Thanks Bill! Great post. Some excellent grist for our mill.
I’m glad you like it. I wasn’t sure if this was what you wanted. It’s strangely difficult to articulate principles you are abiding by, even when you are using them all the time. I think this thread could be of great value, particularly to new researchers, as I had no such guidance and made many mistakes at first. The nearest I had to a mentor was Vernon, who did us all a great service with the quality of his work.
2. Simplicity (but not over-simplicity)
Agreed, 100%! That's why if I were to create a presentation designed to convince a skeptic, I would limit myself to the original Hebrew/Greek text analyzed with a single gematria method (standard). I also would limit the analysis to words found in the text being analyzed.
So would I. In fact that is
exactly what I have done at times in my writings and at the very least I will always feature the Hebrew Genesis 1.1, what I call the Creation Seal (G1.1 + John 1.1) and the Logos Star within what I call the Creation Snowflake.
E.g. The Unity Holograph is based on a set of nested, semantically coherent values that are multiples of its central claim (ONE = echad = 13) and the claim that YHVH echad = 39 = 3 x 13, etc. as shown in the post above.
Yes, I like the Unity Holograph. The fact that 13 is also the first hexagram with structure adds to its impact. I should note here that Lord God (r) = 39.
I really like your open style of discourse. You listed the weaknesses of the "New Bible Code". That's wise, because those are the very reasons it strikes me as "cherry picking". This is amplified by one thing you didn't mention - the very low a priori probability that God would encode a particular English text (NIV 84) that is now out of date.
All that interests me is the truth. If you want to discuss cherry picking then I’m happy to do that (maybe on another thread). I would argue that the ‘weakness’ isn’t so much a flaw as a necessary minimum number of languages and systems to convey the information it contains. Most of the code is in a translation of words already written, so the task of conveying new information through it necessitated using more systems of gematria (I was taught the combined system as I worked on the code). The amount of information encoded within Gen. 1.1-5 is incredible and must have employed something akin to fractal compression or holography. The Bible is founded on the rock of mathematical truth and it offers us a valuable glimpse of the Mind of God.
Why would God not encode the NIV? It was and probably still is the most popular modern English Bible translation and now outsells even the KJV. English itself is the modern lingua Franca. If God did encode a modern version the NIV was the obvious choice. Given that it concerns Millennial events it would also make sense to encode a very recent version. Yes, God exists beyond time, but I think the way the code came about suggests that there may be multiple possibilities for the precise expression of an event (9/11) that was going to happen. A very recent version was the best way to encode last minute details.
It doesn’t matter if the NIV ‘84 is now out of date and the code is being slowly erased. There are millions of copies of the NIV ‘84 still in existence.
3. Alignment with Biblical Teaching.
This touches on another aspect that seems extremely "cherry picked". The reference to modern political figures like Osama bin Ladin and the Pope. Neither are biblical.
I was shown who these two men really were, or represented, in a vision in 2002 and obeyed the Spirit’s directives in this and many other ways. I could never have done this without an
enormous amount of spiritual assistance. What people make of it is up to them but I will say that these men exemplified the two Divine attributes of
justice and
mercy recognised by all three Abrahamic religions. The lives of both men were encoded to an extraordinary degree and you may recall that they were connected in the end by the death of bin Laden on the same day that Pope John Paul II was beatified. That day, 5/1/11, was the most npencoded date I have ever found. For example it was the 3773rd day of the 3rd Millennium.
4. Repetition
Repetition is important, because any one connection could be chance. When it is found over and again and when it connects to other findings to form meaningful confluences we can have more confidence in it. This repetition can be at different scales and using different enumeration systems (see my comments below on fractals).
5. Patterns
Codes should align and interlock with others to form larger patterns. A single number means nothing, but a patterned confluence of numbers might mean a lot. These confluences can include numbers of words and letters, positional values and chapter and verse indicators. The Biblical meaning of numbers is also important.
6. Symmetry
I’ve found codes at the exact midpoints of scripture and at either end. Symmetry is itself an indicator of design but it also greatly reduces the probability of chance hits. If numbers are pinned to the opening words of the Bible, for example, there is little scope for cherry picking.
Yes, those are excellent principles, especially when repetition is understood in the sense of
self-reflective reiteration within a single passage or group of passages (e.g. the union of Genesis 1.1-5 and John 1.1-5) as shown here:
https://www.biblewheel.com/GR/GR_Creation_Hyper.php
I’ll study this holograph. I had’nt really looked at it before.
But note - at least 40% of natural numbers can be written as figurate numbers like trefoils, hexagons, and variants of them. To me, this means there is very little significance outside of their presence in reiterative integrated structures. Like this:
Genesis 1.1 = 2701 = T(73) = 37 x 73 = H(4) x S(4) = 3T(36) + H(3) x S(3)
It's the most astoundingly compressed & reiterative alphanumeric structure I've ever seen. And that's just a tiny fraction of it.
Again, thanks for the great post Bill!
I would argue that every number except 2 is figurate as we can create an infinite sequence of polygons and centred polygons with 3, 4, 5, 6 . . . 20 . . . . 1000 . . . . sides.
That is one reason I nearly always stop at hexagonal figures. I have one centred dodecagon (which represents The Sea in the Tabernacke courtyard) but that’s about it.
