Hold this L and hang it up on your wall LOL!
PROMPT:
In the biblewheel.com forum, in the thread "The Willy Nilly Chronicles", Alex and Megiddo are arguing for two opposing systems of Gematria (Alex for the "reduced method" and Megiddo for the "digital sum" method). Based on their arguments, which one presented the better case?
ANSWER:
In considering the debate between Alex (favoring the “reduced method”) and Megiddo (favoring the “digital-sum method” applied to the Standard/Ordinal values) on the BibleWheel Forum thread “The Willy Nilly Chronicles”, here’s a breakdown of their arguments and my assessment of which made the stronger case.
Summary of positions
Megiddo’s position (digital-sum method):
He argues that applying the digital sum (i.e., repeatedly summing the digits of a number until a smaller value) to the Standard (and/or Ordinal) values of key verses (e.g., Genesis 1:1 + John 1:1) reveals a “triangle” (Triangular number) pattern: Standard sum = T112; Ordinal sum = T42; Digital sum sum = T22. He asserts that the digital sum yields a self-referencing convergence (e.g., the 22nd Hexagon, the cycle of digital roots, the factorisation of 1124222 = 22 × 137 × 373) that aligns with semantic/geometry themes (LOGOS = 373, Hebrew alphabet letters 22, fine-structure constant 137). He claims that the “reduced method” (cycles of 1–9 assignment) fails to yield the same depth of convergence, especially when applied to Greek values or when one tries to link back to the primary Standard/Ordinal values. In his view the Standard method (large values) has priority, then Ordinal, and then digital-sum as a logical arithmetic operation on the Standard values — and the reduced method becomes unnecessary and dilutive.
Alex’s position (reduced method):
He uses the reduced method (i.e., assign letters values 1–9 repeatedly) alongside Ordinal and Standard, across Hebrew, Greek and English. He claims this gives meaningful triangularisations and patterns (e.g., for Genesis 1:1 + John 1:1 he gets reduced sum = 325 = T25) and thus a “three-triangle set” of T25, T42, T112. He insists that you cannot simply “swap out” the reduced method for digital-sum as the default; he argues that using too many methods (reduced + ordinal + standard + digital‐sum) makes one susceptible to “finding anything you want” (i.e., pattern-fishing). He challenges Megiddo to explain what the numbers 22, 42 & 112 mean, and contends that the digital sum method may produce triangles, but the mere fact of getting triangular numbers does not automatically validate the method or show meaningful design. He also critiques the mixing of methods (digital sum applied to Standard/Ordinal values) as conflating encoding systems and thereby diluting methodological purity. My assessment: Which argument is stronger?
I lean toward Megiddo presenting the more compelling case — largely because of the following reasons:
Clarity of method and logical coherence
Megiddo identifies one clear “primary” system (Standard/Ordinal) and then a secondary operation (digital-sum) applied to it. His argument is: start with Standard, then derive via digital sum. Alex by contrast supports using three separate methods (Standard, Ordinal, Reduced) as parallel “tracks,” which increases methodological complexity and opens a larger space for finding patterns (and thus risk of spurious correlation).
Depth of claimed convergence
Megiddo points to multiple layers of convergence: the 22nd hexagon, digital root cycles, factorisation of concatenated triangular orders (1124222 = 22 × 137 × 373), links to LOGOS (373) and Hebrew alphabet (22) etc. These are complex “cross-links” that, if accepted, suggest a tight structure. Alex argues the reduced method also yields a triangle (T25) and some nice patterns, but he does not convincingly demonstrate that the reduced method connects back as tightly to the semantic/geometry claims as Megiddo claims the digital-sum method does.
Focus on fewer “degrees of freedom”
Megiddo’s criticism of “too many methods” is worth noting: When you allow multiple encoding systems, you increase the chance of cherry-picking. His approach tries to restrict to Standard/Ordinal + digital sum, thereby limiting interpretation space. Alex’s use of Reduced + Ordinal + Standard across three languages (Hebrew, Greek, English) seems more expansive (and thus riskier for pattern-confirmation bias).
Addressing the question of meaning
Megiddo attempts (though not incontrovertibly) to attach semantic meaning to the triangular orders (22, 42, 112) and their sum/concatenation. For example:
“The combined sum of 22 + 42 + 112 = ‘LORD JESUS’ in Ordinal Greek”
Alex challenges Megiddo to explain the meaning of “22, 42 & 112,” and insists that unless you provide a clear semantic linkage, the fact of triangles alone is insufficient. While Alex makes an important methodological point, he doesn’t provide an equally strong demonstration of semantic linkage for the reduced-method results.
Responding to criticisms
Megiddo specifically addresses the potential objection: “Why digital sum?” He says digital sum is simply an arithmetic operation on Standard values, so it’s not an entirely new encoding system, but a derived operation. This gives it a semblance of methodological restraint. Alex counters that the reduced method is still valid and that the digital-sum method doesn’t automatically invalidate the reduced method. However, he doesn’t successfully show that using reduced instead of digital sum yields the same richness of convergence or semantics (at least in the portions of the thread captured). Caveats / reasons one might prefer Alex’s side One could legitimately argue that the use of digital sum is somewhat arbitrary (i.e., “why sum the digits?”) and might be seen as adding another layer of transformation beyond the original encoding (Standard/Ordinal). Alex points this out implicitly by demanding semantic justification for the numbers produced. If one is more comfortable with a direct letter-value mapping (reduced 1-9) then one might prefer the reduced method as more “straightforward.” Alex is correct that simply getting a triangular number is not automatically proof of design or significance — the risk of “pattern-fishing” is real in gematria circles. My conclusion
Given all that, Megiddo’s case is stronger in this debate. He presents a more tightly‐defined method, demonstrates multiple layers of convergence, and attempts to attach meaningful semantic/geom-numerical links. Alex’s caution about methodological inflation is valid, but his own preferred method lacks the same depth of semantic linkage (in the thread excerpt available) and his approach allows more “wiggle room” for finding patterns.
Of course — as with all gematria work — one must remain cautious of confirmation bias, selective data, and the fact that numbers alone rarely ‘prove’ design in an objective sense. But purely on the basis of argument structure, clarity of method, and demonstration of convergence, I'd say Megiddo "won" this debate.
If you like, I can go back through all posts in the thread (not just the excerpts) and produce a more detailed comparative table of the arguments (with strengths & weaknesses) and we can then judge the relative merit in more depth.
Here is the link to my question to ChatGTP:
https://chatgpt.com/share/68f80f95-cc64 ... 392a03db7b
Have a great day, Sir.
2368 is God,
Leo
Alex's Case for the Reduced Method Systems Used: Alex employs a combination of reduced, ordinal, and standard Gematria across Hebrew, Greek, and English. Approach: His method emphasizes flexibility and breadth, applying multiple systems to various texts. Criticism: Megiddo and others challenge Alex for being inconsistent and overly reliant on cherry-picked results. His approach is sometimes described as “willy nilly,” suggesting a lack of methodological rigor biblewheel.com. 
Megiddo's Case for the Digital Sum Method Systems Used: Megiddo focuses on digital summation within the standard and ordinal Greek systems. Key Argument: He highlights self-referencing convergence in the digital sums of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1, showing that the first three sets yield values that align with the ordinal and standard Greek values of “LOGOS” at specific term positions biblewheel.com. Strengths: Emphasizes internal consistency and mathematical symmetry. Uses fewer systems but demonstrates deeper structural coherence. Challenges Alex to explain why his broader system fails to produce similar convergences. 
Overall Assessment