbers. My wife's crime novels didn't show any patterning of the numbers, just the numbers I'd found in the NIV Bible, but scattered about the text - and always far less of them.

thebluetriangle

04-01-2017, 06:51 AM

The fact that you "worked out the probabilities" for a tiny set of numbers after the fact means they are meaningless. Probabilities are only significant when the data set is large enough. For example. you could never draw any conclusion by calculating the probability of a single toss of a coin. You would have to toss the coin hundreds of times and note if the frequency is 50/50 or not. Likewise, you cannot draw any meaningful conclusion by calculating the probability that the word strings would match some other phrases. As explained above, any words you find would have similar small probabilities, so the small probabilities tell you nothing about whether or not they were designed.

If there were nothing more than this phenomenon, I wouldn't regard it as a code either, any more than if I tossed a coin four times and got heads each time. But based on it I found similar codes in other parts of the Bible, for example at the beginning and end of each testament and the centre (by verse) of the Bible. That is far more tosses of the coin, far more improbable than finding it once. The entire code is the improbable phenomenon, rather than simply one encoding. It's even possible that the improbabilities are 'borrowed' from other parts, so that they are overall what we would expect by chance - rather like the order created when a snow crystal forms being balanced by the consequent overall slight increase in disorder in the universe as a whole from heat being released - although that's just a speculation on my part. The snowflake analogy is quite accurate in fact because what we are talking about is information, which is more fundamental than energy or matter. (Pure information has been converted into energy and could be seen as negative entropy.) So the code preexisted as pure information then crystalised in the Bible over time, like a snowflake. We can admire the exquisite beauty of the code as we do a snow crystal, knowing that the second law of thermodynamics hasn't been violated. The crystal itself contains more order (lower entropy, more information) than the water, just as the code contains ordered patterns even though the words it is within were written by translators who didn't know enough to have encoded it. I believe the first few verses of Genesis (NIV) are like that snowflake, full of order and structure - holographic in fact - but not necessarily in violation of natural law. There isn't much information in a snow crystal, as the angles, features etc, are all the same, just self-similar at dfferent scales (which we also find with the code). But there is a lot of information crystalised into the code, mainly about one event: the Second Coming.

The probability of related concepts being found in ordered patterns is the critical question. That is what I tried to calculate in my 'back of an envelope' fashion, although I am perfectly aware that it needs a lot of refinement. I assumed there was 100% identification between the ark, the atonement cover and the cherubim, which I know is much too optimistic. But there is some identification between them and so finding them together is suspicious. It's a noticeable pattern, noticeable because it's not what we'd expect if the numbers were thrown in there randomly. It looks like they were carefully placed there.

"Integration" with other cherry picked results proves nothing.

They were just there, integrated. All I had to do was open the atonement cover and look underneath. There they were: Jesus, Yehoshua, Word, Word, Messiah, Messiah, all in regular patterns of six and twelve words, formed in the simplest fashion, by splitting it into 4 x six-word segments. Don't forget the meaning of six, man's number and the days of creation, which Genesis 1 details! We can look at that phenomenon too and work out the chances of it just happening. I worked out a binomial probability of 1 in 1200, based on 70 words used for Jesus, but this was much too pessimistic, because the words there are going to be at or near the top of any list, since they are less ambiguous than words like 'friend', 'counsellor', etc. And what is the first word we find? Jesus! You have to be willfully blind not to see it is a code and not chance, even if the numbers are difficult to crunch.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-01-2017, 09:33 AM

There are two scenarios

1. Ignoring the meaningful relationships between words and phrases, and
2. Taking meaningful relationships into account.

I think this key distinction has to be recognised, because without it we will be at cross purposes. The ark of the testimony has great significance to readers of the Bible and therefore, although the numbers 1754,1623, 1169 and 610 are in scenario 1 no more important than any other numbers, in scenario 2 they are very important. They are only related to the furniture within the Most Holy Place in the NIV and this is where we find them, therefore this has to be significant. If we take that significance into account in our probability calculations, we will to some extent be able to quantify it.

Hey there Bill,

I'm glad we are digging down on this point, because it is of central importance. I don't see how the subjective "meaning" has anything to do with probability. I thought we had agreed that probability tells us nothing in an analysis of post hoc cherry picked data. It gives us no "sign of design" in any way at all because you all patterns - whether meaningful or meaningless - will have low probability. This point really needs to be either understood or refuted:

Small probabilities tell us nothing about "design" because any random pattern will have a small probability.

Also, there are patterns with very obvious meaning and low probability that you reject and ignore or explain away because you don't like them, such as

JESUS = 666 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD

Rationalization is the handmaiden of cherry picking. It is how people maintain their false beliefs when faced with evidence they don't like.

These are the primary cognitive errors that people use to create and maintain false belief systems:

1) Cherry Picking
2) Confirmation Bias
3) Rationalization

These errors should be AVOIDED at all costs, not used as the FOUNDATION for "patterns." This is why gematria is fundamentally unreliable as a test for "design." It is based fundamentally on the cognitive errors of Cherry Picking (Selection Bias) and Confirmation Bias (you accept a result if it "confirms" what you want to believe, and ignore it or explain it away otherwise).

I know about these things because I had deluded myself with the Bible Wheel and gematria for so many years. I've discussed the errors, how they work and how to overcome them in detail in a series of articles:

Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/04/debunking-myself-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/)
Debunking Myself: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/29/debunking-the-bible-wheel-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/)
The Bible Wheel: Patternicity on Steroids (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/12/patternicity/)
Battle of the Bible Wheels: Catholic vs. Protestant (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/05/battle-of-the-bible-wheels-catholic-vs-protestant/)

The last two articles show the most effective technique, which is to compare and contrast competing contradictory claims. The most powerful for me was the discovery of the Catholic Bible Wheel, which has many features as impressive as the Protestant version. What are the chances? That's what convinced me about the Protestant Bible Wheel. It seemed impossible to be the product of chance. But then I saw that I could make a Catholic Bible Wheel that was even better in the sense that it "sealed" the Catholic Bible with the 24 letters from Alpha to Omega, the actual description of Christ (the Living Word) found in the text of "God's Word"! This "broke the spell" and I finally realized - truly saw and understood - that I had deceived myself with post hoc "pattern finding."

The debunking of myself was the fulfillment of my stated intent in the conclusion of my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/) in which I use him as an example of the many ways believers delude themselves. After cutting my teeth debunking others, I was finally able to debunk myself.

I'll answer more in another post. It's best to keep each post as small as possible. They become rather unmanageable when they get too big. And they go off in too many directions.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

Richard Amiel McGough

04-01-2017, 10:16 AM

In calculating probabilities the question you ask is key. When I found the number 1754 and realised that it was the sv of 'ark of the testimony' I then predicted that atonement cover and cherubim of the glory would also be there. This was an a priori prediction, based on the fact that the two numbers, 1623 and 1169, had no more chance of being there under scenario 1 than any other number. But both were there, which stunned me, because it showed, as it has shown many times since, that I was on the right track and could to some extent predict what values might be present and where they might be found. This is detective work, as much as anything, and a detective shows his expertise by results. What was I predicting here? I wasn't predicting that 'mercy seat' or 'lid' would be there. I was predicting that 'atonement cover' would be there, because I already knew that this is found in the NIV and that the code is self referential.

I totally understand why you would be impressed by finding a confirmation of your "a priori prediction." That explains why it is meaningful to you, but it doesn't help an objective observer who is attempting to judge whether there are any signs of design. The fact that you successfully "predicted" this one pattern means little because you cannot predict anything else. If the text were truly coded, then you should be able to pick any random topic and predict things. Like if I discover a law of nature, I can actually predict what will happen when you toss a ball in the air. Or if I decoded some computer code I could predict what the computer would do. Or if I decoded your SSL wifi signal I could read your emails. That's what "codes" are really all about. They are not post hoc patterns "justified" by a misapplication of statistics. The statistics are used to establish the laws that actually govern the phenomena. Can you show me an example where anyone uses statistics to prove design in a peer reviewed analysis? I know of some, and they are nothing like what you are doing. To prove "design" (or rather, authorship) a statistical analysis of word frequencies help. But you know that doesn't work with your patterns. This is the problem with your appeal to statistics. You are not using them as they are meant to be used, and so your results don't prove anything at all.

I could narrow it down to one phrase, as I could with cherubim of the glory.

That is a textbook case of the fundamental flaw in post hoc statistical analysis. It's the Sharpshooter's Fallacy. You are drawing the target around the place your random hit happened to fall!

Finding altar of incense too was an unexpected bonus.

Yes, a "bonus" because it "confirmed" what you wanted to believe. Your every word reveals the fundamental flaw of your method. It is based on cognitive errors and fallacies, such as cherry picking, confirmation bias, rationalization, the Sharpshooter's Fallacy, etc., etc., etc.

So the question I formulated out of my prediction was "Given that ark of the testimony is present, what are the chances of finding atonement cover and cherubim of the glory there?" This is a legitimate question because it could be reduced to two numbers: 1623 and 1169. Based on nothing more than finding 1754, I could predict that those two other numbers would be there! It was legitimate then to say that the chances of finding them there were about 1 in (45 x 45), or 1 in 2025, which gave the probability of them just being there randomly. None of that is proof, but it was highly suggestive, a neon sign that something non-random was going on.

I totally understand why you would find that to be a "neon sign". I had many similar experiences. I would see some connection and then think "Wouldn't it be amazing if ..." and go looking and maybe find something or maybe not. I collected these "hits" for many years. Each hit convinced me that I was on to something. But then I realized that there were no real patterns at all. They were all fragmentary. Bits and pieces that would be expected in a large random set. There was no overarching pattern that could be demonstrated with a statistical analysis (which is the true purpose of statistics).

Statistics are not meant to justify what we want to believe.

The best thing you could do would be to try to prove yourself WRONG. That's the only way you could have any real confidence that you are right.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-01-2017, 10:26 AM

As I said, this is a red herring. The principle here is that they are found in the NIV, and ONLY in the NIV, not in Hebrews 9. You can't ask why God hasn't encoded the numbers you think should be encoded, or by the method you would like them to be encoded, or in the places you thik they should be encoded. You're trying to tell God what to do here. And because he hasn't done it the way you think it should be done, you are denying he could have done it. Why not just actually look at what is there? I know it's basically post hoc, or a posteriori reasoning thereafter. But little a priori predictions can be made, as I showed above. This is a scientific problem, in its broadest sense, and showing the code is (probably) real could be seen as an exciting challenge. I just don't have the time or all of the skills necessary to do it. I've done my best, but this needs a team of experts and years of analysis. I understand that advances have been made in incorporating intangibles like meaning into calculations, and that may be the way forward. A reductionist "analysis" will only show what it is designed to show, a meaningless set of numbers in a meaningless world. But take meaning into account and everything changes. Gematria is a reflection of the meanings we ascribe to words; the code is using meaning to communicate with us. As to why I believe the code is real, that will have to wait until I can show you how I was given the Key, and what the Key contains.

Your "a priori prediction" that God coded "atonement cover" and "cherubim of the glory" is a statement of what you thought God would do. Then you found it, so now you state unequivocally that you believe it is what God actually did. How then can you tell me NOT to make similar predictions? Why are you free to make predictions and then claim "confirmation" when you find it, but I cannot make predictions and test them? It appears the only standard by which you judge is whether or not the result confirms what you want to believe. No "predictions" are allowed if they don't confirm what you want to believe.

Think about this. I have very good reasons to ask why God would choose to use "ark of the covenant" which DOES NOT FIT with the predicted pattern. Your attack on my prediction is a textbook example of rationalization and special pleading. Predictions are fine ONLY if they confirm what you want to believe. If they don't confirm it, then they are "red herrings" and "trying to tell God what to do." Etc.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-01-2017, 10:36 AM

That's certainly one kind of code, but again you are trying to tell God what to do! In fact the New Bible Code uses more than one kind of encoding method. There are Equidistant Letter Sequence (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2477016.html) codes too.

No, I'm not telling God what to do. I'm telling YOU what a real code looks like. Your results are cherry picked from an ocean of possibilities. The probability of find something "meaningful" is near certainty. You are the one making the claims. It has nothing to do with "God" per se, except that your codes do not look like anything an intelligent God would design because it would be extremely irrational to design codes that are based fundamentally on cognitive errors and are indistinguishable from the ten thousand false patterns from every contrary belief system that litters the history of religious literature.

These support the gematria codes and because they are independent of them they act as an independent 'witness' to the reality of the code. On witnessing, my most recent pages show that the entire ark, its every component and its contents, are all found in the forst five ferses of Genesis, in both English and Hebrew (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html). This is another form of independent witnessing, since these are two different languages. Can anyone explain why the two numbers representing the Hebrew and English words are consistently found together in the text? I always chose the first instance of the Hebrew word in the Masoretic and its exact NIV translation.

Say what? You found a CONSTENT pattern? Please share! I have yet to see any consistent pattern. If you have found it, then you can easily prove it with statistics because that's what statistics was designed to do. To show consistent patterns ... or prove they are not there. I would be utterly stunned if you found a consistent pattern that was statistically significant.

thebluetriangle

04-01-2017, 12:25 PM

Hey there Bill,

I'm glad we are digging down on this point, because it is of central importance. I don't see how the subjective "meaning" has anything to do with probability. I thought we had agreed that probability tells us nothing in an analysis of post hoc cherry picked data. It gives us no "sign of design" in any way at all because you all patterns - whether meaningful or meaningless - will have low probability. This point really needs to be either understood or refuted:

Whoa there! You said the data was cherry picked, not me. I chose the example of the ark, cover, cherubim and altar all proceeding from word 1, because it's fairly clear they are not cherry picked. They are not even totally post hoc, because as I said I predicted and found two of them after finding the first. If you mean I cherry picked my best example, I could have chosen many more. I chose that because it is more obvious than the others. There are only 37 possible word strings (from word 1) up to word 37, which is where 'ark of the testimony' stops. How is finding the two items of furniture found in the Most Holy Place, plus the atonement cover and cherubim, within such a small data set cherry picking? There are only 37 numbers, so finding four so meaningfully interelated to each other and to the most important concept in the Old Testament, whilst referring to the version they are found in - the only one, remember, that uses these four titles - is something of a miracle, which is exactly what it is - a frozen miracle.

Small probabilities tell us nothing about "design" because any random pattern will have a small probability.

You seem to be saying that the meaningful relationships I outlined above are totally irrelevant. I say that they are evidence, good evidence, that a higher power encoded them, because chance has no power of discernment. Imagine you are sitting in bar near the centre a large city on a Saturday evening and a young guy walks in you know, looking well dressed. A couple of strangers walk in, but then the brother of the first person walks in, also well dressed. You think "Oh, those two people are from the same family" and already you wonder if they are meeting up for a drink. Half a dozen strangers walk in, but then a male cousin of the first person walks in, well dressed and looking happy. Another three or four strangers walk in and then the best friend of the first guy walks in, also well dressed." Without even noticing if they are sitting together, you guess that they are all meeting up, probably for a stag party. It's Saturday, stag party night (here in Scotland anyway), it's a city centre bar, probably expensive, and most people don't go there unless it's a special occasion. They are well dressed. They are all males, a mixture of friends and family and all young and ready for a party. It's not hard to guess what's going on. By induction you guess that it's a stag party and that it's the first guy who walked in who was having it. It didn't matter that most of the people in the bar were there for other reasons. The clues all came together and you made an inductive leap, probably correct. Could a probability analysis have gotten you there any more quickly? Or at all? A skeptic might say you were cherry picking data, but you're picking up on clues, based on meaning. But you weren't cherry picking data. You were sorting out relevant from irrelevant data.

Also, there are patterns with very obvious meaning and low probability that you reject and ignore or explain away because you don't like them, such as

JESUS = 666 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD

Who says I don't like that? I would reject it though, because it's based on A = 9, B = 18, etc. Simplicity is the key.

These are the primary cognitive errors that people use to create and maintain false belief systems:

1) Cherry Picking
2) Confirmation Bias
3) Rationalization

These errors should be AVOIDED at all costs, not used as the FOUNDATION for "patterns." This is why gematria is fundamentally unreliable as a test for "design." It is based fundamentally on the cognitive errors of Cherry Picking (Selection Bias) and Confirmation Bias (you accept a result if it "confirms" what you want to believe, and ignore it or explain it away otherwise).

You keep stating that, but that proves nothing, because you haven't shown how I was cherry picking in the first place. Remember, it's all in the first 37 words, not a lot of room for cherry picking or wielding the law of truly large numbers. The two main items are the ark and the atonement cover, over the first 37 and 24 words. These multiply to give 888 and visually they form hexagram 37 and its outline, which I think adds to the evidence it's encoded.

I know about these things because I had deluded myself with the Bible Wheel and gematria for so many years. I've discussed the errors, how they work and how to overcome them in detail in a series of articles:

Debunking Myself: What A Long Strange Trip It's Been (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/04/debunking-myself-what-a-long-strange-trip-its-been/)
Debunking Myself: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/29/debunking-the-bible-wheel-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/)
The Bible Wheel: Patternicity on Steroids (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/12/patternicity/)
Battle of the Bible Wheels: Catholic vs. Protestant (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/05/battle-of-the-bible-wheels-catholic-vs-protestant/)

The last two articles show the most effective technique, which is to compare and contrast competing contradictory claims. The most powerful for me was the discovery of the Catholic Bible Wheel, which has many features as impressive as the Protestant version. What are the chances? That's what convinced me about the Protestant Bible Wheel. It seemed impossible to be the product of chance. But then I saw that I could make a Catholic Bible Wheel that was even better in the sense that it "sealed" the Catholic Bible with the 24 letters from Alpha to Omega, the actual description of Christ (the Living Word) found in the text of "God's Word"! This "broke the spell" and I finally realized - truly saw and understood - that I had deceived myself with post hoc "pattern finding."

The debunking of myself was the fulfillment of my stated intent in the conclusion of my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2012/10/06/the-art-of-rationalization-a-case-study-of-christian-apologist-rich-deem/) in which I use him as an example of the many ways believers delude themselves. After cutting my teeth debunking others, I was finally able to debunk myself.

I'll answer more in another post. It's best to keep each post as small as possible. They become rather unmanageable when they get too big. And they go off in too many directions.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

I've read most of those articles. One thing I'd like to ask is why you think that because there may also be a Catholic Bible Wheel that invalidates your own one. Why not two? Half the world's christians are Catholics, after all. Does the Biblewheel have to be exclusive? I agree with keeping it as short as possible. Believe me, I am. As for post-hoc pattern finding, there is no other way to find a code that is there. It's like finding your way around a strange house in the dark, with no plan and no idea where the doors and light switches are. I was given a key to help me open the front door though. I'm babysitting tonight, but I'll get to answering the rest of your posts later.

thebluetriangle

04-01-2017, 04:00 PM

I totally understand why you would be impressed by finding a confirmation of your "a priori prediction." That explains why it is meaningful to you, but it doesn't help an objective observer who is attempting to judge whether there are any signs of design. The fact that you successfully "predicted" this one pattern means little because you cannot predict anything else.

This shows that either you aren't following the links I've given or that you aren't taking in the information I've presented. I have found many parts of the code through just this process. In The Bookend Encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2465906.html) I show that the beginning and end of each testament are encoded with the following

JESUS SECOND COMING
THE SECOND COMING
THE SECOND COMING
THE LORD SECOND COMING

I found the first one over the first 18 words of Genesis and thought that there might be something similar at the other end of the Bible. I was right. Then I thought that the end of each testament might also be encoded and found the middle two. These are encoded over 18-14-14-18 words, giving a nice pattern. The numbers also give rise to a geometric analogy that illustrates an opened book.

Other pages where I predicted and found patterns (it's all of them really) are

The Creation Snowflake (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437341.html)
Bisecting the Bible (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2464594.html)
The Sea (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3264921.html)
The First Day (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3281244.html)

In all of these, I found patterns in Genesis and on that basis predicted further patterns elsewhere or alongside them.

If the text were truly coded, then you should be able to pick any random topic and predict things.

There you go again. You are trying to dictate what the code should be, according to your preconceptions - rather than discovering what it is - then criticising it for not being that. How do you know what the code should be able to do? You've decided your own code was a mirage, after aggresively promoting it for a decade, and now you are trying to prove that everyone else's code has to be one too. But all you have shown is that you are NOT capable of deciding what is a code and what is not. I'm not capable of deciding either, incidentally. I know the code is real for completely different reasons. Maybe it's also related to my use of the word 'code'. It's certainly information encrypted into the text and structure of the NIV, so I believe it can be called a code. But you want it to be like a wifi signal or the enigma code. It is what it is. If you don't like the word 'code', fine, call it something else. The question should be, does it give us any information? It does.

That is a textbook case of the fundamental flaw in post hoc statistical analysis. It's the Sharpshooter's Fallacy. You are drawing the target around the place your random hit happened to fall!

The four ark encodings are no sharpshooters fallacy. They are all there within the first 37 words - no wild shooting there - and the target is the same place many other encodings are found: the very apex of Scripture! This particular target was already known, not drawn after the fact. If you look at some of the above pages and others you will see that your 'Texas sharpshooter fallacy' assertion is baseless.

Yes, a "bonus" because it "confirmed" what you wanted to believe. Your every word reveals the fundamental flaw of your method. It is based on cognitive errors and fallacies, such as cherry picking, confirmation bias, rationalization, the Sharpshooter's Fallacy, etc., etc., etc. Ah, you take exception to me telling you what you wanted to believe, but now you are doing the same to me. Lets just stick to the arguments. What you are doing here is throwing out accusation after accusation, without backing it up. I've asked you to show me how the four ark encodings are cherry picked, and I'm waiting on a reply to that. Maybe you're working on it now, so I'll try to be patient.

I totally understand why you would find that to be a "neon sign". I had many similar experiences. I would see some connection and then think "Wouldn't it be amazing if ..." and go looking and maybe find something or maybe not. I collected these "hits" for many years. Each hit convinced me that I was on to something. But then I realized that there were no real patterns at all. They were all fragmentary. Bits and pieces that would be expected in a large random set. There was no overarching pattern that could be demonstrated with a statistical analysis (which is the true purpose of statistics). There are patterns that run through the New Bible Code. It promotes, with alarming consistency, that the Second Coming is happening now. It is declared from the beginning to the end of the NIV Bible, and everywhere in between.

Statistics are not meant to justify what we want to believe. No, but they can in small doses be useful. I said at the start that I gave up attempting serious probability analysis because the two sides of the Torah codes debate couldn't agree and they were using very advanced tachniques. I eventually concluded that only the human mind, aided by revelation, can decide whether the code is a face in the clouds, or the finger of God pointing through them. That doesn't stop me trying, but I restrict it to very limited cases and I don't make a big deal of it. Here's one analysis I did, on the Creation Snowflake (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2465943.html). I'd appreciate your comments.

The best thing you could do would be to try to prove yourself WRONG. That's the only way you could have any real confidence that you are right. No it's not. I was given the key to the code, which showed me how it works, and much revelation besides. I'll write about it later, then readers will see how I was led to find the code. That shouldn't convince anyone reading it that the code is real. But at least it will show you why I am utterly convinced it is.

I actually have tried to prove myself wrong. After I found the Signature of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html), I got out some of my wife's crime novels and looked for the same kind of patterned confluence of numbers. I found nothing but numbers scattered throughout the text. there were more of them than I was comfortable with, but as you say it taught me something about myself and more importantly about the code. It is the larger patterns formed that make it a code, not isolated values. Interestingly, the nearest I found to a pattern (but it wasn't much) was in a work of literature. I can't remember what it wss now, but it was a famous classic novel, perhaps by Dickens or Hardy. It gave me a suspicion that higher quality, more inspired works might actually have the beginnings of a code in them. The Bible is the most inspired, most influential, most loved book ever written of course, and I believe that the psychic energy devoted to it by everyone involved was somehow connected to its creation. In fact everyone who has ever read the Bible or spoken the English language has had a part in it. We created the code, all of us. Or more accurately the Holy Spirit created it through us.

thebluetriangle

04-01-2017, 05:33 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-01-2017, 08:56 PM

This shows that either you aren't following the links I've given or that you aren't taking in the information I've presented. I have found many parts of the code through just this process. In The Bookend Encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2465906.html) I show that the beginning and end of each testament are encoded with the following

JESUS SECOND COMING
THE SECOND COMING
THE SECOND COMING
THE LORD SECOND COMING

I found the first one over the first 18 words of Genesis and thought that there might be something similar at the other end of the Bible. I was right. Then I thought that the end of each testament might also be encoded and found the middle two. These are encoded over 18-14-14-18 words, giving a nice pattern. The numbers also give rise to a geometric analogy that illustrates an opened book.

Hey there Bill,

I see these patterns involve the definite article. Did God change his mind? Didn't you say that NOT using the definite article was part of His Divine Design in the other pattern? I'm sure I must have missed something. I cannot imagine an intelligent God using such inconsistent methods, and I'm sure you wouldn't be using such inconsistent methods. So please explain what I missed.

Thanks!

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

04-02-2017, 12:27 AM

Hey there Bill,

I see these patterns involve the definite article. Did God change his mind? Didn't you say that NOT using the definite article was part of His Divine Design in the other pattern? I'm sure I must have missed something. I cannot imagine an intelligent God using such inconsistent methods, and I'm sure you wouldn't be using such inconsistent methods. So please explain what I missed.

Thanks!

:sunny:

In the ark encodings we've been discussing, there is no definite article. But that doesn't mean it isn't used elsewhere. In this page (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html) I show the four word strings as a complete set. The next encryption is 'the Ark of the Testimony'. Why the definite article this time? Because this is a different set of encodings, based on the Hebrew words each time. Again, the rules are consistent within the set. The Hebrew words are arown eduwth, which is translated in the NIV as 'the ark of the testimony'.

The encodings you are asking about have two phrases with and two without the definite article, yes. They form a neat 18-14-14-18 pattern, bookending each testament and you have to admit they are compelling. The neat numerical pattern and the other features I discuss in the page I think strengthen the case for them being real encodings. Only you, the reader, can decide if you are convinced, though. The same decoding procedure was followed each time in the text and the pattern just 'jumped out'.

Considerations of symmetry can help in finding patterns. In Bisecting the Bible (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2464594.html) I found the two central verses, which are really one statement (and an inspiring one, in the middle of what is a sombre passage):

So the name of the Lord will be declared in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem, when the peoples and the kingdoms assemble to worship the Lord. (Psalm 102.21-22)

The first eighteen words of the NIV gave JESUS SECOND COMING and the last eighteen words gave THE LORD SECOND COMING. So I numerated the first eighteen words of these two verses and got THE SECOND APPEARING. Then I did the last eighteen words and got 953, or SECOND MANIFESTATION. The two central verses seem to be reflecting the Bibe as a whole! The total number of words is 27 and the central 19 words are 925, giving JESUS CHRIST. So Christ is there at the heart of the NIV Bible! There are 16 less verses in the NIV than in the KJV, so the central two verses are different. I was slightly perturbed that the definite article wasn't used in the second encryption, but it's another compelling pattern, which reflected the larger pattern of the outer two bookend encodings.

Finding this beautiful little set was interesting and instructive, because I initially miscalculated the two central verses and couldn't find anything in the two I thought were central. I recalculated, found the correct verses, and again they just jumped out. The patterns of encoded word strings were clear and distinct.

thebluetriangle

04-02-2017, 02:28 AM

No, I'm not telling God what to do. I'm telling YOU what a real code looks like. You are talking about codes created by man. This is a GOD CREATED CODE (as the ELS encryption so succinctly states). You haven't commented on the little ELS codes (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2477016.html) I've found. These are independent of the gematria codes yet support them. GOD CREATED CODE ends on the last letter of word 24, which is where ATONEMENT COVER ends. 24 is Ihsous (r), Word (r), Holy (r). And what about the 888 encrypted into two separate encodings of GOD, one in the page I linked to, the other here (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2980275.html)?

Your results are cherry picked from an ocean of possibilities. I'm still waiting on you showing me how the ark encodings are cherry picked.

The probability of find something "meaningful" is near certainty. You are the one making the claims. It has nothing to do with "God" per se, except that your codes do not look like anything an intelligent God would design because it would be extremely irrational to design codes that are based fundamentally on cognitive errors and are indistinguishable from the ten thousand false patterns from every contrary belief system that litters the history of religious literature.

I find it relatively easy to distinguish between the code and most other claimed codes. Like you, I have been approached by people claiming to have found a code. Some were more impressive than others but most were based on something more like numerology than gematria. I started in similar vein, but was fortunate to have an early effort severely criticised by Vernon Jenkins, which raised my consiousness. They usually had a particular theology or agenda to promote too. I had no theology to defend, no denomination to blinker me and agenda other than to fulfil the mission I was given. My sole purpose has been to unlock the code.

Say what? You found a CONSTENT pattern? Please share! I have yet to see any consistent pattern. If you have found it, then you can easily prove it with statistics because that's what statistics was designed to do. To show consistent patterns ... or prove they are not there. I would be utterly stunned if you found a consistent pattern that was statistically significant.

Look at this (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html) and this (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html).

In these pages, each encryption is based on

1) the first instance of a Hebrew word or phrase in the Masoretic
2) the exact translation of that word or phrase in the NIV.

This is done with a great deal of consisteny throughout. There are a few minor deviations from absolute consistency, but they are always logical: one is because the gematria was very large, so a shorter phrase seems to have been substituted; another when a longer phrase was substituted for a word because the gematria was too small (16) to be encoded.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-02-2017, 09:56 AM

No, I'm not telling God what to do. I'm telling YOU what a real code looks like.

You are talking about codes created by man. This is a GOD CREATED CODE (as the ELS encryption so succinctly states). You haven't commented on the little ELS codes (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2477016.html) I've found. These are independent of the gematria codes yet support them. GOD CREATED CODE ends on the last letter of word 24, which is where ATONEMENT COVER ends. 24 is Ihsous (r), Word (r), Holy (r). And what about the 888 encrypted into two separate encodings of GOD, one in the page I linked to, the other here (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2980275.html)?

No, I am not talking about "codes created by man" as opposed to a "GOD CREATED CODE". That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.

My point is that you have a blatant double standard designed to protect your claims from criticism. In effect, you are saying "Heads I win, tails you lose." Your entire "proof" of the "code" is that YOU PREDICTED that God would design the code a certain way, and then you looked and found your prediction was fulfilled. But when I do exactly the same thing, with the only difference being that my prediction was NOT fulfilled, you cry foul and tell me that I am NOT allowed to make any predictions because that would be telling God what to do!

Why are you allowed to make predictions about what God would do, but I am not?

Why does the fulfillment of your predictions prove design, whereas the failure of my predictions prove nothing?

This is the most important question. All your claims are of the same form:

1) Predict that God would code things a certain way.
2) Show that those predictions are true.

So your entire thesis is one grand assertion about "What God would do" supported by examples of how he actually did what you said he would do.

Now I come along and follow your lead, and make some very reasonable predictions about what an intelligent designer would do. Those predictions fail. So what do you do? Do you accept that the failure is evidence against your claims? Nope. You commit the fallacy of special pleading and make up excuses for why YOU are free to make predictions but any predictions that are not fulfilled are not evidence because that would be "telling God what to do."

Your logic is blatantly inconsistent. You have a double standard designed to protect your claims from any criticism.

Your methods are diametrically opposed to the scientific method which you mimic even as you violate it. The first job of a scientist is to devise an experiment that will prove the hypothesis FALSE! That's how real science works. It is folly of the first order to only accept evidence that confirms your hypothesis while rejecting all the evidence against it.

I find it relatively easy to distinguish between the code and most other claimed codes. Like you, I have been approached by people claiming to have found a code. Some were more impressive than others but most were based on something more like numerology than gematria. I started in similar vein, but was fortunate to have an early effort severely criticised by Vernon Jenkins, which raised my consiousness. They usually had a particular theology or agenda to promote too. I had no theology to defend, no denomination to blinker me and agenda other than to fulfil the mission I was given. My sole purpose has been to unlock the code.

What is the difference between numerology and gematria? And how does your work differ from other Bible codes? I don't see any difference in principle between your "codes" and the kind of stuff everyone else has done.

thebluetriangle

04-02-2017, 10:53 AM

What is the difference between numerology and gematria? And how does your work differ from other Bible codes? I don't see any difference in principle between your "codes" and the kind of stuff everyone else has done.

One difference between me and almost everyone else who claims to have found a code is that I was given the key to unlocking it.

I've mentioned the Key a few times, and now it's time to tell you about how I was given it, what it is, and why it convinced me that there is a code.

Beginning in April 1998 with a spectacular vision of three discs of light in triangular formation, I had a three-and-a-half year spiritual awakening, during which I experienced many things, read hundreds of books on religion, spirituality and the paranormal and felt myself being nudged towards becoming a Christian. In October 2000 I started going to church and on 12/28/01 actually became a Christian. In the months running up to my conversion I was assailed almost daily by unusual experiences, and nightly by numinous dreams, feeling as if external reality had become one with my inner world. I felt as if I was at the centre of a spiritual whirlwind and, like Dorothy, was carried away to a place I'd never even suspected was there. For example I had encounters with people, flesh and blood, who let it be known that they were to be regarded as angels. They knew my every thought and took me through a series of lessons, within which the number 4 was deeply woven. I started keeping a file on my experiences, which now runs to about 200 pages but could easily have been 2000 pages long.

In May 2001, I had an extraordinary set of experiences involving the number 444, lasting four days. In the summer of 2001 I was introduced to gematria and soon became fascinated by it, eventually discovering that Dammaseq (Damascus) summed to 444 in Hebrew gematria and wondering if that meant I was, like Paul, on the road to Damascus. Having become interested in Christianity and now attending church (Church of Scotland) I was invited to take the Alpha Course, which I enjoyed and which made me more comfortable with Christianity, about which I many doubts. The peak of these experiences occurred in November 2001, specifically from 11/11/01 to 19/11/01. On 11/11/01 I went to the Alpha Course's "Holy Spirit weekend" and had a powerful experience of the Holy Spirit, which healed me of a problem I had (the healing took two days). Two days after that, now healed, I made my first code find and, after wondering for years what it was all about, now felt an absolute certainty that I had found my calling. Two days after that, on 15/11/01, I had the strange experience of twice switching on the radio as I was driving to and from work, to hear the opening chords of Verdi's overture La Forza Del Destino (the Force of Destiny). I was now sure that destiny had called me.

On 26/11/01 I went to an Alpha Course meeting and as we chatted afterwards I recounted a dream I'd had about moving into a new house. At that point the director of the course told the assembled group about something that had occurred to her on 15/11/01, the day I'd twice heard the overture. She was sitting in the cafe we were in, reading her bible, an NIV. As she read a certain passage an inner voice told her THIS IS FOR BILL. She continued reading and again heard THIS IS FOR BILL. She didn't usually get locutions and was a little perturbed by it, so she slipped a plain piece of paper into the bible as a bookmark then made a cup of tea. When she returned the passage she'd been reading was typed onto the bookmark, between Dear Bill and Love Paul. The passage was 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24. Not only that, but the words were arranged to suggest a key. The cafe was called the open door. The director told us this story, then turned to me, told me she was sure I was the Bill being referred to and asked what was going on. Feeling embarrassed, I told her I might have discovered something in the Bible.

Here are those words, exactly as she received them, with the approximate font and the correct italics, etc. The spaces at the top and bottom are a little too wide but I don't know how to change the leading (I still have the bookmark and checked before I typed it).

Dear Bill

May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through
and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept
blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.

Love Paul

So this is the key. It took me years to figure out what to do with it, since I had a huge learning curve ahead of me and was just beginning to work with gematria. But I eventually got it. It's composed of two verses, 1 Thess 5.23, May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ., and 1 Thess 5.24, The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it. The ordinal values of each verse are as follows:

1 Thess 5.23 (o) = 1559
1 Thess. 5.24 (o) = 468

These are the standard values of the following

Our Lord Jesus Christ (s) = 1559
The Lord God (s) = 468

Note that 'Our Lord Jesus Christ' is actually in that first verse. The total ordinal value of the verses plus the emboldened words is 2194. This happens to be the standard value of Genesis 1.1 in the NIV. So I was given the decoding method and the place where I should begin. I did eventually, although I dragged my heels for a while, immediately found JESUS over the first twelve words, then took it from there.

There are other numbers in the Key. For instance, it has 42 words and 169 letters, which suggest hexagon 169, with an outline of 42 counters.

That is how I was given the Key, in the Open Door cafe, on 15/11/01 (the date is significant too). Without it, the code would probably have remained unopened. Using it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, both directly, and lately through many words received and passed on by Kathryn LeCorre, I was able to fully open the door. Others helped too in smaller ways, including Vernon Jenkins and yourself, Richard. You all have my gratitude.

So I didn't find the decoding system I use: I was given it. Neither did I decide to look for a code in the Bible: I was given that as an assignment. I always wondered why I'd been given it, because I knew almost nothing about the Bible. But I see now that this was a distinct advantage, since I could look at the NIV Bible with fresh eyes and without theological or denominational blinkers, or even much religious feeling. I was free to look on it as a puzzle to be solved - and the solving of it has taken over fifteen years.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-02-2017, 11:47 AM

On 26/11/01 I went to an Alpha Course meeting and as we chatted afterwards I recounted a dream I'd had about moving into a new house. At that point the director of the course told the assembled group about something that had occurred to her on 15/11/01, the day I'd twice heard the overture. She was sitting in the cafe we were in, reading her bible, an NIV. As she read a certain passage an inner voice told her THIS IS FOR BILL. She continued reading and again heard THIS IS FOR BILL. She didn't usually get locutions and was a little perturbed by it, so she slipped a plain piece of paper into the bible as a bookmark then made a cup of tea. When she returned the passage she'd been reading was typed onto the bookmark, between Dear Bill and Love Paul. The passage was 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24. Not only that, but the words were arranged to suggest a key. The cafe was called the open door. The director told us this story, then turned to me, told me she was sure I was the Bill being referred to and asked what was going on. Feeling embarrassed, I told her I might have discovered something in the Bible.

Here are those words, exactly as she received them, with the approximate font and the correct italics, etc. The spaces at the top and bottom are a little too wide but I don't know how to change the leading (I still have the bookmark and checked before I typed it).

Dear Bill

May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through
and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept
blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it.

Love Paul

So this is the key. It took me years to figure out what to do with it, since I had a huge learning curve ahead of me and was just beginning to work with gematria. But I eventually got it. It's composed of two verses, 1 Thess 5.23, May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless until the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ., and 1 Thess 5.24, The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it. The ordinal values of each verse are as follows:

1 Thess 5.23 (o) = 1559
1 Thess. 5.24 (o) = 468

These are the standard values of the following

Our Lord Jesus Christ (s) = 1559
The Lord God (s) = 468

Note that 'Our Lord Jesus Christ' is actually in that first verse. The total ordinal value of the verses plus the emboldened words is 2194. This happens to be the standard value of Genesis 1.1 in the NIV. So I was given the decoding method and the place where I should begin. I did eventually, although I dragged my heels for a while, immediately found JESUS over the first twelve words, then took it from there.

Hey there Bill,

As I've stated more than once, I understand and appreciate the impact of your personal experiences. I had similar experiences that led to my belief in gematria and the Bible Wheel. And many other people with very different beliefs tell of similar experiences. Such experiences are very convincing to the people who have them, but they don't actually prove anything.

Now as for your story - are you saying that the women who gave you that note claimed the message was miraculously typed by God himself? I trust you understand how implausible that sounds. I would be interested to see it. Could you post an image of it?

It appears your memory of the text is slightly off. The word "until" should be "at." Then the numbers match (the value is 1559 with "at").

Now you emphasize the fact that the text actually contains "Our Lord Jesus Christ" as if that confirms your belief that God encoded it. But if that confirms the pattern, why doesn't the lack of "The Lord God" discomfirm it? It looks like your method is designed so that there could not be any way to prove it wrong. It looks like it is a grand exercise in confirmation bias. The ONLY evidence that is accepted is evidence that "confirms" your code. All other evidence is ignored or explained away.

I saw the same thing with your "ark of the testimony" code. You found two phrases in Hebrews 9 that matched your pattern and so you say that "God did it." But then, in the SAME IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, God chose to use a different phrase "ark of the covenant" which doesn't fit the pattern. Why would he do that if he was deliberately encoding a code based on "ark of the testimony"? Why didn't he use the term that fit the pattern? Again, you are showing a strong confirmation bias. You accept only the data that fits what you want to believe. Data that doesn't fit is rejected.

So here is the $64,000 question: How could you discern between a coded text and a random text?

Or to put it another way: What kind of evidence would prove your claims false?

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

04-02-2017, 12:17 PM

Your "a priori prediction" that God coded "atonement cover" and "cherubim of the glory" is a statement of what you thought God would do. Then you found it, so now you state unequivocally that you believe it is what God actually did. How then can you tell me NOT to make similar predictions? Why are you free to make predictions and then claim "confirmation" when you find it, but I cannot make predictions and test them? It appears the only standard by which you judge is whether or not the result confirms what you want to believe. No "predictions" are allowed if they don't confirm what you want to believe.

I have no objection to you making your own predictions and testing them. But you made a complete list of everything mentioned in Hebrews 9 and looked for it in the first few words of Genesis, apparently thinking that because three of the items were mentioned in Hebrews 9 that was somehow significant. What was significant was that the four items are only worded that way in the NIV. The fact that three of them are in those verses was irrelevant. Some of the Hebrews items were found in the Holy Place, not the Most Holy Place, but you added them all in, so it was inconsistent. If it turned out not to be statistically improbable I imagine you would have seen it as evidence that the code was a mirage, and went on to perform similar analyses to 'prove' it. But all you would have proven was that you didn't understand how the code worked. The four encodings were based on what was in the Most Holy Place and used the first (or only) formal title used in the NIV every time - the hallmark of consistency. In another page (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html) I show how the first mention of every item associated with the ark is encoded in Hebrew (Masoretic) and English (NIV). Again, it is very consistent.

I think you missed my point. You created your pattern using three phrases from Hebrews 9 that describe the "ark of the covenant" (the phrase used in Hebrews 9). But that doesn't fit the pattern, so you had to use the other phrase "ark of the testimony." My point was that I would predict that a designer would have used "ark of the testimony" in Hebrews 9 because that would fit his design. What could be more obvious, rational, and reasonable? You use the same logic all the time. But it didn't work in this case, so you rejected my prediction as "telling God what to do", as if all your "predictions" are somehow different. The truth is this: You accept "predictions" only if you find "evidence" supporting them. You reject all predictions that fail to confirm what you want to believe. That's a monstrous "confirmation bias". Your entire method is designed to only confirm what you want to believe, and to reject anything that would prove you wrong.

Think about this. I have very good reasons to ask why God would choose to use "ark of the covenant" which DOES NOT FIT with the predicted pattern.

It does not fit with YOUR predicted pattern. I wouldn't have predicted it.

As for your 'very good reasons', I'm confused about what you're saying here. God used ark of the testimony, not ark of the covenant.

My "good reasons" are the same as the reason you use when you try to prove the truth of your patterns. Case in point: YOU emphasized the fact that the text of the message contained the phrase "Our Lord Jesus Christ" which matched the value of the verse. I used the same logic, saying that if God had designed "atonement cover" and "cherubim of the Glory" to be part of the pattern of Genesis 1, why would he choose to use "ark of the covenant" in the immediate context (Hebrews 9) of those two phrases when it doesn't fit the pattern? What kind of "designer" would toss in things that didn't fit his pattern when it would be trivial to use the term that does fit (i.e. "ark of the testimony")? This weakens your claim that God deliberately designed these coincidences. They look like exactly what I would expect from random chance. I see no sign of "intelligent design." On the contrary, I see you cherry picking the things that fit, and ignoring the things that don't. You have no way to discern between hits that were "designed" and hits that result from random chance.

That works for you too. How do you know you are not unconsciously choosing methods you know are irrelevant, so you can rationalise your new worldview? And demolish another code of course.
If I were doing that, I could trust you to point them out, just like I do for you.

I have identified your error. You accept evidence only if it confirms what you want to believe. All other evidence is rejected, ignored, or explained away.

thebluetriangle

04-02-2017, 01:11 PM

No, I am not talking about "codes created by man" as opposed to a "GOD CREATED CODE". That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. Yes, you are talking about man-made codes, because they are the only codes you accept at present. Or is there a bible code out there you do accept? But on to your point.

My point is that you have a blatant double standard designed to protect your claims from criticism. In effect, you are saying "Heads I win, tails you lose." Your entire "proof" of the "code" is that YOU PREDICTED that God would design the code a certain way, and then you looked and found your prediction was fulfilled. But when I do exactly the same thing, with the only difference being that my prediction was NOT fulfilled, you cry foul and tell me that I am NOT allowed to make any predictions because that would be telling God what to do! First of all, I have a feel for how the code works and you don't. I could see right away that you were blundering in there with an inappropriate method, based on the misaprehension that I was talking three of my phrases Hebrews 9.Three of them are found therem but I was choosing them on the basis of primacy. In fact, only one of them is first found in Hebrews 9.

Why are you allowed to make predictions about what God would do, but I am not? I already said I had no objection to that, but I did object to your approach, which was clearly based on the misunderstanding I highlighted above.

Why does the fulfillment of your predictions prove design, whereas the failure of my predictions prove nothing? The code isn't provable in the sense of a mathematical theorem. It isn't a natural object either, so the methods used in the natural sciences are probably not really applicable. In fact none of the sciences, natural or social, have any method I'm aware of that could show it was real. As I said at the start, some of the best statisticians and probability theorists have looked at the Torah codes and come to opposing conclusions, usually based on what they believed to start with. I'm NOT saying that some kind of method couldn't be developed. I am saying that it hasn't been done yet, and I would add that it would take some effort and a lot of expertise. I am also sure that in the end it is not provable and that people will recognise the code is real, rather than have it proven. I think the best that could be done is to show that it is statistically improbable, but that would require methods that can deal with the essential question of meaning. As an example, using seventy single-word names and titles for Jesus I calculated a 1-in-1200 probability of the Signature phenomenon being real. But the words found there (Jesus, Yehoshua, Word, Messiah) would all be near the top of any list of such words. Cutting it down to the top twenty gave a probability of 1 in 50000 against chance. But even that is an underestimate, I feel (and I know there's more to it than that, which I am willing to discuss). So how do you determine how high up the list these words should be? How strongly related in meaning a word like 'Friend' is to 'Jesus'? Would it be higher or lower than 'Word'? That would be the only way to get a more accurate handle on the probabilities.

This is the most important question. All your claims are of the same form:

1) Predict that God would code things a certain way.
2) Show that those predictions are true.

So your entire thesis is one grand assertion about "What God would do" supported by examples of how he actually did what you said he would do. As I said at the start, the code is basically a phenomenon, a crystalisation within the NIV Bible (now the most popular English version, remember). It's like a fossil dug up. I used to go looking for fossils and it was easy to mistake lines, crystalisation patterns and veins of minerals for fossils. Having found some genuine fossils you could then predict that others might be found in the same locale, or in the same type of rock, but fossils were found before they were predicted. Dinosaur fossils weren't even widely suspected, because in the west nearly everyone was a Creationist. So they were a discovery, essentially. So it is with the code. I didn't predict God would do things at the start. I did a lot of trials and slowly built up an idea of what was there, how to distinguish it from what was not there, and made little predictions for the purpose of finding more material. I got it wrong a lot of times, more than I care to mention. But I eventually saw the real patterns that were there, aided by the Key, which was indispensibe. So I found JESUS SECOND COMING in the fiirst 18 words of the NIV and 'predicted', or if you like 'guessed', that the last 18 words might be encrypted. And I found THE LORD SECOND COMING. That was real evidence (not proof) that I was on the right track. I didn't invent anything or use some weird system (like JESUS = 666) to give the result I wanted. I used the system the Key taught me. That could only give one answer. There was no cherry picking involved either, because there is only one 18-word string running backwards from the last word. The last nine words gave SECOND COMING (391) and the nine before that gave THE LORD (397). Simples. (And 9 means endings, finality, judgment, fruits, suffering, which is appropriate for the last words of the Apocalypse of John). I did much of it like that. Predicting what God would do? A bit, yes, but mainly looking for patterns, based on aesthetics, consistency and meaning. So, although it is grand, it's NOT a thesis, it's a discovery, like finding a new fossil. You are acting like a biblical fundamentalist, who is convinced that dinosaurs couldn't exist and is determined to prove it, which so far has consisted of one accusation after another.

I'll ask you one more time. Can you show me how the ark encodings in Genesis are cherry picked?

Richard Amiel McGough

04-02-2017, 01:44 PM

Desmild

04-02-2017, 02:58 PM

Desmild

04-02-2017, 03:29 PM

But don't worry, you will probably start seeing it when I finish the Holograph that I will make for Richard. its finished tomorrow and I was only going to give you guys 1/3rd of the Holograph.

But since you are so convinced of the NIV I am going to give you guys the whole thing.

Best regards, your neighbour in Norway
Desmild

Desmild

04-02-2017, 03:31 PM

And Richard, what methods will you encode into the database ? I am very curious about that.

thebluetriangle

04-02-2017, 04:22 PM

Hey there Bill,

As I've stated more than once, I understand and appreciate the impact of your personal experiences. I had similar experiences that led to my belief in gematria and the Bible Wheel. And many other people with very different beliefs tell of similar experiences. Such experiences are very convincing to the people who have them, but they don't actually prove anything. No they don't, but they may show why someone is convinced of something. That should not convince anyone else, though, except of the sincerity of the person making the claim. I'm not comfortable sharing such intensely personal experiences but I wanted people reading to know that I was given a commision here, not simply playing around with numbers. I also though it was important to display the origin of the two-step decoding method. Personal spiritual experieces can't be used as supporting evidence, but the bookmark can. Even if I had invented the bookmark story, which I did not, the two verses are there and the gematria can't be changed.

Now as for your story - are you saying that the women who gave you that note claimed the message was miraculously typed by God himself? I trust you understand how implausible that sounds. I would be interested to see it. Could you post an image of it? The woman who handed me the bookmark is a lifelong Christian, English, very middle class and married to a Church of Scotland minister. They lived in Bethlehem for many years, where he ministered. She told me that she was using a blank piece of paper as a bookmark and that the words had just appeared on it. She couldn't say with 100% certainty that the other side of the slip of paper (about a quarter of an A4 sheet) was also blank, but she thought so. It would be an astounding synchronicity at the very least though, and one would have to explain why someone had typed those words in the shape of a key onto that paper, which she then picked up and didn't notice. She could have unconsciously seen it and that could then conceivably explain why she then read those verses and had a word about a 'Bill', but that's grasping at straws, because it fails to explain the key shape, the gematria and my own destiny experience (and more I haven't told). The words are far too large to have bled onto the paper from the bible, after she perhaps spilled her tea onto it (but there are no tea stains). She was in fact very uncomfortable with the whole experience and after that I felt a little shunned by the rest of the Alpha group and my church. I thought the place would be buzzing after it and was prepared for a lot of questions, but nothing was ever said. A couple of ministers did come to see me about it, and though both were very sincere, after listening to my story they probably thought I was a little unhinged. I had to laugh too though. One woman had been telling me for weeks that she was convinced the Holy Spirit was coming to their church. She was right, but didn't seem to notice it when it happened. I think they were looking for a more conventional miracle.

I could photograph the bookmark and send it, but what I've typed is almost exactly how it looks (mistake excepted - thanks for correcting that!). Lets face it, I could have typed it out myself and you wouldn't know it. Yes, it is a miracle - probably. There is a little uncertainty about its origin, as I explained, which I think is somehow necessary, God sends his gifts when we are looking elsewhere.

It appears your memory of the text is slightly off. The word "until" should be "at." Then the numbers match (the value is 1559 with "at"). Yes thanks again for that. You are obviously checking things, which is excellent.

Now you emphasize the fact that the text actually contains "Our Lord Jesus Christ" as if that confirms your belief that God encoded it. But if that confirms the pattern, why doesn't the lack of "The Lord God" discomfirm it? It looks like your method is designed so that there could not be any way to prove it wrong. It looks like it is a grand exercise in confirmation bias. The ONLY evidence that is accepted is evidence that "confirms" your code. All other evidence is ignored or explained away. The lack of 'Our Lord Jesus Christ' would have made little difference and the key would still have worked if the gematria was the same. It wasn't a big point, just a little support, in that of the two names, as encoded, one of them happened to be in the text. There are quite a few different versions of these kinds of names and titles and finding even one out of two was interesting. I suspect, but can't prove, that it was designed to help lead me to those particular names. Remember this was the early days and I had no gematria databse in my head as I do now. You are taking a tiny point though and trying to make it into something decisive. The main point isn't that. It's that the key happened to contain gematria that taught me (or if you like gave me the tools to teach myself) how to unlock the code! No amount of confirmation bias can change the numbers.

I saw the same thing with your "ark of the testimony" code. You found two phrases in Hebrews 9 that matched your pattern and so you say that "God did it." But then, in the SAME IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, God chose to use a different phrase "ark of the covenant" which doesn't fit the pattern. Why would he do that if he was deliberately encoding a code based on "ark of the testimony"? Why didn't he use the term that fit the pattern? Again, you are showing a strong confirmation bias. You accept only the data that fits what you want to believe. Data that doesn't fit is rejected. For the last time, Hebrews 9 has nothing to do with why I chose those phrases, other than being the sole source for one out of four of them. I've explained why already, in some detail. Your continued focus on your own initial misunderstanding is counterproductive here, I feel. We need to get past that.

So here is the $64,000 question: How could you discern between a coded text and a random text? I would suggest information content. It can be recognised by the very patterns we've been discussing, but I don't know if it can be accurately measured. I have said that the first five verses of Genesis are so saturated with encoded material that the epithet 'holographic' could be applied to it. In other words it's full of information. Can that be measured? Would that indicate anything here? I don't know.

Or to put it another way: What kind of evidence would prove your claims false? Falsifiability is a cornerstone of science, as you know. However, some 'scientific claims' such as evolution by natural selection, are said to be unfalsifiable, because we can't rerun the history of the Earth.

One empirical method of testing my claim that there is a code in the NIV Bible might be to look at other texts and see if similar patterns could be found there. Since the system I use was given to me, I would use that system for all - and of course it keeps the number of variables down. I'd look for the same numbers too. If similar 'codes' are found in crime novels, cookbooks and chemistry texts then we might be able to discount my claims.

thebluetriangle

04-02-2017, 04:43 PM

Hey there Bill,

When I say "cherry picked" I mean the words you picked to match the numbers you found, like "atonement cover" = 1169. It doesn't matter if you "predicted" you would find that number. That's just your private personal experience. The point is that you have many MILLIONS of possible phrases that sum to that number. You could have made a "code" using any of those millions upon millions of possibilities. There is nothing in the text that tells you that you should pick one pattern over another, and there are literally millions upon millions of possible choices.

I analyzed an English dictionary and found that there are 325 words that sum to 611 = "atonement" and 342 that sum to 558 = "cover". Thus, there are 325 x 342 = 117,990 possible two word combinations that sum to 1169 = "atonement cover" in which both words have the same values as the two you chose. But those weren't the only way to do it. You could have scanned through the list of 326 words that sum to 612 and the list of 334 words that sum to 557 and you would have another set of 108,884 phrases. And you could do it again, using 610 + 559 for another list of over a 100,000 two word phrases that might fit some pattern.

You could do this for every possible way of combining two words that sum to 1169. A rough calculation following the examples above says that there would be roughly 100,000 possibilities for each pair and there are 1158 possible pairs, so the total number of possible two word phrases that would sum to 1159 is about 1158 x 100000 = 115.8 MILLION pairs!

And the same facts hold for the other phrases. And the numbers grow exponentially with each additional word you allow to be included, such as phrases made with three or four words.

Thus, I have PROVEN that you have an effectively INFINITE OCEAN of random numbers and phrases that you are drawing from. You didn't notice this because you focus only on what you were hoping to find. Anyone who understand the magnitude of your sample space can immediately see that your patterns were cherry picked from a vast set of meaningless possibilities.

That's what I mean when I say "cherry picking."

The characteristics of the ark encodings cut down this forest of possibilities down to size. Based on the characteristics of the ark encodings,

1. the phrases would have to make grammatical sense,
2. they would have to be already present in the NIV Bible,
3, They would have to be only present in the NIV Bible,
4. they would have to be formal phrases,
5. if there were several to pick from they would have to be the first ones used,
6. they would have to be meaningfully related to each other to the same degree as the ark encodings
7. they would have to have similar import to the ark encodings

I would say that each one of them decimates the possibilities. If each one did actually decimate them (reduce them to a tenth), then we would go from 115 million to just 12, not a huge number. In fact I think some of them do more than decimate, but of course that's just speculation. . .

We're down to a copse again.

thebluetriangle

04-02-2017, 04:54 PM

And Bill. The NIV version Genesis 1:1 is not the central one to the codes in the Hebrew Bible.
The King James Version is.

I checked connections to number 430 with methods that are very central and I noticed that it does not hit significance nearly like the KJV. (411)

I cant prove that now but when I make the Divinity Holograph, then you will understand.
You should really start looking in the KJV instead.

Hi Desmond.

On what basis do you believe the KJV to be more central than the NIV? The NIV now outsells the KJV. The reason I looked in the NIV was because I was led to look there. Also, it would make sense that if you were going to encode a translation and the code commented on events at a certain point in time, you would want to encode it as close to the event as possible, so it could be fine tuned. The New Bible Code has a lot to say about 9/11, which I suspect is why is was encoded within the 1984 NIV.

1. I was given a Key, which was a small portion of the text of the NIV Bible
2. After completing a short page on the 9/11 part of the code, my first attempt at it after a couple of weeks of work, then reading it through, my oldest daughter walked up to me and handed me an NIV New Testament.
3. I requested an NIV Bible for Christmas (months before finding the code). My wife went to a bookshop to get it but couldn't remember which of the many versions there I had asked for. As she stood there an NIV fell off the bookshelf into her hands.

I gave these events in chronological order. Notice the idea of manifestation here: a fragment, a testament, the whole bible. It's the same with the Creation Snowflake (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437341.html), which 'manifests' over the first couple of verses (and only in the NIV).

The code is in the NIV. Small parts of it are also in the KJV, incidentally (and all versions) because it has been accumulating since the first scribes put pen to parchemnt, but only the 1984 NIV - in fact the 1984 NIV/UK, has it all. The version that fell into my wife's hands was the 2001 reprint. As for the KJV, it may well have a code of its own. But it's not my job to find it. Good luck if you are looking for one. 430, incidentally, is the 12th trefoil number and has an important role to play in the code.

Desmild

04-02-2017, 06:10 PM

Well I see that you truly believe that the NIV is the right version.
I dont know if God views it as the main English version or not.
But his codes is centered at the KJV version of Genesis 1:1. That is 100% for sure.

The Divinity Holograph will probably be the most incredible thing we have seen to this date and that is because the English Genesis 1:1 is central there.
There are really no doubs after you have seen all details like me. Not many people has seen the connections I have, because I have not showed anyone it.

You see I can give you a lot of codes right here and now in the Hebrew Bible that points to Genesis 1:1 KJV.

It is hidden in the Hebrew Genesis 1:1. But the Holographs speak for themselves so then there will be no discussion.

You believe what you want but a good start is to add all the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet that is NOT in Genesis 1:1.

Desmild

04-02-2017, 06:26 PM

But you and me Bill can become a good team if you concentrate on the KJV and I will cover the original Bible because there are codes in both.
I have a lot of codes from the KJV.

If you use the info I will release then you may incredible connections to them in the KJV I think, it would not surprise me.
I have only focused mostly with 1 method in the kJV. Which is not gematria but rather the nr of times words are found.

But it seems you will find Gemtria connections too because the English KJV is all over the Hebrew Bible. At least Genesis 1:1 & John 1:1 because I only concentrate on them. But you would probably find connections to other verses too.

The Divinity Holograph will speak for itself and the KJV stands.

Desmild

04-02-2017, 06:38 PM

Richard, why cant I add image's from my PC ? I want to give Bill something he can go on while he waits.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-02-2017, 06:59 PM

Richard, why cant I add image's from my PC ? I want to give Bill something he can go on while he waits.
You should be able to add pictures by clicking on the "Add Picture" button on the tool bar when you are writing a post. It looks like this:

1358

Do you see those buttons on your PC? What happens when you click on the button?

You should see the upload picture form.

Desmild

04-02-2017, 07:01 PM

Desmild

04-02-2017, 10:17 PM

But very interesting about the Story Bill. Maybe God considers the NIV as athoritive but it is the KJV that is mainly encoded into the Hebrew Bible.
There are probably very few differences in the NIV so since it is not in its Hebrew original form it may be valid as Gods word for all I can tell you.

So If you think you are called by God, then ok. I wont argue with that. For all I know there may be connections to the English NIV Genesis 1:1 in the Hebrew Bible but not as firmly connected as the KJV, that I cannot believe.

and btw I cant fix the uploading of images... I cannot understand what the problem is.
Maybe God is doing something here, maybe he does not want me to share the info until it is done so that I don't misconnect anything because that is very easy.

I am freaked out by the fact that I cant upload images and the fact that this website crashed in my the last comment I wrote with codes to you about nr 137. I am also freaked out that Richard lost a lot of data but all my posts were deleted.

Maybe that is a clear sign that God does not want me do give you guys portions but rather wait until I am finished and 100% sure on all connections. Since some of those connections can run very deep. It seems almost impossible to not misconnect.
Example:

Word nr 137 starts with letter nr 37+73 + 137X3 --- factors of Hebrew Genesis 1:1 & total value of English Genesis 1:1
word nr 37+73+137X3 is the 9th word after verse nr 37
So what is God pointing to here ? Factors, the fact that it is the 9th word after verse nr 37, or all ?

Number 9 is super connected to 37 you might say
Word nr 2 in Genesis 1:1 when counted by rotation hits nr 9 & 37
Letter nr 37 is found in word nr 9
.....

So it is very deep and its very very hard not to misconnect. Therefore I don't want to share to much with you guys because God might take down the whole site again since I misconnect or give you half holographs or simply miss info. Its supposed to be finished but how do you do that?? I think I have to learn programming so that I can access all information.

I am currently trying to research what methods are most important to God. And it seemss like Total values & Center Words wins without doubt from my side. Ofcourse evey detail matters to God, but he clearly focuses some methods over others in some places at least, which inferns that he really means that in General.

& seeing how advanced the codes are lately makes me want to quit after I finish the Divinity Holograph.
It is very clear to me that the main evidence of the existence of God is not the codes, that's more like a 2nd priority for God.
I mean He loves codes but not as evidence. That's where prophecies comes in, because they serve more as proof than codes.
Though codes are really cool, its not supposed to serve as main evidence. He does it on purpose.

I have noticed this with the codes also. He loves to put at least 1 golden connection in every aeria.
But that's it I think, the best things we can find are Holographs & integrated verses & I think that is what he wants us to focus on.

But I will leave you guys alone until certain Holographs are done and I will share them. I really think God wants me to wait until I am more ready & have more info available. But I can at least try to make the Divity Holograph before I leave in May (will be gone for 3 to 4 months the)

Its a bit shame though sharing the Divinity Holograph before I get it into a book but I don't want to make God angry either.
I have a big responability now since I discovered that Holograph so I am afraid to upset God by keeping it to myself until I am done wirting a book (which can take years)

But it will be interesting to see what you will dig up in the NIV .

thebluetriangle

04-03-2017, 02:05 AM

Well I see that you truly believe that the NIV is the right version.
I dont know if God views it as the main English version or not.
But his codes is centered at the KJV version of Genesis 1:1. That is 100% for sure.

I never said I thought the NIV was the right version. I said it was encoded. Others may be encoded too and I have seen a little evidence that the KJV might have a code, but if it did have someting similar to the NIV I would imagine someone such as myself would have been assigned to decode it. The KJV is 400 years old and so I have a suspicion that it is not encoded in the way the NIV is, or the code would have been found by now. It doesn't always need a lot of technology. I could have done most of it even without a hand-held calculator. As for whether the NIV is theologically the most accurate, I have no expertise in that area, so I can't comment, although since God has placed a code there I would imagine the NIV is at least an acceptable version and probably a very good one. Only theologians and fundamentalists fret over which version is the most accurate. A rather fraught interlocutor once informed me that the NIV had been "translated by lesbians, under the guidance of satan", which was something of a revelation for me, since I imagined the translators to be a bunch of sweet old men. Maybe it was the frocks.

You believe what you want but a good start is to add all the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet that is NOT in Genesis 1:1. If there is a code in the KJV and you think you've found it, then good luck with that. I'm happy to discuss it. As for me, although it's always interesting to see others work and I'm happy to comment on it, I won't be getting involved.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-03-2017, 06:46 AM

Well Richard, when I tried to push that button which I did 10 times, it only comes up that I have to type in the URL.
I have just reinstalled WIndows. but after tring to install Flash player and Java, it still just comes up enter URL.

Tried to restart also so this is very mysterious for me :P

So something is clearly wrong on my side, any ideas ? I have windows 10

Update
I think I located the error. I though windows update went on auto on WIndows 10 so I have not installed those, doing it now and it will take around 1 hour.
Hey there Desmild,

When you click the button, you should see a form that gives you an option to either choose the file from your computer, or from a url:

1359

If the image is on your computer, click "Choose File" and select it. The click "Upload Files(s) and the image should be inserted in your post.

Let me know if this works for you.

Richard

Desmild

04-03-2017, 08:22 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-03-2017, 09:16 AM

Nope, I can only enter a URL. No choose file button. Very strange because I can't figure it out :P
I really wonder where the error is here.

Update:

Tried to install Chrome also but still same problem.
Im very very puzzled now after tying every singe ting i can think about. Even changing browser did not help.

When i pust the "insert image" button, the option to "choose file" is gone.
Only "insert URL" is available.

TheBlueTriange,
Checked some more codes in the Hebrew Bible. The funny thing was that i find results pointing to the KJV in places it should point to the NIV.
Very interesting, so it absolutely seems like the KJV is the main.

But you may have been given a mission from God about the NIV so i wont say what you should do and not do in this case.

There are two different forms that might pop up when you click the Insert Image button. The default looks like this:

1360

If you click the "Basic Uploader" link, it changes to the form I showed in the last post.

I typically use the Basic Uploader." The other one is more finicky. It threw an error when I tried to upload an image using MS Edge browser.

You say you tested with Chrome and it didn't work?

What other browser have you tried?

Desmild

04-03-2017, 09:32 AM

When i hit the "insert image" button the only option is to enter a URL.
No button to Basic Uplader.
No option to choose file from a computer.

I have both tried Mozilla Firefox & Google Chrome & nothing makes a difference.

I have no clue... I feel helpless on my own PC for the first time in my life....

Update: think it might be the Active X blocking something here.. ill check on google om how to solve it.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-03-2017, 10:01 AM

Desmild

04-03-2017, 10:38 AM

Well I have tried the active X parts... The Internet Security parts... Clearing Chache.... Nothing works.

But it might be the Windows iso file I used. You see I bought windows 7 in Norwegian.
And I am born with both Norwegian & English (I have a Greek father In Greece so I was there 1 year from the age of 2 to 3 and picked up English, so I have 2 mother languages) and I am more used to English windows. So I had to change.
And I did not buy a new English version. I just downloaded a windows English version and used a crack since I have bought windows 7 anyways, and could upgrade it to 10 in 1 year (which I did) so I'm not stealing. Tried the language pack alternative at some point back there but there was a problem there (don't remember exactly what now) so I just went for the "illegal way", but i don't consider it stealing as long as you own a copy & a key which I do, only in Norwegian. And I don't think Microsoft cares about it either as long as I own a copy of the Windows I am using.

So its probably something worng with the iso I picked. I will pick a new one and installed it.

L67

04-03-2017, 12:22 PM

Desmild,

I would tread lightly with downloading isos from torrents. Those files can and often do contain all sorts of nasty malware. Not only is it illegal, but is it really worth risking your identity to save some money? And it is illegal whether you consider it stealing or not. Would Christ be pleased with your attitude towards downloading things that you didn't pay for?

Desmild

04-03-2017, 12:55 PM

Well I did not find the language pack for the 64-bit version for Norwegian Windows 7 Home edition at that time I think, so therefore I took that option.
But again, how can I steal something I own? Because i own windows 10, just in another language.

But the cracked version was illegal so its not Christian to do that.
But I was not and is not saved, and there is a very long explanation to that. But ut has to do with me believing in a Church called The Restored Church of God. They told me to get my own boat (since I am working in fishing) before going over & getting baptized.

And I changed or became very uncertain about my belief on that church around November 2016.
And now I believe something else, I don't believe it is the one church of God today.
But I am planning to go over under Christ after summer.

Because I have not been so sure about the Restored Church of God but I'm pretty sure in my belief now and just became it, some prophecies about the 144 000 convinced me, which I saw last week.

And remember that I am 28 years old, still young.

So Christ has not and never has been apart in my life technically. But I have been given signs and prayer answered.

So me and Richard has the same father, the devil.

But I do not intent to remain his child for much longer. And I am focusing mostly on the Codes and I have not been called for it, but God has given me numeric signs & encoded me into the Divinity Holograph, which I interpret that he wants me to do this.

So don't worry about my relationship to Christ because I do not have the Holy Spirit like many others here.

And I have never claimed it. I stick to Holographs for explanation and proof now.
I am simply doing something I love and that is finding the Codes of God.
Not in service of Christ or God but rather of interest and belief in God.
I will give my life to Christ very soon though so I think many things will change with me then.

But I will check if I can find the 64-bit version for Home Edition now.

thebluetriangle

04-03-2017, 03:50 PM

Hey there my friend,

The biggest problem we humans have is self-deception. It's not like we want to believe falsehood, that would be absurd. It's just that the human brain has a "confirmation bias" - a tendency to believe things if they support what we already believe or want to believe, and to disbelieve things when they don't. This is just one of a host of cognitive errors that befuddle the human brain. We are all subject to them. That's why science was invented - to find a way to discern between true and false claims, and to get past our tendency to deceive ourselves. The fruit of the scientific method is obvious. It's all around us. It has transformed the world.

Agreed, athough our current worship of science and technology is taking us down a dangerous path. Reason, like alcohol, makes a good servant but a poor master.

As for Torah codes, I think they have been soundly refuted by qualified experts (source (http://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/statsci/)). They claim to have debunked it, but not everyone agrees. Brendon McKay appeared to be against them from the start and highly motivated to debunk them. Determination to protect ones worldview is not confined to religious fanatics! The Real Bible Codes (http://www.realbiblecodes.com/experiments/american-presidents.php) site carries out a lot of research on codes, with, they say, mixed results. They remain open minded about it.

The fact that believers refuse to accept the science is not surprising. That's par for the course when it comes to religious beliefs, wouldn't you say? It's also true that militant atheists refuse to accept the gifts of faith. But many religious people do accept the findings of science, even in areas like evolutonary theory. What they (rightly) do not accept are the narrow-minded pontifications of atheist fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins.

Harold Camping was absolutely certain that he had decoded the Bible to find the date of the Rapture was May 21, 2011. He said the only way he could be wrong was if the Bible was wrong. History is littered with similar false beliefs. Muslims think Allah encoded the Quran with the Number 19. And on and on it goes. Such beliefs are common as dirt and very difficult to dislodge once they are believed.

I don't know who Harold Camping is, so I can't comment.

I do not think it is fair to say that the scientists who debunked Torah Codes were anything like the believers who "used their specialist knowledge to prove what deep down they wanted to be true". They use real science, logic, and facts to justify their position. They found similar codes in the Unibomber's manifesto (it "encodes" MAIL BOMBS for example) and secular works like War and Peace. On the face of it, the Torah Codes look exactly like what we would expect from random chance. There is no coherent "message" that can be discerned. At best, the believers were able to find some statistical anomalies. That is NOTHING like what I would expect if there really were an intelligent God deliberately designing a code.The problem may be what you expect. I've already shown you something that God did in my life. I have the physical evidence for it, and although I cannot be 100% certain that the woman who received the key to the code wasn't lying or, suffering from cognitive bias or misinterpreting something, I am nearly 100% certain she was telling the truth, because of her character and beliefs. She could not have known that those two verses would have the sv of 'Our Lord Jesus Christ' and 'The Lord God' and so we can only discount it, its various extraordinary aspects and my own testimony, by appealing to an astounding sequence of coincidences. Most of them were coincidences, in fact: meaningful coincidences, which Jung called 'synchronicity' and Christians call 'Godincidences'. And yes, I think it most likely that the words miraculously appeared on the paper, which she was sure was blank beforehand.

You have experienced synchronicity yourself and were once very impressed by it. You seem to have become an atheist now, which is a sensible worldview at a certain stage in our development, but involves a great deal of denial if one has experienced many synchronicities. Once Pandora's box has been opened and you begin to experience synchronicities, numinous dreams, visions, words and more - in other words begin to open up to the spiritual - you can't close it again. The best one could do, I imagine, is stick ones head in the sand for a while. That's assuming you now are an atheist, or something close to it, of course.

Yes, millions of meaningless collections of three or four words will also have an sv of 1559 and 468, but given the circumstances of my receiving the key, it seems unlikely that the two verses I was given each would happen to be the standard value of such important titles. The Key was given to me, remember, two days after I began working on a code the woman who received it for me knew nothing about, on a portentious day for me. I didn't search through verses and cherry picked two values. They were simply there, in the only to verses I was given. And as for all those millions of meaningless words that could be substituted, I would never have found any of them anyway. The only ones I was at all likely to find were the ones I did find, as far as I am aware the only Christian phrases with those values and the names, for goodness sake, of God the Father and God the Son! Yes, one could substitute those titles with many meaningless collections of words and maybe even a few phrases, but likely none of them would have been anything like as meaningful as those were to me. This is why I say meaning has to be taken into account, or your accounting will be in error.

I could do it ten thousand times better. The Torah Codes are not worthy of God in my estimation. I was never sure about the Torah codes, but I'm more positively oriented towards them now, since I found a few little ELS codes myself. You never commented on GOD CREATED CODE, which ends on the 24th word, where JESUS/WORD and ATONEMENT COVER end.

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;67850]And so what good are they? Very, very few people could even understand the statistics, and there is no way to actually get a "message" of any meaning that could be objectively verified. Why would an intelligent God design his codes to look exactly like what we would expect from random chance? Why would he use the same methods that failed numerologists have used for centuries. I cannot think of any reason anyone would take them seriously if you really think about it.

Just because we haven't discovered if and how they work, doesn't mean they don't. A monkey may throw away a stick as useless because it doesn't know how to use one, when it could have been using it to procure fruit. I believe the code has been released now because we are just ready for it. Most won't be initially, though.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-03-2017, 09:05 PM

Agreed, athough our current worship of science and technology is taking us down a dangerous path. Reason, like alcohol, makes a good servant but a poor master.

I agree that "worship" of science and technology would indeed be folly, and there are probably a lot of people who fall into that error. A similar error is to ignore philosophical assumptions that underlie science. I certainly was not advocating either of those errors. My point was simply that science was designed to overcome the kind of cognitive errors which we have been discussion (selection bias, confirmation bias, rationalization, and so forth).

They claim to have debunked it, but not everyone agrees. Brendon McKay appeared to be against them from the start and highly motivated to debunk them. Determination to protect ones worldview is not confined to religious fanatics! The Real Bible Codes site carries out a lot of research on codes, with, they say, mixed results. They remain open minded about it.

The problem with ELS Bible Codes is that you can find pretty much anything you want in any random text. That's what the debunkers demonstrated with examples from secular sources. Even if the slight statistical anomalies were valid, they really wouldn't help anyone discern which messages were "intended" by the "designer." And besides, it doesn't make any sense that Jesus Christ would encode the birth and death dates of Rabbis that explicitly rejected him!

This is the real problem I have with all this codes stuff. The logic seems quite incoherent, inconsistent, and self-serving. It is unbelievable not because it contradicts my worldview, but because it is not worthy of God. Even when I was a firm believer that God had designed every aspect of Scripture, I rejected ELS Bible Codes as tending towards deception and delusion.

The fact that believers refuse to accept the science is not surprising. That's par for the course when it comes to religious beliefs, wouldn't you say?

It's also true that militant atheists refuse to accept the gifts of faith.

Your response makes no sense to me. Religious believers reject demonstrable facts because they contradict their blind beliefs. Atheists are right to reject claims based only on blind faith that cannot be proven.

But many religious people do accept the findings of science, even in areas like evolutonary theory. What they (rightly) do not accept are the narrow-minded pontifications of atheist fundamentalists like Richard Dawkins.

Yes, many religious people do accept science like evolution and geology and astronomy which contradict the teachings of the Bible. The only ones with a big problem in that regard seem to be the "fundamentalists."

Could you give me an example of the kind of "narrow-minded pontifications" you are talking about? Perhaps a quote or two?

I don't know who Harold Camping is, so I can't comment.

Harold Camping predicted the Rapture would happen on May 21, 2011. He said the only way he could be wrong was if the Bible was wrong, because "The Bible Guarantees it." He spent many decades decoding the Bible and was convinced absolutely of his "code." He had a radio show and fellow believers gave him hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to spread his message. He put billboards up all over the planet, like this:

http://biblewheel.com/images/judgment-day-may-21.jpg

The problem may be what you expect. I've already shown you something that God did in my life. I have the physical evidence for it, and although I cannot be 100% certain that the woman who received the key to the code wasn't lying or, suffering from cognitive bias or misinterpreting something, I am nearly 100% certain she was telling the truth, because of her character and beliefs. She could not have known that those two verses would have the sv of 'Our Lord Jesus Christ' and 'The Lord God' and so we can only discount it, its various extraordinary aspects and my own testimony, by appealing to an astounding sequence of coincidences. Most of them were coincidences, in fact: meaningful coincidences, which Jung called 'synchronicity' and Christians call 'Godincidences'. And yes, I think it most likely that the words miraculously appeared on the paper, which she was sure was blank beforehand.

I am nearly 100% certain that the text got on that paper through a natural process. But there's no need to pursue this point since it is impossible to prove either way. I would recommend that you don't mention it when telling your story because it would probably cause most people to doubt everything you say.

As for her "character and beliefs" - in my experience, well-intentioned believers are the most likely to mistake a natural event for a supernatural event because they are inclined to believe. I've seen it a thousand times. They are the least trustworthy witnesses I could imagine, not because they deliberately deceive, but because their religion has taught them to believe things that can't be proven and to deceive themselves.

You have experienced synchronicity yourself and were once very impressed by it. You seem to have become an atheist now, which is a sensible worldview at a certain stage in our development, but involves a great deal of denial if one has experienced many synchronicities. Once Pandora's box has been opened and you begin to experience synchronicities, numinous dreams, visions, words and more - in other words begin to open up to the spiritual - you can't close it again. The best one could do, I imagine, is stick ones head in the sand for a while. That's assuming you now are an atheist, or something close to it, of course.

Yes, I was very impressed by synchonicities, and I believed they were an important aspect of our reality. But now I see that kind of thinking as highly suspect - it's "magical thinking." It is one of the most common human failings. I used to think there was a "reason" for everything, like the Mind of God directing the show. I don't believe that any more.

I am not aware of any "denial" that is involved with my rejection of magical thinking. You've read the Improbability Principle and you know about the way coincidences work. I've seen no evidence that sychronicities are anything but meaningless coincidences. The fact that some coincidences strike humans as MEANINGFUL is an inevitable consequence of our brains interpreting events in terms of meaning. Coincidences would happen that seem meaningful even if they were totally random. Agreed?

Now given that many meaningless random coincidences will SEEM meaningful, the question is: How do you discern between a meaningless coincidence that SEEMS meaningful, and a synchronicity that really was "meaningful"?

And yes, I am an atheist in the "weak" sense that I am not a theist (i.e. I do not believe in a god). But that doesn't mean there is no "spirit" or that synchronicities are impossible, since reality could all be a mental/spiritual phenomenon for all I know. And there could be a god I don't know about. But I do not believe in any god, and I can justify my rejection of all the God's that have been invented, such as Allah, Yahweh, and Zeus.

I was never sure about the Torah codes, but I'm more positively oriented towards them now, since I found a few little ELS codes myself. You never commented on GOD CREATED CODE, which ends on the 24th word, where JESUS/WORD and ATONEMENT COVER end.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I did respond by simply saying that I didn't find that "code" impressive. In general I reject ELS codes in the original texts, and much moreso in one particular version of a 20th century translation. It simply seems impossible that an intelligent God would do things that way, especially since your methods are founded on fallacies common to "patterns" that are not really there.

And so what good are they? Very, very few people could even understand the statistics, and there is no way to actually get a "message" of any meaning that could be objectively verified. Why would an intelligent God design his codes to look exactly like what we would expect from random chance? Why would he use the same methods that failed numerologists have used for centuries. I cannot think of any reason anyone would take them seriously if you really think about it.

Just because we haven't discovered if and how they work, doesn't mean they don't. A monkey may throw away a stick as useless because it doesn't know how to use one, when it could have been using it to procure fruit. I believe the code has been released now because we are just ready for it. Most won't be initially, though.

Well, the thing is, we have a mountain of similar claims that have been proven to be delusional. Your work looks similar, and you have not been able to explain how to tell the difference between a "code" and a random coincidence. For example, suppose God actually did intend to encode "ark of the testimony" and "atonement cover" but NOT "altar of incense." How would you know? How can your sort out the wheat from the chaff? How do you know any of it is real? You keep appealing to statistics, but the statistics don't help. On the contrary, the statistics tells us to expect the kinds of things you find to be the product of random chance.

Thanks for the excellent conversation! I feel we are making some good progress.

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

04-04-2017, 12:36 AM

Yes, the average value of the first 37 words of Genesis is 1754/37 = 47.4. But that has almost nothing to do with the probability of finding a hit. It affects the probability only because a large average would make hitting small numbers unlikely or impossible, and a small average would make it unlikely (or impossible) to hit large numbers. Your estimation of this probability is completely misguided. This is why I went into a detailed explanation of probability. The question to be answered is this (where the word strings are calculated using your method, starting with the first word):

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the average value of 45 is nothing to do with the probability of getting a hit. Other than very small numbers, say, below 20, which are likely to be skipped over on the first shot (which we're both agreed on) most numbers do indeed have about a 1-in-45 chance of being hit as you move along a word string. Standard values tend to be large, so on the whole they will be hit about 1 time in 45 if the average word value is 45. My calculator produces random numbers from 1 to 1000. The first nineteen words of Genesis 1 sum to 949, so lets use 1000 as our pool of numbers and try to hit any of the first nineteen word strings with the calculator.

The nineteen word strings are

23, 56, 137, 163, 219, 252, 326, 345, 378, 430, 482, 515, 567, 610, 717, 736, 815, 906, 949

My calcuator gave the following 100 random numbers

32, 755, 384, 852, 596, 726, 710, 348, 25, 594, 668, 371, 545, 555, 769, 688, 835, 219, 55, 286, 578, 309, 11, 551, 695, 99, 783, 19, 454, 453, 437, 72, 666, 327, 522, 153, 532, 254, 856, 703, 184, 233, 378, 700, 120, 764, 592, 638, 817, 5, 112, 809, 414, 257, 665, 624, 937, 2, 206, 270, 124, 207, 92, 512, 419, 715, 330, 237, 557, 352, 674, 937, 214, 371, 645, 276, 259, 145, 74, 365, 223, 186, 259, 295, 682, 708, 291, 710, 332, 647, 899, 682, 703, 178, 97, 247, 700, 113, 611, 53.

By inspection we see there are two 'hits': 219 and 378, when we would expect 2.2 hits on average. That's a very small sample and it's random numbers, not standard values, but I think you can see I'm not that far off in assuming that if we convert words and phrases into their standard value there is around a 1-in-45 chance of hitting the number in a text like Genesis 1.1. It's about the same as drawing a named card from a fair deck (1 in 52). I'll happily do a list of standard vaues if you want more evidence.

That is why I'm concentrating on the word strings proceeding from word 1 of Genesis 1. There is no way to avoid the fact that any number found in there has around a 1 in 45 probability of being found. The only contentious area is the relationship between that number and the words and phrases themselves. The New Bible Code works on a two-step decoding proceedure. In cryptology (the theory of codes and cyphers), the standard model for encryption and decryption is as follows:

1. PLAINTEXT MESSAGE
2. ENCRYPTION
3. CYPHERTEXT
4. DECRYPTION
5. PLAINTEXT MESSAGE

In plain language, the sender of a message first encrypts it by using an encryption key, which creates a cyphertext. The cyphertext is then sent and decrypted by the receiver using a decryption key. The bulk of the codes that constitute the New Bible Code follow this model perfectly. This is easily shown by formulating an example terms of this model:

1. PLAINTEXT MESSAGE - JESUS
2. ENCRYPTION - Convert to number 515 using standard value system.
3. CYPHERTEXT - First twelve words of Genesis 1.1 (NIV, 1984)
4. DECRYPTION - Convert to number 515 using ordinal value system.
5. PLAINTEXT MESSAGE - JESUS

Now this only works if the receiver of the message has the decryption key, or he won't know what to do with the cyphertext. That's how encoded messages work. Without it he will be lost, which is why it took such an effort to crack the German Enigma code in WW11. But the receiver did have the decryption key! I was the receiver and I was given the key to the code right at the beginning, two days after I began work on the code, as I explained earlier! The key I was given, those two verses in 1 Thessalonians, printed on my Alpha Course Director's bookmark, was even shaped like a bloody key! It was given to her in a cafe called The Open Door! She had two words accompanying it, telling her it was for me! That same day I was given a sign (also involving the number two) that my destiny was imminent! The two spectacular phrases encoded in the key: OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST and THE LORD GOD stunned me into realising that this was a two-system cypher! A third encoded number was the standard value of Genesis 1.1, so I was even shown where to start looking!

The signatory to the Key, incidentally, was Paul, who was converted on the road to Damascus, the Hebrew gematria of which is 444. Just before I started working with gematria - and it was the reason I started working with gematria - I had four days of 444 experiences, four days during which I was reading a book called The Messengers, about a man called Nick Bunick who said Angels communicated to him using the number 444. Was I filtering out the non-444 related numbers? No! One of them was so spectacular I still can't beieve it. First I had a vision of a Mercedes pulling up outside my door, with 44 on the number plate. Then my wife phoned to ask me to get something at the shops. I immediately got up and drove there. I arrived at 4.44pm. I walked into the shop to see the shop manager counting money. At the moment I arrived at the desk he turned to his assistant and said "Forty-four pounds, forty". That evening I went to the shops and my groceries came to ?4.44. That was the end of four days of such experiences, which stopped after I finished the book.

Put your slide rule back in your pocket and start believing again!

This is getting too long, so I'll stop there and have a cup of tea . . .

thebluetriangle

04-04-2017, 02:43 AM

What is the probability that a word string generated from a random set of n words would have the value m?

We need to calculate that probability and then plug in the numbers for Genesis 1 (n < 38) and see if they are different than what we would expect from a random set. That's how statistics is supposed to work.

So what is the probability of a word string having the value of m? That's easy in principle, but complicated in practice. The probability for a single word to sum to m is just the total number of words that sum to m divided by the total number of words in the vocabulary. Denote this number as

p1(m) = the probability that the first word sums to m.

Things get more complicated if the word string has two words, because then we must add the probability for every possible pair of words that sum to m. This is given by the formula:

p2(m) = SUM p1(a) + p1(b) | where a + b = m

I.e. it is the sum of [p1(m-1) + p1(1)] + [p1(m-2) + p1(2)] + [p1(m-3) + p1(3)] ... + [p1(1) + p1(m-1)]

Next, we would have to do the same thing for all triplets that sum to m:

p3(m) = SUM p1(a) + p1(b) + p1(c) | where a + b + c = m

And so on until we get to n.

Now here is where most people's intuition fails them. The number of ways to add positive integers to get a given sum grows incredibly fast. The value is given by the Partition Function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(number_theory)). If m = 100 the value is 190,569,292 (that's 190 million ways to combine numbers that sum to m). Of course, many of those combinations might involve more than n numbers, such as when you write 100 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 .... + 1 and n is 37. And many would be meaningless, such as a string of a hundred letters "a". So an accurate calculation would have to take that into account (which is answered by "how many ways are there to add x numbers that sum to m, and do that for 0 < x < n). But in any case, the number of possible combinations is ASTRONOMICALLY HUGE! Remember, you are looking at numbers as large as 1754, and the partition function for just 1000 is 24,061,467,864,032,622,473,692,149,727,991 or approximately 2.4x1031.

But that's only the beginning! All those numbers tell us how many ways there are to find m using the Ordinal Values (o.v.) of the text of Genesis 1. We have to do the same calculation for the number of ways to find m using the standard values (s.v.) of the entire vocabulary of the NIV too! The number of possibilities is smaller in this case since you typically use only 2, 3 or 4 words. But still, the possibilities are amplified far beyond what you would guess if you didn't understand concepts from probability and combinatorics.

I don't know the exact values, but I can see that the numbers are astronomical and the probability of finding pretty much anything given enough time and effort is essentially UNITY. I.e. you have a probability near 1 of finding anything you might be looking for.

This is why I enjoy discussing these things so much. It's really fun digging deep to find the truth.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

This is the contentious issue between us. I always accepted, of course, that there are a large number of words related to each number through gematria and a much larger number of phrases (but thanks for quantifying it to some extent). Take 515 again. It's the sv of JESUS, and there will be maybe 2000 others in the English language, which has a lexicon of over a million words now. The number of possible phrases is as you say, astronomical.

I think we can narrow it down, though. Nearly every word combination will not make a sensible phrase (which is almost as understated as saying that nearly every number is transcendental). By analogy, the number of possible single letter combinations of the 26 letters of the alphabet is 26! (26 factorial), which is 4 x 10E26, or 400 million million million million, a truly vast number. Some of them have 26 letters of course (but then the longest English word has 45 letters), which would reduce that number somewhat. But on the other hand, if you allow doubled letters and two or more letters in a word the possibilities go up again. Now there are a million words in the English lexicon, so if we take the possible 'words' as 26!, dividing that by a million to give the actual words we have created from this vast field of possible words gives us 400 million million million. In other words only 0.00000000000000000025% of the possible letter combinations have actually been used. Addendum: This is for words of 26 letters in length only, I should have added. If we include numbers of all lengths up to 26 (which I'd forgotten about) the number is far higher. In fact this is probably much too pessimistic, as there are very few words more than about fifteen letters. Let's reduce the number of letters to 13, half of the possible total, and ignore doubled letters, etc. The total number of words used of 13 letters or fewer in length, assuming a million again, is only 0.016% of the possible total that could be invented, or less than 1 in every 6000 letter combinations. Addendum: again, allowing words of all lengths up to 13 letters (which I forgot to include) gives us an even lower figure here: 0.006%. Still managed to get it wrong. It's 0.0000000014% (probably). Taking the possible word combinations is similar, but harder to calculate, which is why I'm using letters-that-can-be-combined-to-create-words as an analogy for words-that-can-be combined-to-make-phrases. The percentage of phrases actually used in spoken and written English is likely only a tiny percentage of the number that could be created. So saying that a huge number of phrases will give a gematria of 1754, say, is meaningless.

On top of that, these phrases have to be meaningfully related to each other, since it that is the feature that makes the code a code. ARK OF THE TESTIMONY, ATONEMENT COVER, CHERUBIM OF THE GLORY and ALTAR OF INCENSE are strongly related through the structure of the ark and the location of ark and altar (according to Heb. 9) in the Most Holy Place - and they were the only items of furniture there. But how many other of the small percentage of word combinations that make sensible phrases are meaningfully related to that or a similar degree? Without doing any more calculations, I think the answer can be stated to be this: very few, in relative terms.

And lets not forget the importance of the Ark to the Hebrews. It was the only material object considered to be holy. For Christians the atonement cover and the altar of incense symbolise Christ, our atonement cover and altar. So the huge importance of the ark both to Jews and Christians, has to be taken into account too. How many phrases will have similar import? Not many.

Of those phrases, how many are found in the Bible? Now we have borrowed many expressions and proverbs from the Bible, so it will be a little higher than average, I'll bet, but again, the vast majority of them will not be found in there. They can't be, since the KJV Bible uses only 14564 unique words (http://www.artbible.info/concordance/). That isn't many, compared to the entire English lexicon: only about 1.5%. The NIV will be similar. The number of words with which to construct phrases is relatively tiny now. If the encodings were of single words, then we would be talking about only a few dozen possibilities. JESUS, for instance, is encoded over the first 12 words. If 1 in 500 words had an sv of 515 then in the KJV (and probably the NIV wouldn't be much different) there would only be about thirty words with that sv. In fact I've only found one other: JEW. There would of course be many more phrases, but relatively speaking, very, very few compared to your initial estmates. Those astronomical numbers you've been quoting are now being drastically cut down.

Of the phrases found in the Bible, how many will be found in the NIV Bible? One of the four we are discussing, cherubim of the glory', was only found in two versions out of 48. Only one version, the NIV, has all four. Again we are winnowing away, filtering out surplus phrases. Only a remnant of the huge possible number of phrases can be left now. I think putting numbers on it now is about as useful as the Drake calculation for estimating how many other civilisations are out there in the universe, but it has to be very, very small.

Yes, there are many many phrases all with standard value 610, 1169, 1623 and 1754. But when you look at what they represent in the NIV BIble: 'altar of incense' (610), 'atonement cover' (1169), 'cherubim of the glory' (1623), and of course, 'ark of the testimony' (1754), and when you consider what else they are connected to, in a huge tapestry of meaning, you see that these are the correct decryption of the numbers, according to the decryption key that was miraculously given me on 15/11/2001, by a bewildered but faithful Christian, whose husband had been a minister in Bethlehem for many years, and who was at that time guiding me in my own first faltering steps into the Christian faith.

thebluetriangle

04-04-2017, 08:29 AM

I agree that "worship" of science and technology would indeed be folly, and there are probably a lot of people who fall into that error. A similar error is to ignore philosophical assumptions that underlie science. I certainly was not advocating either of those errors. My point was simply that science was designed to overcome the kind of cognitive errors which we have been discussion (selection bias, confirmation bias, rationalization, and so forth). I'd love to discuss this more, but we'll get sidetracked.

The problem with ELS Bible Codes is that you can find pretty much anything you want in any random text. That's what the debunkers demonstrated with examples from secular sources. Even if the slight statistical anomalies were valid, they really wouldn't help anyone discern which messages were "intended" by the "designer." And besides, it doesn't make any sense that Jesus Christ would encode the birth and death dates of Rabbis that explicitly rejected him! They may still have been great teachers nonetheless. The only worthwhile question is whether the code is real or not. In my own little ELS finds, I concentrated on just a few verses, again looking at the start of Genesis. The first thing I found was GOD crossing GOD at a skip of 8, which I thought was interesting. In John 1.1, which of course reflects Gemesis 1.1, the same is also found, with a skip this time of 29. I tried 'hot' skip intervals, such as 29 (Messiah (r)), 37, etc, and found ARK crossing HERE (ending on the final letter of word 27) and GOD CREATED crossing CODE, ending on the final letter of word 24. The number of letters is far smaller, so there is much less scope for spurious findings.

Your response makes no sense to me. Religious believers reject demonstrable facts because they contradict their blind beliefs. Atheists are right to reject claims based only on blind faith that cannot be proven. My experience of some atheists (and I was one myself for many years), especially the militant kind, is that they too have a belief system, which has as much of a hold on their minds as the most superstitious belief of the most ardent fundamentalist. They would claim they only look for evidence and use reason to reach conclusions, but in fact their conclusons often come first and the evidence and jjustification are found later.

Yes, many religious people do accept science like evolution and geology and astronomy which contradict the teachings of the Bible. The only ones with a big problem in that regard seem to be the "fundamentalists." Agreed, although for some people fundamentalist beliefs are necessary. I believe that many atheists are actually more spiritually developed than many religious people, and a period of doubt, disbelief and uncertainty is common or even universal in the spiritual journey. It can last a lifetime, in fact. But it has to be worked through. It can't be skipped. The church actually has two kinds of active members (people who genuinely beleive, rather than people who are moving out of belief or going for other reasons). The majority are people who have a literal belief, a hand-me-down faith and they include all the fundamentalists and might be called the exoteric majority. The other kind are mystics who have gone through the valley of the shadow of death and reached the other side. They are often not understood by the majority but are the living beating heart of Christianity, the esoteric minority. Their real Church is the personal relationship they have with God, of which the man-made church is but a reflection.

Could you give me an example of the kind of "narrow-minded pontifications" you are talking about? Perhaps a quote or two? I'd love to get into it, but again it's a sidetrack. You have one on your site, by Mark Twain, about religion starting when the first con-man met the first fool. Hardly.

I am nearly 100% certain that the text got on that paper through a natural process. But there's no need to pursue this point since it is impossible to prove either way. I would recommend that you don't mention it when telling your story because it would probably cause most people to doubt everything you say. I'm nearly 100% certain it got there by a supernatural process. Even if it hadn't though, the synchroicity that created the experience was supernatural enough. In fact this is what the code itself actually is, a sophisticated weave of synchronicity, meaningful coincidence. This is why meaning is central to the code, because meaning is the stuff of the code!

Do you believe synchronicity is real? If so, could you accept that the code might have been created by such a process?

It seems teleological to me, a kind of intelligent design. I'm not a proponent of intelligent design as others understand it, and was calling this mysterious process Intelligent Evolution for a while, which I thought captured the idea of evolution, natural and cultural, proceeding almost as scientific naturalists would have it, but with the occasional nudge in the right direction from above. If minds, particularly human minds of course, are the channel through which God operates, then it would have gone very slowly for billions of years and only really hotted up over the last few thousand years. That's also why prayer is essential, because it increases our connection to the Divine.

As for her "character and beliefs" - in my experience, well-intentioned believers are the most likely to mistake a natural event for a supernatural event because they are inclined to believe. I've seen it a thousand times. They are the least trustworthy witnesses I could imagine, not because they deliberately deceive, but because their religion has taught them to believe things that can't be proven and to deceive themselves. It helped convince me, because the simplest explanation would be that she typed it herself.

Yes, I was very impressed by synchonicities, and I believed they were an important aspect of our reality. But now I see that kind of thinking as highly suspect - it's "magical thinking." It is one of the most common human failings. I used to think there was a "reason" for everything, like the Mind of God directing the show. I don't believe that any more. Oh, I see you've already commented on synchronicity. There is a reason for everything and everything has meaning, every leaf and snowflake that falls. Sometimes the meaning is that there is no meaning, if you see what I mean, but occasionally there is great meaning. In other words, synchronicity, God-incidence, is working all the time, mostly quietly, like a gentle breeze. But on occasion, at times of great import, it can seem like a whirlwind and take us to the Land of Oz.

I am not aware of any "denial" that is involved with my rejection of magical thinking. You've read the Improbability Principle and you know about the way coincidences work. I've seen no evidence that sychronicities are anything but meaningless coincidences. The fact that some coincidences strike humans as MEANINGFUL is an inevitable consequence of our brains interpreting events in terms of meaning. Coincidences would happen that seem meaningful even if they were totally random. Agreed? It happens all the time, but the reality of fool's gold doesn't disprove the existence of real gold. Discernment is required.

Now given that many meaningless random coincidences will SEEM meaningful, the question is: How do you discern between a meaningless coincidence that SEEMS meaningful, and a synchronicity that really was "meaningful"? Yes, let's analyse it to death, then feast on its flesh. No! Discernment is necessary, but analysis is all but pointless.

And yes, I am an atheist in the "weak" sense that I am not a theist (i.e. I do not believe in a god). But that doesn't mean there is no "spirit" or that synchronicities are impossible, since reality could all be a mental/spiritual phenomenon for all I know. And there could be a god I don't know about. But I do not believe in any god, and I can justify my rejection of all the God's that have been invented, such as Allah, Yahweh, and Zeus. We're not so far away, although I believe there is a personal God (and what we call reality is inside-out, really a projection of our beliefs, which is why science, which operates within that reality, is not able to find God, any more than the characters in a movie could discover who made it). There is scope there for many interesting conversations, but again they would take us off track.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I did respond by simply saying that I didn't find that "code" impressive. In general I reject ELS codes in the original texts, and much moreso in one particular version of a 20th century translation. It simply seems impossible that an intelligent God would do things that way, especially since your methods are founded on fallacies common to "patterns" that are not really there. That's fair enough regarding your beiefs, but of course we disagree about whether or not God would encode a modern version of the Bible, albeit the most popular modern version, now outselling the KJV. People seem to think old langauges are more special than modern ones, and the same with bibles. It's closer to ancestor worship than reasoned thinking.

Well, the thing is, we have a mountain of similar claims that have been proven to be delusional. Your work looks similar, and you have not been able to explain how to tell the difference between a "code" and a random coincidence. For example, suppose God actually did intend to encode "ark of the testimony" and "atonement cover" but NOT "altar of incense." How would you know? How can your sort out the wheat from the chaff? How do you know any of it is real? You keep appealing to statistics, but the statistics don't help. On the contrary, the statistics tells us to expect the kinds of things you find to be the product of random chance.

Thanks for the excellent conversation! I feel we are making some good progress.

:sunny:

I don't know why God would not encode altar of incense, but I'm not in the habit of second-guessing him. It makes sense that it is there though.

It is a good conversation, no doubt about it!

Desmild

04-04-2017, 03:33 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-04-2017, 04:46 PM

So i got some bad News, im back to Windows 7 and i can't upload images.

So i was thinking about making a small blogg about them (If i can upload images there). It will be very short and i will make it primarily for you Richard.

But what about those features? have you given any though about what Methods you will / can use ?

I was wondering to go for the Phyton Programming Language since Scientific Research is the main focus of that Programming Language (let me know if there are any big negatives With that). I think it will come in handy when i want to check the probability of for example a Hebrew Word in the Bible having a value.
If you could send me a pic in an email of what your message editor looks like, and what the popup looks like, maybe I can figure out what the problem is.

Just send it to richard@biblewheel.com

I'll have to review the features you asked about to let you know what I can do. My main interest is to upgrade the whole app to make it more usable for general purposes. Your requests, if I recall correctly, seems rather idiosyncratic to your own personal kind of numerology.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-04-2017, 04:47 PM

I was wondering to go for the Phyton Programming Language since Scientific Research is the main focus of that Programming Language (let me know if there are any big negatives With that). I think it will come in handy when i want to check the probability of for example a Hebrew Word in the Bible having a value.
I would use Javascript. It is easiest and fastest to learn, and it is able to do everything you would need.

Desmild

04-04-2017, 05:43 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-04-2017, 08:09 PM

wow, it just suddenly Works. I have not done anything since i wrote last comment.

Try explaining that:P I am afraid i am only done With 1 out of 3 images which i am going to share.

Much time has been going into setting up Windows again and i do other stuff also besides codes:P
Computers are strange that way. They don't work, don't work, don't work and suddenly work for no apparent reasons. There's always a reason, but it's not always apparent.

Desmild

04-04-2017, 08:40 PM

Yeah, all i did im the mean time was seeing a documentary on Youtube about the Dark Ages.
I really Wonder what made the difference :P

But i checked info on the Programming Languages. It seems Phyton has very Nice features like the data structure Tree
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH6yxkw0u78

But maybe the Binary Search Tree feature in Phyton is what i am looking for. I have not seen alot info about this, I did only a fast Research in different Fields of Programming langues. But the Pyton features here looks very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYT9F8_LFTM

If i understand some of this correct yet, then i might use a tree to for example:
- Put a verse & its info into the root of the tree
- Put methods in braches of the tree
- Make the Tree available to all verses (if simple and not a gigantic process)
- Do some Magic Programming to make it simple to integrate another Tree With another verse, so that we could integrate verses with different methods

What do you think ?

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2017, 07:07 AM

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the average value of 45 is nothing to do with the probability of getting a hit. Other than very small numbers, say, below 20, which are likely to be skipped over on the first shot (which we're both agreed on) most numbers do indeed have about a 1-in-45 chance of being hit as you move along a word string. Standard values tend to be large, so on the whole they will be hit about 1 time in 45 if the average word value is 45. My calculator produces random numbers from 1 to 1000. The first nineteen words of Genesis 1 sum to 949, so lets use 1000 as our pool of numbers and try to hit any of the first nineteen word strings with the calculator.

The nineteen word strings are

23, 56, 137, 163, 219, 252, 326, 345, 378, 430, 482, 515, 567, 610, 717, 736, 815, 906, 949

My calcuator gave the following 100 random numbers

32, 755, 384, 852, 596, 726, 710, 348, 25, 594, 668, 371, 545, 555, 769, 688, 835, 219, 55, 286, 578, 309, 11, 551, 695, 99, 783, 19, 454, 453, 437, 72, 666, 327, 522, 153, 532, 254, 856, 703, 184, 233, 378, 700, 120, 764, 592, 638, 817, 5, 112, 809, 414, 257, 665, 624, 937, 2, 206, 270, 124, 207, 92, 512, 419, 715, 330, 237, 557, 352, 674, 937, 214, 371, 645, 276, 259, 145, 74, 365, 223, 186, 259, 295, 682, 708, 291, 710, 332, 647, 899, 682, 703, 178, 97, 247, 700, 113, 611, 53.

By inspection we see there are two 'hits': 219 and 378, when we would expect 2.2 hits on average. That's a very small sample and it's random numbers, not standard values, but I think you can see I'm not that far off in assuming that if we convert words and phrases into their standard value there is around a 1-in-45 chance of hitting the number in a text like Genesis 1.1. It's about the same as drawing a named card from a fair deck (1 in 52). I'll happily do a list of standard vaues if you want more evidence.

That is why I'm concentrating on the word strings proceeding from word 1 of Genesis 1. There is no way to avoid the fact that any number found in there has around a 1 in 45 probability of being found. The only contentious area is the relationship between that number and the words and phrases themselves. The New Bible Code works on a two-step decoding proceedure. In cryptology (the theory of codes and cyphers), the standard model for encryption and decryption is as follows:

Hey there Bill,

I'm glad you are pursing this. It is important to understand how probability works.

You say that you don't see how "the average value of 45 has nothing to do with the probability" of getting a hit, but then you gave an analysis that had nothing to do with the number 45.

Let's look at what you did:

1) You started with 19 numbers generated by word strings.

2) You chose a sample space of the first 1000 numbers because that was roughly the value of the largest word string.

3) You compared two samples of 19 numbers and 100 random numbers picked from your sample space.

Where does the number 45 play a roll in your analysis? Why would anyone think it gives the probability of finding a match between the two sets of 19 and 100 numbers?

We can see immediately that it is not correct by considering the case of randomly picking a word string made from 1 word. It's average value may indeed be 45, but that tells us nothing about the probability of a randomly picked word having a specific value. What is the probability of a one word word string having the value 1? 2? 3? We would have to look at the distribution (which looks like a bell curve) to answer that question. Obviously, there is a low probability for words with small values, a larger probability for words around the average value, and then smaller probabilities for words with larger values.

The correct question is "What is the probability that two sets of random numbers would contain n common numbers?" This is a very complex question, and requires a review the basics of probability.

The first thing to understand is the concept of a SAMPLE SPACE (http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol6/sample_spaces.html). That's the space of all possible outcomes. It is the sample space that determines the probability. For example, a coin flip has a sample space of {H, T}. If both possibilities are equally likely, the probability of either will be 1/2 because there are two possibilities. Likewise, the sample space of a six-sided die is {1,2,3,4,5,6} so the probability is 1/6. Likewise, suppose you had a bag with 6 jelly beans, 2 red, 2 yellow, and 2 blue. What is the probability that you would pick a bean of a given color at random? The answer is 1/3 because the sample space has three elements {red, yellow, blue} and the beans are distributed equally in the bag and so there is an equal chance of picking any one of them.

Things get more complicated if there are multiple ways to get the same outcome. For example, suppose you have a bag with 6 jelly beans. With 1 red, 3 yellow, and 2 blue. The probabilities of randomly picking a given color jelly bean are not equal:

p(red) = 1/5
p(yellow) = 3/5
p(blue) = 2/5

This is more like the distribution of word values in the NIV. There are some with small values, lots with the more common values, and then some with the larger values. It's a distribution like a Bell curve, not an equal distribution in which every possibility is equally likely.

So what determines the probability? Does it have anything to do with the actual "values" in the sample space? Nope. The probability is totally determined by the SIZE OF THE SAMPLE SPACE when each possibility is equally likely. If the distribution is not equal, then it 's more complicated because you need to take into account the function called the probability measure. But in no case does the probability have anything to do with the "values" (which are mere labels) in the sample space like {H, T} or the set of faces {1,2,3,4,5,6} or the colors {red, yellow, blue}, or the numerical values of the words in your list (which happen to average 45).

Unfortunately, the answer to the question "What is the probability that two sets of random numbers would contain n common numbers?" is too complex to answer right now. I don't have time. Gotta go to work. But here is an explanation of how we would do the calculation if we were so inclined. Just replace the numbers as appropriate:

Four friends each choose a random number between 1 and 5. What is the chance that any of them chose the same number? (https://www.quora.com/Four-friends-each-choose-a-random-number-between-1-and-5-What-is-the-chance-that-any-of-them-chose-the-same-number)

Great chatting!

:sunny:

Desmild

04-05-2017, 02:44 PM

I will listen to your advice and learn Javascipt first then. I wont be Learning it before im done Fishing this year though.

But i was wondering if it is a very big task for you to find out what the probability is of a Word having the value of: 37 & 100 in the Hebrew Bible.
because the Holographs will be there. Im sure you will also want to know that probability after you see my favorite of the 3 i am giving you.

i wont be nagging you any more after this.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2017, 03:31 PM

Desmild

04-05-2017, 04:38 PM

Well you will know soon enough... working on the Holographs now.

Desmild

04-05-2017, 04:42 PM

But is it a big task for you ?

thebluetriangle

04-05-2017, 05:41 PM

Hey there Bill,

I'm glad you are pursing this. It is important to understand how probability works.

You say that you don't see how "the average value of 45 has nothing to do with the probability" of getting a hit, but then you gave an analysis that had nothing to do with the number 45.

Let's look at what you did:

1) You started with 19 numbers generated by word strings.

2) You chose a sample space of the first 1000 numbers because that was roughly the value of the largest word string.

3) You compared two samples of 19 numbers and 100 random numbers picked from your sample space. Where does the number 45 play a roll in your analysis? Why would anyone think it gives the probability of finding a match between the two sets of 19 and 100 numbers?

I didn't have to put the number 45 in. It's a property given to the text by the substitution of letters by their ordinal value, and a useful one to know if you want to estimate how unlikely it is to find any number or numbers in word strings.

My 'analysis', really a rough, back-of-an-envelope calculation of odds, is based on the fact that the words have an average ov of about 45 (50 actually, for that particular string). It's an empirical demonstration, a field experiment using the text of Genesis as our jungle of numbers, not a theoretical analysis. I quote the number 45 because it is a pertinent property of the early verses of Genesis. The important point here is that if this number was larger the number of hits would be smaller, and vica versa. You want to know the approximate odds against hitting a word string in any piece of text? Just calculate the total ordinal value of the text and divide by the number of words. Call it X and you have a 1-in-X chance of hits. It's also the same no matter how many words or phrases you test, because each trial is independent of the others. The more sophisticated analysis you suggest may give you a more accurate understanding, but this simple test is good enough to give a feel for things.

Do factors other than average word ordinal values make a difference? The bunching effect in numerical values you showed in one of your early posts, makes little difference to your chances of scoring a hit. Except for very small numbers, the odds against hitting a word string is about the same no matter how large a number is or how wide the range of numbers is. It can be 200 or 2000 and it makes no difference. So the bunching effect is irrelevant here.

In an earlier post I found 100 random numbers between 1 and 1000, which the first 19 words of Genesis fall within. My empirical method indicates that on average about 1 in 45 randomly picked numbers will be the ordinal value of one of these 19 word strings. I found that 2 numbers coincided. I'll do a few more so we can be sure this isn'ta fluke. Lets call this first one trial A1.

Using this online random number generator (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjz3uy6qY7TAhWiOsAKHalECGUQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnumbergenerator.org%2F&usg=AFQjCNEU7-PejAJrxeLbIP0pdIczSNgYKQ&bvm=bv.151426398,d.bGs), I'll generate 100 random numbers at a time, to see if it really is close to 1 in 45.

Trial A1: 2, giving a running average of 1 in 50
Trial A2: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 40
Trial A3: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 50
Trial A4: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 44
Trial A5: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 42

Do I have to do any more?

How robust is this method? In other words, would changing the standard deviation, the spread, of ordinal values in the text make a difference?

Trial B - Standard deviation of zero (every word has an ordinal value of 45)

The nineteen word strings are 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 270, 315, 360, 405, 450, 495, 540, 585, 630, 675, 720, 765, 810, 855

Trial B1: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 100
Trial B2: 5, giving a running average of 1 in 33
Trial B3: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 43

You can see the way it's going. The same.

Trial C - First 9 word values 1, last 10 word values 89 (huge spread, uneven distribution)

The nineteen word strings are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 98, 187, 276, 365, 454, 543, 632, 721, 810, 899

Trial C1: 6, giving a running average of 1 in 17
Trial C2: 2, giving a running average of 1 in 25
Trial C3: 2, giving a running average of 1 in 30
Trial C4: 2, giving a running average of 1 in 33
Trial C5: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 38

Trial D - 100 artificially bunched nominal standard values:

20 50 80 100 120 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 305 310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345 350 355 360 365 370 373 375 377 380 383 385 388 390 393 395 398 400 405 410 415 420 425 430 435 440 445 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 960 1000

I'll test this against the first nineteen word strings in Genesis, which are

23, 56, 137, 163, 219, 252, 326, 345, 378, 430, 482, 515, 567, 610, 717, 736, 815, 906, 949

Trial D1: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 33

Again and again you see that this approximate method of mine is robust and reliable, the average chances of a hit being fairly immune to huge variations in standard deviation, either for the standard value or the ordinal value. I'd calculate 100 non-biblical standard values, to investigate if the bunching effect changes the chances of a hit, but for the reasons I explained above, it's very likely not going to. I think the point is made. My method is simple, robust and reliable. It may not be mathematically sound, but as a quick approximation it works, as these kinds of methods often do in messy, real-world situations.

We can see immediately that it is not correct by considering the case of randomly picking a word string made from 1 word. It's average value may indeed be 45, but that tells us nothing about the probability of a randomly picked word having a specific value. The standard deviation is relevant for this question, but irrelevant to the larger discussion, as I just showed. Why would I want to calculate the probability of a single word having some ordinal value? Nearly all word strings are of more than one word, and so the values quickly average out.

Word 1: average ordinal value = 23
Words 1, 2: average ordinal value = 28
Words 1, 2, 3: average ordinal value = 46
Words 1, 2, 3, 4: average ordinal value = 41
Words 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: average ordinal value = 44
Words 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6: average ordinal value = 42

The correct question is "What is the probability that two sets of random numbers would contain n common numbers?" This is a very complex question, and requires a review the basics of probability. It'll be interesting to see what probability this method gives. I think mine is simpler and more intuitive though. An impressive, sophisticated method may also give a false impression of accuracy when it may be little better than a rough guide. The Apollo astronauts used a special zero gravity pen developed by NASA at great cost, so they could write their notes in space. The Soviet cosmonauts used a pencil.

The first thing to understand is the concept of a SAMPLE SPACE (http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol6/sample_spaces.html). That's the space of all possible outcomes. It is the sample space that determines the probability. For example, a coin flip has a sample space of {H, T}. If both possibilities are equally likely, the probability of either will be 1/2 because there are two possibilities. Likewise, the sample space of a six-sided die is {1,2,3,4,5,6} so the probability is 1/6. Likewise, suppose you had a bag with 6 jelly beans, 2 red, 2 yellow, and 2 blue. What is the probability that you would pick a bean of a given color at random? The answer is 1/3 because the sample space has three elements {red, yellow, blue} and the beans are distributed equally in the bag and so there is an equal chance of picking any one of them.

Thanks for the primer in probability theory and combinatorics, but the real problem if you are going to attempt to quantify the code's likelihood of being real is estimating some of the variables.

How do we calculate the number of possible English phrases with a certain standard value?
How do we measure the strength of the relationship between two words?
How do we quantify codes that begin at the start of a chapter instead of the whole Bible, or the ones that begin at the end?
How do we quantify the phenomenon of confluence?

thebluetriangle

04-05-2017, 05:57 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2017, 06:27 PM

But is it a big task for you ?
Actually, no, it wouldn't be hard to do. The information would look like a bell curve. I'll see about doing it as time permits. I'm curious to see what the distribution looks like.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2017, 07:00 PM

I didn't have to put the number 45 in. It's a property given to the text by the substitution of letters by their ordinal value, and a useful one to know if you want to estimate how unlikely it is to find any number or numbers in word strings.

My 'analysis', really a rough, back-of-an-envelope calculation of odds, is based on the fact that the words have an average ov of about 45 (50 actually, for that particular string). It's an empirical demonstration, a field experiment using the text of Genesis as our jungle of numbers, not a theoretical analysis. I quote the number 45 because it is a pertinent property of the early verses of Genesis. The important point here is that if this number was larger the number of hits would be smaller, and vica versa. You want to know the approximate odds against hitting a word string in any piece of text? Just calculate the total ordinal value of the text and divide by the number of words. Call it X and you have a 1-in-X chance of hits. It's also the same no matter how many words or phrases you test, because each trial is independent of the others. The more sophisticated analysis you suggest may give you a more accurate understanding, but this simple test is good enough to give a feel for things.

Hey there Bill,

I'm sorry, but your method doesn't make any sense to me. The odds are given by the size of the sample space, not the "average value" of the elements in the trial data (which is your set of 19 numbers). The sample space is defined as the set of all possible "hits" which you said is the set of numbers from 1 to 1000. The trial data is different for every different trial. You need to separate these concepts.

What does it mean to say that there is a "1 in 45 chance" of getting a "hit"? At first glance it seems you must mean that there is a "1 in 45 chance" of matching any number between 1 and 1000 (the sample space), but that can't be right because a single word wouldn't have an o.v. anywhere near a thousand. So your words don't make sense to me.

A good way to get a handle on complex topics is to look at the simplest case. Suppose you had just one word string to look at rather than 19. What are the odds that you would hit a given value? The odds would be given by the distribution function that tells you the chances that a random word would have the value of 1, or 2, or 3, etc. It would look like a bell curve. The probabilities themselves would have nothing to do with the average value, except that the maximum probability probably is found near the average.

I think the problem is that your question is not well formulated. You need to state it using the standard terminology of Probability Theory.

Do factors other than average word ordinal values make a difference? The bunching effect in numerical values you showed in one of your early posts, makes little difference to your chances of scoring a hit. Except for very small numbers, the odds against hitting a word string is about the same no matter how large a number is or how wide the range of numbers is. It can be 200 or 2000 and it makes no difference. So the bunching effect is irrelevant here.

The "other factors" make all the difference. The average value of the trial data (which changes with every trial) has nothing to do with the probability of getting a particular hit. It has nothing to do with 1 in 45.

In an earlier post I found 100 random numbers between 1 and 1000, which the first 19 words of Genesis fall within. My empirical method indicates that on average about 1 in 45 randomly picked numbers will be the ordinal value of one of these 19 word strings. I found that 2 numbers coincided. I'll do a few more so we can be sure this isn'ta fluke. Lets call this first one trial A1.

That's because you chose a SAMPLE SPACE of 1000 and looked for matches between 100 random numbers and your 19 numbers. The math is rather complicated. It has absolutely nothing to do with the average value of the 19 numbers.

Using this online random number generator (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjz3uy6qY7TAhWiOsAKHalECGUQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnumbergenerator.org%2F&usg=AFQjCNEU7-PejAJrxeLbIP0pdIczSNgYKQ&bvm=bv.151426398,d.bGs), I'll generate 100 random numbers at a time, to see if it really is close to 1 in 45.

Trial A1: 2, giving a running average of 1 in 50
Trial A2: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 40
Trial A3: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 50
Trial A4: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 44
Trial A5: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 42

Do I have to do any more?

No, you don't have to do anything more. You have merely done an empirical test of how many hits you would expect between two sets of 19 and 100 random numbers drawn from a sample space of the first 1000 natural numbers. It has nothing to do with the number 45.

Thanks for the primer in probability theory and combinatorics, but the real problem if you are going to attempt to quantify the code's likelihood of being real is estimating some of the variables.

How do we calculate the number of possible English phrases with a certain standard value?
How do we measure the strength of the relationship between two words?
How do we quantify codes that begin at the start of a chapter instead of the whole Bible, or the ones that begin at the end?
How do we quantify the phenomenon of confluence?
The only way to answer those questions is to use the established nomenclature of probability theory. I'd be happy to work with you on this.

Here's a start:

1) How do we calculate the number of possible English phrases with a certain standard value?
That's very difficult because we don't have anyway to tell if a phrase is valid. It's easy to calculate the odds for individual words, but we would need a very smart program that could tell if a phrase was valid. We'd need some strong AI for that.

2) How do we measure the strength of the relationship between two words?
Again, that would require some pretty good AI.

3) How do we quantify codes that begin at the start of a chapter instead of the whole Bible, or the ones that begin at the end?
Why "quantify" those specific codes. The first thing to do would be to establish how to discern between a random text and a coded text. That's what we need to focus on.

4) How do we quantify the phenomenon of confluence?
That's probably impossible, since meaning and significance is very subjective. And subject to strong biases.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2017, 07:29 PM

Since the fact that different words and phrases share numerical values is an issue for you, would you prefer if we discussed the geometric patterns I believe are encoded? There is less ambigity then. Youmight like to look at The First Day (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3281244.html) and the Creation Snowflake (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437341.html) to start.
I would rather not change the subject yet. We are in the middle of an analysis of the validity of your fundamental claim. The fact that you have an ocean of possible words and phrases to pick from is not an "issue" for me, as if it were simply something I was idiosyncratically hung up on for no good reason. No, it is a fundamental weakness in your method that you must address if you want to convince a rational skeptic of the validity of your claims.

Gematria and numerology are founded upon the cognitive errors of cherry picking and confirmation bias. You try to avoid these errors by appealing to probabilities, but your analysis does not appear to work. So I think it best that we continue working on this point until we can come to a mutually agreed upon resolution. We're both rational, so if your methods are rational, we should be able to come to some sort of agreement ... at the very least an agreement about where our disagreement lies. We should be able to articulate our positions with sufficient clarity that rational people could at least see where we disagree and why. Of course, achieving that kind of clarity puts us both at risk of having to change our worldview if the other person is able to present sufficient evidence. That's a risk I'm willing to take! And from what I can tell, so are you. And for that I'm grateful.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-05-2017, 08:43 PM

Well, the thing is, we have a mountain of similar claims that have been proven to be delusional. Your work looks similar, and you have not been able to explain how to tell the difference between a "code" and a random coincidence. For example, suppose God actually did intend to encode "ark of the testimony" and "atonement cover" but NOT "altar of incense." How would you know? How can your sort out the wheat from the chaff? How do you know any of it is real? You keep appealing to statistics, but the statistics don't help. On the contrary, the statistics tells us to expect the kinds of things you find to be the product of random chance.

I don't know why God would not encode altar of incense, but I'm not in the habit of second-guessing him. It makes sense that it is there though.

It is a good conversation, no doubt about it!
Bill,

I think you missed my point. Please read my comments again. You are not "second guessing the Lord" when you try to discern if a "hit" was a meaningless random coincidence or something that was deliberately designed by God. Indeed, if you can't tell the difference between random chance and design, then how would you know if any of your claims are true?

This goes back to a previous similar point when you said I was "telling God what to do" when I pointed out logical inconsistencies in YOUR claims. It appears you are mistaking your own thoughts for God's thoughts. When I question your claims, you think I am questioning God. When I ask why your logic is not consistent, you say that you don't "second guess God." Such logic seems entirely circular. You are assuming what you are supposed to be proving. If God really designed the codes, then why are they such a mess?

thebluetriangle

04-06-2017, 02:58 AM

Hey there Bill,

I'm sorry, but your method doesn't make any sense to me.

Then why, for goodness sake, does it work? For an erronious method it seems to be pretty effective.

Are you really saying that you have no idea why I am using this method? Is it not obvious why it works?

If you have 1000 balls in a bag and draw out nineteen numbers at random, then take a second bag of 1000 numbers and draw out balls one at a time, replacing them after each withdrawal, what are the chances of drawing one of those nineteen numbers? It's 1 in 52 each time and if you have a large number of draws your results will home in on it, as I was doing with the 500 random numbers between 1 and 1000. That's essentially the same as I am doing when I calculate a word standard value then look to see if it is a whole word string. Yes, the standard values will be bunched around 300 or 400, but as I showed in my last post the probabilities aren't seriously affected by that. In fact if the standard deviation was zero and all standard values were therefore one number, say 350, the chances would still be unaffected, if you were numerating a large number of different pieces of text, say, every chapter in the Bible. I bet if you counted the ordinal values of the first few words of every chapter, you would have about a 1 in 45 chance of hitting 350, assuming the average ordinal value stayed constant throughout the Bible. Some people like to use longer words than others, so it will vary, but I won't be far away.

If I created a system that gave huge values, say 20000 on average, the chances of them being found in a word string (a long one of course) in the NIV Bible are still . . . 1 in 45.

If I were to work out the standard value of very long phrases, or entire verses, I would get numbers in the thousands almost every time (Genesis 1.1 (s) for example, is 2194) then again there would be a 1 in 45 chance of any of them being a complete word string. However there is a difference here in that as you correctly point out there are now a huge number of word combinations that could hit that number. That is a moot point here and I'd hoped we would be discussing that by now.

The odds are given by the size of the sample space, not the "average value" of the elements in the trial data (which is your set of 19 numbers). The sample space is defined as the set of all possible "hits" which you said is the set of numbers from 1 to 1000. The trial data is different for every different trial. You need to separate these concepts. I don't need to, since I already have a method that works pretty well. You have yet to show, incidentally, whether your theoretical method works. I'm sure it will, but it's not going to prove my method wrong. If it works, in other words, if it gives the same results as mine, it will only show that I have a fairly good method already!

There are dangers in getting too theoretical. Murray Gel-Mann used to tell a story about a conference he went to once. As best I recall, it went like this. An emminent theoretical physicist was standing at the blackboard, filling it with calculations, which ended with the number 2. "The spin of this particle is therefore 2, he said." QED. All the physicists attending sat there in awe of his brilliance. But then a guy at the back put up his hand. He was a lowly experimental physicist, probably lucky to get a seat in such illustrious company. "You're wrong", he said. "The spin is 1". "How do you know that?", asked the theorist, bristling. "Because I measured it.", answered the experimentalist.

What does it mean to say that there is a "1 in 45 chance" of getting a "hit"? At first glance it seems you must mean that there is a "1 in 45 chance" of matching any number between 1 and 1000 (the sample space), but that can't be right because a single word wouldn't have an o.v. anywhere near a thousand. So your words don't make sense to me.

But we're talking about standard values, which for a single word is often in the hundreds. Jesus is 515, Messiah is 263, Christ is 410, Ark is 111, Altar is 322, Atonement is 611, Holy is 798.

A good way to get a handle on complex topics is to look at the simplest case. Suppose you had just one word string to look at rather than 19. What are the odds that you would hit a given value? The odds would be given by the distribution function that tells you the chances that a random word would have the value of 1, or 2, or 3, etc. It would look like a bell curve. The probabilities themselves would have nothing to do with the average value, except that the maximum probability probably is found near the average. I think you're confusing the fact that standard values are bunched around the mean with the pertinent fact that no matter the bunching effect - zero or infinity - the chances of hitting a word string are still about 1 in 45. I discussed a similar example above.

I think the problem is that your question is not well formulated. You need to state it using the standard terminology of Probability Theory. I could, but I'd have to swat up on it and few would understand it anyway. I want as many people as possible to behold the wonder of the New Bibe Code, but I can imagine people's eyes glazing over as they look at the equations and the graphs and sniff the intellectualism. I use simple gematria identities, simple tables, simple langauge, simple analogies and try to communicate the wonder of it all.

The "other factors" make all the difference. The other factors I tested, such as standard deviation in average ordinal value, seemed to make no real difference. I was well on the way to showing that and I think you have to concede that point. If there are other factors I haven't considered please list them.

No, you don't have to do anything more. You have merely done an empirical test of how many hits you would expect between two sets of 19 and 100 random numbers drawn from a sample space of the first 1000 natural numbers. It has nothing to do with the number 45. Yes it does, because if the average word value was, say 90 instead of 45, the number of word strings would reduce from 19 to 9 or 10. So lets double the ordinal values to check:

Original ov of first nineteen word strings: 23, 56, 137, 163, 219, 252, 326, 345, 378, 430, 482, 515, 567, 610, 717, 736, 815, 906, 949
Doubled ov of first ninetwen word strings: 46, 112, 274, 326, 438, 504, 652, 690, 756, 860, 964, 1030, 1134, 1220, 1434, 1472, 1630, 1812, 1898

So the number of word strings up to 1000 in ov is reduced to eleven: 46, 112, 274, 326, 438, 504, 652, 690, 756, 860, 964.

We would then have half the hits we got before on average. This is elementary, of course, but it's good form to show it.

How do we calculate the number of possible English phrases with a certain standard value?
That's very difficult because we don't have anyway to tell if a phrase is valid. It's easy to calculate the odds for individual words, but we would need a very smart program that could tell if a phrase was valid. We'd need some strong AI for that.

2) How do we measure the strength of the relationship between two words?
Again, that would require some pretty good AI.

3) How do we quantify codes that begin at the start of a chapter instead of the whole Bible, or the ones that begin at the end?
Why "quantify" those specific codes. The first thing to do would be to establish how to discern between a random text and a coded text. That's what we need to focus on.

4) How do we quantify the phenomenon of confluence?
That's probably impossible, since meaning and significance is very subjective. And subject to strong biases.

Thanks for these suggestions, and some of them may indeed be useful, but I believe the code is already validated to a large extent by the fact that I was given the decryption Key. Whether or not you believe the story behind it, the Key itself shows how the two-stage system unlocks numbers within the NIV Bible. It is validated by use. The numbers are there, in regular patterns, broadcasting a spectacular message. One way of checking whether or not the code is real is to try to unlock other books using the Key. I tried it and got nothing except the random hits you'd expect. The Key only opens one door.

Personally I prefer HI to AI. The more time you spend with a computer the more like one you become; the more time you spend with God, the more like Him you become.

thebluetriangle

04-06-2017, 07:44 AM

Bill,

I think you missed my point. Please read my comments again. You are not "second guessing the Lord" when you try to discern if a "hit" was a meaningless random coincidence or something that was deliberately designed by God. Regarding this particular encoding, the ark and its contents are certainly within the Most Holy Place and of one piece, whereas the Altar of Incense was a different piece of furniture and its physical location was outside the Most Holy Place. Hebrews 9 has it in there, but Exodus 40 does not. So on the face of it the altar would seem as if it doesn't really belong a part of the necodings and is of lesser significance than the ark. However in terms of theological signifiacance the altar does belong with the ark. On the Day of Atonement the curtain was opened and the censor filled with coals taken into the MHP: this could be considered an extension of the altar. In a religious sense the altar 'stood before the Lord' (Lev. 16). Both the ark and the altar were sprinkled with blood by the high priest (Ex. 30). In Kings 6.22 the altar was said to "belong to the oracle", the oracle being the Most Holy Place, even though its physical location was the Holy Place.

So your opinion on whether God should have encoded the altar along with the ark depends on your theological understanding. If you understand the religious significance of the altar - in other words if you take meaning into account - then you might be surprised by the altar being omitted. If you see the ark as the sole piece of furniture in the Most Holy Place - in other words if the religious significance of the altar means nothing to you - then you wouldn't be surprised. I only discovered the significance of the altar after I discovered the encoding and then I realised why it had to be there, because by then I knew that the code is based on meaning and that every action of God when he created the code is meaningful.

In other words the inclusion of 'altar of incense' is evidence of design, not chance.

thebluetriangle

04-06-2017, 08:32 AM

Bill,

Indeed, if you can't tell the difference between random chance and design, then how would you know if any of your claims are true? Meaning is the foundation of the code, as my last post hopefully helped you understand, but also the appearance of patterns, consistency, confluences, clustering, etc, are indicators of design. I know the two-system procedure is correct because the Key taught me it, and because it works. I was greatly assisted by revelaton too, personal revelations and revelations given to others. I've already mentioned Kathryn LeCorre, but other people were involved in the early stages. One woman I worked with, who knew nothing about my work came up to me and told me that she'd just had an incredible dream. In it everyone was surrounded by angels, including me, but I was the only one who knew it. There were two versions of the scenario and she kept going back and forth between them. I've already told you about my experiences with angels (which incidentally, were all in shops or shopping centres Why? I'm a Scot and in Scotland we go to the shops for 'messages' (groceries). Angels are messengers!). She knew nothing about my experiences though and this was about a year or so later. She was astounded when I then told her a little about them. She had another dream years later than confirmed a very important part of the code for me.

This goes back to a previous similar point when you said I was "telling God what to do" when I pointed out logical inconsistencies in YOUR claims.

You were the one being illogical, not me. The reason for choosing those wordings for the ark, etc, was a) the fact that they are uniquely found as a group in the NIV Bible, not Hebrews 9, and b) they were the first wordings or only wordings given in the NIV Bible.

It appears you are mistaking your own thoughts for God's thoughts. When I question your claims, you think I am questioning God.

No, I'm questioning your methods.

When I ask why your logic is not consistent, you say that you don't "second guess God." I hope I've put that one to rest now. I would have at the time, but I was tired. The point still stands though. I have learned not to second-guess God. I used to get infuriated if a number I expected to find somewhere wasn't there, but slowly learned that the problem was my poor understanding of the code and the Bible. I learned to just put it aside and look at what wa actually there. The patterns I eventually found are far more beautiful and meaningful than what I in my naivity and presumption expected to find. You began this discussion with exactly the same approach, thinking you knew what the code would be about, when in fact you knew almost nothing about it.

Such logic seems entirely circular. You are assuming what you are supposed to be proving. If God really designed the codes, then why are they such a mess?

Is the Creation Snowflake (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437341.html) a mess? It's a perfect snowflake, encrypted into the first two verses of Genesis. Again it manifests as two word strings proceeding from the first word, along with the second verse in its entirety. The three numbers define the snowflake and the method used to grow it. Your own logos star is within it. It also harmonises with other encodings, including the Signature of Christ, another ordered pattern - hardly a mess. In fact the beauty of these figures and the patterns such as the signatures and the Bookend Encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2465906.html) are characteristic of the code. You might also like to look at the symmetrical patterns I found in Ezra/Nehemiah (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467115.html).

Desmild

04-06-2017, 12:02 PM

Actually, no, it wouldn't be hard to do. The information would look like a bell curve. I'll see about doing it as time permits. I'm curious to see what the distribution looks like.

Great, Now maybe i don't have to wait until 2018 before finding it out. I have a high curiosity too you know.
And really like the fact that you also have it :) The Holographs will be done later today.
but im afraid i would need to have a Word/letter count program for at least the 10 first Chapters of Genesis to really check all details.

Desmild

04-06-2017, 07:48 PM

Okey, its ready. But i cant upload them. I get a error. Have any ideas ?
406 Eorrorevent blablabla

Richard Amiel McGough

04-07-2017, 07:19 AM

Okey, its ready. But i cant upload them. I get a error. Have any ideas ?
406 Eorrorevent blablabla
Ah ... there is some info about that error online. It looks like it might be due to a security rule that is too strict. I'll see about changing it and let you know when you should try again.

BTW - It would help if you gave me the full error description.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-07-2017, 07:29 AM

Are you really saying that you have no idea why I am using this method? Is it not obvious why it works?

If it were obvious, you would be able to explain it using standard methods of probability theory. Your words simply make no sense. You merely assert "1 in 45" without explaining what the number 45 has to do with probability. I've explained this at least three times and you have ignored what I wrote. So let me try again.

If you flip a coin the chances are 1 in 2 because there are 2 possibilities, {H, T}.

If you roll a die, the chances are 1 in 6 because there are 6 possibilities, {1,2,3,4,5,6},

In both cases, I can easily list the set of possibilities, so the probability is indeed "obvious".

Now you say that when you pick two sets of numbers, one with 19 elements and one with 100, from a sample space of 1000 numbers, the probability is "1 in 45". What are those 45 possibilities? Can you list them? If not, you are not doing real statistics. Your words have no meaning.

If you have 1000 balls in a bag and draw out nineteen numbers at random, then take a second bag of 1000 numbers and draw out balls one at a time, replacing them after each withdrawal, what are the chances of drawing one of those nineteen numbers? It's 1 in 52 each time and if you have a large number of draws your results will home in on it, as I was doing with the 500 random numbers between 1 and 1000. That's essentially the same as I am doing when I calculate a word standard value then look to see if it is a whole word string. Yes, the standard values will be bunched around 300 or 400, but as I showed in my last post the probabilities aren't seriously affected by that. In fact if the standard deviation was zero and all standard values were therefore one number, say 350, the chances would still be unaffected, if you were numerating a large number of different pieces of text, say, every chapter in the Bible. I bet if you counted the ordinal values of the first few words of every chapter, you would have about a 1 in 45 chance of hitting 350, assuming the average ordinal value stayed constant throughout the Bible. Some people like to use longer words than others, so it will vary, but I won't be far away.

Where did you get "1 in 52"? Where does that number come from? Please list the 52 possibilities. If you can't do that, your words have no meaning.

As for the "bunching" - that changes everything. Suppose, for example, they were bunched so tightly that there are only three numbers 44, 45, 46 possible. That would have the same average, but obviously you would have nothing like a "1 - 45" chance of hitting a random number. You would miss almost all numbers except those bunched around 45.

thebluetriangle

04-07-2017, 09:17 AM

If it were obvious, you would be able to explain it using standard methods of probability theory. Your words simply make no sense. You merely assert "1 in 45" without explaining what the number 45 has to do with probability. I've explained this at least three times and you have ignored what I wrote. So let me try again.

If you flip a coin the chances are 1 in 2 because there are 2 possibilities, {H. T}.

If you roll a die, the chances are 1 in 6 because there are 6 possibilities, {1,2,3,4,5,6},

In both cases, I can easily list the set of possibilities, so the probability is indeed "obvious".

Now you say that when you pick two sets of numbers, one with 19 elements and one with 100, from a sample space of 1000 numbers, the probability is "1 in 45". What are those 45 possibilities? Can you list them? If not, you are not doing real statistics. Your words have no meaning.

Lets go back to the ark encodings, since this is the claim we're discussing. These are over 37 word strings, the last string having an ordinal value of 1754.

I've found the binomial formula to be particularly useful in calculating probabilities (https://www.easycalculation.com/statistics/binomial-distribution.php) working out the odds against certain numbers being found in the NIV text, because the questions can often be reduced to ball-in-a-bag problems. The ark encodings reduce to four numbers: 610,1169, 1623, 1754, which are all found in one of the 37 word strings proceeding from the first word in Genesis. The 37 word strings have the following ordinal values: 23, 56, 137, 163, 219, 252, 326, 345, 378, 430, 482, 515, 567, 610, 717, 736, 815, 906, 949, 1009, 1042, 1115, 1136, 1169, 1199, 1218, 1251, 1342, 1363, 1389, 1432, 1530, 1590, 1623, 1709, 1728, 1754.

This reduces to the following problem:

1. From a bag of balls numbered 1 to 1754, what are the chances of drawing four balls out, replacing the ball each time, that happen to be one of thirty-seven prevously-named numbers. In effect, the text of the NIV has given us the 37 numbers.

The parameters are p, the probability of a success, which is 37/1754 (or 1 in 47) and n, the number of trials, which here is 37; r is the number of successes. The result is the binomial distribution, [n,p].

The first parameter is p, the probability of a success, which is 37/1754, or 0.0211 (1 in 47.4).

The text has in effect 'drawn' 37 numbers out of a bag of 1754. Agreed?

Now these can be any combination, because every number has an equal probability of being drawn. But after word 1 the pool has reduced to 1731. So it's really a sequence of similar trials. For the second trial, p is 36/1731, or 1 in 48.0. The third trial is 35/1698,or 1 in 48.5 . . . The 35th trial is 1 in 43. The 36th trial is 1 in 22.5 and the 37th trial is 1 in 26. However, until the very end the averages are about 47, so the final probability is going to be about that. This is the 'contentious' 1 in 45probability.

The above needs to be clarified to get a final accurate probability, but I've already shown experimentally that the distribution of the numbers doesn't affect the probabilities a great deal anyway, so I would suggest that fine tuning any further would make little diference, especially when we have variables like the possible number of phrases summing to a number to take into consideration..

The next parameter is n, the number of trials, which here is 4 (610, 1169, 1623, 1754);

The number of successes is r, which again is 4 (610, 1169, 1623, 1754).

Putting the numbers in, we have p = 0.0000002, or 1 in 5 million.

This is like an archer who aims at a circular target with a bullseye in the centre, the bullseye covering a 47th of the total area of the target (if the target was 1 yard wide the bullseye would be 5 inches wide). Assuming he always hits the target but can aim it no more accurately than that, his chances of hitting the bullseye in one shot, are 1 in 47; two bullseyes in two shots are 1 in 2250, three in three shots are 106,000, and four bullseyes in four shots, 1 in 5,050,000. If he did it once every day he would have to wait about 14 thousand years to have a good chance of having been successful.

Other questions can be asked though. For instance, for this particular problem we can ask what the likelihood is of four out of the thirty-seven word strings happening to be those four ark numbers. This reduces to the following problem:

2. 1. From a bag of balls numbered 1 to 1754, what are the chances of drawing thirty-seven balls out, replacing the ball each time, four of which happen to be one of thirty-seven prevously-named numbers.

Putting the numbers in, we have [n, p] = 0.00647, or 1 in 154.

So if the archer had 37 shots at the target he would have a 1 in 154 chance of hitting the bullseye four times. If he did it once a day he would probably have to wait about 5 months to be successful.

The probability you get depends on the question you ask. Which is the most like the ark encodings? That's a deeper question, but even if we take the highest probability of 1 in 154, it's still pretty unlikely to have just happened at the beginning of the most popular English translation (English being the international langauge of choice) of the most important book ever written, the encodings themselves being so integrated and having such meaning to believers.

There is more to it than that. Three of the four numbers show a little 444 pattern, in that they end on word 14, 24 and 34 and so are ten words apart each. The fourth ends on word 37. The odds against three of the four numbers making such a pattern are also calculable by the binomial formula, the parameters being p = 0.1, n = 4, r = 3 and they give [n, p] = 0.0036, or 1 in 278. The odds of the first three of the four being ten words apart each is even lower, as there are four permutations: 4447,4474, 4744 and 7444. 7444 might have been acceptable too, but 4474 and 4744 would not have been. So I think we can fairly halve the probability to give 1 in 534.

"To find the probability of two independent events that occur in sequence (http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol6/independent_events.html), find the probability of each event occurring separately, and then multiply the probabilities."

The two binomial distributions are independent and therefore can be multiplied, or

P (A and B) = P(A) . P(B)

So the final value of [n, p] is 1/(534 x 154) or 1 in 82000.

Of course there are other possibly-encoded elements, like the number of letters, so I'm not saying this is the final probability, just trying to get a better estimate.

If we took the lower initial probability distribution, [n, p] = 1 in 5 million, then taking the little pattern into account gives a final [n, p] of 1 in 2.7 billion.

I have another calculation to make here, which I'll do after dinner.

Where did you get "1 in 52"? Where does that number come from? Please list the 52 possibilities. If you can't do that, your words have no meaning.

The probabilities are the ordinal values of the word strings divided by the ordinal value of the portion of text, (which is the same as the longest word string, of course). the exact odds were 1 in 52.631... and 1 in 47.405... Does that mean I have to list 52.631... and 47.405... numbers?

As for the "bunching" - that changes everything. Suppose, for example, they were bunched so tightly that there are only three numbers 44, 45, 46 possible. That would have the same average, but obviously you would have nothing like a "1 - 45" chance of hitting a random number. You would miss almost all numbers except those bunched around 45.

I already dealt with this one in my earlier posts a couple of days ago. I showed that bunching either of the standard values or of the text had almost no impact. Probability has two parts, theoretical probability, which is where you're coming from, and empirical probability, which is what I prefer. It may be lowly, but it is an accepted and powerful part of the field. Empirical probability estimates require a large number of experiments to home in on the real probability, and so I didn't do nearly enough work there. I'm happy to crunch some more numbers there and show that the observed bunching effect of standard values does not materially affect the results.

Desmild

04-07-2017, 01:08 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-07-2017, 05:38 PM

Lets go back to the ark encodings, since this is the claim we're discussing. These are over 37 word strings, the last string having an ordinal value of 1754.

I've found the binomial formula to be particularly useful in calculating probabilities (https://www.easycalculation.com/statistics/binomial-distribution.php) working out the odds against certain numbers being found in the NIV text, because the questions can often be reduced to ball-in-a-bag problems. The ark encodings reduce to four numbers: 610,1169, 1623, 1754, which are all found in one of the 37 word strings proceeding from the first word in Genesis. The 37 word strings have the following ordinal values: 23, 56, 137, 163, 219, 252, 326, 345, 378, 430, 482, 515, 567, 610, 717, 736, 815, 906, 949, 1009, 1042, 1115, 1136, 1169, 1199, 1218, 1251, 1342, 1363, 1389, 1432, 1530, 1590, 1623, 1709, 1728, 1754.

This reduces to the following problem:

1. From a bag of balls numbered 1 to 1754, what are the chances of drawing four balls out, replacing the ball each time, that happen to be one of thirty-seven prevously-named numbers. In effect, the text of the NIV has given us the 37 numbers.

The parameters are p, the probability of a success, which is 37/1754 (or 1 in 47) and n, the number of trials, which here is 37; r is the number of successes. The result is the binomial distribution, [n,p].

The first parameter is p, the probability of a success, which is 37/1754, or 0.0211 (1 in 47.4).

The text has in effect 'drawn' 37 numbers out of a bag of 1754. Agreed?

Now these can be any combination, because every number has an equal probability of being drawn. But after word 1 the pool has reduced to 1731. So it's really a sequence of similar trials. For the second trial, p is 36/1731, or 1 in 48.0. The third trial is 35/1698,or 1 in 48.5 . . . The 35th trial is 1 in 43. The 36th trial is 1 in 22.5 and the 37th trial is 1 in 26. However, until the very end the averages are about 47, so the final probability is going to be about that. This is the 'contentious' 1 in 45 probability.

The above needs to be clarified to get a final accurate probability, but I've already shown experimentally that the distribution of the numbers doesn't affect the probabilities a great deal anyway, so I would suggest that fine tuning any further would make little diference, especially when we have variables like the possible number of phrases summing to a number to take into consideration..

Hey there Bill,

This is much better. I understand what you are doing. Thanks! :thumb:

But I think you made a few mistakes. The first mistake is assuming the 37 numbers derived from "word strings" are random. This cannot be correct because they form a monotonically increasing sequence, whereas a random sequence has no such limitation. The correct place to start is by treating the values of the individual words as the "random numbers". This might seem like a small point, but it is very important when trying to calculate the probabilities because now we can see that you were not actually randomly sampling from the set of numbers less than 1754, but rather a much smaller set with LOTS of repetitions and many gaps. Specifically, you are sampling from the set of possible words in the NIV. Here is a graph of the distribution of the first 37 words. As you can see, there are LOTS of repetitions and gaps, and all the numbers are less than or equal to 107.

1361

The biggest peak represents the 8 occurrences of the number 33 (value of "the"). The second biggest peak represents the 4 occurrences of the number 19 (value of "and"). Then there are three values that recur three times each, two that also recur thrice, and the rest appearing only once. In all, there are only 18 unique values in the first 37 words. I trust you can see that this means that the values are nothing like "random." Neither are they "bunched." It's an odd distribution that makes calculating theoretical a priori probabilities rather challenging.

I trust also that you can see that these numbers are not picked randomly from a set of 1754 possibilities. Therefore, it would also be a mistake to think that the "word strings" derived from this set by taking cumulative sums would be anything like a random sample of the set of 1754 numbers that you had suggested. Therefore, i cannot agree with the question I highlighted red in your post.

Given that these probabilities play a central role in your assertions, I thought it would help to analyse the entirety of Genesis chapter 1 (NIV 1984). Here are my results. There are 751 words, with an average value of 44.6 ranging from 7 (the value of "be") to 133 (the value of "everything"). Like the example above, the distribution is rather sparse with a LOT of repetition.

1362

As with the first graph, the biggest peak is for words with value 33 (the value of "the") which has 106 hits. That alone accounts for 14% of all values. And as with the first graph, the second peak corresponds to the word "and" which sums to 19. It has 71 hits. The next has 43 hits. These three largest values account for 29% of all values found.

There are only 79 unique word values out of a total of 133 possibilities which means that there are 54 values that don't appear at all. This means the distribution is very far from uniform and so there are many numbers that would be very unlikely or even impossible to hit "by chance" using English gematria which means that other numbers will be much more likely than would be suggested by a naive "back of the envelope" type of calculation. It is critical to understand these facts when studying the probabilities.

Here's the raw data for those interested. I will answer more in another post.

Value
Count
Words

1
0

2
0

3
0

4
0

5
0

6
0

7
8
be, be, be, be, be, Be, Be, be

8
0

9
2
I, I

10
0

11
0

12
0

13
8
he, he, he, He, he, he, he, had

14
0

15
2
an, face

16
0

17
1
each

18
0

19
71
and, and, and, And, and, and, and, And, and, And, and, And, And, and, And, and, And, and, And, and, And, and, And, And, and, And, and, and, and, and, And, and, and, and, And, And, and, And, and, and, and, and, And, and, and, and, and, And, and, And, and, And, and, And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, And, and, and, And, and, And, and

20
1
as

21
16
of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of, of

22
0

23
20
In, made, in, in, in, in, made, made, in, in, in, made, in, in, in, in, in, in, in, made

24
0

25
10
sea, all, sea, all, all, sea, all, all, all, all

26
31
God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, bear, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God, God

27
0

28
7
man, air, man, air, has, air, has

29
25
it, it, it, it, on, it, it, it, it, on, it, on, it, it, on, it, it, it, on, on, it, on, it, it, it

30
13
deep, day, day, day, day, day, day, day, day, day, make, him, day

31
6
land, land, land, land, land, male

32
1
life

33
106
the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, said, the, the, the, the, the, the, said, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, said, the, the, the, the, said, the, the, seed, The, seed, seed, the, said, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, said, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, bird, said, the, the, the, the, the, said, the, the, the, the, the, the, said, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, said, the, the, the, the, the, the, said, the, the, seed, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the

34
10
So, so, one, so, so, so, So, so, So, so

35
25
to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, to, image, image, image, to, to

36
1
his

37
20
Let, called, called, Let, called, Let, place, let, called, called, Let, Let, let, let, Let, let, let, Let, Let, let

38
2
kind, kind

39
4
fill, fill, for, for

40
3
us, food, food

41
7
good, good, good, good, good, good, good

42
3
fish, female, fish

43
43
was, was, was, was, saw, was, was, was, was, was, was, was, saw, was, was, saw, was, was, was, mark, give, was, give, saw, was, was, was, teem, fly, saw, was, was, was, was, saw, was, give, give, was, saw, was, was, was

44
3
seas, set, seas

45
2
above, above

46
8
them, them, them, them, them, them, them, them

47
6
dry, dry, Then, also, Then, Then

48
5
its, wild, its, wild, tree

49
21
that, that, that, that, days, that, that, fifth, that, along, that, along, that, that, along, that, that, that, that, green, that

50
0

51
3
great, great, which

52
22
earth, Now, earth, from, from, from, from, earth, earth, from, birds, earth, birds, earth, birds, earth, own, earth, birds, earth, earth, birds

53
0

54
3
our, our, breath

55
10
sky, sky, sky, sky, sky, sky, move, move, move, move

56
36
created, there, light, there, light, light, light, light, there, there, there, there, there, bearing, bearing, there, there, there, light, light, light, light, light, there, there, created, there, there, rule, created, created, created, Rule, will, there, there

57
9
appear, kinds, kinds, kinds, kinds, kinds, kinds, kinds, kinds

58
7
night, night, two, night, night, thing, They

59
1
third

60
22
over, over, second, with, their, their, with, their, with, with, their, their, their, their, their, over, over, over, over, over, over, with

61
1
you

62
4
under, under, teems, winged

63
3
plant, whole, plant

64
0

65
0

66
3
blessed, blessed, beasts

67
10
water, water, water, water, water, trees, trees, water, water, water

68
4
gathered, gathered, signs, years

69
3
serve, animals, animals

70
1
very

71
0

72
2
first, subdue

73
7
surface, living, living, number, living, number, living

74
20
heavens, between, fruit, according, according, fruit, according, greater, according, according, increase, increase, according, according, according, according, according, increase, moves, fruit

75
10
lights, lights, lights, across, every, every, every, every, every, every

76
6
evening, evening, evening, evening, evening, evening

77
1
stars

78
1
lesser

79
8
empty, ground, ground, ground, ground, ground, ground, ground

80
2
moving, sixth

81
4
beginning, govern, govern, govern

82
4
produce, plants, plants, produce

83
0

84
8
expanse, expanse, expanse, expanse, expanse, expanse, expanse, expanse

85
3
separate, separate, separate

86
4
waters, waters, waters, produced

87
0

88
1
fourth

89
4
separated, separated, seed-bearing, seed-bearing

90
6
morning, morning, morning, morning, morning, morning

91
6
darkness, Spirit, darkness, darkness, darkness, creature

92
1
seasons

93
0

94
1
likeness

95
0

96
0

97
0

98
2
hovering, yours

99
0

100
0

101
0

102
0

103
0

104
0

105
1
various

106
0

107
1
formless

108
0

109
0

110
7
creatures, creatures, creatures, creatures, creatures, creatures, creatures

111
0

112
0

113
2
fruitful, fruitful

114
0

115
0

116
3
livestock, livestock, livestock

117
0

118
2
vegetation, vegetation

119
0

120
0

121
0

122
0

123
0

124
0

125
0

126
0

127
0

128
0

129
0

130
0

131
0

132
0

133
1
everything

L67

04-07-2017, 09:33 PM

Oh sorry about that Richard. I though the number (406) was the most important detail.

406 [IOErroreventype= "ioError" bubles=false
Cancelable= falseeventPhrase= 2 text= Error#2038"]

But dont worry too much about it because that problem will probably be gone if i upgrade to Windows 10.
I can do it now.

I would just like to say that I had this error also. I'm on Windows 10. However, I am able to post pictures if I upload the pictures to Photobucket. It appears I need to use a direct link to post pictures. Weird.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-07-2017, 10:16 PM

I would just like to say that I had this error also. I'm on Windows 10. However, I am able to post pictures if I upload the pictures to Photobucket. It appears I need to use a direct link to post pictures. Weird.
Did it happen when you were uploading the pic from your computer, or from a URL? Or both?

Any additional info will help me fix the problem. I'm pretty sure it's a security rule on the Apache server that is causing it.

thebluetriangle

04-08-2017, 01:50 AM

Richard, thanks for your excellent graphics here. I envy you your skill with computers. I chose a less hi-tech approach as you know, but it has its disadvantages, and this is one of the areas in which your approach is more helpful.

Hey there Bill,

This is much better. I understand what you are doing. Thanks! :thumb:

I don't need your approval for my work, but if you were having trouble understanding me then I'm glad I could help.

But I think you made a few mistakes. The first mistake is assuming the 37 numbers derived from "word strings" are random.

This wasn't a mistake. I'm well aware that the word strings do not give truly random numbers. I was simply saying that they were equivalent in one sense to drawing 37 numbers out of a bag, so you could see how it could reduce to a ball-in-a-bag problem. In fact I immediately went on to say that it's more like a succession of ball-in-a-bag problems, with the numbers reducing each time:

1. Drawing 37 balls out of 1754.
2. Drawing 36 balls out of a bag of 1728,
3. Drawing 35 balls out of a bag of 1709,
etc.

But even that isn't strictly correct. I stated it that way so you could see that p, the probability (given by 37/1754,36/1728, etc), was essentially going to be fairly constant at about 1/47.

I fact, it is a sequence of individual ball in a bag problems. For this I am assuming the maximum word ov is about 100, but of course it's an approximation and, unless you find out the highest ov in the entire NIV Bible, there is no precise upper limit applicable (which is why I believe that an experimental approach is the only one with a hope of success here).

1. Drawing 1 ball out of 100,
2. Drawing 1 ball out of 100,
3. Drawing 1 ball out of 100,
etc.

The average here will home in on 50.

This is exactly what you are saying yourself here:

This cannot be correct because they form a monotonically increasing sequence, whereas a random sequence has no such limitation. The correct place to start is by treating the values of the individual words as the "random numbers". This might seem like a small point, but it is very important when trying to calculate the probabilities because now we can see that you were not actually randomly sampling from the set of numbers less than 1754, but rather a much smaller set with LOTS of repetitions and many gaps. Specifically, you are sampling from the set of possible words in the NIV.

So we agreed on that!

However, I have already shown that treating it as one simple ball-in-a-bag problem makes very little difference to the final result. I took the extreme case of every word value being 45, giving the results of the trials as 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, etc. This is about as far from random sampling as you can get, an even distribution across the range. Then I compared this list with 3 sets of 100 random numbers between 1 and 1000, which, remember, I was using as the equivalent of 300 one-word standard values. Here it is again. I've added another 300 random numbers to give a better estimate:

Trial B - Standard deviation of zero (every word has an ordinal value of 45)

The nineteen word strings are 45, 90, 135, 180, 225, 270, 315, 360, 405, 450, 495, 540, 585, 630, 675, 720, 765, 810, 855

Trial B1: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 100
Trial B2: 5, giving a running average of 1 in 33
Trial B3: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 43
Trial B4: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 50
Trial B5: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 56
Trial B6: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 50

So you see the mean is homing in on about 50, probably a bit less.

In other words, a huge variation in the standard deviation of the individual word ordinal values made no appreciable difference to the probabilities.

It's easy to see why. If you place the natural numbers along a line and highlight about every 45th number, then shoot an arrow in the air, soaring over about 300 numbers before the arrow lands on the number line, it makes no real difference whether you highlighted every 45th number or just randomly highlighted numbers with ana average of 45 between them. Unless the archer has pin-point accuracy he will still hit about one highlighted number in 45.

I would like to run it again with actual standard values before we can pin that one down completely though.

thebluetriangle

04-08-2017, 03:33 AM

As with the first graph, the biggest peak is for words with value 33 (the value of "the") which has 106 hits. That alone accounts for 14% of all values. And as with the first graph, the second peak corresponds to the word "and" which sums to 19. It has 71 hits. The next has 43 hits. These three largest values account for 29% of all values found.

There are only 79 unique word values out of a total of 133 possibilities which means that there are 54 values that don't appear at all. This means the distribution is very far from uniform and so there are many numbers that would be very unlikely or even impossible to hit "by chance" using English gematria which means that other numbers will be much more likely than would be suggested by a naive "back of the envelope" type of calculation. It is critical to understand these facts when studying the probabilities.

One thing you haven't mentioned yet is that individual word ordinal values almost never count on their own. For example, the first encryption in the ark encodings is 'altar of incense', with a standard value of 610. This is composed of the following numbers, the individual ordinal values of the first 14 words:

23 + 33 + 81 + 26 + 56 + 33 + 74 + 19+ 33 + 52 + 52 + 33 + 52 + 43 = 610

At a glance you can see two things:

1. There are relatively few separate ordinal values, only nine out of the 14.

2. It is the grand total that matters, nothing else.

So if you mean that These Are The Critical Facts I disagree. The critical fact here is that the sum is all that counts. The values could have been 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 20, 20, 20 and it wouldn't matter for that encoding, because the sum of 610 is all that does matter. In fact, as I've been showing in several posts, it's looking like elements like

word value distribution
holes in word values along the number line
large numbers of single word valiues (like 33)

and, I would add,

English grammar,

and similar variables are going to make no appreciable difference to the chances of a larger standard value landing on a word string.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-08-2017, 10:21 AM

Richard, thanks for your excellent graphics here. I envy you your skill with computers. I chose a less hi-tech approach as you know, but it has its disadvantages, and this is one of the areas in which your approach is more helpful.

I'm glad to be of service Bill. I've always enjoyed this kind of analysis. Working without the modern tools would be like trying to make a cell phone from wood. There's more than a few "disadvantages" because the technology enables us to do things otherwise impossible.

I don't need your approval for my work, but if you were having trouble understanding me then I'm glad I could help.

Of course you don't need my "approval." That's never been my point. I'm sorry to see you cast our conversation into that light. I am trying to work with you to establish the truth or falsehood of your claims. I would think you would find this to be of great value. I know I would. When I was trying to share my work with the world my greatest frustration was that nobody would take it seriously enough to even give it a rational refutation! They just dismissed it out of hand. When I look back, I see they could have saved me years if they had just put in enough effort to actually analyse my claims and test them for truth. But no ... I had to do it myself, as the old saying goes.

But I think you made a few mistakes. The first mistake is assuming the 37 numbers derived from "word strings" are random.

This wasn't a mistake. I'm well aware that the word strings do not give truly random numbers. I was simply saying that they were equivalent in one sense to drawing 37 numbers out of a bag, so you could see how it could reduce to a ball-in-a-bag problem. In fact I immediately went on to say that it's more like a succession of ball-in-a-bag problems, with the numbers reducing each time:

1. Drawing 37 balls out of 1754.
2. Drawing 36 balls out of a bag of 1728,
3. Drawing 35 balls out of a bag of 1709,
etc.

But even that isn't strictly correct. I stated it that way so you could see that p, the probability (given by 37/1754,36/1728, etc), was essentially going to be fairly constant at about 1/47.

I fact, it is a sequence of individual ball in a bag problems. For this I am assuming the maximum word ov is about 100, but of course it's an approximation and, unless you find out the highest ov in the entire NIV Bible, there is no precise upper limit applicable (which is why I believe that an experimental approach is the only one with a hope of success here).

1. Drawing 1 ball out of 100,
2. Drawing 1 ball out of 100,
3. Drawing 1 ball out of 100,
etc.

The average here will home in on 50.

How can you say it was not a mistake? The 37 word strings generated by consecutive sums is NOT like drawing random numbers from a set of 1754 possibilities because the set is monotonically increasing so it always misses all values less than the previous word string. And the distribution of the individual words is not like picking a random number between 1 and 100 because their distribution is NOT uniform. On the contrary, distribution of the first 37 word values is extremely weighted in favor of certain numbers, such as 33 ("the", 8 hits), 19 ("and", 4 hits), 43 ("was", 3 hits) and 26 ("God", 3 hits) which accounts for 18 out of 37 words or just under HALF of all the values that are supposedly "random." Obviously, they are NOTHING like a random number picked from a bag with 100 balls labeled 1 to 100.

There are fundamental errors in your calculations. Any analysis of probabilities must be founded upon three things. Here is how the wiki describes it:

A well-defined sample space is one of three basic elements in a probabilistic model (a probability space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space)); the other two are a well-defined set of possible events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(probability_theory)) (a sigma-algebra (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigma-algebra)) and a probability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability) assigned to each event (a probability measure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_measure) function).

A sample space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_space), Ω, which is the set of all possible outcomes.
A set of events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(probability_theory)) F, where each event is a set containing zero or more outcomes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome_(probability)).
The assignment of probabilities (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability) to the events; that is, a function P from events to probabilities.

Analyzing your claims is rather complex. First, there are two sample spaces. One is for the ordinal values (o.v.) of individual words which are used to generate sums of consecutive words. It would be a HUGE mistake to assume that the words strings themselves are random numbers selected from a sample space of 1754 numbers because the first number cannot be larger than the largest possible o.v. which I have found to be 133 in Genesis 1. (A full analysis of all words in the NIV might increase that value slightly, but it's almost certainly less than about 150, and the frequency of large values like that is less than 1% so they don't really matter much.) Therefore, it would be absurd to suggest that the probability of the first word string is "1 in 1754". It can't even be stated in that form since the distribution is non-uniform and has many gaps which represent numbers with ZERO probability.

The second sample space is the set of all possible standard values of phrases containing 4 or fewer words. To get a rough estimate of this number, we must first find the range of standard values of single words. An analysis of all the words of Genesis 1 show that the largest value is 1474 ("everything") and the distribution is extremely sparse and full of gaps. Out of all the numbers between 1 and 1474, there are only 143 distinct numbers derived from the values of the 751 words in Genesis 1:

1365

Look at that graph. It would be absurd to suggest that the standard values of words are randomly drawn from the sample space of 1474 numbers. The distribution is extremely biased towards a very small subset of that sample space. The three largest peaks account for 90 + 71 + 36 = 197 hits, which is 197/751 = 26% of all standard values found in Genesis chapter 1. These facts must be accounted for in any study of probabilities.

Things get even more complicated when we try to estimate the sample space of the s.v. of all possible phrases with four words or less. Taking the largest value I found in Genesis 1 as the limit, it would mean that the sample space would included all numbers up to 4 x 1474 = 5896. But that's a little unrealistic since very few, if any, 4 word phrases would have that value. I just point it out to give an upper limit to the sample space.

Finally, after establishing the two sample spaces, we would use the distributions of the o.v. and s.v. values I graphed above, which are nothing like a "uniform" distribution. They are both sparse and highly biased towards a very small set of numbers.

Bottom line: The probabilities are nothing like what your "back of the envelope" type of analysis would suggest.

And of course, there is a line below the bottom line, which is that the post hoc analysis of a SINGLE experiment is completely meaningless. It's like analyzing the probability of a single roll of a die or a single flip of a coin. It means nothing. Probability is an analysis of repeated experiments. Not a single data point!

Well, it's a sunny Saturday and it's time for my big bike ride. I'll be back in a few hours. I look forward to continuing our analysis.

:biking_better:

:sunny:

L67

04-08-2017, 01:18 PM

Did it happen when you were uploading the pic from your computer, or from a URL? Or both?

Any additional info will help me fix the problem. I'm pretty sure it's a security rule on the Apache server that is causing it.

It gave me an error both ways. Here is the error I get when trying to upload a pic from my computer. 406 [IOErroreventype= "ioError" bubles=false
Cancelable= falseeventPhrase= 2 text= Error#2038"]

Here is what it tells me when I try to upload from a url. error: This is not a valid image file.

Justin

Richard Amiel McGough

04-08-2017, 03:25 PM

It gave me an error both ways. Here is the error I get when trying to upload a pic from my computer. 406 [IOErroreventype= "ioError" bubles=false
Cancelable= falseeventPhrase= 2 text= Error#2038"]

Here is what it tells me when I try to upload from a url. error: This is not a valid image file.

Justin
Thanks for the additional info Justin. There's plenty of chatter about this error on the internet. Should be able to fix it soon.

I think I've isolated the problem to the "Advanced Uploader" that looks like this:

1367

This form throws the same error when I try to use it. The reason I hadn't noticed this before is because I never use that form because it is based on Flash and I turned off flash in my Chrome browser because Flash crashes a lot.

A work-around would be to try the Basic Uploader. Click the link in lower right corner and the form should change to look like this:

1368

This form should work. Let me know if you have any success. In the meantime, I will see about fixing the other form.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-08-2017, 04:59 PM

Found the fix! It was a mod_sec rule on the Apache server that protects people from the evils of the Flash player. Here's the line from the Apache error_log:

ModSecurity: Access denied with code 406 (phase 2). Pattern match "^Shockwave Flash" at REQUEST_HEADERS:User-Agent. [file "/usr/local/apache/conf/modsec2.user.conf"] [line "146"]

Just had to turn off that rule in the modsec and it fixed it.

Tested it by uploading this sad infographic about one of the primary delusions of our so-called "President" who claimed that his Electoral College victory was the greatest since Ronald Reagan!

:lol:

1369

L67

04-08-2017, 05:32 PM

Found the fix! It was a mod_sec rule on the Apache server that protects people from the evils of the Flash player.

Tested it by uploading this sad infographic about one of the primary delusions of our so-called "President" who claimed that his Electoral College victory was the greatest since Ronald Reagan!

Thanks Richard. That did the trick.

I've been using Chrome more and more lately because Firefox has become so slow and bloated. Do you use an extension to stop flash or turn it off through the settings?

Thanks.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-08-2017, 05:57 PM

Tested it by uploading this sad infographic about one of the primary delusions of our so-called "President" who claimed that his Electoral College victory was the greatest since Ronald Reagan!

Thanks Richard. That did the trick.

I've been using Chrome more and more lately because Firefox has become so slow and bloated. Do you use an extension to stop flash or turn it off through the settings?

Thanks.
Glad it worked!

I turned it off by entering chrome://plugins/ in the address bar, which brings up the options for all your plugins.

If I ever feel a need to use Flash, I fire up my Edge browser ... and watch the CPU and RAM go through the roof ... :doh:

thebluetriangle

04-08-2017, 11:37 PM

How can you say it was not a mistake? Because, as I've been saying from the start, I know this is a rough method. I never claimed it was anything more than that. Attempting to develop a more accurate method would be a daunting task, for the reasons we've been discussing. However, even that would only ever achieve an approximation of the truth, because this is a real-world situation, not a theoretical one. Pure mathematics and applied mathematics are different creatures. So any method that is developed out of this will still be a 'mistake' (ie, not a perfect match to the situation).

If it was necessary to develop a more accurate method to have any chance of getting a reasonably accurate result, then I would be with you all the way here. But as we are both realising, this is a complex situation, with many variables. On the other hand, my 'back-of-an-envelope' method has proven to be accurate, robust and easy to apply. These are not insignificant advantages - and the method doesn't require much technology either: a pen, a piece of paper, a hand-held calculator (optional) and a little arithmetic.

How do I know that my BOAE method works? Because I have empirically tested it! The proof of the pudding . . . Some of the work was done on this very thread, where I showed that changing variables such as the spread of ordinal values and the spread of standard values, makes almost no difference to the final chances of acheiving hits.

I like my archer analogy, so I'll continue with it. Four archers fire arrows along a number line, where about every 45th number is highlighted. The archers vary in strength, so the arrows go different distances, but none of them aim for a particular number. The average number the four archers reach is 1000, but it varies from about 200 to about 2000. They all shoot one arrow. What is the probability that all four of the archers hit a highlighted number?

As an initial estimate, my BOAE method would say 1 in (45 x 45 x 45 x 45), or 1 in 4 million. This is exactly the probability the binomial formula would give, assuming 2000 numbers in a bag, drawn randomly (which is why I use it). So we have p = 1/45, n = 4, r = 4, giving [n,p] = 1 in 4 million.

Would this be what happened in a real world situation? There are different scenarios. Here are four:

1. Both the distance flown by each archer's arrow and the placing of the highlighted numbers varies according to a bell curve-like distribution.
2. Only archers arrows vary, highlighted numbers fixed.
3. Only highlighted numbers vary, archers arrows fly a fixed distance.
4. Neither vary.

I've gone some way towards testing all of these cases and I found that in the first three, the experimentally determined average was about the same as my BOAE calculation and the binomial theorem would predict. I only did one, pseudo-bell curve distribution, but, as I expected, there was no difference between this and randomly chosen numbers. More needs to be done though.

In the last case the numbers are all fixed and so the number of hits will always be the same, probably zero (90% probability). However, if we use different archers and highlight different numbers, then do a large number of trials, the average of these will be the same as in the prevous cases. This last scenario is exactly what we have in Genesis 1. The numbers are fixed, which of course is why we either have to calculate the probability of an unusual event like the four ark encodings having occured by chance, either theoretically or empirically.

I prefer the empirical method, because there are lots of numbers we can try and lots of books we can numerate to see if there is anything special about Genesis 1 (NIV). This method also backs up my BOAE calculation with empricial data. In fact, if I did enough tests, I wouldn't even need the binomial formula, just the empirically derived probabilities.

In other words, my pudding is proven because it has been eaten.

You, on the othr hand, have crunched a lot of numbers and produced some nice graphs. But, if memory serves, you haven't done a single probability calculation to disprove my claims, just made assertions without evidence and attacked my methods on theoretical grounds.

Where is your evidence, Richard?

thebluetriangle

04-09-2017, 05:54 AM

I found a Gaussian random number generator, which should help us in our endeavours. This generator creates numbers that fit the bell-curve pattern (the normal distribution, or Gaussian curve), although even that is a 'mistake', because the curve of all ordinal/standard values will in actuality have a slight positive skew. Neither do I know the mean or the standard deviation, but I can guess them. I start here with the mean of the four ark numbers, which are 610, 1169, 1623, 1754. The mean is 1244, so I took 1200 as a mean for short phrases of about three words, and assumed the standard deviation was 300. This turned out to give a range of numbers close to the four ark encryptions.

1.7260e+3 1.0100e+3 1.8290e+3 1.1110e+3
1.3010e+3 1.0570e+3 1.4860e+3 1.2400e+3
1.4190e+3 1.5710e+3 1.1160e+3 1.3460e+3
1.0540e+3 1.7690e+3 1.2170e+3 1.4910e+3
1.0640e+3 1.0010e+3 1.4830e+3 1.2150e+3
1.2610e+3 1.1720e+3 1.4210e+3 1.0060e+3
1.2110e+3 1.2870e+3 1.0490e+3 1.4460e+3
1.3190e+3 6.9400e+2 1.0230e+3 1.3890e+3
1.2470e+3 1.6570e+3 1.3350e+3 1.0960e+3
1.1140e+3 1.1730e+3 6.2610e+2 8.8940e+2
1.3530e+3 1.0800e+3 1.3020e+3 6.6660e+2
1.0480e+3 1.2860e+3 8.4810e+2 7.4840e+2
1.2240e+3 1.0620e+3 1.3190e+3 7.4560e+2
1.1760e+3 1.3220e+3 1.3830e+3 1.2090e+3
7.5120e+2 1.1930e+3 1.1090e+3 1.3390e+3
9.6040e+2 1.4110e+3 9.7620e+2 1.3360e+3
1.2620e+3 1.3500e+3 9.3430e+2 1.5830e+3
1.0100e+3 1.1650e+3 1.5220e+3 1.2710e+3
1.1500e+3 1.5100e+3 1.3060e+3 1.3340e+3
1.3560e+3 1.2770e+3 1.4180e+3 1.5210e+3
1.5000e+3 1.0320e+3 1.4820e+3 9.4870e+2
1.2100e+3 1.1130e+3 1.1250e+3 1.3030e+3
1.3310e+3 1.8610e+3 1.6970e+3 1.2870e+3
8.3550e+2 1.2040e+3 1.5080e+3 1.4260e+3
1.2260e+3 1.1650e+3 1.4210e+3 8.3170e+2

1.4180e+3 1.0700e+3 7.4160e+2 5.9080e+2
1.3720e+3 1.2960e+3 1.5590e+3 1.0280e+3
1.3360e+3 7.8480e+2 8.9440e+2 8.6690e+2
1.1760e+3 1.4600e+3 1.1770e+3 1.0650e+3
8.0050e+2 1.3310e+3 1.1540e+3 9.1770e+2
8.6140e+2 1.1130e+3 8.8630e+2 9.4760e+2
1.2850e+3 1.7380e+3 1.4010e+3 1.3450e+3
1.2810e+3 4.9170e+2 1.1550e+3 1.0970e+3
8.0100e+2 8.2230e+2 1.4130e+3 4.2410e+2
1.2370e+3 1.3370e+3 1.2260e+3 1.2180e+3
9.5730e+2 1.2580e+3 6.7040e+2 1.0930e+3
1.2140e+3 1.2600e+3 1.3950e+3 1.0280e+3
1.2110e+3 1.3040e+3 1.4290e+3 1.4120e+3
9.9080e+2 8.5410e+2 1.2140e+3 1.6150e+3
7.2630e+2 9.9240e+2 9.9880e+2 8.0730e+2
1.1300e+3 1.2430e+3 1.7050e+3 1.5570e+3
1.1760e+3 1.3270e+3 1.3160e+3 1.4390e+3
1.3450e+3 1.0780e+3 7.0050e+2 6.5290e+2
9.3620e+2 1.1260e+3 6.9720e+2 1.3260e+3
1.0020e+3 1.6020e+3 1.2010e+3 1.5540e+3
1.1880e+3 1.4270e+3 2.0740e+3 9.8900e+2
1.4320e+3 7.3790e+2 1.5240e+3 1.4140e+3
9.4910e+2 1.1480e+3 1.5750e+3 1.3450e+3
1.2130e+3 1.6400e+3 1.2600e+3 1.2230e+3
1.1550e+3 1.3960e+3 7.8770e+2 8.3220e+2

8.9030e+2 1.1700e+3 1.2200e+3 9.9120e+2
1.2080e+3 1.2840e+3 8.7900e+2 1.1160e+3
1.1340e+3 1.4090e+3 8.9680e+2 1.5900e+3
6.6440e+2 7.8490e+2 1.1290e+3 1.2450e+3
1.0400e+3 1.2560e+3 8.2570e+2 1.6490e+3
1.3490e+3 1.6840e+3 1.6010e+3 6.9850e+2
1.3610e+3 1.2100e+3 8.4990e+2 1.2770e+3
1.2830e+3 1.6690e+3 1.4590e+3 7.1620e+2
1.3230e+3 1.3760e+3 6.8060e+2 1.2550e+3
1.2450e+3 1.4880e+3 1.1040e+3 1.6170e+3
1.3640e+3 7.4840e+2 1.4450e+3 8.3130e+2
1.2930e+3 9.7380e+2 1.0040e+3 1.4940e+3
1.4830e+3 7.1550e+2 1.5210e+3 5.7660e+2
1.0830e+3 9.3820e+2 1.1310e+3 1.3150e+3
9.7890e+2 1.4120e+3 1.6830e+3 1.4940e+3
7.8850e+2 1.6100e+3 9.9910e+2 6.1060e+2
1.2960e+3 1.3350e+3 9.4210e+2 1.2560e+3
1.0980e+3 1.3640e+3 1.3280e+3 1.2910e+3
1.2140e+3 1.3280e+3 1.3360e+3 1.1190e+3
1.5470e+3 1.6310e+3 1.6970e+3 1.0780e+3
1.0750e+3 1.4420e+3 1.0610e+3 9.5690e+2
1.0470e+3 8.5830e+2 1.2360e+3 8.8670e+2
1.2260e+3 1.0810e+3 1.1310e+3 8.7020e+2
9.1010e+2 1.5370e+3 8.4430e+2 1.0610e+3
7.8900e+2 1.4340e+3 8.2380e+2 1.2250e+3

They only give it in scientific notation, but it's easily convertible into recognisable numbers. So the first number is 1726 and the last number rounds up to 1225. The highest number is 2074 and the lowest 424. The numbers in red match Genesis 1 and will be tabulated below.

Here, I'll take the first forty word strings, with an ov of 1880 and see how many of the Gausian numbers match them.

Trial E - First 40 word values, Gaussian numbers (mean 1200, SD 300)

The forty word strings are 23, 56, 137, 163, 219, 252, 326, 345, 378, 430, 482, 515, 567, 610, 717, 736, 815, 906, 949, 1009, 1042, 1115, 1136, 1169, 1199, 1218, 1251, 1342, 1363, 1389, 1432, 1530, 1590, 1623, 1709, 1728, 1754, 1787, 1824, 1880

Trial E1: 2, giving a running average of 1 in 50
Trial E2: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 40
Trial E3: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 50

The average chance of hitting a word string, by my BOAE method, is 1 in 47 (the number of words divided by the ordinal value of the longest word string). As you can see, we are pretty close to it. So using a normal distribution, instead of random numbers within the range, appears to make no difference to the chances of a hit.

Another thing we can try is creating an artificial 'text', by calculating 40 synthetic ordinal values and summing them. I'm using a mean of 47 (the average word value over the first 40 words) and a standard deviation of 17, a rough estimate based on your own analysis of ordinal values of Genesis 1 (thanks for that, by the way).

Here are the numbers. I've created three sets of them, so we can create three artificial texts.

6.290e+1 3.970e+1 4.660e+1 2.230e+1 3.660e+1 3.700e+1 7.420e+1 3.720e+1 5.900e+1 3.320e+1
2.050e+1 5.850e+1 3.910e+1 2.450e+1 4.280e+1 3.350e+1 6.340e+1 5.150e+1 3.160e+1 5.640e+1
4.820e+1 5.130e+1 3.170e+1 6.710e+1 5.010e+1 3.020e+1 5.220e+1 6.440e+1 4.070e+1 6.990e+1
5.300e+1 2.420e+1 2.930e+1 5.330e+1 3.070e+1 7.280e+1 5.890e+1 1.540e+1 4.000e+1 5.180e+1

Or: 63, 40, 47, 22, 37, 37, 74, 37, 59, 33, 21, 59, 39, 25, 43, 34, 63, 52, 32, 56, 48, 51, 32, 67, 50, 30, 52, 64, 41, 70, 53, 24, 29, 53, 30, 73, 59, 15, 40, 52

9.010e+0 4.880e+1 6.400e+1 3.650e+1 4.880e+1 3.740e+1 5.700e+1 3.450e+1 6.210e+1 5.570e+1
5.990e+1 3.890e+1 5.070e+1 4.980e+1 4.980e+1 5.940e+1 5.790e+0 5.800e+1 5.650e+1 2.760e+1
7.140e+1 4.610e+1 2.320e+1 6.170e+1 5.290e+1 4.720e+1 2.840e+1 4.080e+1 7.200e+1 5.340e+1
5.620e+1 2.250e+1 2.980e+1 2.910e+1 5.410e+1 5.200e+1 3.610e+1 4.250e+1 1.710e+1 6.120e+1

Or: 90, 49, 64, 37, 49, 37, 57, 35, 62, 56, 60, 39, 51, 50, 50, 59, 58, 58, 57, 28, 71, 46, 23, 62, 53, 47, 28, 41, 72, 53, 56, 23, 30, 29, 54, 52, 36, 43, 17, 61

2.470e+1 4.220e+1 4.600e+1 5.800e+1 5.710e+1 3.930e+1 3.800e+1 5.050e+1 6.860e+1 7.110e+1
4.740e+1 2.770e+1 2.040e+1 4.540e+1 2.530e+1 2.540e+1 4.660e+1 6.200e+1 6.310e-1 2.020e+1
8.120e+1 5.640e+1 7.880e+1 4.050e+1 3.780e+1 3.050e+1 3.800e+1 7.160e+1 4.330e+1 5.890e+1
1.350e+1 6.870e+1 6.670e+1 6.330e+1 4.530e+1 5.760e+1 4.450e+1 3.240e+1 6.170e+1 3.340e+1

Or: 25, 42, 46, 58, 57, 39, 38, 51, 69, 71, 47, 28, 20, 45, 25, 25, 47, 62, 63, 20, 81, 56, 79, 41, 38, 31, 38, 72, 43, 59, 14, 69, 67, 63, 45, 58, 45, 32, 62, 33

And so here are the first 40 word strings of the three synthetic texts.

1. 63, 103, 150, 172, 209, 246, 320, 357, 416, 449, 470, 529, 568, 593, 636, 670, 733, 785, 817, 873, 921, 972, 1004, 1071, 1121, 1151, 1203, 1267, 1308, 1378, 1431, 1455, 1484, 1537, 1567, 1640, 1699, 1714, 1754, 1806

2. 90, 139, 203, 240, 289, 326, 383, 418, 480, 536, 596, 635, 686, 736, 786, 845, 903, 961, 1018, 1046, 1117, 1163, 1186, 1248, 1301, 1348, 1376, 1417, 1489, 1542, 1598, 1595, 1621, 1651, 1680, 1734, 1786, 1822, 1865, 1882, 1943

3. 25 67 113 171 228 267 305 356 425 496 543 571 591 636 661 686 733 795 858 878 959 1015 1094 1135 1173 1204 1242 1314 1357 1416 1430 1499 1566 1629 1674 1732 1777 1809 1871 1904

That's our four artificial texts, equivalent to Genesis 1 words 1 to 40. My BAOE formula would predict that there is a 1 in 47 chance of any standard value falling on a word string. The four ark numbers would therefore have a 4/47 chance of falling on one. But we are doing the experiment three times with three artificial texts, so that would then give us a 12/47, or 1 in 4 chance of hitting one of the numbers. By inspection we can see that one of the four ark numbers, 1754, is there, which isn't too surprising, a bit lucky perhaps.

How about the Gaussian standard values? There should be a 1 in 47 chance (by my BOAE technique) of hitting a word string. So here are the results, based on the above numbers I generated. There are three sets of both the standard values and ordinal values, so that gives nine possible trials. This remember, is a fair chunk closer to what we might expect of the actual number distributions (although there is more to do).

Trial F - First 40 words of three artificial 'Gaussian' texts, Gaussian standard value distribution.

Trial F1: 0, giving a running average of 1 in infinity
Trial F2: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 200
Trial F3: 2, giving a running average of 1 in 100
Trial F4: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 66
Trial F5: 1, giving a running average of 1 in 71
Trial F6: 3, giving a running average of 1 in 60

The average here seems to be a little lower than expected, but not too far away, eventually increasing to about 1 in 70. More trials would clarify the probability, but even if it is 1 in 70, that just makes the four ark encodinghs even more unlikely than I expected! The simple binomial probability of four hits would then be 1 in 24 million. Addendum: I did another trial, coloured blue, and the average has now increased to 1 in 60. So it does seem to be rising up to somewhere near the predicted value of 1 in 47 as the odds against hitting a word string. Again the method is shown to be robust.

Hopefully, I've confirmed that the simple method I use is good enough to cope with a range of different standard deviations, both of the ordinal values of the words and the standard values of the phrases. What I've done above may be the beginnings of a more accurate method though. It's no surprise that standard deviations make little or no difference, because the more regular distribution of word string ordinal values ensures that wherever an arrow falls on the number line, a word string is going to be pretty near. There are a couple of tests left to do though, on actual texts and holes in the ordinal value spread.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-09-2017, 09:43 AM

Because, as I've been saying from the start, I know this is a rough method. I never claimed it was anything more than that. Attempting to develop a more accurate method would be a daunting task, for the reasons we've been discussing. However, even that would only ever achieve an approximation of the truth, because this is a real-world situation, not a theoretical one. Pure mathematics and applied mathematics are different creatures. So any method that is developed out of this will still be a 'mistake' (ie, not a perfect match to the situation).

If it was necessary to develop a more accurate method to have any chance of getting a reasonably accurate result, then I would be with you all the way here. But as we are both realising, this is a complex situation, with many variables. On the other hand, my 'back-of-an-envelope' method has proven to be accurate, robust and easy to apply. These are not insignificant advantages - and the method doesn't require much technology either: a pen, a piece of paper, a hand-held calculator (optional) and a little arithmetic.

How do I know that my BOAE method works? Because I have empirically tested it! The proof of the pudding . . . Some of the work was done on this very thread, where I showed that changing variables such as the spread of ordinal values and the spread of standard values, makes almost no difference to the final chances of acheiving hits.

I like my archer analogy, so I'll continue with it. Four archers fire arrows along a number line, where about every 45th number is highlighted. The archers vary in strength, so the arrows go different distances, but none of them aim for a particular number. The average number the four archers reach is 1000, but it varies from about 200 to about 2000. They all shoot one arrow. What is the probability that all four of the archers hit a highlighted number?

As an initial estimate, my BOAE method would say 1 in (45 x 45 x 45 x 45), or 1 in 4 million. This is exactly the probability the binomial formula would give, assuming 2000 numbers in a bag, drawn randomly (which is why I use it). So we have p = 1/45, n = 4, r = 4, giving [n,p] = 1 in 4 million.

Hey there Bill,

I think we are talking past each other. The fact that there would be a 1 in 45 chance of hitting n random numbers in a set of size n x 45 is self-evident. There was no need for you to "prove" anything empirically because the truth is trivial to calculate theoretically. It is because the probability is determined by the size of the sample space (all else being equal), as I have explained half a dozen times now.

Take the case where n = 1. The sample space is the the set of numbers from 1 to 45. There is a 1 in 45 chance of randomly hitting any one of those numbers. This is trivial.

Take the case where n = 2. The sample space is the set of numbers from 1 to 90. There is a 2/90 = 1/45 chance of randomly hitting any two of those numbers. This is trivial.

I do not see how this has anything to do with the probabilities we have been discussing. It would be good if you actually answered the critiques I have presented.

Would this be what happened in a real world situation? There are different scenarios. Here are four:

1. Both the distance flown by each archer's arrow and the placing of the highlighted numbers varies according to a bell curve-like distribution.
2. Only archers arrows vary, highlighted numbers fixed.
3. Only highlighted numbers vary, archers arrows fly a fixed distance.
4. Neither vary.

I've gone some way towards testing all of these cases and I found that in the first three, the experimentally determined average was about the same as my BOAE calculation and the binomial theorem would predict. I only did one, pseudo-bell curve distribution, but, as I expected, there was no difference between this and randomly chosen numbers. More needs to be done though.

In the last case the numbers are all fixed and so the number of hits will always be the same, probably zero (90% probability). However, if we use different archers and highlight different numbers, then do a large number of trials, the average of these will be the same as in the prevous cases. This last scenario is exactly what we have in Genesis 1. The numbers are fixed, which of course is why we either have to calculate the probability of an unusual event like the four ark encodings having occured by chance, either theoretically or empirically.

The probability of any particular group of hits is "unusual" because there are so many possibilities. This is what you really need to understand. You are CHERRY PICKING a tiny set of "hits" from a vast ocean of random possibilities. The words you pick are not themselves "encoded." Only the total numerical value is "encoded" and that number includes a vast ocean of random words you troll through to find a few that have "meaning" to you.

It is critical to understand this point. Consider your "frozen miracle" that includes the phrase "atonement cover" = 1169. I wrote a program that lists all the words in the NIV and their numerical values. This enables me to list all possible pairs of words that would sum to any given value. Here are the first 30 sets of paired word lists that sum to 1169, starting in the middle so it will include the values you cherry picked. This is a tiny sample of the ocean of random words you have to choose from, because the full list would include all 1169/2 ways of combining two numbers to get 1169 = val1 + val2 without repeats.

I highlighted the two words you selected in the list below:

Pairs that sum to 1169

Val1 = 584
Val2 = 585

beerothite
convinced
devising
impatient
knives
pounds
puite
revoked
wipe
confronting
confusing
lover
poorest
potent
prospers
runner
squads
unless
wakened
woke

Val1 = 583
Val2 = 586

columns
deprive
developed
discouraged
mekerathite
persisted
pushes
required
though
alternated
awakened
awoke
disrespect
mesopotamia
necessities
pouring
presenting
sensual
separation
talents

Val1 = 582
Val2 = 587

abominations
alternate
baptist
concubines
decorations
disappointed
encouraging
innumerable
nineteenth
undergoing
villages
allotting
brotherhood
deprived
dissensions
flavor
immovable
jekuthiel
numbers
perceive
rattling
sheepshearers
whip

Val1 = 581
Val2 = 588

collectors
fittings
fought
jerusalem
purchased
reporting
tempting
acquires
conquer
consisting
ephesus
mildew
supplied
wiped

Val1 = 580
Val2 = 589

announcing
convince
corinthians
hamutal
revoke
roebucks
rumor
skulls
sounding
springtime
stallions
touched
troops
weep
controlling
penitent
purifies
tucking
unmarried
until

Val1 = 579
Val2 = 590

associates
berothite
colorful
depraved
discourage
fainthearted
hewing
persuaded
purifier
reconciliation
require
upraised
wedding
wink
low
misrephoth
nettles
owl
philistines
souls
stoops
storms
summon
weakened

Val1 = 578
Val2 = 591

consecrating
fortieth
harpists
meditation
mightiest
muscles
receiving
simeonites
spirits
willed
blunted
craftsmans
enslave
fluent
perceived
raw
retreat
start
tolerate
war

Val1 = 577
Val2 = 592

awaken
bought
calculated
contented
convened
denounces
forgive
generations
grieving
pashhur
pestilences
purchase
vanished
voices
widened
blow
bowl
flattens
ramparts
samaritans

Val1 = 576
Val2 = 593

dungeons
pruning
samuels
square
acquit
commandments
compassions
controls
depressions
hamulite
producing
rudders

Val1 = 575
Val2 = 594

behavior
divorced
doubted
household
information
issuing
knew
marveled
ostriches
ought
persuade
sitting
summer
together
winged
astonishing
conscripted
cormorant
indecisive
quiet
quite
river
tracts

Val1 = 574
Val2 = 595

administering
avoids
betrothed
opposite
persist
priests
prisoners
prominent
stripes
trimmers
viper
waging
welled
arrive
draw
enslaved
favorable
intelligent
loves
murdering
revere
saltiness
solve
stress
tolerated
true
unsearchable
ward
weighing

Val1 = 573
Val2 = 596

calculate
chattering
disappoint
genubath
hassenuah
houses
midwife
overhead
respects
scepters
shove
suffering
assure
award
ephrathite
flow
fowl
lampstands
loaves
ornaments
passionate
platter
quarrel
reveling
signpost
treats
undesirable
wear
wolf

Val1 = 572
Val2 = 597

discomfort
furnished
hamathites
patriarchs
separates
upholds
winded
aware
below
bottles
brute
conquered
glow
joshaviah
porticoes
revealing
shoulder
shuppim
slaving
tetrarch

Val1 = 571
Val2 = 598

bowed
brightness
charioteers
divorce
forefathers
gunite
inclinations
jehoshaphats
nicodemus
paw
setting
shilonites
shimronite
shrouded
stillborn
testing
touch
arbitrate
corresponding
curses
driver
flattering
howl
hurt
prospect
ruth
tahkemonite

Val1 = 570
Val2 = 599

christians
correction
crumbles
gracious
grievance
indictment
levels
overfed
put
walled
alcoves
arrived
asshur
carves
craves
delightful
drew
overlaid
revered
scatter
solved
summoned
unleashes

Val1 = 569
Val2 = 600

assistance
crouches
doves
driving
dwell
envies
fieldstones
forgave
heavens
invades
ministering
owed
plotted
scourged
strips
terebinth
unison
unrolled
will
assured
description
offshoots
oppresses
predictions
remove
repulse
retreated
serve
snorts
started
street
tester
tresses
were

Val1 = 568
Val2 = 601

avenges
burnished
content
coves
enthrones
how
maacathites
smooths
threatened
tohu
tripolis
united
untied
vanish
who
ax
grasshopper
pleasure
possessing
saw
vat
was

Val1 = 567
Val2 = 602

covered
crushing
difficult
diviner
gnawed
hunted
parchments
refusing
renounced
saving
simplehearted
slumber
tasting
thessalonica
thirteen
accusers
deliverance
dwindle
grew
humiliate
hurries
jubilant
measuring
strict
stronger
susanna
wafer
womb

Val1 = 566
Val2 = 603

apostles
brushing
circumcised
cupbearer
doubt
favored
infamous
meholathite
moving
naught
shittim
snorting
stopping
tallest
vigor
wing
accurate
beware
cuts
detriment
evildoer
flourish
graves
ministers
petition
prophets
punishing
quieted
rescues
rushes
secures
shovel
transcends
ushers
whole

Val1 = 565
Val2 = 604

betroth
husbands
marketplaces
mithredath
opponent
owe
purple
purse
ravaging
roughs
scourge
super
tosses
unfit
virgin
weaned
well
woe
crutch
dust
infiltrated
innermost
inquiring
irritate
olives
overcame
ravages
removed
resists
rounds
served
shatter
sisters
smitten
threats
versed

Val1 = 564
Val2 = 605

advances
battering
carpus
craftiness
dawned
distant
drusilla
havens
injures
kislev
meditates
rescuing
rushing
stories
unite
untie
vines
wine
flowed
fruit
invoking
iturea
javelins
jetur
moves
prevail
quarreled
relieving
riverbed
rooster
rotten
severe
sew
surfaces
tests
thresholds
welding

Val1 = 563
Val2 = 606

about
complaints
consort
cow
hailstones
hewn
hotter
moseroth
renounce
residents
smoother
splintered
surging
tenths
when
wind
altogether
bruises
crushes
fetters
humiliated
manassites
mourning
nursing
partners
perfumer
priesthood
refuses
refute
saves
stretch
tastes
tenants
trudge
wailing

Val1 = 562
Val2 = 607

asserting
assignment
bottom
bow
circumcise
consumed
deceitful
engraved
grandfathers
grove
guardians
mishraites
revenge
satraps
scoured
sharuhen
shroud
treating
tunic
vinegar
violence
compliments
contract
firstborn
glittering
plateau
suffers
thirst
tubes

Val1 = 561
Val2 = 608

assassins
attains
committed
creditors
directors
foremost
forests
godlessness
gourds
hundredfold
hundreds
oppressing
sallus
shemiramoth
straps
wall
abundant
bereaves
crossroads
distress
drives
greatest
greaves
melodious
mouth
ravish
scattered
secretaries
shut
thus
where
whom
wider

Val1 = 560
Val2 = 609

appetite
appoints
aroused
ataroth
attends
capernaum
craving
embittered
enrollment
establishes
estimate
faithful
kettles
loftiness
obscure
out
rougher
seven
sivan
spur
tou
walked
adviser
ancestors
anticipating
circumference
delivering
deserve
disasters
mowed
resound
resplendent
severed
shallums
stronghold
suit
tenderness
wash

Val1 = 559
Val2 = 610

atroth
carouse
comforts
cursing
denarius
drove
drunkard
haunt
invader
matthias
reestablished
rotted
roused
sentries
sightless
sometimes
threaten
throat
tuned
unit
win
abishurs
dwarfed
entertain
ewes
farthest
frontiers
geruth
hebrew
instant
just
languishes
meadow
now
own
philosophers
presume
refuted
religious
sawed
spurn
supreme
temanites
tempter
unto
won

Val1 = 558
Val2 = 611

avenger
boasters
census
consume
course
cover
delusion
driven
engrave
gaunt
goldsmiths
greatness
hours
hunt
plundered
position
presentable
shiftless
shuns
source
afterbirth
atonement
grounds
jaws
kohathites
parvaim
restoring
restraining
sergius
success
tentmaker
uneaten
uproar

Val1 = 557
Val2 = 612

cisterns
counseled
courier
disqualified
favor
fawn
humtah
lavished
projection
raving
artistic
dissipation
govern
guest
musicians
petitioned
ravening
service

Val1 = 556
Val2 = 613

ambushes
anew
arouse
believes
crocus
discernment
fours
hurricane
inspection
loving
occurs
running
strings
wane
count
derives
deserved
shattered
timnites
wages

Val1 = 555
Val2 = 614

anthothijah
brothers
celebrations
concludes
councils
dawn
disgraceful
grandmother
luhith
new
occurred
over
ravine
rouse
stirring
stores
tents
tune
unformed
venom
visible
although
carpenters
circuit
cubits
detests
down
invisible
issues
ointment
oppression
prevailed
proclamation
putiel
sewed
sounds
uninformed
wearied
weeds
wielding
wise

thebluetriangle

04-09-2017, 04:24 PM

Hey there Bill,

I think we are talking past each other. The fact that there would be a 1 in 45 chance of hitting n random numbers in a set of size n x 45 is self-evident. Yes, it is.
There was no need for you to "prove" anything empirically because the truth is trivial to calculate theoretically. It is because the probability is determined by the size of the sample space (all else being equal), as I have explained half a dozen times now.

I do not see how this has anything to do with the probabilities we have been discussing. It would be good if you actually answered the critiques I have presented. I wanted to show that the 1-in-45 probability holds under a range of conditions, such as even distribution, Gausian distribution, even a single number for all ordinal values. It's not quite so obvious that it does, or even that a different distributions exist, especially to people without a maths or science background, of which there will be some on the forum. It also answered some of your critiques. You've been claiming that a bell-curve distribution could have a significant impact. It doesn't. You have also claimed that the gaps in the distribution had to be taken into account. I did and that made no difference either. I've shown how robust my simple method is, so that people will trust it. All you've done so far is theorise, which is fine in itself. But sooner or later high-flying theories have to come down to earth, and I'm still waiting for something like that from you.

The probability of any particular group of hits is "unusual" because there are so many possibilities. This is what you really need to understand. You are CHERRY PICKING a tiny set of "hits" from a vast ocean of random possibilities. The words you pick are not themselves "encoded." Only the total numerical value is "encoded" and that number includes a vast ocean of random words you troll through to find a few that have "meaning" to you. You're absolutely right when you say that all that is encoded are the numbers themselves. The question is: through gematria, can we substitute words and phrases for those numbers, such that a meaningful information is revealed? We can certainly see that it could be done that way. In fact, by the grace of God, it has and the information is unlocked by the Key I was given.

Now, to the question of cherry picking.

It is critical to understand this point. Consider your "frozen miracle" that includes the phrase "atonement cover" = 1169. I wrote a program that lists all the words in the NIV and their numerical values. This enables me to list all possible pairs of words that would sum to any given value. Here are the first 30 sets of paired word lists that sum to 1169, starting in the middle so it will include the values you cherry picked. This is a tiny sample of the ocean of random words you have to choose from, because the full list would include all 1169/2 ways of combining two numbers to get 1169 = val1 + val2 without repeats.

I highlighted the two words you selected in the list below:

Pairs that sum to 1169

Val1 = 584
Val2 = 585

beerothite
convinced
devising
impatient
knives
pounds
puite
revoked
wipe
confronting
confusing
lover
poorest
potent
prospers
runner
squads
unless
wakened
woke . . .

Val1 = 583
Val2 = 586

. . .
although
carpenters
circuit
cubits
detests
down
invisible
issues
ointment
oppression
prevailed
proclamation
putiel
sewed
sounds
uninformed
wearied
weeds
wielding
wise

First of all, this is a very useful piece of work and I thank you for providing it (I cut most of them out to make our posts more readable - hope that's alright).

Secondly, would it be possible to see if any of the possible word pairs are actually found together in the NIV, other than 'atonement cover'?

I think this would be a more pertinent comparision. I looked through the lists for each complimentary number pair, but I can't see a single pair of words with anything like the religious significance of 'atonement cover'. A list of all paired words summing to 1169 would reduce the possibilities. I am saying that religious significance and biblical placing are critical elements of the code. If the words are found together in the NIV, this would make the phrase more biblically significant.

thebluetriangle

04-10-2017, 06:28 AM

Perhaps the most exciting feature of the ark encodings is their integration with other encodings at the same location. I have already mentioned the Signature of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html), six numerical signatures, the signatory being Jesus himself, placed 'under' the 'atonement cover' encoding. They confirm that Jesus was indeed our 'atonement cover'.

And there is more! The Ark and the Second Coming (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3395404.html) displays four complimentary pairs of statements proceeding from the beginning and the end of each of the four ark encodings. They form a striking, indelible pattern and make a clear and unambiguous statement about our modern age. In doing so, they uphold the ark encodings and show that these interlocking patterns of word strings were part of one great Thought in the Mind of God.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-10-2017, 07:28 PM

Yes, it is. I wanted to show that the 1-in-45 probability holds under a range of conditions, such as even distribution, Gausian distribution, even a single number for all ordinal values. It's not quite so obvious that it does, or even that a different distributions exist, especially to people without a maths or science background, of which there will be some on the forum. It also answered some of your critiques. You've been claiming that a bell-curve distribution could have a significant impact. It doesn't. You have also claimed that the gaps in the distribution had to be taken into account. I did and that made no difference either. I've shown how robust my simple method is, so that people will trust it. All you've done so far is theorise, which is fine in itself. But sooner or later high-flying theories have to come down to earth, and I'm still waiting for something like that from you.

Hey there Bill,

As I said, I think we are talking past each other. I did not see anything in your empirical tests that had anything to do with my critiques. It looks like you didn't understand my points, and I didn't see any direct reference to them. You seem to have gone off on a tangent. I think there might be some confusion about the questions we are trying to answer. Take for example your "test" in which all the individual words had the same value 45 so the word strings would have the values 45, 90, 135, etc. If I understand your claim, you said that "made no difference" because those numbers would have a 1 in 45 chance of matching a random number drawn from the same sample space. Correct? If so, that's a correct answer, but to the wrong question. It wouldn't tell us anything about the chances of an individual hit. For example, suppose all standard values were multiples of 17, so they almost never were multiples of 45. How many hits would we see then? A lot less than "1 in 45". This is because the distribution of word values plays an essential role in calculating the probabilities. We see the same thing with the gaps, and the huge spikes of repetitions around values of common words like "the" and "and".

I think we need to clarify the questions that you are trying to answer. As far as I can tell, you want to know "What is the chance that a word string made from the sum of the ordinal values of consecutive words starting with the first word of Genesis 1:1 would match the standard value of a random phrase." Is that correct? If not, perhaps you could state it better so we have something to work with.

But as you know, the probabilities are completely irrelevant, because pretty much all hits will be equally unlikely. It's like a hand of poker. Every hand has an equal probability. The only reason one stands out is because humans arbitrarily assigned significance to certain groups of cards, like pairs, full house, etc. We could just as well have made up different rules. Most meaningless random events have small probabilities, so small probabilities cannot prove design. The probabilities tell us nothing about whether the text was designed or not. I've explained this too you many times. I can't tell if you disagree or just don't understand my point. In either case, we need to discuss it since you have made probabilities central to your thesis.

You're absolutely right when you say that all that is encoded are the numbers themselves. The question is: through gematria, can we substitute words and phrases for those numbers, such that a meaningful information is revealed? We can certainly see that it could be done that way. In fact, by the grace of God, it has and the information is unlocked by the Key I was given.

You can substitute any words you want. There are thousands of possibilities! Who then is to judge which are "meaningful" and which are not? And if there are so many possibilities, why assume any were designed? How could you tell? That's the question I've asked more than once, and your answer sounded like you think "Any hit I like was designed by God, and all the others are meaningless coincidences." Surely you understand that's not a good answer.

Given the vast array of possibilities, how could you tell if the words YOU chose are the words God supposedly intended? How can you discern between RANDOM CHANCE and DESIGN? This is the question that must be answered. As far as I know, you have never answered it.

And perhaps the most important problem is this: If the most devout believers cannot agree upon what the plain text means even when it is spelled out, how could they ever settle questions about what God "intended" in a code as ambiguous as gematria coupling strings of ordinal values to the standard values of phrases?

And why would God use a method so prone to error, and which has been the source of endless delusions over the span of centuries? You know how many deluded "code finders" the have been throughout history. They have used gematria and cherry picking. Why would God design a code based upon the cognitive error of cherry picking, selection bias, and confirmation bias?

First of all, this is a very useful piece of work and I thank you for providing it (I cut most of them out to make our posts more readable - hope that's alright).

Yes, of course it's ok to snip excessive content to make the posts easier to read. If anyone wants to see all the data, they can skip back to the previous post.

Secondly, would it be possible to see if any of the possible word pairs are actually found together in the NIV, other than 'atonement cover'?

I think this would be a more pertinent comparision. I looked through the lists for each complimentary number pair, but I can't see a single pair of words with anything like the religious significance of 'atonement cover'. A list of all paired words summing to 1169 would reduce the possibilities. I am saying that religious significance and biblical placing are critical elements of the code. If the words are found together in the NIV, this would make the phrase more biblically significant.
Yes, I could do that, but I've got a couple other things I want to do first. I'm going to write a program to examine all possible words sums that you use in your Garden page to see if your results are what we would expect from random chance.

thebluetriangle

04-11-2017, 04:06 AM

Hey there Bill,
Take for example your "test" in which all the individual words had the same value 45 so the word strings would have the values 45, 90, 135, etc. If I understand your claim, you said that "made no difference" because those numbers would have a 1 in 45 chance of matching a random number drawn from the same sample space. Correct? Correct.

If so, that's a correct answer, but to the wrong question. It was my answer to a question you yourself asked in post 78 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code/page8). Here's a quote from it.

As for the "bunching" - that changes everything. Suppose, for example, they were bunched so tightly that there are only three numbers 44, 45, 46 possible. That would have the same average, but obviously you would have nothing like a "1 - 45" chance of hitting a random number. You would miss almost all numbers except those bunched around 45.

I went event further by taking the hypothetical case of all ordinal values being 45, instead of "44, 45, 46". As I showed in post 66 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code/page7), (trial B), it made no difference to the probability of standard values landing on word strings, this being what we were discussing. You say that bunching "changes everything" but I have shown (not theorised) that it changes nothing! Maybe it's time we moved on from this, eh?

It wouldn't tell us anything about the chances of an individual hit. For example, suppose all standard values were multiples of 17, so they almost never were multiples of 45. How many hits would we see then? A lot less than "1 in 45". This is because the distribution of word values plays an essential role in calculating the probabilities. We see the same thing with the gaps, and the huge spikes of repetitions around values of common words like "the" and "and".

You keep saying things like that and I keep showing you that this is not the case. In short, as I've shown,

1. Bunching has no effect.
2. Spiking has no effect.

Why? Because when you sum a few ordinal values the bunching and spiking effects are smoothed out. Again, I could show it.

I've already shown that in the extreme and ridiculous example of there only being one standard value for all words, 350, I think it was, you would still have an average of 1 in 45 hits over a large number of texts. In your hypothetical example of standard values being multiples of 17 and ordinal values being 45 (giving a 1 in (17 x 45) chance of a hit), if we repeated the test with the standard values and ordinal values being multiples of different numbers each time, we would still end up with an overall probability of a hit as, yes, 1 in 45.

I think we need to clarify the questions that you are trying to answer. As far as I can tell, you want to know "What is the chance that a word string made from the sum of the ordinal values of consecutive words starting with the first word of Genesis 1:1 would match the standard value of a random phrase." Is that correct? If not, perhaps you could state it better so we have something to work with. That's pretty much what I've been asking, and, over the last ten pages, answering!

The large numbers of phrases that can be created from words is a more interesting question and on the face of it a more serious challenge.

You can substitute any words you want. There are thousands of possibilities! Who then is to judge which are "meaningful" and which are not? And if there are so many possibilities, why assume any were designed? How could you tell? That's the question I've asked more than once, and your answer sounded like you think "Any hit I like was designed by God, and all the others are meaningless coincidences." Surely you understand that's not a good answer.

It's not the answer I have given[/I]. I have said something like "I see four numerical hits - 610, 1169, 1623 and 1754 - for which four meaningfully-related phrases of profound religious significance and found only in the NIV can be substituted. A simple probability calculation seems to show that this is statistically improbable. For this and many other reasons I believe there is a code within the NIV Bible. Please address this one and not the misrepresentation you gave above.

Given the vast array of possibilities, how could you tell if the words YOU chose are the words God supposedly intended? How can you discern between RANDOM CHANCE and DESIGN? This is the question that must be answered. As far as I know, you have never answered it.

I [I]have answered the first part of it, by showing the following about these four phrases:

a) They all proceed from the first word of the NIV Bible, which greatly limits how many numbers can be derived; a simple probability calculation, which I trust you will no longer dispute, quantifies it as 1 in 45 per encoded number. A first estimate of the overall probability is 1 in 90,000.
b) This is the most high profile location in Scripture, not the middle of a relatively obscure passge but proceeding from the very fountainhead of scripture.
c) The Bible is the most significant and influential document in human culture.
d) The NIV Bible is the most popular English version, outselling even the KJV; English is the international langauge of choice.
e) The phrases are strongly thematically related - random phrases which we might find or assign to the numbers rarely are.
f) The phrases are of profound religious significance - random phrases which we might find or assign to the numbers rarely are.
g) The wording of these phrases, which determines the four standard values, is only found in one version out of 48 tested, the NIV Bible.
h) The phrases interlock with other encodings like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle to form a meaningful whole, containing an electrifying, long-awaited message.

Every one of these facts decimates the possible number of alternative phrases and defines the location within which they were found as the best possible candidate. In other words they tell us it was very likely by design!

The key in other words is meaning, and in the next post I'm going to test your word pairs from the NIV Bible for meaning as a first step in determining how likely or unlikely it is that words randomly flung together even from the NIV Bible would happen to make

a) religious sense
b) any kind of sense

And perhaps the most important problem is this: If the most devout believers cannot agree upon what the plain text means even when it is spelled out, how could they ever settle questions about what God "intended" in a code as ambiguous as gematria coupling strings of ordinal values to the standard values of phrases?

The first question to settle though is whether or not the code is real. Then we can discuss why it was done that way.

Why would God design a code based upon the cognitive error of cherry picking, selection bias, and confirmation bias?

You mean "Why would God design a code that is not a code?" That's a logical absurdity. Assuming what you want to prove is not the best way forward, and while we're at it, neither is obfuscation.

thebluetriangle

04-11-2017, 06:32 AM

As I promised, I'm going to attempt a little analysis on the first of the pairs of numbers summing to 1169, the standard value of 'atonement cover', which I am claiming is encoded over the first twenty-four words of the NIV Bible. This is a particularly important one, because under the 'lid' are six encoded words - Jesus/Yehoshua, Word/Word.Messiah/Messiah - that I call the Signature of Christ, a beautiful, profound picture of the Christian concept of Jesus as our atonement cover.

One of the arguments that has been levelled against the code is that a huge number of word combinations will sum to 1169. However, I am saying that

a) few of them are likely to be found within the NIV, as 'atonement cover' and the other ark encodings are, and
b) even fewer of them are likely to be sensible phrases
c) fewer still will have anything like the religious significance of 'atonement cover',

There is also the question of having to find four phrases that are related to each other in meaning and of comparable religious significance, not just one phrase. But this is a start.

So let's look at the first pair of lists.

Pairs that sum to 1169
Val1 = 584 Val2 = 585
beerothite.........confronting
convinced..........confusing
devising............lover
impatient..........poorest
knives..............potent
pounds.............prospers
puite................runner
revoked............squads
wipe.................unless
.......................wakened
.......................woke . . .

There are nine words with standard value 584 and eleven words with standard value 585. The total number of different two word phrases is therefore 9 x 11 or 99. Since the word order can also be reversed we have a grand total of 198 possible two-word 'phrases'.

Here they are:

(beerothite confronting/confronting beerothite); (beerothite confusing/confusing beerothite); (beerothite lover/lover beerothite); (beerothite poorest/poorest beerothite); (beerothite potent/potent beerothite); (beerothite prospers/prospers beerothite); (beerothite runner/runner beerothite); (beerothite squads/squads beerothite); (beerothite unless/unless beerothite); (beerothite wakened/wakened beerothite);(beerothite woke/woke beerothite);

(convinced confronting/confronting convinced); (convinced confusing/confusing convinced); (convinced lover/lover convinced); (convinced poorest/poorest convinced); (convinced potent/potent convinced); (convinced prospers/prospers convinced); (convinced runner/runner convinced); (convinced squads/squads convinced); (convinced unless/unless convinced); (convinced wakened/wakened convinced);(convinced woke/woke convinced);

(devising confronting/confronting devising); (devising confusing/confusing devising); (devising lover/lover devising); (devising poorest/poorest devising); (devising potent/potent devising); (devising prospers/prospers devising); (devising runner/runner devising); (devising squads/squads devising); (devising unless/unless devising); (devising wakened/wakened devising);(devising woke/woke devising);

(impatient confronting/confronting impatient); (impatient confusing/confusing impatient); (impatient lover/lover impatient); (impatient poorest/poorest impatient); (impatient potent/potent impatient); (impatient prospers/prospers impatient); (impatient runner/runner impatient); (impatient squads/squads impatient); (impatient unless/unless impatient); (impatient wakened/wakened impatient);(impatient woke/woke impatient);

(knives confronting/confronting knives); (knives confusing/confusing knives); (knives lover/lover knives); (knives poorest/poorest knives); (knives potent/potent knives); (knives prospers/prospers knives); (knives runner/runner knives); (knives squads/squads knives); (knives unless/unless knives); (knives wakened/wakened knives);(knives woke/woke knives);

(pounds confronting/confronting pounds); (pounds confusing/confusing pounds); (pounds lover/lover pounds); (pounds poorest/poorest pounds); (pounds potent/potent pounds); (pounds prospers/prospers pounds); (pounds runner/runner pounds); (pounds squads/squads pounds); (pounds unless/unless pounds); (pounds wakened/wakened pounds);(pounds woke/woke pounds);

(puite confronting/confronting puite); (puite confusing/confusing puite); (puite lover/lover puite); (puite poorest/poorest puite); (puite potent/potent puite); (puite prospers/prospers puite); (puite runner/runner puite); (puite squads/squads puite); (puite unless/unless puite); (puite wakened/wakened puite);(puite woke/woke puite);

(revoked confronting/confronting revoked); (revoked confusing/confusing revoked); (revoked lover/lover revoked); (revoked poorest/poorest revoked); (revoked potent/potent revoked); (revoked prospers/prospers revoked); (revoked runner/runner revoked); (revoked squads/squads revoked); (revoked unless/unless revoked); (revoked wakened/wakened revoked);(revoked woke/woke revoked);

(wipe confronting/confronting wipe); (wipe confusing/confusing wipe); (wipe lover/lover wipe); (wipe poorest/poorest wipe); (wipe potent/potent wipe); (wipe prospers/prospers wipe); (wipe runner/runner wipe); (wipe squads/squads wipe); (wipe unless/unless wipe); (wipe wakened/wakened wipe);(wipe woke/woke wipe);

Out of the 198 word pairs

a) how many make sensible phrases?
b) of those, how many are religiousy significant?
c) of those, how many are actually found as a pair within the NIV Bible, as the ark encodings are?

a) By inspection, although this is very subjective, I would say that at best 1 in 3, about 60 phrases, make grammatical sense. This is including phrases like 'wakened wipe', as in a wipe that is wakened. Counting only the ones that make a sensible phrase that might be found in the NIV, I wold say 1 in 10, about twenty phrases. This includes phrases like 'unless revoked' and 'unless convinced'.

b) Again by inspection, I would say that none of them are at all religiously significant, even remotely so.

c) There were no religiously significant phrases to check, but I did check all 198 'phrases' and found none of them together in the NIV.

So your list of two-word combinations summing to 1169 may not be a fruitful source of challengers to 'atonement cover' for an encrypted place at the head of scripture. Remember, you'd also have to find another three phrases related in meaning and having profound religious significance to Jews and Christians. I look forward to seeing what you come upwith!

thebluetriangle

04-11-2017, 08:59 AM

I forgot to answer a couple of questions here.

Most meaningless random events have small probabilities, so small probabilities cannot prove design. The probabilities tell us nothing about whether the text was designed or not. I've explained this too you many times. I can't tell if you disagree or just don't understand my point. In either case, we need to discuss it since you have made probabilities central to your thesis. Meaning is central to the code; probabilities are just supporting information. I've explained that to you. The only reason we are discussing them at length is because you have gone to great lengths to critisise my simple empirical approach. It may never be possible to 'prove' (in the sense of a mathematical theorem) that the code is real, but then we lives our lives with a degree of uncertainty about everything in the material world. The code has manifested within that world and therefore, in one sense, is subject to the same uncertainties, as would a weeping statue of the Virgin.

All the time I have worked on the code, things have happened around me to edify, encourage and direct me. I remember working very hard on the code one night about twelve years ago, drawing Star of Davids, hexagons, triangles and similar figures from counters, figures such as hexagram 121, until the 'wee sma' hours. Next day at work a member of staff I had recently employed told me about an amazing dream he had during the night. He said he was watching the sky and flocks of geese came flying over, arrayed in regular patterns. I asked him to draw the patterns, and he drew Star of Davids, hexagons, triangles, etc, the very figures I had been working on the night before. Each goose represented a counter in the figures. Then he told me that a huge, booming voice said IT'S TRUE. That was it. The ordinal value of IT'S TRUE is 112, which is YHVH Elohim. I told him a little about what I had been working on the night before and he was astonished, because it was the first time I'd spoken of it. Did that prove the code is real in some mathematical sense? No, but it gave me great confidence that it was real. There was great meaning in the dream and I didn't need to do probability calculations to prove it. The code is inspirational and it seemed to rub off onto everyone around me.

Given the vast array of possibilities, how could you tell if the words YOU chose are the words God supposedly intended? How can you discern between RANDOM CHANCE and DESIGN? This is the question that must be answered. As far as I know, you have never answered it.

The meaning inherent in the four phrases 'ark of the testimony', 'cherubim of the glory', 'atonement cover' and 'altar of incense' comes from Judaism and Christianity and is reflected in the code itself. The ark was the only material object the Israelites considered sacred and was central to the rite of atonement carried out by the high priest on the holiest day of the year. The cover and cherubim were also central to the rite, as was the altar. For Christians the ark of the testimony also has great meaning, Jesus being our atonement cover and our altar of incense and His Crucifixion being our once and for all replacement for the Day of Atonement. The meaning, religious significance to Jews and Christians, the location of the encodings - the first few words of Genesis are prime real estate - and the tight pattern they make with each other and with other encodings in the same area, most notably the six encodings of 'Jesus/Yehoshua', 'word' and 'messiah' underneath the 'atonement cover' encoding, cover these encodings with meaning as the high priest covered the ark and altar in blood.

Addendum: One final thing. To say that I chose these phrases is both to seriously distort and to trivialise the actual situation. Did I chose the phrases from the 'vast array' of possibilities out there, trying to find numbers that would fit? It was nothing like that. The meaning in these four phrases isn't some personal interpretation. It is standard Christian theology. The numbers were fixed and because they proceed from the first work, immune to the Law of Truly Large Numbers debunk. The Key I was given showed me the decoding method I was to use and the place I was to begin: Genesis 1.1. It opened up these verses to me, and I realised there was something like a watermark there, authenticating this version and displaying a bewildering variety of interlocking patterns. I learned more about how the code worked as I proceeded and also built up a gematria database. Therefore it was only a matter of time before I would find 'Ark of the Testimony' apparently encoded in the first string, and eventually the others. The encodings themselves taught me as I went along. For example, when I found 'Altar of Incense' there I had to study it tabernacle more to find out if it really belonged with the ark, cover and cherubim. I was thinking of it sitting in the Holy Place instead of the Most Holy Place and therefore belonging more with the lampstand and Table of the Presence than the ark. But in fact the Bible itself explains (Hebrews 9 and elsewhere) that it belongs in a religious sense with the ark. "In a religious sense, the altar of incense actually was said to stand ?before the Lord? (Leviticus 16:12), and ?before the ark of the testimony? (Exodus 40:5). In fact, the author of Kings states that the altar of gold ?belongs to? the oracle, i.e., the inner sanctuary (see 1 Kings 6:22)." See here (https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/978-altar-of-incense-where-was-it-located-the) for the full article. So it cannot be said that I 'chose' that interpretation of the number 610. I initially didn't want it to be there! But it clearly fit a pattern that was already apparent in part and slotted in perfectly. That is one small example of the kind of process by which I found these encodings. And I gave an example above of the kind of spiritual guidance and inspiration I received.

Finally, as we are discovering, there may be a large number of possible phrases that would fit these numbers, but finding a set of four phrases that

1. have meaning in themselves,
2. are as meaningfully related as the ark encodings,
3. are as religiously significant as the ark encodings,
4. are as related to patterns around them as the ark encodings,
5. are only found in the NIV Bible (and this was the only version out of 48 that had them), and
6. are the first version of these phrases in the NIV Bible,

may very well turn out to be an impossible challenge, and nothing like the cakewalk you are implying it would be.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-11-2017, 11:47 AM

If so, that's a correct answer, but to the wrong question.

It was my answer to a question you yourself asked in post 78 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code/page8). Here's a quote from it.

As for the "bunching" - that changes everything. Suppose, for example, they were bunched so tightly that there are only three numbers 44, 45, 46 possible. That would have the same average, but obviously you would have nothing like a "1 - 45" chance of hitting a random number. You would miss almost all numbers except those bunched around 45.

I went event further by taking the hypothetical case of all ordinal values being 45, instead of "44, 45, 46". As I showed in post 66 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code/page7), (trial B), it made no difference to the probability of standard values landing on word strings, this being what we were discussing. You say that bunching "changes everything" but I have shown (not theorised) that it changes nothing! Maybe it's time we moved on from this, eh?

There appears to be a profound confusion here. Perhaps it will help if we use the "balls in a bag" analogy.

Consider a sample space with two possibilities, a ball could be white or black. Now suppose you had a bag of only black balls. What is the probability of hitting a random colored ball (black or white)? Your answer is "50%" because a random ball could be either white or black, so every time you pick a black ball from the bag, you have a 50/50 chance of matching the color of one of the balls in the sample space. This is why I said that you are asking the wrong question. Your answer tells us nothing about the probability distribution of hitting a RANDOM number in the sample space. The correct answer to the question is a probability distribution:

p(White) = 0
P(Black) = 1

Your answer is based on the fact that p(W|B) = 1/2. But that's the wrong question, because it ignores the fact that p(W) = 0.

Your method, which you tested so tediously with long lists of random numbers, tells us nothing we did not already know from a simple analysis of the theoretical probability.

Here is the correct question: If you had a bag of black balls, what is the probability of picking a white ball? The answer is obviously ZERO.

Likewise, if all the words strings were multiples of 45, what is the probability of picking a RANDOM number that is not a multiple of 45? Again, the answer is ZERO.

This is the fundamental mistake in your probability calculations, and this is why I pressed the issue of your probability calculations.

No one with any knowledge of probability would accept your calculations as supporting your claims in any way at all. You are mistaken on two fundamental levels. First, your calculations are entirely wrong and confused. Second, it wouldn't matter if they were correct because most word combinations have an essentially equally low probability, so probability does not help discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN. (EDIT: I see you have given an answer, so I will respond to that in my next post).

You keep saying things like that and I keep showing you that this is not the case. In short, as I've shown,

1. Bunching has no effect.
2. Spiking has no effect.

Why? Because when you sum a few ordinal values the bunching and spiking effects are smoothed out. Again, I could show it.

That's simply not true. There is no "smoothing out" of the word strings when all the words have a value of 45. And the gaps are not filled in. Most random numbers in the sample space would NEVER be hit.

It's not the answer I have given. I have said something like "I see four numerical hits - 610, 1169, 1623 and 1754 - for which four meaningfully-related phrases of profound religious significance and found only in the NIV can be substituted. A simple probability calculation seems to show that this is statistically improbable. For this and many other reasons I believe there is a code within the NIV Bible. [I] Please address this one and not the misrepresentation you gave above.

Again, the probability is meaningless because almost any words you chose would also have a small probability. Therefore, the low probability tells us nothing about whether the words YOU CHOSE were deliberately designed by some intelligent agent. You really need to answer this point.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-11-2017, 01:04 PM

Given the vast array of possibilities, how could you tell if the words YOU chose are the words God supposedly intended? How can you discern between RANDOM CHANCE and DESIGN? This is the question that must be answered. As far as I know, you have never answered it.

I have answered the first part of it, by showing the following about these four phrases:

a) They all proceed from the first word of the NIV Bible, which greatly limits how many numbers can be derived; a simple probability calculation, which I trust you will no longer dispute, quantifies it as 1 in 45 per encoded number. A first estimate of the overall probability is 1 in 90,000.
b) This is the most high profile location in Scripture, not the middle of a relatively obscure passge but proceeding from the very fountainhead of scripture.
c) The Bible is the most significant and influential document in human culture.
d) The NIV Bible is the most popular English version, outselling even the KJV; English is the international langauge of choice.
e) The phrases are strongly thematically related - random phrases which we might find or assign to the numbers rarely are.
f) The phrases are of profound religious significance - random phrases which we might find or assign to the numbers rarely are.
g) The wording of these phrases, which determines the four standard values, is only found in one version out of 48 tested, the NIV Bible.
h) The phrases interlock with other encodings like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle to form a meaningful whole, containing an electrifying, long-awaited message.

Every one of these facts decimates the possible number of alternative phrases and defines the location within which they were found as the best possible candidate. In other words they tell us it was very likely by design!

I'm sorry Bill, but none of your attempts gave me any way to tell the difference between CHANCE vs. DESIGN. Here is a point-by-point explantion:

a) Picking out unique attributes of your cherry picked data and then using that as a definition of the "target" to limit the hits is a textbook example of the Sharpshooter's fallacy. It is an extreme abuse of statistics designed to create an illusion of design. Here's how the wiki describes it:
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred. This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.

b) This is not an answer to the question about how to discern chance vs. design. If someone's "pattern" is really just a random coincidence, the fact it is found in the first chapter of Genesis would not change that fact.

c) Again, that doesn't answer the question. People have been finding false and illusory patterns in the Bible for 2000 years. The fact that the Bible is so significant and influential does not lend any credence to those false claims. On the contrary, it gives good reason to look at such claims with increased skepticism, since believers are notorious for deluding themselves on such matters.

d) Again, that doesn't answer the question. And besides, such arguments can go both ways. Most seriously Bible students recognize the NIV as an inferior translation. Why would God inspire an inferior translation? And the current popularity of the NIV is nothing like the long standing popularity of the KJV which was dominant for nearly 400 years. But in any case, these kinds of arguments do nothing to help discern between chance and design. The real question you need to answer is "How do you discern between chance vs. design in the NIV?" As it is, you simply collect any hit you like and declare it was "designed" because you like it, and ignore the ten million misses. That's the point you need to answer.

e) The fact that you could find four thematically related phrases from a random set containing literally MILLIONS of possibilities is a textbook example of CHERRY PICKING. It is a logical fallacy.

f) The fact that the phrases are "significant" tells you nothing about whether or not they were designed. The problem is with your method. You have no way to discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN in the words you cherry pick from the millions of possibilities. This is the point you must address.

g) So what? Other patterns would be found that are unique to those other versions. The fact that the NIV has two awkward phrases doesn't mean anything. And besides, the NIV doesn't even use those phrases consistently. Sometimes it uses "ark of the covenant" which doesn't fit the pattern. You have no explanation for why a designer would deliberately confuse the issue that way if he wanted to prove design.

h) That's what every code finder thinks about their codes, so it doesn't not help us discern if your codes are true or not. You need to find a way to discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN. I have seen nothing that answers that question yet. Not. One. Thing.

I trust you see the value of our discussion. We have found the one question that will solve all your problems and fulfill all your desires. Your message will be believed by all rational people the moment you can show how to discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

The key in other words is meaning, and in the next post I'm going to test your word pairs from the NIV Bible for meaning as a first step in determining how likely or unlikely it is that words randomly flung together even from the NIV Bible would happen to make

a) religious sense
b) any kind of sense

Your method of manually testing a tiny tiny tiny subset will prove nothing. For fun, I went through the results and developed a theme bases on animal excrement. I didn't want to offend, so I didn't share it. I found these hits in a few minutes. They all sum to 1169:

dog's excrement
horse's waste
defiling cow manure

I have little doubt I could develop a big theme based on manure if I reviewed the millions of word combinations that sum to any of the 37 word strings you used in your pattern containing 4 hits. With a little work, I'd be surprised if there were a theme I couldn't create using your methods.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-11-2017, 02:37 PM

Meaning is central to the code; probabilities are just supporting information. I've explained that to you.

And I responded to your explanation by pointing out that the probabilities add no support of any kind because almost all hits - whether meaningful or meaningless - would have similar small probabilities. Here is what you need to answer:

Given that most meaningless random events have small probabilities, how could small probabilities help discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN?

The only reason we are discussing them at length is because you have gone to great lengths to critisise my simple empirical approach.

No. The reason we are discussing them at length is because we have not been able to come to agreement about some basic concepts of probability.

It may never be possible to 'prove' (in the sense of a mathematical theorem) that the code is real, but then we lives our lives with a degree of uncertainty about everything in the material world. The code has manifested within that world and therefore, in one sense, is subject to the same uncertainties, as would a weeping statue of the Virgin.

Actually, I think a full analysis will prove that your patterns are what we would expect from random chance and show no evidence of any design.

All the time I have worked on the code, things have happened around me to edify, encourage and direct me. I remember working very hard on the code one night about twelve years ago, drawing Star of Davids, hexagons, triangles and similar figures from counters, figures such as hexagram 121, until the 'wee sma' hours. Next day at work a member of staff I had recently employed told me about an amazing dream he had during the night. He said he was watching the sky and flocks of geese came flying over, arrayed in regular patterns. I asked him to draw the patterns, and he drew Star of Davids, hexagons, triangles, etc, the very figures I had been working on the night before. Each goose represented a counter in the figures. Then he told me that a huge, booming voice said IT'S TRUE. That was it. The ordinal value of IT'S TRUE is 112, which is YHVH Elohim. I told him a little about what I had been working on the night before and he was astonished, because it was the first time I'd spoken of it. Did that prove the code is real in some mathematical sense? No, but it gave me great confidence that it was real. There was great meaning in the dream and I didn't need to do probability calculations to prove it. The code is inspirational and it seemed to rub off onto everyone around me.

Believe me, I understand how striking those kinds of things can be. They happened to me a lot during my years of "pattern finding" with gematria and the Bible Wheel. I understand why you find them convincing. But they don't help establish the truth of your claims, because any delusional person could also have similar experiences. This is why we devised science as a way to discern between truth and things we might be deluding ourselves with.

It's like believers who think that God answers prayers. They believe because of confirmation bias and selection bias. This video explains it very well. I would love to hear your take on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk6ILZAaAMI

The meaning inherent in the four phrases 'ark of the testimony', 'cherubim of the glory', 'atonement cover' and 'altar of incense' comes from Judaism and Christianity and is reflected in the code itself. The ark was the only material object the Israelites considered sacred and was central to the rite of atonement carried out by the high priest on the holiest day of the year. The cover and cherubim were also central to the rite, as was the altar. For Christians the ark of the testimony also has great meaning, Jesus being our atonement cover and our altar of incense and His Crucifixion being our once and for all replacement for the Day of Atonement. The meaning, religious significance to Jews and Christians, the location of the encodings - the first few words of Genesis are prime real estate - and the tight pattern they make with each other and with other encodings in the same area, most notably the six encodings of 'Jesus/Yehoshua', 'word' and 'messiah' underneath the 'atonement cover' encoding, cover these encodings with meaning as the high priest covered the ark and altar in blood.

Your inclusion of "altar of incense" was a big mistake because it shows that you are cherry picking with the only standard being "if it fits". There are many other things that would fit but are not found so why do the hits imply design while the misses don't imply a lack of design? This strikes me as a fatal inconsistency in your method.

thebluetriangle

04-11-2017, 04:33 PM

There appears to be a profound confusion here.

Indeed there is, but you are looking in the wrong place for it.

Your method, which you tested so tediously with long lists of random numbers, tells us nothing we did not already know from a simple analysis of the theoretical probability.

Here is the correct question: If you had a bag of black balls, what is the probability of picking a white ball? The answer is obviously ZERO.

Likewise, if all the words strings were multiples of 45, what is the probability of picking a RANDOM number that is not a multiple of 45? Again, the answer is ZERO.

This is the fundamental mistake in your probability calculations, and this is why I pressed the issue of your probability calculations.

The person who has made a fundamental mistake is your good self, I'm afraid. You have either forgotten or not understood that there are two lots of balls here, one bag representing ordinal values and another bag representing standard values. Even if we make all the ordinal values multiples of 45, the standard values can be any number - and it is the standard value bag we are sampling from. For example the four ark encodings are 610, 1169, 1623, and 1754, none of which are multiples of 45. So if we pick balls from the standard value bag, which is what we do every time we test a standard value to see if it hits a word string, only 1 in 45 of those balls will be multiples of 45. The final probability will again be 1 in 45, not zero.

This is why I 'tediously' tested all those different scenarios, so that you could see exactly what I was doing. It's always easier to understand your own work than someone else's work and from past experience I knew that I had to put everything down in black and white and not assume people understood anything. All you had to do was read it.

That's simply not true. There is no "smoothing out" of the word strings when all the words have a value of 45. And the gaps are not filled in. Most random numbers in the sample space would NEVER be hit.

You've made another mistake here, although a minor one this time. I wasn't talking about the hypothetical balls representing multiples of 45. The gaps there are chasms! I was referring to the gaps you showed were in the biblical distribution. I didn't actually state that, but it's a trivial observation that adding multiples of 45 will only ever give you higher multiples of 45 and so I thought you would understand that I was referring this time to the real-world numbers. Do you see that summing these will give you a wider spread of values? I can do another test. I don't find them tedious, incidentally, not when we are discussing a matter of such import. It's an honour and a pleasure to be doing it.

Again, the probability is meaningless because almost any words you chose would also have a small probability. Therefore, the low probability tells us nothing about whether the words YOU CHOSE were deliberately designed by some intelligent agent. You really need to answer this point.

You might like to review my last post, which shows how my choice of these phrases words was partly guided by my knowledge of the code and the NIV Bible itself. You can choose any piece of a jigsaw puzzle but only the right piece fits.

thebluetriangle

04-11-2017, 06:22 PM

I think it's important that we have my original list of reasons why I believe the ark encodings are real and not illusory. Here they are:

a) They all proceed from the first word of the NIV Bible, which greatly limits how many numbers can be derived; a simple probability calculation, which I trust you will no longer dispute, quantifies it as 1 in 45 per encoded number. A first estimate of the overall probability is 1 in 90,000.
b) This is the most high profile location in Scripture, not the middle of a relatively obscure passge but proceeding from the very fountainhead of scripture.
c) The Bible is the most significant and influential document in human culture.
d) The NIV Bible is the most popular English version, outselling even the KJV; English is the international langauge of choice.
e) The phrases are strongly thematically related - random phrases which we might find or assign to the numbers rarely are.
f) The phrases are of profound religious significance - random phrases which we might find or assign to the numbers rarely are.
g) The wording of these phrases, which determines the four standard values, is only found in one version out of 48 tested, the NIV Bible.
h) The phrases interlock with other encodings like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle to form a meaningful whole, containing an electrifying, long-awaited message.

Every one of these facts decimates the possible number of alternative phrases and defines the location within which they were found as the best possible candidate. In other words they tell us it was very likely by design!

And here are your replies:

a) Picking out unique attributes of your cherry picked data and then using that as a definition of the "target" to limit the hits is a textbook example of the Sharpshooter's fallacy. It is an extreme abuse of statistics designed to create an illusion of design. Here's how the wiki describes it:
The Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred. This fallacy is the philosophical/rhetorical application of the multiple comparisons problem (in statistics) and apophenia (in cognitive psychology). It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist.

It's another mistake to assume what you want to prove. Calling my data "cherry picked" when cherry picking is what you are trying to prove is a fallacy of its own, called "begging the question" or "circular reasoning".

With a computer program it wouldn't be hard to find examples of spurious codes somewhere within any random text. But the charge of cherry picking is reduced (not disproven) by the fact that the ark encodings proceed from the very first word. This greatly limits the possibilities for cherry picking, as I discuss here (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html). When all you can reach is the end of a branch, there aren't many cherries to pick, whereas someone up in the tree can pick all the cherries they want.

b) This is not an answer to the question about how to discern chance vs. design. If someone's "pattern" is really just a random coincidence, the fact it is found in the first chapter of Genesis would not change that fact.

Of course not, but if God were to create a code in the Bible, Genesis would be a very good candidate. The Key I was given showed me where to look anyway.

c) Again, that doesn't answer the question. People have been finding false and illusory patterns in the Bible for 2000 years. The fact that the Bible is so significant and influential does not lend any credence to those false claims. On the contrary, it gives good reason to look at such claims with increased skepticism, since believers are notorious for deluding themselves on such matters. Anyone, believer or not, can be deluded. Atheists may themselves have a worldview to defend and strong emotional reasons for holding on to it. But the point I was making here is, again, that if God were to place a code somewhere, His book would be a likely vehicle for it, and the beginning of Genesis a likely place to find it, or part of it. If a code is suspected for other reasons, then the fact that it is also found in this book and this high profile location, in a place where cherry picking is almost impossible, is supporting evidence.

d) Again, that doesn't answer the question. And besides, such arguments can go both ways. Most seriously Bible students recognize the NIV as an inferior translation. Why would God inspire an inferior translation? And the current popularity of the NIV is nothing like the long standing popularity of the KJV which was dominant for nearly 400 years. But in any case, these kinds of arguments do nothing to help discern between chance and design. The real question you need to answer is "How do you discern between chance vs. design in the NIV?" As it is, you simply collect any hit you like and declare it was "designed" because you like it, and ignore the ten million misses. That's the point you need to answer.

My point here is that the NIV is the most popular version, not the best translation. I liked the way the NIV read long before I found a code in it. It reads well and makes a difficult book more accessible to Christians. The fact that bible students regard it as inferior is not an argument against it - far from it! I doubt if it was written for them.

e) The fact that you could find four thematically related phrases from a random set containing literally MILLIONS of possibilities is a textbook example of CHERRY PICKING. It is a logical fallacy. This is probably begging the question too. We have begun to look at the possible alternative phrases that could be slotted in there and those "millions of possibilities" are turning out to be thin on the ground. Remember, they have to be thematically related. If the ark encodings weren't related to each other, I wouldn't have thought there was a code there either. You cannot ignore the question of meaning here, because it is meaning that makes it a code! The only route you can take (other than denial, but I wouldn't recommend it) is to show that randomness can create illusory patterns of meaning. Given enough texts and enough words that could certainly be done, but in the first words of Genesis, there just aren't enough words - which is probably one reason why it was put there. The wind of Spirit forms patterns of meaning. The winds of chance create meaningless numbers.

f) The fact that the phrases are "significant" tells you nothing about whether or not they were designed. The problem is with your method. You have no way to discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN in the words you cherry pick from the millions of possibilities. This is the point you must address. I do have a way to discern the difference: it is the patterns of meaning they form. This is how synchronicity, or God-incidence works. Outer events synchronise with our inner world and we know then that the universe is not a cold, dead void, devoid of meaning, but in some sense alive and responsive to each one of us. The code was in fact created by a sophisticated weave of synchronicities, and the message it carries is not just for one individual this time but for all of us.

There is also the question of geometric figures encoded there, but we agreed not to discuss them at present. Any time you're ready though . . .

g) So what? Other patterns would be found that are unique to those other versions. The fact that the NIV has two awkward phrases doesn't mean anything. And besides, the NIV doesn't even use those phrases consistently. Sometimes it uses "ark of the covenant" which doesn't fit the pattern. You have no explanation for why a designer would deliberately confuse the issue that way if he wanted to prove design. Your statement that other patterns would be found in other versions has not been tested. It's merely an assertion and I wish you'd stop making these without evidence. I've seen plenty of rhetoric from you here, but almost no evidence. As for the 'awkwardness' of the phrases, I don't think so. Which ones do you think are awkward? Perhaps we should discuss it. As for different names given to the ark, I'm not qualified to discuss that, but the writers of the books of the Old Testament had their own styles and lived in different periods. Why didn't God force them all to use the same terminology? Why would He? That wouldn't stop Him inspiring a code. One way around the question of different terminologies is to consistently use the first term mentioned - and that is exactly what we find. Another point I haven't pushed - until now - is the unlikelihood of the NIV being the only version out of 48 that uses these four terms and the NIV also being the version that contains their standard values. I'm too bleary eyed over here in Scotland, where it is 2am now, to work out the probability, which seems quite low, but I'll maybe try tomorrow.

h) That's what every code finder thinks about their codes, so it doesn't not help us discern if your codes are true or not. You need to find a way to discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN. I have seen nothing that answers that question yet. Not. One. Thing. The six names Jesus/Yehoshua, Word/Word, Messiah/Messiah, sitting under the encoding 'atonement cover', a profoundy beautiful and meaningful encoding because it confirms the Christian teaching that Jesus is our atonement cover, are not a figment of a deluded imagination. One cannot force numbers to be there - they can only be there or not be there. Using the same system I use everywhere else, the system the Key taught me, I lifted the lid of the ark and found them. Indiana Jones himself could not have been more thrilled.

I trust you see the value of our discussion. We have found the one question that will solve all your problems and fulfill all your desires. Your message will be believed by all rational people the moment you can show how to discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN. I have. It's meaning. You grok it?

Your method of manually testing a tiny tiny tiny subset will prove nothing. For fun, I went through the results and developed a theme bases on animal excrement. I didn't want to offend, so I didn't share it. I found these hits in a few minutes. They all sum to 1169:

dog's excrement
horse's waste
defiling cow manure

I have little doubt I could develop a big theme based on manure if I reviewed the millions of word combinations that sum to any of the 37 word strings you used in your pattern containing 4 hits. With a little work, I'd be surprised if there were a theme I couldn't create using your methods.

I'm sorry you found such a scatological way to end this post, but then it's not the only crap I've read on this thread today.

But continuing with the lighter note, when I was looking through the first list of complimentary words summing to 1169, I noted with alarm that the following word pairings also summed to 1169

DEPRAVED OWL
ASTONISHING OSTRICHES
DIVORCED CORMORANT
SUFFERING FOWL

which makes one suspect life was especially tough for winged creatures back then. Thank goodness for the

RESCUING ROOSTER

He must have been a busy bird.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-11-2017, 07:09 PM

The person who has made a fundamental mistake is your good self, I'm afraid. You have either forgotten or not understood that there are two lots of balls here, one bag representing ordinal values and another bag representing standard values. Even if we make all the ordinal values multiples of 45, the standard values can be any number - and it is the standard value bag we are sampling from. For example the four ark encodings are 610, 1169, 1623, and 1754, none of which are multiples of 45. So if we pick balls from the standard value bag, which is what we do every time we test a standard value to see if it hits a word string, only 1 in 45 of those balls will be multiples of 45. The final probability will again be 1 in 45, not zero.

This whole dispute about probability came from this claim on your page called The Code and the Law of Truly Large Numbers (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html):

Individual ordinal values vary widely, but the average word ordinal value in the first few verses of Genesis is 45. So as we calculate from first word we will have about the same 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how far into the text we go.

To summarise, if we are free to choose any string of words within the first few verses of Genesis, we are almost certain to hit any given word standard value within the first ten or twelve verses. But if we pin ourselves down to the string beginning at word 1, then we only have about a 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how long the string. This is the basis of my argument, but there are details I'll add as I go along.

Are your words true? If all the values of the word strings were multiples of 45, would we have any chance at all of hitting "any particular number"? Of course not. Your assertion is demonstrably false. If the values of the word strings were all multiples of 45, we would be CERTAIN that we could NOT hit any standard word value that is not a multiple of 45. We would NOT have a "1 in 45 chance" of hitting "any particular number." The only numbers we would have any chance of hitting at all would be multiples of 45. If, for whatever reason, the standard values had a bias towards or against being a multiple of 45, the probabilities would be different.

This is why I 'tediously' tested all those different scenarios, so that you could see exactly what I was doing. It's always easier to understand your own work than someone else's work and from past experience I knew that I had to put everything down in black and white and not assume people understood anything. All you had to do was read it.

The tedious testing was a complete waste of time that added nothing but confusion. The correct thing to do would have been to use the standard language of probability theory in which case the facts would have been self-evident. That's what I did, and now you have agreed that I was correct. The probabilities are determined by the size of the sample space, not the "average" of some property of the sampled data, which often has no meaning at all, as when you are talking about the chances of colored balls.

I get the impression that you are getting frustrated with this discussion. I hope that doesn't escalate. I very much enjoy discussing this with you, and I would think you would see the value of having someone like me to bounce your ideas off of. I am trying to find and articulate the truth. The fact that it is not easy should be a reminder to us both that we need to work harder to be clear. And how any hope of mutual understanding depends critically upon mutual respect.

All the very best to you my friend,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

04-11-2017, 08:04 PM

With a computer program it wouldn't be hard to find examples of spurious codes somewhere within any random text.

And how, exactly, do you discern between "spurious" and "authentic" codes? That's the question that must be answered.

But the charge of cherry picking is reduced (not disproven) by the fact that the ark encodings proceed from the very first word. This greatly limits the possibilities for cherry picking, as I discuss here (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html). When all you can reach is the end of a branch, there aren't many cherries to pick, whereas someone up in the tree can pick all the cherries they want.

It appears you missed the point of my reference to the Sharpshooter's Fallacy. When you "limit" your set of possibilities by using properties of pattern you are trying to prove, you are drawing the target around the point where you happened to shoot. This is stated explicitly in the description of the fallacy, and it is exactly what you are doing when you "limit" your set of possibilities. Here is how the wiki explains it:

The Texas sharpshooter fallacy often arises when a person has a large amount of data at their disposal, but only focuses on a small subset of that data. Some factor other than the one attributed may give all the elements in that subset some kind of common property (or pair of common properties, when arguing for correlation). If the person attempts to account for the likelihood of finding some subset in the large data with some common property by a factor other than its actual cause, then that person is likely committing a Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

The fallacy is characterized by a lack of a specific hypothesis prior to the gathering of data, or the formulation of a hypothesis only after data have already been gathered and examined.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy#cite_note-5)Thus, it typically does not apply if one had an ex ante (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_ante), or prior, expectation of the particular relationship in question before examining the data. For example one might, prior to examining the information, have in mind a specific physical mechanism implying the particular relationship. One could then use the information to give support or cast doubt on the presence of that mechanism. Alternatively, if additional information can be generated using the same process as the original information, one can use the original information to construct a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis on the new data. (See hypothesis testing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis_testing).) What one cannot do is use the same information to construct and test the same hypothesis (see hypotheses suggested by the data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses_suggested_by_the_data))?to do so would be to commit the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

Please take no offense, but I honestly believe that your work is a textbook example of the Sharpshooter's Fallacy.

Of course not, but if God were to create a code in the Bible, Genesis would be a very good candidate. The Key I was given showed me where to look anyway.

Yes, I agree. But that's not relevant to the question you said you were answering. The question is: How do you discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN. That's the question that must be answered.

Anyone, believer or not, can be deluded. Atheists may themselves have a worldview to defend and strong emotional reasons for holding on to it.

We are in complete agreement on that point. But religion tends to encourage gullibility and delusional "believing" in things that cannot be proven and which are often contrary to science, whereas atheism tends to encourage skeptical, critical thinking that is the essence of science.

But the point I was making here is, again, that if God were to place a code somewhere, His book would be a likely vehicle for it, and the beginning of Genesis a likely place to find it, or part of it. If a code is suspected for other reasons, then the fact that it is also found in this book and this high profile location, in a place where cherry picking is almost impossible, is supporting evidence.

And that is why you should be skeptical of the "codes" you think you have found. You have a strong bias for the Bible. You believe it is "His book" and so you think it has codes. Muslims think the Quran is Allah's book and many are absolutely convinced that he coded it with the number 19. You are not impressed by their codes because you don't have a bias for their book, and vice-versa. But their methods are very similar to yours. They comb through a massive data set looking for appearances of the number 19. They collect those "hits" and soon become completely convinced that their collection of cherry picked numbers is "beyond chance." I would encourage you to watch this video with an open mind. If you do, I would be surprised if you did not recognize the similarity between your work and their's. They base a lot of their claims on the fact that 19 is a centered hexagonal number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvWAO_y3TNM&t=3s

My point here is that the NIV is the most popular version, not the best translation. I liked the way the NIV read long before I found a code in it. It reads well and makes a difficult book more accessible to Christians. The fact that bible students regard it as inferior is not an argument against it - far from it! I doubt if it was written for them.

And my point was that God would not inspire an inferior version.

e) The fact that you could find four thematically related phrases from a random set containing literally MILLIONS of possibilities is a textbook example of CHERRY PICKING. It is a logical fallacy.

This is probably begging the question too. We have begun to look at the possible alternative phrases that could be slotted in there and those "millions of possibilities" are turning out to be thin on the ground. Remember, they have to be thematically related. If the ark encodings weren't related to each other, I wouldn't have thought there was a code there either. You cannot ignore the question of meaning here, because it is meaning that makes it a code! The only route you can take (other than denial, but I wouldn't recommend it) is to show that randomness can create illusory patterns of meaning. Given enough texts and enough words that could certainly be done, but in the first words of Genesis, there just aren't enough words - which is probably one reason why it was put there. The wind of Spirit forms patterns of meaning. The winds of chance create meaningless numbers.

The problem with "meaning" is that it is subjective, very easily manipulated, and can't be quantified. You do realize how many people have deluded themselves with false patterns, right? When I look at your patterns, they strike me as essentially identical to all the others. You start with a massive data set and a random number generator, and go looking for hits. The method is fundamentally flawed. There is no way to discern between chance and design. You don't even have a way to know if "altar of incense" was intended or not. And if it were intended, then why would God leave out all the other things he could have included? Again, it appears that your only standard is "if it fits, it's coded" and if not, it is ignored.

I do have a way to discern the difference: it is the patterns of meaning they form. This is how synchronicity, or God-incidence works. Outer events synchronise with our inner world and we know then that the universe is not a cold, dead void, devoid of meaning, but in some sense alive and responsive to each one of us. The code was in fact created by a sophisticated weave of synchronicities, and the message it carries is not just for one individual this time but for all of us.

I understand and appreciate the fact that your "method" gives you a subjective sense of the validity of whatever you happen to believe. But that is certainly not a method to actually discern between chance vs. design. For example, suppose "altar of incense" really was a random coincidence that God did not intend. How would you know? What if there were some other pattern he did intend but you didn't like it and so decided it was not part of the code. How would you know? Merely appealing to a mystical "sense" is not a method. On the contrary, that is how people have deluded themselves since time immemorial.

There is also the question of geometric figures encoded there, but we agreed not to discuss them at present. Any time you're ready though . . .

You can make any number into a geometric figure. So what does that prove? The Muslims love hexagrams too because 19 is a centered hexagonal number. And the shape appears in their religious art, so Allah is true and he designed the Quran? If not, why not?

Your statement that other patterns would be found in other versions has not been tested. It's merely an assertion and I wish you'd stop making these without evidence. I've seen plenty of rhetoric from you here, but almost no evidence.

The world is filled to overflowing with evidence of believers finding "patterns" in their religious texts. I don't understand why you would challenge that point. Comparing contrary patterns people created from the Bible helped free me from my own delusions about gematria and the Bible Wheel. I presented a number of examples in my article called The Bible Wheel: Patternicity on Steroids (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/12/patternicity/) and Battle of the Bible Wheels: Catholic vs. Protestant (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/05/battle-of-the-bible-wheels-catholic-vs-protestant/).

thebluetriangle

04-12-2017, 03:19 AM

This whole dispute about probability came from this claim on your page called The Code and the Law of Truly Large Numbers (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html):

Are your words true? If all the values of the word strings were multiples of 45, would we have any chance at all of hitting "any particular number"? Of course not. Your assertion is demonstrably false. If the values of the word strings were all multiples of 45, we would be CERTAIN that we could NOT hit any standard word value that is not a multiple of 45. We would NOT have a "1 in 45 chance" of hitting "any particular number." The only numbers we would have any chance of hitting at all would be multiples of 45. If, for whatever reason, the standard values had a bias towards or against being a multiple of 45, the probabilities would be different.

First of all, you were not responding to the words I wrote in that page. You were responding to a previous post of mine, part of which is reproduced below.

I went event further by taking the hypothetical case of all ordinal values being 45, instead of "44, 45, 46". As I showed in post 66, (trial B), it made no difference to the probability of standard values landing on word strings, this being what we were discussing. You say that bunching "changes everything" but I have shown (not theorised) that it changes nothing! Maybe it's time we moved on from this, eh?

It's never easy to admit we made a mistake, but it's good for the soul. Compounding a mistake with a false statement on the other hand just creates even more confusion.

Secondly, in that paragraph I was referring to an actual text, any text, where the word-string values are unknown. Given an average word value of 45, we can predict a 1 in 45 chance of hitting any number before we do a single calculation. Here's a random sample of text, ten words in your post, with their ordinal values calculated.

Are = 24
Are your = 103
Are your words = 182
Are your words true? = 246
Are your words true? If = 261
Are your words true? If all = 286
Are your words true? If all the = 319
Are your words true? If all the values = 399
Are your words true? If all the values of = 420
Are your words true? If all the values of the = 453

The average values of the words are 453/10 or about 45. But look how the values skip around. Five are odd, five are even. There is a slight bias towards multiples of three - six in fact - but against multiples of four, only one. There are lots of gaps of course, because only ten numbers were produced out of 453, but if this was repeated with hundreds of texts we would find every gap would eventually be filled. We just couldn't tell when it would be filled.So if we start with an unknown text with a putative average word value of 45 (although since it's unknown then strictly we can't even say that, but we could calculate the ov of the entire length of text without knowing the individual word values, then divide by the number of words), we can say that there is an approximately 1-in-45 chance that any number would be hit. This is self evident. The only reason I am spelling it out is because of the line you are taking here.

It's also self-evident that the words forming any text have a range of values and that it would be virtually impossible to have a passage of text where every word had the same value. I was referring to actual written texts, which is what the NIV Bible is. The only reason I took that example was as an extreme case to show how robust my method was. But even then, if we started with an text where the values are unknown but our best guess at the average word value is 45, then begin calculating, the probability of hitting ay number is still 1 in 45, because we have no information beforehand about what the word values are going to be! They could all turn out to be 1 in 44, or 1 in 43, or 1 in 60. As I said, though, that could never happen. Even getting three words in a row with the same ordinal value would be a rare occurrence. Standard values average about 300 or so, so they usually 'leap' over seven or eight words before landing on the number line. That gives plenty of words with different ordinal values to smooth out the probabilities to some extent.

When we are writing articles we have to make decision about what to include. If we think like a lawyer and try to include every possible scenario and address every possible objection, the article quickly becomes unreadable (there are few who would read a legal document for fun, unless they enjoy getting a headache). That also presupposes that the reader of such an article is reading it in the spirit in which it was intended to be read. If we all do that, then the conversation will flow. It's like a dance, which can only happen if both partners actually want to dance.

The tedious testing was a complete waste of time that added nothing but confusion. It was necessary to show that the method worked under a range of possible - and even impossible - conditions. Few understand probability theory, combinatorics, etc. Yes, it was hard work crunching all those numbers, but hopefully much less so for the reader, who only had to glance at the lists to taste the pudding I had baked. It gives the reader a better feel for probability than talking about "sample spaces" and saying "p = 0.0222".

The correct thing to do would have been to use the standard language of probability theory in which case the facts would have been self-evident. I prefer an experimental approach, which is just as valid and much easier to understand. Then everyone gets to join the party.

That's what I did, and now you have agreed that I was correct. You're creating a false narrative here. I haven't changed my mind about anything yet. Please stop it.

The probabilities are determined by the size of the sample space, not the "average" of some property of the sampled data, which often has no meaning at all, as when you are talking about the chances of colored balls. The size of the sample space is just another, more technical way of talking about the possible outcomes of an experiment. Saying "1 in 45" is a useful way of quantifying the odds - and I've shown over and over again that it has validity. People don't deal with sample spaces. They go to the bookmakers to place a bet, or they play the national lottery. I deal with concepts and terminology people understand.

Come on, Richard, admit you made a mistake and lets move on. I make mistakes all the time. It's no big deal.

I get the impression that you are getting frustrated with this discussion. Then it's a false impression. I'm enjoying it. There is nothing I enjoy talking about more, in fact.

I hope that doesn't escalate. I very much enjoy discussing this with you, and I would think you would see the value of having someone like me to bounce your ideas off of. I am trying to find and articulate the truth. The fact that it is not easy should be a reminder to us both that we need to work harder to be clear. And how any hope of mutual understanding depends critically upon mutual respect.

Yes, and I would add: openness, honesty and humility.

All the very best to you my friend,

Richard

And to you.

Bill

thebluetriangle

04-12-2017, 04:50 AM

And how, exactly, do you discern between "spurious" and "authentic" codes? That's the question that must be answered.

Patterns. The discerning reader can see at a glance that the patterns in the Signature of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html)are improbable. These are like frost patterns, created by a natural intelligence that winks at us through the glass. Can we prove they didn't arrive there by chance? No. There will always be room for some doubt. But we recognise the pattern and are intrigued. We notice that all the names are encoded over six or twelve words, formed by splitting the 24 words into 6, 6, 6, 6 words. 6 is the number of man, and the work of Creation and the opening words of Genesis, which describes the six days of God's creation of the universe, are therefore the perfect place to find these patterns. The patterns proceed from the first word,not the second or the 15th or the 38th, and we see that there was very little room for cherry picking. The numbers were either there or they were not there. And they are there, in all their magnificence! Then we see that the twenty-four words they are found over mean 'atonement cover' and we remember that Christ is our atonement cover and the light goes on. We recognise that this is a code, a code based on meaning, a first glimpse into a cathedral of hidden glories buried within the text. I've done the spadework. All the reader has to do is wander around within it.

Believing a code is real is no different from believing that God is real or that people are basically good or that life has meaning. It takes a little leap of faith. The evidence has been provided but it will never amount to proof. If proof is what you want, stick to mathematics and logic. If meaning has no place in your scheme of things stay behind your computer. It's safer there.

It appears you missed the point of my reference to the Sharpshooter's Fallacy. No, I didn't miss it, but this is a point that does need addressing. I'll come back to it.

And that is why you should be skeptical of the "codes" you think you have found. You have a strong bias for the Bible. You couldn't be more wrong. I was dragged kicking and screaming to the Bible. I had no interest in Christianity. New Age material held far more interest for me. I had bad early experiences with Christians and regarded them with tolerant amusement when I was a young man. I have no strong bias for the Bible and in fact knew almost nothing about its contents when I began, not of my own volition but 'under orders', after three and a half years of spiritual experiences. My feelings about the Bible are now very different, but that was because working on the code put me in close daily contact with it.

You believe it is "His book" and so you think it has codes. No, I now believe it is His book because it has codes. And for other reasons too. There is a profundity to the Bible that isn't found anywhere else I've looked, even great works of literature.

Muslims think the Quran is Allah's book and many are absolutely convinced that he coded it with the number 19. You are not impressed by their codes because you don't have a bias for their book, and vice-versa.

Again you are being presumptive. I have looked a little at the 19 codes and in fact discussed them with a Muslim. I was quite impressed with them when I looked at them, although that was a long time ago, and I'd need to review them again.

I'll come back to this post later. Have to go.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-12-2017, 07:31 AM

This whole dispute about probability came from this claim on your page called The Code and the Law of Truly Large Numbers (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html):

Individual ordinal values vary widely, but the average word ordinal value in the first few verses of Genesis is 45. So as we calculate from first word we will have about the same 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how far into the text we go.

To summarise, if we are free to choose any string of words within the first few verses of Genesis, we are almost certain to hit any given word standard value within the first ten or twelve verses. But if we pin ourselves down to the string beginning at word 1, then we only have about a 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how long the string. This is the basis of my argument, but there are details I'll add as I go along.

Are your words true? If all the values of the word strings were multiples of 45, would we have any chance at all of hitting "any particular number"? Of course not. Your assertion is demonstrably false. If the values of the word strings were all multiples of 45, we would be CERTAIN that we could NOT hit any standard word value that is not a multiple of 45. We would NOT have a "1 in 45 chance" of hitting "any particular number." The only numbers we would have any chance of hitting at all would be multiples of 45. If, for whatever reason, the standard values had a bias towards or against being a multiple of 45, the probabilities would be different.

First of all, you were not responding to the words I wrote in that page. You were responding to a previous post of mine, part of which is reproduced below.

Bill,

When I said that this whole dispute about probability came from that quote from that page, I was referring to post #7 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=67845#post67845) in this thread where I quoted those very words and explained why I thought you were wrong. Here again is what I wrote near the beginning of this thread:

Instead of this page I would ask you to look at one I just completed, which is more suitable for this type of discussion and which includes a lot of the information in the earlier one. I wrote it after recently reading your article on The Law of Truly Large Numbers, and realising I had to address it. Here's the new page.

http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3106950.html

Hey there Bill,

I am happy to follow your lead on this, especially since you wrote that article as a response to the kinds of analysis I am doing.

We'll have to take it bit by bit since there are many assumptions and assertions that needed to be reviewed. I begin with your estimation of probability:

But what if we place restrictions upon our search for encoded numbers? We have already placed one restriction on ourselves by numerating only complete words, rather than strings of letters. But we can do more. For example, we can numerate only the word strings that proceed from the Bible's first word. So we have word 1 as the first string, words 1 and 2 as the second string, words 1, 2 and 3, as the third, etc. This reduces the number of word strings in Genesis 1.1 from 55 to 10 and the number of word strings in the first five verses of Genesis from 3486 to a mere 83, which is only 2.4% of 3486! Individual ordinal values vary widely, but the average word ordinal value in the first few verses of Genesis is 45. So as we calculate from first word we will have about the same 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how far into the text we go.

To summarise, if we are free to choose any string of words within the first few verses of Genesis, we are almost certain to hit any given word standard value within the first ten or twelve verses. But if we pin ourselves down to the string beginning at word 1, then we only have about a 1-in-45 chance of hitting any particular number, no matter how long the string. This is the basis of my argument, but there are details I'll add as I go along.

Your estimation of the probability does not make any sense. If you want to use probability to justify your claims, you are going to have to learn the basics of Probability Theory. To calculate probability, we must begin with the sample space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_space) of all possible outcomes and calculate the probability as the ratio of the possible number of "hits" to the total number of possibilities. For example, consider flipping a coin. The sample space is the set {heads, tails}. If the coin is fair, there is an equal chance of getting either result, so a single coin toss has a probability of 1/2 to get either result. If we repeat the experiment, the sample space doubles and we get {{H,H}, {H,T},{T,H}, {T,T}} for a total of four possibilities. The probability of any one of those events is therefore 1/4. If we don't care about the order, the possibility of getting both a heads and a tail is 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2.

Likewise, the sample space of a six sided die is the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} and a fair die will have a 1/6th chance of hitting any one of those faces. Roll two dice and the sample space doubles to give us 36 unique possibilities. Thus, the possibility of rolling snakes eyes is 1/36, whereas there are six ways {{1,6}, {6,1}, {2,5},{5,2},{3,4}, {4,3}} to roll a 7 so 7 is the "luckiest" number in the sense that it is the most likely outcome with a probability of 6/36 = 1/6.

Now to calculate the probability of the sums of words strings, we need to look at the sample space of all possibilities. <snip>

As you can see, my words are true. It would be best if you refrained from accusing me of lying merely when we have a disagreement. People with thinner skin than I would likely take offense and it could destroy any possibility of fruitful discourse.

It's never easy to admit we made a mistake, but it's good for the soul. Compounding a mistake with a false statement on the other hand just creates even more confusion.

I hope you follow your advice. I would appreciate an acknowledgement of the truth of my words.

Secondly, in that paragraph I was referring to an actual text, any text, where the word-string values are unknown. Given an average word value of 45, we can predict a 1 in 45 chance of hitting any number before we do a single calculation. Here's a random sample of text, ten words in your post, with their ordinal values calculated.

Are = 24
Are your = 103
Are your words = 182
Are your words true? = 246
Are your words true? If = 261
Are your words true? If all = 286
Are your words true? If all the = 319
Are your words true? If all the values = 399
Are your words true? If all the values of = 420
Are your words true? If all the values of the = 453

The average values of the words are 453/10 or about 45. But look how the values skip around. Five are odd, five are even. There is a slight bias towards multiples of three - six in fact - but against multiples of four, only one. There are lots of gaps of course, because only ten numbers were produced out of 453, but if this was repeated with hundreds of texts we would find every gap would eventually be filled. We just couldn't tell when it would be filled.So if we start with an unknown text with a putative average word value of 45 (although since it's unknown then strictly we can't even say that, but we could calculate the ov of the entire length of text without knowing the individual word values, then divide by the number of words), we can say that there is an approximately 1-in-45 chance that any number would be hit. This is self evident. The only reason I am spelling it out is because of the line you are taking here.

Merely repeating your assertion is not a refutation Bill. The average value tells you almost nothing about the chances. The chances come from the SIZE OF THE SAMPLE SPACE (all else being equal). This is the most elementary fact of probability. You cannot understand anything about probability if you do not understand this fact. I have explained this many times and I don't recall that you have ever responded to this point. So here it is again:

Flipping a coin has two possibilities, so the probability of any one side is 1/2

Rolling a die has six possibilities, so the probability of any one face is is 1/6

If you want to say that the probability is 1/45, you need to list the 45 possibilities. But you can't do this. So you change the subject, refuse to answer, and obfuscate with long tedious calculations that don't prove anything we didn't already know from the basic definition of probability.

So why do you keep getting the value of 45? Because you specify the SAMPLE SPACE to be roughly n x 45 and then take n trials, so you get 1/45. I explained this a long time ago and you said it was obvious.

It's also self-evident that the words forming any text have a range of values and that it would be virtually impossible to have a passage of text where every word had the same value. I was referring to actual written texts, which is what the NIV Bible is. The only reason I took that example was as an extreme case to show how robust my method was. But even then, if we started with an text where the values are unknown but our best guess at the average word value is 45, then begin calculating, the probability of hitting ay number is still 1 in 45, because we have no information beforehand about what the word values are going to be! They could all turn out to be 1 in 44, or 1 in 43, or 1 in 60. As I said, though, that could never happen. Even getting three words in a row with the same ordinal value would be a rare occurrence. Standard values average about 300 or so, so they usually 'leap' over seven or eight words before landing on the number line. That gives plenty of words with different ordinal values to smooth out the probabilities to some extent.

I understood perfectly what you were doing, and I explained why it was wrong. You have not responded to my explanation, AFAIK.

The way to solve this confusion is to go back to square 1 and state your thesis with clarity using the nomenclature of standard probability theory. If you can't do that, there's no way you will even understand my criticism.

When we are writing articles we have to make decision about what to include. If we think like a lawyer and try to include every possible scenario and address every possible objection, the article quickly becomes unreadable (there are few who would read a legal document for fun, unless they enjoy getting a headache). That also presupposes that the reader of such an article is reading it in the spirit in which it was intended to be read. If we all do that, then the conversation will flow. It's like a dance, which can only happen if both partners actually want to dance.
I am the one dancing according to the rules of standard probability theory. I invite you to join me.

The tedious testing was a complete waste of time that added nothing but confusion.

It was necessary to show that the method worked under a range of possible - and even impossible - conditions. Few understand probability theory, combinatorics, etc. Yes, it was hard work crunching all those numbers, but hopefully much less so for the reader, who only had to glance at the lists to taste the pudding I had baked. It gives the reader a better feel for probability than talking about "sample spaces" and saying "p = 0.0222".

It was not necessary and it added no understanding. People who don't understand the basic elements of probability theory, such as the concept of sample space, will not have the requisite knowledge to evaluate the accuracy of your long tedious calculations anyway. And if they knew the basics of probability theory they wouldn't need long "empirical tests" of things that are self evident by definition.

The correct thing to do would have been to use the standard language of probability theory in which case the facts would have been self-evident.

I prefer an experimental approach, which is just as valid and much easier to understand. Then everyone gets to join the party.

The "experiment" has no meaning if you don't understand the basic elements of probability theory, and if you do understand then they are unnecessary because they are self-evident.

The size of the sample space is just another, more technical way of talking about the possible outcomes of an experiment. Saying "1 in 45" is a useful way of quantifying the odds - and I've shown over and over again that it has validity. People don't deal with sample spaces. They go to the bookmakers to place a bet, or they play the national lottery. I deal with concepts and terminology people understand.

There is nothing "technical" about saying that flipping a coin has two possibilities, or that rolling a die has six. Saying "1 in 45" is a FALSE way of "quantifying the odds" if there are not 45 possibilities that can be listed. Understanding the concept of sample space is absolutely essential for any rational discussion of probability.

You have NEVER shown any validity to your claim that there is a 1 in 45 chance because of the average value of the words. That error comes from your implicit use of a sample space based on the average value. That is your error. This is obvious because the chances change with the number of word strings. If you have only 1, then you have zero probability of getting a number larger than 300. But your sample space was 1754, so it is most certainly NOT 1 in 45. Same goes for length 2,3, 4, etc. None of those word strings can actually touch most of the sample space.

Your 1 in 45 number comes entirely from the size of your sample space. This is the truth. I have proven it. You need to admit it so we can move on.

Come on, Richard, admit you made a mistake and lets move on. I make mistakes all the time. It's no big deal.

I delight in admitting errors when they can be stated with accuracy and shown to be true. You have not come close to that.

But you would do well to take your own advice, since I have both exposed and explained your errors with great precision, and you have yet been able to refute a word I write (as far as I can tell anyway).

Then it's a false impression. I'm enjoying it. There is nothing I enjoy talking about more, in fact.

Good news! I'm glad. But surely you understand that you give that you give that impression when you falsely accusing me of lying.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

04-12-2017, 04:53 PM

But their methods are very similar to yours. They comb through a massive data set looking for appearances of the number 19. They collect those "hits" and soon become completely convinced that their collection of cherry picked numbers is "beyond chance." This is mere unsupported assertion, and badly misrepresentative when I have gone out of my way to stress that the ark encodings, because they proceed from the Bible's first word, are NOT conjured out of a massive data set. They are a relatively tiny data set. I was combing a single hair.

I would encourage you to watch this video with an open mind. If you do, I would be surprised if you did not recognize the similarity between your work and their's. They base a lot of their claims on the fact that 19 is a centered hexagonal number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvWAO_y3TNM&t=3s[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the link. I'm very busy today, but I might get a chance to look at it tonight.

And my point was that God would not inspire an inferior version. I wonder why you think God wouldn't do that. My experience is that God inspires us in many ways some people might regard as inferior. An advert on the side of a bus, a car registration plate, a song, words from that 'inferior' version written on a scrap of paper used as a bookmark - whatever speaks to us.

As for the NIV, its immense popularity, outselling any other Bible, marks it out as a version that speaks to people. It's said to be a thought-for-thought, rather than word-for-word version, which is why it is so readable. I wonder too if that had anything to do with the inspiration of the code. Many people regard it as a good version.

"The scholarship that produced this version is excellent, both in text and translation decisions."
? Daniel B. Wallace, Dallas Theological Seminary

Here's a short article (http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40076) about the strengths and weaknesses of the NIV. The author believes it is a "very good version."

It might have been better to say that in your opinion the NIV is an inferior version.

The problem with "meaning" is that it is subjective, very easily manipulated, and can't be quantified.I've been saying all along that meaning cannot be quantified, although a rough approximation may be possible. As for meaning being subjective, nearly all Christians will agree on the meaning of the Signature of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html)appearing under 'atonment cover'. There is no real ambiguity there. This is standard Christian theology and so any subjective element there is minimal. This is the kind of meaning to which I am refering, not someone's personal beliefs but a message based on fundamental Christian beliefs.

You do realize how many people have deluded themselves with false patterns, right?

Yes, I do, but as I said, the existence of fool's gold has no effect on whether or not the real stuff exists.

When I look at your patterns, they strike me as essentially identical to all the others. You start with a massive data set and a random number generator, and go looking for hits. The method is fundamentally flawed. Repeating a claim over and over again will not make it true. You have to show why it is flawed - if you can. I have yet to see an actual probability generated from your 'critique'. As for the data set, I have told you time and time again that it is not massive, because the ark encodings are found squeezed up against the very beginning of scripture. Your accusation that I am using a massive data set here are without substance, because when you only test word strings that emanate from the Bible's first word, you are massively reducing that data set. In the NIV Bible's first five verses there are 3486 word strings, of length one word to 83 words. But if we limit our search to word strings that begin on the first word, as with the ark encodings, we reduce that number from 3486 to 83, just 2.4% of the original number. So please, cut out the cherry-picking-from-a-massive-data-set rubbish. It belongs in the dustbin.

There is no way to discern between chance and design. There is a way: meaning, patterns, geometric figures (meaningfully related to the rest of the code), religious significance, information. And yes, probability calculations may help too, but they will only get us so far.

You don't even have a way to know if "altar of incense" was intended or not. And if it were intended, then why would God leave out all the other things he could have included? Again, it appears that your only standard is "if it fits, it's coded" and if not, it is ignored. What? I learned that altar of incense belonged there. It was because I eventually realised that the altar in its religious significance belonged with the ark that I included it. It was the meaning they represented that suggested it. It also makes a little 14/24/34 pattern with two of the others, suggesting again that they do belong together. This also refutes any suggestion that I went looking for these numbers. I wasn't looking for altar of incense. But once I found it with the others, the meaning they together conveyed, the pattern they made and the extreme unlikelihood of all four of them shooting out from the Bible's first word, convinced me they did belong together. Saying that I included 'altar of incense' because it fit is like saying I put a piece of a jigsaw puzzle in place because it fit and ignored another because it didn't.

You ask why God would leave out other things. What other things? All there was in the Most Holy Place was the ark and (according to Hebrews 9) the altar.

I understand and appreciate the fact that your "method" gives you a subjective sense of the validity of whatever you happen to believe. But that is certainly not a method to actually discern between chance vs. design. I think the subjectivity is all yours, my friend. Look at the atonement cover encoding over the first 24 words and how it merges not only with the other ark encodings but with the six numerical signatures of Christ. Consider the meaning inherent in it, not from your 'subjective' beliefs but from Christian theology. That's not a subjective, personal, idiosyncratic interpretation. The connection between Christ and the atonement cover is crystal clear and part of Christian beliefs. You might not even agree with it, but if you know about it you will recognise the connection. The code thereby, becomes part of you.

For example, suppose "altar of incense" really was a random coincidence that God did not intend. How would you know? This question supposes that God could only create a partial code. You can suppose anything you like, but I'd rather we stuck to more realistic suppositions. Either the code is whole and complete or there is nothing. Codes come in patterns and clusters, which with time and discernment you learn to recognise: I recognise the Lion by his paw. Once you accept that the code is real, you see that there are no coincidences there.

What if there were some other pattern he did intend but you didn't like it and so decided it was not part of the code. How would you know? I had to learn to lay aside my preferences. It helped that I didn't have may to start with: no theological preferences, no denominational loyalties, not even much biblical knowledge. I looked for the code with fresh eyes and an untainted mind. I wouldn't have found the code and be proclaiming it now if I'd tried to dictate to God what should be there. I looked at the job more like field research and had few preferences about what should or should not be there.

Merely appealing to a mystical "sense" is not a method. Merely thinking up what ifs is not much of a critique. It was pattern recognition, not a 'mystical sense'. We are pattern recognising creatures and though we can often be fooled we learn discernment over time. Mystical experiences did and do help though.

You can make any number into a geometric figure. So what does that prove? Some geometric figures are more significant that others. I have found that Genesis 1.1-5 is saturated with figures that can be derived from what Vernon Jenkins calls 'G-triangles, short for 'generator triangles'. These are the 1 out of 3 triangles that can create Star of Davids, trefoils, snowflakes and antisnowflakes. See here (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437341.html) and here (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3281244.html). The Creation Snowflake 'grows' out of the beginning of Genesis, falls from the heavens and carpets Genesis 1.2. Several more figures carpet the first five verses. Yes, every number can create a geometric figure, but when you see the same figure and other figures derived from it, appearing time and again at the beginning of Genesis, encoded this time at the verse level, you recognise another pattern of encodings and see this time that you have discovered the Lion's den.

The Muslims love hexagrams too because 19 is a centered hexagonal number. And the shape appears in their religious art, so Allah is true and he designed the Quran? If not, why not? I don't know enough about these patterns to comment with any authority and I have enough on my plate as it is. I have no problem in principle with the Quran having codes, though. Muslims are His children too.

The world is filled to overflowing with evidence of believers finding "patterns" in their religious texts. I don't understand why you would challenge that point. Have I challenged it? Could you direct me to it?

Comparing contrary patterns people created from the Bible helped free me from my own delusions about gematria and the Bible Wheel. I presented a number of examples in my article called The Bible Wheel: Patternicity on Steroids (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/12/patternicity/) and Battle of the Bible Wheels: Catholic vs. Protestant (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/index.php/2014/10/05/battle-of-the-bible-wheels-catholic-vs-protestant/).

One question intrigues me. Why would the existence of a Catholic Biblewheel threaten the existence of a Protestant one. Couldn't there be two? Does it have to be exclusive? Maybe there's an Orthodox one as well.

thebluetriangle

04-13-2017, 03:59 AM

Bill,

When I said that this whole dispute about probability came from that quote from that page, I was referring to post #7 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=67845#post67845) in this thread where I quoted those very words and explained why I thought you were wrong. Here again is what I wrote near the beginning of this thread:
As you can see, my words are true. It would be best if you refrained from accusing me of lying merely when we have a disagreement. People with thinner skin than I would likely take offense and it could destroy any possibility of fruitful discourse.
I hope you follow your advice. I would appreciate an acknowledgement of the truth of my words.

Richard,

When two views are as diametrically opposed as ours are, and when the stakes are are high as they are, trust can easily be shaken and the dialogue can quickly turn sour. I could dispute your words, and I too could take exception to some of your previous remarks, accusations and presumptions (such as in your last-post-but-one). But it would help neither of us. So if we both agree to keep the conversation respectful and to try to be more accurate - and I think you already said as much - then we can hopefully negotiate our way through this without rancour. I believe we both have a lot to gain from a thorough appraisal of my findings.

The whole business of experimentally testing my back-of-an-envelope method was to refute your repeated assertions that the true probability of hitting word strings would be nothing like the 1-in-45 I had claimed, by experimentally showing that the method gave exactly that result under various possible and impossible conditions. It was laborious, but until a more formal method has been developed, I have no option but to refute your theoretical objections by experimental results (often a sobering experience for theorists).

Perhaps it would help if I gave a more precise definition of the ark encodings and the text they are within, so we might arrive at a more accurate method of determining the probabilities here. I started it, in fact,but other duties call me now, so I'll finish it later.

If you want to say that the probability is 1/45, you need to list the 45 possibilities. But you can't do this. So you change the subject, refuse to answer, and obfuscate with long tedious calculations that don't prove anything we didn't already know from the basic definition of probability.

Actually, I can do this. For the first 37 words of Genesis 1, the probability of a hit by a flying standard value (and a bell-curve-like distribution of such values) is 37/1754, which is 1 in 47.4, or, in the formal langauge of probability, p = 0.0211 (to three significant figures). The numerator of 37 is the individual ordinal values of the 37 word strings (and are already listed in previous posts). The denominator of 1754 is the ordinal value of the first 37 words and is the 'sample space' here (as well as the longest word string). It's really two trials, as I said before. The first 'trial' is effected by the writing of the text. This gives the number of word strings and hence the 37/1754 probability. Tthe archer firing his standard valued arrows is the second trial. If the distribution of numbers where the arrow falls is a broad bell curve, then if 37/1754 numbers are highlighted then 37 out of 1754 arrows will hit a word string. I don't know how to state it formally yet though.

Do you agree with all this? If we can reach agreement here then we can go forward.

The way to solve this confusion is to go back to square 1 and state your thesis with clarity using the nomenclature of standard probability theory. If you can't do that, there's no way you will even understand my criticism.

I'll wait on your answer to the above.

It was not necessary and it added no understanding. People who don't understand the basic elements of probability theory, such as the concept of sample space, will not have the requisite knowledge to evaluate the accuracy of your long tedious calculations anyway. And if they knew the basics of probability theory they wouldn't need long "empirical tests" of things that are self evident by definition.

I disagree with you here. Most people find theoretical statements and formal mathematical langauge baffling and headache inducing, but do understand simple lists, graphs and basic arithmetic equations. My very simple BOAE estimation of the probabilities, as simple as can be constructed, the lego house of mathematical edifices, was my attempt to reach as large an audience as possible.

The "experiment" has no meaning if you don't understand the basic elements of probability theory, and if you do understand then they are unnecessary because they are self-evident. I understand some of the basic elements of probability and statistics, but I also understand that most people don't. The New Bible Code is for everyone to see and so I go to great lengths to make it as easy to understand as possible.

You have NEVER shown any validity to your claim that there is a 1 in 45 chance because of the average value of the words. That error comes from your implicit use of a sample space based on the average value. That is your error. This is obvious because the chances change with the number of word strings. If you have only 1, then you have zero probability of getting a number larger than 300. But your sample space was 1754, so it is most certainly NOT 1 in 45. Same goes for length 2,3, 4, etc. None of those word strings can actually touch most of the sample space.

It's not 1 in 45 (or 37/1754 to be exact)? You keep repeating that but you don't give me the value you think it should be. You have all the variables in front of you. Now sir, your estimate of probability please. Or if you want it more formally:

What is your estimate of the probability of the standard value of a word or phrase landing on a word string starting at word 1, Genesis 1?

thebluetriangle

04-14-2017, 03:14 AM

Estimating the probability of standard values landing by chance on word strings has to be based on the simple fact that once you turn a portion of text into a number, say N, then count the number of words in that passage, say n, you know that the proportion of numbers representing word strings to the total number of possibilities is given by n/N. It follows that the probability, p, of a stated number being randomly drawn from the word string is also n/N. Taking the inverse, N/n, gives the probability as odds. So if N is 1754 and n is 37, as with the ark encodings, then n/N is 0.0211 and N/n is 47.4, giving 1 in 47.4. So each number randomly taken from a pool of 1754 numbers has a 1/47.4 chance of coinciding with a word string.

Is that a fair way of estimating the probablity? Standard values are not uniformly distributed along the number line. Words when converted into their sv yield numbers that when plotted form a positively-skewed distribution curve, similar to a bell curve, with a modal value (the peak of the curve) of maybe 250 or 300 and a mean of about 350. Short phrases (which is what the four ark encodings are) will also therefore produce something close to a bell curve. The phrases that constitute the four ark encodings have values 610, 1169, 1623 and 1754, so the phrase with the largest standard value, 'ark of the testimony' at 1754, defines the field of possibilities here. The average number of words in the four phrases (altar of incense, atonement cover, cherubim of the glory, ark of the testimony) is 3.25, and the average word standard value here is 397, not far from my estimate of 350 for the average word standard value in the NIV Bible. So 397 x 3.25 gives the approximate mean phrase standard value, which is 1290. For positively-skewed distribution curves the modal value is always lower than the mean, so I think we can assume 1000 for the mode. So, also assuming a bell curve-like distribution of values for short phrases, we should expect to see targets around 1000 hit more often than any other. In other words there will be a slight tendency for the three lower numbers to have landed closer to 1000 than anywhere else, a slight bunching.

I can't quantify any of this with any real accuracy without churning out a large number of English phrases, working out their standard values then plotting them, but the range of standard values for words is huge. 'Everything', found in Genesis 1, has an sv of 1474; 'a' has an sv of 1. So short phrases may have an average sv of about 1200 but are going to have a huge spread and therefore a broad distribution curve of standard values. We can therefore safely say that there will be no major bunching around the mode of 1000 and that the probability of a number from 1 to 1754 being the standard value of a phrase is broadly the same across the range, with the exception of the first few numbers, say 1 to 100. So the first two or three words are less likely to be the standard value of a phrase than the rest of the first 37 words, but that isn't going to make much difference to the probabilities either. The actual values of the other three 'ark' phrases, 610, 1169 and 1623, seem to bear this out. They are spread across the range, but a little removed from the lower end. I would guess the standard deviation of such a broad curve might be about 500-ish, meaning that 67% of the standard values of three word phrases will be between 600 and 1600, very approximately. This covers 57% of the range 1 to 1754, so the bunching effect is minimal, 67% of the phrases being found within 57% of the numbers (according to this very rough estimate).

Word strings themselves are by their nature fairly evenly spread along the text. Every time you add a word you will add about 47 to the value of the next word string, although this will vary from 1 to about 130. But even 130 is small compared to the average standard value of 1200 for a phrase. The length grows in a variable way each time, varying like tree rings in good and bad growing years, but the distribution along the number line will be fairly even when we consider a piece of text as long as 37 words. This is closer to an even distribution than a random distribution, but it will make no difference to the chances of the standard value of a short phrase landing on a word string, because as I said these are huge by comparison even with the largest possible gap between two ordinal values, and can land anywhere.

Because the ends of word strings sit fairly evenly along the number line, the odds against hitting one are in general going to be pretty unaffected by standard deviation. If 67% of the standard values were found within 20% of the numbers, in other words, between 825 and 1175, then despite the fact that more numbers from our archer's arrows are landing in that patch, there are very likely to be 37/5 or about 7 word strings (7.4 to be precise) ending there, and a 7.4/350 or 1 in 47.3 chance of hitting a word string. So again the number of hits to be expected with that degree of bunching in standard values will likely be unaffected. The only difference is that if a large number of different texts were tested, ther would be more variation. This is because although the number of word strings is fairly evenly spread across the number line, there are local variations. The larger the number of word strings, the less variation in probability, the smaller the number of word strings the larger the variation in probability. But over a large number of texts, the probability will always home in on 1 in 47.4, all else being equal.

The bottom line here is that there is no need to take into account any bunching in the spread of standard values or in the spread of ordinal values in estimating the probability of a standard value hitting a word string in a piece of biblical text. The probabilities are always going to be the same, unless we are talking about a piece of text so small, one or two words, that almost no phrase has a small enough value to be encoded there - in which case there wouldn't be an encoding!

Therefore rather than tackling abtruse calculations that would make no appreciable difference to the final result, I felt it was much more efficient, and easier to follow, if I used the very simple method of working out probability I showed in the first paragraph.

For a text of n words having ordinal value N, p = n/N.

Each of the four ark phrases has a standard value that is independent of the others, so each trial is independent. So we can multiply these independent probabilities to give an overall probability of the four ark numbers coinciding with word strings, by this formula:

The probability, P, of four standard values out of four tested, coinciding with word strings is P = n/N x n/N x n/N x n/N.

For the four ark encodings this gives P = 0.0000002, or 1 in 5 million.

It's equivalent to the following ball-in-a-bag problem. If a bag containing 1754 balls, 37 of which are white, is randomly sampled (with replacement of the ball each time), what is the probability of drawing out four white balls in four trials?

This isn't the final probability of the ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html)being chance (or if you like of the null hypothesis (chance) being the case). Far from it. But it's a starting point for future discussion. I hope we can now have that discussion.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-14-2017, 09:54 AM

thebluetriangle

04-14-2017, 04:57 PM

Richard,

We were discussing the ark encodings, in relation to which I challenged you to estimate a probability of chance occurrence. I'm happy to discuss the Garden encodings, but I would still like a response to my challenge. Also, it might be better to limit the discussion to one or two topics at a time.

Take for example your "Garden" page that you mentioned in your first post in this thread. Here is what you wrote:

On that page, you show how you can find alignments in the positions of word strings that are derived from two very different sources, the standard value of Hebrew words and their corresponding English equivalent as translated in the NIV. Here is an example from that page:

1398

Your thesis is that these alignments imply design. I think that is an error. Do you realize the size of the data set you are selecting from? There are 83 words in Genesis 1:1-1:5, which means there are 83x84/2 = 3,486 word strings. The values range from 7 to 3764. There are lots of repeats, and also lots of gaps, but you get a pretty good sample of all the numbers between those two values. Here is a graph of the data set you are selecting from to find overlapping positions in the your table:

Yes, I'm well aware of the size of the data set. I quote these very numbers on my website and in this thread. And yes, there are lots of gaps. The gematria of the entire passage, 3764, and the number of word strings, 3486,are almost the same size. So, if all the numbers present were there only once, virtually all of the numbers up to 3486 would be there. But the repetitions of many numbers 'squeeze out' some of the others. I haven't done an analysis, as it's a huge job doing it by hand, but from what I've done so far, maybe a two-thirds of the numbers in the range 1 to 3764 are present out of a theoretical 93%. This is a significant fact, so I'll try to get a more accurate figure.

1400

I wrote an app to find and display any and all "hits" so I can quickly check your results.

Thanks! I really appreciate the efforts you are going to here. This may turn out to be very useful.

I did not find any errors, but I did note that you omitted a lot of the relevant data. For example, here are all the hits for the data you displayed in your "trees and plants" table:

1403

You displayed only four hits when in fact there are a total of nine. You carefully selected (cherry picked) a subset of the data that created a false impression that the alignments were "unlikely" and hence a "sign of design." Look at the word strings that sum to 1920. They span almost the entire set, which means they "align" with everything. In general, this kind of overlapping splatter is exactly what we would expect from random chance since we are compressing 3486 values into a grid only 83 cells wide. There is no sign of any design.

I'm well aware of every hit for every number. I found them all myself. I eventually realised that what constituted a hit was one pair of numbers in close proximity. In most of the tables there were other hits for one or more numbers, but for the sake of clarity I showed only the best match between the Hebrew and English phrases. If you want to show that this is chance you have to provide a mundane explanation for the following remarkable features of the 'double witness' encodings.

1. The fact that all of God's creative acts on each of the six days of Creation appear to be encoded in the Garden.

I took the first instance of each mention, taking the actual wording of the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic text), the NIV equivalent and numerating them both. Then I looked for them in the Garden. They were always there. If every number up to 3764 were actually present this would not be a surprise. But a sizeable percentage were missing.

If only two-thirds of the numbers are actually present, then every time we find a number it had only a probability of 2/3 of being present. Finding ten random numbers in the Garden has a probability of (2/3) to the power of 10, giving p = 0.0173, or 1 in 58. There were more than ten numbers, 19 in fact, although there were some that might have been included and either weren't or I didn't include them, so it needs clarifying before a calculation is attempted.

2.The Hebrew and English phrases overlap or touch evey time (I found one in the other age that didn't quite overlap). Finding them in the garden is one thing, but the random pairs of numbers I tried either weren't there or didn't overlap. I show five pairs on the page (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html), the first five I tried.

I know that there were usually other word strings present, as you show in your own cherry-picked example, but not always. In some cases the two overlapping numbers representing the Hebrew and English phrases were the only instances in the entire garden. The table after the one you picked shows light and aur overlapping in the centre of the garden, which is the only instance.

I should mention that I explain in note 5 on the Garden (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html) page that there are other word strings present. Here it is:

5. The encodings vary widely in other respects. In some cases the two numbers are found only once each within the Garden, in others one or both numbers are found two or more times. Some word blocks are only a few words in length and required precision encoding to overlap, others cover a good portion of the garden. The same number can also represent two of more concepts which happen to have the same standard value, and therefore 'spare' word strings will often turn out to be part of other encryptions. Sometimes word pairs are bunched with other word pairings representing related concepts (for instance the different types of land animal).

I'll answer the rest tomorrow.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-14-2017, 08:16 PM

Richard,

We were discussing the ark encodings, in relation to which I challenged you to estimate a probability of chance occurrence. I'm happy to discuss the Garden encodings, but I would still like a response to my challenge. Also, it might be better to limit the discussion to one or two topics at a time.

Hey there Bill,

It doesn't matter what the exact probabilities are. They will be "small" no matter what. I don't know if they will be smaller or larger than your "1 in 45" estimate, but that doesn't matter. I've already explained why the so-called "probabilities" are not meaningful and you have not responded. The "probabilities" don't matter because they don't give you any information about whether or not the tiny set of "hits" that you have chosen to focus upon in your "ark" example were designed. This should be obvious because the multiplied millions of meaningless random coincidences also have small probabilities, so small probability does not indicate design.

I've explained this a dozen times and as far as I know, you have never responded to this point. No mathematician would accept your claims about the "small probabilities" being evidence of design because they are not. Ignorant people may be "impressed" with talk of probabilities, but you will never convince anyone who understands the topic.

To make this perfectly clear: a post hoc "probability" analysis of a tiny sample, such as your four "hits" related to the ark, is completely meaningless. That's not how probability works. There is no way to test if it happened by chance or not because you it's just one tiny sample. Probability tells about what to expect when a random sample is tested. This is why I am interested in analyzing your "Garden" page. You gave enough lots of examples and so it makes sense to apply probability. The fact that 3486 numbers are squished into 83 columns means that we would expect many overlaps to happen by chance.

Yes, I'm well aware of the size of the data set. I quote these very numbers on my website and in this thread. And yes, there are lots of gaps. The gematria of the entire passage, 3764, and the number of word strings, 3486,are almost the same size. So, if all the numbers present were there only once, virtually all of the numbers up to 3486 would be there. But the repetitions of many numbers 'squeeze out' some of the others. I haven't done an analysis, as it's a huge job doing it by hand, but from what I've done so far, maybe a two-thirds of the numbers in the range 1 to 3764 are present out of a theoretical 93%. This is a significant fact, so I'll try to get a more accurate figure.

There are 1944 unique values, just under half of the total range. This took about about a minute to calculate using the code I've written. Your really should learn javascript if you want to analyze text.

Thanks! I really appreciate the efforts you are going to here. This may turn out to be very useful.

You are most welcome. Obviously, I really enjoy doing this kind of analysis. If you want the list, I could add a feature "Show All" to the app I wrote.

I'm well aware of every hit for every number. I found them all myself. I eventually realised that what constituted a hit was one pair of numbers in close proximity. In most of the tables there were other hits for one or more numbers, but for the sake of clarity I showed only the best match between the Hebrew and English phrases. If you want to show that this is chance you have to provide a mundane explanation for the following remarkable features of the 'double witness' encodings.

1. The fact that all of God's creative acts on each of the six days of Creation appear to be encoded in the Garden.

I took the first instance of each mention, taking the actual wording of the Hebrew Bible (Masoretic text), the NIV equivalent and numerating them both. Then I looked for them in the Garden. They were always there. If every number up to 3764 were actually present this would not be a surprise. But a sizeable percentage were missing.

If only two-thirds of the numbers are actually present, then every time we find a number it had only a probability of 2/3 of being present. Finding ten random numbers in the Garden has a probability of (2/3) to the power of 10, giving p = 0.0173, or 1 in 58. There were more than ten numbers, 19 in fact, although there were some that might have been included and either weren't or I didn't include them, so it needs clarifying before a calculation is attempted.

I don't understand your point. The values of words central to the Garden story, such as "man" and "woman", don't fit the pattern at all. There are two ways you could try to find a pattern with "man". You could look for the value of "adam" (man) = 45 in Hebrew to align with the corresponding value of "Adam" (46) in English but that doesn't work because the number 46 doesn't appear in any of the word strings. The other way would be to look for "man" in English (91) and see if it aligns with "Adam" (45) in Hebrew, but even though both those numbers are found, there is no alignment:

1404

Likewise, we could look for an alignment between the Hebrew woman (ishshah) = 306 with the English "woman" (650) but the number 650 does not appear. (This, by the way, is why you had to be inconsistent and use "a woman" = 651 to force a hit.) The other option would be to use "Eve" (19) in Hebrew and its value in English (410). This gives some hits, but they are obviously just random chance since there is a big splatter caused by 19 being the value of the very common word "and". Here is the result:

1405

There is no sign of any design. Those are just all the occurrences of "and" in the first five verses.

So both "man" and "woman" fail to show any sign of design. These are central elements of the Garden Story.

2.The Hebrew and English phrases overlap or touch evey time (I found one in the other age that didn't quite overlap). Finding them in the garden is one thing, but the random pairs of numbers I tried either weren't there or didn't overlap. I show five pairs on the page (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html), the first five I tried.

I don't understand your comment. As shown above, there is no alignment with "man" or "adam" at all.

I know that there were usually other word strings present, as you show in your own cherry-picked example, but not always. In some cases the two overlapping numbers representing the Hebrew and English phrases were the only instances in the entire garden. The table after the one you picked shows light and aur overlapping in the centre of the garden, which is the only instance.

My example was NOT cherry picked. I presented ALL THE DATA relevant to the case I was reviewing. YOU are the one who cherry picked when you OMITTED the data to create the illusion of design.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-14-2017, 08:47 PM

Here's another example of a complete miss. The "Tree of Life" is central to the Garden story. In Hebrew, its value is 233. In English, it is 416. There is no alignment:

1406

Likewise, the Hebrew value of "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" (932) does not even appear in the matrix. So it is not encoded. If we try just "Tree of Knowledge" we get an alignment, but the spread is so large there's no reason to think it was by design. It's exactly what we would expect from random chance:

1407

What about the Serpent? That certainly is a central character in the story. But again, there is no alignment that looks any different than what we'd expect from random chance:

1408

I tried "knowing good and evil" but it does not appear in the grid. So I tried "like God" and got a total miss:

1409

So let's go to the most important character of all, the LORD GOD (Hb: 112, Eng 255) ... but that FAILS because 255 is not in the grid.

And on and on it goes. I see NOTHING that indicates any "design" at all.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-14-2017, 09:23 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

04-14-2017, 09:36 PM

Hey there Bill,

Here is another image from your article on the Garden in which you chose to omit the lion's share of the data:

1412

Here is the data for "Man in our Image" and "Adam Tzelem" (you showed only 2 out of 8 hits .... which means you ignored 75% of the data):

1413

Look at that spread! Again, there are more misses than hits. Please explain why anyone should think that there is any sign of any "design."

thebluetriangle

04-15-2017, 04:24 AM

Hey there Bill,

It doesn't matter what the exact probabilities are. They will be "small" no matter what. I don't know if they will be smaller or larger than your "1 in 45" estimate, but that doesn't matter. I've already explained why the so-called "probabilities" are not meaningful and you have not responded. The "probabilities" don't matter because they don't give you any information about whether or not the tiny set of "hits" that you have chosen to focus upon in your "ark" example were designed. This should be obvious because the multiplied millions of meaningless random coincidences also have small probabilities, so small probability does not indicate design.

The probabilities do matter, because the ark encodings are found at the very apex of scripture, where there is no room for cherry picking. Many of the codes are like that, in fact, beginning at the start or the end or the middle verse of the Bible. The first and last verses of the NIV have ordinal values of 430 and 458, but sum to 888 (Ihsous), putting a kind of seal on the NIV (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2861117.html). If there was no meaning to 888 then I would agree with you that it was just a nice repunit. But the fact that 888 is the name 'Jesus' in Greek brings meaning into it, and it is meaning that opens the door to the code. The small probabilities are associated with meaningful numbers. That is what you apparently fail to appreciate. These are patterns of meaning and to ignore them is to ignore a larger reality. They may not be easily to quantify, if at all, but they are real nevertheless.

The ark encodings are essentially identical to the ball-in-a-bag problem I stated yesterday. Given a bag with 1754 balls, 37 of which are white, what are the odds against drawing out four white balls (with replacement) in four trials. The odds were 1 in 5 million. If we accept that 'ark of the testimony' is chance, a reasonable policy since the chances of finding something interesting in the first word string is essentally unity, then we still have odds of 100,000 to 1 against 'atonement cover', 'cherubim of the glory' and 'altar of incense' starting at the first word in the Bible. They also make a 14/24/34 pattern, atonement cover links to the six signatures of Christ, our atonement cover, and there is much else besides to explain away by chance. These are all linked to each other by meaning, and meaningful links are statistically improbable, so the more that are present the less explainable by chance they are. There comes a point when ignoring the obvious meaning they confer is sticking ones head in the sand, and design is the only reasonable explanation.

When the first 18 and last 14 words of the Old Testament, and the first 14 and last 18 words of the New Testament, apparently encode

JESUS/SECOND COMING, THE SECOND COMING, THE SECOND COMING, THE LORD/SECOND COMING

Do we put it down to chance, ignoring the 18/14/14/18 symmetry and the eye-popping significance of the words? Is there a single other book out there that we could find those numbers in? The numbers are either there or they are not there. There is practically zero room here for cherry picking, because they proceed from the first and last words of each testament, the 'alpha' and 'omega' of both scriptures, with the meaning that conveys. The ostrich has one option left, to say that plenty of other phrases could be substituted. The man suspects that there would be few if any phrases summing to 906, 604, 604 and 788 that could be substituted and convey the same meaning, and begins to face up to an awesome possibility. It's probably not provable either way, but it is a test of our belief in a higher power and a meaningful existence.

No mathematician would accept your claims about the "small probabilities" being evidence of design because they are not. Ignorant people may be "impressed" with talk of probabilities, but you will never convince anyone who understands the topic.

'Ignorant' people understand meaning, something that is often lost on left-brain mathematical types.

"I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will." (Jesus, Luke 10:21)

To make this perfectly clear: a post hoc "probability" analysis of a tiny sample, such as your four "hits" related to the ark, is completely meaningless. That's not how probability works. There is no way to test if it happened by chance or not because you it's just one tiny sample. First you accuse me of cherry picking from a huge sample of text, now when I show you a code in a small sample of text you say it's too 'tiny' to be statistically significant. But it's not just one tiny sample. I've shown you lots of 'tiny samples' from the beginning and the end of the NIV Bible, all meaningfully related to each other. Taking them all into account would give a result that is statistically significant. I haven't shown you the half of it either.

Probability tells about what to expect when a random sample is tested. This is why I am interested in analyzing your "Garden" page. You gave enough lots of examples and so it makes sense to apply probability. The fact that 3486 numbers are squished into 83 columns means that we would expect many overlaps to happen by chance. Agreed, but there is a way to distinguish between chance and design here too. . .

There are 1944 unique values, just under half of the total range. This took about about a minute to calculate using the code I've written. Your really should learn javascript if you want to analyze text.

Thanks for the calculation! However, your arithmetic is a little off. The maximum possible unique numbers in the Garden is 3486. 1944 is 56% of that figure and 52% of the range 1 to 3764. I had calculated about 60% and said "two thirds" to put in a safety factor, because 60% is more advantageous to my case than 67%. 52% is even more advantageous though, and I thank you again for the app. I've managed so far without anything like that, and a little more work would have gotten me closer to 52%, but I can see the time-saving advantage in using your app here.

You are most welcome. Obviously, I really enjoy doing this kind of analysis. If you want the list, I could add a feature "Show All" to the app I wrote. Yes, please do!

I don't understand your point. The values of words central to the Garden story, such as "man" and "woman", don't fit the pattern at all. There are two ways you could try to find a pattern with "man". You could look for the value of "adam" (man) = 45 in Hebrew to align with the corresponding value of "Adam" (46) in English but that doesn't work because the number 46 doesn't appear in any of the word strings. The other way would be to look for "man" in English (91) and see if it aligns with "Adam" (45) in Hebrew, but even though both those numbers are found, there is no alignment:

1404

Likewise, we could look for an alignment between the Hebrew woman (ishshah) = 306 with the English "woman" (650) but the number 650 does not appear. (This, by the way, is why you had to be inconsistent and use "a woman" = 651 to force a hit.) The other option would be to use "Eve" (19) in Hebrew and its value in English (410). This gives some hits, but they are obviously just random chance since there is a big splatter caused by 19 being the value of the very common word "and". Here is the result:

1405

There is no sign of any design. Those are just all the occurrences of "and" in the first five verses.

So both "man" and "woman" fail to show any sign of design. These are central elements of the Garden Story.

I don't understand your comment. As shown above, there is no alignment with "man" or "adam" at all.

My example was NOT cherry picked. I presented ALL THE DATA relevant to the case I was reviewing. YOU are the one who cherry picked when you OMITTED the data to create the illusion of design.

Your example was mostly irrelevant though. I never said that 'Adam' or 'man' were encoded. Neither did I say that 'Eve' or 'woman' were encoded. I said that the phrase Adam Tselem and its English equivalent 'man in our image' were encoded. Why them? Because, as it is all the way through these encodings, this the first time man is mentioned in the Bible! It's in Genesis 1.26. "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image . . . " You also neglect to say that encodings of 'Jesus Christ' and Yehoshua HaMashiach sit right on top of this encoding! This has profound theological significance, of course, an so I have to bring in that wrd again: meaning. As for your accusation that I added an 'a' to turn 'woman' into 'a woman' and thereby create a false 'hit', I didn't do anything. The Hebrew word is L'ishshah, which is all one word, and the NIV translation is 'a woman'. I always took the exact NIV translation of the Hebrew word, which was often more than one English word. So the encoding stands!

One final thing, as I said, the reason I left out other hits in most of the tables is because they cluttered the tables up. All that is required for an encoding is for one Hebrew word string and one English word string to be in close proximity to each other, and it was these that I showed. Sometimes this was very impressive, as they were the only two word strings in the garden and often very short strings at that. Other times it was easy to get a hit or even more than one hit (in which case I chose the best one) and so much less impressive.

So how can we distinguish between an encoding and a random overlap? Easy. All you have to do is check against pairs of random numbers. I started doing this and showed the result in The Garden (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html), under A Control Experiment. I got five pairs of random numbers from my calculator (which calculates random numbers between 1 and 1000, which isn't too far away from the actual standard values in the double witness experiments) and tried to find them in the garden. Here it is:

1414

As you can see, of the five pairs

a) only one pair overlapped in the Garden,
b) the other complete pair showed a wide separation, ie no overlap,
c) only two pairs were complete, the others had either one or both numbers missing
d) only 60% of the numbers were found, quite close to the 52% we would expect.

This experiment was based on far too few test trials though, to be statistically significant. I wanted to do at least twenty but it was too laborious. But now that we have your app we could do far more. The control experiement I performed should, I propose, berepeated with a large number of random numbers. My hypothesis to be tested is that randomly chosen number pairs (range to be specified) would be far less likely to produce at least one overlap in the Garden than the double witness Hebrew/English pairs actually did. I don't know what 'far less' means, but I think it would be reasonable to calculate the percentage of hits we find with random numbers and and take that as the baseline. The degree of overlap might also be quantifiable. Do you agree to perform the test with me? If you dont like the test I set up what would you change?

thebluetriangle

04-15-2017, 07:45 AM

What about the Serpent? That certainly is a central character in the story. But again, there is no alignment that looks any different than what we'd expect from random chance:

1408

And on and on it goes. I see NOTHING that indicates any "design" at all.

I agree with you that the Serpent is a central character in the early Genesis narrative. But the reason you didn't find it is because you weren't looking for the serpent. You were looking for any old snake. Genesis always refers to 'the serpent', with the definite article. Add this and we have a standard value of 363. The English words sum to 733.

Here's a table showing all of the instances of 363 and 733 in the Garden.

1415

As you can see the Serpent is double witnessed by two unique and overlapping encodings of 363 and 733 in the very centre of the Garden.

That's the trouble with serpents: they bite when you least expect them to!

Richard Amiel McGough

04-15-2017, 09:53 AM

Hey there Bill,

It doesn't matter what the exact probabilities are. They will be "small" no matter what. I don't know if they will be smaller or larger than your "1 in 45" estimate, but that doesn't matter. I've already explained why the so-called "probabilities" are not meaningful and you have not responded. The "probabilities" don't matter because they don't give you any information about whether or not the tiny set of "hits" that you have chosen to focus upon in your "ark" example were designed. This should be obvious because the multiplied millions of meaningless random coincidences also have small probabilities, so small probability does not indicate design.

The probabilities do matter, because the ark encodings are found at the very apex of scripture, where there is no room for cherry picking.

Bill,

You need to explain how low probabilities can distinguish between chance vs. design if almost anything found would have equally low probability.

I been asking for an answer to this question throughout this thread. The first time I asked was in post #7 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=67845#post67845). As far as I know, you have never answered.

Many of the codes are like that, in fact, beginning at the start or the end or the middle verse of the Bible. The first and last verses of the NIV have ordinal values of 430 and 458, but sum to 888 (Ihsous), putting a kind of seal on the NIV (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2861117.html). If there was no meaning to 888 then I would agree with you that it was just a nice repunit. But the fact that 888 is the name 'Jesus' in Greek brings meaning into it, and it is meaning that opens the door to the code. The small probabilities are associated with meaningful numbers. That is what you apparently fail to appreciate. These are patterns of meaning and to ignore them is to ignore a larger reality. They may not be easily to quantify, if at all, but they are real nevertheless.

And there it is - it has NOTHING to do with probability. Your only criterion is if you think the "hit" is "meaningful". You then say "OH! It's got small probability" as if that confirmed your belief. This is the definition of confirmation bias. It is the twin sister of selection bias (cherry picking) which are the two fundamental errors that define numerology. You are trolling through an massive ocean of random numbers looking for hits. You have no way to discern between CHANCE vs DESIGN.

The ark encodings are essentially identical to the ball-in-a-bag problem I stated yesterday. Given a bag with 1754 balls, 37 of which are white, what are the odds against drawing out four white balls (with replacement) in four trials. The odds were 1 in 5 million. If we accept that 'ark of the testimony' is chance, a reasonable policy since the chances of finding something interesting in the first word string is essentally unity, then we still have odds of 100,000 to 1 against 'atonement cover', 'cherubim of the glory' and 'altar of incense' starting at the first word in the Bible.

There's an equally low probability for pretty much anything you might find, so how do the probabilities help discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN?

They also make a 14/24/34 pattern, atonement cover links to the six signatures of Christ, our atonement cover, and there is much else besides to explain away by chance. These are all linked to each other by meaning, and meaningful links are statistically improbable, so the more that are present the less explainable by chance they are. There comes a point when ignoring the obvious meaning they confer is sticking ones head in the sand, and design is the only reasonable explanation.

You have never shown any consistent pattern that looks designed. You cherry pick "hits" in your Garden page and explain away (rationalize) misses and add/ignore articles to force the data to fit the pattern you are looking for (as with "a woman" and "the serpent"). Your work could serve as a case study exemplifying all the errors characteristic of delusional numerology. Please take no offence - I'm just summing up what the evidence shows. Everything I say is supported by evidence I have presented in this thread. If I have erred on any point, I trust you will correct me.

When the first 18 and last 14 words of the Old Testament, and the first 14 and last 18 words of the New Testament, apparently encode

JESUS/SECOND COMING, THE SECOND COMING, THE SECOND COMING, THE LORD/SECOND COMING

What are you talking about? Neither "second coming" or "the second coming" appear in the NIV.

If you are free to make up phrases, you will be able to find "evidence" for literally anything you could imagine.

Do we put it down to chance, ignoring the 18/14/14/18 (tel:18/14/14/18) symmetry and the eye-popping significance of the words? Is there a single other book out there that we could find those numbers in? The numbers are either there or they are not there. There is practically zero room here for cherry picking, because they proceed from the first and last words of each testament, the 'alpha' and 'omega' of both scriptures, with the meaning that conveys. The ostrich has one option left, to say that plenty of other phrases could be substituted. The man suspects that there would be few if any phrases summing to 906, 604, 604 and 788 that could be substituted and convey the same meaning, and begins to face up to an awesome possibility. It's probably not provable either way, but it is a test of our belief in a higher power and a meaningful existence.

This is PURE cherry picking. You made up some phrases and trolled through the ocean of random numbers and random ways of combining them in arbitrary patterns like 18/14/14/18 (tel:18/14/14/18). Why did you choose that pattern? Why not some other pattern?

This also exposes your inconsistency. When I showed that we could create a theme similar to the ark encodings based on excrement you suggested we should limit our search to not only words found in scripture, but also phrases. Now you go and make your biggest claim based on a phrase that is not found in Scripture at all! This kind of inconsistency is the sin qua non of delusional numerology. No serious thinker would ever accept it as evidence of anything because it is totally obvious that you just made it up after trolling through an ocean of random numbers.

'Ignorant' people understand meaning, something that is often lost on left-brain mathematical types.

No, they don't "understand." It's easy to fool with talk of "statistics" that they can't understand and so cannot tell what they mean, if anything.

"I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will." (Jesus, Luke 10:21)

Said every cult leader ever. Your descent into anti-intellecutalism is quite revealing my friend. First, you present yourself as having evidence based on statistics, and when refuted you retreat to blind ignorant faith? How is that any different than Islam or Scientology?

First you accuse me of cherry picking from a huge sample of text, now when I show you a code in a small sample of text you say it's too 'tiny' to be statistically significant. But it's not just one tiny sample. I've shown you lots of 'tiny samples' from the beginning and the end of the NIV Bible, all meaningfully related to each other. Taking them all into account would give a result that is statistically significant. I haven't shown you the half of it either.

Again, the statistics will be essentially identical whether or not the hits are "meaningful" so they tell us nothing about whether or not they were designed.

As for the size of your "ark" encoding: You are confusing the trial sample (the text of Genesis 1) with the sample space (the set of all possible word combinations that would match the numbers derived from Genesis 1). The fact that there are multiplied millions of POSSIBILITIES in the SAMPLE SPACE means that you have multiplied millions of possible "hits" that you can spend ten thousand lifetimes trolling though to look for "meaning". That's your fundamental mistake. You are confusing the trial sample with the sample space.

You really need to understand this point. You have not found anything with any "meaning" in the text of Genesis 1. All you have in Genesis 1 are the numbers you derived. Those numbers correspond to MULTIPLIED MILLIONS of possible words. You then scan that ocean of possibilities and pick out a TINY TINY TINY set of 4 hits that you think were meaningful. And then you ask "what is the chance that such a meaningful coincidence could happen?". That's the wrong question. The correct question is this:

What are the chances that you could NOT find an apparently "meaningful" set of four phrases using your method?

I would say the answer to that question is essentially ZERO. Given the massive size of the SAMPLE SPACE it is essentially certain that you will be able to find some "hits".

Agreed, but there is a way to distinguish between chance and design here too. . .

Yes, there is, and it shows there is no design.

Thanks for the calculation! However, your arithmetic is a little off. The maximum possible unique numbers in the Garden is 3486. 1944 is 56% of that figure and 52% of the range 1 to 3764. I had calculated about 60% and said "two thirds" to put in a safety factor, because 60% is more advantageous to my case than 67%. 52% is even more advantageous though, and I thank you again for the app. I've managed so far without anything like that, and a little more work would have gotten me closer to 52%, but I can see the time-saving advantage in using your app here.

Thanks for the correction. It wasn't a mistake of arithmetic, but rather of reference. I mistook the largest value 3764 for the total number of hits 3486.

Yes, please do!

OK - that will be easy. And I'll add a search by number feature. And an English gematria calculator all one page. Should make our work much easier. But I'm on vacation so I don't know how quickly I'll be able to get to it.

Your example was mostly irrelevant though. I never said that 'Adam' or 'man' were encoded. Neither did I say that 'Eve' or 'woman' were encoded. I said that the phrase Adam Tselem and its English equivalent 'man in our image' were encoded. Why them? Because, as it is all the way through these encodings, this the first time man is mentioned in the Bible! It's in Genesis 1.26. "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image . . . " You also neglect to say that encodings of 'Jesus Christ' and Yehoshua HaMashiach sit right on top of this encoding! This has profound theological significance, of course, an so I have to bring in that wrd again: meaning. As for your accusation that I added an 'a' to turn 'woman' into 'a woman' and thereby create a false 'hit', I didn't do anything. The Hebrew word is L'ishshah, which is all one word, and the NIV translation is 'a woman'. I always took the exact NIV translation of the Hebrew word, which was often more than one English word. So the encoding stands!

That is a textbook example of SPECIAL PLEADING and RATIONALIZATION and MAKING UP CRAP. You are making up "principles" after the fact to justify the fact that you patterns don't actually work at all. I cannot imagine any serious thinker accepting inconsistent self-serving "logic" like that to justify the failure of your theory.

One final thing, as I said, the reason I left out other hits in most of the tables is because they cluttered the tables up. All that is required for an encoding is for one Hebrew word string and one English word string to be in close proximity to each other, and it was these that I showed. Sometimes this was very impressive, as they were the only two word strings in the garden and often very short strings at that. Other times it was easy to get a hit or even more than one hit (in which case I chose the best one) and so much less impressive.

How can you say there is an "encoding" if the results are exactly what we would expect from random chance?

thebluetriangle

04-15-2017, 09:56 AM

Hey there Bill,

Likewise, we could look for an alignment between the Hebrew woman (ishshah) = 306 with the English "woman" (650) but the number 650 does not appear. (This, by the way, is why you had to be inconsistent and use "a woman" = 651 to force a hit.) The other option would be to use "Eve" (19) in Hebrew and its value in English (410). This gives some hits, but they are obviously just random chance since there is a big splatter caused by 19 being the value of the very common word "and". Here is the result:

1405

You've miscalculated the sv of 'woman', which should be 651. 'A woman' is then 652. As I said, I used 'a woman' because that is the precise translation in the NIV of the Hebrew word.

thebluetriangle

04-15-2017, 10:40 AM

Here's another example of a complete miss. The "Tree of Life" is central to the Garden story. In Hebrew, its value is 233. In English, it is 416. There is no alignment:

1406

Likewise, the Hebrew value of "The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" (932) does not even appear in the matrix. So it is not encoded. If we try just "Tree of Knowledge" we get an alignment, but the spread is so large there's no reason to think it was by design. It's exactly what we would expect from random chance:

1407

I did find 'tree of life' and 'tree of the knowedge of good and evil' in the garden. You were looking for the wrong values of the Hebrew phrases. I took mine from the Masoretic text (using your own excellent database). 'Tree of life' is 239 and 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil' is 938. These are found in Genesis 2.9, which is the first biblical instance of both phrases, as usual.

The following table shows all the instances of both the Hebrew and the English phrases.

1416

As you can see three of the four values are found once, one of them twice, in a very neat pair of encodings. These seem to be 'standalone' encodings and like the ark encodings without the definite article. I'm not yet 100% sure about these, so I haven't published them. They do seem to be there though.

thebluetriangle

04-15-2017, 03:48 PM

Bill,

Here's another image from your article about the Garden in which you show only a small subset of the data (only 4 out of the 11 data points):

1410

And here is a full display of all the data. Note that the misses outnumber the hits:

1411

The misses outnumber the hits! Why would anyone think this was evidence of design?

It's a fair question. As I studied them I realised that at least one encoded pair was always in close proximity, almost always overlapping (there is one exception, but that is explained, because it opens the way to a particularly impressive piece of code). For this to happen consistently is a sign of design not randomness. I checked five random pairs and got a completely different result: one hit, four misses. I've already suggested a further test here and outlined the method. I'm waiting on your agreement and then we can proceed.

Remember these are all the first instances of the concepts mentioned in the Bible (again with one exception where the sentence construction was awkward, and where the second instances are taken). I took the Hebrew word(s) then the exact NIV equivalent and numerated them both. This answers any charge of cherry picking, because my choice of words was very, very limited, already made for me in nearly every case. If the code is a mirage and gematria a delusion there is no reason why at least one pair should keep overlapping, unless random numbers always overlapped too. So I tested random number pairs and found only a minority of them overlapped. So to answer your question, one sign that these are codes is the overlapping of at least one pair, which I call the double witness phenomenon.

Another sign is the fact that all these numbers are there at all. As you showed, only 52% of numbers in the range 1 to 3764 are found in the Garden. Working down the list of God's creations during the six Creation days, as I numerated each phrase in Hebrew and English I found that they were always present. Theoretically that should have happened on only 1 in 4 occasions, since the probability of each hit was 1/2, the probability of a pair being present was 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-15-2017, 07:20 PM

You've miscalculated the sv of 'woman', which should be 651. 'A woman' is then 652. As I said, I used 'a woman' because that is the precise translation in the NIV of the Hebrew word.
You are correct about the value of "woman" being 651. But your assertion that "a woman" is the "precise translation" makes no sense on two counts. First, the indefinite article "a" does not exist in Hebrew, so there is no such thing as a "precise translation" of a non-existent element of the language. Second, the translation is not "precise" in any way at all. On the contrary, it completely obscures the actual Hebrew written. A "woman" in Hebrew is simply "ishshah" = 306. The word you selected is prefixed with a Lamed to indicate the idea of "to" or "for". That meaning is completely LOST in the so-called "precise translation" of the NIV.

The NKJ version captures this more accurately, translating the phrase as "Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man." The "into" captures the meaning of the Lamed prefix. Many other translations, such as YLT, NAS, and even the ancient Greek LXX, use "into" in this verse. For example, here is how Young's Literal Translation translates it:

YLT Genesis 2:22 And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man;

Your code totally ignores Hebrew grammar and so cannot be the product of any human who understands the language, let alone an infinitely intelligent God.

You made the same mistake with the values of the Tree of Life" and Tree of knowledge of good and evil. In both cases, you included the vav-prefix which indicates the word "and" and the heh prefix which indicates the word "the" (definite article) in the Hebrew. But you ignored the definited artilce and the "and" in your English translation whereas it is included in the NIV. Here is how the NIV has it:

Genesis 2:9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-- trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The NIV ignores the vav prefix which means "and" and YOU ignored the "and", as well as the "the" in both! I'm sorry, but I find it absolutely impossible to believe that an intelligent God would create such a confused code that ignores the grammar of the text that he supposedly inspired.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-15-2017, 08:14 PM

It's a fair question. As I studied them I realised that at least one encoded pair was always in close proximity, almost always overlapping (there is one exception, but that is explained, because it opens the way to a particularly impressive piece of code). For this to happen consistently is a sign of design not randomness. I checked five random pairs and got a completely different result: one hit, four misses. I've already suggested a further test here and outlined the method. I'm waiting on your agreement and then we can proceed.

Remember these are all the first instances of the concepts mentioned in the Bible (again with one exception where the sentence construction was awkward, and where the second instances are taken). I took the Hebrew word(s) then the exact NIV equivalent and numerated them both. This answers any charge of cherry picking, because my choice of words was very, very limited, already made for me in nearly every case. If the code is a mirage and gematria a delusion there is no reason why at least one pair should keep overlapping, unless random numbers always overlapped too. So I tested random number pairs and found only a minority of them overlapped. So to answer your question, one sign that these are codes is the overlapping of at least one pair, which I call the double witness phenomenon.

Another sign is the fact that all these numbers are there at all. As you showed, only 52% of numbers in the range 1 to 3764 are found in the Garden. Working down the list of God's creations during the six Creation days, as I numerated each phrase in Hebrew and English I found that they were always present. Theoretically that should have happened on only 1 in 4 occasions, since the probability of each hit was 1/2, the probability of a pair being present was 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4.
They don't "keep happening." On the contrary, there are more misses than hits. The problem is that you make up lame excuses for the misses and so think you can just ignore them. That's the essence of the delusion of gematria. Case in point:

The first occurrence of the English "man" (91) is in Genesis 1:26. It corresponds to the Hebrew word "adam" (45). There are a total of 5 hits, but there is no alignment.

1417

The first occurrence of the English "God" (71) is in Genesis 1:1. It corresponds to the Hebrew Elohim (86). The number 71 is IS NOT FOUND in the grid at all. This is a major failure.

The first occurrence of "Lord God" is in Genesis 2:4. It's value in English is 255. It does not appear in the grid. Another TOTAL FAILURE.

I could go on, but there is no need. Your assertion that the aligned pairs "keep happening" is simply false.

Your "code" has been debunked.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-15-2017, 08:45 PM

It's a fair question. As I studied them I realised that at least one encoded pair was always in close proximity, almost always overlapping
So if something is "overlapping" you assume it is "encoded" and not by chance? How then do you tell the difference between random overlaps (which will always happen) vs. "encoded overlaps"?

thebluetriangle

04-16-2017, 02:12 AM

Bill,

You need to explain how low probabilities can distinguish between chance vs. design if almost anything found would have equally low probability.

I been asking for an answer to this question throughout this thread. The first time I asked was in post #7 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=67845#post67845). As far as I know, you have never answered.

I have answered it, repeatedly, but you don't accept the answer. The answer is that when something has both a low probability of occurrence and is meaningful, then it may well be design.

1. The ark encodings are four meaningfully related and religiously significant encodings of the contents of the Most Holy Place (also found in the same location, incidentally). There is the design. The probability of the cherubim, cover and altar appearing together with the ark, which I supposed could have been chance, and proceeding from the first word of the NIV Bible, was 1 in 100,000 (to be further refined). The design hypothesis is greatly strengthened by the fact that they interlock with other patterns. Remember, too, that I was given the Key showing me how to unlock the code.

If something looks like design there are only two possibilities

a) it was designed, and
b) it appeared through the workings of chance

Now chance can produce just about anything, given enough time and somewhere in the NIV there may well be something similar, because its 31086 verses and 726,606 words are a huge data set. So verse 10321 may have an interesting confluence of patterns and a string proceeding from word 293727 might also have the same numbers as the ark encodings. But these encodings are found in word 1, verse 1. That should startle us into the recognition that this is not random but very probably design.

If we go into a lumber yard after a storm and see a fully formed log cabin we don't think, "Wow, that must have been some wind last night." We immediately recognise that someone has built it. The design hypothesis wins, because we recognise intelligent design. If we had a zillion lumber yards to check, we might see something like a log cabin in one of them and this is why people like you push the cherry picking and confirmation bias hypotheses, because they're the only options you have left. But this would require vast numbers of logs, a million forests, for that pseudo-log cabin to be randomly thrown together in one of those zillions of lumber yards. This time, though, there was only one lumber yard and one storm - and not a natural cyclone but the wind of Spirit. The ark encodings sit in the "number yard" of the NIV Bible's first word strings, the strings proceeding from word 1, and only word 1. It's a construction, made from the 'logs' of words and phrases lying around this number yard. It's a frozen miracle, all the more so because it's a translation of words already written. The translators didn't have much to work with, therefore neither did the Holy Spirit - and yet this miracle has been wrought.

And there it is - it has NOTHING to do with probability. Your only criterion is if you think the "hit" is "meaningful". You then say "OH! It's got small probability" as if that confirmed your belief. This is the definition of confirmation bias. It is the twin sister of selection bias (cherry picking) which are the two fundamental errors that define numerology. You are trolling through an massive ocean of random numbers looking for hits. You have no way to discern between CHANCE vs DESIGN.

As explained above, and many times before, it was a duck pond, not an ocean.

Here's something that occurred to me as I was reading this. If I really was looking through a massive ocean of numbers, looking for hits, how come I found them so quickly? It takes a lot of time and resources to plumb the depths of that ocean. As you know I don't work with a computer. I use a hand held calculator and in fact I don't even need that a lot of the time. How would I have been able to trawl through that ocean without taking a million years to do it? The answer of course is that the codes were placed where they would be easy to find, in high profile locations, using phrases from the NIV Bible itself (and other memorable phrases like SECOND COMING), rather than technical terms from a computing manual or scatalogical language. It was meaning itself that directed me to the findings, than plus inspiration through dreams, visions and words - and the Key itself, literally placed in my hand by my bewildered but faithful Alpha Course director.

You have never shown any consistent pattern that looks designed. You cherry pick "hits" in your Garden page and explain away (rationalize) misses and add/ignore articles to force the data to fit the pattern you are looking for (as with "a woman" and "the serpent"). Your work could serve as a case study exemplifying all the errors characteristic of delusional numerology. Please take no offence - I'm just summing up what the evidence shows. Everything I say is supported by evidence I have presented in this thread. If I have erred on any point, I trust you will correct me.

I am asking you to participate with me in a test that can discern between chance and design in the Garden encodings. I'm still waiting on your agreement.

What are you talking about? Neither "second coming" or "the second coming" appear in the NIV.

If you are free to make up phrases, you will be able to find "evidence" for literally anything you could imagine.

You're right of course that Second Coming and similar phrases don't appear in the NIV. I said that the ark encodings were constructed from phrases found only in the NIV, but I never said that the entire code was limited to phrases from the NIV Bible. Saying that the ark encodings are constructed from phrases found only the NIV is not the same as saying that only phrases from the Bible can be used. The code links 9/11 to the Day of Atonement (which is why those ark encodings are there in the first place), 9/11 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II to Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the entire drama to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Do we put it down to chance, ignoring the 18/14/14/18 symmetry and the eye-popping significance of the words? Is there a single other book out there that we could find those numbers in? The numbers are either there or they are not there. There is practically zero room here for cherry picking, because they proceed from the first and last words of each testament, the 'alpha' and 'omega' of both scriptures, with the meaning that conveys. The ostrich has one option left, to say that plenty of other phrases could be substituted. The man suspects that there would be few if any phrases summing to 906, 604, 604 and 788 that could be substituted and convey the same meaning, and begins to face up to an awesome possibility. It's probably not provable either way, but it is a test of our belief in a higher power and a meaningful existence.

This is PURE cherry picking. You made up some phrases and trolled through the ocean of random numbers and random ways of combining them in arbitrary patterns like 18/14/14/18 (tel:18/14/14/18). Why did you choose that pattern? Why not some other pattern?

I'm struggling to understand how a man of your intelligence can say something like that. How could I have chosen that pattern? The pattern emerged after I decoded the phrases! There aren't that many phrases to describe the Second Coming (if for the moment we restrict it to 'coming', rather than 'appearing', etc). I couldn't make them be present at the start and finish of each testament - they were just there! Likewise, I couldn't choose the 18-14-14-18 pattern that emerged, another sign of design, incidentally - they were just there! Can't you see how unreasonable it is to put this down to chance?

Be back.

thebluetriangle

04-16-2017, 06:17 AM

[QUOTE=Richard Amiel McGough;68073]
This also exposes your inconsistency. When I showed that we could create a theme similar to the ark encodings based on excrement you suggested we should limit our search to not only words found in scripture, but also phrases. Now you go and make your biggest claim based on a phrase that is not found in Scripture at all! This kind of inconsistency is the sin qua non of delusional numerology. No serious thinker would ever accept it as evidence of anything because it is totally obvious that you just made it up after trolling through an ocean of random numbers.

I wasn't trawling through an ocean of random numbers. I was standing on the shore watching the waves when a bottle with a message in it (the Key) was washed up and landed right at my feet (the Key was literally placed in my hand). Messages in bottles are written by someone.

The ark encodings, along with many others, use words and phases out of the NIV Bible, yes. That doesn't mean that the entire code is composed out of NIV terminology. All it means is that phrases from other versions of the Bible are not encrypted. Some phrases relating to modern events are encrypted, because the code speaks of and to our current age.

No, they don't "understand." It's easy to fool with talk of "statistics" that they can't understand and so cannot tell what they mean, if anything. That's why I do very little of it. I'm not out to fool anyone.

Non intellectuals may not understand probability very well, but intellectuals, living in their ivory towers, are often the most cut off from God. In fact intellect IS their God.

Said every cult leader ever. Your descent into anti-intellecutalism is quite revealing my friend. First, you present yourself as having evidence based on statistics, and when refuted you retreat to blind ignorant faith? How is that any different than Islam or Scientology?

I use statistical evidence in a very minor way, not as the 'Final Proof' the code is real. The reality of the code can only be recognised, not proven, and there will always be a measure of doubt to preserve the freedom of those who want to turn their backs on it.

I wouldn't say I descended into anti-intellectualism. I would say I transcended intellectualism (the little I was capable of, anyway). The intellect makes a good servant but a poor master and it is you, I'm afraid, who has become the slave of your own intellect, a fearful trap I nearly fell into myself. The demon was cast out of you, but you have been remiss in keeping your house clean and it has returned with seven more.

I wouldn't compare Islam with scientology, which by all accounts really is a sinister cult. Islam is very good at encouraging the remembrance of God, has its mystical branch in Sufism, and I believe contains much of value - as does Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and other religions/spiritual philosophies. Muslims revere Jesus (Isa to them) and, in theory anyway, regard the Old and New Testaments as Holy books, with the Quran as the capstone. The types who kill in the name of Islam usually have those tendencies anyway and use 'radical' Islam, a corruption of Islam really, as their justification. Islam was never the problem: it's fundamentalism, the Islamic form of which is particularly virulent.

As for the size of your "ark" encoding: You are confusing the trial sample (the text of Genesis 1) with the sample space (the set of all possible word combinations that would match the numbers derived from Genesis 1).

I would say those were separate trials. First there is the probability of those numbers coinciding with word strings. Second there is the probability of the numbers being the standard values of the phrases. The sample spaces are different for each. Anyway, we had begun to explore that a few pages back but it got dropped for some reason. I'm happy to continue, because I think it will help you understand that for the ark encodings, for example, there will be very few alternative groups of four phrases that could have been substituted. Remember, they would have to be meaningfully related, biblical and of great religious significance (and for Jews practically nothing has greater religious significance than the Ark).

The fact that there are multiplied millions of POSSIBILITIES in the SAMPLE SPACE means that you have multiplied millions of possible "hits" that you can spend ten thousand lifetimes trolling though to look for "meaning". That's your fundamental mistake. You are confusing the trial sample with the sample space.

But I didn't spend ten thousand years on it. I found them very quickly out of the quadrillions of possibilities. Was I just extraordinarily lucky? How is that to be explained?

You really need to understand this point. You have not found anything with any "meaning" in the text of Genesis 1. All you have in Genesis 1 are the numbers you derived.

Absolutely correct regarding the numbers. Totally wrong regarding the meaning. The English language exists to convey meaning in the first place. That is what words do. How you can say there is no meaning in the four ark phrases is baffling, because that is what the very words do.'Ark of the testimony' is meaningful, existing withn a web of meaningful relationships (that is what synonyms are all about). I'm saying that the four phrases are strongly connected by meaning, import, religious significance, Bible version, etc. Finding four phrases with those propertie would be a challenging task. Your scatological phrases failed there, on almost every count.

The code is information, more fundamental than matter or energy and encoded deep within the text of the Torah and one modern English bible version, the NIV. I don't know if it's possible to analyse the text for information content, but I've heard it can be done, and that may be another way forward.

Those numbers correspond to MULTIPLIED MILLIONS of possible words. You then scan that ocean of possibilities and pick out a TINY TINY TINY set of 4 hits that you think were meaningful. And then you ask "what is the chance that such a meaningful coincidence could happen?". That's the wrong question. The correct question is this:

What are the chances that you could NOT find an apparently "meaningful" set of four phrases using your method?
That may be unanswerable but as I said the probabilities can be whittled down, winnowed away. The vast majority of letter combinations give meaningless garble. The vast majority of meaningful words combine to give meaningless phrases. The vast majority of meaningful phrases combine in meaningless groups. The vast majority of meaningful groups are biblically meaningless. The vast majority of biblically meaningful groups of four phrases have nothing like the significance of the Ark of the Testimony. I think you might be lucky to find any at all other than the four ark phrases:

ark of the testimony
atonement cover
cherubim of the glory
altar of incense

I would say the answer to that question is essentially ZERO. Given the massive size of the SAMPLE SPACE it is essentially certain that you will be able to find some "hits".

You're welcome to try. Put your computing power onto it!

That is a textbook example of SPECIAL PLEADING and RATIONALIZATION and MAKING UP CRAP. You are making up "principles" after the fact to justify the fact that you patterns don't actually work at all. I cannot imagine any serious thinker accepting inconsistent self-serving "logic" like that to justify the failure of your theory. As for making up crap, you were the one who did that a few pages back. :-). I had no option but to rationalise after the fact. I was like a detective trying to solve a crime. The detective has to try to recreate the criminal'sactions, his motives, etc. From that he can even make predictions and solve the crime.

How can you say there is an "encoding" if the results are exactly what we would expect from random chance?

That's just it. Random chance does not throw JESUS/SECOND COMING, THE SECOND COMING, THE SECOND COMING,THE LORD/SECOND COMING against the four corners of the NIV Bible in a beautiful pattern.

thebluetriangle

04-16-2017, 09:45 AM

You are correct about the value of "woman" being 651. But your assertion that "a woman" is the "precise translation" makes no sense on two counts. First, the indefinite article "a" does not exist in Hebrew, so there is no such thing as a "precise translation" of a non-existent element of the language. Second, the translation is not "precise" in any way at all. On the contrary, it completely obscures the actual Hebrew written. A "woman" in Hebrew is simply "ishshah" = 306. The word you selected is prefixed with a Lamed to indicate the idea of "to" or "for". That meaning is completely LOST in the so-called "precise translation" of the NIV.

I didn'tmean that the NIV is a precise translation. The NIV is a thought-for-thought translation and so the wording strays quite far from the original Hebrew. I meant I was taking the precise words that had been chosen by the NIV translators as the translation of the Hebrew.

Here is the original Hebrew verse.

Banah/Built 68
YHVH/the Lord 26
Elohim/God 86
- - - - - - - 401
Tsela/side 195
asher/which 501
laqash/taken 138
Min/from 90
Adam/man 50
ishshah/woman 336
bow/brought 24
el/unto 31
adam/man 50

The NIV translates this as "Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

The words either side of 'a woman' are 'made' and 'from' and these have direct Hebrew equivalents, emboldened above. So 'a woman' stands on its own as the translation of L'ishshah. The gematria of L'ishshah is 336 so I used this as the number to look for. Every time I translated I used the whole Hebrew word or words as written in the Hebrew Bible. Then I found the NIV translation for the word or words. It was usually quite easy to find it.

The NKJ version captures this more accurately, translating the phrase as "Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man." The "into" captures the meaning of the Lamed prefix. Many other translations, such as YLT, NAS, and even the ancient Greek LXX, use "into" in this verse. For example, here is how Young's Literal Translation translates it:

YLT Genesis 2:22 And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man;

Your code totally ignores Hebrew grammar and so cannot be the product of any human who understands the language, let alone an infinitely intelligent God.

How can you say the code ignores Hebrew grammar? The code is based on the precise Hebrew word written! It then takes the precise NIV translation of that word. Yes, that is often different from the Hebrew word, because the NIV is a thought-for-thought tanslation and thereby much more readable, which is one reason why people like it. In the case of 'a woman', there is no indefinite article in Hebrew. But there is one in English and so it was added in the thought-for-thought translation so that it made grammatical sense. If you look at a few examples you'll see it makes logical sense. Incidentally, saying that "God made a woman from the rib" has the same meaning as "God buildeth up the rib which he hath taken out of the man into a woman" and says it with fewer words (7 against 16) and much more clearly.

You made the same mistake with the values of the Tree of Life" and Tree of knowledge of good and evil. In both cases, you included the vav-prefix which indicates the word "and" and the heh prefix which indicates the word "the" (definite article) in the Hebrew. But you ignored the definited artilce and the "and" in your English translation whereas it is included in the NIV.

First of all, these are not part of my website, because, as I said at the end of my reply, I'm not yet 100% sure about them. I put them in to show you that they may well be found there. I'm not sure what you mean about ignoring the hey prefix, because neither phrase begins with one. They both have vav prefixes though, although the first is not found in the NIV. I was taking these as phrases without 'the', which automatically meant that 'and' couldn't be included either. Certainly the Hebrew phrases are both found there, and if you allow a little wiggle room, the NIV phrases too. But it needs further research.

thebluetriangle

04-16-2017, 01:30 PM

They don't "keep happening." On the contrary, there are more misses than hits. The problem is that you make up lame excuses for the misses and so think you can just ignore them. That's the essence of the delusion of gematria. Case in point:

The first occurrence of the English "man" (91) is in Genesis 1:26. It corresponds to the Hebrew word "adam" (45). There are a total of 5 hits, but there is no alignment.

1417

You seem to be assuming that everything must be encoded in the Garden for it to be a code! You have done this from the start. Why isn't this encoded? Why can't I find that? Why isn't it encoded in the way I expect it to be encoded? Why is it encoded in the NIV when I think that version is inferior? The problem isn't the code, it's your unreasonable expectations of it, fueled, one suspects, by your desire to disprove it and by the narrow theology you once promoted and by which you now judge it.

Just look at the blessed code and see what actually IS there, then decide if you think it makes sense. The garden, like the rest of the code, is composed of groups of encoded numbers that are self contained, yet also linked to other parts of the code. The ark encodings are a good example. The encoding in the Garden of God's creations on each of the six creation days is another.

One of them is the encoding of Adam Tselem/Man in his image in the Garden. As usual, the number was taken from the first instance of man, which is Genesis 1.26. Now, it's a reasonable question to ask why the modifier tselem is included, giving Adam tselem and not just Adam, or in the case of the English equivelant, 'man in our image' instead of just man. An obvious answer is that Adam has a gematria of only 45, which is too small to be encoded, and that may be the truth, because 45 is the ov of the average English word here and so there aren't many word strings with ov 45 - one in fact, as you show. However, there is a better answer, and it is this. Man was originally created in the image of God, before the fall had occurred, and so Adam then was in a different spiritual state from Adam after the fall. This is confirmed by the spectacular encoding of Jesus Christ and Yehoshua HaMashiah right on top of the encoding of 'Adam Tselem/man in our Image', showing that Adam really was originally made in God's image - and Jesus Christ is the second Adam. Here is the encoding:

1418

One more thing. Adam Tselem has an sv of 263, which in English is 'Messiah (s)'. Again, made in God's image.

The first occurrence of the English "God" (71) is in Genesis 1:1. It corresponds to the Hebrew Elohim (86). The number 71 is IS NOT FOUND in the grid at all. This is a major failure.

The first occurrence of "Lord God" is in Genesis 2:4. It's value in English is 255. It does not appear in the grid. Another TOTAL FAILURE.

I could go on, but there is no need. Your assertion that the aligned pairs "keep happening" is simply false.

Your "code" has been debunked.

God certainly is encoded there in other parts of the code. For instance, we have this encoding centred on the first instance of God in the NIV.

1419

The first three instances of God actually encode the very two systems of gematria that are the basis of the code.

1420

'God' is the 4th word, the 30th word and the 37th word in the NIV Bible. 4 + 30 + 37 = 71 = God (s)
'God' is the 4th word in verse 1, the 20th word in verse 2 and the 2nd word in verse 3. 4 + 20 + 2 = 26 = God (o)

But since God was the encoder none of this is surprising.

1421

The code is NOT debunked.

thebluetriangle

04-16-2017, 01:44 PM

So if something is "overlapping" you assume it is "encoded" and not by chance? How then do you tell the difference between random overlaps (which will always happen) vs. "encoded overlaps"?

By the test I am proposing. Are you up for it?

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2017, 08:49 PM

I have answered it, repeatedly, but you don't accept the answer. The answer is that when something has both a low probability of occurrence and is meaningful, then it may well be design.

I don't accept it because it is irrational. I've explained this a million times and you have never responded.

Meaningless random coincidences, which may seem meaningful, often have small probabilities. Therefore, small probabilities do not help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

You can have a coincidence with low probability that is meaningful.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that is meaningless.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that seems meaningful but is actually meaningless.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that seems meaningless but is actually meaningful.

As you can see, the probability tells us nothing about whether the coincidence is meaningful or not.

Therefore, low probability does not help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

You have never answered this point. I've repeated it a million times, and you have never responded. Please respond.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2017, 09:44 PM

1. The ark encodings are four meaningfully related and religiously significant encodings of the contents of the Most Holy Place (also found in the same location, incidentally). There is the design. The probability of the cherubim, cover and altar appearing together with the ark, which I supposed could have been chance, and proceeding from the first word of the NIV Bible, was 1 in 100,000 (to be further refined). The design hypothesis is greatly strengthened by the fact that they interlock with other patterns. Remember, too, that I was given the Key showing me how to unlock the code.

If something looks like design there are only two possibilities

a) it was designed, and
b) it appeared through the workings of chance

Now chance can produce just about anything, given enough time and somewhere in the NIV there may well be something similar, because its 31086 verses and 726,606 words are a huge data set. So verse 10321 may have an interesting confluence of patterns and a string proceeding from word 293727 might also have the same numbers as the ark encodings. But these encodings are found in word 1, verse 1. That should startle us into the recognition that this is not random but very probably design.

If we go into a lumber yard after a storm and see a fully formed log cabin we don't think, "Wow, that must have been some wind last night." We immediately recognise that someone has built it. The design hypothesis wins, because we recognise intelligent design. If we had a zillion lumber yards to check, we might see something like a log cabin in one of them and this is why people like you push the cherry picking and confirmation bias hypotheses, because they're the only options you have left. But this would require vast numbers of logs, a million forests, for that pseudo-log cabin to be randomly thrown together in one of those zillions of lumber yards. This time, though, there was only one lumber yard and one storm - and not a natural cyclone but the wind of Spirit. The ark encodings sit in the "number yard" of the NIV Bible's first word strings, the strings proceeding from word 1, and only word 1. It's a construction, made from the 'logs' of words and phrases lying around this number yard. It's a frozen miracle, all the more so because it's a translation of words already written. The translators didn't have much to work with, therefore neither did the Holy Spirit - and yet this miracle has been wrought.

There is nothing about your "patterns" that is anything like a "cabin." There is no consistency to your patterns at all. The walls of your "cabin" are skewed and crooked and completely unjust and irrational. There is no consistent logic to your floor plan. You declare that "x" is true because of "y" but then you say the "z" is true even though it contradicts "y". Your claims are completely incoherent and inconsistent. You attempt to justify your "ark encodings" by saying they don't use the definite article, and then you justify the missing "serpent" encoding by saying it MUST use the article. You "logic" is completely illogical and inconsistent. You make up whatever you need to make up to rationalize your incoherent assertions.

And there it is - it has NOTHING to do with probability. Your only criterion is if you think the "hit" is "meaningful". You then say "OH! It's got small probability" as if that confirmed your belief. This is the definition of confirmation bias. It is the twin sister of selection bias (cherry picking) which are the two fundamental errors that define numerology. You are trolling through an massive ocean of random numbers looking for hits. You have no way to discern between CHANCE vs DESIGN.

As explained above, and many times before, it was a duck pond, not an ocean.

You missed the point again. Your claims have NOTHING to do with probability. Your only criterion for a "code" is if you find something that confirms what you already believe. That's a textbook case of confirmation bias.

There is no logic to your claims about "codes". It's nothing but cherry picking random patterns and making up irrational rationalizations for anything that doesn't fit the pattern you are looking for.

Here's something that occurred to me as I was reading this. If I really was looking through a massive ocean of numbers, looking for hits, how come I found them so quickly? It takes a lot of time and resources to plumb the depths of that ocean. As you know I don't work with a computer. I use a hand held calculator and in fact I don't even need that a lot of the time. How would I have been able to trawl through that ocean without taking a million years to do it? The answer of course is that the codes were placed where they would be easy to find, in high profile locations, using phrases from the NIV Bible itself (and other memorable phrases like SECOND COMING), rather than technical terms from a computing manual or scatalogical language. It was meaning itself that directed me to the findings, than plus inspiration through dreams, visions and words - and the Key itself, literally placed in my hand by my bewildered but faithful Alpha Course director.

You have been obsessively trolling through this ocean of random numbers for over a decade. I would not call that "quickly."

If by "scatological language" you mean the patterns I found based on the word "excrement" then I don't know what you are talking about because that word is found in the NIV.

I have no idea of what really happened in your life. You may have had "dreams and visions" or you may be imagining things that never happened. I have no way to know, but given your proclivity to believe improbable things, such as magical writing appearing on paper, I would not be surprised to find that you have imagined a history to fit what you want to believe.

Let me be perfectly clear: You personal testimony of miracles weakens the credibility of testimony of "patterns" you have found because they make you sound credulous and willing to believe imaginary things that fit what you want to believe. If you want to convince rational skeptics you need to stick to demonstrably facts.

I am asking you to participate with me in a test that can discern between chance and design in the Garden encodings. I'm still waiting on your agreement.

I've already conducted that test and found you "patterns" are exactly what I would expect from random chance. I'm still waiting for you to respond to the evidence I have presented.

You're right of course that Second Coming and similar phrases don't appear in the NIV. I said that the ark encodings were constructed from phrases found only in the NIV, but I never said that the entire code was limited to phrases from the NIV Bible. Saying that the ark encodings are constructed from phrases found only the NIV is not the same as saying that only phrases from the Bible can be used. The code links 9/11 to the Day of Atonement (which is why those ark encodings are there in the first place), 9/11 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II to Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection, and the entire drama to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

Great! Then all the phrases I found that say the encodings are nothing but "dog's excrement" and "horse's refuse" are valid. Glad we are in agreement.

I'm struggling to understand how a man of your intelligence can say something like that. How could I have chosen that pattern? The pattern emerged after I decoded the phrases! There aren't that many phrases to describe the Second Coming (if for the moment we restrict it to 'coming', rather than 'appearing', etc). I couldn't make them be present at the start and finish of each testament - they were just there! Likewise, I couldn't choose the 18-14-14-18 pattern that emerged, another sign of design, incidentally - they were just there! Can't you see how unreasonable it is to put this down to chance?

Be back.

You chose the pattern by trolling through ten thousand phrases over the span of a decade looking for "hits" that matched what you wanted to believe, all the while IGNORING or explaining away everything that didn't fit. I've never seen a more explicit example of the fallacies of cherry picking, confirmation bias, and rationalization.

The concept of "second coming" never appears in the Bible either as a phrase or even as a concept. The Bible speaks of the "coming of the Son of Man" not the "second coming.' Your "pattern" is based upon skewed and confused theology that is entirely unbiblical.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2017, 10:06 PM

You seem to be assuming that everything must be encoded in the Garden for it to be a code! You have done this from the start. Why isn't this encoded? Why can't I find that? Why isn't it encoded in the way I expect it to be encoded? Why is it encoded in the NIV when I think that version is inferior? The problem isn't the code, it's your unreasonable expectations of it, fueled, one suspects, by your desire to disprove it and by the narrow theology you once promoted and by which you now judge it.

I do not "assume" anything but what you have said. I am following your lead. YOU declare that something is "encoded" if it fits a pattern you like, but when I follow your logic and find something that should, by the same logic, be encoded but is not, you complain and say that there is no way anyone could ever say what should or should not be encoded. Therefore, you destroy your own testimony, because if I can't say what should be encoded, neither can you. Who are you to say that your "codes" are real? What if you are wrong? Who made you the authority of what is or is not encoded?

You have exalted yourself above the throne of God, declaring your word to be God's Word.

Just look at the blessed code and see what actually IS there, then decide if you think it makes sense. The garden, like the rest of the code, is composed of groups of encoded numbers that are self contained, yet also linked to other parts of the code. The ark encodings are a good example. The encoding in the Garden of God's creations on each of the six creation days is another.

It makes no sense at all because it is totally incoherent. I have shown this and you made up irrational rationalizations about why you can use an article here but not there, and why you must use biblical phrases here but not there. Your "codes" are blatantly inconsistent and irrational.

One of them is the encoding of Adam Tselem/Man in his image in the Garden. As usual, the number was taken from the first instance of man, which is Genesis 1.26. Now, it's a reasonable question to ask why the modifier tselem is included, giving Adam tselem and not just Adam, or in the case of the English equivelant, 'man in our image' instead of just man. An obvious answer is that Adam has a gematria of only 45, which is too small to be encoded, and that may be the truth, because 45 is the ov of the average English word here and so there aren't many word strings with ov 45 - one in fact, as you show. However, there is a better answer, and it is this. Man was originally created in the image of God, before the fall had occurred, and so Adam then was in a different spiritual state from Adam after the fall. This is confirmed by the spectacular encoding of Jesus Christ and Yehoshua HaMashiah right on top of the encoding of 'Adam Tselem/man in our Image', showing that Adam really was originally made in God's image - and Jesus Christ is the second Adam. Here is the encoding:

1418

One more thing. Adam Tselem has an sv of 263, which in English is 'Messiah (s)'. Again, made in God's image.

The Hebrew is NOT "Adam Tselem" but rather "Adam b'tselmenu". Your Hebrew transliteration is incorrect.

And yes, Messiah in English sums to 263, but we are not talking about any old messiah, but rather THE MESSIAH (the same logic you used to justify your use of "THE serpent" rather than "serpent") and that does NOT match. So again, we see you MANIPULATING THE NUMBERS to force fit the pattern you want, which is the original sin of all numerology.

No one with any intelligence would accept such blatantly cooked numbers. Your "logic" is radically inconsistent and illogical.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2017, 10:12 PM

The first three instances of God actually encode the very two systems of gematria that are the basis of the code.

1420

'God' is the 4th word, the 30th word and the 37th word in the NIV Bible. 4 + 30 + 37 = 71 = God (s)
'God' is the 4th word in verse 1, the 20th word in verse 2 and the 2nd word in verse 3. 4 + 20 + 2 = 26 = God (o)

But since God was the encoder none of this is surprising.

If God is such a great encoder, why did he FAIL to encode "God" (71) or "Lord God" (255) in the word strings? You are picking and choosing incoherent bits and pieces that make no coherent pattern.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-16-2017, 10:27 PM

By the test I am proposing. Are you up for it?
What exactly is the test you are proposing? It's self-evident that there will be lots of overlaps when you compress 3764 numbers into 83 columns. Why would anyone think any would try to encode messages that way? How exactly are we supposed to discern between the "encoded" messages and random chance? You have NEVER been able to answer this question. I've been asking it since the beginning and you have NEVER answered.

So here is the question you need to answer:

How are we supposed to discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN in your "codes"?

You have NEVER answered this.

You need to answer this question.

thebluetriangle

04-17-2017, 01:17 AM

I don't accept it because it is irrational. I've explained this a million times and you have never responded.

Meaningless random coincidences, which may seem meaningful, often have small probabilities. Therefore, small probabilities do not help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

You can have a coincidence with low probability that is meaningful.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that is meaningless.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that seems meaningful but is actually meaningless.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that seems meaningless but is actually meaningful.

As you can see, the probability tells us nothing about whether the coincidence is meaningful or not.

Therefore, low probability does not help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

You have never answered this point. I've repeated it a million times, and you have never responded. Please respond.

A code is a code because it is meaningful to someone. It contains a message. Collins Dictionary defines a code thus:

"A code is a system of replacing the words in a message with other words or symbols, so that nobody can understand it unless they know the system."

The word 'understand' implies meaning and any genuine code has meaning to the receiver.

The Ark of the Testimony (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html) shows four encodings of 'ark of the testimony', 'cherubim of the glory', 'atonement cover' and 'altar of incense', all obviously related by meaning - or it wouldn't be a code.

1425

The Signatures of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html) are six numerical signatures: Jesus/Yehoshua, word/word, Messiah/Messiah, all again obviously related by meaning.

1426

These two separate clusters of numbers interlock in such a way as to confer further meaning. Under the lid of of 'atonement cover' is the Signature of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html). The meaning here is that Christ is our atonement cover.

1427

Altar of Incense also encodes 'Jesus' and 'Yehoshua'. The further meaning here is that Jesus is also our altar of Incense, another confirmation of Christian teachings.

1428

These are just a few examples of how the code conveys meaning. There are many more. Readers will decide if they believe that this could have been thrown together in the lumberyard of chance, or if it is the work of a Divine Builder.

thebluetriangle

04-17-2017, 03:25 AM

There is nothing about your "patterns" that is anything like a "cabin." There is no consistency to your patterns at all. The walls of your "cabin" are skewed and crooked and completely unjust and irrational. There is no consistent logic to your floor plan. You declare that "x" is true because of "y" but then you say the "z" is true even though it contradicts "y". Your claims are completely incoherent and inconsistent. You attempt to justify your "ark encodings" by saying they don't use the definite article, and then you justify the missing "serpent" encoding by saying it MUST use the article. You "logic" is completely illogical and inconsistent. You make up whatever you need to make up to rationalize your incoherent assertions.

We've been considering one tiny part of the cabin, not the entire structure - like looking at a corner of a snow crystal instead of the whole figure. As for 'HaNachesh/the serpent' being encoded instead of 'Nachesh/serpent', this is the NIV translation of the first time HaNachesh is used in Genesis 3.2. It's found in Genesis 3.1, but with an extra vav, translated as 'Now the serpent'. 'The Serpent' is obviously preferable. Again this is not on my site, but I'm sure this one IS a piece of code. I see no problem anyway with the use of the definite article in some codes and not in others. The probabilities are doubled or more, but they are so low anyway that it doesn't matter, and with that bit of wiggle room much more information can be encoded. For instance the four ark encodings are all without the definite article, but 'The Ark of the Testimony' is encoded as part of the double witness encodings. Here it is.

1429

You missed the point again. Your claims have NOTHING to do with probability. Your only criterion for a "code" is if you find something that confirms what you already believe. That's a textbook case of confirmation bias.

I found meaningful patterns before I did probability calculations. The reason I started to look at probability is because it occurred to me that it might be easy to find such patterns and therefore as well as being meaningful to Christians, they also had to be statistically improbable, or we would find spurious meaning everywhere, rather than the kind of meaning I've just shown you.

You have been obsessively trolling through this ocean of random numbers for over a decade. I would not call that "quickly."

You were talking about millions of years, ten thousand lifetimes, etc. You're right: it would take that long to find patterns in an ocean of numbers. But you fail to see that if the patterns weren't there I would never have found them anyway. Nothing would be there. If there was nothing and I tried to crank it some spurious pattern it would be obvious. These are neat, elegant and logical. However, the analogy is irrelevant, because it wasn't an ocean. Many of the patterns are found at the beginning, middle and end of scripture, like messages in a bottle found on a beach. You wouldn't find them in the middle of an ocean. I found many of the numbers very quickly, within a few years.

If by "scatological language" you mean the patterns I found based on the word "excrement" then I don't know what you are talking about because that word is found in the NIV. All kinds of unpleasant things are found in the Bible, but they usually don't have the religious significance or profound meaning of the ark!

I have no idea of what really happened in your life. You may have had "dreams and visions" or you may be imagining things that never happened. I have no way to know, but given your proclivity to believe improbable things, such as magical writing appearing on paper, I would not be surprised to find that you have imagined a history to fit what you want to believe. Then you'd be tragically mistaken, my friend. Questioning the mental health of a witness to a miracle is a last, desperate resort. You put it politely, but the implication is there. You've been candid about your own difficult life and drug use and it would be easy to reciprocate, but that would help neither of us at this stage. There's the ad hominem fallacy there too. Stick to the evidence!

I'll only say in reply that the Key to the code was found not by me but by my Alpha Course director. She's still alive and would testify that she found it. Even if I had imagined that episode, it would hardly explain why it encodes 'Our Lord Jesus Christ' and 'The Lord God' and directs the decoder to Genesis 1.1. Of course, I could have 'obsessively trawled' through scripture for a few years until I found two verses like that - it's possible - but then the two verses, 1 Thess. 5.23-24, are a profoundly beautiful blessing, actually address the reader, and mention the phrase 'Our Lord Jesus Christ'. In fact there are other encoded numbers in there that added further information.

Let me be perfectly clear: You personal testimony of miracles weakens the credibility of testimony of "patterns" you have found because they make you sound credulous and willing to believe imaginary things that fit what you want to believe. If you want to convince rational skeptics you need to stick to demonstrably facts. Let me be perfectly clear too: the Key to the Code showed me how to unlock the New Bible Code and no matter what you choose to believe about how it came to me (despite the testimony of myself and what my Alpha Course director could provide), the fact the Key even exists is remarkable. The episode also shows that Bible codes are only opened when God decides and by the person God chooses. I did not set out to do this: IT WAS MY ASSIGNMENT. The events I relate may be unbelievable to a sceptic, but that is because the skeptic has closed himself or herself off from the larger reality spiritual people are opened themselves to. That is why people who have a relationship with God experience miracles and atheists do not. God preserves our freedom of choice. To skeptics any and all spiritual and paranormal experieces are imagined or mistaken because they do not believe they are possible. Believing is seeing.

I've already conducted that test and found you "patterns" are exactly what I would expect from random chance. I'm still waiting for you to respond to the evidence I have presented. No, you conducted a test of your choice, partly based on your ignorance of the code. I am proposing a better test. Still waiting on your reply.

You chose the pattern by trolling through ten thousand phrases over the span of a decade looking for "hits" that matched what you wanted to believe, all the while IGNORING or explaining away everything that didn't fit. I've never seen a more explicit example of the fallacies of cherry picking, confirmation bias, and rationalization. One more time: the encodings JESUS/SECOND COMING, THE SECOND COMING, THE SECOND COMING, THE LORD SECOND COMING, sitting like news bombs at the beginning and end of each testament, in a nice 18-14-14-18 pattern, were not found by obsessive trawling, underwater blasting or putting out a million rods. They were found in a few minutes, after I noticed that other patterns involved the beginning and the end of the Bible, such as

Genesis 1.1 (o) = 430
Rev. 22.21 (o) = 458
Genesis 1.1 + Rev. 22.21 (o) = 888
Ihsous = 888

Here's another one you might find interesting. There are three mentions of 'Immanuel' in the Bible. They are Isaiah 7.14, Isaiah 8.8 and Matthew 1.23.

714 + 88 + 123 = 925
Jesus Christ (s) = 925

The meaning here in this little piece of code is that the great prophet Isaiah was indeed prophesying the coming of the Messiah. And on that subject . . .

The concept of "second coming" never appears in the Bible either as a phrase or even as a concept. The Bible speaks of the "coming of the Son of Man" not the "second coming.' Your "pattern" is based upon skewed and confused theology that is entirely unbiblical.

As you say, the first mention in the Bible of the second coming of Christ is in Matthew 24.27: "For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man." So through the lightning of the internet, here is the visible sign for those of you in the west of that coming:

1430

The reality of Jesus' Second Coming is watermarked on the first few verses of Genesis.

1433

And again:

1432

These are taken from the page Footprints in the Sand (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3364256.html), which shows how the footprints of Christ are found all over the beachhead of Scripture.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-17-2017, 07:44 AM

I don't accept it because it is irrational. I've explained this a million times and you have never responded.

Meaningless random coincidences, which may seem meaningful, often have small probabilities. Therefore, small probabilities do not help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

You can have a coincidence with low probability that is meaningful.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that is meaningless.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that seems meaningful but is actually meaningless.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that seems meaningless but is actually meaningful.

As you can see, the probability tells us nothing about whether the coincidence is meaningful or not.

Therefore, low probability does not help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

You have never answered this point. I've repeated it a million times, and you have never responded. Please respond.

A code is a code because it is meaningful to someone. It contains a message. Collins Dictionary defines a code thus:

"A code is a system of replacing the words in a message with other words or symbols, so that nobody can understand it unless they know the system."

The word 'understand' implies meaning and any genuine code has meaning to the receiver.

That is NOT a response to my question, which I have repeated a million times in this thread.

Please read my question again and answer it.

As for the dictionary definition of a "code" you quoted - it is irrelevant to our discussion because it does not distinguish between real codes that were actually designed by an intelligent agent vs. pseudo codes that people read into the text but that were not put there intentionally.

Your "codes" look exactly like what I would expect from random chance. That is the point we are debating. It is absurd to say that they were designed merely because you think they are meaningful. I can find codes that are very meaningful but you reject them as real. For example, I found this code that plainly states that numerology is not real. It took me only a few minutes. Imagine what codes I could find if I spent decades looking for them like you have!

1438

All four hits begin with the first word, just like your ark encodings. The message is easy to understand. The probability is just a low as any other encoding you might find.

So why should we reject this code, but not yours?

thebluetriangle

04-17-2017, 08:53 AM

That is NOT a response to my question, which I have repeated a million times in this thread.

Please read my question again and answer it. My response IS the answer to your question. Each group of encoded statements is meaningful, internally consistent, consistent with the larger message, of profound religious significance, supported by other independent encodings, in a meaningful location. They also have to be decoded by the same method, and statistically improbable.

There are four possibilities:

1. The code is meaningful to the Christian community and beyond but easy to replicate - no code.
2. The code is meaningful to one person and easy to replicate - no code.
3. The code is meaningfulto one person and difficult to replicate - no code.
4. The code is meaningful to the Christian community and beyond and difficult to replicate - possible CODE!

On top of that there were supporting encodings (which I've shown), they interlock with other major encodings (which I've shown), they have appeared within the most important words in scripture (which is obvious), within the most popular version of the Bible (the NIV), based on biblical phrases, phrases which are only found in that version, which is written in the international langauge of choice (English). The timing of the appearance of the code was critical too. And then there was the key which unlocked it and which was literally handed to me.

As for the dictionary definition of a "code" you quoted - it is irrelevant to our discussion because it does not distinguish between real codes that were actually designed by an intelligent agent vs. pseudo codes that people read into the text but that were not put there intentionally. I was showing that the code is based on meaning. It has to mean something to the receiver - in this case potentially the entire human race.

Your "codes" look exactly like what I would expect from random chance. That is the point we are debating. It is absurd to say that they were designed merely because you think they are meaningful. I can find codes that are very meaningful but you reject them as real. I rejected one of them because it didn't pass muster, nowhere near it.

For example, I found this code that plainly states that numerology is not real. It took me only a few minutes. Imagine what codes I could find if I spent decades looking for them like you have!

1434

All four hits begin with the first word, just like your ark encodings. The message is easy to understand. The probability is just a low as any other encoding you might find.

So why should we reject this code, but not yours?

Well, lets see.

Does it proceed from the first words of the NIV? YES.
Was it decoded in the same way? YES
Is each phrase internally consistent? YES, however, one of them is a word, not a phrase. But let's be generous.
Are the phrases/word consistent with each other? NO. One of them is just the statement NUMEROLOGY. The other thee are consistent but not as close in meaning as the ark encodings.
Do the phrases make a meaningful statement? If it weren't for the fact that 'numerology' is just a word I would have given you a yes, but as it is, I have to say NO.
Are they of profound religious significance? NO
Are they biblical phrases? NO
Are they found only in the NIV Bible? NO, simply because they are not found in any bible.
Are they supported by other independent 'codes' (such as ELS codes)? That remains to be seen.
Do they interlock with similar codes in the same location to give larger patterns of meaning? Again, that remains to be seen.
Do they make any kind of pattern, such as the 14-24-34 pattern or the 6-6-6-6 pattern of the Signature of Christ? NO.

So these pseudo-codes do not pass all the tests a genuine equivalent of the ark encodings would have to pass. They scored three 'yes', six 'no' and two unproven.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-17-2017, 09:19 AM

My response IS the answer to your question. Each group of encoded statements is meaningful, internally consistent, consistent with the larger message, of profound religious significance, supported by other independent encodings, in a meaningful location. They also have to be decoded by the same method, and statistically improbable.

There are four possibilities:

1. The code is meaningful to the Christian community and beyond but easy to replicate - no code.
2. The code is meaningful to one person and easy to replicate - no code.
3. The code is meaningful to one person and difficult to replicate - no code.
4. The code is meaningful to the Christian community and beyond and difficult to replicate - possible CODE!

On top of that there were supporting encodings (which I've shown), they interlock with other major encodings (which I've shown), they have appeared within the most important words in scripture (which is obvious), within the most popular version of the Bible (the NIV), based on biblical phrases, phrases which are only found in that version, which is written in the international langauge of choice (English). The timing of the appearance of the code was critical too. And then there was the key which unlocked it and which was literally handed to me.

Bill,

That is NOT an answer to my question. You changed "statistically improbable" to "difficult to replicate." There is no necessary connection between the two concepts. It is often very easy to replicate things that are statistically improbable, as should be obvious with my previous example.

Why can't you answer my question? Why do you have to change the words?

Any "code" based on selecting words from an ocean of possibilities based on matching numerical values will have a low probability whether or not it is "meaningful."

Why can you not understand this simple concept?

You need to answer this point. I have been repeating it sense post #7.

Almost any "code" will have small probabilities, whether or not it is meaningful. Therefore, small probabilities cannot help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

Why can't you understand this point?

Please try to answer this point. Be specific. Don't change the words. Please answer the question I actually asked.

Thanks!

:sunny:

Richard Amiel McGough

04-17-2017, 09:29 AM

Does it proceed from the first words of the NIV? YES.
Was it decoded in the same way? YES
Is each phrase internally consistent? YES, however, one of them is a word, not a phrase. But let's be generous.
Are the phrases/word consistent with each other? NO. One of them is just the statement NUMEROLOGY. The other thee are consistent but not as close in meaning as the ark encodings.
Do the phrases make a meaningful statement? If it weren't for the fact that 'numerology' is just a word I would have given you a yes, but as it is, I have to say NO.
Are they of profound religious significance? NO
Are they biblical phrases? NO
Are they found only in the NIV Bible? NO, simply because they are not found in any bible.
Are they supported by other independent 'codes' (such as ELS codes)? That remains to be seen.
Do they interlock with similar codes in the same location to give larger patterns of meaning? Again, that remains to be seen.
Do they make any kind of pattern, such as the 14-24-34 pattern or the 6-6-6-6 pattern of the Signature of Christ? NO.

So these pseudo-codes do not pass all the tests a genuine equivalent of the ark encodings would have to pass. They scored three 'yes', six 'no' and two unproven.
First, the appearance of the noun "numerology" is included because it defines the central theme of the code. Your rejection makes no sense at all because your codes are nothing but noun phrases. If you found a single noun like "ark" you would have included it, and you know it! Your logic is radically inconsistent and strongly biased.

Second, your OWN CODES do not pass YOUR OWN test!

Is "Second Coming" a biblical phrase? NO!

Is the phrase found in any bible? NO! It is debatable if even the concept is taught in the Bible.

L67

04-17-2017, 11:08 AM

On top of that there were supporting encodings (which I've shown), they interlock with other major encodings (which I've shown), they have appeared within the most important words in scripture (which is obvious), within the most popular version of the Bible (the NIV), based on biblical phrases, phrases which are only found in that version, which is written in the international langauge of choice (English). The timing of the appearance of the code was critical too. And then there was the key which unlocked it and which was literally handed to me.

This is simply not true here in the United States. KJV wins by a landslide. Here is a study (http://www.raac.iupui.edu/files/2713/9413/8354/Bible_in_American_Life_Report_March_6_2014.pdf) that proves the KJV is more popular than the NIV.

Here is a nice summary of the study. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html

When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.

The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.

So concludes "The Bible in American Life," a lengthy report by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University?Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Funded by the Lilly Foundation, researchers asked questions on what David Briggs of the ARDA, which first reported the results, calls "two of the most highly respected data sources for American religion"?the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.

The numbers are surprising, given the strong sales of NIV translations in bookstores. The NIV has topped the CBA's bestselling Bible translation list for decades, and continued to sell robustly in 2013.

The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV.

The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.

In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.

Why would God allow so many Americans to be deceived if his "true" codes are only found in the NIV? Why would such a God use secret codes through numerology that are so easily cloaked by human biases?

Does it proceed from the first words of the NIV? YES.
Was it decoded in the same way? YES
Is each phrase internally consistent? YES, however, one of them is a word, not a phrase. But let's be generous.
Are the phrases/word consistent with each other? NO. One of them is just the statement NUMEROLOGY. The other thee are consistent but not as close in meaning as the ark encodings.
Do the phrases make a meaningful statement? If it weren't for the fact that 'numerology' is just a word I would have given you a yes, but as it is, I have to say NO.
Are they of profound religious significance? NO
Are they biblical phrases? NO
Are they found only in the NIV Bible? NO, simply because they are not found in any bible.
Are they supported by other independent 'codes' (such as ELS codes)? That remains to be seen.
Do they interlock with similar codes in the same location to give larger patterns of meaning? Again, that remains to be seen.
Do they make any kind of pattern, such as the 14-24-34 pattern or the 6-6-6-6 pattern of the Signature of Christ? NO.

So these pseudo-codes do not pass all the tests a genuine equivalent of the ark encodings would have to pass. They scored three 'yes', six 'no' and two unproven.

How do you know Richard's codes aren't valid? What if they were really God's codes meant to warn people not to delude themselves with numerology? How would you prove any different?

thebluetriangle

04-17-2017, 11:24 AM

Bill,

That is NOT an answer to my question. You changed "statistically improbable" to "difficult to replicate." There is no necessary connection between the two concepts. What? They are pretty much synonymous in this context. The more improbable they are the more difficult they would be to replicate, all else being equal. Four ark encodings are harder to replicate than one, surely? - and also much more improbable: 1-in-5 million against a mere 1-in-45. Probability here is a measure (perhaps imperfect but still useful) of difficulty in replication. If you have a better method I'm all ears.

It is often very easy to replicate things that are statistically improbable, as should be obvious with my previous example. You're bolstering your own opinion here with . . . your own opinion. I showed that your attempt fell far short of being a replicated code. Moreover, you have yet to display any ELS codes or other interlocking codes to support it. It crashes to the ground, I'm afraid.

Why can't you answer my question? Why do you have to change the words? If you thought I was practising some form of subterfuge you'd be wrong. And I did answer it. You just don't like the answer, so you keep on saying I haven't answered it.

Any "code" based on selecting words from an ocean of possibilities based on matching numerical values will have a low probability whether or not it is "meaningful."

Why can you not understand this simple concept?

You need to answer this point. I have been repeating it sense post #7. And I've been answering it since about post 8. Probability is a minor part of the supporting evidence for the code, but is useful at times. You say that every 'code' has low probability, but some are more improbable than others, so it's good to get a handle on the probablities. As I said before may times, the code is based on meaning (and remember, I'm not talking about personal meaning, but meaning to all Christians) and the more meaningful connections there are, the harder that would be to replicate, simply because there is more information packed in there and therefore random forces would have to have been 'luckier' in throwing it together. Information is real. It has been directly converted into energy. So we are talking about potentially quantifiable information content. In a simple group of encodings like the four ark phrases, there is a fair amount of information content and a very crude estimation of that is the improbability of finding them there together, in other words, how lucky the winds of chance were in throwing it all together. As I said in a previous post, if there is a better method of measuring the information content, or negative entropy, in there, I'd be happy to look at it.

Almost any "code" will have small probabilities, whether or not it is meaningful. Therefore, small probabilities cannot help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN. Yes they can, to give an idea of how probable something like that would be, but ultimately it is recognised, not proven.

thebluetriangle

04-17-2017, 12:06 PM

First, the appearance of the noun "numerology" is included because it defines the central theme of the code. Your rejection makes no sense at all because your codes are nothing but noun phrases. If you found a single noun like "ark" you would have included it, and you know it! Your logic is radically inconsistent and strongly biased. 'Ark of the Testimony' is more specific than just 'ark', which might also refer to Noah's ark. So the phrase is better here. It gives more information! Numerology is similarly vague and in fact many people would not class gematria as a form of numerology, a term which can refer to new age birth-number readings, etc. So two (or more) words are most definitely better than one!

Second, your OWN CODES do not pass YOUR OWN test!

Is "Second Coming" a biblical phrase? NO!

Is the phrase found in any bible? NO! It is debatable if even the concept is taught in the Bible.

I chose my words carefully, Richard. I was specifically referring to the ark encodings. I've already stated that other parts of the code go beyond the NIV Bible. It fact it exists to interpret two Millennial events: 9/11 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II, which, among other things, represented the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. The Second Coming encodings (of which you've seen only a small part) would still tick almost all of those boxes, incidentally, even though they weren't designed for that part of the code.

thebluetriangle

04-17-2017, 12:33 PM

This is simply not true here in the United States. KJV wins by a landslide. Here is a study (http://www.raac.iupui.edu/files/2713/9413/8354/Bible_in_American_Life_Report_March_6_2014.pdf) that proves the KJV is more popular than the NIV.

Here is a nice summary of the study. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/march/most-popular-and-fastest-growing-bible-translation-niv-kjv.html

When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.

The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.

So concludes "The Bible in American Life," a lengthy report by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University?Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Funded by the Lilly Foundation, researchers asked questions on what David Briggs of the ARDA, which first reported the results, calls "two of the most highly respected data sources for American religion"?the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.

The numbers are surprising, given the strong sales of NIV translations in bookstores. The NIV has topped the CBA's bestselling Bible translation list for decades, and continued to sell robustly in 2013.

The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV.

The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.

In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.

I meant to say that the NIV sells more than any other version. In that sense it is the most popular. Here's a website (http://thomrainer.com/2014/12/top-ten-bible-translations-2014/) giving the top ten versions in terms of dollar sales and unit sales. The NIV tops both lists. That's interesting information you give though. I have both versions, and personally I prefer the NIV every time, just because it's so readable.

Why would God allow so many Americans to be deceived if his "true" codes are only found in the NIV? Why would such a God use secret codes through numerology that are so easily cloaked by human biases?

Who's being deceived? The codes are entirely separate from the plain words of the Bible and in fact you can read yoor Bible every day without ever being concerned about codes, if that is your preference. There's nothing wrong with the KJV either. It's served the church well for centuries. I suspect, though, that many people prefer the KJV because they grew up with it and so it's been part of their religious experience. I like worshipping in old gothic or neo-gothic churches, rather than modern ones, for the same reason. But for aiding reading comprehension, the NIV is the one.

As for 'human biases', there isn't a single part of the Bible and religion in general that hasn't been twisted because of human bias, and then used to serve men rather than God. The interpretation of the code isn't immune to that either, and I've gone to great lengths to get this right, as far as I am able. In fact that is probably one reason why I was chosen for this, because I had no theological or denominational biases or even much biblical knowledge. But, because it was encoded by the Holy Spirit working through the unconscious minds of the NIV Bible translators (and in fact the inspiration goes all the way back to the time when the first scribes put pen to parchment) the code itself is very pure information. This is buried treasure, for goodness sake! Or should I say, was buried treasure. It's on display now!

How do you know Richard's codes aren't valid? What if they were really God's codes meant to warn people not to delude themselves with numerology? How would you prove any different?

You can't encode a bible using numerology to prove that numerology is invalid. It's an absurdity, like saying "This statement is false." (which would mean it was true, and therefore false, and therefore true . . .).

Richard Amiel McGough

04-17-2017, 01:55 PM

How do you know Richard's codes aren't valid? What if they were really God's codes meant to warn people not to delude themselves with numerology? How would you prove any different?

You can't encode a bible using numerology to prove that numerology is invalid. It's an absurdity, like saying "This statement is false." (which would mean it was true, and therefore false, and therefore true . . .).
Yes, it is an absurdity. That was my point! I used a classic logical argument to refute your theory. It's called a Reductio ad Absurdum. I used YOUR METHODS to show that they lead to absurdity and so cannot be true or trusted.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-17-2017, 02:28 PM

Second, your OWN CODES do not pass YOUR OWN test!

Is "Second Coming" a biblical phrase? NO!

Is the phrase found in any bible? NO! It is debatable if even the concept is taught in the Bible.

I chose my words carefully, Richard. I was specifically referring to the ark encodings. I've already stated that other parts of the code go beyond the NIV Bible. It fact it exists to interpret two Millennial events: 9/11 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II, which, among other things, represented the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. The Second Coming encodings (of which you've seen only a small part) would still tick almost all of those boxes, incidentally, even though they weren't designed for that part of the code.

You would do well to choose your principles as carefully as your words. Your PRINCIPLES are entirely inconsistent. You change them whenever you need to rationalize why one pattern doesn't follow the same principles as some other pattern. They cannot be consistent because your "codes" are not consistent. Your assertion that they are all "interlocking is directly contradicted by the fact that they are not based on any consistent set of principles. In essence, you just make up whatever you want after the fact and the say "God did it." Nothing could be more absurd.

The Bible speaks strongly against people who do not follow consistent principles. It warns about how people delude themselves with ever changing doctrines (principles). For example:

Eph 4:14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.

I'm pretty sure you are not deliberately using "cunning and craftiness" but your codes strike me as extremely "deceitful scheming" because you have deceived yourself, and cannot state, let alone adhere to, a coherent consistent set of principles that define your "codes".

Now tell me this ... is it a "mere coincidence" that this verse INTEGRATES with my code that shows numerology is false? Look at this!

1439

Haven't had enough? What are the chances that the VERSE NUMBERS would also be found in the grid, starting with the first word? We have the identity:

BOOK OF EPHESIANS FOUR FOURTEEN = 1728 = Word string from word 1 to word 36!!!

1440

What will it take for you to see the truth Bill?

Your code has been debunked.

Eugene Ghoostman

04-17-2017, 03:49 PM

Hi Richard & Bill & anyone else who happens upon this thread I just signed up today.

It's a fascinating read though i must admit much of it goes over my head ( i am not very good with numbers or probabilities or any of that stuff) I hope you don't mind me saying Bill but i think you might be over thinking things a bit here - Seriously please don't take any offence but it seems to be a very deep & somewhat obscure code - i think everything is pretty much more out in the open now - it's almost as if something is revelling in the revealing which will eventually (unless perhaps we can hack the code) become the new re-veiling / reviling - no code needed, unless it's a codex i suspect that the code to be de cyphered, if there is such a thing, is within our living DNA the living animated wyrd, a sort of quantum cryptography if u like ... anyway it struck me the other day that perhaps for the first time in History RELIGION, SCIENCE & POLITICS all kind of agree that entropy requires a mess-higher, which would imply that whether we be Jew, Christian or Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or Bahia, whether atheist or a theist, agnostic or a Gnostic we are all human beings & in a sense we are all DECIBELS OF THE MESS-HIGHER - ever increasingly complexity etc. this sentence intrigues me : our descendants will continue their dissent no matter how decent they be.

i don't know about probabilities but the chance that these linguistic "oddities" exist & are simply down to chance seem to my admittedly uneducated brain somewhat remote so not really sure what's going on there - dunno what you think - Anyway, i hope you don't mind my intrusion, please don't take offence as i am simply just a simple fellow putting in my two penneth worth in so to speak :) all the best to u both

thebluetriangle

04-17-2017, 04:38 PM

Yes, it is an absurdity. That was my point! I used a classic logical argument to refute your theory. It's called a Reductio ad Absurdum. I used YOUR METHODS to show that they lead to absurdity and so cannot be true or trusted.

The absurdity was in L67's question to me asking how I could prove God hadn't encoded your message: and the answer is that a message saying gematria wasn't real, encoded using gematria, would be self-refuting. Proof by reductio ad absurdum, with which I'm quite familiar.

Reductio ad absurdum (proof by contradiction) arguments show that statements when taken to their logical conclusion lead to absurdities. You are misapplying it here though. L67 asked me how I could prove your code isn't real. That was easy. You on the other hand are not proving my code isn't real. You are merely inventing possible alternative phrases that could be slotted in. The most you could ever prove - and you are a long, long way from that - is that there is a chance the code might not be real. I knew that from the start, though. All the way along I have said that the code cannot be proven in the absolute sense of a mathematical proof. Nothing is provable except in mathematics and logic, and even the some propositions are 'undecideable'. You won't get certainty this side of the grave.

The code is recognised to be real because of its message, which will resonate with those who are ready for it. There will always be room for doubt, so that those who turn their backs on God have the freedom to reject it. If the code were proven to be real, they would not have that freedom. It is there to bolster the faith of those who already believe or to help convince those who are ready to take the leap of faith. Of course, it also contains a shocking, radical, inspiring message about our current age.

The code is like a crossword puzzle, where for a while you can fool yourself you have the clues right, when in fact you don't, because they don't link up to others: you might find one or two links but then it all falls apart. I already showed that with your last attempt at a pseudo-encoding, where the phrases showed very few of the characteristics of the real ones.

As for your next attempt . . .

thebluetriangle

04-17-2017, 06:25 PM

You would do well to choose your principles as carefully as your words. Your PRINCIPLES are entirely inconsistent. You change them whenever you need to rationalize why one pattern doesn't follow the same principles as some other pattern. They cannot be consistent because your "codes" are not consistent. Your assertion that they are all "interlocking is directly contradicted by the fact that they are not based on any consistent set of principles. In essence, you just make up whatever you want after the fact and the say "God did it." Nothing could be more absurd.

The code is based on a unique two-system encoding-decoding method that was taught to me by the Key. It also, however, uses reduced values and combined values (which are tentative, so I don't make a huge deal out of them). Does that make it inconsistent? No, it just means that more information can be packed in. The Encoder is creative.

The four ark encodings do not use the definite article and are therefore internally consistent. Does that mean the definite article cannot be used elsewhere? No! It has been, as you've gleefully pointed out. This isn't inconsistency though, it's creativity, a means of packing in as much information as possible. It increases the probability of random hits, yes, but also increases the information content. It's a trade-off, a 'best-fit' code.

Information has been encoded by different methods. Gematria, ELS codes, letter counts, verse counts, encodings at the word level, verse level and even letter level at times, and encodings of geometric figures (which are less ambiguous than phrases). Does that make it inconsistent? No! They are all different ways of packing in encoded material. In fact they help validate the code because some of them are independent of the others, yet they produce confluences of meaningfully-related patterns

From the start you have demanded that the code conform to your expectations of it, rather than find out what it is actually saying and how it says it, jumping to conclusions about it all the time. I say that the ark encodings are based only on phrases found exclusively within the NIV, and you assume that the entire code must be like that. It isn't. I never said it was - just the ark encodings and some others. When the code uses biblical phrases, only those from the NIV are used, but that doesn't mean that the code is restricted to the Bible itself. Its purpose would be defeated then. And incidentally, the code was completed in 1984 yet it encodes future events (seen from 1984). The intelligence that created code exists outside of time.

Showing that alternative phrases may be found beginning at Genesis 1 does not debunk the code. It merely shows that the code itself cannot be proven, which I've always said myself. Most of the code is inherently vulnerable to that kind of attack, because of the nature of gematria. That is one reason I wanted to discuss the geometry encoded there, since it is less ambiguous than English phrases and there are almost no opportunities for substituting alternative figures. The geometry of G-triangles underpins the Garden and can only be dismissed (again it's not certain) on probabilistic grounds - but you can only cry 'coincidence' for so long. I summarise these figures at the start of this page (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html).

The Bible speaks strongly against people who do not follow consistent principles. It warns about how people delude themselves with ever changing doctrines (principles). For example:

Eph 4:14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.

Ever-changing doctrines? That would be you then, Richard. For ten years or more you proclaimed the Biblewheel as "the divine seal and capstone of God's word", in your artwork placing it between the cherubim on the ark, as if it were the Glory itself. You can't promote anything more assertively than that. Then you decided that it was an idol, a golden calf, and you 'debunked' it, completely trashing that which you had so confidently proclaimed to be the Truth. Now you equally confidently proclaim it was a delusion and that you are now 'awake'. But can someone who was so wrong to begin with ever be trusted? Where was the consistency of your principles? Which doctrines do you hold to now? What happened to yesterday's ideas? All you have ever proven was that you are NOT fit to judge what is a code and what is not a code, because you were either deluded then, and (unconsciously) relying on 'cunning and craftiness', or you are deluded now and relying on 'cunning and craftiness'. One thing you are not is consistent.

I'm pretty sure you are not deliberately using "cunning and craftiness" but your codes strike me as extremely "deceitful scheming" because you have deceived yourself, and cannot state, let alone adhere to, a coherent consistent set of principles that define your "codes". I follow the principles of the code as I understand them. You mischaracterise them as inconsistent, when in fact you are the one who misunderstands them. I'll list the principles tomorrow so there is no doubt. But be clear that we are dealing with a creative intelligence here. You will not find encoding by rote, any more than a great musician plays the same piece of music the same way every time. That would be the mark of a workman, not an artist.

Now tell me this ... is it a "mere coincidence" that this verse INTEGRATES with my code that shows numerology is false? Look at this!

1439

Haven't had enough? What are the chances that the VERSE NUMBERS would also be found in the grid, starting with the first word? We have the identity:

BOOK OF EPHESIANS FOUR FOURTEEN = 1728 = Word string from word 1 to word 36!!!

1440

What will it take for you to see the truth Bill?

Your code has been debunked.

Let's apply the same test we did earlier to your last effort, and see if it passes muster this time.

Does it proceed from the first words of the NIV? YES.
Was it decoded in the same way? YES
Is each phrase internally consistent? YES
Are the phrases/word consistent with each other? NO. One of them is part of a verse with no real connection to your gematria statements. Neither are gematria and numerology considered to be the same by many people.
Do the phrases make a meaningful statement? NO. Together, they do NOT make a meaningful statement. Three are related and they are open ended anyway. The ark encodings state all the items in the Most Holy Place associated with the Day of Atonement.
Are they of profound religious significance? NO
Are they biblical phrases? NO
Are they found only in the NIV Bible? NO, simply because they are not found in any bible.
Are they supported by other independent 'codes' (such as ELS codes)? That remains to be seen.
Do they interlock with similar codes in the same location to give larger patterns of meaning? Again, that remains to be seen. You misunderstood what I meant by interlocking. All you did was show another word string. Look again at how 'atonement cover (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html)' interlocks with the Signature of Christ.
Do they make any kind of pattern, such as the 14-24-34 pattern or the 6-6-6-6 pattern of the Signature of Christ? NO.

Thi isn't even close. Why not give up and we can work on that test method I've asked you about several times? That is a far better method of testing the reality of the code, because it will show if random numbers show the same percentage of overlaps as I found in Genesis.

Again, the code is NOT debunked.

thebluetriangle

04-18-2017, 12:59 AM

I promised I would lay down the basic rules by which the New Bible Code was apparently constructed, so it's time to do just that.

The code is based on two schemes of alphabetic numeration which were given to me by means of a Key (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=67874#post67874). This key showed me that numbers are encoded as ordinal values and decoded as standard values. The numbers are found in the text of the NIV Bible (1984), within the occasional Hebrew and Greek word, and within two recent events: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II. 9/11 was a huge, multisymbolic event, prophesied and alluded to within the Bible from beginning to end and a kind of focal point in space and time.

So the Key opens up the text of the NIV Bible but also decodes 9/11 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II. Here's an example, using the two-system Key. 9/11 took place 254 days into the third Millennium. The funeral took place 1559 days into the third Millennium.

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

In other words both events are linked to Jesus Christ, through the ordinal and standard value systems. The code here is also using the end of the second Millennium, 31/12/00, as a reference point. I was shown myself that this is the most important one and many of the events in my own life were linked to it to impress this upon me.

The code also utilises the reduced value system and another system, the sum of the first three, for supplimentary information. However, it can stand on its own without them and I seldom mention them. Note that the standard, ordinal and reduced systems are commonly used in Hebrew gematria and the standard value itself is simply the original sheme of alphabetic numeration by which Hebrew characters doubled as numbers.

Other features of the NIV Bible are utilised by the code, such as verse, chapter and book counts and chapter and verse indicators. The code creatively utilises these numbers to stitch a tapestry of meaning. Here is an example. In Genesis Genealogies I tabulate the genealogical lists given in Genesis 5 and 11, showing the lifespans of Adam and his progeny through to Noah then again from Shem through to Terah. There is a coda to the list that runs through Genesis, giving the lifespans of Abraham Isaac, Jacob and Joseph and it ends at the very end of the book. Here is the table.

1441

If you look at the 22nd row you will see that the lifespan of Abraham is given in the 666th chapter and the Lifespan of Joseph the 1529th chapter. The running total of the numbers to these points are 20391 and 20888. These numbers can all be linked to the Second Coming through the standard value system:

The Lord's Coming (s) = 666
Second Coming (s) = 391
Jesus Christ + The Second Coming (s) = 1529
The Lord's Second Coming (s) = 888

391 and 888 are also the standard values in Hebrew and Greek of Yehushua and Ihsous. The '0' in 20391 and 20888 is a spacer between the 2 and the 391/888. '2' has obvious meaning. 20888 is also a multiple of 373 (Logos ).

Another example features those two numbers 391 and 888 again. The 888th chapter in the Bible is Amos 9. Amos has 9 chapters and sits between Joel, with three chapters and Obadiah, with a single chapter, giving 391. So here we have 888 crossing 391. Why is there a cross at this precise location? Here is how the chapter opens.

'I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said "Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down upon the heads of the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape."' (Amos 9.1, NIV)

This is a prophecy of 9/11, marked by what I call the Sign of the Cross (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437340.html).

Joel, Amos and Obadiah all strongly feature one theme: the Day of the Lord. The only other two minor prophets with this focus are Zephaniah and Malachi, both removed from these three books. In fact of the eighteen mentions of the phrase day of the Lord' in the Old Testament fully nine are found just in these three books. Amos is often known as 'the prophet of Doom'. So in meaning, chapter numbers and, I should add, encoded numbers in the text, 9/11 is identified with the Jewish concept of the Day of the Lord, a day when God's wrath is poured out among His people.

You can see that the code utilises various methods to bring its apocalyptic message to us. I intended to go into more detail about its workings but duty calls. This is enough for readers to see that one simple, rote method of encoding could never have acheived these confluences of thematically related numbers: the code is the product of a creative Intelligence.

L67

04-18-2017, 05:23 AM

Another example features those two numbers 391 and 888 again. The 888th chapter in the Bible is Amos 9. Amos has 9 chapters and sits between Joel, with three chapters and Obadiah, with a single chapter, giving 391. So here we have 888 crossing 391. Why is there a cross at this precise location? Here is how the chapter opens.

'I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said "Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down upon the heads of the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape."' (Amos 9.1, NIV)

This is a prophecy of 9/11, marked by what I call the Sign of the Cross (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437340.html).

Joel, Amos and Obadiah all strongly feature one theme: the Day of the Lord. The only other two minor prophets with this focus are Zephaniah and Malachi, both removed from these three books. In fact of the eighteen mentions of the phrase day of the Lord' in the Old Testament fully nine are found just in these three books. Amos is often known as 'the prophet of Doom'. So in meaning, chapter numbers and, I should add, encoded numbers in the text, 9/11 is identified with the Jewish concept of the Day of the Lord, a day when God's wrath is poured out among His people.

This is totally WRONG! Amos 9 has NOTHING to do with 9/11. You falsely attributed that verse out of context to suit your desires to create a code to your liking. Amos 9 is about the coming destruction on Israel as well as the restoration of Israel. There are many clues that prove this is true.

Let's look at this in context.

9 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

2 Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:

3 And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them:

4 And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.

5 And the Lord God of hosts is he that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn: and it shall rise up wholly like a flood; and shall be drowned, as by the flood of Egypt.

6 It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name.

7 Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?

8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.

9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.

11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this.

13 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.

14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. They hid themselves of top of Mt. Carmel. Mt. Carmel is a mountain in Israel. The whole context of Amos is about the destruction of Israel and the restoration of Israel. That's a demonstrable FACT! There is no 9/11 prophecy predicted here. You have deceived yourself. Your codes are meaningless.

thebluetriangle

04-18-2017, 09:17 AM

I do not "assume" anything but what you have said. I am following your lead. YOU declare that something is "encoded" if it fits a pattern you like, but when I follow your logic and find something that should, by the same logic, be encoded but is not, you complain and say that there is no way anyone could ever say what should or should not be encoded. Therefore, you destroy your own testimony, because if I can't say what should be encoded, neither can you. Who are you to say that your "codes" are real? What if you are wrong? Who made you the authority of what is or is not encoded?

You have exalted yourself above the throne of God, declaring your word to be God's Word. I know the code is real for other reasons, some of which I've already explained to you. I'm trying to explain the code to you too, but you aren't following very well - and it's your own assumptions that are the problem. This is why a beginner can often see what an expert misses. I was chosen because I knew virtually nothing about the Bible. I was only just becoming interested in it and the Christian faith, although I was interested in spirituality. But I knew enough to follow orders, and that's the front I was led to serve at. Having lived with it for the past fifteen years, I now know the Bible to be the greatest book ever written. It's inspired, from the first word to the last - literally! That doesn't mean that everything in it is literaly true, but that the spirit of God has been hovering over the scribes, editors (yes, it was edited many times) and translators to place in it exactly what He wanted placed there and in the versions He wanted it placed within.

It makes no sense at all because it is totally incoherent. I have shown this and you made up irrational rationalizations about why you can use an article here but not there, and why you must use biblical phrases here but not there. Your "codes" are blatantly inconsistent and irrational. All I ever said was that the ark encodings were all without the definite article, which increased the probability that they were real codes. I never said that the article wasn't use elsewhere. There is one code in fact that I like that encodes two phrases announcing the second coming, one with and one without the definite article. I'd rather it had been one way or the other, but it's still a beautiful piece of code. It also uses alternative phrases for 'coming' (all the words are found in the NIV though).

In fact I found it because I'd already found JESUS/SECOND COMING and THE LORD/SECOND COMING over the first and last eighteen words of the NIV Bible, so I reasoned the two middle verses of the Bible might also be encoded that way. And they were - and more!

Here is this central, symmetrical little group of codes.

1442

Each encoding proceeds from the first and last word, reflecting the Bible as a whole, and runs for eighteen words. Note that in the very centre of the Bible by verse we have 'Jesus Christ'! To be symmetrical with the other two it had to be an odd number, since there are an odd number of words, so it runs over 19 words. The two verses are positive too, in a chapter that is generally gloomy. And don't forget the profound meaning in these verses, from a psalm that Hebrews 1 tells us is a prophecy.

iThis verse declares in tones of thunder "when" the Lord will appear in glory (Psalms 102:15) and "when" all the other wonderful things of this passage shall happen. That time shall be when the peoples (the Gentiles) are gathered together unto the Lord; and the kingdoms of the earth, not Israel alone, shall serve Jehovah. Only the current dispensation of the Grace of God in Christ qualifies as "that time."'(from this site (https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/psalms-102.html))

The Hebrew is NOT "Adam Tselem" but rather "Adam b'tselmenu". Your Hebrew transliteration is incorrect.

That's true, but I took it from your own website (http://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Database.php?Gem_Num=218). I'm still a little unpracticed at this kind of transliteration, so I just put the transliteration you'd given here. Thanks for pointing it out though. I'll change it.

And yes, Messiah in English sums to 263, but we are not talking about any old messiah, but rather THE MESSIAH (the same logic you used to justify your use of "THE serpent" rather than "serpent") and that does NOT match. So again, we see you MANIPULATING THE NUMBERS to force fit the pattern you want, which is the original sin of all numerology. The word 'Messiah' in the NIV Bible refers to one man.

"and said, ?Prophesy to us, Messiah. Who hit you?" (Matt. 26.68

The word 'serpent' refers to a whole lot of things that slither.

"Do not rejoice, all you Philistines, that the rod that struck you is broken; from the root of that snake will spring up a viper, its fruit will be a darting, venomous serpent." (Isa. 14.29)

It's perfectly logical.

'The Serpent' cuts out some of the ambiguity, although it refers to a snake too in another verse. It's clear though that in Genesis 3 'the serpent' is a reference to Satan. Anyway what makes you think 'the Messiah' isn't there?

No one with any intelligence would accept such blatantly cooked numbers. Your "logic" is radically inconsistent and illogical. It's not my logic, its my interpretation of the code, which took me long enough to get right and still isn't perfect. What you don't like is that the code doesn't follow your logic. I went through that too, but when I laid aside my expectations and assumptions, I found something far better than my wildest speculations.

thebluetriangle

04-18-2017, 10:19 AM

If God is such a great encoder, why did he FAIL to encode "God" (71) or "Lord God" (255) in the word strings? You are picking and choosing incoherent bits and pieces that make no coherent pattern. What makes you think God wanted to encode His name here - in addition to the encodings of 'God' that are already present, that is, two of which you've already been shown? Why do you think it should be more? If I showed you ten, would you ask why there weren't twelve?

thebluetriangle

04-18-2017, 11:25 AM

thebluetriangle

04-18-2017, 02:10 PM

This is totally WRONG! Amos 9 has NOTHING to do with 9/11. You falsely attributed that verse out of context to suit your desires to create a code to your liking. Amos 9 is about the coming destruction on Israel as well as the restoration of Israel. There are many clues that prove this is true.

Let's look at this in context.

9 I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

2 Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:

3 And though they hide themselves in the top of Carmel, I will search and take them out thence; and though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea, thence will I command the serpent, and he shall bite them:

4 And though they go into captivity before their enemies, thence will I command the sword, and it shall slay them: and I will set mine eyes upon them for evil, and not for good.

5 And the Lord God of hosts is he that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn: and it shall rise up wholly like a flood; and shall be drowned, as by the flood of Egypt.

6 It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The Lord is his name.

7 Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?

8 Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth; saving that I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob, saith the Lord.

9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.

11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this.

13 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.

14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the Lord thy God.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. They hid themselves of top of Mt. Carmel. Mt. Carmel is a mountain in Israel. The whole context of Amos is about the destruction of Israel and the restoration of Israel. That's a demonstrable FACT! There is no 9/11 prophecy predicted here. You have deceived yourself. Your codes are meaningless.

You have this the wrong way round, I'm afraid. When I found this crossing of 391 (chapters in Joel, Amos and Obadiah) with 888 (the positional value of Amos 9) I knew little about Amos. It was the code itself that directed me to this chapter. Only then did I look at it and see that it resonated with 9/11. The encoded numbers I found supported it.

Many verses, prophecies, parables, etc, fit the pattern of 9/11. Here are a few for you:

1. Genesis 10.19 is the first verse to introduce the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroyed by the Lord because they had given themselves over to sin.

2. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is continued in Genesis 19, so the two chapters in which they are mentioned are 10 and 19, suggesting 9/11 again.

3. The story of the tower of Babel, which God prevented man from building, is told over the first 9 verses of Genesis 11.

4. In the early chapters of Exodus God shows his power to the Egyptians by having Moses and Aaron defeat the Pharaoh's magicians. In Exodus 9.11 we are told that Pharaoh's magicians cannot stand before Moses and Aaron after being covered in boils. In the NIV, the ordinal value of this verse is 957 (11 x 87).

5. 1 Samuel 17 tells the story of David felling Goliath with a single slingshot. The twin towers were a type of Goliath: large and powerful but an enemy of God's people. Chapter 17 is the Bible's 253rd (11 x 23). The chapter/verse where David fires the fatal slingshot is 17.49 (11 x 159).

6. Isaiah 30.25 warns of a ' ... day of great slaughter, when the towers fall ...' 3025 is 11 x 11 x 5 x 5. [1]

7. In Jeremiah 9.11 the Lord threatens the destruction of Jerusalem and other towns. In the NIV, the ordinal value of this verse is 1122 (11 x 102).

8. Zephaniah 1.16 prophesies an attack on the 'fortified cities' and the 'corner towers' of Jerusalem. In the NIV, the ordinal value of this verse is 847 (11 x 11 x 7).

9. Mark 11 describes Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. In Mark 11.20 the fig tree that Jesus cursed is found withered. The ordinal value of the verse is 803 (11 x 73). Mark 11 is the Bible's 968th chapter (11 x 11 x 8).

10. In Revelation 20.9, fire from heaven comes down and destroys Satan and his followers, who had surrounded the camp of God's people. The ordinal value of this verse is 1342 (11 x 122). 209 is 11 x 19.

This is a small sample of verses where the events fit the pattern of 9/11. All are marked with either 11 or 9 and 11. In biblical numerics 9 means endings, finality, judgment, fruits and suffering. 11 means disorder, disintegration and imperfection. So 9/11 itself implies God's judgment on an imperfect system. It's ending. It's just desserts.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-29-2017, 10:20 AM

What exactly is the test you are proposing? It's self-evident that there will be lots of overlaps when you compress 3764 numbers into 83 columns. Why would anyone think any would try to encode messages that way? How exactly are we supposed to discern between the "encoded" messages and random chance? You have NEVER been able to answer this question. I've been asking it since the beginning and you have NEVER answered.

So here is the question you need to answer:

How are we supposed to discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN in your "codes"?

You have NEVER answered this.

You need to answer this question.

Using random pairs of numbers, the test would tell us what percentage of them would overlap in the Garden (Genesis 1.1-5). (It might also be interesting to take a random text, say a novel and try it with that, because if the text of Genesis is highly encrypoted that might affect its numerical properties.)

If we then compare it with the encodings I actually found, ie, the double witnessed encodings of God's creations on each of the six creation days, or the double witnessed ark encodings, all taken from the first sciptural mentions of each concept, then we can see how unlikely or not these are.

A refinement would be to take random nouns in Genesis 1, say chosen by someone not familiar with the code or the Bible, find their first instance, find the Hebrew word and the NIV translation and try those against random numbers.

I took the first instance of each concept every time, which should make no difference to whether or not it is found in the Garden, assuming that it is not encoded. If the first instances of some concepts are encoded then it should make all the difference in the world, and I would expect more hits than chance.

You ask me how to discern between chance and design. That is one way, by experiment. If there is no difference there is no design, because it is the hits that I am saying are the design.
Hey there Bill,

Sorry for the slow response. I was out of state on vacation for most of the last two weeks. Had a great time driving down the Pacific coast, riding my bike around Seattle and San Francisco, and going to a convention put on by MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (http://www.maps.org)). It was awesome.

Now as for the test you suggest - there are a few problems. First, your emphasis on "probability" is fundamentally misguided because there is nothing about the probabilities that would tell us if the phrases you found were deliberately designed. There are millions of other phrases with equally low probabilities that were not designed. So the probabilities tell us nothing. I've explained this to you many times, and you have responded by asserting that the meaningfulness of your phrases somehow implies that that their low probability implies design. But that's not true because when I make up my own very meaningful phrases you reject them because you don't like what they say. This exposes the fundamental error of your method - which is nothing but a glorified exercise in the twin cognitive errors of SELECTION BIAS + CONFIRMATION BIAS.

Second, we must ask why an intelligent God would use such an unreliable method to "encode" things. I say "unreliable" because there is NO WAY for anyone to know if the "code" they found was intended by God. The small probabilities don't help because almost all "encodings" would have small probabilities. And the "meaning" doesn't help because that is very subjective, especially when you allow yourself to make up phrases that are not even found in the Bible and which many see as contradicting what is actually found in the Bible.

Third, the probabilities of overlap are very, very high. The results you have shown are exactly what I would expect from random chance. Consider a random number that is found in the grid. What is the probability that it would overlap some other random number found in the grid? Let's take the simplest case when the two numbers occur just once, say x and y. Each number spans a set of columns in the grid: x spans columns x1 to x2 and y spans columns y1 to y2. The they overlap if and only if x2 ≥ y1 or x1 ≤ y2. Here's an image to help understand what we're talking about, with x spanning 20 to 59 and y spanning 6 to 21.

1451

In this example, there is on overlap because y2 = 21 > x1 = 20.

So to calculate the probability, all we need to do is ask how many overlaps there would be for each possible number in the grid, and then divide by the total number of numbers in the grid.

The total number of word strings is given by the triangular form of 83, i.e. there are Tri(83) = 83x84/2 = 3486. That's how many numbers there are in the grid, though not all are unique since there are many repeats.

Now it's easier to count the misses than the hits. Then we can just subtract the misses from the total to get the number of hits. Let's begin by denoting a random number in the grid by (x1,x2). In the picture, this would be (20,59). How many word strings are there to the left of the red block? That's easy, it's just all the word strings in the small grid that has only 19 = x1 - 1 columns. This is simply Tri(x1 - 1). Likewise, the number of word strings on the right would be the number Tri(83 - x2). Thus, the total number of misses for this case would be:

Tri(x1 - 1) + Tri(83 - x2) = Tri(19) + Tri(24) = 190 + 300 = 490

And the probability of an overlap in this case is:

p = (3486 - 490)/3486 = 85.9%

A similar analysis would apply to every possible word string (x1,x2).

As I said, the probability of an overlap is extremely high.

CONCLUSION: Your grids show no evidence of design.

thebluetriangle

04-29-2017, 04:46 PM

Hey there Bill,

Sorry for the slow response. I was out of state on vacation for most of the last two weeks. Had a great time driving down the Pacific coast, riding my bike around Seattle and San Francisco, and going to a convention put on by MAPS (the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (http://www.maps.org)). It was awesome. I'm glad you had a good time. I hear the west coast of the USA is beautiful.

Now as for the test you suggest - there are a few problems. First, your emphasis on "probability" is fundamentally misguided because there is nothing about the probabilities that would tell us if the phrases you found were deliberately designed. There are millions of other phrases with equally low probabilities that were not designed. So the probabilities tell us nothing. I've explained this to you many times, and you have responded by asserting that the meaningfulness of your phrases somehow implies that that their low probability implies design. But that's not true because when I make up my own very meaningful phrases you reject them because you don't like what they say. This exposes the fundamental error of your method - which is nothing but a glorified exercise in the twin cognitive errors of SELECTION BIAS + CONFIRMATION BIAS. The test I proposed was to determine if the 'double witness' phenomenon (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html) is genuine by testing pairs of randomly-generated numbers against the standard values of Hebrew nouns taken from Genesis and their equivalents in the NIV. If the random numbers overlapped much less often than those taken from Genesis then there is every reason to suppose that the double witness phenomenon exists - and from initial work I have done, this appears to be the case.

It can be done more theoretically too, of course, and I'll speak about that in a minute.

As for probability calculations, small probabilities linked to meaning do indeed suggest design. If not, then we should be able to find impressive alternatives very easily, and you have neither done so, nor come close to doing so. If probability calculations included meaning, those other phrases you mention would be seen to be much more probable than the biblical example we've been discussing, the ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html). The Law of Truly Large Numbers does imply that a huge forest of numbers will somewhere give the appearance of design. But we are at the very edge of that forest in the first couple of verses of Genesis, and so there simply aren't enough numbers around for that to have occurred.

Second, we must ask why an intelligent God would use such an unreliable method to "encode" things. I say "unreliable" because there is NO WAY for anyone to know if the "code" they found was intended by God. The small probabilities don't help because almost all "encodings" would have small probabilities. And the "meaning" doesn't help because that is very subjective, especially when you allow yourself to make up phrases that are not even found in the Bible and which many see as contradicting what is actually found in the Bible. I've already answered this too. There is no possible type of miracle or apparition that can be verified beyond question. Dozens of witnesses saw Marian apparitions at Knock in Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition#Our_Lady_of_Knock_.281879.29), which lasted for hours. It took the Catholic Church nearly 100 years to approve them, and your average atheist would explain them away as delusions or lies. You may not understand why God has chosen this method of communication, but one advantage it has is that it can be studied at our leisure, which we are doing. If we were discussing the Knock apparitions, all I would have would be the testimony of the 19th Century witnesses.

Third, the probabilities of overlap are very, very high. The results you have shown are exactly what I would expect from random chance. Are they? We've already discovered that only 50% or so of the possible numbers up to 3764 (the ov of the longest word string) are found there. The chances of both numbers being present at all are only about 27%.

Consider a random number that is found in the grid. What is the probability that it would overlap some other random number found in the grid? Let's take the simplest case when the two numbers occur just once, say x and y. Each number spans a set of columns in the grid: x spans columns x1 to x2 and y spans columns y1 to y2. The they overlap if and only if x2 ≥ y1 or x1 ≤ y2. Here's an image to help understand what we're talking about, with x spanning 20 to 59 and y spanning 6 to 21.

1451

In this example, there is on overlap because y2 = 21 > x1 = 20.

So to calculate the probability, all we need to do is ask how many overlaps there would be for each possible number in the grid, and then divide by the total number of numbers in the grid.

The total number of word strings is given by the triangular form of 83, i.e. there are Tri(83) = 83x84/2 = 3486. That's how many numbers there are in the grid, though not all are unique since there are many repeats.

Now it's easier to count the misses than the hits. Then we can just subtract the misses from the total to get the number of hits. Let's begin by denoting a random number in the grid by (x1,x2). In the picture, this would be (20,59). How many word strings are there to the left of the red block? That's easy, it's just all the word strings in the small grid that has only 19 = x1 - 1 columns. This is simply Tri(x1 - 1). Likewise, the number of word strings on the right would be the number Tri(83 - x2). Thus, the total number of misses for this case would be:

Tri(x1 - 1) + Tri(83 - x2) = Tri(19) + Tri(24) = 190 + 300 = 490

And the probability of an overlap in this case is:

p = (3486 - 490)/3486 = 85.9%
That's an excellent piece of work, cleverly done. I've used it myself tonight and can confirm your result. All I can add is that I included touching word strings as well as overlapping ones, and a couple that were separated, so the probabilities are a bit higher. However, you have chosen a very long word string, much longer than most of my published findings, and positioned it near the centre of the Garden. Both of these variables increase the possibility of an overlap. I would say that 50% to 60% is a more typical probability. The lowest I found was 35%, the highest, 90%.

So let's plug this into the random number calculation. If 52% of numbers are found in the Garden and 55% of pairs actually found there overlap, there is a (.52 x .52 x .55) probability of two random numbers overlapping in the Garden, which gives p = 0.148, or 1 in 6.7. In this page, my control experiment showed that one out of five pairs overlapped, which is about what we'd expect. But in the Genesis pairings they nearly all overlapped! They were chosen on the basis of being the first examples of created things found in Genesis, for the Garden, and the first examples of the components of the ark and the sacred objects inside found in the Bible. In neither case would that affect the probability of them being found in the Garden as double witnessed encodings, but as I said, nearly all of them were there, overlapping.

Now if we find repeated examples of independently derived numbers overlapping, we can multiply the probabilities. So for one pair, p = 1 in 6.7, for two pairs p = 1 in 45, for five pairs it is 1 in 13500, etc. In the Ark, we have eleven pairs, nine of which overlap. The Garden has nineteen pairs, all of which overlap or touch.

There would have to be a lot of refinements made to these calculations, because for instance some numbers are found multiple times and this would increase the probability of an overlap, and although I had almost no choice in the numbers I looked for the Garden, I did have a little. All could be justified on other grounds though. Also, some overlaps formed larger clusters or patterns, such as Jesus Christ and Yehoshua HaMashiach sitting right on top of Man in our Image/Adam Tselem.

A similar analysis would apply to every possible word string (x1,x2).

As I said, the probability of an overlap is extremely high.

CONCLUSION: Your grids show no evidence of design.

I think you are jumping to conclusions here. Thanks for that little probability calculation though.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-29-2017, 06:47 PM

I'm glad you had a good time. I hear the west coast of the USA is beautiful.

Yes, it is very beautiful. Especially in the spring when everything is blooming. Here's a pic of a place I road by near Bend, Oregon.

1452

The test I proposed was to determine if the 'double witness' phenomenon (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html) is genuine by testing pairs of randomly-generated numbers against the standard values of Hebrew nouns taken from Genesis and their equivalents in the NIV. If the random numbers overlapped much less often than those taken from Genesis then there is every reason to suppose that the double witness phenomenon exists - and from initial work I have done, this appears to be the case.

I don't see any value in that test because the grid doesn't contain many of the values that would be expected if God designed it. For example, it contains one occurrence of 45 (Adam in Hebrew) but doesn't contain the value of the English equivalent (46). Likewise, it has two occurrences of 89 (Elohim in Hebrew) but no occurrences of 71 (God in English). There is one occurrence of Yahweh Elohim (Hb: 112) but no occurrence of LORD God (Eng: 255) and though there are three occurrences of THE LORD GOD (Eng:468) none of them overlap with 112!

1453

I could go on. The misses outnumber the hits. The few hits that you found don't impress me at all because they are cherry picked and look exactly like what I would expect from random chance. And more importantly, you have to rationalize why the things you like are "meaningful" whereas the things missing are not. That's what I was talking about when I said that your logic is inconsistent. You have to make up excuses when things don't fit the pattern you are looking for.

This is very important. You need to explain by what principles you choose words like "light" (which fits) and exclude words like "man" (which don't fit). If you have no general principle explaining your choices, then your choices are arbitrary, subjective, and cherry picked which means that there is no real pattern. The pattern is illusory, so there is no "double witness."

As for probability calculations, small probabilities linked to meaning do indeed suggest design. If not, then we should be able to find impressive alternatives very easily, and you have neither done so, nor come close to doing so. If probability calculations included meaning, those other phrases you mention would be seen to be much more probable than the biblical example we've been discussing, the ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html). The Law of Truly Large Numbers does imply that a huge forest of numbers will somewhere give the appearance of design. But we are at the very edge of that forest in the first couple of verses of Genesis, and so there simply aren't enough numbers around for that to have occurred.

The small probabilities are not "linked to meaning". Probability has nothing to do with the "meaning" of what is found, so meaning cannot "be included". Probability is defined by relative frequency. It doesn't matter what symbol is used on the faces of a six sided die. If you roll the die, each face will appear with a probability of 1/6. Every hand in a poker game has equal probability (since the cards are unique) but some hands are preferred over others because of the arbitrary rules of the game. If we changed the rules, the preferred hands would change (have different meaning) but the statistics would be the same.

The things you think are "meaningful" is very subjective. You reject the things I found because you don't like what they imply, not because they are not meaningful. You understood perfectly what they meant. And the connections were very strong, both thematically and in the amazing case that the Biblical source of the largest phrase (The Book of Ephesians Four Fourteen) was encoded in the same grid starting with the first word! I followed the same pattern that you used to show how easy it is to find words that fit your pattern. You rejected it only because it contradicts what you want to believe.

So tell me, what would you accept as evidence? If I found any other "Biblical themes" you could just say that God encoded them too. If I show non-biblical themes, you say you can ignore them because they aren't in the Bible. It looks to me that you have a double standard.

And this brings us to the real problem with your entire thesis. It appears you have NO CONSISTENT STANDARDS to evaluate whether a pattern is significant or not. You make up the "rules" AFTER THE FACT and design them to fit the target. That's a text book example of the Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy. First you find some hits you like, then you draw the target around them and say how "unlikely" it was that they would fit in the target.

Second, we must ask why an intelligent God would use such an unreliable method to "encode" things. I say "unreliable" because there is NO WAY for anyone to know if the "code" they found was intended by God. The small probabilities don't help because almost all "encodings" would have small probabilities. And the "meaning" doesn't help because that is very subjective, especially when you allow yourself to make up phrases that are not even found in the Bible and which many see as contradicting what is actually found in the Bible.

I've already answered this too. There is no possible type of miracle or apparition that can be verified beyond question. Dozens of witnesses saw Marian apparitions at Knock in Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition#Our_Lady_of_Knock_.281879.29), which lasted for hours. It took the Catholic Church nearly 100 years to approve them, and your average atheist would explain them away as delusions or lies. You may not understand why God has chosen this method of communication, but one advantage it has is that it can be studied at our leisure, which we are doing. If we were discussing the Knock apparitions, all I would have would be the testimony of the 19th Century witnesses.

I know you attempted to answer, but I find it to be entirely inadequate. It is simply false to say that "no type of miracle" could be verified beyond question unless you are talking about absolute skepticism which says that nothing can be verified beyond question. But if that's your standard, then we can't verify 2 + 2 = 4 or that Trump is president or that you are not a figment of my imagination, in which case all discourse it pointless.

Is not the whole point of your "double witness" and talk of statistics to give a rational skeptic reason to believe? What good is it if it is so weak that a rational skeptic is justified to reject it?

Your rationalization for the weakness of your thesis strikes me as an implicit admission that it is nothing but confirmation bias. You say only believers will believe, and God made sure it was not so strong that a rational person must believe? That sounds like confirmation bias to me, in spades.

Are they? We've already discovered that only 50% or so of the possible numbers up to 3764 (the ov of the longest word string) are found there. The chances of both numbers being present at all are only about 27%.

And you ignore any numbers that are missing, no matter how important they are to the story, which means your methods are demonstrably unjust, inconsistent, and irrational. It doesn't matter if you can make up stories about why "the serpent" is included but "the man" is not. I don't care, and neither would anyone else who can see through such blatantly self-serving rationalizations.

That's an excellent piece of work, cleverly done. I've used it myself tonight and can confirm your result. All I can add is that I included touching word strings as well as overlapping ones, and a couple that were separated, so the probabilities are a bit higher. However, you have chosen a very long word string, much longer than most of my published findings, and positioned it near the centre of the Garden. Both of these variables increase the possibility of an overlap. I would say that 50% to 60% is a more typical probability. The lowest I found was 35%, the highest, 90%.

I'm glad you appreciate it.

So let's plug this into the random number calculation. If 52% of numbers are found in the Garden and 55% of pairs actually found there overlap, there is a (.52 x .52 x .55) probability of two random numbers overlapping in the Garden, which gives p = 0.148, or 1 in 6.7. In this page, my control experiment showed that one out of five pairs overlapped, which is about what we'd expect. But in the Genesis pairings they nearly all overlapped! They were chosen on the basis of being the first examples of created things found in Genesis, for the Garden, and the first examples of the components of the ark and the sacred objects inside found in the Bible. In neither case would that affect the probability of them being found in the Garden as double witnessed encodings, but as I said, nearly all of them were there, overlapping.

I'm pretty sure your assertion (highlighted red) is false. Many important terms either don't appear in the grid at all or don't overlap. For example, it fails with the creation of MAN, which is arguably the most important "created thing" found in the garden. The proper test would be for you to define the PRINCIPLES by which you decide (a priori) which words should appear. Then you can test if those words to appear and calculate your probabilities.

Now if we find repeated examples of independently derived numbers overlapping, we can multiply the probabilities. So for one pair, p = 1 in 6.7, for two pairs p = 1 in 45, for five pairs it is 1 in 13500, etc. In the Ark, we have eleven pairs, nine of which overlap. The Garden has nineteen pairs, all of which overlap or touch.

Multiplying probabilities for any random words found will result in small probabilities. It tells you nothing about whether your cherry picked set of words was "designed" or not.

There would have to be a lot of refinements made to these calculations, because for instance some numbers are found multiple times and this would increase the probability of an overlap, and although I had almost no choice in the numbers I looked for the Garden, I did have a little. All could be justified on other grounds though. Also, some overlaps formed larger clusters or patterns, such as Jesus Christ and Yehoshua HaMashiach sitting right on top of Man in our Image/Adam Tselem.

You had a HUGE number of choices. You could have tested many titles of Christ, such as Jesus (515), Christ (410), Jesus Christ (925), Yehoshua HaMashiach (754), Son of God (347), The Son of God (560), Son of Man (367), The Son of Man (580) [all of which are shown in the grid] as well as many other names and titles such as Lord Jesus Christ, The Lord Jesus Christ, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Yehoshua Mashiach, Adon Yehoshua, The Man Jesus Christ, etc., etc., etc. Here's a small sample of what you had to choose from:

1454

I see absolutely nothing that would suggest any "design". It looks exactly like what I would expect from a random data set.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

Richard Amiel McGough

04-29-2017, 07:20 PM

I'm glad you had a good time. I hear the west coast of the USA is beautiful.

The test I proposed was to determine if the 'double witness' phenomenon (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html) is genuine by testing pairs of randomly-generated numbers against the standard values of Hebrew nouns taken from Genesis and their equivalents in the NIV. If the random numbers overlapped much less often than those taken from Genesis then there is every reason to suppose that the double witness phenomenon exists - and from initial work I have done, this appears to be the case.

It can be done more theoretically too, of course, and I'll speak about that in a minute.

As for probability calculations, small probabilities linked to meaning do indeed suggest design. If not, then we should be able to find impressive alternatives very easily, and you have neither done so, nor come close to doing so. If probability calculations included meaning, those other phrases you mention would be seen to be much more probable than the biblical example we've been discussing, the ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html). The Law of Truly Large Numbers does imply that a huge forest of numbers will somewhere give the appearance of design. But we are at the very edge of that forest in the first couple of verses of Genesis, and so there simply aren't enough numbers around for that to have occurred.

<snip>

So let's plug this into the random number calcuation. If 52% of numbers are found in the Garden and 55% of pairs actually found there overlap, there is a (.52 x .52 x .55) probability of two random numbers overlapping in the Garden, which gives p = 0.148, or 1 in 6.7. In this page, my control experiment showed that one out of five pairs overlapped, which is about what we'd expect. But in the Genesis pairings they nearly all overlapped. They were chosen on the basis of being the first examples of created things found in Genesis, for the Garden, and the first examples of the components of the ark and the sacred objects inside found in the Bible. In neither case would that affect the probability of them being found in the Garden as double witnessed encodings, but as I said, nearly all of them were there, overlapping.

Bill,

There appears to be an error in this image from your Garden page:

1455

The first occurrence of HaMayim (The Waters) is found in Genesis 1:2. The value of the Hebrew word is indeed 95, but the NIV translates it as "The Waters" not "The Water" as you have it in your grid. The correct value would be The Waters (Eng: 1109), but that number does not appear in the grid at all.

The number you used does not correspond to the first mention of water(s), nor the second, third, or fourth, but rather the fifth mention in verse 1:7. It is obvious you did not find what you were looking for, so you went and searched until you found something that you could make fit into your pattern. Such behavior would disqualify you absolutely in any peer review process. No serious scholar, whether in science, mathematics, or English literature, would accept such blatant forcing fitting of a pattern.

Also, since we are talking about probability, here is a display of ALL the data matching your search criteria:

1456

Look at that. Both numbers appear three times, but there is only one overlap. The total number of columns spanned by "the water" is 45, over half, so the probability of getting a "hit" is very high. As with most of your claims, I see no evidence of any design. On the contrary, the results are exactly what I would expect from a random data set.

L67

04-29-2017, 07:21 PM

You have this the wrong way round, I'm afraid. When I found this crossing of 391 (chapters in Joel, Amos and Obadiah) with 888 (the positional value of Amos 9) I knew little about Amos. It was the code itself that directed me to this chapter. Only then did I look at it and see that it resonated with 9/11. The encoded numbers I found supported it.

It doesn't matter whether you think your coded numbers create some designed pattern. You FALSELY claimed that Amos 9 is a prophecy about 9/11. It's not a prophecy about 9/11. Period. No amount of hand waiving on your part will change this. Sorry, no intelligent being would encode verses that explicitly have the opposite meaning of what you claim.

thebluetriangle

04-30-2017, 01:10 AM

I don't see any value in that test because the grid doesn't contain many of the values that would be expected if God designed it. For example, it contains one occurrence of 45 (Adam in Hebrew) but doesn't contain the value of the English equivalent (46). Likewise, it has two occurrences of 89 (Elohim in Hebrew) but no occurrences of 71 (God in English). There is one occurrence of Yahweh Elohim (Hb: 112) but no occurrence of LORD God (Eng: 255) and though there are three occurrences of THE LORD GOD (Eng:468) none of them overlap with 112!

How would you know how God would design it? You are projecting your old ideas about God (ideas you no longer hold to anyway) onto the code and rejecting it because it doesn't fit them. The encodings in the Garden follow a simple pattern: God's creative acts over the six Creation days. As an example, let's take Adam/man. Like you, I initially looked for 'Adam', but found no pattern. But these encodings refer to God's creative acts, as recorded in the Bible. For man it is this verse:

Then God said,"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Genesis 1.26)

For Eve it was here:

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (Genesis 2.22)

Both are encoded in the Garden thusly:

1457

I could go on. The misses outnumber the hits. The few hits that you found don't impress me at all because they are cherry picked and look exactly like what I would expect from random chance. And more importantly, you have to rationalize why the things you like are "meaningful" whereas the things missing are not. That's what I was talking about when I said that your logic is inconsistent. You have to make up excuses when things don't fit the pattern you are looking for.
This is very important. You need to explain by what principles you choose words like "light" (which fits) and exclude words like "man" (which don't fit). If you have no general principle explaining your choices, then your choices are arbitrary, subjective, and cherry picked which means that there is no real pattern. The pattern is illusory, so there is no "double witness."

The logic is consistent. All I had to do, once I found the pattern, was look at each of the verses where it is stated "And God said . . ." or "So God created . . . ", "God created . . " etc, and take the created objects in the sentence. So in Genesis 1.1 we have

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So the created objects are 'the heavens' and 'the earth'. Another example is this:

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water. (Genesis 1.6)

The created object was 'an expanse'. I didn't have to look for 'the waters' or 'water from water', because they were not what was being created. That's the general pattern. There was a little wiggle room needed with one or two of the groups, but given the way these sentences are constructed I think it was necessary.

The small probabilities are not "linked to meaning". Probability has nothing to do with the "meaning" of what is found, so meaning cannot "be included". Probability is defined by relative frequency. It doesn't matter what symbol is used on the faces of a six sided die. If you roll the die, each face will appear with a probability of 1/6. Every hand in a poker game has equal probability (since the cards are unique) but some hands are preferred over others because of the arbitrary rules of the game. If we changed the rules, the preferred hands would change (have different meaning) but the statistics would be the same.

It seems to me you are the one who is arbitrarily deciding the rules. Quite clearly, if we find ideas related by meaning also coming together in space (bible code) or time (synchronicity), then we suspect chance may not be the only factor operating in our life. We may be wrong in any one instance, because rare events do happen, but if they have great meaning, such as the four ark encodings, in principle there is no reason why a probability couldn't be attempted. It may be difficult to assign probabilities to such events, but that does not mean that they are unrelated to probability. You sound like the kind of scientist who says that because we haven't found a way of measuring God then God doesn't exist. It's an approach designed to exclude from the start what we do not want to find. That's what you're attempting here:

1. You exclude meaning from your estimate of probability.
2. You find that the probability is the same as for any random set of phrases.
3. Ergo, the code doesn't exist!

But you're forgetting that meaning is the very stuff of the code. Without meaning there wouldn't be a code. Meaning MUST be included in your estimate. The very idea of synonyms is based on meaning. It may be difficult or impossible to quantify, but it is real and not totally subjective either. Everyone in Christendom, and pretty much everyone beyond, knows that the words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' are closely related, as are words like 'Messiah' 'saviour', etc. There is a subjective element, yes. For Christians 'Jesus' and 'Messiah' are synonyms, but not for Jews. But it is not entirely personal either. If it has meaning for a large body of people, then within that belief system the meaning is understood by everyone and could be said to be objective in some sense. That's as close as you will get to objectivity anyway. We can argue about whether it could be quantified in any way, but it can't be denied that those 'unquantifiable' qualities are very real.

The things you think are "meaningful" is very subjective. You reject the things I found because you don't like what they imply, not because they are not meaningful. You understood perfectly what they meant. And the connections were very strong, both thematically and in the amazing case that the Biblical source of the largest phrase (The Book of Ephesians Four Fourteen) was encoded in the same grid starting with the first word! I followed the same pattern that you used to show how easy it is to find words that fit your pattern. You rejected it only because it contradicts what you want to believe.

No, I rejected your two attempts at finding pseudo-encoded phrases because they didn't pass the test of real encodings. They weren't all meaningfully related, related to the Bible, of great religious import, etc. They weren't even close - and they would have to be something like that to be a serious challenge to the authenticity of the code.

So tell me, what would you accept as evidence? If I found any other "Biblical themes" you could just say that God encoded them too. If I show non-biblical themes, you say you can ignore them because they aren't in the Bible. It looks to me that you have a double standard.

I already gave you the criteria. You're right that if you found other biblical themes there would be a danger I would say they were encoded anyway! I've already found that some numbers stand for more than one concept. 391 signifies Yehoshua and also 'Second Coming'. 888 signifies Ihsous and 'The Lord's Second Coming'. Isn't it astounding that these two numbers, the Greek and Hebrew names for Jesus, also happen to be these phrases in English? Isn't that in itself suggestive that gematra is real and not a word game?

I understand that scientific hypotheses have to be falsifiable in principle and that I seem to have set the criteria up so that the code is unfalsibiable. One way out of this is to search the first word strings in another book, looking for four strongly related phrases that are also strongly related to the subject of that book. I haven't deliberately set up the criteria to protect the code from being falsifiable though. It's just the way the code is. I have set the criteria to protect the code from being falsely debunked, as you have attempted to do.

And this brings us to the real problem with your entire thesis. It appears you have NO CONSISTENT STANDARDS to evaluate whether a pattern is significant or not. You make up the "rules" AFTER THE FACT and design them to fit the target. That's a text book example of the Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy. First you find some hits you like, then you draw the target around them and say how "unlikely" it was that they would fit in the target.

I didn't make up any rules: I discovered them. After the fact detective work didn't stop anyone from catching a thief!

thebluetriangle

04-30-2017, 03:29 AM

I know you attempted to answer, but I find it to be entirely inadequate. It is simply false to say that "no type of miracle" could be verified beyond question unless you are talking about absolute skepticism which says that nothing can be verified beyond question. But if that's your standard, then we can't verify 2 + 2 = 4 or that Trump is president or that you are not a figment of my imagination, in which case all discourse it pointless.

And yet since the dawn of time there have been claims of miracles. Despite that there is not a single universally agreed-upon verified miracle. You are effectively saying that the reason none of them have been authenticated beyond doubt is because there are no miracles and every claim ever made and investigated was false. That is one possible answer, yes, but another possibility is that many of those claims were true but that all miracles, because they appear in the natural world, will always be subject to human frailty and the inherent uncertainties that exist in observing and recording phenomena. Skeptics always found a reason to doubt. That's fine, because a miracle that is completely verifiable, giving zero room for doubt (if such a thing could even exist) would violate the freedom of doubters to doubt.

Is not the whole point of your "double witness" and talk of statistics to give a rational skeptic reason to believe? What good is it if it is so weak that a rational skeptic is justified to reject it?

Your rationalization for the weakness of your thesis strikes me as an implicit admission that it is nothing but confirmation bias. You say only believers will believe, and God made sure it was not so strong that a rational person must believe? That sounds like confirmation bias to me, in spades.

The double witness gives those who are ready to believe sufficient reason to do so. Doubting Thomases can still have their skepticism. The miracle at Knock was witnessed by several people from different homes in the village, at different times and from different locations, if memory serves. All their accounts agreed. But there are still many skeptics in Ireland and beyond. The term 'rational skeptic' is really a euphemism for people who are militant atheists and naturalists, who in their current state of mind, would never believe any supernatural claim. The existence of a code that a 'rational skeptic' would never accept (in their current state of mind), says more about the attitude of rational skeptics - who laugh at Bible codes, scoff at apparitions, lock up visionaries and rail against Christians - than it does about God. It could be seen as a rebuke to rational skepticism. Why so? People are far less rational than they would like us to believe. The 'rational 'skeptic' who five years before was a committed Christian may defend his new worldview with the same vigour he used to defend the Faith, but what is really going on inside him if he can so glibly undergo a 180 degree change in his worldview, then promote it with the same confidence he had before? Rational skepticism is a psychological phenomenon and nothing at all to do with reality. Bible codes and other miracles are an injection of fresh information into the 'worldview' - really the dream - of the hardened skeptic, in an attempt to wake him up.

And you ignore any numbers that are missing, no matter how important they are to the story, which means your methods are demonstrably unjust, inconsistent, and irrational.

No, you assume you know which numbers should be included. You can't seem to let go of that need to dictate what should be there. It would be best if you gave it up.

I'm pretty sure your assertion (highlighted red) is false. Many important terms either don't appear in the grid at all or don't overlap. For example, it fails with the creation of MAN, which is arguably the most important "created thing" found in the garden. The proper test would be for you to define the PRINCIPLES by which you decide (a priori) which words should appear. Then you can test if those words to appear and calculate your probabilities.

I've already explained that it is the words related to God's creation of man that are encoded, as is the case with the rest of the suite of encodings I call The Garden. No further explanation is needed.

Multiplying probabilities for any random words found will result in small probabilities. It tells you nothing about whether your cherry picked set of words was "designed" or not.

Agreed, but they were not cherry picked then the probability calculated after the fact. They were all terms related to God's creative acts,usually the first instances of each in the Bible. That is the thread that ties them together. I wanted to test this by comparing it with random words, because the first instances of each term should be no more likely to be found by chance than random numbers. As I said, a little wiggle room was needed here and there, but we could take the wiggle room out altogether and I am still confident that we would get significantly more hits than chance. That was going to be the basis for my test in fact.

You had a HUGE number of choices. You could have tested many titles of Christ, such as Jesus (515), Christ (410), Jesus Christ (925), Yehoshua HaMashiach (754), Son of God (347), The Son of God (560), Son of Man (367), The Son of Man (580) [all of which are shown in the grid] as well as many other names and titles such as Lord Jesus Christ, The Lord Jesus Christ, Our Lord Jesus Christ, Yehoshua Mashiach, Adon Yehoshua, The Man Jesus Christ, etc., etc., etc. Here's a small sample of what you had to choose from:

If you are referring to the Signature of Christ here, then I stuck to single words for simplicity and calculated there was at the very outside, a 1 in 1200 chance of them appearing randomly (ignoring Yehoshua, because that is Hebrew). That was taking seventy words used for Jesus in the Bible. All of the encoded words - Jesus, Word x 2, Messiah x 2 - would be very high up on that list if you take meaning into account, in other words, the words that most closely describe Jesus as Christians understand Him. Words like 'friend', 'counsellor' etc are more loosely attached to the concept of Jesus, are therefore lower down on the list and wouldn't have impresed me either if their standard values had been there. Moreover, the name at the top of any such list, Jesus, was the first one found! If you reduced the list of biblical 'one-word' synonyms for for Jesus to twenty - and Jesus, Word and Messiah would be near the top of that list too, the odds shot up to 1 in 50000 against chance occurence.

Longer titles for Jesus are also found there. You have found some of them there, but there are patterns within it your method isn't so good at discerning.

For instance, as I've said. the primary purpose of the Code is to proclaim the Second Coming of Christ, which has manifested in a variety of ways, including the code itself. The principal sign was 9/11, which represented

the Day of Atonement
the conception of the Male Child
the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
the Day of the Lord
the Second Coming of Jesus Christ

You found Jesus and Christ in there a few times, but you missed a pattern that is found within the early verses, that links Him with 9/11 (one of many). Here it is:

1458

There's a little 7, 9, 11 sequence here too. All of those 'randomly scattered' word strings showing Jesus and Christ are part of larger patterns, sometimes more than one pattern too - they interlock. Here's another one relating Jesus and Christ to the Incarnation.

1459

I see absolutely nothing that would suggest any "design". It looks exactly like what I would expect from a random data set.

It looks like design to me.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-30-2017, 08:48 AM

I don't see any value in that test because the grid doesn't contain many of the values that would be expected if God designed it. For example, it contains one occurrence of 45 (Adam in Hebrew) but doesn't contain the value of the English equivalent (46). Likewise, it has two occurrences of 89 (Elohim in Hebrew) but no occurrences of 71 (God in English). There is one occurrence of Yahweh Elohim (Hb: 112) but no occurrence of LORD God (Eng: 255) and though there are three occurrences of THE LORD GOD (Eng:468) none of them overlap with 112!

How would you know how God would design it?

Hey there Bill, :yo:

I have been asking you the same question. Your entire thesis is a grand declaration of you opinion about how God supposedly designed the Bible. Why are you the only one free to have an opinion on this matter?

If you can't say what kind of patterns would be expected from a designer, then how can you claim your patterns entail a designer?

You are projecting your old ideas about God (ideas you no longer hold to anyway) onto the code and rejecting it because it doesn't fit them.

Not true. I am stating ideas that are based on clear logic. Your "patterns" are too inconsistent, forced, cherry picked, and irrational to indicate any design in my estimation.

The encodings in the Garden follow a simple pattern: God's creative acts over the six Creation days. As an example, let's take Adam/man. Like you, I initially looked for 'Adam', but found no pattern. But these encodings refer to God's creative acts, as recorded in the Bible. For man it is this verse:

Then God said,"Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (Genesis 1.26)

For Eve it was here:

Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (Genesis 2.22)

Both are encoded in the Garden thusly:

1457

The logic is consistent. All I had to do, once I found the pattern, was look at each of the verses where it is stated "And God said . . ." or "So God created . . . ", "God created . . " etc, and take the created objects in the sentence. So in Genesis 1.1 we have

No, the logic is not consistent. You just trolled through the data set until you found something that fit your pattern. You collect hits and ignore the misses. Here's the full set of data:

1460

The number 263 (the value of Adam b'tsalmenu, which you incorrectly transliterate as Adam Tselem) appears seven times in the grid. You ignored six of them, which means you ignored 6/7 = 85% of the data! It is ludicrous to declare that God designed a pattern in which you must cherry pick one hit and ignore 85% of the data. This is a textbook example of the twin cognitive errors of SELECTION BIAS + CONFIRMATION BIAS. It is blatantly irrational. No serious thinker would ever allow such blatant errors to pass peer review.

Remember, there is in general a very high probability of overlap. There is nothing in any of your cherry picked examples that suggest design. It all looks exactly like what would be expected from random chance.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

So the created objects are 'the heavens' and 'the earth'. Another example is this:

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water. (Genesis 1.6)

The created object was 'an expanse'. I didn't have to look for 'the waters' or 'water from water', because they were not what was being created. That's the general pattern. There was a little wiggle room needed with one or two of the groups, but given the way these sentences are constructed I think it was necessary.

Again, you are cherry picking a single hit from an large set of misses. Here is the data for "the earth" - you highlighted two of the seven occurrences and ignored the rest:

1461

There is absolutely nothing about that splatter of random data that would indicate a designer. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

The small probabilities are not "linked to meaning". Probability has nothing to do with the "meaning" of what is found, so meaning cannot "be included". Probability is defined by relative frequency. It doesn't matter what symbol is used on the faces of a six sided die. If you roll the die, each face will appear with a probability of 1/6. Every hand in a poker game has equal probability (since the cards are unique) but some hands are preferred over others because of the arbitrary rules of the game. If we changed the rules, the preferred hands would change (have different meaning) but the statistics would be the same.

It seems to me you are the one who is arbitrarily deciding the rules.

Quite clearly, if we find ideas related by meaning also coming together in space (bible code) or time (synchronicity), then we suspect chance may not be the only factor operating in our life. We may be wrong in any one instance, because rare events do happen, but if they have great meaning, such as the four ark encodings, in principle there is no reason why a probability couldn't be attempted. It may be difficult to assign probabilities to such events, but that does not mean that they are unrelated to probability. You sound like the kind of scientist who says that because we haven't found a way of measuring God then God doesn't exist. It's an approach designed to exclude from the start what we do not want to find. That's what you're attempting here:

1. You exclude meaning from your estimate of probability.
2. You find that the probability is the same as for any random set of phrases.
3. Ergo, the code doesn't exist!

But you're forgetting that meaning is the very stuff of the code. Without meaning there wouldn't be a code. Meaning MUST be included in your estimate. The very idea of synonyms is based on meaning. It may be difficult or impossible to quantify, but it is real and not totally subjective either. Everyone in Christendom, and pretty much everyone beyond, knows that the words 'Jesus' and 'Christ' are closely related, as are words like 'Messiah' 'saviour', etc. There is a subjective element, yes. For Christians 'Jesus' and 'Messiah' are synonyms, but not for Jews. But it is not entirely personal either. If it has meaning for a large body of people, then within that belief system the meaning is understood by everyone and could be said to be objective in some sense. That's as close as you will get to objectivity anyway. We can argue about whether it could be quantified in any way, but it can't be denied that those 'unquantifiable' qualities are very real.

There is nothing "arbitrary" about my logic. It is based on clear principles that I apply consistently. Your "meaning" strikes me as arbitrary, idiosyncratic, and inconsistent. And I have proven it is inconsistent because you frequently cherry pick from large sets that does not fit your pattern in general. So my words stand true and verified.

I do not "exclude" meaning from my estimation of probability. I simply state the fact that low probabilities are the same for the following for possibilities:

Apparently meaningful connections that were designed
Apparently meaningful connections that were not designed
Apparently meaningless connections that were designed to enable skeptics to rationally reject the code
Apparently meaningless connections that were not designed

The problem is that you have NO WAY to distinguish between these four possibilities. That's my point. Low probability tells you NOTHING about whether the "codes" were designed. I explained this to you in post #134 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68098#post68098).

thebluetriangle

04-30-2017, 08:56 AM

Bill,

There appears to be an error in this image from your Garden page:

1455

The first occurrence of HaMayim (The Waters) is found in Genesis 1:2. The value of the Hebrew word is indeed 95, but the NIV translates it as "The Waters" not "The Water" as you have it in your grid. The correct value would be The Waters (Eng: 1109), but that number does not appear in the grid at all.

The number you used does not correspond to the first mention of water(s), nor the second, third, or fourth, but rather the fifth mention in verse 1:7. It is obvious you did not find what you were looking for, so you went and searched until you found something that you could make fit into your pattern. Such behavior would disqualify you absolutely in any peer review process. No serious scholar, whether in science, mathematics, or English literature, would accept such blatant forcing fitting of a pattern.

The pattern here was God's creative acts, which for God's creations is nearly always the first appearance, but in that case no, it wasn't.

The verse is as follows:

'And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear. " And it was so.' (Genesis 1.9)

It's 'the water' here, which as you say is in the matrix.

Also, since we are talking about probability, here is a display of ALL the data matching your search criteria:

1456

Look at that. Both numbers appear three times, but there is only one overlap. The total number of columns spanned by "the water" is 45, over half, so the probability of getting a "hit" is very high. As with most of your claims, I see no evidence of any design. On the contrary, the results are exactly what I would expect from a random data set.

As I said before, I eventually saw that one pair in close proximity was enough to call it an encoding. Other encodings don't take away from that. The six signatures of Christ aren't the only encodings of Jesus, etc, in the Garden, but the presence of other word strings do not take away from the beautiful pattern the signatures form. Each group of encodings can be looked at in isolation. In the 'double witness' encodings, when you have only a 27% chance of both numbers being present at all, the fact of consistently finding the two numbers representing each pair of concepts both being present and overlapping somewhere, is something remarkable. You wouldn't find that with random pairs of numbers.

thebluetriangle

04-30-2017, 09:49 AM

It doesn't matter whether you think your coded numbers create some designed pattern. You FALSELY claimed that Amos 9 is a prophecy about 9/11. It's not a prophecy about 9/11. Period. No amount of hand waiving on your part will change this. Sorry, no intelligent being would encode verses that explicitly have the opposite meaning of what you claim.

The opposite meaning? I think not. However, it does raise an interesting question about just what is prophecy. There are different kinds of prophecy and many, many passages in the Bible that are marked with numbers indicating that 9/11 was their fulfilment in some sense, often symbolically. Here is another prophecy that 'resonates with 9/11' (my favourite way of putting it).

Daniel 8 has a prophecy of a Ram and a goat.

In the third year of King Belshazzar?s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. 2 In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal.3. I looked up and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. 4. I watched the ram as he charged towards the west and the north and the south. he did as he pleased and became great.5. As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6. He came towards the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7. I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power.

This scene has obvious parallels with 9/11, which are powerfully reinforced by some astounding underlying gematria.

1. Verses 3 and 4 (in green) introduce the ram, who has two long horns, stands next to a body of water, became great and did as he pleased - characteristics shared by its modern equivalent, the World Trade Centre.

Daniel 8:3-4 (o) = 3102 = 11 x 282

2. Verses 5, 6 and 7 (in red) are a devastatingly accurate account of the attacks themselves, which were carried out by 'flying goats' wwhich crossed the whole earth without touching the ground.

Daniel 8:5-7 (o) = 4555 = 911 x 5

So in some sense Daniel's vision is prophesying 9/11. There may have been other fulfilments in the past, but that in no way detracts from the fulfilment on 9/11. These prophecies are like dreams, which can have more than one meaning or, in the case of precognitive dreams, fulfilments.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-30-2017, 10:09 AM

As I said before, I eventually saw that one pair in close proximity was enough to call it an encoding.

Why is it enough? How do you distinguish between real "encodings" that were designed vs. similar patterns that result from meaningless random coincidences (which we know are very common)?

Other encodings don't take away from that.

How do you tell the difference between an "encoding" and random overlaps which we know are very common?

The six signatures of Christ aren't the only encodings of Jesus, etc, in the Garden, but the presence of other word strings do not take away from the beautiful pattern the signatures form. Each group of encodings can be looked at in isolation. In the 'double witness' encodings, when you have only a 27% chance of both numbers being present at all, the fact of consistently finding the two numbers representing each pair of concepts both being present and overlapping somewhere, is something remarkable. You wouldn't find that with random pairs of numbers.
"Only" a 27% chance? That's huge! That's about the same as getting "heads" two times in a row. It indicates nothing beyond random chance. There is no statistical evidence of any "codes" in the grids.

They look exactly like what I would expect from random chance. Case in point: You cherry picked a small subset of data to create your "Signature of Christ" and ignored the misses as well as a vast ocean of other possible names and titles of Christ. Here is the full set of data for the numbers you used:

1463

You arbitrarily dropped four lines to mark four sections of six words each, and then cherry picked the word strings that lined up! That's all you did. You ignored all the misses. And worse, you could have used many other names and titles. Rather than Messiah, you could have used Christ. Or The Christ. Or The Messiah. Or Savior. Or The Savior, or Son of God, or The Son of God, or Son of Man, etc., etc., etc. When you include all the possibilities, you see that you can make pretty much any pattern you like by aligning word strings. Here is an example:

I see no evidence of any design whatsoever.

thebluetriangle

04-30-2017, 11:23 AM

Hey there Bill, :yo:

I have been asking you the same question. Your entire thesis is a grand declaration of you opinion about how God supposedly designed the Bible. Why are you the only one free to have an opinion on this matter?

It's my opinion that the code was designed by God - and the code itself declares it:

1464

You are of course free to hold any opinion you like, but that looks like a message revealing who designed the code, with which it beautifully interlocks (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html).

If you can't say what kind of patterns would be expected from a designer, then how can you claim your patterns entail a designer?

I personally didn't have to predict anything. I was given the Key! The Key itself showed me where to look, how to decode the information and other things that gave me the general pattern for encoded material, although there was much more to learn. You werent given that key, so I wouldn't expect you to know. You may well have been given your own,of course, and I'm still waiting for your comment on my finding the number 559 in your 'looking for dumbo word' (559 is 'the Father' in Greek). The number 528 was in there too and that may have been your key.

Not true. I am stating ideas that are based on clear logic. Your "patterns" are too inconsistent, forced, cherry picked, and irrational to indicate any design in my estimation. Were you using clear logic when you jumped to the conclusion that the ark encodings had to have come from Hebrews 9? No, you weren't. You weren't for backing down either.

No, the logic is not consistent. You just trolled through the data set until you found something that fit your pattern. You collect hits and ignore the misses. Here's the full set of data:

1460

The number 263 (the value of Adam b'tsalmenu, which you incorrectly transliterate as Adam Tselem) I took it from your own website, as I told you a couple of weeks ago. I know it wasn't strictly correct, but I wasn't sure about the exact transliteration and thought it best to stick with the basic form of the phrase, as you obviously did.

appears seven times in the grid. You ignored six of them, which means you ignored 6/7 = 85% of the data! It is ludicrous to declare that God designed a pattern in which you must cherry pick one hit and ignore 85% of the data. This is a textbook example of the twin cognitive errors of SELECTION BIAS + CONFIRMATION BIAS. It is blatantly irrational. No serious thinker would ever allow such blatant errors to pass peer review.

How on earth does the presence of extra encodings invalidate the one I highlight? They do not take away from it. If anything they add to it. In your own recent tables you show that numbers like 391 (Yehoshua/Second Coming), 515 (Jesus), 263 (Messiah/Adam Tselem) all appear several times in the first three or four verses. That in itself is remarkable - three numbers representing Jesus, Messiah and Second Coming all appearing so many times right at the beginning of the NIV Bible. But what you fail to appreciate is that they all take part in other encodings. That is why they are all there so many times. These verses are PACKED with encoded material, to an almost holographic degree. That necessarily entails certain numbers being present several times. You simply have to look at each encoded pattern in isolation.

Remember, there is in general a very high probability of overlap. There is nothing in any of your cherry picked examples that suggest design. It all looks exactly like what would be expected from random chance. the patterns I am showing you do not look like chance. I tried to find something like the signature phenomenon in mmy wife's crime novels and found nothing - single numbers, yes, but no larger pattern. It's not the indifidual numbers that matter, but the meaningful patterns they form.

Again, you are cherry picking a single hit from an large set of misses. Here is the data for "the earth" - you highlighted two of the seven occurrences and ignored the rest:

1461

There is absolutely nothing about that splatter of random data that would indicate a designer. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. All you are doing with these tables is looking at parts of different patterns. Of course they don't look like a pattern. Only the correctly decoded pattern looks like a pattern. Try this one, for instance:

1465

There is nothing "arbitrary" about my logic. It is based on clear principles that I apply consistently. If the principles are wrong, then applying them consistently just means you'll be consistently wrong, which is what I've found.

Your "meaning" strikes me as arbitrary, idiosyncratic, and inconsistent. And I have proven it is inconsistent because you frequently cherry pick from large sets that does not fit your pattern in general. So my words stand true and verified.

I do not "exclude" meaning from my estimation of probability. I simply state the fact that low probabilities are the same for the following for possibilities:

Apparently meaningful connections that were designed
Apparently meaningful connections that were not designed
Apparently meaningless connections that were designed to enable skeptics to rationally reject the code
Apparently meaningless connections that were not designed

The problem is that you have NO WAY to distinguish between these four possibilities. That's my point. Low probability tells you NOTHING about whether the "codes" were designed. I explained this to you in post #134 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68098#post68098).

The third one is an absurdity - a 'negative' code being created to allow skeptics to reject it. It's the probabilistic nature of gematria that gives skeptics their toehold, not deliberate anti-codes put in to turn skeptics off. Low probability proves nothing, which is another ways of saying the same thing, but if we could quantify synonymous and meaningfully related phrases we would find that the probability of genuine codes appearing by chance would be much lower than meaningless phrases.

Remember, in cryptology a key is needed to decode encrypted material, or else it will remain hidden. For the New Bible Code such a key exists. I have it in my bedside cabinet. I was given that key and used it to crack the code. Incidentally, the date I was given it was 26/11/01, which was the 330th (11 x 30) day of the New Millennium. The number eleven is of course central to the code. It was eleven days earlier when it manifested on my Alpha Course director's bookmark, now in my possesion, which was a day of signs for me, as I related earlier. So the appearance of the Key was surrounded by signs, only a few of which i've related and which were meant to impress upon me its importance. The Key is the final guarantee that the code is real. Even with the key I strugged for years to unlock the code. Without it, I would never have gotten close to decoding it, because it employs a unique two-system decoding method, one I've never seen anywhere else.

Richard Amiel McGough

04-30-2017, 12:03 PM

The Koran starts with with phrase "In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful" (Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim). In Arabic numerology, this phrase has the value of 786. Here's what the wiki says:

The total value of the letters of Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim, according to the standard Abjadi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abjadi_order) system of numerology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isopsephy), is 786 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/786_(number)). This number has therefore acquired a significance in folk Islam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_Islam) and Near Eastern folk magic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_magic). A recommendation of reciting the basmala 786 times in sequence is recorded in Al-Buni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Buni). S?ndermann (2006) reports the recommendation of a contemporary "spiritual healer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healing)" from Syria recommends the recitation of the basmala 786 times over a cup of water, which is then to be ingested as medicine.[20] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmala#cite_note-21)

It has also become common to abbreviate the phrase by typing "786", especially in online communication, and especially among South Asian Muslims.

The Koran states that Allah gave the Torah to the Jews, and this is what Muslims believe. Thus, a Muslim would not be surprised to find that Allah encoded his truth in the first words of His Book. Behold the revelation of Allah, the alignment is perfect. The value of the Arabic is 786, whereas the value of the English equivalent is:

"In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful" = 2783

1466

Note where the pair begin, immediately after the first occurrence of the word "God":

In the beginning God => 786 = In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful (Arabic: first words of the Koran) and aligns with the value in English.

This is the "code" you say you use in your Garden page. We have a perfect alignment of the value of the Arabic and it's English equivalent. What are the chances of this? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. And besides that, the phrase "The Holy Kaaba" - the most holy place in Islam - is also found beginning at word 5, so it aligns with both of those words. It's value is 1036. And the FIFTH word is extremely significant, because there are FIVE PILLARS in Islam! The religious significance of these codes cannot be denied.

Here is the beginning of the Revelation of Allah:

1467

The number 786 (value of the first words of the Koran in Arabic) span words 5 to 19. Those are the TWO MOST IMPORTANT NUMBERS IN ISLAM! Islam has Five Pillars, and the Number 19 "rules over" the Koran in countless ways (the number of letters in the Bismillah, the number of suras in the book, etc., etc., etc.) as explained on countless sites created by Muslim numerologists (google it).

And yet there is more! The name of Allah's prophet (Muhammad) as well as his holy book (The Koran) and his holy City (Mecca) are all encoded in the same section and they all align perfectly beginning at word 13 and so overlap the 786 + 2783 + 1036 encodings which are the most significant religious terms found in Islam.

Muhammad = 434
The Koran = 434
Mecca = 52

I just found all this in the last few minutes. Imagine what I could find if I studied the Koran for decades looking for patterns.

thebluetriangle

04-30-2017, 03:00 PM

The Koran starts with with phrase "In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful" (Bismillah ir Rahman ir Rahim). In Arabic numerology, this phrase has the value of 786. Here's what the wiki says:

The Koran states that Allah gave the Torah to the Jews, and this is what Muslims believe. Thus, a Muslim would not be surprised to find that Allah encoded his truth in the first words of His Book. Behold the revelation of Allah, the alignment is perfect. The value of the Arabic is 786, whereas the value of the English equivalent is:

"In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful" = 2783

1466

Note where the pair begin, immediately after the first occurrence of the word "God":

In the beginning God => 786 = In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful (Arabic: first words of the Koran) and aligns with the value in English.

This is the "code" you say you use in your Garden page. We have a perfect alignment of the value of the Arabic and it's English equivalent. What are the chances of this? Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. And besides that, the phrase "The Holy Kaaba" - the most holy place in Islam - is also found beginning at word 5, so it aligns with both of those words. It's value is 1036. And the FIFTH word is extremely significant, because there are FIVE PILLARS in Islam! The religious significance of these codes cannot be denied.

Here is the beginning of the Revelation of Allah:

1467

The number 786 (value of the first words of the Koran in Arabic) span words 5 to 19. Those are the TWO MOST IMPORTANT NUMBERS IN ISLAM! Islam has Five Pillars, and the Number 19 "rules over" the Koran in countless ways (the number of letters in the Bismillah, the number of suras in the book, etc., etc., etc.) as explained on countless sites created by Muslim numerologists (google it).

And yet there is more! The name of Allah's prophet (Muhammad) as well as his holy book (The Koran) and his holy City (Mecca) are all encoded in the same section and they all align perfectly beginning at word 13 and so overlap the 786 + 2783 + 1036 encodings which are the most significant religious terms found in Islam.

Muhammad = 434
The Koran = 434
Mecca = 52

I just found all this in the last few minutes. Imagine what I could find if I studied the Koran for decades looking for patterns.

Truly you were guided by Allah! Or were you? Before we all convert, let's use that little ole' test of mine and see how 'the Revelation of Allah' stacks up against it.

Does it proceed from the first words of the NIV? NO. This is a big fail. The ark encodings all proceed from word 1.
Was it decoded in the same way? YES
Is each phrase internally consistent? YES
Are the phrases/word consistent with each other? YES. This is a weak point. Two phrases are in English, one Arabic. But one of the Signatures is Yehoshua, so I'll be generous here.
Do the phrases make a meaningful statement? NO. They are the first few words of the Quran in English and Arabic, and one name for the Kaaba. They do not, therefore build up to a meaningful statement like the ark encodings, which describe all the objects religiously connected to the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement.
Are they of profound religious significance? YES To Muslims they are significant.
Are they biblical phrases? NO One is found i the Quran, one isn't.
Are they found only in the NIV Bible? NO, simply because they are not found in any bible.
Are they supported by other independent 'codes' (such as ELS codes)? That remains to be seen.
Do they interlock with similar codes in the same location to give larger patterns of meaning? That remains to be seen.
Do they make any kind of pattern, such as the 14-24-34 pattern or the 6-6-6-6 pattern of the Signature of Christ? NO. They do start at the same point, but there is no pattern as such. They end at words 19, 25 and 65.

The overlapping word strings don't count here, just as similar word strings don't count in the ark encodings. In addition there are only three encoded numbers. Now if you could show integration with some other pseudo-code there related to Islam you might get closer to mimicking a real code.

Incidentally, "Quran" gets 116 million hits against 45 million ofr "Koran". So I would say "the Quran" is the most popular English translation.

This is your best attempt yet (Allah be praised) but it still falls well short of the kinds of patterned codes I've found in the NIV!

Richard Amiel McGough

04-30-2017, 03:53 PM

Does it proceed from the first words of the NIV? NO. This is a big fail. The ark encodings all proceed from word 1.

That is no fail at all. The Bismillah encoding begins at word 5 to emphasize the Five Pillars of Islam. Your point fails because most of your own "encodings" don't follow that rule which you made up after the fact to fit what you had already found (which is a textbook example of the Sharpshooter's Fallacy).

Was it decoded in the same way? YES
Is each phrase internally consistent? YES
Are the phrases/word consistent with each other? YES. This is a weak point. Two phrases are in English, one Arabic. But one of the Signatures is Yehoshua, so I'll be generous here.

I don't think you are being "generous" at all. The primary encoding is the alignment of the Arabic value 786 with the value of the English equivalent. If you were a believer in Allah, you would see it as the most stunning miracle that could be imagined because the Bismillah is the first statement of the Koran, and it is the most important religious statement in Islam. The fact that the Holy Kaaba is included is obviously by design, because pilgrimage to the Holy Kaaba is one of the Five Pillars!

Do the phrases make a meaningful statement? NO. They are the first few words of the Quran in English and Arabic, and one name for the Kaaba. They do not, therefore build up to a meaningful statement like the ark encodings, which describe all the objects religiously connected to the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement.

Your assertion is as false as it is absurd. The Basmila is the first line of the Koran and is considered one of the most important phrases in the entire religion. The wiki article on the Basmala (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmala) says:

This is the phrase recited before each sura (chapter) of the Qur'an ? except for the ninth.[Notes 1][2] It is used by Muslims in various contexts (for instance, during daily prayer) and is used in over half of the constitutions of countries where Islam is the official religion or more than half of the population follows Islam, usually the first phrase in the preamble, including those of Afghanistan,[3] Bahrain,[4] Bangladesh,[5] Brunei,[6] Egypt,[7] Iran,[8] Iraq,[9] Kuwait,[10] Libya,[11] Maldives,[12] Pakistan,[13]Tunisia,[14] and the United Arab Emirates.[15]

In Arabic calligraphy, the Basmala is the most prevalent motif, even more so than the Shahadah.

Your attempt to deny the obvious religious and mystical significance of the Bismillah encoding is transparently biased and self-serving. There is a LONG HISTORY or Muslims using the number 786 as a symbol of that phrase. The fact that Allah encoded it in Genesis and aligned it with the value of its English equivalent is a great miracle that only an unbeliever could deny.

Are they of profound religious significance? YES To Muslims they are significant.

Correct.

Are they biblical phrases? NO One is found i the Quran, one isn't.

There's a good reason for that. Allah encoded the Bismillah in the Bible to point believers to his final revelation in the Koran.

And besides, many if not most of your favorite "encodings" are not found in the Bible so your point fails.

Are they found only in the NIV Bible? NO, simply because they are not found in any bible.

So what? Why should they be found there? Many of your own codes are not found in the NIV.

Are they supported by other independent 'codes' (such as ELS codes)? That remains to be seen.

I've already shown that the words Muhammad, Mecca, and The Koran all align with each other starting at word 13 which means they also overlap the Bismillah encodings. There is much confirmation which I found in a matter of minutes.

Do they interlock with similar codes in the same location to give larger patterns of meaning? That remains to be seen.

I have no doubt they will interlock quite marvelously with larger patterns.

Do they make any kind of pattern, such as the 14-24-34 pattern or the 6-6-6-6 pattern of the Signature of Christ? NO. They do start at the same point, but there is no pattern as such. They end at words 19, 25 and 65.

The fact that the Arabic value 786 starts at 5 and ends at 19 is full of deep significance. Those are the two most important numbers in Islam.

The overlapping word strings don't count here, just as similar word strings don't count in the ark encodings. In addition there are only three encoded numbers. Now if you could show integration with some other pseudo-code there related to Islam you might get closer to mimicking a real code.

Don't count here? How convenient! :lol: Please state the rule that says when an overlap counts or doesn't count.

Incidentally, "Quran" gets 116 million hits against 45 million ofr "Koran". So I would say "the Quran" is the most popular English translation.

So what? The code confirms the correct spelling that Allah intended.

This is your best attempt yet (Allah be praised) but it still falls well short of the kinds of patterned codes I've found in the NIV!
Your judgment is blatantly biased. By any standard, it is as good as your codes, and in truth it is much better because it encodes the most significant phrase that is central to Islam and which opens the Koran.

Remember, I found it in a matter of minutes. What do you think I would find if I dedicated a decade of my life looking for "patterns" proving Islam?

Richard Amiel McGough

04-30-2017, 04:44 PM

The Shahada is the Islamic statement of faith. It goes as follows:

There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.

Throughout the Muslim world, Muhammad is known as "Prophet Muhammad." Allah encoded the Shahada in Genesis! There is perfect alignment that confirms that Prophet Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah:

1468

L67

04-30-2017, 06:12 PM

The opposite meaning? I think not. However, it does raise an interesting question about just what is prophecy. There are different kinds of prophecy and many, many passages in the Bible that are marked with numbers indicating that 9/11 was their fulfilment in some sense, often symbolically. Here is another prophecy that 'resonates with 9/11' (my favourite way of putting it).

What a monumental load of crap. There is not one verse in the Bible that points to any 9/11 prophecy. This is nothing more than you falsely attributing meaning to verses that isn't there. You explicitly said Amos 9:1 is a prophecy about 9/11.

Here are your words. 'I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said "Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down upon the heads of the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape."' (Amos 9.1, NIV)

This is a prophecy of 9/11, marked by what I call the Sign of the Cross.

Your words are false.

Daniel 8 has a prophecy of a Ram and a goat.

In the third year of King Belshazzar?s reign, I, Daniel, had a vision, after the one that had already appeared to me. 2 In my vision I saw myself in the citadel of Susa in the province of Elam; in the vision I was beside the Ulai Canal.3. I looked up and there before me was a ram with two horns, standing beside the canal, and the horns were long. One of the horns was longer than the other but grew up later. 4. I watched the ram as he charged towards the west and the north and the south. he did as he pleased and became great.5. As I was thinking about this, suddenly a goat with a prominent horn between his eyes came from the west, crossing the whole earth without touching the ground. 6. He came towards the two-horned ram I had seen standing beside the canal and charged at him in great rage. 7. I saw him attack the ram furiously, striking the ram and shattering his two horns. The ram was powerless to stand against him; the goat knocked him to the ground and trampled on him, and none could rescue the ram from his power.

More crap. Daniel 8 has NOTHING to do with 9/11. There isn't a historian alive who would agree with your ridiculous claims.

This scene has obvious parallels with 9/11, which are powerfully reinforced by some astounding underlying gematria.

1. Verses 3 and 4 (in green) introduce the ram, who has two long horns, stands next to a body of water, became great and did as he pleased - characteristics shared by its modern equivalent, the World Trade Centre.

Except for a few problems. 9/11 had TWIN towers. First, the ram with two horns had one higher than the other. Second, these are descriptions of the Medo-Persian empires by the two horns with with higher than the other. Third, the twin towers were NOT empires, nor were kings who did as he pleased.

Daniel 8:3-4 (o) = 3102 = 11 x 282

2. Verses 5, 6 and 7 (in red) are a devastatingly accurate account of the attacks themselves, which were carried out by 'flying goats' wwhich crossed the whole earth without touching the ground.

Daniel 8:5-7 (o) = 4555 = 911 x 5

Those verses in red are NOT accurate accounts of the attacks themselves. The verse says that the he goat came from the west. The planes that struck the towers came from the east and eventually turned to the south. Your claims are pure BS!

So in some sense Daniel's vision is prophesying 9/11. There may have been other fulfilments in the past, but that in no way detracts from the fulfilment on 9/11. These prophecies are like dreams, which can have more than one meaning or, in the case of precognitive dreams, fulfilments.

Wrong! That is YOU FALSELY attributing meaning to verses that isn't there. I don't care whether you think your numbers prove this. The text itself says NOTHING of what you claim. Period.

thebluetriangle

05-01-2017, 12:50 AM

That is no fail at all. The Bismillah encoding begins at word 5 to emphasize the Five Pillars of Islam. Your point fails because most of your own "encodings" don't follow that rule which you made up after the fact to fit what you had already found (which is a textbook example of the Sharpshooter's Fallacy).

If you recall, the test was devised to compare your efforts at mimicking a code with the four ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html), proceeding from word 1 of the NIV, which discounts encodings that begin at word 5. Most of my significant findings, such as

The ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html)
The Signature of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html)
The Sealed Scroll (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2861117.html)
The Creation Snowflake (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437341.html)
The Bookend Encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2465906.html)
The First Day (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3281244.html)
Footprints in the Sand (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3364256.html)

and others, begin at word 1 of the NIV Bible. Other encodings interlock with these, creating a mosaic of interlocking patterns that are all tied to the first word of Scripture. You have yet to show anything like this phenomenon, in the NIV or elsewhere. Yes, there are other types of codes in the NIV and as I've said it extends beyond the NIV to modern events, but finding two related numbers starting at word 5 is a drop in the ocean compared to what I've found.

Moreover, you only found two meaningfully-related numbers. The ark encodings are four meaningfully-related numbers. The Kaaba number is nothing like as closely related to the other two as they are to each other, which, being the same statement in English and Arabic are certainly closely related. The equivalent in my code would be finding 'Ark of the Testimony' in English and Hebrew starting from word 5, then finding 'Temple Mount', or 'Garden of Gethsemane' or something similar starting from word 5 and claiming these were three closely related statements and that therefore it was a code. If I did that you would have plenty to say about it - and rightly so.

The four ark encodings are

ARK OF THE TESTIMONY
ATONEMENT COVER
CHERUBIM OF THE GLORY
ALTAR OF INCENSE

These four wordings are found in and only in the NIV and they are meaningfully related through
1) their position either physically or symbolically within the Most Holy Place
2) their function on the Day of Atonement

Part of the Code's message is that 9/11 symbolised the Day of Atonement and in fact was for mankind a day of atonement.

Nothing you have produced has remotely come near the extent or significance of these and other real encodings. Nor have you shown any mimicked links between them. Of course even with your computer power you haven't had much time, but you haven't even gotten past stage 1 here, which is creating feasible alternatives to the four ark encodings, proceeding from word 1.

thebluetriangle

05-01-2017, 02:26 AM

What a monumental load of crap. There is not one verse in the Bible that points to any 9/11 prophecy.

The Bible is jam-packed full of 9/11 prophecies, from beginning to end. The code itself speaks of 9/11 and its transcendent meaning from verse 1 to verse 31086.

We can argue about what 'prophecy' means, but those passages that do prophesy 9/11 in some sense are marked with an 'X', usually the number 11, so we know we are meant to see them in that light. Here are some actions of Jesus, the greatest prophet of all, that prophesy 9/11.

In Matthew 21.12, Jesus enters the temple area, drives out the buyers and sellers and overturns the tables of the moneychangers. This is the Bible's 23837th verse, which is 11 x 11 x 197. 2112 is 11 x 192.

Mark 11 describes Jesus' triumphal entry. In verse 11.20 the disciples see that the fig-tree Jesus cursed has withered. The ordinal value of the verse is 803 (11 x 73). The fig-tree bore no fruit and likewise the twin towers were fruitless trees that were felled (see also Deut. 20.20). Mark 11 is the Bible's 968th (11 x 11 x 8) verse.

In Matthew 24.2, Jesus forewarns that the Jerusalem temple will be destroyed. 242 is 11 x 11 x 2. Mark's warning is in Mark 13.2. 132 is 11 x 12.

In Luke 21.11 Jesus warns his disciples of some of the signs of the 'end of the age', which include fearful events and great signs from heaven. This verse has an ov of 1111 (11 x 101).

In John 9.11, Jesus rubs mud into the eyes of a blind man, after which his sight was restored. The ov is 1298 (11 x 118). John 9 is the Bible's 77th (11 x 7) chapter.

In John 13, the Bible's 1010th chapter, Jesus washes the feet of his disciples. The ov of the verse is 1232 (11 x 112). The feet stood for the twin towers, of which we were washed clean' on that terrible yet redemptive day.

Of course 9/11 also symbolised the Crucifixion and one of the functions of the towers on that day was the stand for the two criminals. Luke 23.32 tells how two crimonals were led out along with Jesus to be executed. The ov of the verse is 693 (11 x 63). 2332 is 11 x 212. Verse 33 (11 x 3) describes their crucifixion and it has an ov of 1210 (11 x 11 x 10). Now Luke's verses are the only ones encoded, but they are also the only ones where the chapter and verse indicators are also encoded, so we have another 'X', a confluence of independantly derived elevens at one spot. Luke's version is also the only one to call it 'the Skull'. The standard value of 'the Skull' is 693, which is 11 x 63 and also the ov of Luke 23.32.

The Pentagon stood for the crucified Lord and Flight 77 represented (among other things) the soldier's spear that pierced him, just as flight 77 pierced the Pentagon. The Bible's single mention of this incident is John 19.34.

'Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.' (John 19.34)

John 19.34(o) = 911

So the ordinal value of the only verse to describe the piercing of Jesus' side is 911! Here is the pierced Pentagon building.

1470

This is nothing more than you falsely attributing meaning to verses that isn't there. You explicitly said Amos 9:1 is a prophecy about 9/11.

Here are your words. 'I saw the Lord standing by the altar, and he said "Strike the tops of the pillars so that the thresholds shake. Bring them down upon the heads of the people; those who are left I will kill with the sword. Not one will get away, none will escape."' (Amos 9.1, NIV)

This is a prophecy of 9/11, marked by what I call the Sign of the Cross.

Your words are false.

My words are true, as I hope you are now beginning to see.

More crap. Daniel 8 has NOTHING to do with 9/11. There isn't a historian alive who would agree with your ridiculous claims. None of them were given the Key with which to unlock the code.

Except for a few problems. 9/11 had TWIN towers. The ram had twin horns.

First, the ram with two horns had one higher than the other. The North tower had a huge spike on it, making it higher than the south tower.

Second, these are descriptions of the Medo-Persian empires by the two horns with with higher than the other. I think it was prophesying both those empires and 9/11. It's a mistake to connect a prophecy to a single event.

Third, the twin towers were NOT empires, nor were kings who did as he pleased. The twin towers represented a huge, sprawing empire, backed by huge military and political power and with tentacles everywhere, the most evil empire that has ever existed on this earth. Those towers were the very horns of the beast. 9/11 was the pushing of a reset button on our collective psyche, spellbound by the false prophet of global capitalism and the dragon of consumerism. Those gleaming towers, which like the strutting ram 'did as they pleased' stood for a system of economic imperialism that, like Dr. Frankenstien's monster or the golem of jewish fable, is now beyond the control of its creators and threatens to destroy us all.

Those verses in red are NOT accurate accounts of the attacks themselves. The verse says that the he goat came from the west. The planes that struck the towers came from the east and eventually turned to the south. Your claims are pure BS! There are two meanings here. First of all flight 77 struck the Pentagon from the west (the other two planes struck from the north and south). The attack on the Pentagon represented the High Priest entering the Most Holy Place on the Day of Atonement. Secondly, please read this webpage (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2972106.html) to see why the Pentagon had to be entered from the west.

thebluetriangle

05-01-2017, 07:37 AM

Why is it enough?

Because I tested it against random number pairs and found that only 1 in five random pairs (theoretically it's about 1 in 6.7) overlapped or were even present in the first five verses of Genesis. The number pairs I derived from the things God created were always there and always overlapped. That was enough!

How do you distinguish between real "encodings" that were designed vs. similar patterns that result from meaningless random coincidences (which we know are very common)? Two things:

1. Meaning - for the Garden encodings we see the things God created over the six Creation days.
2. Low probability - as I just indicated, the number pairs overlapped every time, which is very improbable.

Those 'similar patterns' would not be meaningfully connected in this way, just unconnected, or barely connected groups of phrases, as you have been unwittingly confirming. You keep asking the same questions, and I hope you appreciate by now that my answers are always going to be the same.

How do you tell the difference between an "encoding" and random overlaps which we know are very common?

Encodings do not stand in isolation. As far as I can tell, they are all part of larger patterns. One of the problems you have is that the text we have been discussing is not like a random text. It is so highly structured that there may not be much randomness there at all. It might be best to choose another text we can be reasonably sure is not encrypted, like a paperback novel, or even create an artificial text, and test that as a 'control text'.

"Only" a 27% chance? That's huge! That's about the same as getting "heads" two times in a row. It indicates nothing beyond random chance. There is no statistical evidence of any "codes" in the grids. For one encoding you are correct, of course. But as I've said, the pairs in the Garden encodings were always found in there. These are all independent of each other, so the probabilities multiply. That 27% soon dwindles away to practically nothing. Ten pairs in a row found in the garden have a probabiility of 1/(0.27^10), which is 1 in 500,000 against chance. That's like getting nineteen heads in a row (so obviously Allah had a hand in it). This is a rough estimate though - the calculation again needs to be refined.

They look exactly like what I would expect from random chance. Case in point: You cherry picked a small subset of data to create your "Signature of Christ" and ignored the misses as well as a vast ocean of other possible names and titles of Christ. Here is the full set of data for the numbers you used:

1463

You arbitrarily dropped four lines to mark four sections of six words each, and then cherry picked the word strings that lined up! That's all you did. You ignored all the misses. And worse, you could have used many other names and titles. Rather than Messiah, you could have used Christ. Or The Christ. Or The Messiah. Or Savior. Or The Savior, or Son of God, or The Son of God, or Son of Man, etc., etc., etc. When you include all the possibilities, you see that you can make pretty much any pattern you like by aligning word strings. I see no evidence of any design whatsoever.

I did not 'arbitrarily' drop those four lines. I discovered the pattern. Your method is turning out to be a very poor way of finding encoded material here. There's nothing to beat the old pencil and paper method after all! The presence of the pattern formed by the six signatures is IN NO WAY diminished by the other patterns that are there and which overlap and in some cases interlock with it. You characterise those 'extra' word strings as 'random' because you haven't seen those patterns - I haven't joined the dots for you yet.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-01-2017, 09:35 AM

If you recall, the test was devised to compare your efforts at mimicking a code with the four ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html), proceeding from word 1 of the NIV, which discounts encodings that begin at word 5. Most of my significant findings, such as

The ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html)
The Signature of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html)
The Sealed Scroll (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2861117.html)
The Creation Snowflake (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437341.html)
The Bookend Encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2465906.html)
The First Day (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3281244.html)
Footprints in the Sand (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3364256.html)

and others, begin at word 1 of the NIV Bible. Other encodings interlock with these, creating a mosaic of interlocking patterns that are all tied to the first word of Scripture. You have yet to show anything like this phenomenon, in the NIV or elsewhere. Yes, there are other types of codes in the NIV and as I've said it extends beyond the NIV to modern events, but finding two related numbers starting at word 5 is a drop in the ocean compared to what I've found.

Hey there Bill,

There appears to be some confusion. We were specifically talking about testing the Garden page. I had commented that your encoding of "the water" had more misses than hits, and asked "Why would anyone think this was evidence of design?" Here is the conversation that followed:

Richard (post #118 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68066#post68066)): The misses outnumber the hits! Why would anyone think this was evidence of design?

Bill (post #125 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68077#post68077)): It's a fair question. As I studied them I realised that at least one encoded pair was always in close proximity, almost always overlapping (there is one exception, but that is explained, because it opens the way to a particularly impressive piece of code). For this to happen consistently is a sign of design not randomness. I checked five random pairs and got a completely different result: one hit, four misses. I've already suggested a further test here and outlined the method. I'm waiting on your agreement and then we can proceed.

Richard (post #128 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68083#post68083)): So if something is "overlapping" you assume it is "encoded" and not by chance? How then do you tell the difference between random overlaps (which will always happen) vs. "encoded overlaps"?

Bill (post #133 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68094#post68094)): By the test I am proposing. Are you up for it?

Richard (post #138 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68103#post68103)): What exactly is the test you are proposing? It's self-evident that there will be lots of overlaps when you compress 3764 numbers into 83 columns. Why would anyone think any would try to encode messages that way? How exactly are we supposed to discern between the "encoded" messages and random chance?

Bill (post #158 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68141#post68141)): Using random pairs of numbers, the test would tell us what percentage of them would overlap in the Garden (Genesis 1.1-5).

Then in post #160 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68429#post68429) I calculated the probability that word strings would overlap in the Garden grid and showed that in general it is very high.

As you can see, the "test" has been about the overlaps in your Garden page. I found an exceedingly significant example where the value of the Basmala in Arabic (786) aligns perfectly with the value of its English equivalent, which precisely mimics the patterns you display in your Garden page. Furthermore, I showed that there is deep religious significance to the starting and stopping word numbers (5 and 19) because there are Five Pillars of Islam, Five daily prayers, and the Number 19 is broadly recognized by Muslim numerologists as the basis of a grand design in the Koran that proves it was inspired by Allah.

Your attempt to ignore these facts, change the subject, and swamp me with a splatter of pages (like a started squid squirting ink) does not help make your case. You need to respond to the evidence I have presented. The problem is, I have used your methods, and found a striking "coincidence" that matches the best of your finding. Your arbitrary insistence that it must begin with the first word is absurd. Many of your own findings do not start on the first word. For example, look at this image you posted:

1472

It does not start with the first word, yet you used it as "evidence" of design. Also, your reason for using the definite article makes no sense. You said it was because the NIV uses the article, which is true in the other cases where you did NOT use the article. This is why I say your logic is inconsistent. You do not follow consistent principles and just make up rationalizations to fit what you want to believe, while making up contrary rationalizations to reject what you don't want to believe (which is what you have done with my example that matches yours in every particular).

Moreover, you only found two meaningfully-related numbers. The ark encodings are four meaningfully-related numbers. The Kaaba number is nothing like as closely related to the other two as they are to each other, which, being the same statement in English and Arabic are certainly closely related. The equivalent in my code would be finding 'Ark of the Testimony' in English and Hebrew starting from word 5, then finding 'Temple Mount', or 'Garden of Gethsemane' or something similar starting from word 5 and claiming these were three closely related statements and that therefore it was a code. If I did that you would have plenty to say about it - and rightly so.

Not true. I found many other overlaps and perfect alignments with words like Muhammad, Mecca, and The Koran (all starting at word 13) as well as a perfect alignment of Prophet Muhammad and Messenger of Allah, and many others I have yet to share. And all this I found in a matter of minutes, whereas you have spent decades trolling through the Bible looking for connections, so it is not entirely fair to suggest I should have as many cherry picked hits collected as you. The point is that I can find seemingly meaningful patterns quickly and easily, just like you. As far as I can tell, you have not presented any evidence whatsoever that your "codes" are anything but random chance. You have no way to discern between random vs. designed, and I can find hits by the bucketful that you must explain away with very inconsistent rationalizations.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-01-2017, 10:16 AM

Because I tested it against random number pairs and found that only 1 in five random pairs (theoretically it's about 1 in 6.7) overlapped or were even present in the first five verses of Genesis. The number pairs I derived from the things God created were always there and always overlapped. That was enough!

Enough for what? It tells you absolutely nothing about whether the overlaps you cherry picked were "designed" or not.

Two things:

1. Meaning - for the Garden encodings we see the things God created over the six Creation days.
2. Low probability - as I just indicated, the number pairs overlapped every time, which is very improbable.

Those 'similar patterns' would not be meaningfully connected in this way, just unconnected, or barely connected groups of phrases, as you have been unwittingly confirming. You keep asking the same questions, and I hope you appreciate by now that my answers are always going to be the same.

I keep asking the same question because you have not been able to answer as yet. Anyone could find "meaningful connections" in a random data set that is built out of words because words have meaning. You have never explained how you tell the different between a meaningless random coincidence and a "designed" pattern. By your own standards, the encoding of the Basmala is a great sign from Allah, that he designed the code. The Koran is also encoded, aligned with Muhammad who revealed it. And the Koran says that Allah gave the Torah to the Jews, so Muslim numerologists would expect it to be coded by Allah to point his people to his final revelation in the Koran. We have both meaning and low probability, so by your own words, we should believe Allah encoded the Bible.

How do you tell the difference between an "encoding" and random overlaps which we know are very common?

Encodings do not stand in isolation. As far as I can tell, they are all part of larger patterns. One of the problems you have is that the text we have been discussing is not like a random text. It is so highly structured that there may not be much randomness there at all. It might be best to choose another text we can be reasonably sure is not encrypted, like a paperback novel, or even create an artificial text, and test that as a 'control text'.

A control text would be interesting, but I find your grid much more so because I can show that I can find almost anything I'm looking for using your methods. This proves that your methods are completely unreliable because they cannot distinguish between design and random coincidence.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-01-2017, 12:19 PM

For one encoding you are correct, of course. But as I've said, the pairs in the Garden encodings were always found in there. These are all independent of each other, so the probabilities multiply. That 27% soon dwindles away to practically nothing. Ten pairs in a row found in the garden have a probabiility of 1/(0.27^10), which is 1 in 500,000 against chance. That's like getting nineteen heads in a row (so obviously Allah had a hand in it). This is a rough estimate though - the calculation again needs to be refined.
Your probability calculation is fatally flawed. The answer you got is completely false. In essence, you flipped a coin a hundred times and then counted the heads and ignored the tails! You need to start with a representative list of possible encodings you would like to test, then test them all and count the hits and the misses. For example, you would start like this:

Heavens?
The Heavens?
Earth?
The Earth?
Light?
The Light?
Water?
The Water?
Waters?
The Waters?
Garden?
The Garden?
Garden of Eden?
The Garden of Eden?
Eden?
Man?
The Man?
Man in our image?
Man in our Image, in our likeness?
Adam?
Eve?
Serpent?
The Serpent?
Tree of Life?
The Tree of Life?

Etc., etc., etc.

After testing a representative sample of possible encodings, you will see how many hits and how many misses. Then you can calculate the relative frequency and see if it is different than what we would expect from random chance.

thebluetriangle

05-01-2017, 05:09 PM

Hey there Bill,

There appears to be some confusion. We were specifically talking about testing the Garden page. The Garden encodings are all Hebrew/English pairs. You had an Arabic/English pair, yes, but then you added 'the Holy Kaaba' to it, making it look more like the ark encodings, all streaming out from one word. So it wasn't obvious which type you were mimicking. It had elements of both in it. If you are going to succesfully mimic the paired encodings in The Garden (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/the-garden.html) and the Ark (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html) then

a) you have to find more than one dual-langauge pair! One hit means nothing. Look at how many there are in those web pages. There are nineteen pairs in The Garden alone and I could have added more.
b) you have to find a meaningful relationship between those pairs, as in the Garden (God's creations) and the Ark (every component of the ark plus the objects inside/beside it).

As you can see, the "test" has been about the overlaps in your Garden page. I found an exceedingly significant example where the value of the Basmala in Arabic (786) aligns perfectly with the value of its English equivalent, which precisely mimics the patterns you display in your Garden page. Furthermore, I showed that there is deep religious significance to the starting and stopping word numbers (5 and 19) because there are Five Pillars of Islam, Five daily prayers, and the Number 19 is broadly recognized by Muslim numerologists as the basis of a grand design in the Koran that proves it was inspired by Allah.

Yes, but you only found one pair! Where are the rest of them? One pair in isolation means nothing! It's PATTERNS of encoded numbers that are the stuff of the code. My Garden page has nineteen of them, covering the six days of Creation. Everything God created in those six days is in there.

Your attempt to ignore these facts, change the subject, and swamp me with a splatter of pages (like a started squid squirting ink) does not help make your case. You need to respond to the evidence I have presented. The problem is, I have used your methods, and found a striking "coincidence" that matches the best of your finding. Your arbitrary insistence that it must begin with the first word is absurd.

As I already showed you, most of the important codes I found in the NIV DO start from the first word, one of them being the four ark encodings. It's the fact that so many of them start from there that makes them so significant in the first place. If I found so many then either the code is real or it is a trivial matter to find them. If it's a trivial matter then you should be able to find more, starting from the first word. But so far you have not done so! You've found no larger patterns, just what I expected you to find: individual numbers that mean nothing in isolation.

Many of your own findings do not start on the first word. For example, look at this image you posted:

1472

It does not start with the first word, yet you used it as "evidence" of design.

That's because there are different types of codes, as I've already stated! This is one of the double witness encodings, which are found within the first five verses of Genesis, for the most part not beginning at the first word. Has there to be only one type of code? There are ELS codes too and they do not begin at the first word either. There are

1) Codes that begin at word 1, some of which span the entire Bible, most of which do not.
2) 'Double witness' codes in the Garden
3) ELS codes, found in the Garden and also in John.
4) Codes found at other significant places in the Bible.
5) Codes that extend beyond the NIV Bible.

The codes are unlocked by the two system decoding procedure applied to the biblical text, but this is supplimented by two other numeration systems, chapter and verse numbers, positional values, ELS codes, geometric figures, universal constants and symbolism.

What you claim is lack of consistency is just different encoding methods. When you try to disprove one type of code by pointing to another type you are comparing apples with oranges!

Also, your reason for using the definite article makes no sense. You said it was because the NIV uses the article, which is true in the other cases where you did NOT use the article. This is why I say your logic is inconsistent. No. The rationale here is that the NIV translation of the Hebrew uses the article. These encodings are based on the Hebrew word or words and their NIV equivalent. They aren't completely consistent though - almost but not quite. They are a 'best-fit' code, as I've said. Considering the complexities of language and translation though, they are still very impressive.

You do not follow consistent principles and just make up rationalizations to fit what you want to believe, while making up contrary rationalizations to reject what you don't want to believe (which is what you have done with my example that matches yours in every particular). The reason the definite article is used here is because it is the NIV translation of the Hebrew!

Not true. I found many other overlaps and perfect alignments with words like Muhammad, Mecca, and The Koran (all starting at word 13) as well as a perfect alignment of Prophet Muhammad and Messenger of Allah, and many others I have yet to share. And all this I found in a matter of minutes, whereas you have spent decades trolling through the Bible looking for connections, so it is not entirely fair to suggest I should have as many cherry picked hits collected as you. The point is that I can find seemingly meaningful patterns quickly and easily, just like you. As far as I can tell, you have not presented any evidence whatsoever that your "codes" are anything but random chance. You have no way to discern between random vs. designed, and I can find hits by the bucketful that you must explain away with very inconsistent rationalizations.

You have not found the one thing I have insisted upon from the start: confluences of encoded numbers that are as meaningful as the ark encodings, the signature of Christ and many others. In fact you haven't found anything meaningful at all. You found vaguely related statements about codes being false or relating to Islam. I could do that too. Pick any subject under the sun and it would be too hard to find something related to it if you had a free hand in constructing the phrase. But you have not found

1) regular patterns such as the 6666 in the Signature phenomenon
2) any more than one 'double witness' 'encoding',
3) anything of any biblical significance,
4) anything having these properties from the NIV itself
5) groups of encoded numbers all related to an overarching theme

In fact you haven't found any groups of numbers remotely as significant or as strongly thematically related as the signatures or the ark. What you have found is fragmentary, isolated and/or insignificant, with one exception: the one 'double witness' pseudo-encoding in arabic/English. But again you've only found one of these in isolation. No, you haven't had the time to find much so far, but so far you have found nothing.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-01-2017, 10:08 PM

a) you have to find more than one dual-langauge pair! One hit means nothing. Look at how many there are in those web pages. There are nineteen pairs in The Garden alone and I could have added more.

Ask, and you shall receive, my friend! I found a free program called Quran Code that calculates all the numerical values of the Arabic Quran. It's pretty easy to use because Arabic shares a lot with Hebrew (both being semitic languages). You can download it here (https://qurancode.codeplex.com/) if you want to verify my results.

Thesis: Allah encoded many of the central teachings of the Koran in the first five verses of Genesis by designing the text so that the numerical values of the Arabic words and phrases would align with the values of their English equivalents. I begin with the most important and celebrated phrase in the Islamic word, the first words of the Holy Koran:

1473

As you know, the number 786 is extremely significant in the Islamic word because it is the numerical value of that phrase which opens the Koran.

The starting and stopping words (5 and 19) are two of the most significant numbers in Islam, because there are Five Pillars of Islam and Five Daily Prayers, and Muslim numerologists believe that Allah designed the Koran using the Number 19. Thus, the Koran itself is encoded in the grid, ending at word 19, just like the Basmala:

1474

Look at the perfect alignment of three of the four word strings at position 19, which Muslim numerologists believe to be the number that Allah used to design his Holy Koran.

And who is the Messenger that received this revelation from Allah? The code identifies him with perfect clarity:

1476

The Arabic phrase "Muhamad rasul Allah" is part of the Shahada, which is the one other most significant statement in the Islamic world. Here's what the wiki says about the Basmala and Shahada (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmala)):

In Arabic calligraphy, the Basmala is the most prevalent motif, even more so than the Shahadah.

This is just the beginning. These patterns just fell in my lap. I have no doubt that your method of the "Garden" will enable me to find all the primary teachings of Islam encoded in the first five verses of Genesis. How many similar results must I find before you admit that your method is fundamentally flawed?

thebluetriangle

05-02-2017, 12:11 AM

Your probability calculation is fatally flawed. The answer you got is completely false. In essence, you flipped a coin a hundred times and then counted the heads and ignored the tails!

No, I did not. There was some selection, as I said, but very little. I certainly didn't try every one with and without the definite article or any other articles. I've already shown you examples of how it was done, but the general principle was

1. Find the Hebrew word or words in the Masoretic. This was generally quite simple, but sometimes I had to choose between a word and a phrase. For instance, between adam/'man' and adam tselem/'man in our image'. There was choice there and in some other examples. But man in our image is highly meaningful.
2. Find the NIV equivalent. Again this was usually quite easy. There were complications though, and a little 'wiggle room' was required, again as I have stated.
3. Calculate the standard values, then look for them as a pair in the garden. Sometimes they were found ony once each, but most often there were multiple instances. If two were in close proximity (I would say touching or overlapping but there was one instance out of thirty where they were one word apart) then I considerd that to be an encoding.

This is easily testable agaist randomly chosen pairs of numbers and I'm happy to go ahead with that test. Are you? Despite the wiggle room, I am confident that if you compared the lists in the Garden and the Ark with random numbers, you would find that these lists are way beyond chance.

You need to start with a representative list of possible encodings you would like to test, then test them all and count the hits and the misses. For example, you would start like this:

Heavens?
The Heavens?
Earth?
The Earth?
Light?
The Light?
Water?
The Water?
Waters?
The Waters?
Garden?
The Garden?
Garden of Eden?
The Garden of Eden?
Eden?
Man?
The Man?
Man in our image?
Man in our Image, in our likeness?
Adam?
Eve?
Serpent?
The Serpent?
Tree of Life?
The Tree of Life?

Etc., etc., etc.

After testing a representative sample of possible encodings, you will see how many hits and how many misses. Then you can calculate the relative frequency and see if it is different than what we would expect from random chance.

The test you are proposing here isn't representative of the encodings:

The Garden encodings represent what God was stated to have created on each day. So we have ' . . . God created the heavens and the earth.' I chose 'the heavens' and 'the earth' because they were the direct translations of the Hebrew. So there is no need to test 'heavens' against 'Hashamayim', because 'hashamayim' means 'the heavens'. Agreed?

The other thing to bear in mind is that in the case of the Ark, where every component of the ark is found, it was the first instance of every mention that was encoded. This is generally true of the Garden encodings too, although the rule there was 'the things that God created', which was nearly always the first instance too.

I'm certainly open to testing different scenarios, even what you suggest above, as long as it is not done in isolation. Then we would have a range of different results to compare. I am as open to discovering the truth as you say you are. So let us proceed. If the results show chance I will withdraw the Garden and the Ark pages. If they show something other than chance then we have done important work in validating a phenomenon the world needs to know about.

I will draw up a test today and if you agree to the test conditions we can begin. Your program would be better for this than my hand-held caculator, so I would be grateful if you did the actual testing in the matrix.

thebluetriangle

05-02-2017, 01:22 AM

Ask, and you shall receive, my friend! I found a free program called Quran Code that calculates all the numerical values of the Arabic Quran. It's pretty easy to use because Arabic shares a lot with Hebrew (both being semitic languages). You can download it here (https://qurancode.codeplex.com/) if you want to verify my results.

Thesis: Allah encoded many of the central teachings of the Koran in the first five verses of Genesis by designing the text so that the numerical values of the Arabic words and phrases would align with the values of their English equivalents. I begin with the most important and celebrated phrase in the Islamic word, the first words of the Holy Koran:

1473

As you know, the number 786 is extremely significant in the Islamic word because it is the numerical value of that phrase which opens the Koran.

The starting and stopping words (5 and 19) are two of the most significant numbers in Islam, because there are Five Pillars of Islam and Five Daily Prayers, and Muslim numerologists believe that Allah designed the Koran using the Number 19. Thus, the Koran itself is encoded in the grid, ending at word 19, just like the Basmala:

1474

Look at the perfect alignment of three of the four word strings at position 19, which Muslim numerologists believe to be the number that Allah used to design his Holy Koran.

And who is the Messenger that received this revelation from Allah? The code identifies him with perfect clarity:

1476

The Arabic phrase "Muhamad rasul Allah" is part of the Shahada, which is the one other most significant statement in the Islamic world. Here's what the wiki says about the Basmala and Shahada (source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basmala)):

In Arabic calligraphy, the Basmala is the most prevalent motif, even more so than the Shahadah.

This is just the beginning. These patterns just fell in my lap. I have no doubt that your method of the "Garden" will enable me to find all the primary teachings of Islam encoded in the first five verses of Genesis. How many similar results must I find before you admit that your method is fundamentally flawed?

Ha! It's a good attempt, but it is your method that is fundamentally flawed.

First of all, 'the Koran' is secondary to 'the Quran' in popularity, only 45 million google hits against 116 million. I'd have to look at the rest of it to see if there are other translations too. Remember the New Bible Code is based on the words in that version only. I have no idea how many translations of the Quran there are, but there may be other wordings.

Secondly, there is the thorny question of meaning, and this is where your attempt gets caught. The phrases are

In the name of Allah the most Gracious the most Merciful . . .
The Koran
Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah

Now these phrases are certainly related. The Bible equivalents might be

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Or maybe the Shema Yisrael ('Hear O Israel, The Lord our God, the Lord is one')
The Bible
Jesus Christ, the son of David (or something similar)

Now if I found those three together in the Garden I would never in a million years think they were encoded. They are related, yes, and important, yes. But one of them is simply a reference to the Bible. Its even worse wth 'the Koran' because that isn't even the primary translation. They aren't together conveying a message, or if you like witnessing to anything more than what the individual phrases witness to.

Look at the Ark (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html) encodings. We have the ark itself and every single component therein,

1. 'The Ark of the Testimony'
2. 'a chest of acacia wood'
3. 'an atonement cover' (the NIV translation, with 'an')
4. 'Moulding'
5. 'Cherubim'
6. 'Rings'
7. 'Poles of acacia wood' (poles in Hebrew has a gematria of only 16, which is why the longer version is encoded)

We also have every object associated wth the ark i the Most Holy Place, again the first biblical mention of each of them:

1. 'Aaron's staff'
2. 'An omer of manna'
3. 'Two stone tablets'
4. 'This book of the law'

So these encryptions are together witnessing to the entire ark of the testimony! What are your three Quran encodings witnessing to? And there are only three of them. Moreover, we have eleven individual parts to this encoding!

Now these are also the first instances of each item. How's that for consistency? You have so far found nothing like that.

The ark itself is a vital component of the larger message of the New Bible Code, which uses the Day of Atonement ceremony to convey its message. On 9/11, the High Priest entered the Temple and performed an atoning sacrifice, the ark being central to the atonement rite. This, and much more, is the message being conveyed.

(One more thing: In Judaism, the 9th of Av (the 11th month in their calendar) is a Jewish day of fasting and mourning, when they commemorate the many tragedies that have befallen them on that date, in particular the destruction of the first and second temples. So 9/11 also symbolised the 9th of Av.)

You are still a long, long way from debunking the New Bible Code. In fact you are really no further forward than you were at the start of this discussion.

thebluetriangle

05-02-2017, 02:47 AM

I suggest we use a very simple test to begin with, which may save us both time.

I propose we forget about overlapping word strings and just concentrate on finding numbers in word strings in the first five verses of Genesis. This is more likely than finding overlapping strings but I believe that it will still give results that are beyond chance.

For the test I propose we rerun the ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html), in a slightly simplified way.

a) We test all the ark components, of which there are eleven, against eleven random number pairs in about the same range. The encodings cover the range 207 to 1967, so I propose the random numbers are chosen between 200 and 2000.

b) We use the first instance of each word or phrase as before, which should make no difference to the probability of them appearing by chance, but which if there is a code, should show a big diference.

c) We use the shortest version possible every time - for instance we would have 'poles' (which I know isn't encoded) instead of 'poles of acacia wood', so that would push it towards chance a little already. (Alternatively, we use every version possible. So we would have 'poles' and 'poles of acacia wood', etc.)

d) We use the direct NIV equivalent every time, which is usually easy to identify. (If we disagree, lets try both numbers.)

We would examine the results in pairs as before, to see how many of those we got. Since it is pairs that count as encodings here, that is the only fair way to do it, although as a secondary analysis, we could also look to see how many in total are found. In a Bible without meaning, other than as a historical document of man's folly, taking the first instance of every ark component and its NIV equivalent should make no difference to the probability of finding the numbers there. That is the 'null hypothesis' here.

We don't have to do any theoretical work initially either, just run the results and look at the figures.

I will provide all the numbers and you do the crunching.

What do you say?

Richard Amiel McGough

05-02-2017, 11:15 PM

No, I did not. There was some selection, as I said, but very little. I certainly didn't try every one with and without the definite article or any other articles. I've already shown you examples of how it was done, but the general principle was

1. Find the Hebrew word or words in the Masoretic. This was generally quite simple, but sometimes I had to choose between a word and a phrase. For instance, between adam/'man' and adam tselem/'man in our image'. There was choice there and in some other examples. But man in our image is highly meaningful.
2. Find the NIV equivalent. Again this was usually quite easy. There were complications though, and a little 'wiggle room' was required, again as I have stated.
3. Calculate the standard values, then look for them as a pair in the garden. Sometimes they were found ony once each, but most often there were multiple instances. If two were in close proximity (I would say touching or overlapping but there was one instance out of thirty where they were one word apart) then I considerd that to be an encoding.

This is easily testable agaist randomly chosen pairs of numbers and I'm happy to go ahead with that test. Are you? Despite the wiggle room, I am confident that if you compared the lists in the Garden and the Ark with random numbers, you would find that these lists are way beyond chance.

Hey there Bill,

Before we do any other test I think we should review the evidence you have presented. There appears to be a problem with consistency in three areas:

1) You sometimes included the article and/or modifiers, and sometimes you do not.
2) You sometimes use the first occurrence, and sometimes you do not.
3) You counted only the hits and ignored all the misses.

Now I will follow your lead and review every created thing mentioned in Genesis 1 and compare it with your results. The red entries in the table below indicate data that you displayed in your Garden page. I tested 43 phrases found in Genesis 1. I tried to be consistent with your methods. Your Garden page displays 18 of those possibilities (a little less than half). It is extremely important that we include all the data if we are to do anything like a valid statistical analysis.

The Cnt (Count) column says how many occurrences of the two values (Eng/Hb) are found in the grid. This is important when asking about the chances of overlap. A zero indicates it does not appear in the grid.

The Cols column records how many of the 83 columns are spanned. This to will help give a sense of the probability of random overlaps. Some of the hits you featured span over 75% of the columns which makes them seem more like random chance than designed.

The Hits and Misses columns show the number of overlaps. In many cases, the misses outnumber the hits, and sometimes there are lots of both because the data is splattered all over the 83 columns. If a hit is impossible because one or both of the values is not found in the grid, I mark that as a single "miss". If both values are found in the grid I count the number of overlaps as "hits" and anything that does not overlap as a "miss."

I have tried to be true to your method. Please let me know if you think I have included any words or phrases that should be excluded according to a general principle.

I don't have time right now to do an detailed analysis of this data (it took most of the evening to compile), but there are some quick observations that seem significant. Of the 43 words/phrases I tested, 10 were not found in the grid. I think that is consistent with what we would expect from random numbers. Also, the ratio of hits to misses is 58/63, which is pretty close to 50/50, which also seems consistent with random numbers. In any case, now that we have the data, we can do a real analysis.

English
Hebrew
Cnt
Cols
HITS
MISSES
Comments

The Heavens
Hashamayam
1/1
23
1
0
Good hit.

The Earth
Haaretz
3/4
42
4
1
But the 7 occurrences span over half the grid so it looks random

The Deep
Tehom
1/0
16
0
1

Darkness
V'choshek
2/0
16
0
1

The Waters
Hamayim
0/3
6
0
1
Skipped in the Garden page even though it is the 1st occurrence

Light
Aur
2/2
15
1
0
Good hit.

Day
Yom
3/11
43
7
4
14 occurrences span half the grid, looks random

Night
Lilah
3/4
23
2
2

An Expanse
Raquia
1/2
31
1
1

The Water
Hamayim
3/3
48
1
2
1 Hit and 2 Misses. 6 occurrences splattered across 48 columns. Not the first occurrence.

Sky
Shamayim
1/2
31
1
2

Dry Ground
Hayabbashah
2/3
64
1
3
5 occurrences pan 64 columns (that's almost the entire grid)

Land
Aretz
4/2
18
1
3
3 MISSES, 1 HIT

Seas
Yomim
1/1
8
0
1
MISS

Vegetation
Deshe
1/0
22
0
1
MISS

Plants
Eseb
0/4
24
0
1

Seed bearing plants
Eseb mazri zera
1/3
50
1
2
Spans 50 columns (over half the grid).

Trees
Etz
4/1
24
2
2

Trees on the land that bear fruit
Etz pri asher pri
3/2
80
3
0
Everything overlaps because the 5 occurrences span 80 columns!

Lights
Marot
3/2
25
2
1

The Greater Light
Hamaur Hagadol
1/5
39
0
5
5 MISSES & 0 HITS despite spanning nearly half the grid.

The Lesser Light
Hamaur Haqatan
1/2
35
0
2
2 MISSES & 0 HITS despite spanning nearly half the grid.

The Stars
Hakokavim
2/3
26
2
2

Living Creatures
Sheretz
0/1
13
0
1
Very important miss.

Birds
V'oph
3/1
10
2
1

Creatures of the Sea
Hatanninnim
1/2
45
1
1

The Great Creatures of the Sea
Hatanninnim Hagedol
1/0
38
0
1

Living and Moving Thing
Nephesh Hachayah v'haremeshet
2/2
61
2
0
They all overlap because they span over 75% of the columns

Every Living and Moving Thing
Kol Nephesh Hachayah v'haremesht
0/2
47
0
1

Winged Bird
Oph Kaneph
2/7
43
5
2

Every Winged Bird
Kol Oph Kaneph
2/3
74
3
0
Spans 74 columns (almost entire grid)

Livestock
Behemoth
1/7
23
2
5

The Wild Animals
Chaiot Aretz
1/1
38
1
0

Wild Animals according to their kinds
Chaiot Aretz L'minenu
2/1
55
2
0
INCONSISTENT! You omitted the definite article in this case

The Wild Animals according to their kinds
Chaiot Aretz L'minenu
0/1
50
0
1
Why did you ignore this but include the next in your Garden page?

The Livestock according to their kinds
Behemoth L'menu
1/1
46
1
0

Creatures
Remes
3/3
42
3
0
They all overlap. But span about half the grid.

The Creatures
Remes
2/3
38
3
0
Again, they all overlap. But span about half the grid.

All the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds
Kol Remesh Ha'adamah l'minehu
0/1
15
0
1
MISS!

MAN
ADAM
4/1
6
0
4
SIGNIFICANT MISS! FOUR CHANCES AND THEY ALL MISSED!

Man in our image
Adam b'tzelmenu
1/7
45
2
5
Spans 45 columns, over half, and more misses than hits!

Man in our image, in our likeness
Adam b'tzelmenu k'damuthenu
1/1
30
1
0
Surprised you missed this one.

Male and Female
Zecur v'nekavah
1/2
24
0
2
Two more misses to finish it up.

thebluetriangle

05-03-2017, 02:59 AM

Richard,

Congratulations my friend! You have all-but-proven the code is real! Truly, this is a blue-ribbon day!!!

I'll speak about your comments and the test later, but what you showed was that

1. 28 out of 43 number pairs overlapped in the Garden.
2. 33 out of 43 number pairs were found in the Garden.
3. 76 out of 86 individual numbers were found in the garden.

We had already calculated that
a) 52% of the numbers from 1 to 3764 (ordinal value of the longest word string) are found in the garden.
b) about 60% of the word strings found there will overlap.

From this we can calculate that the probability of any two numbers from 1 to 3764 overlapping are 0.52 x 0.52 x 0.6, or 0.16. I'm going to increase that to p = 0.2, because some numbers have several word strings, which increases further the probability of an overlap and I'll call the probability of an overlap 75% instead of 60%.

The probabilities are easy to calculate now, using an online binomial calculator (http://stattrek.com/m/online-calculator/binomial.aspx).

1. The probability of 28 out of 43 number pairs overlapping, with a p = 0.2 for each overlap, is P = <0.000001, or less than 1 in a million.
2. The probability of 33 out of 43 number pairs being found in the Garden, with p = 0.27 for each pair found, is P = <0.000001, or less than 1 in a million.
3. The probability of 76 out of 86 numbers being found in the Garden, with p = 0.52 for each pair found, is P = <0.000001, or less than 1 in a million.

There is no possibility of a bleed through from word construction to gematria, especially where two systems and two langauges are used. Therefore we would have expected about 8 out of 43 overlaps, 11 out of 43 pair finds and 45 out of 86 single number finds. What we actually found, even with a test that doesn't follow the method I said was used (the objects of God's creative acts on each day), gives results that are well beyond chance. The calculator I used doesn't go below a 1 in a million probability, so they are all lower than that. It needs to be refined, of course and I have two lists of 43 randomly-generated number pairs between 10 and 3764 (one a gaussian distribution closer to the real distribution) to give you. That should help us define it more accurately.

I'm grateful for all the work you've done here. It's helped enormously to have someone of your knowledge, intellect and commitment to work with.

In Christ,

Bill

thebluetriangle

05-03-2017, 03:59 AM

I'd like to add a few comments on your test.

Hey there Bill,

Before we do any other test I think we should review the evidence you have presented. There appears to be a problem with consistency in three areas:

1) You sometimes included the article and/or modifiers, and sometimes you do not.
2) You sometimes use the first occurrence, and sometimes you do not.
3) You counted only the hits and ignored all the misses.

On point 1, I stuck strictly to the NIV translation as I discerned it, with or without the modifiers. You correctly noticed that I was inconsistent with 'wild animals after their kinds'. That should have had the definite article but it wasn't there, unless I extended the Garden a little or missed out the article. I did say though that a little wiggle room was necessary. That was it and it was the only one out of nineteen where I had to do that. Correction. I checked it again and in fact the hey, meaning 'the', is missing from the Hebrew word chayt (beast), which is why I did not include it in the NIV version. It didn't have to be included.

You could also argue for the inclusion or exclusion of other words and phrases, although I went for the minimum possible: one word or phrase to describe each result of God's creative acts. So yes I missed out 'vegetation' and 'Man in our image, in our likeness'. But that was because others had been found. This of course means that there were extra possible encodings and it adds to the probabilities (you have more than covered for this though, and the probabilities are still tiny). I had to make choices about what to include and those were my choices. This dialogue has helped clarify things a little though.

Point 2. The rule here was God's creative acts, not the first instance, although in nearly every case it was the first instance, so I can understand your confusion here. I got confused myself at first.

Point 3. This is the big one. It didn't matter if I ignored the misses. All I needed to find was one hit! The probability of finding at least one hit for each pair can be quantified and I showed that it was well beyond chance! If I was ignoring misses I should have counted then it would be reflected in the probabilities, which would have been close to chance. It's important you understand that the chances of finding each word pair in the Garden at all are 27%. The probabilities multiply, so finding the huge percentage I did, well beyond 1 in a million, is itself a huge neon sign indicating design! I could have simply included all the hits and (rightly) called them all encodings, but so many of them overlapped that I realised this was a far better way of looking at it. Some of the 'extra' numbers take part in other encodings and distracted from the overlaps, so I took the best overlap in each case and showed that.

Now I will follow your lead and review every created thing mentioned in Genesis 1 and compare it with your results. The red entries in the table below indicate data that you displayed in your Garden page. I tested 43 phrases found in Genesis 1. I tried to be consistent with your methods. Your Garden page displays 18 of those possibilities (a little less than half). It is extremely important that we include all the data if we are to do anything like a valid statistical analysis.

Well, you weren't completely following my lead, because there is a lot in there I wouldn't have added. For instance, I already included 'Man in our image', so why did you test 'Adam'? That's two tests of the same concept. 'Vegetation' I would argue wasn't needed either. The test then went on to differentiate into trees and plants, which were encrypted. I agree it could have been either though.

The Cnt (Count) column says how many occurrences of the two values (Eng/Hb) are found in the grid. This is important when asking about the chances of overlap. A zero indicates it does not appear in the grid.

The Cols column records how many of the 83 columns are spanned. This to will help give a sense of the probability of random overlaps. Some of the hits you featured span over 75% of the columns which makes them seem more like random chance than designed.

The Hits and Misses columns show the number of overlaps. In many cases, the misses outnumber the hits, and sometimes there are lots of both because the data is splattered all over the 83 columns. If a hit is impossible because one or both of the values is not found in the grid, I mark that as a single "miss". If both values are found in the grid I count the number of overlaps as "hits" and anything that does not overlap as a "miss."

As I showed the hits were well beyond chance, less than 1 in a million probability. The misses don't change that. As I said, the fact that so many of there numbers are there at all is almost undeniable evidence of design. Only about half of the numbers should have been there, instead of 76 out of 86 (88%).

I have tried to be true to your method. Please let me know if you think I have included any words or phrases that should be excluded according to a general principle. For the reasons I outlined above you didn't follow it exactly. It doesn't matter though, because even your method shows how imporbable it is!

I don't have time right now to do an detailed analysis of this data (it took most of the evening to compile), but there are some quick observations that seem significant. Of the 43 words/phrases I tested, 10 were not found in the grid. I think that is consistent with what we would expect from random numbers. Also, the ratio of hits to misses is 58/63, which is pretty close to 50/50, which also seems consistent with random numbers. In any case, now that we have the data, we can do a real analysis.

You forgot that only about 27% of the pairs would be found there in the first place and 60% of the pairs actually there would overlap (according to what we've done so far). We need to do more work to clarify that, but it won't be too far away from the first figure, although the second may be higher. I added in a safety factor for that though in my 1-in-a-million estimate of the overall probabilities. The misses don't matter, as the calculations were based on their being only one 'hit', no matter how many misses there were.

I'm grateful for what you've done already though. It's been a great help.

As for the longer version: 'man in our image, in our likeness', no I didn't find that one (after I did 'man in our image' I went on to other things). That one is yours.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-03-2017, 10:36 AM

On point 1, I stuck strictly to the NIV translation as I discerned it, with or without the modifiers. You correctly noticed that I was inconsistent with 'wild animals after their kinds'. That should have had the definite article but it wasn't there, unless I extended the Garden a little or missed out the article. I did say though that a little wiggle room was necessary. That was it and it was the only one out of nineteen where I had to do that. Correction. I checked it again and in fact the hey, meaning 'the', is missing from the Hebrew word chayt (beast), which is why I did not include it in the NIV version. It didn't have to be included.

Hey there Bill,

I'm really glad we are getting these details worked out. It is essential that we articulate the precise principles that you use to include/exclude words and phrases.

Your explanation for not using the article is not consistent with some of your other examples because your rule for the English is that it is the NIV translation of the Hebrew and in some cases you include Hebrew prefixes that are not represented in the NIV. Case in point: the noun "birds" is "oph" = 156 but the first occurrence that you used in your Garden has the vav prefix which means "and." The NIV includes this in the phrase "and let birds" but you ignored it when calculating the value of "birds". It should have been "and birds" or just "oph" if you were being consistent. We discussed a similar issue with "lishah" (into a woman) in Gen 2:22 which you took as meaning merely "a woman" because that's how the NIV translated it. The meaning of the Hebrew lamed prefix was ignored.

So we need to establish the principle and adhere to it.

You could also argue for the inclusion or exclusion of other words and phrases, although I went for the minimum possible: one word or phrase to describe each result of God's creative acts. So yes I missed out 'vegetation' and 'Man in our image, in our likeness'. But that was because others had been found. This of course means that there were extra possible encodings and it adds to the probabilities (you have more than covered for this though, and the probabilities are still tiny). I had to make choices about what to include and those were my choices. This dialogue has helped clarify things a little though.

Point 2. The rule here was God's creative acts, not the first instance, although in nearly every case it was the first instance, so I can understand your confusion here. I got confused myself at first.

I note that you included things that were not created per se, but rather named, like "Sky". I used that principle when including "Day" and "Night." Do you agree with this as valid for our tests? What about things mentioned like "signs to mark sacred times" and "years" in Gen 1:14?

Well, you weren't completely following my lead, because there is a lot in there I wouldn't have added. For instance, I already included 'Man in our image', so why did you test 'Adam'? That's two tests of the same concept. 'Vegetation' I would argue wasn't needed either. The test then went on to differentiate into trees and plants, which were encrypted. I agree it could have been either though.
I tested "man" and "Adam" because I want to establish what is or is not "encoded" (if anything) or if it is all the result of random chance. To accomplish this, we need to establish the general principles that unambiguously define what would or would not be considered a valid word or phrase to be tested in the Garden. So I need to know if there is anything in the list that you would omit on the basis of a general principle? If not, then we can use that list for a valid statistical analysis.

I'm grateful for what you've done already though. It's been a great help.

I'm am very glad to help. Obviously, I enjoy this kind of analysis.

Please let me know if there is anything else that should be included or excluded in the test data and I will perform the next step of the statistical analysis.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

05-03-2017, 05:07 PM

Hey there Bill,

I'm really glad we are getting these details worked out. It is essential that we articulate the precise principles that you use to include/exclude words and phrases.

Your explanation for not using the article is not consistent with some of your other examples because your rule for the English is that it is the NIV translation of the Hebrew and in some cases you include Hebrew prefixes that are not represented in the NIV. Case in point: the noun "birds" is "oph" = 156 but the first occurrence that you used in your Garden has the vav prefix which means "and." The NIV includes this in the phrase "and let birds" but you ignored it when calculating the value of "birds". It should have been "and birds" or just "oph" if you were being consistent. We discussed a similar issue with "lishah" (into a woman) in Gen 2:22 which you took as meaning merely "a woman" because that's how the NIV translated it. The meaning of the Hebrew lamed prefix was ignored.

So we need to establish the principle and adhere to it.

I'll go through each one then, explaining my rationale as I go along. The principle was 'things God created'. This was generally material things, but it got a little complicated when God did things like gathering the water to one place. Did he create something here? I'll get to that though.

Day 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said let there be light and there was light. God saw that the light was good and he separated the light from the darkness.

I've highlighted what God created on the first day. The Hebrew words are HaShamayim, Ha'arets, both with a hey, and aur.

Those are the only created things on the first day. He also separated the light from the darkness, which was a creative act but not the creation of anything material, so I didn't add this at the time. I don't see any rationale for adding 'the darkness' as you did in your table, because it didn't say God created it.

Day 2 6 And God said, ?Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.? 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse ?sky.? And there was evening, and there was morning?the second day.

Here God created an expanse. The Hebrew word is Raqiya, translated in the NIV as 'an expanse', which is why I used that. In verse 7 it says God separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. However, the English word string is longer than the entire Garden, so it can't be within the Garden. I can't see a shorter version either. 'Separated the water' isn't right. It would be 'separated the waters'. 'Separated' needs an object. Finally, God didn't create anything new here, so I left this out. Calling the expanse 'sky' wasn't a creative act, so I'm happy to leave 'sky' out. This was an inconsistency on my part. Alternatively, we could add all the things God named. Perhaps they're encoded too.

Day 3. And God said, 'Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.? And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground ?land,? and the gathered waters he called 'seas.' And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, 'Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.' And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning - the third day. Edit: I realised this morning that God had already separated the waters by creating an expanse, and therefore there is good reason for including 'the water under the sky'. I've included both in the list.

Here God gathered the water to one place. It isn't the first time water is mentioned but here God effectively created the oceans. I also added it because God made dry ground appear, so He created dry ground. It seemed right to include water so that there was both land and water, and to take it from the same verse, rather than earlier. As for vegetation, I didn't add that word because it was then articulated what vegetation He created. I'm happy to include it in a test though. As for trees, I didn't add the full phrase 'trees on the land that bear fruit with seed on it, according to their kinds' because the English phrase is much longer than the entire Garden. The Hebrew is phrased differently from the English and the shortest phrase before they diverged was 'trees on the land bearing fruit'. It makes perfect grammatical sense too.

I'll finish this tomorrow.

thebluetriangle

05-04-2017, 02:49 AM

Continued from the previous post . . .

Day 4 And God said, ?Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark the seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.? And it was so. 16 God made two great lights?the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning?the fourth day.

Here the created things were lights (ma'ort) and 'the stars (kowkab). 'Lights' is the direct translation of ma'ort. The preceeding words "Let there be" is covered by the root Hayah, which means 'tocome to pass' or 'to be instituted', etc, so that did not have to be added. 'And God said' was added by the NIV translators. 'The stars' comes after an untranslated word and it has the definite article in Hebrew, so it stands on its own. I generally only included the first mention of a concept, so I didn't include 'two great lights', 'the greater light', 'the lesser light', etc. But one could certainly argue for their inclusion. If the second two are included then I wouldn't have 'two great lights', on the same basis I didn't include 'vegetation'. As for 'signs', I didn't add that as it wasn't a created thing, rather it was a use to which a created thing was put.

Day 5 And God said, 'Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.' 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.' 23 And there was evening, and there was morning?the fifth day.

I left out 'living creatures' because it doesn't differentiate between sea and land creatures. I left out 'birds' too in the tables for day 5, but it could certainly be added to the tests. 'Creatures of the sea' refers to large creatures like whales and was an obvious inclusion, although it could be argued that 'the great creatures of the sea' should also be tested, since that is a more direct reference to large creatures. 'living and moving thing' and 'winged bird' were obvious inclusions.

Day 6 - Part 1 24 And God said, ?Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.? And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

I left out 'living creatures' again, because it wasn't specific, just a very general collective noun like 'vegetation', which I also left out, as I said. There is no good reason for preferring verse 25 over verse 24 here, as I did, so to be fair, I would test verse 24. This was another inconsistency on my part. It was different with the sea creatures in verse 20 because they weren't specified until the next verse. I think I was justified in skipping to the next verse that time. I remember now why I didn't choose verse 24. It was because two of the Hebrew words started with a vav and I avoided them because it meant the English version would have to start with 'and', which is a conjunction and not an article modifying the noun, like 'the' or 'an'. So I propose we go with verse 24 but leave out the 'vav' in two of the words. It also bypasses the (arguable) inconsistency of leaving out 'the' from 'the wild animals according to their kinds'.

Day 6 - Part 12 Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'
29 Then God said, 'I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground - everything that has the breath of life in it - I give every green plant for food.' And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning?the sixth day.

Here the only created thing is man. I chose 'man in our image' because man was originally created perfect. This was before man sinned and so everything in the garden was perfect. It is confirmed by the presence in the Garden of Jesus Christ/Yehoshua HaMashiach right on top of 'Man in our image/Adam b'tselemenu. Jesus was the same as man before the fall: perfect. So here I argue against the inclusion of 'man', and for sticking with 'man in our image'. I won't argue though. If you want to include 'man' for the test that's fine. I also argue against 'male' and 'female', which is a description of how God created us. The creative act was 'man in our image', which covers male and female. I can't see anything else created here. I think we should stick to Genesis 1, which means leaving out 'a woman'. The test then covers just was was created in Genesis 1.

So, my slightly revised list for the test is as follows:

the heavens
the earth
light
an expanse
the water
the water under the sky
dry ground
plants
seed-bearing plants
trees
trees on the land that bear fruit
lights
the stars
the greater light
the lesser light
birds
winged bird
creatures of the sea
the great creatures of the sea
living and moving thing
livestock
creatures
creatures that move along the ground
wild animals
man
man in our image
man in our image, in our likeness

That's my list, which is 27 items long. I've accommodated some of your preferences here, but stuck to the principle that only the first biblical mention of something God created should be included. If you agree I'll work out the gematria and send it to you for analysis.

thebluetriangle

05-04-2017, 07:09 AM

Here are the standard values for each of the twenty-seven English and Hebrew words.

the heavens 782 hashamayim 395
the earth 517 ha'arets 296
light 254 aur 207
an expanse 785 raqiya 380
the water 1009 hamayim 95
the water under the sky 2491 hamayim tachath hashamayim 1338
dry ground 1305 hayabbasah 322
plants 451 'eseb 372
seed-bearing plants 729 'eseb zara' zera' 976
trees 400 'ets 160
trees on the land that bear fruit 1920 'ets periy asah periy 1115
lights 354 ma'orth 641
the stars 704 hakokabim 103
the greater light 865 hama'owrt hagadolim 738
the lesser light 797 hama'owr haqatan 416
birds 205 owph 162
winged bird 680 owph kanaph 306
creatures of the sea 1179 hatanniynim 555
the great creatures of the sea 1695 hagadolim hatanniynim 647
living and moving thing 1400 nephesh h'chay haramab 1403
livestock 827 behemah 52
creatures 794 remes 540
creatures that move along the ground 2580 remes 540
wild animals 774 cheytu 'erets 715
man 91 'adam 45
man in our image 662 'adam b'tselemenu 263
man in our image, in our likeness 1490 'adam b'tselemenu b'demuwthenu 789

Richard Amiel McGough

05-04-2017, 07:56 AM

Continued from the previous post . . .

Day 4 And God said, ?Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark the seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth.? And it was so. 16 God made two great lights?the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning?the fourth day.

Here the created things were lights (ma'ort) and 'the stars (kowkab). 'Lights' is the direct translation of ma'ort. The preceeding words "Let there be" is covered by the root Hayah, which means 'tocome to pass' or 'to be instituted', etc, so that did not have to be added. 'And God said' was added by the NIV translators. 'The stars' comes after an untranslated word and it has the definite article in Hebrew, so it stands on its own. I generally only included the first mention of a concept, so I didn't include 'two great lights', 'the greater light', 'the lesser light', etc. But one could certainly argue for their inclusion. If the second two are included then I wouldn't have 'two great lights', on the same basis I didn't include 'vegetation'. As for 'signs', I didn't add that as it wasn't a created thing, rather it was a use to which a created thing was put.

There is a problem with consistency here. The "two great lights" refer to the sun and the moon. If you exclude them because "lights" had already been mentioned, why do you include "the stars"? A true test would look at all the possibilities to see if God encoded any of them: "two great lights", "the greater light" and "the lesser light" and "the stars". I see no general principle that would exclude any of them.

Also, is it the "first mention of concept" that you include, or the first mention of God creating something? In your list below, you include "The Water" but exclude "the waters" even though it occurs first.

And another inconsistency - Genesis never says that God created the waters, so why do you include the concept in your list at all? You exclude "Darkness" on the principle that Genesis does not say God created it, even though Isaiah says he did: "I form the light, and create the darkness." So why do you include light but exclude darkness?

Day 5 And God said, 'Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.' 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.' 23 And there was evening, and there was morning?the fifth day.

I left out 'living creatures' because it doesn't differentiate between sea and land creatures. I left out 'birds' too in the tables for day 5, but it could certainly be added to the tests. 'Creatures of the sea' refers to large creatures like whales and was an obvious inclusion, although it could be argued that 'the great creatures of the sea' should also be tested, since that is a more direct reference to large creatures. 'living and moving thing' and 'winged bird' were obvious inclusions.

You included "birds" in the first table in your Garden page, so I thought you left it out from Day 5 because you had already displayed that data. In any case, you did indeed include "birds." But you ignored the "and" included in both the NIV and the Hebrew text. That seems like an inconsistency. And of course your inclusion of "winged bird" violates your principle of using the first mention.

And this brings up another inconsistency. You use the modifier "winged" with bird but in other cases you don't use any modifier, like when you omit "every" in "every winged bird." By what principle do you include/exclude modifiers?

Also, it seems inconsistent that you excluded "living creatures" because it did not differentiate sufficiently, but included "lights" which did not differentiate between the the sun, moon, and stars.

Day 6 - Part 1 24 And God said, ?Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.? And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

I left out 'living creatures' again, because it wasn't specific, just a very general collective noun like 'vegetation', which I also left out, as I said. There is no good reason for preferring verse 25 over verse 24 here, as I did, so to be fair, I would test verse 24. This was another inconsistency on my part. It was different with the sea creatures in verse 20 because they weren't specified until the next verse. I think I was justified in skipping to the next verse that time. I remember now why I didn't choose verse 24. It was because two of the Hebrew words started with a vav and I avoided them because it meant the English version would have to start with 'and', which is a conjunction and not an article modifying the noun, like 'the' or 'an'. So I propose we go with verse 24 but leave out the 'vav' in two of the words. It also bypasses the (arguable) inconsistency of leaving out 'the' from 'the wild animals according to their kinds'.

Again, the word "lights" is a very general collective noun, but you included it.

So, my slightly revised list for the test is as follows:

the heavens
the earth
light
an expanse
the water
the water under the sky
dry ground
plants
seed-bearing plants
trees
trees on the land that bear fruit
lights
the stars
the greater light
the lesser light
birds
winged bird
creatures of the sea
the great creatures of the sea
living and moving thing
livestock
creatures
creatures that move along the ground
wild animals
man
man in our image
man in our image, in our likeness

That's my list, which is 27 items long. I've accommodated some of your preferences here, but stuck to the principle that only the first biblical mention of something God created should be included. If you agree I'll work out the gematria and send it to you for analysis.
Why did you omit "seas" from the list?

Richard Amiel McGough

05-04-2017, 09:59 AM

thebluetriangle

05-04-2017, 01:43 PM

There is a problem with consistency here. The "two great lights" refer to the sun and the moon. If you exclude them because "lights" had already been mentioned, why do you include "the stars"? A true test would look at all the possibilities to see if God encoded any of them: "two great lights", "the greater light" and "the lesser light" and "the stars". I see no general principle that would exclude any of them.

I generally took the words and phrases from the 'and God said' verses (the only exception being verse 20, which didn't specify sea creatures - I took them from the next verse). It was you who was asking why 'the greater light' and 'the lesser light' weren't included. I was trying to accomodate you! I didn't originally put them in there.

Also, is it the "first mention of concept" that you include, or the first mention of God creating something? In your list below, you include "The Water" but exclude "the waters" even though it occurs first.

It's the first mention of something God created, not the first mention of the concept, although the two are usually the same.

'The waters' is not the same as 'the water', because the waters were separated by an expanse. The water that God created the seas from is the water under the expanse, initially referred to as 'the water'. This water became the seas, which aren't specifically mentioned until later as something named, rather than created. His creative act was to gather the water together. It involved 'the water', so that was what I included. It's not entirely clear though.

And another inconsistency - Genesis never says that God created the waters, so why do you include the concept in your list at all? You exclude "Darkness" on the principle that Genesis does not say God created it, even though Isaiah says he did: "I form the light, and create the darkness." So why do you include light but exclude darkness? I think I answered this above. God created the seas from the water under the expanse. It was a creative act and the noun here was 'the water', with the definite article.

You included "birds" in the first table in your Garden page, so I thought you left it out from Day 5 because you had already displayed that data. In any case, you did indeed include "birds." But you ignored the "and" included in both the NIV and the Hebrew text. That seems like an inconsistency. And of course your inclusion of "winged bird" violates your principle of using the first mention.

This was because I used the next verse, verse 21, as the source of the creatures. It seemed logical at the time, but I agree now that 'birds' probably takes precedence over 'winged birds'. As for 'and', it is in the Hebrew but is not in the English:

And God said 'Let the water team with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth . . '

so there is no 'and' in front of 'birds'. However, I'm now realising that 'and' doesn't belong in the Hebrew either, as it's just a conjunction, not a determiner. So the gematria should be 156, not 162. I changed the words in the list but missed that one. Thanks for that.

And this brings up another inconsistency. You use the modifier "winged" with bird but in other cases you don't use any modifier, like when you omit "every" in "every winged bird." By what principle do you include/exclude modifiers? Again, the word "lights" is a very general collective noun, but you included it.

I always tried to find the shortest version possible, without any determiners, unless it was part of the Hebrew word (as hey always is). Every (kol) is a word in its own right, so I left it out, as I did with other instances of 'every'. If we just use 'birds' from verse 20 that would bypass the problem of whether or not to use 'winged'. I put in both to give them each the benefit, but it's better if I give you the list I think should be tested. These discussions are certainly clarifying things.

Also, it seems inconsistent that you excluded "living creatures" because it did not differentiate sufficiently, but included "lights" which did not differentiate between the the sun, moon, and stars. If I'd accepted 'living creatures' for sea life I'd have to have accepted the same again for land animals, so I felt it was right to leave it out and use the differentiated animals. The 'and God said' verses (with one exception) was where all the creations came from, so it felt right to accept 'lights', which I took to be the Sun and Moon, since the stars were mentioned later. So 'lights' was not as general a statement as 'living creatures', since it referred to the Sun and the Moon and 'the stars' covered the rest.

Why did you omit "seas" from the list?

Because it didn't state that God created them, other than indirectly, as 'the water', which I already mentioned. It didn't state that God created darkness or the waters either, so none of them are included.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-04-2017, 02:58 PM

thebluetriangle

05-04-2017, 03:47 PM

Given that the Bible says that God created everything, it seems reasonable to test every noun and noun phrase found in the description of his creative acts in the first three chapters of Genesis. We then will be able to discern which phrases, if any, were coded by examining the statistics of those phrases. This is the whole point of a statistical test - to see what is or is not encoded.

Now we don't need to compile a complete list for all three chapters. That would be optimal, but I think we have enough in the list of 43 that I already provided. I don't see the smaller list of 27 possibilities as an improvement because the whole point of a statistical test is to discern between that which is encoded and that which is not. So it seems important to include all reasonable possibilities and then let the statistics tell us the answer. Also, many of the reasons given for eliminating items from the list of 43 seemed to be inconsistent.

We'll have to disagree on which list is better, but I'm happy to go along with the '43'. I don't think any list will be beyond criticism. There are two options really, based on our respective ideas:

1) List only the things God is said to have created. This is pretty close to the '27', but I want to tweak it one more time.
2) List all the things we can infer God created, such as darkness, 'seas', etc, but not explicitly stated, which is pretty close to the '43'.

In other words, why don't we do both?

living and moving thingTo sum up: The General Principle is to test all nouns and noun phrases relating to things God created (implicitly or explicitly) in the first three chapters of Genesis. The statistical distribution of the hits and misses should then indicate which were or were not "encoded" according to the principle of overlapping word strings.

Agreed?

We pretty much are agreeing on what to test, except I want to stay with explicit creations and you want to add implicit creations. I think that is what the two lists (mine to be provided) will be showing.

As for the results, I would say 'close proximity' rather than 'overlapping' for an encoding. There are two examples of numbers not overlapping that I regard as encodings. So I think that the presence of these numbers in the Garden at all is probably a sign of it being encoded. But the double witness phenomenon is a very new discovery, and I haven't had the time to do a better analysis.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-04-2017, 04:03 PM

We'll have to disagree on which list is better, but I'm happy to go along with the '43'. I don't think any list will be beyond criticism. There are two options really, based on our respective ideas:

1) List only the things God is said to have created. This is pretty close to the '27', but I want to tweak it one more time.
2) List all the things we can infer God created, such as darkness, 'seas', etc, but not explicitly stated, which is pretty close to the '43'.

In other words, why don't we do both?

We can do both, no problem. But I'm not sure why we wouldn't just test everything and see what the statistics tell us. If some words and phrases are really "encoded" beyond what we would expect from chance, it should be obvious from the statistics, correct?

As for the results, I would say 'close proximity' rather than 'overlapping' for an encoding. There are two examples of numbers not overlapping that I regard as encodings. So I think that the presence of these numbers in the Garden at all is probably a sign of it being encoded. But the double witness phenomenon is a very new discovery, and I haven't had the time to do a better analysis.
If we count "close proximity" what will be the difference between random data and codes? How close is close? I noticed that with the cherubim you found meaning in the fact that they were very far apart. Such judgments are very subjective and I don't see how they could be included in an objective statistical analysis.

thebluetriangle

05-04-2017, 04:43 PM

I appreciate that you are trying to "accommodate" me, but I hope you realize that all I am looking for are the general principles that you use in your analysis of Scripture. So the only thing you are actually "accommodating" would be consistent logical principles (if I am successful in my efforts). And this brings us back to my point - you had said that you didn't include the sun and moon (greater and lesser lights) because they had already been mentioned in "lights" but then you violated that principle when you included "the stars" which also were included in "the lights."

I can see what you're looking for, and it's understandable that you are looking for a rule to go by, but the code isn't quite like that. I've been wrong footed by it more than once. For instance I was convinced that the double witness encodings had to overlap, then I found one where they were one word apart, then I found the cherubim/kerub pair, which are several words apart. But I eventually realised (after much consternation) that they are separate for a reason: because they are illustrating the separation of the cherubim on the ark. This was confirmed (I always look for confirmation) by encodings of other numbers in the same location. They build up to give this magnificent picture of the ark itself.

1477

Isn't that amazing? You can now see that the cherubim are taking their appointed places either side of the Glory on top of the ark! In the centre is the Glory of God and this consecrates the people. Now if you work out where the centrepoint of the Garden is, which is word 41-42, and then work out the centrepoint of each pair of codes, you will see that they are alll centred on words 41-42!!! I know there are other encodings of most of these numbers, but these ones together make a unified whole, like a single facet of a complex jewel. They are all paired to centre on the centre of the Garden.

If you stick to 'rock logic' you will see an inconsistency in the position of the cherubs, but if you use a little 'water logic' you see that this is more like an artistic creation than encoding by some rote method - and a beautful creation it is!

I think we are getting lost in the weeds here. If there is any reality to the code, would you not think that a complete statistical analysis of all nouns and noun phrases describing things that God created (implicitly or explicitly) would reveal the truth? That's what I was getting at in my last post (#196). It also would reveal if only the words found in "and god said" verses are encoded. I think it would be good if you answered that post.

I think there is so much encoded material there that even your method will show a statistical anomaly. As I said yesterday, it already has. I said the probabilities were all less than a million to 1 against chance, but that was because the calculator couldn't handle big numbers. I found an online binomial probability calculator that can handle bigger numbers, and found that the probability of getting 76 hits out of 86 trials with a 52% probability of success each time was 1.6 trillion to 1 against chance. That's the probability of finding the standard values of 76 Hebrew and English words for objects God created in the Garden. For 28 overlapping pairs out of 43 trials and a probability of 0.2 each time, it was 7 billion to 1 against chance.

I finished some code that will do a complete analysis of any list of words and numbers (like you provided a few posts back). It will count the number of overlaps, the degree of overlap (complete or partial), the number of misses, and so forth for each pair that you have provided. That should give us some good insight into what is actually going on. If you can think of any other information that would help discern between chance vs. design, let me know.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

That's excellent! I think we're both going to get a lot out of this work.

thebluetriangle

05-04-2017, 05:11 PM

We can do both, no problem. But I'm not sure why we wouldn't just test everything and see what the statistics tell us. If some words and phrases are really "encoded" beyond what we would expect from chance, it should be obvious from the statistics, correct? Well, it will show something and I'm happy to go with your '43' and that list of mine I'll redo very soon. It seemed when I was working out what was going on that the six days of creation were being featured, which is why I did a page on it, but that there was an awful lot more going on.

If we count "close proximity" what will be the difference between random data and codes? How close is close? I noticed that with the cherubim you found meaning in the fact that they were very far apart. Such judgments are very subjective and I don't see how they could be included in an objective statistical analysis. One way of measuring how close is close is to only count numbers found in the Garden, the first five verses? Was that an arbitrary choice? No, because the Garden is marked out as a special place in the Bible, as this page (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3281244.html)shows. You can also see why I called it the Garden - because it is delineated by two trefoils.

The Ark (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html) shows that every component of the ark of the testimony is found in the Garden. Nine out of eleven of the numbers overlapp at some point. Now if I stuck strictly to an 'overlap only' rule I couldn't show the cherubim/kerub or the 'a chest/arown pairs, even though the chest pair are only 1 word apart and the cherubim pair are the signpost to a beautiful encoding of the Ark itself (incidentally, can you see how central the Ark is to the code?). So I relaxed it a little and gained a lot. Precise encryption rules don't create a work of art.

thebluetriangle

05-04-2017, 06:03 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

05-05-2017, 08:32 PM

Here's my revised list of created things, which is 31 items long. I just put in every variant of each of them, similar to what you were doing, but I restricted it to what we are explicitly told God created. I also took out the items that were too general: vegetation, lights and living creatures, which are all articulated more precisely later.

the heavens 782 hashamayim 395
the earth 517 ha'arets 296
light 254 aur 207
an expanse 882 raqiya 380
an expanse between the waters 2758 raqiya b'tavek hamayim 903
the water 1009 hamayim 95
the water under the sky 2491 hamayim tachath hashamayim 1338
dry ground 1305 hayabbasah 322
plants 451 'eseb 372
seed-bearing plants 729 'eseb zara' zera' 976
trees 400 'ets 160
trees on the land that bear fruit 1920 'ets periy asah periy 1115
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019 'ets periy asah periy . . . 2149
the stars 704 hakokabim 103
two great lights 1417 sheniy hamayimth hagadolim 1098
the greater light 865 hama'owrt hagadolim 738
the lesser light 797 hama'owr haqatan 416
birds 205 owph 156
winged bird 680 owph kanaph 306
every winged bird 1880 kol owph kanaph 356
creatures of the sea 1179 hatanniynim 555
the great creatures of the sea 1695 hagadolim hatanniynim 647
living and moving thing 1400 nephesh h'chay haramab 1403
every living and moving thing 2600 kol nephesh h'chay haramab 1453
livestock 827 behemah 52
creatures 794 remes 540
creatures that move along the ground 2580 remes 540
wild animals 774 cheytu 'erets 715
man 91 'adam 45
man in our image 662 'adam b'tselemenu 263
man in our image, in our likeness 1490 'adam b'tselemenu b'demuwthenu 789

Hey there Bill!

I got the program done. Currently, it counts every "hit" (overlap) and every "miss" (no overlap), as well as the percentage of the overlap which I count as a percentage of the largest possible overlap which is determined by the shorter of the two strings. For example, in this sample of the output data you see an overlap of 5 for the first pair because that's how many columns they share, and a percentage of 50% because the shortest string spans 10 columns and 5/10 x 100% = 50%. This way, a complete overlap counts as 1 hit with 100% overlap. I then sum up these results for the entire data set.

1480

I also counted how many "trials" there were for each test pair. This is determined by multiplying the number of times the two numbers are found in the grid since each possibility (trial) must be tested.

Finally, I report the statistics for the entire list. Here are the stats for the final list of 31 pairs that you suggested:

Total Test Pairs = 31
Total Hits = 48
Total Misses = 79
Hit/Miss Ratio = 0.6
Percent Overlap = 36.2%
Total Trials = 127

I ran the same test for my original list of 43 that we discussed at some length. Here are the results:

Total Test Pairs = 43
Total Hits = 72
Total Misses = 115
Hit/Miss Ratio = 0.6
Percent Overlap = 37.8%
Total Trials = 187

It's not too surprising that the two lists have almost the same cumulative stats, given that they share so much in common.

If there are any other statistics you think would be good to analyse, let me know and I will update the program. It's quick and easy.

Well, that's it for now. I'll upload the full tables of data for you to review tomorrow if you are interested.

I look forward to discussing what these numbers mean. It was really fun writing the program to get the raw data, but that's just the beginning. Now we need to analyse it to determine if your patterns show any statistical anomalies or if they are what we would expect from random chance.

Great chatting, as always!

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

05-06-2017, 06:32 AM

Hey there Bill!

I got the program done. Currently, it counts every "hit" (overlap) and every "miss" (no overlap), as well as the percentage of the overlap which I count as a percentage of the largest possible overlap which is determined by the shorter of the two strings. For example, in this sample of the output data you see an overlap of 5 for the first pair because that's how many columns they share, and a percentage of 50% because the shortest string spans 10 columns and 5/10 x 100% = 50%. This way, a complete overlap counts as 1 hit with 100% overlap. I then sum up these results for the entire data set.

You've certainly put a lot of effort into analysing the pairs.

I also counted how many "trials" there were for each test pair. This is determined by multiplying the number of times the two numbers are found in the grid since each possibility (trial) must be tested.

The number of times any number is found in the Garden is significant, but for individual pairs I was looking for just one overlap, no matter how many misses there were. We can work out the probability of getting one overlapping pair (so far it seems to be 17%, but I think it should be a little higher, as it didn't take multiple word strings, so I used 20% for the calculations). So if the number of overlaps is significantly higher than chance that would indicate design, no matter how many misses there are. What I was also looking for was data on how many pairs of numbers from the lasts are found in the Garden (we already have those from your list). We know that just over 50% of possible numbers are actually there, so finding both the Hebrew and English numbers there is itself unlikely, about a 27% probability. As you know, most of the pairs are there, and I was looking for a better estimate of probabilities than we have managed so far. I was specifically interested in three aspects of the phenomenon.

1. What percentage of the individual numbers from the lists are found there, and how probable is it.
2. What percentage of the Hebrew/English pairs from the lists are found there, and how probable is it.
3. What percentage of the Hebrew/English pairs overlap, and how probable is it.

This will tell us if the phenomenon is likely to be design or chance. Low probabilities indicate design, high probabilities indicate chance. They may also tell us if the overlapping phenomenon is as important as I initially thought. It may be that simply finding the numbers together in the garden is the phenomenon we should be looking for. I like your idea of working out the percentage overlap, although I would suggest taking the centre of each word string and counting how far they are from each other. Two very long word strings might overlap without their centres being close at all. Alternatvely, two small word strings could just miss overlapping or touching but only be a few words apart. The minimum possible distance between the centres is zero words and the maximum is 41 words. So you could use a formula like P = (41 - n)/0.41, where P is a measure of 'proximity' and n is number of words from one centre to the other, giving a score of zero for maximum distance and 100 for coinciding centres. This could be applied to all the word strings in the table and an average distance calculated, although my preference would be for only the closest to be tested, using the same reasoning I used for only showing the overlapping pairs. In many cases, 'extra' numbers are part of other encodings.

Finally, I report the statistics for the entire list. Here are the stats for the final list of 31 pairs that you suggested:

Total Test Pairs = 31
Total Hits = 48
Total Misses = 79
Hit/Miss Ratio = 0.6
Percent Overlap = 36.2%
Total Trials = 127

I ran the same test for my original list of 43 that we discussed at some length. Here are the results:

Total Test Pairs = 43
Total Hits = 72
Total Misses = 115
Hit/Miss Ratio = 0.6
Percent Overlap = 37.8%
Total Trials = 187

It's not too surprising that the two lists have almost the same cumulative stats, given that they share so much in common. Yes, I agree, athough they now have to be tested against random numbers in the same range (see below).

If there are any other statistics you think would be good to analyse, let me know and I will update the program. It's quick and easy.

I'd like you to do two further analyses, if that isn't too much trouble,

1. Test the numbers in the two lists against the first 83 words of a random novel. Here is a suggestion (from The Bricks that Built the Houses, by Kate Tempest).

"It gets into your bones. You don't even realise it, until you're driving through it, watching all the things you've always known and leaving them behind. They're driving past the streets, the shops, the corners where they made themselves. Every ghost is out there, starting. Bad skin and sunken eyes, grinning madly at them from the past. It's in their bones, bread and booze and concrete. The beauty of it. All the tiny moments blazing. Preachers, parents, workers. Empty-eyed romantics going nowhere."

2. Test a list of random numbers in the same range as the ordinal values of the word strings. These run from 7 (the shortest word string) to 3764 (the longest word string). Here are 43 pairs of randomly-generated numbers, from Random.org (https://www.random.org/integers/).

228 3358
3674 447
2961 3333
619 3420
1675 27
1449 3312
843 2739
2266 193
1809 3275
3253 3318
3686 838
356 1664
3231 2276
3034 1013
770 3598
2786 2976
3429 2360
2058 1277
2238 1779
1529 917
2813 1441
882 2537
2196 3364
2862 411
660 25
2034 123
3518 2239
2824 1324
2136 707
3176 3501
275 2146
3762 3619
3218 864
1685 3069
636 2874
2385 1208
465 1310
2039 3383
3380 2553
3352 3552
2395 1857
2961 3420
11 1525

You could test the first 31 pairs against my list and the whole list against your 43 pairs.

Well, that's it for now. I'll upload the full tables of data for you to review tomorrow if you are interested. Yes, by all means.

I look forward to discussing what these numbers mean. It was really fun writing the program to get the raw data, but that's just the beginning. Now we need to analyse it to determine if your patterns show any statistical anomalies or if they are what we would expect from random chance.

Great chatting, as always!

:sunny:

Thanks for all your work here. Yes it is good fun and I look forward to discussing it too.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-06-2017, 09:53 AM

You've certainly put a lot of effort into analysing the pairs.

Actually, you'd be surprised how little effort was required. I just had to write the program in my spare time. It's the program that does all the work. And now that it's written, we can use it to do a real statistical test, as I'll explain below.

The number of times any number is found in the Garden is significant, but for individual pairs I was looking for just one overlap, no matter how many misses there were.

When analyzing overlaps of test pairs in the grid, we must look at all occurrences of both numbers because each occurrence gives a possibility of an overlap with the other number. I called each one of these possibilities a "trial" in my analysis.

In a random data set, the probability of getting a hit will depend critically on how many times the number appears in the grid and how many columns it spans. If it appears just once and spans just a few columns, then there is a small probability that it will overlap some other random number in the grid. If, on the other hand, it spans many columns or occurs many times, there will be a higher probability of overlap with some other random number in the grid.

We can work out the probability of getting one overlapping pair (so far it seems to be 17%, but I think it should be a little higher, as it didn't take multiple word strings, so I used 20% for the calculations). So if the number of overlaps is significantly higher than chance that would indicate design, no matter how many misses there are.

There is no need to guess. We can get an extremely accurate empirical measure of the real probability by simply randomizing the data we are testing. This is the power of the program I wrote. It can randomize the pairs and count the number of hits and misses, so we can get a complete profile of the probability. I can do a thousand randomized tests in less than a second. The program simply shuffles the pairs. For example The Heavens (Eng) is compared with Etz (Heb), Man (Eng) with Hakokavim (Heb), etc. Here is a sample of 20 randomized tests using the list of 31 pairs that your provided. I included the non-randomized results for your list in the first row for comparison:

Test Data for 31 randomized pairs

Hits
Misses
Hit/Miss
% Overlap
Trials
Hits/Trials

48
79
0.61
36.2%
127
0.38

60
85
0.71
41.8%
145
0.41

54
59
0.92
46.6%
113
0.48

48
69
0.70
45.6%
117
0.41

56
62
0.90
44.8%
118
0.47

50
96
0.52
44.4%
146
0.34

53
77
0.69
39.6%
130
0.41

50
59
0.85
41.8%
109
0.46

65
73
0.89
43.9%
138
0.47

60
57
1.05
48.3%
117
0.51

45
55
0.82
37.0%
100
0.45

50
88
0.57
30.5%
138
0.36

58
45
1.29
53.9%
103
0.56

54
74
0.73
39.3%
128
0.42

57
66
0.86
45.2%
123
0.46

56
61
0.92
47.6%
117
0.48

49
78
0.63
40.1%
127
0.39

49
64
0.77
39.9%
113
0.43

53
89
0.60
37.2%
142
0.37

48
54
0.89
37.4%
102
0.47

41
76
0.54
41.0%
117
0.35

The average number of hits for randomized data is 52.6. The maximum in this sample run was 65, the minimum 41. Your non-randomized data has 48 hits which is near the average for a random data set. Here is a graph of the number of hits found in each test:

1481

Random data sets typically have more hits than your list, sometimes dramatically so. I have yet to find anything in your data set that would distinguish it from a random data set.

More insight can be found by looking at the ratios of hits/misses and hits/trials.

1482

In this test, the average ratio of hits/misses is .78, which is significantly higher than your non-randomized ratio of .61. The hits/trials mimics the hits/misses, so it doesn't really give any additional insight. Either ratio tells us the same thing, namely, that your non-randomized data set is statistically indistinguishable from a random data set.

This graph shows that the percent overlaps is strongly correlated with the ratio of hits/misses:

1483

These two metrics are strongly correlated because a hit is defined as any overlap. The amount of overlap adds a random fluctuation to that baseline data. In some cases, we see that there is more overlap than would be expected relative to the hits/misses ratio (as in test #6 in the graph). This could conceivably be used as a test for design because if all the words strings overlapped perfectly and there were no misses, the statistics would be very different than what we see in a random data set.

As yet, I have not found anything in your data that would indicate it is anything different than what we would expect from random chance.

thebluetriangle

05-06-2017, 01:31 PM

Actually, you'd be surprised how little effort was required. I just had to write the program in my spare time. It's the program that does all the work. And now that it's written, we can use it to do a real statistical test, as I'll explain below.

I'll give you a considered response to your analysis tomorrow. In the meantime I've analysed the 43 random numbers I sent a couple of posts back (the long way, but I know a few shortcuts, so it wasn't too laborious).

If the 'double-witness' phenomenon is illusory then we should expected similar percentages of hits in the Garden (Genesis 1.1-5) from random numbers. Let's review what we know so far.

1. About 52% of numbers between 1 and 3764 are found in word strings in the Garden.
2. From this, we can calculate that about 27% of random number pairs within that range will both be found in the Garden.
3. Based on the excellent little method you invented, we know that about 55% of word string pairs in the Garden will overlap. I'm increasing that to 75%, because the analysis I did based on it didn't take into account cases when there are multiple instances of word strings. This means that about 75% of number pairs found in the gardenshould overlap, or 20% of randomly chosen number pairs

From this we can estimate that 43 random pairs of numbers within the range 1 to 3764, should be expected to give us about

1. 45 individual hits in the Garden.
2. 12 pairs found in the Garden
3. 8 or 9 number pairs crossing.

I asked you to analyse the random number pairs for me but I was so excited I couldn't wait, so I tested them myself. Here are my results.

1. to save time I didn't test all the individual numbers (if one wasn;'t there I didn't test the other), so I don't know what the percentage of individual numbers are found there.
2. 8 pairs were found in the garden, or 19%
3. 7 pairs overlapped in the Garden, or 16%

these are a bit lower than the theoretical figures (27% and 20%) but not too far away from what might be expected, which goes some way towards validating the theoretical percentages.

However 'Richard's 43' gave the following results

1. 76 indivdual hits in the Garden
2. 33 pairs found in the Garden (these were the Hebrew/English pairs), or 77&
3. 28 pairs overlapping in the Garden, or 65%

These are far beyond chance, so far as to be almost beyond belief. The binomial probabilities are as follows:

1. 1.4 trillion to 1 against chance
2. 63 billion to 1 against chance
3. 6 billion to 1 against chance

This can be verified here (http://www.statisticshowto.com/calculators/binomial-distribution-calculator/) by anyone with a calculator and a little bit of numeracy. I did cumulative probabilities (76 hits or better, 33 hits or better, etc).

Richard, do you have any explanation for this phenomeon other than design?

thebluetriangle

05-07-2017, 04:03 AM

When analyzing overlaps of test pairs in the grid, we must look at all occurrences of both numbers because each occurrence gives a possibility of an overlap with the other number. I called each one of these possibilities a "trial" in my analysis.

In a random data set, the probability of getting a hit will depend critically on how many times the number appears in the grid and how many columns it spans. If it appears just once and spans just a few columns, then there is a small probability that it will overlap some other random number in the grid. If, on the other hand, it spans many columns or occurs many times, there will be a higher probability of overlap with some other random number in the grid.

There is no need to guess. We can get an extremely accurate empirical measure of the real probability by simply randomizing the data we are testing. This is the power of the program I wrote. It can randomize the pairs and count the number of hits and misses, so we can get a complete profile of the probability. I can do a thousand randomized tests in less than a second. The program simply shuffles the pairs. For example The Heavens (Eng) is compared with Etz (Heb), Man (Eng) with Hakokavim (Heb), etc. Here is a sample of 20 randomized tests using the list of 31 pairs that your provided. I included the non-randomized results for your list in the first row for comparison:

Test Data for 31 randomized pairs

Hits
Misses
Hit/Miss
% Overlap
Trials
Hits/Trials

48
79
0.61
36.2%
127
0.38

60
85
0.71
41.8%
145
0.41

54
59
0.92
46.6%
113
0.48

48
69
0.70
45.6%
117
0.41

56
62
0.90
44.8%
118
0.47

50
96
0.52
44.4%
146
0.34

53
77
0.69
39.6%
130
0.41

50
59
0.85
41.8%
109
0.46

65
73
0.89
43.9%
138
0.47

60
57
1.05
48.3%
117
0.51

45
55
0.82
37.0%
100
0.45

50
88
0.57
30.5%
138
0.36

58
45
1.29
53.9%
103
0.56

54
74
0.73
39.3%
128
0.42

57
66
0.86
45.2%
123
0.46

56
61
0.92
47.6%
117
0.48

49
78
0.63
40.1%
127
0.39

49
64
0.77
39.9%
113
0.43

53
89
0.60
37.2%
142
0.37

48
54
0.89
37.4%
102
0.47

41
76
0.54
41.0%
117
0.35

First of all, thanks for going to the trouble of doing this work. What you've done here, though, is worked out the ratio of overlaps to non-overlaps in the Garden for each pair, then randomised the pairs - like changing partners in a square dance - and tested them again. In focussing in this, though, you are ignoring the elephant in the room,

a) the fact that there are so many overlaps in the first place, and
b) the fact that there are so many word pairs there at all.

Could you please give me those figures, compared with the random set of numbers I gave you (the first 31 of them)?

I've already worked out that a list of random numbers gives very few word strings and even less overlaps in the Garden (see my previous post), and this is the material point. From what we know so far, randomly chosen numbers within the range 1 to 3764 only appear at all 52% of the time. Each pair of numbers only appears at all 27% of the time. ach pair of numbers only appears at all and also overlaps 20% of the time.

This is the phenomenon that has to be explained!

Randomising the numbers is useful, but you are randomising numbers that are already present in the Garden, most of which would not be there if it was a set of random numbers! It tells us nothing about the probability of those numbers being there in the first place. It does tell us that overlaps are common, but that is not surprising given that the word strings often cover a large part of the garden. It does not tells us if overlaps are more common among individual matched pairs or randomised pairs, because it lumps them all together in one figure. I think it may be showing that overlapping or proximity is not as important a phenomenon as I initially thought. The main phenomenon may well be the appearance of the numbers at all. That's not clear yet though. I'd appreciate if you could do a count of individual hits for the original 31 pairs and also the randomised pairs. That would settle the matter. A single 'hit' there would be one or more overlaps, no matter how many misses there were. There is also the question of proximity, with or without overlapping. The fact they are there in the Garden at all is a measure of proximity, but I think it can be refined.

thebluetriangle

05-07-2017, 05:16 AM

Here's my revised list of created things, which is 31 items long. I just put in every variant of each of them, similar to what you were doing, but I restricted it to what we are explicitly told God created. I also took out the items that were too general: vegetation, lights and living creatures, which are all articulated more precisely later.

the heavens 782 hashamayim 395
the earth 517 ha'arets 296
light 254 aur 207
an expanse 882 raqiya 380
an expanse between the waters 2758 raqiya b'tavek hamayim 903
the water 1009 hamayim 95
the water under the sky 2491 hamayim tachath hashamayim 1338
dry ground 1305 hayabbasah 322
plants 451 'eseb 372
seed-bearing plants 729 'eseb zara' zera' 976
trees 400 'ets 160
trees on the land that bear fruit 1920 'ets periy asah periy 1115
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019 'ets periy asah periy . . . 2149
the stars 704 hakokabim 103
two great lights 1417 sheniy hamayimth hagadolim 1098
the greater light 865 hama'owrt hagadolim 738
the lesser light 797 hama'owr haqatan 416
birds 205 owph 156
winged bird 680 owph kanaph 306
every winged bird 1880 kol owph kanaph 356
creatures of the sea 1179 hatanniynim 555
the great creatures of the sea 1695 hagadolim hatanniynim 647
living and moving thing 1400 nephesh h'chay haramab 1403
every living and moving thing 2600 kol nephesh h'chay haramab 1453
livestock 827 behemah 52
creatures 794 remes 540
creatures that move along the ground 2580 remes 540
wild animals 774 cheytu 'erets 715
man 91 'adam 45
man in our image 662 'adam b'tselemenu 263
man in our image, in our likeness 1490 'adam b'tselemenu b'demuwthenu 789

My apologies: I made a mistake in this list. There are two mentions of periy (yielding) in Genesis 1.11 and I missed one out in the calculation. The correct value is below

trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019 'ets periy asah periy miyin asher zeraw shuwb 'al h'eretz 2439

Here's the corrected list:

the heavens 782 hashamayim 395
the earth 517 ha'arets 296
light 254 aur 207
an expanse 882 raqiya 380
an expanse between the waters 2758 raqiya b'tavek hamayim 903
the water 1009 hamayim 95
the water under the sky 2491 hamayim tachath hashamayim 1338
dry ground 1305 hayabbasah 322
plants 451 'eseb 372
seed-bearing plants 729 'eseb zara' zera' 976
trees 400 'ets 160
trees on the land that bear fruit 1920 'ets periy asah periy 1115
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019 'ets periy asah periy . . . 2439
the stars 704 hakokabim 103
two great lights 1417 sheniy hamayimth hagadolim 1098
the greater light 865 hama'owrt hagadolim 738
the lesser light 797 hama'owr haqatan 416
birds 205 owph 156
winged bird 680 owph kanaph 306
every winged bird 1880 kol owph kanaph 356
creatures of the sea 1179 hatanniynim 555
the great creatures of the sea 1695 hagadolim hatanniynim 647
living and moving thing 1400 nephesh h'chay haramab 1403
every living and moving thing 2600 kol nephesh h'chay haramab 1453
livestock 827 behemah 52
creatures 794 remes 540
creatures that move along the ground 2580 remes 540
wild animals 774 cheytu 'erets 715
man 91 'adam 45
man in our image 662 'adam b'tselemenu 263
man in our image, in our likeness 1490 'adam b'tselemenu b'demuwthenu 789

Richard Amiel McGough

05-07-2017, 08:53 AM

First of all, thanks for going to the trouble of doing this work. What you've done here, though, is worked out the ratio of overlaps to non-overlaps in the Garden for each pair, then randomised the pairs - like changing partners in a square dance - and tested them again. In focussing in this, though, you are ignoring the elephant in the room,

a) the fact that there are so many overlaps in the first place, and
b) the fact that there are so many word pairs there at all.

Could you please give me those figures, compared with the random set of numbers I gave you (the first 31 of them)?

I've already worked out that a list of random numbers gives very few word strings and even less overlaps in the Garden (see my previous post), and this is the material point. From what we know so far, randomly chosen numbers within the range 1 to 3764 only appear at all 52% of the time. Each pair of numbers only appears at all 27% of the time. ach pair of numbers only appears at all and also overlaps 20% of the time.

This is the phenomenon that has to be explained!

Randomising the numbers is useful, but you are randomising numbers that are already present in the Garden, most of which would not be there if it was a set of random numbers! It tells us nothing about the probability of those numbers being there in the first place. It does tell us that overlaps are common, but that is not surprising given that the word strings often cover a large part of the garden. It does not tells us if overlaps are more common among individual matched pairs or randomised pairs, because it lumps them all together in one figure. I think it may be showing that overlapping or proximity is not as important a phenomenon as I initially thought. The main phenomenon may well be the appearance of the numbers at all. That's not clear yet though. I'd appreciate if you could do a count of individual hits for the original 31 pairs and also the randomised pairs. That would settle the matter. A single 'hit' there would be one or more overlaps, no matter how many misses there were. There is also the question of proximity, with or without overlapping. The fact they are there in the Garden at all is a measure of proximity, but I think it can be refined.
Hey there Bill,

I think you missed the point of my statistical test. By randomizing the list rather than testing a different set of pseudo-random numbers, I am able to eliminate that variable and test just one thing, namely: Do the number of overlaps in the list show any sign of design? This separates that question from the one you are now focusing on, which I am happy to work on while you fulfill your promise to give a "considered response" to the analysis I have done so far. The question you need to answer is this: If the randomized data gives as many or more overlaps than the original data, how then can the overlaps be a "witness" of design? This question is critical, because the statistical evidence appears to contradict your central claim on your Garden page, namely:

The New Bible Code in founded on a unique two-stage encryption-decryption process. 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.

You make two claims:

1) You claim the overlaps are not "randomly scattered" but rather "highly improbable"
2) You claim that the mere presence of the values in the grid is "highly improbable"

If my statistical analysis is correct, it shows that the first claim is false. I found no evidence that the overlaps are any different than what we would expect from random data. I applaud your willingness to consider the possibility that "overlapping or proximity is not as important a phenomenon as I initially thought." I do believe that is the truth. But if it is true, then what is the value of all those pictures showing overlaps? Is the "witness" of the Garden the mere fact that you can find some words? How could that be a witness of anything? If you can find lots of words you like, you could probably just as easily find words that you don't like. What then does "finding words in the grid" prove?

Now as for the second question, I trust you can see that I totally agree it needs to be answered. The fact that I focused on the first one does not mean I was ignoring the second. On the contrary, I implicitly acknowledged its importance by specifically designing my test to be independent of it. This is the standard scientific procedure when testing an hypothesis. We do our best to hold all variables constant except the one being tested. Here is an explanation from an article called The Process of Science (https://monarchlab.org/?/education-and-gardening/how-to/the-process-of-science/) from the Monarch lab at the University of Minnesota:

The second scientific concept to consider is the importance of holding everything but the independent variable constant. For example, if you want to study temperature effects on monarch growth, the larvae must be the same age, kept in the same size and type of cage under the same light conditions, and given the same type and amount of food and water. This is an essential part of an experiment. Likewise, the scientist studying family size wouldn?t want to study farm families where the parents were 40-50 years old, and city families where the parents were 25-35 years old.

I now will get to work on the second question.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

05-07-2017, 10:41 AM

Hey there Bill,

I think you missed the point of my statistical test. By randomizing the list rather than testing a different set of pseudo-random numbers, I am able to eliminate that variable and test just one thing, namely: Do the number of overlaps in the list show any sign of design? This separates that question from the one you are now focusing on, which I am happy to work on while you fulfill your promise to give a "considered response" to the analysis I have done so far.

What I gave you was the first part of my considered response. I understand what you were doing in randomising the numbers and this test does indeed give us useful information, namely, the degree of overlap in the biblical Hebrew/English pairings, compared to the degree of overlap in the mixed Hebrew/English pairings. They are about the same, so I cannot claim that there are more overlaps in the biblical pairings than would be expected of any two numbers picked from those found in the Garden, although I wouldn't have made that claim anyway, because I knew from my own work that it didn't seem to be the case.

However, because it lumps all the overlaps together for each list it does not give us any information on the number of pairings in each list that have at least one overlap, which is what my pages are displaying. You've already done it in fact for your '43'. It was 28 out of the 43. That is statistically improbable and I worked out it was 1 in 6 billion against chance (cumulative). I've already done it for my 31. It is 21, at odds of 1 in 90 million against chance.

However, because so many of the pairs are actually found in the Garden, against great odds, it may be that finding them both in the Garden is the highly-improbable phenomenon and the apparent improbable degree of overlap is just an accidental beneficiary of it. That is what your tests could tell us. I could do it by calculator but it would be far more time-consuming than anything else I've done so far. If it turns out that the overlaps are no more common for the biblical pair than the randomly matched pairs I would have to accept that and rewrite the pages. I had been moving away from overlaps anyway. The first few I tried (the heavens/hashamayim, the earth/Ha'erets, etc) overlapped and so I became fixated on overlapping at first. But we live and learn and as I said I found others later that did not overlap but which were clearly part of the phenomenon. The double witness phenomenon would still be very real, if that were the case, but it would be finding each Hebrew and English word pair in the Garden, rather than close together, that would be the mark of an encryption. Why? Because it is still fantastically improbable. Your 43 had 33 pairs present, at odds of 62 billion to 1 against chance. I haven't finished testing it, but my 31 have at least 24 pairs present in the Garden, at odds of at least 137 million to 1 against chance.

The question you need to answer is this: If the randomized data gives as many or more overlaps than the original data, how then can the overlaps be a "witness" of design?

If that were the case (you've still to show that, as I said), then the double witness would be their presence in the Garden whether they overlap or not, as I said above.

This question is critical, because the statistical evidence appears to contradict your central claim on your Garden page, namely:

You make two claims:

1) You claim the overlaps are not "randomly scattered" but rather "highly improbable"
2) You claim that the mere presence of the values in the grid is "highly improbable"

If my statistical analysis is correct, it shows that the first claim is false.

It doesn't so far because it masks the individual counts for each list of pairings. Do you understand what I'm asking here? I'm asking you to count the number of pairings in each list that have at least one overlap. So the results might be

Biblical 31: 21 pairs have at least one overlap
First random 31: 16 pairs have at east one overlap.
etc.

That is the only test that would directly confirm or refute the claim that only overlapping pairs count. Except that is NOT what I'm claiming anyway. I'm saying the pairs are in close proximity, with usually at least one overlap. However, I may be wrong about the degree of proximity. The presence of the pairs in the Garden may be all that was intended. Whatever the result, it IS about proximity.

I found no evidence that the overlaps are any different than what we would expect from random data. I applaud your willingness to consider the possibility that "overlapping or proximity is not as important a phenomenon as I initially thought." I do believe that is the truth. I would rephrase that to what I said above. It certainly is about proximity, because they have to be close to both be in the garden, instead of one of them being found somewhere in Genesis 2 or 3.

But if it is true, then what is the value of all those pictures showing overlaps? I'd just make it clearer (it's in the notes anyway at present) that these were the closest match. I'd probably also state how many examples of each were actually found in the Garden. Unless of course you can show that the Garden phenomenon is illusory. But what you've done so far is confirm that it is real - and I thank you for it.

One other thing: leaving out some of the encoded material is something that I've always had to do to display different facets of the code. The Signature phenomenon, for instance, is much less visible if one shows all the encodings of the numbers, as you did in an earlier matrix, so it is essential to show only those numbers, so the reader can clearly see the pattern thay make. The Garden is like a hologram or kaleidoscope, where the viewing angle makes all the difference to what is seen. There are patterns of sixes, patterns of eights, patterns of nines, a '7, 9, 11' sequence and much more, all overlapping each other right at the beginning of Genesis. Perhaps you can now understand why I excluded the other instances of the double witness numbers. They simply clutter up the Garden and on top of that some of them take part in other encrpytions.

Is the "witness" of the Garden the mere fact that you can find some words?

That may be the case and it was something I was aware of from the start. I've maybe gone too far in claiming they are usually particularly close in the Garden, although i was careful not to specify it too closely, because I didn't have enough information to say for sure. Many of them look that way though.

How could that be a witness of anything?

Because of the improbability of the phenomenon. Look at the Ark encodings in the Garden. Every single ark component is there plus the sacred objects (staff, etc). All of them are there. By testing this against random numbers in the same range we can determine how improbable it is. I've already done it and it's a similar degree of improbability to what we find with the Garden encodings. But I think that's what we're going to be discussing next.

If you can find lots of words you like, you could probably just as easily find words that you don't like. What then does "finding words in the grid" prove?

You can find lots of words you don't like, but you cannot easily find something like 'the ark' phenomenon, a group of eleven words/phrases that describe every single component of the ark. If you could find something like that, something as important, integrated, biblically significant (or the equivalent), then you could ask the question you asked above. Remember too that there are the four ark/altar encodings proceeding from word 1, and the ELS encoding specifically stating that the ark is there, in the first few words of Genesis. Three independent types of code, all pointing to the ark. You haven't even seen it all. There's a reason why the ark is in that location.

Now as for the second question, I trust you can see that I totally agree it needs to be answered. I'm glad you agree! I believe this is turning out to be a learning experience for us both - and that's why it's worth doing.

The fact that I focused on the first one does not mean I was ignoring the second. On the contrary, I implicitly acknowledged its importance by specifically designing my test to be independent of it. It would have helped if you'd been explicit about it. But it doesn't matter. There's a lot going on and we're doing the best we can.

This is the standard scientific procedure when testing an hypothesis. We do our best to hold all variables constant except the one being tested. Absolutely. I did this a lot when I was formulating cleaning and hygiene products in commercial labs. It's the cornerstone of research and development. It stands us in good stead here too.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-07-2017, 11:30 AM

I'd like you to do two further analyses, if that isn't too much trouble,

1. Test the numbers in the two lists against the first 83 words of a random novel. Here is a suggestion (from The Bricks that Built the Houses, by Kate Tempest).

"It gets into your bones. You don't even realise it, until you're driving through it, watching all the things you've always known and leaving them behind. They're driving past the streets, the shops, the corners where they made themselves. Every ghost is out there, starting. Bad skin and sunken eyes, grinning madly at them from the past. It's in their bones, bread and booze and concrete. The beauty of it. All the tiny moments blazing. Preachers, parents, workers. Empty-eyed romantics going nowhere."

2. Test a list of random numbers in the same range as the ordinal values of the word strings. These run from 7 (the shortest word string) to 3764 (the longest word string). Here are 43 pairs of randomly-generated numbers, from Random.org (https://www.random.org/integers/).

228 3358
3674 447
2961 3333
619 3420
1675 27
1449 3312
843 2739
2266 193
1809 3275
3253 3318
3686 838
356 1664
3231 2276
3034 1013
770 3598
2786 2976
3429 2360
2058 1277
2238 1779
1529 917
2813 1441
882 2537
2196 3364
2862 411
660 25
2034 123
3518 2239
2824 1324
2136 707
3176 3501
275 2146
3762 3619
3218 864
1685 3069
636 2874
2385 1208
465 1310
2039 3383
3380 2553
3352 3552
2395 1857
2961 3420
11 1525

Hey there Bill,

As it turns out, the real distribution is nothing like a random sampling of all the numbers in that range. Here is a graph that compares the actual Eng/Heb values in my list of 43 (so there's a total of 86) as compared with your list of random numbers:

1484

As you can see, your list of random numbers is nearly uniform (straight line) from the least to the greatest. This contrasts sharply with the actual data from the words in my list of 43 that we discussed. Almost all of those values are limited to less than 2000. This strongly affects the number of values that will appear in the grid.

We need to control for the shape of the distribution. The easiest way to do that is to take the existing distribution and add random values. I tested this by adding random values in the range of range of +/-10 to the real data set. I ran the test 100 times. Here is the result for 100 different randomizations (the first value is not randomized):

1487

As you can see, the original data is a bit of an outlier, though not dramatically so. There are three other instances in the randomized data that are almost as good, missing only one more than the 10 misses in the non-randomized set. The average number of misses is 21. The standard deviation is 4.1.

Well, it's time for me to head out for another wonderful bike ride on this beautiful sunny day here in Yakima. I just wanted to get this test data posted so you would have something to work with, and so you can give me some feedback of what we should be looking for and why it might be significant.

Great working with you!

:sunny:

:biking_better:

thebluetriangle

05-07-2017, 01:00 PM

Hey there Bill,

As it turns out, the real distribution is nothing like a random sampling of all the numbers in that range. Here is a graph that compares the actual Eng/Heb values in my list of 43 (so there's a total of 86) as compared with your list of random numbers:

1484

As you can see, your list of random numbers is nearly uniform (straight line) from the least to the greatest. This contrasts sharply with the actual data from the words in my list of 43 that we discussed. Almost all of those values are limited to less than 2000. This strongly affects the number of values that will appear in the grid.

We need to control for the shape of the distribution. The easiest way to do that is to take the existing distribution and add random values. I tested this by adding random values in the range of range of +/-10 to the real data set. I ran the test 100 times. Here is the result for 100 different randomizations (the first value is not randomized):

1487

As you can see, the original data is a bit of an outlier, though not dramatically so. There are three other instances in the randomized data that are almost as good, missing only one more than the 10 misses in the non-randomized set. The average number of misses is 21. The standard deviation is 4.1.

Well, it's time for me to head out for another wonderful bike ride on this beautiful sunny day here in Yakima. I just wanted to get this test data posted so you would have something to work with, and so you can give me some feedback of what we should be looking for and why it might be significant.

Great working with you!

:sunny:

:biking_better:

I'm surprised you chart the misses rather than the hits, but it's good data nonetheless. The Genesis set is almost three standard deviations above the mean, which I estimate places it in about the top 0.5% or better of results you would get. When you consider all the other material in there, the phenomenon is even more impressive.

I have a question. Did you pair the numbers up and test the pairs? Or is this the individual 86 numbers. I can't tell from the data whether you paired them up or not? The single number hits (76 out of 86) and the paired hits (33 out of 43) are both 10 less than the maximum possible. It's vital to know which test you performed.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-07-2017, 02:14 PM

I'm surprised you chart the misses rather than the hits, but it's good data nonetheless. The Genesis set is almost three standard deviations above the mean, which I estimate places it in about the top 0.5% or better of results you would get. When you consider all the other material in there, the phenomenon is even more impressive.

I have a question. Did you pair the numbers up and test the pairs? Or is this the individual 86 numbers. I can't tell from the data whether you paired them up or not? The single number hits (76 out of 86) and the paired hits (33 out of 43) are both 10 less than the maximum possible. It's vital to know which test you performed.
There's really no difference between counting the "misses" (by which I mean numbers not found in the grid) and the hits since they are complimentary sets. One is just the difference of the total minus the other: 86 - 76 = 10, the number of misses in the non-randomize set.

I did not pair up the numbers because I was not counting overlaps (the other meaning of "hit" in our discussion).

If we flip the data around, then we would see that the average number of hits is 86 - 21 = 65, as compared to the non-randomized value of 76. I really don't see how that could be thought of as a product of design since all it means is that it is easier to find random numbers in the grid! How could making it easy to find random numbers be a "sign of design"? Why would God want to make it easy to find random words in the grid?

I have yet to see anything in your Garden that would indicate divine design of the text of the NIV. But I very much have enjoyed exploring it with you and look forward to further discussion.

thebluetriangle

05-07-2017, 03:01 PM

thebluetriangle

05-07-2017, 03:21 PM

There's really no difference between counting the "misses" (by which I mean numbers not found in the grid) and the hits since they are complimentary sets. One is just the difference of the total minus the other: 86 - 76 = 10, the number of misses in the non-randomize set.

I did not pair up the numbers because I was not counting overlaps (the other meaning of "hit" in our discussion).

There were three meanings of hit:

1. the number of individual hits, which is apparently what you tested (it would have been good if you'd made that clear in your charts)
2. the number of hits for Hebrew/English pairs, which is what the double witness phenomenon is actually about.
3. the number of overlapping H/E pairs, which we're testing to determine its place,if any, in the phenomenon.

I would appreciate it if you could retest for pairs, since that is the sine qua non (at least) of a 'double-witness' encoding. They don't have to overlap, just be in the Garden at all. If you could do overlapping pairs too that would be a bonus.

If we flip the data around, then we would see that the average number of hits is 86 - 21 = 65, as compared to the non-randomized value of 76. I really don't see how that could be thought of as a product of design since all it means is that it is easier to find random numbers in the grid! How could making it easy to find random numbers be a "sign of design"? Why would God want to make it easy to find random words in the grid?

If there are 76 hits from non-randomised numbers and an average of 65 hits from randomised numbers, then it's easier to find non-randomised numbers than randomised ones! But it's the pairs that count. Edit: many of those 'random' numbers are actually part of other encodings. I'm not sure there are many truly random numbers in the code, which is why I'd also like to try testing an other piece of text altogether, uch as the novel excerpt I posted. I'm not sure that the Garden is representative of a typical piece of text.

I have yet to see anything in your Garden that would indicate divine design of the text of the NIV. But I very much have enjoyed exploring it with you and look forward to further discussion.

So far I'm pleased with the results.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-07-2017, 07:45 PM

So far I'm pleased with the results.
I don't understand. How can you be pleased with the results? If they are correct, they show that your primary claim about overlaps in the Garden being a "witness" is false. You will have to delete almost everything on that page.

thebluetriangle

05-07-2017, 10:55 PM

I don't understand. How can you be pleased with the results? If they are correct, they show that your primary claim about overlaps in the Garden being a "witness" is false. You will have to delete almost everything on that page.

I don't claim the overlaps are the sign of the double witness. Three of the thirty primary encodings I show do not overlap (which means that twenty-seven do, so I wouldn't have to delete very much at all). I do claim that the sign of the double witness is that the pairs are 'very close to each other, usually overlapping'. What our work is clarifying is just what is meant by 'very close to each other'. The fact of both components being in the Garden may be all that is required, although there is more to be done there.

Your first test shows the individual numbers from your '43' are more often found in the Garden than would be expected by chance, better than any of 100 lists of 86 'random' numbers. That's not really evidence for the double witness phenomenon, because you apparently didn't pair them up and test the pairs, so we're still waiting on that information. But it's a good start. We also need to test my '31', since the '43' was your choice and the '31' was my choice. So testing only one of the two lists could give a biased view (I don't think either of us are beyond a little bias, although I'm sure we both tried to be fair).

How are those other tests I asked for coming along?

It's great to be working with you - you're a real sport.

Bill

Richard Amiel McGough

05-08-2017, 09:34 PM

I don't claim the overlaps are the sign of the double witness. Three of the thirty primary encodings I show do not overlap (which means that twenty-seven do, so I wouldn't have to delete very much at all). I do claim that the sign of the double witness is that the pairs are 'very close to each other, usually overlapping'. What our work is clarifying is just what is meant by 'very close to each other'. The fact of both components being in the Garden may be all that is required, although there is more to be done there.

Your first test shows the individual numbers from your '43' are more often found in the Garden than would be expected by chance, better than any of 100 lists of 86 'random' numbers. That's not really evidence for the double witness phenomenon, because you apparently didn't pair them up and test the pairs, so we're still waiting on that information. But it's a good start. We also need to test my '31', since the '43' was your choice and the '31' was my choice. So testing only one of the two lists could give a biased view (I don't think either of us are beyond a little bias, although I'm sure we both tried to be fair).

How are those other tests I asked for coming along?

It's great to be working with you - you're a real sport.

Bill
Hey there Bill,

The work week has started again, so I don't have a lot of time right now. But I think it is important to be clear about the tests you requested and the results we found. In post #158 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68141#post68141) you defined the test you wanted me to conduct. You wrote:

Using random pairs of numbers, the test would tell us what percentage of them would overlap in the Garden (Genesis 1.1-5). (It might also be interesting to take a random text, say a novel and try it with that, because if the text of Genesis is highly encrypoted that might affect its numerical properties.)

If we then compare it with the encodings I actually found, ie, the double witnessed encodings of God's creations on each of the six creation days, or the double witnessed ark encodings, all taken from the first sciptural mentions of each concept, then we can see how unlikely or not these are.

I answered this question in post #206 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68620#post68620). I randomized the values and proved that the overlaps you found in the Garden were statistically indistinguishable from what we would expect from random chance. You responded by saying that the overlaps may not be very significant, and that they are not the proper test for "encodings". I feel like you shifted the goal posts. I conducted the test you requested, and the results showed there was no sign of design. How can you say you don't have to remove much from your Garden page? Of course, I now understand that you were mixing the two cases:

1) what is the probability that a random pair would be found in the garden, and
2) what is the probability that a random pair found in the garden would overlap.

I'm glad we've cleared that up. But my point remains. The emphasis on overlap is extremely misleading and is not statistically significant, so you will need to edit much of what you have written on that page. For example:

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 proved that statement (highlighted red) to be false. The occurrence of overlaps is not "highly improbable." On the contrary, the number of overlaps found in your test data are no different than what we would expect from random chance. Your first example then amplifies this error. You showed some cherry picked data, and said this:

These are the only instances of the numbers 160, 400, 363, 859, 162 and 205 to be found in word strings within the first five verses. So you can intuit how unlikely it would be that they overlap in pairs which just happen to be the standard values of the words written in the NIV Bible and Masoretic text for the same concepts!

Your statement is very misleading. People cannot "intuit" statistics in cases like this. People tend to be very inaccurate when estimating probabilities by "intuition." They must be accurately calculated as I have done. The results directly contradict what people would "intuit" by looking at your example.

You then compounded this error by creating a misleading "statistical test" in which you tested five random pairs of numbers, and concluded:

Only six of the ten numbers can be found in the Garden and only the first and last of the five pairs are complete. Of the two complete pairs, one pair does overlap: 992, representing a nominal Hebrew word and 835, representing a nominal English word. The two numbers in the other complete pair, 786 and 100, are widely separated. None of the other four pairs are complete and in the case of the second pair neither of the two numbers are found. Hopefully, it will now be easier to appreciate how unusual it is to find the English and Hebrew words for the same concept producing numbers that overlap within this small piece of text.

There are two problems with your test. First, it was much too small to give meaningful results, and second, it failed to separate the two questions: 1) the probability of finding a pair of random numbers in the grid at all, and 2) the probability of an overlap for pairs of numbers that are in the grid. I answered the second question. I'll present my results for the first as time permits.

My point in all this is that the concept of "overlap" is strongly emphasized on your Garden page. You use the word "overlap" 13 times on that page. And almost every example you give involves "overlaps" that were cherry picked from data that is splattered across many of the 83 columns in your grid. This creates an illusion of design that objectively does not exist in the data. This is what I meant when I said you would have to remove most of the information on that page. The "overlap" concept has been debunked. It is not statistically significant. You should not be presenting it to the public as if it were a statistically significant sign of design when it is not.

And there are more errors that need to be corrected. Here is what you said after your example from Day 1:

If you compare this table with the control run of five random numbers you can clearly see the difference between design and chance. The standard values of both the Hebrew phrases and their English equivalent appear in two tight pairings. [10]

Your statement could not be more misleading. I tested the statistics and showed that they are exactly what we would expect from random chance. Furthermore, your footnote is inaccurate. In footnote 10 you wrote:

10. There is a second overlapping pair of 'the earth' in Hebrew and English, beginning at word 23. This happens rarely but when it does I choose the pair that overlaps the most, which in this case is the first pair.

The truth is that there are three occurrences of "the earth" (English, 517) and four occurrences of HaAretz (Hebrew, 296), giving 12 chances for overlap!

1488

I'm sorry, but I find very little on that page that stands in light of an honest review.

All the best,

Richard

thebluetriangle

05-09-2017, 12:48 AM

Richard,

I'm sorry you feel the need to question my honesty here. Surely you must be aware that I wrote that page before any of the work we've just done! I wrote it based on the information I had at the time, and in good faith. It will be revised in the light of these discussions, and in line with the clearer understanding they have given me. I do not agree with your own conclusions, though, or the way you sometimes present your own results. I'll answer your comments in the same candid way you wrote them.

Hey there Bill,

The work week has started again, so I don't have a lot of time right now. But I think it is important to be clear about the tests you requested and the results we found. In post #158 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68141#post68141) you defined the test you wanted me to conduct. You wrote:

I answered this question in post #206 (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?6192-The-New-Bible-Code&p=68620#post68620). I randomized the values and proved that the overlaps you found in the Garden were statistically indistinguishable from what we would expect from random chance.

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.

I have no right to ask you for anything, and believe me, I'm grateful for the effort you've put into our discussion. But when I have requested something you generally have not given me what I requested, but test results that are often less relevant to our discussion than what was originally requested and which appear to suit your purposes rather than mine. For example, you presented the results of your '43' as misses rather than hits. Why? Why would you do that? It was hard to tell whether you were testing pairs of numbers (which I had requested) or the individual numbers, because the number of misses in the pairs (10 out of 43) is the same as the number of misses in the individual numbers (10 out of 86). I had to work that out myself and almost missed it at first. And of course it made the fact that my results were better than 100 random trials look less impressive, although that may have been accidental.

You responded by saying that the overlaps may not be very significant, and that they are not the proper test for "encodings". I feel like you shifted the goal posts. I conducted the test you requested, and the results showed there was no sign of design. How can you say you don't have to remove much from your Garden page? I said I wouldn't have to remove many of the tables. It will have to be rewritten.

Of course, I now understand that you were mixing the two cases:

1) what is the probability that a random pair would be found in the garden, and
2) what is the probability that a random pair found in the garden would overlap.

I'm glad we've cleared that up. But my point remains. The emphasis on overlap is extremely misleading and is not statistically significant,

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 abouta 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.

so you will need to edit much of what you have written on that page. For example:

I proved that statement (highlighted red) to be false. The occurrence of overlaps is not "highly improbable." On the contrary, the number of overlaps found in your test data are no different than what we would expect from random chance.

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'.

Your first example then amplifies this error. You showed some cherry picked data, and said this:

Your statement is very misleading. People cannot "intuit" statistics in cases like this. People tend to be very inaccurate when estimating probabilities by "intuition." They must be accurately calculated as I have done. The results directly contradict what people would "intuit" by looking at your example.

You do have a point here, in that I was comparing a table of all the hits I got from random numbers with tables showing only the closest proximity between two encoded numbers. That is misleading and thanks for highlighting it, although I don't agree with everything you say here. The percentage of overlaps is certainly greater than would be gotten by random numbers though, although it may be that this is just an accidental by-product of the fact that so many of the biblical numbers are found in the Garden in the first place. This is the very thing I was trying to discover and hoped you would assist me with. As for intuiting the probabilities, I disagree. When most of the random numbers aren't even in the Garden in the first place, we can see that the Garden phenomenon is improbable!

You then compounded this error by creating a misleading "statistical test" in which you tested five random pairs of numbers, and concluded:

There are two problems with your test. First, it was much too small to give meaningful results,

Agreed, but it does give people some idea of what random numbers look like in the Garden - and more results were forthcoming! I was doing it the long way, remember. I hoped this discussion would provide good data, but whether or not it does, I will be including more results in my update.

and second, it failed to separate the two questions: 1) the probability of finding a pair of random numbers in the grid at all, and 2) the probability of an overlap for pairs of numbers that are in the grid. I answered the second question. I'll present my results for the first as time permits. You have NOT answered the second question. How can you say that?

My point in all this is that the concept of "overlap" is strongly emphasized on your Garden page. You use the word "overlap" 13 times on that page. And almost every example you give involves "overlaps" that were cherry picked from data that is splattered across many of the 83 columns in your grid. This creates an illusion of design that objectively does not exist in the data. This is what I meant when I said you would have to remove most of the information on that page. The "overlap" concept has been debunked. It is not statistically significant. You should not be presenting it to the public as if it were a statistically significant sign of design when it is not.

I presented it in good faith, based on what I believed at the time (and on the whole still believe), although I know I should have done more random tests. You were right to pick me up on that. These would only show more of the same though! Nothing would actually change. I would just have more data to show it.

On the overlap phenomenon being debunked, as I said all you showed was that randomising the data gave about the same degree of overlap, which is NOT what I claimed. I claimed that a single overlap or close proximity was the sign of an encoding (as I said it may simply be presence in the Garden is enough), something which is easily testable, but which so far you have not done in some of your own tests, despite my requests that you do.

Let me be clear. There are two aspects to overlapping

1. The percentage of overlap in the word strings, which you have tested for, and
2. The number of word pairs that show at least one overlap, which I claimed was statistically significant. but which you have not always tested for.

For example, in your '43' you find that 33 out of the 43 pairs are found in the Garden and that 28 of them overlap. In my '31', 25 pairs are found in the Garden and 21 overlap. In both cases about 85% of the pairs overlap. I think that may well be significant, although in the code itself, not every pair I believe to be encoded actually does overlap.the code is more subtle than that. The cherubim pair in here (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html), for example, do not overlap but are most certainly encoded. The distance between them is a direct reflection of their positions on top of the Ark.

As for 'cherry picking', the '43' and the '31' were chosen by each of us to avoid that very error. You chose the '43', which in my opinion is 'unfriendly' to the code, because it includes words like 'darkness', which is not specifically stated as having been created by God. I've tried to avoid cherry picking from the start, although the complexities of the biblical text made the actual choice of created things difficult and a little cherry picking was unavoidable.

And there are more errors that need to be corrected. Here is what you said after your example from Day 1:

Your statement could not be more misleading. I tested the statistics and showed that they are exactly what we would expect from random chance. Furthermore, your footnote is inaccurate. In footnote 10 you wrote:

The truth is that there are three occurrences of "the earth" (English, 517) and four occurrences of HaAretz (Hebrew, 296), giving 12 chances for overlap!

1488

There IS another overlapping pair beginning at word 23, as I said! Yes, there is a third instance of HaAretz beginning at word 31, which I hadn't noticed at the time (remember I was doing it all by calculator) but the statement is essentially correct. There may be 12 chances for overlap but I NEVER ONCE STATED that the phenomenon was based on percentage overlaps. You may think it's important, but I never did. As I've said over and over again, it was a single overlap (or close proximity as I now say) that I was claiming is important. That is testable too and from the 43 and 31 it was beginning to look like about 85% of the word pairs overlapped.

It is easy to test this against random word pairs. Will you do it now? All I'm asking is what is the percentage of random word pairs found in the Garden that give at least one overlap?

Whether or not it does, propinquity, the closeness between word pairs in the text, is certainly the phenomenon that is improbable, along with the fact that the biblical word pairs are found in the text far more frequently than random number pairs. You already showed that with your test of the 43 against 100 pairs of random numbers. The 43 came out best of all, yet you barely acknowledged it and inverted the chart to show misses rather than hits, which I'm still scratching my head over. There was more to be done there too. The ENTIRE BASIS of my claim is based on numbers pairs, based on Hebrew/English words and phrases, not single numbers. That test would have been even more interesting than the one you did because it would have been a direct comparision, like-for-like, with your 43. Maybe you haven't had time to do it, I don't know. But I'd still like to see it. I have also asked for

1. My 31 to be tested in exactly the same manner, against a random number list created from the 31 in the same manner, or a random number list I can provide. I spent a lot of time yesterday looking at the profile of numbers in word strings in the Garden and believe that this is critical for determining just how unlikely the phenomenon is. Based on my initial work using the theoretical percentages of random hits to be expected I was estimating millions or billions to 1 against chance. Based on what I did yesterday I think we're still looking at something way above chance. It all depends on the profile of the word strings though.

2. The number of overlaps in each case - biblical and random. I don';t mean a randomised list of biblicalpairs, mind you. I mean random numbers.

I'm sorry, but I find very little on that page that stands in light of an honest review.

All the best,

Richard

I think there have been some misunderstandings here. I have already freely admitted that my page needed to be reviewed in the light of our discussion, but I was waiting for it to come to some kind of conclusion. I hope you understand that I wrote it in good faith at the time and I still stand by it's generalpremise, that there is a double witness phenomenon in the NIV Bible. The work you have kindly done that has been relevant to it has in fact confirmed that. Your '43' came out better than 100 random trials, did it not? That's not as spectacular as I was hoping for, but it was far from random either, being almost three standard deviations above the mean. Someone with an IQ almost three standard deviations above the mean would not be an average person intellectually. They would likely be working in academia or be the MD of a company. Someone who was taller than the mean by almost three standard deviations would stand out from a crowd. I think it's more than that, in fact, and I hope to prove it. It may be that the code is not much more provable than that. Most aspects of it may not be far beyond chance (the four ark encodings being a notable exception, since they are about 100,000 to 1 against chance), but it is all interrelated. We have the four ark encodings (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_3267158.html) in the Garden, proceeding from word 1. We have the eleven components of the ark (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html)
in the same location. We have the little ELS code saying ARK HERE in the same location. These are encoded by three independent methods therfore we could multiply the probabilities here. Even if they were only 1 in 10 against chance each, mutliplying them would give 1 in 1000 overall. And they integrate brilliantly with other encodings, as I've shown.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-09-2017, 07:06 AM

thebluetriangle

05-09-2017, 11:43 AM

Since you're busy, I've been doing my own analysis of my 31 created things against random numbers. I chose the random numbers two ways. First, I used the numerical profile I developed yesterday to produce 62 random numbers in pairs. Second, I used your own method of adding and subtracting 10 from the biblical values. Here are the results. All I've had time to do is the easiest analysis for me with my little calculator - calculating how many pairs are in the Garden (Genesis 1.1-5, NIV).A hit is both pairs in the Garden (not necessarily overlapping, just there).

Bill's List of 31 Hebrew English Pairs: 25 hits out of 31 (81%)
Random list 1: 16 hits out of 31 (52%)
Random list 2: 17 hits out of 31 (55%)

Let's compare that with your own list of 43.

Richard's List of 43 Hebrew/English Pairs: 33 hits out of 43 (77%)

So the lists are giving about the same percentages of hits, which isn't surprising, since they overlap so much.

What is interesting, though, is that again the number of hits is much higher than the average (although there are only two random lists, not 100 this time, so that is conditional). The probability of an individual hit is looking to be about 70-75%, which is not far from what I had originally I'd anticipated. I originally thought it would be about two thirds. You calculated it was 52%, but of course the lower numbers are found much more frequently, and these lists are full of single words and short phrases. It may be worth trying longer phrases to see what that produces.

The average percentage of paired hits from my two random lists is 53%. Based on that figure, the binomial probability of acheiving 33 or better out of a possible 43 hits (your list) is 1 in 900. For my list the probability of acheiving 25 or better out of a possible 31 hits is 1 in 800. I think that's a good indication that we may be dealing with an anomalous phenomenon here. In other words, the double witness phenomenon looks real. It needs more work though.

thebluetriangle

05-09-2017, 02:42 PM

Hey there my friend,

Please accept my apology. I'm very, very sorry that you thought I was questioning your honesty. I have no doubt that you firmly believed what you wrote. And you have been very admirable in your response to the new information we have been discovering. I see no conscious effort to deceive, but rather errors produced by things like selection bias, confirmation bias, and so forth. There is no doubt that you were flabbergasted by the "coincidences" that got you started down this path, just like I was. I can completely relate to what you believe and why. But I also am convinced that the meaning of your codes is illusory. I hope you can see that all my criticism is aimed at the objective claims you make, not you as a person.

I have to go to work so can't answer more right now, but I wanted to be sure that you know I do not question your honesty or good intentions.

All the best to you my friend,

Richard

Thanks for that. Like you, I'm only interested in getting to the truth. All the way along it has been maddeningly difficult to decide whether what I'm finding is real or not. Without dreams, visions and words given to myself and others - and of course the Key to the code itself - I would never have gotten this far with it. My earliest efforts were embarrassing to me now and it was through coming across the work of people like Vernon Jenkins and yourself that I learned to 'aim higher', rather than become just another numerologist. I still make mistakes too, but I learned that it's better to quickly admit to them and move on.

We currently disagree on whether the code itself is one big Mistake, of course, and I understand that having decided your own work was fatally flawed you are anxious to save others from the same errors you believe you made. Maybe we can talk about that at some point, because like many others who have admired the Biblewheel over the years, I believe you have 'thrown out the baby with the bathwater' there and that there was something to your work after all. If you believe in synchronicity then you already accept the mechanism by which Bible codes are inserted therein - through a sophisticated weave of synchronicity. If you beleive in some kind of higher consciousness that can influence us through our unconscious minds, then you can appreciate how the writers and translaters of the Bible and its versions could have been guided in what they wrote by their daimon.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-09-2017, 06:39 PM

Thanks for that. Like you, I'm only interested in getting to the truth. All the way along it has been maddeningly difficult to decide whether what I'm finding is real or not. Without dreams, visions and words given to myself and others - and of course the Key to the code itself - I would never have gotten this far with it. My earliest efforts were embarrassing to me now and it was through coming across the work of people like Vernon Jenkins and yourself that I learned to 'aim higher', rather than become just another numerologist. I still make mistakes too, but I learned that it's better to quickly admit to them and move on.

Discerning truth and reality is one of the greatest challenges in this life. Despite our best efforts, we can never fully free ourselves from illusions born of our desires, fantasy, hopes, fears, dreams, and illusions. We are born ignorant, conditioned by our culture before we have the ability to make reasoned choices, and die in a state not far removed from that into which we were born. But the situation is not hopeless. We can make progress in our efforts to come closer to the truth. Quickly admitting error certainly is an essential habit.

We currently disagree on whether the code itself is one big Mistake, of course, and I understand that having decided your own work was fatally flawed you are anxious to save others from the same errors you believe you made. Maybe we can talk about that at some point, because like many others who have admired the Biblewheel over the years, I believe you have 'thrown out the baby with the bathwater' there and that there was something to your work after all. If you believe in synchronicity then you already accept the mechanism by which Bible codes are inserted therein - through a sophisticated weave of synchronicity. If you beleive in some kind of higher consciousness that can influence us through our unconscious minds, then you can appreciate how the writers and translaters of the Bible and its versions could have been guided in what they wrote by their daimon.
I think we would both benefit from discussing my reasons for concluding that I was wrong about the Bible Wheel. We should probably start a new thread for that conversation. It wasn't an easy or a quick decision. It took three full years after realizing I no longer believed in the God of the Bible before I had the clarity of mind to see the errors that led to my delusions about the Bible Wheel and numerology. And even now, I freely admit that there are some intriguing "coincidences" that I'm not sure i could explain. But strange things happen all the time, and they are not sufficiently coherent to form a foundation for a worldview.

Synchronicity, dreams, and visions played a central role in my "fall" from objective science to mysticism and numerology, so I know where you are coming from. I can certainly imagine there could be a "higher intelligence" guiding things "in the background" since that's how I thought for many years. But now I look at that as "magical thinking" and I am glad to be free from it. But that's for another thread. So now I'll answer your other posts.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-09-2017, 08:05 PM

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.

There is no shame in creating a flawed hypothesis! That is the essence of the scientific method. It is very rare for anyone to guess the correct hypothesis on the first try. The Scientific Method is a cyclical process as described in this wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) (where I found this image):

1491

So my question to you is this: How did you find out that your hypotheses were false? What tests did you conduct? From what you have shared on your website, your primary method looked like a combination of selection bias (cherry picking) and confirmation bias. If something fit your hypothesis, you counted it as "evidence" and if it didn't fit your hypothesis, you explained it away (rationalization). This is why I focused so much on the general principles you use when deciding what to include or exclude. The only way you could avoid the problem of bias would be to adhere to a truly consistent set of general principles. As far as I can tell, you have not yet been able to state them as such.

We've discussed many of the inconsistencies I perceived in the lists you created for your "test." In my opinion, that's probably the main reason your list gets more hits than the random data. I believe the statistical test is actually a test that reveals that you cherry picked your list to fit the data. Without clearly stated, objective, consistent GENERAL PRINCIPLES there can be no objective test of your hypothesis. As long as you allow for "exceptions" then the code is no "code" at all, but rather a tool to delude yourself as is typical of numerology.

For example, I find it very difficult to believe that you would omit "the waters" and include "the water" if the first were found in the grid and the second not. Your insistence on excluding "the waters" looks like it is motivated by the fact it doesn't fit your hypothesis. The same thing goes for the "darkness." Isaiah quotes God as saying "I formed the light, and created darkness" but you include "light" but not "darkness" even though both are mentioned. I could go on, but there is no need. You have not been able to state an objective, coherent set of general principles by which to define what is or is not included in your hypothesis, so in truth you have no hypothesis to test.

A true statistical test would not depend upon subjective judgments about what should or should not be included. That's not science. That's numerology. This is why scientists developed the DOUBLE BLIND experiment to prevent biases from distorting their conclusions. Let's face it, you WANT your hypothesis to be true. I know, I felt the same way about mine. And I spent many hours looking for statistical tests to prove it, and never succeeded.

I have no right to ask you for anything, and believe me, I'm grateful for the effort you've put into our discussion. But when I have requested something you generally have not given me what I requested, but test results that are often less relevant to our discussion than what was originally requested and which appear to suit your purposes rather than mine. For example, you presented the results of your '43' as misses rather than hits. Why? Why would you do that?

As explained before, there is no difference in counting "misses" or "hits" because they are complimentary variables. If your list had more hits, it also would have less misses, and vice versa. So there is no bias of any kind in choosing one over the other. They convey precisely the same information.

It was hard to tell whether you were testing pairs of numbers (which I had requested) or the individual numbers, because the number of misses in the pairs (10 out of 43) is the same as the number of misses in the individual numbers (10 out of 86). I had to work that out myself and almost missed it at first. And of course it made the fact that my results were better than 100 random trials look less impressive, although that may have been accidental.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I was only testing for the total number of misses, i.e. the number of missing English terms + the number of missing Hebrew terms. Given your more detailed explanation of what you are looking for, I will count the total number of pairs FOUND (i.e. the number of pairs in which both are found in the grid).

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've already shown that the overlap is not statistically significant. My analysis was based on the assumption that both pairs were found, since obviously there cannot be an overlap if one or both are missing from the grid.

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 abouta 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 really need to state your hypothesis clearly. As far as I understand it, your hypothesis is this: The number of English/Hebrew pairs describing created things will be found in the grid more than we would expect from chance. If that's your hypothesis, then the best you can get is something around three standard deviations from the mean, which is NOTHING like one chance in a trillion like you stated earlier. The tests I've done so far indicate that the real probability is around 3 or 4 in 100.

The problem, of course, is defining which "created things" we should test. You accept light but reject darkness, even though both are mentioned. You say you reject darkness because it is not explicitly mentioned as being "created" in Genesis. But the same goes for "the water." And "dry ground" which you do include was not "created" per se, but rather made to "appear" because of the gathering of the water. And on and on it goes. Your hypothesis is much too subjective to test objectively. You need to state the principles in a way that leaves no dispute about which should be included and which should be excluded.

Well, it's late. I'll try to find more time tomorrow.

Great chatting,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

05-09-2017, 09:18 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

05-09-2017, 09:29 PM

thebluetriangle

05-09-2017, 10:54 PM

Hey there Bill,

The more I review your work, the more I see inconsistent logic. On your Ark page (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2467048.html) you showed that "two stone tablets" pair are found in the grid:

The Lord said to Moses, "Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
Ex. 34.1
1492

But then in the same article, you go looking only for "rings" rather than "four gold rings" (which just happen to be missing from the grid) -

Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other.
Ex. 25.12
1493

How is it possible to believe that a God of infinite intelligence would expect us to believe he designed such inconsistent codes?

Actually, both versions of the tablets are there! Look how nicely stacked the word blocks are too. This is why I was so impressed with the idea of overlap - because it happens so much. There is also the possible phenmenon of clusters of overlaps, of which this is an example. I'll show more encodings of the tablets later.

1495

I think I chose the longer one because the tablets are far more significant than the rings, especially the fact that there are two of them. I could have put that one in though! I wanted to keep the tables short so I always chose just one example. In fact there were a plethora of different wordings to choose from here. I found more instances of tablets, tablets of stone, etc, than anything else other than the ark itself. The more important the concept the more it was found in there - meaning again! The table above shows all the instances in the Garden of the two Hebrew/English pairs.

I'm sure you appreciate the fact that it was the second set of stone tablets that were found in the Garden, rather than the first set, which Moses broke after discovering his people worshipping the golden calf. The first set of tablets are not encoded.

In other words this is not encoding by rote. It is just what we would expect from a God of infinite intelligence!

thebluetriangle

05-09-2017, 11:16 PM

Hey Bill,

I was reviewing your ark page, and found this typo you probably want to correct. The correct Hebrew is "badi etsi shittim" and the value is 545. But the position is correct, so it's just a typo.

1494

Thanks! You'll probably find a lot of bad Hebrew grammar. I think I was using an online Hebrew/English study bible at that time and the wordings were in Englush order rather than the original Hebrew.

thebluetriangle

05-10-2017, 12:34 AM

Discerning truth and reality is one of the greatest challenges in this life. Despite our best efforts, we can never fully free ourselves from illusions born of our desires, fantasy, hopes, fears, dreams, and illusions. We are born ignorant, conditioned by our culture before we have the ability to make reasoned choices, and die in a state not far removed from that into which we were born. But the situation is not hopeless. We can make progress in our efforts to come closer to the truth. Quickly admitting error certainly is an essential habit.

I think we would both benefit from discussing my reasons for concluding that I was wrong about the Bible Wheel. We should probably start a new thread for that conversation. It wasn't an easy or a quick decision. It took three full years after realizing I no longer believed in the God of the Bible before I had the clarity of mind to see the errors that led to my delusions about the Bible Wheel and numerology. And even now, I freely admit that there are some intriguing "coincidences" that I'm not sure i could explain. But strange things happen all the time, and they are not sufficiently coherent to form a foundation for a worldview.

Synchronicity, dreams, and visions played a central role in my "fall" from objective science to mysticism and numerology, so I know where you are coming from. I can certainly imagine there could be a "higher intelligence" guiding things "in the background" since that's how I thought for many years. But now I look at that as "magical thinking" and I am glad to be free from it. But that's for another thread. So now I'll answer your other posts.

I agree with most of your words here, although I would say that my own journey into belief wasn't a 'fall' but my destiny and a move 'up' to a higher level of awareness. I think our journeys have been similar in many ways. Like you I had a difficult early life, with many trials. I was raised in a mildly Christian home and sent to Sunday School (Baptist) from the age of seven until I decided I no longer believed in God at age eleven. That was the beginning of a 27-year love affair with science, during which I adopted a naturalistic worldview and worked in commercial laboratories. Richard Dawkins was one of my intellectual heroes and I devoured books on popular science, seeing myself like Dawkins as a 'defender of the faith' in a world still steeped in superstition and ignorance. I began to find the materialist worldview stifling though, and, after reading Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Lila, both of which had a revelatory effect on me, began to broaden my education, reading books on economics, philosophy and many other topics, with the notable exception of religion and spirituality, which I thought was for people who needed a crutch to get through life. Even being inside a church made me feel queasy and uncomfortable.

However, in my mid-thirties, during which time I was studying for a physics degree with the Open University (unfinished), I began to have spiritual experiences. In fact the first one happened after I returned from a great OU Summer School in 1995, after which I 'came to myself' for the first time in my life. The glory of those days is still there within me. I slowly began to open to the idea that there might be something more than was apparent to the senses and began to widen my reading to include the paranormal (but not religion). Then in April 1998, I had a hypnogogic vision of great power, during which I briefly merged with a golden light, one of three in triangular formation. I knew instantly that there was a God and that far from being a 'skin' encapsulated ego' I was part of something much larger. My journey was not a 'fall' back to a superstitious mindset and simple belief in a heavenly Father, but the breaking down of an internal wall I had built up, and consequent exposure to new and breathtaking vistas. It was a hatching.

After that I read hundreds of books on religion and spirituality and instinctively avoided the popular science books and magazines I used to devour (it was five years before my new worldview had settled in enough for me to read one again - it was The God Delusion, which now struck me as preachy, narrow minded and very weak on mysticism). I also had many mystical experiences, which have continued to this day, and which were a tour-de-force of spiritual phenomena. None of this was the result of psychotropic substances (although I'm sure my own naturally-produced DMT played a part), but i did twice try iboga, the African root bark, in 2012. They were physical ordeals but very, very interesting experiences. For sixteen hours, every time I shut my eyes I found myself inside an African hut. A shutter to the left would open, the light would flood in and I would be taken on another 'journey'. I've since then been warned away from psychedelics by the Holy Spirit. They are traps.

There is no question that the spiritual journey has dangers even without drugs, and that we need the constant guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit through prayer. In my view, rather than escaping superstition you have gone back to the 'safety' of a more intellectual outlook, although I would say that once Pandora's box has been opened, it can never really be shut again. Once your worldview has been expanded, can it ever really be contracted again? But yes, this is really for another thread. It's too easy to get sidetracked in these discussions - and lets face it, there is nothing more interesting than discussing the meaning of life!

thebluetriangle

05-10-2017, 03:11 AM

There is no shame in creating a flawed hypothesis! That is the essence of the scientific method. It is very rare for anyone to guess the correct hypothesis on the first try. The Scientific Method is a cyclical process as described in this wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method) (where I found this image):

1491

So my question to you is this: How did you find out that your hypotheses were false? What tests did you conduct? From what you have shared on your website, your primary method looked like a combination of selection bias (cherry picking) and confirmation bias. If something fit your hypothesis, you counted it as "evidence" and if it didn't fit your hypothesis, you explained it away (rationalization).

I approach the work of finding a code (remember I was given it as an assignment, along with a Key to unlock it) in much the same way I developed cleaning and hygiene products in the laboratory I was working in at the time. I experimented, looked at the results and tried to figure out if there was a pattern there. The best way to hide a real code is to put it within a forest of numbers, which is exactly what I had in the NIV and the events of 9/11. I was using only the ordinal value system at the start, so I didn't get very far, but I'd seen all the elevens clustered around 9/11 and noticed many strange numbers woven into my own life. Here is one example. A group of four related experiences, involving four books by M. Scott Peck (The Road Less Travelled and others), happened to me just before the turn of the Millennium. They began on Christmas Eve 1998. This was 738 days before the last day of the second Millennium, which was the principal marker date for these and other events. Now look at this: The Second Appearing (s) = 738. Another happened on 6/3/99, which was 666 days before the end of the Millennium. The Lord's Coming (s) =666. They were all marked in that way. Another experience happened on 5/7/99 (UK date order), on which date I was 911 x 16 days old. I didn't discover that until years after I began working on the code, incidentally. So it was confirmation, rather than motivation.

I applied what I'd learned, along with gematria, to the NIV Bible. So for instance the death of Abraham is recorded in the NIV Bible's 666th chapter. The numbers I found in the genealogical tables in Genesis 5, 9 and 11 extend throughout Genesis and they sum to 20391 at that point. Second Coming (s) = 391. The lifespan of Joseph, the last on this list, gives a sum of 20888. The Lord's Second Coming (s) = 888. You might think I found that pretty quickly, but in fact I studied those genealogical lists for ages, finding nothing. The problem was I didn't know how to decode it, partly because I didn't know about the standard value system and hadn't figured out how the Key worked, partly because I was looking for complexities that weren't there (all I had to do was simply add up all the numbers, but I was trying all kinds of complicated things) and didn't know that the list extended to cover the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. But once I finally had all the information I needed, about the Bible (I was almost totally ignorant about the Bible at the start), about the decoding system (through the Key), it only took a few minutes to decode the numbers. It all just fell into my lap. So it was like scientific work, where you have to research your topic, you struggle for months of years with different hypotheses and one day it all comes together, if you put enough effort and brainpower into it.

When I was stuck I would have dreams or visions that assisted me. I worked out the ordinal values of 'the Pentagon', which is 125, and the 'World Trade Centre', which is 218, for instance. I looked at them all night one night, trying to figure out what they were meant to be about, if anything, and went to bed tired and frustrated at what I thought was another wasted evening. That night I had a dream. I am standing outside a pub called The Dovehill Arms when a young girl comes up to me and hands me a gold coin with the number 343 on it. Then she walks away, stumbles and falls, then gets up and skips away from me. The Dove is the Holy Spirit, the girl tripping over her legs is the fall of the twin towers (and the later fall of her father, a well known lawyer, who had a major fall from grace) and gold is a sign of value and excellence. 343 is the sum of 125 and 218. All I had to do was add them! Since 125 is the cube of 5 and 343 is the cube of 7, 218 had to be a cubic shell and in fact this led me to the central discovery of the New Bible Code, the September-11 Cube (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437339.html).

This is why I focused so much on the general principles you use when deciding what to include or exclude. The only way you could avoid the problem of bias would be to adhere to a truly consistent set of general principles. As far as I can tell, you have not yet been able to state them as such.

I understand what you were doing and I appreciate why. However, the code is multidimensional and includes ELS codes and these double witness codes, symbolism, a puzzle to be solved (see above), chapter and verse indicators, positional values, even the total number of verses in the NIV (31086), as well as the unique two-part decoding system the Key taught me. On the double witness codes, it has proved very difficult to adhere to a consistent set of principles, mainly becuase of the complexity of the text itself. Regarding the 'poles of acacia wood, for example, I chose the longer version there because 'poles' (badi) in Hebrew has a gematria of only 16, and rarely found as a word string anywhere. I can't prove it, but it looks as if the easier option was to encode the longer phrase rather than rewrite Genesis 1.1-5 so that it could be inserted. It's a 'best fit' code. This is not encoding by rote. It's more like a work of art. I already stated that the second set of stone tablets were encrypted, in conscious reflection of the Bible. Another example is the two cherubim, the Hebrew and English words for which were encoded apart so that a picture of the ark could be created from them.

We've discussed many of the inconsistencies I perceived in the lists you created for your "test." In my opinion, that's probably the main reason your list gets more hits than the random data.

No! Your 43 and my 31 were created so that those inconsistencies you were alluding to were smoothed out. Even then they gave almost 30% more hits than random data. The original tables I show on my two 'double witness' pages give far better results. The Garden tables give odds of 1 in 2 million against chance, and the ark tables give odds of 1 in 10 thousand against chance. That's before we look at overlapping, although it is also before we look at consistency. The 43 and 31 still manage to give odds of almost 1 in 1000 against chance

I believe the statistical test is actually a test that reveals that you cherry picked your list to fit the data. Without clearly stated, objective, consistent GENERAL PRINCIPLES there can be no objective test of your hypothesis. As long as you allow for "exceptions" then the code is no "code" at all, but rather a tool to delude yourself as is typical of numerology. I've tried to avoid those mistakes, which I was aware of from the start. The exceptions, as I've just tried to make clear, were

a) because of the complexities of the text itself, and
b) allowed, so that extra information could be encoded

If the phenomenon is dependent on the inconsistencies, as you are claiming, then when we remove them the results should have been about what we would have expected by chance. But clearly they are better than chance!

For example, I find it very difficult to believe that you would omit "the waters" and include "the water" if the first were found in the grid and the second not. Your insistence on excluding "the waters" looks like it is motivated by the fact it doesn't fit your hypothesis. The same thing goes for the "darkness." Isaiah quotes God as saying "I formed the light, and created darkness" but you include "light" but not "darkness" even though both are mentioned. I could go on, but there is no need. You have not been able to state an objective, coherent set of general principles by which to define what is or is not included in your hypothesis, so in truth you have no hypothesis to test. well, strictly, I'm not really theorising here, other than saying there is a phenomenon to be explained. It's a discovery, not a hypothesis. Scientific hypotheses work very well in the natural world and kind of work in the world of man, but when it comes to God, science can say little or nothing. Two lab rats can theorise about why the scientist is making them run through mazes, but they're unlikely to guess correctly. The New Bible Code is formed out of the actions of God in the world and are part of the Second Coming itself. They are a result of heaven meeting earth (which is why the central symbol of the Second Coming is the Star of David), and cannot be considered to be a natural phenomenon. Therefore the aims and methods of science, although partially useful, are not really appropriate here.

A true statistical test would not depend upon subjective judgments about what should or should not be included. That's not science. That's numerology. This is why scientists developed the DOUBLE BLIND experiment to prevent biases from distorting their conclusions. Let's face it, you WANT your hypothesis to be true. I know, I felt the same way about mine. And I spent many hours looking for statistical tests to prove it, and never succeeded. I know I want it to be true. When I tested cleaning products I was developing, or tested them against competitors' products, there was usually one of them that I wanted to come out on top, so I always biased the test a little against that one to correct for my own bias. I do that here too.

As explained before, there is no difference in counting "misses" or "hits" because they are complimentary variables. If your list had more hits, it also would have less misses, and vice versa. So there is no bias of any kind in choosing one over the other. They convey precisely the same information.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I was only testing for the total number of misses, i.e. the number of missing English terms + the number of missing Hebrew terms. Given your more detailed explanation of what you are looking for, I will count the total number of pairs FOUND (i.e. the number of pairs in which both are found in the grid). Great! That's appreciated.

I've already shown that the overlap is not statistically significant. My analysis was based on the assumption that both pairs were found, since obviously there cannot be an overlap if one or both are missing from the grid. I have to disagree here. If I remember correctly, your overlap test against the randomised pairs showed that the percentage of overlap was about the same and it may be that I wasn't clear enough about what I wanted, but if you think about it, a set of results could have more pairs in the list (the 43) that overlapped at least once than was true of the randomised pairs, even tough the overall percentage hits was the same. I wanted to look at the individual stats for each list, so they could be counted.

You really need to state your hypothesis clearly. As far as I understand it, your hypothesis is this: The number of English/Hebrew pairs describing created things will be found in the grid more than we would expect from chance. If that's your hypothesis, then the best you can get is something around three standard deviations from the mean, which is NOTHING like one chance in a trillion like you stated earlier. The tests I've done so far indicate that the real probability is around 3 or 4 in 100. Well you're right about the 1 in a trillion, which is the biggest blunder I've made on this thread so far, but I still get better odds than you. I used this online binomial probability calculator (http://www.statisticshowto.com/calculators/binomial-distribution-calculator/). p is 0.53, n is 43, x1 is 33 and x2 is 43, giving the cumulative probability of getting 33 hits or better out of 43, for pairs found in the Garden. The result is P = 0.00117, or 1 in 855.

I'm going to rethink it all today and see if I can come up with a list that is totally consistent, or the nearest I can get to it.

The problem, of course, is defining which "created things" we should test. You accept light but reject darkness, even though both are mentioned. You say you reject darkness because it is not explicitly mentioned as being "created" in Genesis. But the same goes for "the water." And "dry ground" which you do include was not "created" per se, but rather made to "appear" because of the gathering of the water. And on and on it goes. Your hypothesis is much too subjective to test objectively. You need to state the principles in a way that leaves no dispute about which should be included and which should be excluded.

Well, it's late. I'll try to find more time tomorrow.

Great chatting,

Richard

I simply included the things it stated God created (or in some cases made to appear, which is more like landscaping, I suppose), not things like 'the waters' and 'darkness', which are just mentioned. Maybe they all need to be put in. I'll get back to you on it.

thebluetriangle

05-10-2017, 04:39 AM

So my question to you is this: How did you find out that your hypotheses were false? What tests did you conduct? From what you have shared on your website, your primary method looked like a combination of selection bias (cherry picking) and confirmation bias. If something fit your hypothesis, you counted it as "evidence" and if it didn't fit your hypothesis, you explained it away (rationalization). This is why I focused so much on the general principles you use when deciding what to include or exclude. The only way you could avoid the problem of bias would be to adhere to a truly consistent set of general principles. As far as I can tell, you have not yet been able to state them as such.

I didn't really answer this in my earlier post. What I found was that when I constucted false hypotheses based on a small piece of 'code' I thought I found or some early idea I had (and these are the most persistent of all), I would find it didn't work elsewhere. It was like being lost in a forest, finding what looked like a path and following it, only to discover it was really a rabbit track and being more lost than ever. For instance I started with the stupid idea that 7 and 1 were interchangeable, and that numbers like 77, 71 and 17 could substitute for 11. That was because flight 77 hit the Pentagon, whereas flight 11 hit the North Tower. Jesus (r) = 11 and Christ (o) = 77. So it all seemed logical, except it got me nowhere and so I quickly dropped it. The evidence to support a hypothesis was in the fruit it bore. Remember too that the basic method of decoding was within the Key I was given, so I didn't have to invent that. It was given to me, as well as the version that held the code. It literally dropped int my wife's hands, and the Key given me by my Alpha Course director and a New Testament I was given by my eldest daughter (all three documents were literally handed to me) were both from the NIV too.

I did some empirical testing. I tested The Signature of Christ (http://www.thesecretcode.co.uk/page_2437336.html) against five or six random books taken from the bookshelf. I could find individual word strings but no overall pattern anything ike the Signature phenomenon. I tried groups of 4, 5, 6 words, etc, but nothing popped out. It did take me a long time to find the six signatures, but once I cottoned on to what a code looked like I found it very quickly - I had to go through a learning curve. However, I had gone through that learning curve by the time I tested the signatures and if there was anything like them (using biblical words anyway) I would likely have found something quite quickly. Remember it was only the first twenty or so words I was checking, so there wasn't a huge amount of data to sift through.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-10-2017, 07:39 PM

Richard,

I'd appreciate it if you'd now run my list of 31 pairs against 100 lists of 31 pairs of numbers randomised in the way you did before. I think it's a good method and it should give us a better idea of how unlikely the phenomenon is. Here's my list again:

the heavens 782 hashamayim 395
the earth 517 ha'arets 296
light 254 aur 207
an expanse 882 raqiya 380
an expanse between the waters 2758 raqiya b'tavek hamayim 903
the water 1009 hamayim 95
the water under the sky 2491 hamayim tachath hashamayim 1338
dry ground 1305 hayabbasah 322
plants 451 'eseb 372
seed-bearing plants 729 'eseb zara' zera' 976
trees 400 'ets 160
trees on the land that bear fruit 1920 'ets periy asah periy 1115
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019 'ets periy asah periy . . . 2439
the stars 704 hakokabim 103
two great lights 1417 sheniy hamayimth hagadolim 1098
the greater light 865 hama'owrt hagadolim 738
the lesser light 797 hama'owr haqatan 416
birds 205 owph 156
winged bird 680 owph kanaph 306
every winged bird 1880 kol owph kanaph 356
creatures of the sea 1179 hatanniynim 555
the great creatures of the sea 1695 hagadolim hatanniynim 647
living and moving thing 1400 nephesh h'chay haramab 1403
every living and moving thing 2600 kol nephesh h'chay haramab 1453
livestock 827 behemah 52
creatures 794 remes 540
creatures that move along the ground 2580 remes 540
wild animals 774 cheytu 'erets 715
man 91 'adam 45
man in our image 662 'adam b'tselemenu 263
man in our image, in our likeness 1490 'adam b'tselemenu b'demuwthenu 789

Thanks in advance,

Bill

Hey there Bill,

I ran the tests for your list of 31. I randomized the data by adding a random number between 1 and 50 to all the numbers in the list you provided.

In each graph, the first run is not randomize. It almost always had the most hits (24), which I defined as the number of pairs found in the grid.

Every run gives slightly different results because the numbers are random, so I ran it three times to get a sense of how much variation to expect:

1496

1497

1498

The average hovers around 16 and the standard deviation around 3. Your list gave the highest number of counts in all but one case when the random data got 25. This does not seem very impressive since about 10% of the randomized trials got 20 or more hits, but there does seem to be something that requires explanation. I think the answer is probably cherry picking since the difference between your results and random results is only about 8 hits, and there was about that much ambiguity in our debate about what should go into the list. But even if it we were able to arrive at a list that followed clear principles with no ambiguity, a result like this would not be enough to prove anything since the hits are within three standard deviations, and random data can give 25 hits in 300 chances. So it doesn't seem very strong.

I'll comment more after you've had a chance to respond.

Great working with you!

:sunny:

Richard Amiel McGough

05-10-2017, 08:01 PM

Just for fun I ran one long test of 300 randomized trials to see what we'd see:

1499

The data seems pretty consistent. Your list consistently gets the most hits, though in this case there were two randomized lists that got the same number (24). And there are 33 cases (11%) in which the randomized data got 20 or more hits which is in the range of 2 or 3 standard deviations from the mean.

thebluetriangle

05-10-2017, 11:12 PM

Hey there Bill,

I ran the tests for your list of 31. I randomized the data by adding a random number between 1 and 50 to all the numbers in the list you provided.

In each graph, the first run is not randomize. It almost always had the most hits (24), which I defined as the number of pairs found in the grid.

Every run gives slightly different results because the numbers are random, so I ran it three times to get a sense of how much variation to expect:

1496

1497

1498

The average hovers around 16 and the standard deviation around 3. Your list gave the highest number of counts in all but one case when the random data got 25. This does not seem very impressive since about 10% of the randomized trials got 20 or more hits, but there does seem to be something that requires explanation. I think the answer is probably cherry picking since the difference between your results and random results is only about 8 hits, and there was about that much ambiguity in our debate about what should go into the list. But even if it we were able to arrive at a list that followed clear principles with no ambiguity, a result like this would not be enough to prove anything since the hits are within three standard deviations, and random data can give 25 hits in 300 chances. So it doesn't seem very strong.

I'll comment more after you've had a chance to respond.

Great working with you!

:sunny:

Thanks for running these. But before we go any further, could you check your data? I make it 25 out of 31 hits for the biblical numbers, not 24.

thebluetriangle

05-11-2017, 11:02 AM

We need a list that is less ambiguous than the Garden, which seems to resist any attempt of mine to draw up a completely consistent list of creations. The Ark page is much more consistently put together, partly because it was much easier to do so. The rule here is the first biblical mention of any ark component and the ark itself. It's only eleven items long, which means it will be harder to distinguish it from chance. However, more than the ark is encrypted there and so I've widened the scope of the list.

I've put together a new list containing the Most Holy Place, the Holy Place and everything within the tabernacle, including the curtains. If I've missed anything let me know (and no doubt you'll want to correct my attrocious Hebrew spelling/grammar).

You'll find each of these phrases are the first biblical mention each time, which hopefully will quell any accusations of cherry picking, and which, if there is no code, should make no difference to the chances of it being found in the Garden. I give a couple of alternatives for one or two of the phrases, if you want to choose them instead. I'll let you make the final selection, so you have some input too. Where articles are included, it's because that was the NIV translation (which is thought for thought, rather than word for word). I've included the full description for the ark itself and for the items associated with the ark. The model for that was Aaron's staff. It seems to me the full title has to be tested, rather than just 'staff', because it was Aaron's staff that budded, and it is always referred to as Aaron's staff. In that case the full phrase used for the tablets, manna and Torah had to be used too. It's always still the first biblical instance though.

the ark of the testimony 1967 arown eduwith 730 (Ex. 25.22)
a chest 317 arown 257 (Ex. 25.10)
an atonement cover 1220 kaporeth 700 (Ex. 25.17)
moulding 500 zer 207 (Ex. 25.11)
cherubim 457 keruwb 272 (Ex. 25.18)
rings 256 tabba'ath 481 (Ex. 25.12)
poles of acacia wood 973 badietsi shittim 545 (Ex. 25.13) or poles 265 badi 16
Aaron's staff 615 matteh Aharown 310 (Ex. 7.12, Num. 17.8)
an omer of manna 454 H'omer man 405 (Ex. 16.33)
two stone tablets 1713 sheniy luwach 'eben 901 or tablets 538 luwach 438 (Ex. 34.1)
this book of the law 1269 cepher towrah zo'th 1371 (Deut. 28.61)
a curtain 654 pokereth 700 (Ex. 26.31) or the curtain 866 hapokereth 705
the Most Holy Place 1520 qodesh haqodeshim 863 (Ex. 26.33)
an altar of acacia wood for burning incense 1967 mizbeach miqtar quetoreth 'ets shittah 1644 (Ex. 28.61)
the bread of the presence 922 lechem 78 (Ex. 25.30)
a table of acacia wood 947 shulchan 'ets shittah 917 (Ex. 25.23) or a table 239 shulchan 388
a lampstand 497 menorah 690 (Ex. 25.31)
the entrance 617 pethach 488 (Ex. 29.4) or for the entrance to the tent 1701 l'pethach H'ohel 559
the Holy Place (1120) haqodesh 409 (Ex. 26.33)
this tabernacle 704 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 25.9) or the tabernacle 600 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 26.1)
a sanctuary 1446 miqdash 444

Richard Amiel McGough

05-11-2017, 05:37 PM

Thanks for running these. But before we go any further, could you check your data? I make it 25 out of 31 hits for the biblical numbers, not 24.

Here are the seven pairs that have missing values according to the program I wrote:

an expanse between the waters 2758 raqiya b'tavek hamayim 903 Missing 2758
plants 451 'eseb 372 Missing 451
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019 'ets periy asah periy 2149 Missing 2149
two great lights 1417 sheniy hamayimth hagadolim 1098 Missing 1417
the great creatures of the sea 1695 hagadolim hatanniynim 647 Missing 647
every living and moving thing 2600 kol nephesh h'chay haramab 1453 Missing 2600
creatures that move along the ground 2580 remes 540 Missing 2580

If there's a typo or miscalculation, let me know and I'll fix it.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-11-2017, 06:52 PM

We need a list that is less ambiguous than the Garden, which seems to resist any attempt of mine to draw up a completely consistent list of creations.

That's a very important point. I'm glad we have been able to come to an agreement.

:thumb:

The Ark page is much more consistently put together, partly because it was much easier to do so. The rule here is the first biblical mention of any ark component and the ark itself. It's only eleven items long, which means it will be harder to distinguish it from chance. However, more than the ark is encrypted there and so I've widened the scope of the list.

I've put together a new list containing the Most Holy Place, the Holy Place and everything within the tabernacle, including the curtains. If I've missed anything let me know (and no doubt you'll want to correct my attrocious Hebrew spelling/grammar).

You'll find each of these phrases are the first biblical mention each time, which hopefully will quell any accusations of cherry picking, and which, if there is no code, should make no difference to the chances of it being found in the Garden. I give a couple of alternatives for one or two of the phrases, if you want to choose them instead. I'll let you make the final selection, so you have some input too. Where articles are included, it's because that was the NIV translation (which is thought for thought, rather than word for word). I've included the full description for the ark itself and for the items associated with the ark. The model for that was Aaron's staff. It seems to me the full title has to be tested, rather than just 'staff', because it was Aaron's staff that budded, and it is always referred to as Aaron's staff. In that case the full phrase used for the tablets, manna and Torah had to be used too. It's always still the first biblical instance though.

the ark of the testimony 1967 arown eduwith 730 (Ex. 25.22)
a chest 317 arown 257 (Ex. 25.10)
an atonement cover 1220 kaporeth 700 (Ex. 25.17)
moulding 500 zer 207 (Ex. 25.11)
cherubim 457 keruwb 272 (Ex. 25.18)
rings 256 tabba'ath 481 (Ex. 25.12)
poles of acacia wood 973 badietsi shittim 545 (Ex. 25.13) or poles 265 badi 16
Aaron's staff 615 matteh Aharown 310 (Ex. 7.12, Num. 17.8)
an omer of manna 454 H'omer man 405 (Ex. 16.33)
two stone tablets 1713 sheniy luwach 'eben 901 or tablets 538 luwach 438 (Ex. 34.1)
this book of the law 1269 cepher towrah zo'th 1371 (Deut. 28.61)
a curtain 654 pokereth 700 (Ex. 26.31) or the curtain 866 hapokereth 705
the Most Holy Place 1520 qodesh haqodeshim 863 (Ex. 26.33)
an altar of acacia wood for burning incense 1967 mizbeach miqtar quetoreth 'ets shittah 1644 (Ex. 28.61)
the bread of the presence 922 lechem 78 (Ex. 25.30)
a table of acacia wood 947 shulchan 'ets shittah 917 (Ex. 25.23) or a table 239 shulchan 388
a lampstand 497 menorah 690 (Ex. 25.31)
the entrance 617 pethach 488 (Ex. 29.4) or for the entrance to the tent 1701 l'pethach H'ohel 559
the Holy Place (1120) haqodesh 409 (Ex. 26.33)
this tabernacle 704 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 25.9) or the tabernacle 600 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 26.1)
a sanctuary 1446 miqdash 444
For the purposes of my automated tests, I need the list to be all in one format without the "or". The alternate pairs should be listed just like any other. Or were you suggesting that we run separate tests for all the alternate values? If that's what you want, then we'd have to run a test for each possible combination of the alternate values, which would mean 32 tests. Then we could see which gives the most hits, but that would just be an automation of cherry picking. A real scientific test requires that you define the general principles that define your hypothesis BEFORE running the tests.

And speaking of general principles, I don't understand by what principle you include/exclude the articles. Hebrew has no indefinite article, so why do you include it?

Neither do I understand by what principle you include/exclude modifiers. You include the modifiers "two stone" before "tablets" but omit "four gold" before "rings". Or why you have "molding" rather than "a gold molding." Or just "cherubim" rather than "two cherbim" or "two cherubim of gold". Or "a lampstand" rather than "a lampstand of pure gold". Etc. It seems to me that an honest unbiased test would include all these possibilities.

Also, there is a problem with your inclusion of "this Book of the Law" from Deut 28:61. You included the bet prefix (in) when calculating the value 1371 but did not include it in the English value which should be "in this book of the law" = 1328. But that won't affect the results, since both are found in the grid.

And I must say it looks like cherry picking when you choose a full description like "an altar of acacia wood for burning incense" which just so happens to match the value of "the ark of the testimony." You don't normally use that kind of description.

Also, there is a mistake in your understanding of "bread of the presence". That Hebrew is lechem panim = 258, not merely lechem = 58.

And on and on it goes. There's a lot of work to be done before you have anything like a list based on a consistent set of general principles.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-11-2017, 08:50 PM

thebluetriangle

05-12-2017, 12:01 AM

Here are the seven pairs that have missing values according to the program I wrote:

an expanse between the waters 2758 raqiya b'tavek hamayim 903 Missing 2758
plants 451 'eseb 372 Missing 451
trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it 3019 'ets periy asah periy 2149 Missing 2149
two great lights 1417 sheniy hamayimth hagadolim 1098 Missing 1417
the great creatures of the sea 1695 hagadolim hatanniynim 647 Missing 647
every living and moving thing 2600 kol nephesh h'chay haramab 1453 Missing 2600
creatures that move along the ground 2580 remes 540 Missing 2580

If there's a typo or miscalculation, let me know and I'll fix it.

It's the number in red that's wrong. It should be 2439. I had corrected it, but you're using the first list I sent. However, there's another error that goes the other way (I used 'sky' instead of 'expanse' in one item), so the final tally is in fact still 24.

thebluetriangle

05-12-2017, 01:02 AM

That's a very important point. I'm glad we have been able to come to an agreement.

:thumb:

I'm glad too, although I suspect we agree for different reasons! The problem I had was related to the way it was written. A consistent list is either going to be so short there is almost nothing in it, or so long that everything is there and it would take me ages to complete it. Do I choose just creations or include landscaping. Do I choose God's words or just his actions? Or both? I'll keep working on it. Meanwhile, I believe the ark list will be easier to come to an agreement on.

For the purposes of my automated tests, I need the list to be all in one format without the "or". That can certanly be done. I just wanted to give you the chance for some input. These were items where it was harder to choose, but in nearly all the cases it shouldn't be too difficult.

The alternate pairs should be listed just like any other. Or were you suggesting that we run separate tests for all the alternate values? If that's what you want, then we'd have to run a test for each possible combination of the alternate values, which would mean 32 tests. Then we could see which gives the most hits, but that would just be an automation of cherry picking. A real scientific test requires that you define the general principles that define your hypothesis BEFORE running the tests. No, I wasn't suggesting you run 32 tests! Or do automated cherry picking! I'm happy to choose the items. In fact, I think I'll extend the list to include the entire tabernacle. That was a page I was working on before this discussion got started, but hadn't finished.

And speaking of general principles, I don't understand by what principle you include/exclude the articles. Hebrew has no indefinite article, so why do you include it? I thought I'd explained that. It is because the article is part of the precise NIV translation. English does have the indefinite article, so, since it's a thought-for-thought transation, it should be included. I'm going to have to list some or all of them so you get an idea of what I'm doing. It is entirely logical.

Neither do I understand by what principle you include/exclude modifiers. You include the modifiers "two stone" before "tablets" but omit "four gold" before "rings".

On the tablets, I gave both so you could choose what you thought was most appropriate. As I said yesterday, though, I felt the sacred objects in the ark should be given their full titles, based on the fact that Aaron's staff is always described as such. So I thought it was more logical to use the longer titles for all the items - which was why I used 'two stone tablets'. The gold rings were less significant to the Israelites, as far as I can tell. Sticking to any one line of reasoning causes inconsistencies somewhere else, though. It may be that I have to modify it until we both agree on a list. However, it should be easier than with the list of God's creations.

I do not agree with what you did either, which was mainly to add different forms of the same phrases.

Or why you have "molding" rather than "a gold molding." Or just "cherubim" rather than "two cherbim" or "two cherubim of gold". Or "a lampstand" rather than "a lampstand of pure gold". Etc. It seems to me that an honest unbiased test would include all these possibilities. Why? Isn't it fairer to just choose just the noun and stick with it? I generally left modifiers out, unless there seemed to be a good reason for it, as with the possessive 'Aaron's' in 'Aaron's staff'.

Also, there is a problem with your inclusion of "this Book of the Law" from Deut 28:61. You included the bet prefix (in) when calculating the value 1371 but did not include it in the English value which should be "in this book of the law" = 1328. But that won't affect the results, since both are found in the grid. Okay, I'll look again at that one. Thanks.

And I must say it looks like cherry picking when you choose a full description like "an altar of acacia wood for burning incense" which just so happens to match the value of "the ark of the testimony." You don't normally use that kind of description. The reason I chose the full description here is because it was the only way to distinguish it from the alter of burnt offering. That seems perfectly logical to me. It's the first mention of the altar too, so I had no option but to use that longer description. If I had chosen a later one you could then have pointed out that it wasn't the first!

Also, there is a mistake in your understanding of "bread of the presence". That Hebrew is lechem panim = 258, not merely lechem = 58. Are you sure about that? Here is the NIV:

'Put the bread of the Presence on this table to be before me at all times.'

This is the KJV:

'And thou shalt set upon this table shewbread before me always.'

'Bread of the Presence' is translated in the KJV 'shewbread', which is the translation of lechem. The only three words after lechem in the Hebrew are paniym, meaning before', then lepanyi, meaning 'before', 'presence', 'face', then finally tamiyd, meaning 'always' or 'continually'. In the modern Hebrew translation of the KJV it's lechem (shewbread) panyim (before) tamiyd (me always). It looks to my unpractised eye that it should be lechem only, although 'lepanyl' might be the word I need to include. If so, then I'd have to include paniym too, which doesn't seem to gel with the NIV translation.

And on and on it goes. There's a lot of work to be done before you have anything like a list based on a consistent set of general principles.

Thanks for your comments, although we disagree on some points. I'll try a second list.

thebluetriangle

05-12-2017, 03:56 AM

OK - I added a few items to the list that were consistent with principles you used in your list. It now contains 32 pairs:

the ark of the testimony 1967 arown eduwith 730
a chest 317 arown 257
an atonement cover 1220 kaporeth 700
moulding 500 zer 207
cherubim 457 keruwb 272
two cherubim 1217 shanim cherubim 672
two cherubim out of hammered gold 2137 shanim cherubim zahab mikshah 1131
rings 256 tabba'ath 481
gold rings 357 tabbath zahab 495
four gold rings 813 arba tabbath zahab 768
poles of acacia wood 973 badietsi shittim 545
poles 265 badi 16
Aaron's staff 615 matteh Aharown 310
an omer of manna 454 H'omer man 405
two stone tablets 1713 sheniy luwach 'eben 901
tablets 538 luwach 438
this book of the law 1269 cepher towrah zo'th 1371
a curtain 654 pokereth 700
the curtain 866 hapokereth 705
the Most Holy Place 1520 qodesh haqodeshim 863
an altar of acacia wood for burning incense 1967 mizbeach miqtar quetoreth 'ets shittah 1644
the bread of the presence 922 lechem 78
a table of acacia wood 947 shulchan 'ets shittah 917
a table 239 shulchan 388
a lampstand 497 menorat 690
a lambpstand of pure gold 924 menorat zahab tehor 924
the entrance 617 pethach 488
for the entrance to the tent 1701 l'pethach H'ohel 559
the Holy Place 1120 haqodesh 409
this tabernacle 704 hamishkan 415
the tabernacle 600 hamishkan 415
a sanctuary 1446 miqdash 444

I'm pretty sure there are other variations that should be tested if we want a list that truly adheres to a general set of principles.

Well, I don't agree with many of your additions, some of which seem superfluous, such as adding 'gold rings' and 'four gold rings' to the 'rings' I included. But I note that it still comes out on top! That's gratifying, since my own list would likely have done even better.

In any case, here are the results of a typical run of 100 randomized trials:

1500

And here's another run of 200 trials that gives a pretty good sense of the statistics:

1501

As with the Garden, it appears that the list you provided contains cherry picked elements that pushes it a bit above average, but not nearly enough to justify a conclusion of deliberate design. And certainly nothing like one chance in millions or trillions.

I'll comment here on this trial and also the previous two trials, one of which I promised yesterday to comment on. If we speak about the first 100 randomised lists of numbers you initially tested the three biblical lists against, then in every case the biblical list came out on top. Every time. That looks to me to be a consistent phenomenon and I think you would agree with that. Your explanation is 'cherry picking', but in fact two of the lists were either your own or had significant input from you. Are you guilty of cherry picking then? The third list was entirely mine, but was changed to accommodate some of your preferences, so you had an influence on that one too.

I can't run your analysis, but the three lists give the following binomial probabilities (for the stated number of hits or better):

The 43: p = 1 in 850
The 31: p = 1 in 220
The 32: p = 1 in 110

If it were chance we would expect p = 1 in 2 or thereabouts.

If you were testing my original lists we would normally be getting p = about 1 in 10,000 to p = 1 in 2 million. I tested the last list I gave you before you changed it, and I got 20 hits out of 21. That gives p = 1 in 30,000.

But even the results of the tests you carried out (giving 1 in 850, etc), using three lists, one of which you chose, are consistently better than we would expect from chance. They all give results about 2.5 to 3 standard deviations above the mean and not one of the 100 lists of random numbers you tested each of them against even equalled the number of hits they acheived. You went on to do more, and found one random list that gave one more hit, but that could be done no matter how good they were. If the biblical lists had acheived 1 in 10,000 against chance, all you'd have to do would be to run 20,000 random lists and you'd ikely get one or two that were better.

So put it all in perspective, you tested 600 random lists of numbers against my three lists and found one that was better and three that equalled one of the lists, which means that 596 weren't as good. I would say we had a real phenomenon on our hands. Is it possible to do a meta-analysis of the three sets of runs? That might give a clearer picture.

As for cherry picking, I think that can be discounted, certainly for the third list, on the following basis:

1. I stuck strictly to the 'first biblical mention' rule.
2. For most of the items I stuck strictly to the lowest number of Hebrew words rule, then took the exact English translation.
3. Where I used more words than strictly necessary (Aaron's staff), there was a sound reason for it, and then I applied it to all items in that category.
4. You added things to the list that were unecessary (in my opinion) and which on the whole pushed the results towards chance.

I don't think it's possible to be much more consistent than that. It is possible to reduce some of the longer statements though, with a few exceptions. 'An altar made of acacia wood for burning incense' has to stay though, because that is the minimum number of words to distinguish it from the altar of burnt offering. .

thebluetriangle

05-12-2017, 04:39 AM

I've done a revised list for the next test, this time sticking throughout to the minimum number of Hebrew words to define the article in question. I don't really agree with it, and you probably won't either. However, it might be an acceptable middle path.

I've included the outer court of the tabernacle here, so that's the main structural components and items of furniture.

the ark of the testimony 1754 arown eduwth 730 (Ex. 25.22)
of this ark 494 arown 256 (Ex. 25.15)
a chest 317 arown 257 (Ex. 25.10)
an atonement cover 1220 kaporeth 700 (Ex. 25.17)
moulding 500 zer 207 (Ex. 25.11)
cherubim 457 keruwb 272 (Ex. 25.18)
rings 256 tabba'ath 481 (Ex. 25.12)
poles 265 badi 16 (Ex. 25.13)
staff 313 matteh 54 (Ex. 7.12, Num. 17.8)
manna 142 man 90 (Ex. 16.33)
tablets 538 luwach 438 (Ex. 34.1)
in this book of the law 1328 cepher towrah zo'th 1371 (Deut. 28.61)
a curtain 654 pokereth 700 (Ex. 26.31)
the Most Holy Place 1520 qodesh haqodeshim 863 (Ex. 26.33)
an altar of acacia wood for burning incense 1967 mizbeach miqtar quetoreth 'ets shittah 1644 (Ex. 28.61)
the bread of the presence 922 lechem 78 (Ex. 25.30)
a table 239 shulchan 388 (Ex. 25.23)
a lampstand 497 menorah 690 (Ex. 25.31)
for the entrance to the tent 1701 l'pethach ha'ohel 559 (Ex. 29.4)
the Holy Place (1120) haqodesh 409 (Ex. 26.33)
this tabernacle 704 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 25.9) or the tabernacle 600 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 26.1)
a sanctuary 1446 miqdash 444
the altar of burnt offering 1476 mizbeach 'olah 167 (Ex. 30.28)
a basin 163 kiyowr 236 (Ex. 30.18)
for the entrance to the courtyard 2694 v'lasha'ar chatser 909 (Ex. 27.16)
a courtyard 1449 chatser 298 (Ex. 27.9)

Richard Amiel McGough

05-12-2017, 07:03 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

05-12-2017, 08:32 AM

I thought I'd explained that. It is because the article is part of the precise NIV translation. English does have the indefinite article, so, since it's a thought-for-thought transation, it should be included. I'm going to have to list some or all of them so you get an idea of what I'm doing. It is entirely logical.

Yes, and I responded that it cannot be a "precise" translation because the Hebrew does not have an indefinite article. And in other contexts you choose to omit the definite article even though it is included in both the NIV and Hebrew. So I see no consistency or logical justification for your choice. It looks arbitrary. The question I would ask is this: do you get more hits with or without the articles? Did that influence your choice?

On the tablets, I gave both so you could choose what you thought was most appropriate. As I said yesterday, though, I felt the sacred objects in the ark should be given their full titles, based on the fact that Aaron's staff is always described as such. So I thought it was more logical to use the longer titles for all the items - which was why I used 'two stone tablets'. The gold rings were less significant to the Israelites, as far as I can tell. Sticking to any one line of reasoning causes inconsistencies somewhere else, though. It may be that I have to modify it until we both agree on a list. However, it should be easier than with the list of God's creations.

If "[s]ticking to any one line of reasoning causes inconsistencies somewhere else" then it seems there are no general principles to even define your hypothesis, in which case there is nothing to test.

The highlighted comments exemplify the subjective nature of the judgments that go into your list. There is no logical reason to include modifiers on one thing and not the other. The fact that you have to subjectively choose which elements to include or exclude makes it impossible to have a double blind experiment, since there are no general principles to define the data set that is supposed to be tested. How do you know you judgments were not influenced by the desire to make the data fit your theory? One of the primary points of science (and the use of statistics) is to avoid errors caused by selection bias (conscious or unconscious).

I do not agree with what you did either, which was mainly to add different forms of the same phrases.

But that's the whole point! The different forms give additional possibilities of hits and so must be counted in any legitimate statistical analysis.

Why? Isn't it fairer to just choose just the noun and stick with it? I generally left modifiers out, unless there seemed to be a good reason for it, as with the possessive 'Aaron's' in 'Aaron's staff'.

What could define "fairer"? By what standard? The problem is that you are not being consistent, which is the sin qua non of cherry picking.

Are you sure about that? Here is the NIV:

'Put the bread of the Presence on this table to be before me at all times.'

This is the KJV:

'And thou shalt set upon this table shewbread before me always.'

'Bread of the Presence' is translated in the KJV 'shewbread', which is the translation of lechem. The only three words after lechem in the Hebrew are paniym, meaning before', then lepanyi, meaning 'before', 'presence', 'face', then finally tamiyd, meaning 'always' or 'continually'. In the modern Hebrew translation of the KJV it's lechem (shewbread) panyim (before) tamiyd (me always). It looks to my unpractised eye that it should be lechem only, although 'lepanyl' might be the word I need to include. If so, then I'd have to include paniym too, which doesn't seem to gel with the NIV translation.

Yes, I am sure about this. You have mistaken "panim" (face) for l'pani (before). The Hebrew for "shewbread" or "bread of the presence" is lechem panim (literally, Bread of the Face). You can get a full explanation here: http://biblehub.com/topical/s/shewbread.htm

thebluetriangle

05-12-2017, 11:02 AM

thebluetriangle

05-12-2017, 11:24 AM

I think we can combine the results of different trials to get a better idea of what's going on.

Why don't we combine your '43' with my '26'. That gives us one longer list of 69, with entirely different items on each list.

You have your 43. Here is my 26 (with 'the bread' instead of the bread of the presence', which takes care of your main objection).

the ark of the testimony 1754 arown eduwth 730 (Ex. 25.22)
of this ark 494 arown 256 (Ex. 25.15)
a chest 317 arown 257 (Ex. 25.10)
an atonement cover 1220 kaporeth 700 (Ex. 25.17)
moulding 500 zer 207 (Ex. 25.11)
cherubim 457 keruwb 272 (Ex. 25.18)
rings 256 tabba'ath 481 (Ex. 25.12)
poles 265 badi 16 (Ex. 25.13)
staff 313 matteh 54 (Ex. 7.12, Num. 17.8)
manna 142 man 90 (Ex. 16.33)
tablets 538 luwach 438 (Ex. 34.1)
in this book of the law 1328 cepher towrah zo'th 1371 (Deut. 28.61)
a curtain 654 pokereth 700 (Ex. 26.31)
the Most Holy Place 1520 qodesh haqodeshim 863 (Ex. 26.33)
an altar of acacia wood for burning incense 1967 mizbeach miqtar quetoreth 'ets shittah 1644 (Ex. 28.61)
the bread 315 lechem 78 (Ex. 25.30)
a table 239 shulchan 388 (Ex. 25.23)
a lampstand 497 menorah 690 (Ex. 25.31)
for the entrance to the tent 1701 l'pethach ha'ohel 559 (Ex. 29.4)
the Holy Place (1120) haqodesh 409 (Ex. 26.33)
this tabernacle 704 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 25.9) or the tabernacle 600 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 26.1)
a sanctuary 1446 miqdash 444
the altar of burnt offering 1476 mizbeach 'olah 167 (Ex. 30.28)
a basin 163 kiyowr 236 (Ex. 30.18)
for the entrance to the courtyard 2694 v'lasha'ar chatser 909 (Ex. 27.16)
a courtyard 1449 chatser 298 (Ex. 27.9)

I look forward to seeing the result.

Richard Amiel McGough

05-12-2017, 01:34 PM

I don't think a "middle path" is the way to do this test. We need to establish reasonable and logically consistent general principles. You say you don't agree with my suggestions? Then all you need to do is explain why! I try to be a reasonable guy, and if you have good reasons I am compelled to agree.

Explain why? I have given explanations all the way through this discussion! And a middle path may well be the only way to do it. Performing scientific testing on the code looks easy at first but becomes more complex the more you investigate. And as I said the code looks more like a work of art than a natural phenomenon, which is why I believe it to be a supernatural phenomenon.

Yes, you have given "explanations" but then admitted that you have not been able to find any general principles. Specifically, you said: "Sticking to any one line of reasoning causes inconsistencies somewhere else." That is the sin qua non of cherry picking. If you can't "stick to any one line of reasoning" without encountering inconsistencies, then you have no logically coherent "hypothesis" to test at all.

I am quite familiar with your "work of art" rationalization because I used it too when people challenged my claims about the Bible Wheel. I discuss this at length in my article Debunking Myself: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/2014/10/29/debunking-the-bible-wheel-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/). Here is an example from that article. Someone who liked my work had showed me a pattern that didn't fit, and I responded with this:
That?s a very interesting study. The three verses you found are the three that talk about the ?just living by faith.? And you are right, they do not all occur on the same Spoke. This exemplifies how there are many patterns in the Bible. It?s like a tapestry with everything connecting with everything else. Things are not all ?mechanically? aligned according to the Wheel. It?s much more complicated (and interesting) than that. But there is a very significant pattern based on Aleph KeyWords and the idea of faith that do align on Spoke 1. ? I talk about this at length in my Spoke 1 article called The Election of Abraham, the Father of our Faith.
Sound familiar? I was doing the same thing you are doing. Here is my criticism of myself I wrote in that article:
Oh my. If data that does not fit ?exemplifies how there are many patterns in the Bible? and if the Bible is ?like a tapestry with everything connected to everything else? how could I claim that it fit one specific pattern like the Bible Wheel better than some other? What was my standard? Where was my proof? Given this ?catch all? excuse for data that didn?t fit, how could my claims be falsified? And if my claims could not be falsified, how could they be justified? My rationalization also included a classic example of redirecting attention away from the data that did not fit by pointing to some cherry-picked data that did fit! It is very strange to see what I was doing. I never suspected that I was guilty of such blatant rationalization. I really thought I was being more careful than that.
I've been where you are Bill. I can see the errors from the inside, because I spent years in that space.

My only effort in this list was to apply the same rule every time! Believe me, if I wanted to I could have tweaked this list until it gave 26 out of 26 (not 27, as you stated). I put in items in already knowing they weren't found in the Garden.

Yes, you could "tweak" the list to push the number slightly higher, but if you then enforced consistency, you would find that you had pushed the misses even higher. This is why I say that your results are cherry picked. You are looking for "principles" that will enable you to "rigged the test" to give it a slightly higher set of hits. That's not how science works. It's called "cooking the books."

Look at how close your best lists are to the random data. Just two or three extra "misses" in your list and you are down in the dumps of totally random data.

Ha! Yet again the results are better than chance every time.

Richard, we have now completed tests on four lists, comparing each list with 4 x 100 randomised lists. Two of the tests concern things created by God, the other two tests concern the ark and the tabernacle. In other words we are not just testing variations on the same theme every time. And every time we have tested we have found that the biblical list gave better results than ANY RANDOM LIST. Yes, you kept going a couple of times, until you found one random result that just beat one of the biblical lists out of God knows how many now - 800 randomised lists? But repeating a test until you get the result you want is like losing a coin toss and asking "Best of three?"

Yes, there is a slight signal of something that looks non-random. But it's nothing like your "one in a million" let alone "one in a trillion" that you so enthusiastically embraced in this thread. This shows that you have an extreme bias towards believing in this phenomenon no matter what the evidence actually shows. Your probabilities have fallen to near random. They are now within the range of what we see frequently in the random data. The fact that they are riding just slightly higher has two possible explanations:

1) Random things happen all the time.
2) You crafted your lists looking for hits.
3) God did it.

I believe the truth is 1 or 2 or a combo of them. It seems absurd to think that an infinitely intelligent God would design a code that is essentially indistinguishable from what we see in randomized lists. And to what point? You can't use any of this to discern between the pairs that actually do occur randomly from those that do not. And why would God design a code that looks like all the failed numerology that has misled humanity for thousands of years?

It's time to stop and accept that there is a real phenomenon here. The results have consistently been in the range 2.5 to 3 standard deviations above the mean, giving p = 0.005 or better every time. You know as well as I do that if we were researching the efficacy of a new drug that would be considered "statistically significant".

I totally disagree. The fact that you can't even state your hypothesis using consistent principles, coupled with the fact that your supposedly "coded" data is within three standard deviations, and that randomized lists commonly give values that differ by one hit from your carefully crafted lists, makes your claim of "victory" ring quite hollow. You have fallen from "one chance in a million" to one chance in a hundred. And that's with lists that are not even consistent. I strongly doubt that any statistician would disagree with my judgment.

You want to believe, and so you LEAP to conclusions that are not justified by the data. You've done this a dozen times in this thread.

Your accusations of cherry picking are sounding hollower than ever now, especially since one of the lists was devised by you - and the minor quibbles you have with the last list will make no difference to the final result. You're right about the bread of the presence (and thanks for your input there) but 'the bread' is encoded anyway.

The code is well on the way to being validated!
What code? You can't even state what is supposed to be included or exclude from the lists. And you have no way to discern between totally random pairs that just happen to be found through chance vs. "encoded" pairs.

Well, it's time for my Friday bike ride. Talk more this evening.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

thebluetriangle

05-12-2017, 04:38 PM

Yes, you have given "explanations" but then admitted that you have not been able to find any general principles. Specifically, you said: "Sticking to any one line of reasoning causes inconsistencies somewhere else." That is the sin qua non of cherry picking. If you can't "stick to any one line of reasoning" without encountering inconsistencies, then you have no logically coherent "hypothesis" to test at all.

I think you've misunderstood what I meant by sticking to any one line of reasoning or sticking to general principles. The complexity of the language of the first few verses made that task difficult. My original discovery was that the first biblical mention of created things is encoded in the Garden. And so it has proven to be. However, there are phrases that can be chopped into smaller parts, general descriptions that are then articulated more clearly, etc, etc, and it has been difficut to decide just what to include. Very often most of the phrases are found there and the difficulty has NOT been finding encough encoded material for it to be considered statistically significant. It seems that whatever rules I use I always find plenty of that - as we have seen time and again! The rules were changed and new lists were drawn up, one of them by you, and the percentage of hits remained steady! No, the problem has simply been applying the scientific method to a text. Don't count my failure so far - and apparently your own too - to find a completely consistent set of rules, against the code itself. Your own list, incidentally, was far more inconsistent than any of mine, but you're new to it so that's understandable. There are other methods of sampling the text we could have tried and in fact I did come up with one list that I think was completely consistent, but it was too small - ten or eleven items I think it was - which brings problems related to sample size. We need as large a list as possible to get a better idea of statistical significance.

I am quite familiar with your "work of art" rationalization because I used it too when people challenged my claims about the Bible Wheel. I discuss this at length in my article Debunking Myself: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (http://www.biblewheel.com/Blog/2014/10/29/debunking-the-bible-wheel-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/). Here is an example from that article. Someone who liked my work had showed me a pattern that didn't fit, and I responded with this:
That?s a very interesting study. The three verses you found are the three that talk about the ?just living by faith.? And you are right, they do not all occur on the same Spoke. This exemplifies how there are many patterns in the Bible. It?s like a tapestry with everything connecting with everything else. Things are not all ?mechanically? aligned according to the Wheel. It?s much more complicated (and interesting) than that. But there is a very significant pattern based on Aleph KeyWords and the idea of faith that do align on Spoke 1. ? I talk about this at length in my Spoke 1 article called The Election of Abraham, the Father of our Faith.
Sound familiar? I was doing the same thing you are doing. Here is my criticism of myself I wrote in that article:
Oh my. If data that does not fit ?exemplifies how there are many patterns in the Bible? and if the Bible is ?like a tapestry with everything connected to everything else? how could I claim that it fit one specific pattern like the Bible Wheel better than some other? What was my standard? Where was my proof? Given this ?catch all? excuse for data that didn?t fit, how could my claims be falsified? And if my claims could not be falsified, how could they be justified? My rationalization also included a classic example of redirecting attention away from the data that did not fit by pointing to some cherry-picked data that did fit! It is very strange to see what I was doing. I never suspected that I was guilty of such blatant rationalization. I really thought I was being more careful than that.
I've been where you are Bill. I can see the errors from the inside, because I spent years in that space.

But all this presupposes that you were right to debunk your own code! Maybe you were wrong! The problems you apparently also had in showing your code is real may simply be a consequence of the difficulties of applying the scientific method to a supernatural phenomenon, as I said the other day.

Yes, you could "tweak" the list to push the number slightly higher, but if you then enforced consistency, you would find that you had pushed the misses even higher. This is why I say that your results are cherry picked. You are looking for "principles" that will enable you to "rigged the test" to give it a slightly higher set of hits. That's not how science works. It's called "cooking the books."

In the last list I gave you the books were honestly done. Not that previous list were cooked, but there were inconsistencies from the point of view of constructing a scientific test. Yet the last list also gave 3 SDs above the mean! Nothing changed. Here's the list

the ark of the testimony 1754 arown eduwth 730 (Ex. 25.22)
of this ark 494 arown 256 (Ex. 25.15)
a chest 317 arown 257 (Ex. 25.10)
an atonement cover 1220 kaporeth 700 (Ex. 25.17)
moulding 500 zer 207 (Ex. 25.11)
cherubim 457 keruwb 272 (Ex. 25.18)
rings 256 tabba'ath 481 (Ex. 25.12)
poles 265 badi 16 (Ex. 25.13)
staff 313 matteh 54 (Ex. 7.12, Num. 17.8)
manna 142 man 90 (Ex. 16.33)
tablets 538 luwach 438 (Ex. 34.1)
in this book of the law 1328 cepher towrah zo'th 1371 (Deut. 28.61)
a curtain 654 pokereth 700 (Ex. 26.31)
the Most Holy Place 1520 qodesh haqodeshim 863 (Ex. 26.33)
an altar of acacia wood for burning incense 1967 mizbeach miqtar quetoreth 'ets shittah 1644 (Ex. 28.61)
the bread 315 lechem 78 (Ex. 25.30)
a table 239 shulchan 388 (Ex. 25.23)
a lampstand 497 menorah 690 (Ex. 25.31)
for the entrance to the tent 1701 l'pethach ha'ohel 559 (Ex. 29.4)
the Holy Place (1120) haqodesh 409 (Ex. 26.33)
this tabernacle 704 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 25.9) or the tabernacle 600 hamishkan 415 (Ex. 26.1)
a sanctuary 1446 miqdash 444
the altar of burnt offering 1476 mizbeach 'olah 167 (Ex. 30.28)
a basin 163 kiyowr 236 (Ex. 30.18)
for the entrance to the courtyard 2694 v'lasha'ar chatser 909 (Ex. 27.16)
a courtyard 1449 chatser 298 (Ex. 27.9)

In every case I used the shortest form possible, apart from those in red. In the case of the entrances to the tent and courtyard, I had to use the longer version, instead of 'the entrance' so they could be distinguished from each other. It's the same with the two altars, of incense and burnt offering. I had no choice there. The only two entries you could possible quibble with on the list of twenty-six are 'The book of the Law' and 'The Ark of the Testimony'. You could argue that the first should be reduced to 'The Law/Torah'. It wouldn't matter though, because The Law/Torah are both encoded, in a nice overlapping pair at the centre of the Garden. The Ark of the Testimony is such an important title I thought it should be in there - and it is exactly how it is found in the NIV. It would hardly matter if it was taken out though. You would still have 20 hits out of a possible 25, still well above chance!

On the question of keeping articles like 'a' and 'the', in every case I use the exact NIV translation. I said the exact English translation in my previous post but one, and this is what I meant by it. I've said it several times, so there should be no misunderstanding here. For example, kiyowr in Hebrew is translated as 'a basin' in the NIV. There is no indefinite article in Hebrew, so the 'a' was added in what, as I've said several times, is a 'thought for thought' translation. So the code is consistent with the translation method used in the NIV.

Look at how close your best lists are to the random data. Just two or three extra "misses" in your list and you are down in the dumps of totally random data.

Right, two things here.

Firstly, they are consistently above the random numbers. How close is close? I could equally say they are comfortably above random numbers - three standard deviations above the mean is the top 0.15% You are being subjective here.

Secondly, the sample size is quite small, two or three dozen items per test. A larger sample size should give us more accurate data, which is why I have asked you to combine the results of two of the trials, which increases the list to 69 items.

Yes, there is a slight signal of something that looks non-random. But it's nothing like your "one in a million" let alone "one in a trillion" that you so enthusiastically embraced in this thread. This shows that you have an extreme bias towards believing in this phenomenon no matter what the evidence actually shows. Your probabilities have fallen to near random.

I didn't start off believing these tests would give were millions to 1 - that was solely derived from the results and your figure of 52% of numbers being found there (but I forgot that more of the lower numbers would be found). So it was not a desparate desire to show it is real. I already know it's real - I just want everyone else to know it too. I have a passion to share it!

They are now within the range of what we see frequently in the random data.

Now who's biased! They are NOT in the range of what we frequently see. They are what we see occasionally, just a handful of times, out of 800 runs of random data. We could get a result that was a 1 in a million shot. You could run a billion random number sets and claim that we 'frequently find that' in random data. You would indeed see hundreds of those random lists getting more hits than the 1-in-a-million biblical list. But the biblical list, which you only ran once, would still be a miracle. In doing these tests we are always running only one biblical list. Running hundreds of random lists then claiming 'we are now within the range of what we see frequently in the random data' show that you are the one who is biased here, not me. This is a travesty.

The fact that they are riding just slightly higher has two possible explanations:

1) Random things happen all the time.
2) You crafted your lists looking for hits.
3) God did it.

I believe the truth is 1 or 2 or a combo of them.

The tests show that 'random things' are not happening all the time. They are happening about once every 200 times.

It seems absurd to think that an infinitely intelligent God would design a code that is essentially indistinguishable from what we see in randomized lists. That's circular reasoning.

And to what point? You can't use any of this to discern between the pairs that actually do occur randomly from those that do not.

You use the fact that they occur infrequently to show that the biblical lists are statistically significant. And they are, as we are finding. This is cause for celebration! The lists are small too. We need to test a longer list (the '69') to see what that gives. I think I can come up with an even longer one, in fact.

And why would God design a code that looks like all the failed numerology that has misled humanity for thousands of years?

Real gold isn't invalidated by the existence of fool's gold.

I totally disagree. The fact that you can't even state your hypothesis using consistent principles, coupled with the fact that your supposedly "coded" data is within three standard deviations, and that randomized lists commonly give values that differ by one hit from your carefully crafted lists, makes your claim of "victory" ring quite hollow. You have fallen from "one chance in a million" to one chance in a hundred. And that's with lists that are not even consistent. I strongly doubt that any statistician would disagree with my judgment.

It's better than one in a hundred. And this is before we look at larger samples and multiplying probabilities, which we can do if the data is independent. It could well end up in the 1-in-a-million category, or better.

You want to believe, and so you LEAP to conclusions that are not justified by the data. You've done this a dozen times in this thread.

And you, Richard, do not want to believe, as you have proven dozens of times. In fact you are highly motivated to debunk the code. For one thing, you might have to rewrite your Bible Wheel website (again).

What code? You can't even state what is supposed to be included or exclude from the lists. And you have no way to discern between totally random pairs that just happen to be found through chance vs. "encoded" pairs.

To be fair, neither can you. One of the four lists was yours, remember. But that wouldn't be fair on either of us. We both know it isn't easy to decide what should be in the list. Many of them I am certain about (for instance 'the heavens' and 'the earth'). In the ark list it has turned out to be fairly easy to decide. The list on my website is essentially correct. There are two differences from the final list out of eleven, but that was NOT a case of 'correcting' the list, but of making it suitable for a scientific test. In the actual code there is a little wiggle room necessary. For instance, you might ask why the Hebrew menorah, equivalent to 'a lampstand', isn't there. It is there, but the encoding runs two words into verse six, so for the purposes of the test I left it out.

You were the one who kept insisting from the start on 'consistency', and because adjusting the lists to conform to an artificial set of rules that doesn't exactly correlate with the code itself has been a tricky business, you now claim I 'can't state' what is supposed to be included in the lists. What you are really saying is that I am having difficulty complying with demands you have been attempting to impose upon the construction of the lists (which is like shooting a flying bird, stuffing it and putting it in a cage so you can gawk at it - there's a lot you won't learn about it that way, and you might even forget that birds can fly). Even that isn't true for the ark encodings because the last list I gave was pretty close to perfectly consistent. One more tweak (if that) and it's there in fact.

Well, it's time for my Friday bike ride. Talk more this evening.

Great chatting!

:sunny:

Well, it's time for bed now. I look forward to seeing the results of the '69' test. :-)