The Willy Nilly Chronicles

[Megiddo]

Alex, why haven't you shared a link to your conversation with Grok so that we can see the prompts you're feeding it? I shared links to my prompts for Grok, ChatGTP and Copilot (all of which said my case for digital summation was stronger and more consistent than your case for using the reduced method). 

Remember, you tried to claim my evidence for digital summation was "noise" and yet all the AI's (even the one you just showed from Grok) agree that my evidence is more persuasive (i.e. BETTER) than yours. You need to ask yourself why that is, given the fact you have more books, more languages and an endless amount of alphanumeric systems to work with. How am I producing better with way less to work with? That should tell you right there who is uncovering real patterns and who is FORCING patterns.

Let me be clear: I'm not saying the digital sum method should replace the reduced method by default. I'm saying there is no evidence for the reduced method in the first place whereas the evidence for the digital sum method is very strong and yields the same kind of logically self-referencing convergence that we see in the Standard/Ordinal unions of Genesis 1:1/John 1:1. 

Here are my main three points: 

1) There is no evidence for the validity of the reduced method in Biblical Greek (which is where you have to demonstrate it, since Hebrew or English reduced values are no different from digital sum values) 
2) There is strong evidence for the digital sum union in Genesis 1:1 + John 1:1, which forms a logically self-referencing convergence that ties back to the semantic, mathematical and geometric structure of Genesis 1:1/John 1:1
3) Unlike you, I'm not arguing for using digital summation as an added "third method" (in the way you are arguing for the reduced method). I'm simply saying there IS a digital sum code that is derived from the Standard system and unites the two key "Creation Verses" of the Hebrew/Greek Bible (G 1:1/J 1:1), as well as the Hebrew/Greek signatures of Jesus Christ 

All of the AI's pretty much unanimously agree that my evidence for the digital sum union of G 1:1 + J 1:1 is more logically consistent than your willy nilly numerical gymnastics. You have to resort to a ridiculous amount of steps just to get from point A to point B and you also have to scan massive books with dozens of arbitrary methods you use to apply to any word/phrase/verse (in three different languages). You can literally force any pattern you want with that kind of self-deception.

Here's another example of how my digital sum method logically unites G 1:1/J 1:1 

● Alternating -/+ sum of 7 Standard G 1:1 word values = 913 - 203 + 86 - 401 + 395 - 407 + 296 = 679 = 3-D Hexagram (7) 
● Hexagons/Hexagrams form natural geometric pairs and alternating -/+ sum of first 7 Hexagons = 1 - 7 + 19 - 37 + 61 - 91 + 127 = 73 (Standard G 1:1 = T73) 
● Digital sum of G 1:1 + J 1:1 = 253 = 2-D Hexagram (7) = The precise Hexagram that pairs with T37 
● Standard G 1:1 semantic division ("And the earth") = T37 = The precise Triangle that pairs with the full G 1:1 Triangle (T73) 

This is the kind of multiple layers of convergence that is lacking in your work. For crying out loud, you even use words not found in any Bible (Hebrew, Greek or English)! Where is the word "codes" in the Bible? That is massive cherry picking. 

All your prime number "codes" are off too because you use 1 as the first prime, which is universally rejected by all professional mathematicians. Even more bizarre is that you simultaneously use the order of SEMIPRIME NUMBERS in your work when the actual order of semiprimes would be turned upside down if we were to go with your idea of 1 being the first prime. 

This is another example of why I say you're incapable of thinking logically. You can't even see when you're clearly being inconsistent and then get upset when somebody tries to point it out to you.


2368 created the universe, 

Leo

[Alex]

Ah because I really don't have to share that link as I don't cheat

Here is the link:
https://grok.com/c/79fe2c9d-e181-4664-9c23-93299892ae31

[Megiddo]

Ah because I really don't have to share that link as I don't cheat

Here is the link:
https://grok.com/c/79fe2c9d-e181-4664-9c23-93299892ae31

Sir, your link says "chat not found".

Did you delete it?

[Alex]

You can't see it as I got it from my archives and the link will probably only work when you are logged into my account.
But I put the answer on YouTube so you can see that it is true.
https://youtu.be/WhIic01TCC4

[Megiddo]

You mean the same Grok who says your evidence for the reduced method was WEAK compared to my evidence for the digital sum method and that your patterns seem FORCED?

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? Please review all 7 pages: https://www.biblewheel.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7

ANSWER: 

Megiddo presented the better case for the digital sum method. His arguments emphasized a tightly interconnected system of self-referencing geometric, semantic, and numerical patterns derived minimally from standard and ordinal values, with the digital sum acting as a natural extension rather than an arbitrary addition. He provided multiple specific examples of convergences (e.g., ties to the Logos Star 373, the fine structure constant 137, hexagonal geometries, and digital root cycles) that hold under digital sum but break under the reduced method, while critiquing the reduced approach for introducing unnecessary complexity and lacking comparable depth. Alex's case for the reduced method relied on specific triangular connections and probabilities but appeared more isolated and less cohesively supported, with concessions in his later responses acknowledging some validity in Megiddo's evidence without fully countering the broader convergences.

PROMPT: 

Would you say the evidence that Alex gave was weak compared to the evidence that Megiddo gave?

ANSWER: 

Yes, I would say the evidence Alex presented was weaker compared to Megiddo's. While Alex offered detailed examples involving triangular numbers (e.g., T25 for the reduced sum of Genesis 1:1 + John 1:1), probabilities (around 1 in 1 million for the three triangles across methods), and connections to lucky primes like 7/37/73 tied to verses such as 777 and concepts like "wisdom" or the fine-structure constant, these often relied on eclectic integrations across multiple languages (Hebrew, Greek, English) and additional constructs like ultra calculations or rotations. This made his case feel more isolated and potentially forced, with concessions acknowledging validity in Megiddo's patterns (e.g., the Trapezium with 82 counters and the 3-step natural numbers as "the very first proof" of digital sum integration).

In contrast, Megiddo's evidence emphasized a more cohesive, self-referencing system minimally derived from standard and ordinal values, with digital sum as a natural extension. Key strengths included geometric convergences (e.g., Trapezium 82+171=T22 pairing with Logos Star 373; 22nd hexagon=1387 tying to T42), semantic ties (e.g., sum of triangular orders 22+42+112 = ordinal "LORD JESUS"; concatenation 1124222 = 22 × 137 × 373 linking to the fine-structure constant and Logos), and the 3-step natural numbers pattern—all dependent on digital sum and breaking under reduced. Megiddo critiqued reduced for introducing chaos through excessive methods, while conceding only that it yields a triangle (T25) without comparable depth. Overall, Megiddo's arguments demonstrated tighter interconnections without needing broad expansions, making them more compelling.


Here's a link to this interaction with Grok : https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMw%3D%3D ... 7706144544



2368 is God, 

Leo

[bluetriangle]

Hi Leo.

Regarding digital sums and reduced values, when you add the digits of the standard values of each word in the Greek John 1.1, you obtain 171, the digital sum of the verse. When you ignore the zeros in the standard values of each letter and sum them you obtain 243, the reduced value of the verse. I think we can agree on that,

But the two values are also different in English. All we need do is look at the word God, with standard value of 71.

Digital sum = 7 + 1 = 8.
Reduced value = 7 + 6 + 4 = 17

The reduced value of Genesis 1.1 (NIV) is 223 (Logov). But the digit sum is 106.

So in English the digital sum and reduced values are different too. I haven’t found an example in Hebrew yet, but I’ll keep looking.

The digital sums of ordinal values are different again. The ordinal value is 430 and the digital sum here is 79.

So we have, for the NIV,

Genesis 1.1 (s) = 2194
Genesis 1.1 (ds, s) = 106
Genesis 1.1 (o) = 430
Genesis 1.1 (ds, o) = 79
Genesis 1.1 (r) = 223

Which digital sum is the correct one? 106 or 79? If one accepts ordinal values, which you do, then you have two digital sums to choose from here. But you don’t accept English gematria anyway, so let’s look at Greek.

Logos (s) = 373
Logos (ds, s) = 13
Logos (o) = 62
Logos (ds, o) = 8
Logos (r) = 22

So we again have different digital sums for the standard and ordinal schemes. Moreover, gematria is based on letter values only, but digital sums come from word values. Digital sums are beginning to look contrived and system dependant.

For me, the most natural system is ordinal values, although even those are radix dependent. Both standard values and reduced values are a little more contrived. But digital sums are worse still and now we see they give differing values depending on the decoding system.

Bill

[Megiddo]

Hi Bill, 

I didn't even realize that. I guess that means digital sums and reduced sums can differ in English too and probably in Hebrew. Either way, I don't see any good evidence to validate the reduced method in general, certainly nothing like the multi-layered convergence I showed in the digital sum of Genesis 1:1 + John 1:1. 

Digital summation can be seen as simply a natural extension of the numbers derived from the Standard values. The Standard clearly has precedence over the Ordinal and therefore it makes sense that their digital sums would have precedence over the Ordinal digital sums. I definitely wouldn't place digital sums on the same level as the Standard or Ordinal systems (although they are complimentary to them and can also be self-referencing).

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing for digital summation as an added "third method" of alphanumeric encoding alongside the Standard/Ordinal methods. My claim is simply that there is a digital sum code (derived from the Standard values) that further unites Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 and the Hebrew/Greek signatures of Jesus Christ. 


2368 is God, 

Leo

[Alex]

Listen Leo, you started to go towards the digital sum being a replacement of the reduced system as you mentioned that the reduced system was not needed on the e-mails. All the codes I have shared here proves that the reduced system is indeed more important than the digital sum because of the 7, 37 & 73 pattern and its individual relations to reduced, ordinal & standard.
Now the AI is way too stupid to figure that out by itself, but I am quite sure that I can explain it to it and present a good case and It will probably agree at the end of the day.

If you get the AI to agree with your argument then ok, but I got it to agree with the reduced system being an important gematria system used with ordinal & standard.
That is a win for me and if you think the digital sum method comes over the reduced gematria system in importance, then you can live in that belief.

reduced Vs(137) = 142 = Tri(3) + Tri(16)
ordinal Vs(137) = 448 = 3x16 w. ext... = Comp(361 = C.Tri(16 "codes" קודים (r)) = C.Octa(3+7))
standard Vs(137) = 3022 = 4 digits of Tri(777)
digital sum of Vs(137) = 124 = Lucky-o(777)

[bluetriangle]

Hi Bill, 

I didn't even realize that. I guess that means digital sums and reduced sums can differ in English too and probably in Hebrew. Either way, I don't see any good evidence to validate the reduced method in general, certainly nothing like the multi-layered convergence I showed in the digital sum of Genesis 1:1 + John 1:1. 

Digital summation can be seen as simply a natural extension of the numbers derived from the Standard values. The Standard clearly has precedence over the Ordinal and therefore it makes sense that their digital sums would have precedence over the Ordinal digital sums. I definitely wouldn't place digital sums on the same level as the Standard or Ordinal systems (although they are complimentary to them and can also be self-referencing).

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing for digital summation as an added "third method" of alphanumeric encoding alongside the Standard/Ordinal methods. My claim is simply that there is a digital sum code (derived from the Standard values) that further unites Genesis 1:1/John 1:1 and the Hebrew/Greek signatures of

They’re different in Hebrew too. If you check Genesis 1.3, the reduced value is 66, but the digital sum is 57. A cou0le of words in verse 2 give different values too. Digital sums are okay though. As you showed they give rise to hidden structures. I’ll be looking at them in the NIV too, so we’ve both learned something. Given that the ordinal value system is so important to my work it would be worthwhile trying ordinal value digital sums first.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on reduced values, I’ve published almost nothing about reduced values of the NIV text, but there certainly are encoded numbers there. Think of it this way. If you are an infinite intelligence and you wish to encode as much information as possible within a text, you will write it so as to produce the maximum amount of information using the maximum number of systems. It’s not how I would want it, because a simple one-system code is harder to debunk. But that is how it seems to be. And some of it can be presented using only one system and language, or two at most.

The advantage of several systems is that far more information can be encoded. God in his greatness has given us a task that will occupy us and future generations of researchers for a lifetime. I’ve done R&D in commercial laboratories, but for intellectual satisfaction and spiritual nourishment,nothing compares with finding codes.

I believe there are at least five (and likely now 6 or more) systems of encoding information in the text, not including numbers from chapter and verses, positional values, word counts and letter counts, etc.

1. Standard values.
2. Ordinal values.
3. Combined values.
4. Reduced values.
5. Digital sums (there may be four of these)
6. ELS codes.

There may be other encoding methods too. Wade Balzer seems to believe there are codes in Strong’s Concordance and I found a little evidence for that myself. Glen also seems to have found another encoding methods too in word counts.Then there is the Bible Wheel, of course, a kind of structural code.

I see no reason why the systems I use shouldn’t be applicable to Hebrew and Greek too. I’ve already found that the combined value of G1.1 (BHS), along with the last two words, creates a triangle of hexagon pairs.

The Bible Code books by Michael Drosnin (and a much better one by Jeffrey Satinover) document ELS codes in the Torah. I’ve found a number of small ELS codes (I did them by hand, so I can only deal with small skip intervals) within the NIV. I show a few on my website.

[Alex]

Here is a probability of the 7, 37 & 73 pattern in Gen 1:1 that reaches 1.84 nonillion.
https://777codes.com/index.php/genesis- ... n-1-1/#B43

I asked the AI if I was being fair here, and it said so. But I am not 100% sure if using the 68868 in the combined probability here.
Maybe I should only use the probability of Gen 1:1 having 7 words there instead, which is 15.5.
Because we are already using the probability of Gen 1:1 having a value of Tri(73), and we are using that same probability again when using the probability sum for the prime factors also.

1. The number of verses that has 7 words in the Bible = 2009.
The probability of Genesis 1:1 having 7 words is then 31102/2009 ≈ 1 out of 15.5.