A Second Channel of Communication?

[dropzone]

And when six pretends he's nine,
He acts older and older.
And when six pretends he's nine,
He wears wiser disguises.

Exactly. If we could only convince blue triangle.

My parents' phone number not only spells out a phrase in English, but it is the numerator of a rational number that gives the ratio between two common units of measurement.

With the area code? And are you including the 1 before the area code?

 

[Myriad]

The problem is with what it would "mean" even if it is all accurate. Most of it's not particularly unlikely overall even as pure coincidence; for example, the geometric stuff would work for any odd number, or at least half of the odd numbers, in that triangular series, and, although most numbers don't define triangles like that, a lot of other numbers do other similarly funky things instead.

I note that the numbering system has a peculiar distribution of values. The letter values are 1 to 10, 20 to 100 by tens, 200, 300, and 400. So, for example, only five of the 22 values are odd, while seven of them (close to the expected one third) are multiples of three.

Of course, the usage of the letters is going to have patterns too. I don't know the language so I don't know the patterns, but just for starters it's likely that some letters are used more than others (consider our T and S and N compared with K and B and X) which further alters the number distributions. Perhaps that's why in the first verse of Genesis, only three of the letters numbered as 10 to 100 are represented, and only four of the letters numbered as 1 to 9. The range of likely word, phrase, and verse sums is apparently much narrower than it might appear.

Does this make the various "special" numbers (triangular, hexagonal, plinth, integer multiples of those, and so forth) less special, more likely to occur, than it might seem? Possibly! I don't know enough to prove it, but it would seem to fall to those making claims of special-ness to prove otherwise.

 

[Delvo]

John 1.1 sums to 3627

I've gone over it repeatedly now, from multiple angles/methods. It does not work as advertized. The total is 3617. Anybody want to show me where I went wrong? (I'll attach an image of my spreadsheet so everyone can see it all one letter/number at a time.)

YHVH Elohim is 112.

So we're not only adding numbers that came from different languages & alphabets, but also counting different kinds of items in the triangle now (first individual points/circles, now rows of them)?

Also, is that really a phrase in Hebrew? Each word independently (in Hebrew letters) gets 400000-500000 search hits, but together, they only get 102000, and those pages just contain both words somewhere, not a phrase combining them both like this. The closest thing I can think of is one English-speaking guy in one video several years ago who kept saying "Jehovah God" like it was all one word or at least an established phrase such as "Jesus Christ", while saying he was summoning alien spaceships and pointing his camera up at some recently-released shiny helium balloons in the sky. The reason the phrase stood out to me was because I never heard anyone else saying that, and I don't think I have since then either. And without that as a phrase, you're adding together the numerical values of two words that don't really belong together... to get them to equal a number of rows in a triangle that was previously defined by its number of points/circles... when the number of those in that triangle doesn't match the Bible verses that it's supposed to match anyway.

Multiply the letter values by the number of letters, then divide by the word values multiplied by the number of words and you have the first 5 digits of pi (error 1 in 90000).

I can't really tell exactly what the procedure is here, but I do know there's no way it fits the actual numerical systems we're supposed to be working in. Values less than 1 were handled by fractions, not decimals, there was no way the system even could possibly have handled decimals because there was no decimal symbol or zero, and counting how many letters there are in a word or how many words there are in a phrase/sentence instead of adding up the individual numerical values was never the way anything worked (that would have been treating all letters/numbers as if they were #1, א). The letters'/numbers' values were what they were, and not any others. This is like claiming that there's a system of hidden numerical values in our modern base-10 digits based on the arrangements of loops, straight strokes, angles, and end points the written symbols have, instead of what numbers the symbols actually represent.

Repeat exactly the same procedure with John 1.1. And you obtain e, again with an error of 1 in 90000). They are equal and opposite too, so summing gives almost complete cancellation.

That doesn't make any sense. The two numbers you were just talking about (π and e) are not each other's negatives, or numerical pallindromes or any other such thing. And the Hebrew & Greek number systems didn't have negatives. And simply declaring one of them negative would not only be going against the way anything actually ever was in either of the relevant languages or alphabets or numerical systems, but also wouldn't get you "equal & opposite" values anyway because π and e weren't the same thing to start with as positives.

 

[Delvo]

This site has the stupidest image size issues I've ever seen.

 

[Delvo]

Are you assuming I would only defend the Christian concept of God? Better to assume nothing, I suggest.

You called a Christian verse "the apex of scripture". I suggested a different "apex" to point out that this claim about "the apex" was not a fact.

 

[Donn]

I did miss it. If you direct me to it I'll answer it.

If I direct you to it? On only the tenth group of seven posts? Scroll up. It's not infinity.

Why do you hide behind Shakespearian language?

I write as pleases me. Why do you cower from your interrogators? Once again: did we force you?

To answer your first question, I'm not out to convince myself by the evidence of patterns in the Bible, but others. And even that will not convince most, especially here. But for anyone on the brink of change, it might be enough - and I have convinced others.

Here is what I mean by cowering. You select my first question and lurch-in, ignoring all else posted which gave craft and nuance to the first. In so doing you select a small set of ease. There is no challenge when you pretend thus.

Should I speak to you as a child? Would you prefer simple words in brief lines? Goo gah, dah dah? What novelty would that bring? I fear you would continue redacting — taking the pick of least, among the cherries we offer, to maintain your internal universe.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'small mistakes in maths'. Perhaps you could explain.

I was offering an olive branch. You might argue that small mistakes in these many systems of numbers are not pertinent: only the Big Picture. I remember our big picture discussion from the original thread and sought to give you succour. More fool me.

If you imagine God might be short on mercy, you are mistaken. But of course since you appear to have no faith you mean something else entirely. And you pile assumption upon assumption!

Ah, how can I know the flavour of god you savour? I perforce begin with some stance. It seems your god is the plastic that assumes a position to blunt opposition; known by the appellation god of the gaps.

As far as the patterns are concerned .. I believe may have been guided to this form by some kind of teleological process..

You read the bones like a Sangoma. Your indexed letters are salted across the animal hide; scattered higgledy piggle but electric with data. In the dim smoky light your waving limbs weave spells of meaning; your hands hover low above the bones. Here is The Force at work! Guiding. In no way can these characters fall to mere chaos. You gather again to throw, ad nauseam; take anew a hit of the god of the cracks.

It all seems to me to be an addiction. There is pleasure in it; a gathering sense of revelation. Perhaps I was wrong and you do not dwell in a marriage with a living god that fulfils you. Perhaps you are simply hooked on the Game of Bones.

The appearance of these patterns in the first verse likewise counters suggestions of cherry picking suitable verses.

I hope, by now, you recognize the cardinality of this verse is an artefact of your cravings. As with my own posts, if your mind censors your eyes, it may be you have not imbibed the generous information shared by the other posters.

 

[SusanB-M1]

blue triangle

Reading through this thread, one phrase of yours, that you 'have convinced others, prompts me to write. If the 'others' you have convinced are adults, well, I think it's a pity, but that's their problem, but if the 'others' include children, then that counts as trying to indoctrinate children's minds with a belief in something which is entirely a human idea and has no basis in fact.

 

[Pixel42]

In the Hebrew & Greek alphabets, every letter has a value, not just a few of them, and they're purely additive, not subtractive, so every word, and for that matter every possible stream of random gibberish in those alphabets, has a numeric value. Most words' letters aren't arranged the way they'd really write a number if the number is what they meant (they'd use as few symbols as possible by going as far as possible with the highest-value ones, and write in ascending or descending order, not back & forth in a single word), but still, the fact that letters in any & all words could be added up like this is a side effect that writers in these languages were aware of at the time and known to occasionally play with for deliberate numerical effects.

Thanks for the clarification, I understand the OP's link much better now.

The idea that the book's authors might have done it deliberately is intriguing, but I still lean towards thinking that whatever numbers are yielded by this sort of analysis, someone somewhere will find a way of assigning significance to them. That's the nature of numerology, as pointed out above it's a form of pareidolia.

 

[Pixel42]

blue triangle

Reading through this thread, one phrase of yours, that you 'have convinced others, prompts me to write. If the 'others' you have convinced are adults, well, I think it's a pity, but that's their problem

I trust he will be sending them all a link to this thread so they can be exposed to the arguments against, as well as the arguments for that he has given them.

 

[blue triangle]

Numerology aside, which translation or translations are you using? Are you a KJV-only person or would Good News for Modern Man (now called The Good News Bible) do just as well?

Fred

It's the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, not modern English translations. And I am not one of the KJV-only brigade.

 

[blue triangle]

Actually, this is, simply, not true.

Are you so very innocent of the macculate (and distinctly peccable) provenance of your own "scriptures"?


OK, got it, Dinstincly, and apparently, purposefully innocent of the process of collection, edit, redaction, and sectarian "canonization" that led to the form of the "wording we have now". Not to mention, for a "book" that is to be supposed to authoritatively chronicle "events" from 6,000 years (or more) ago, boasting about the "wording we have now" being "fixed" for "1000 years" is bragging about paint that has not dried yet.



And yet, somehow, you personify this 'god' as strongly resembling the badly-plagiarized and unoriginal 'god' of the Hebrew "bible". How very droll. Further, you declare this 'god' to be a "force" and give it imaginary powers, all without the slightest scintilla of actual evidence.

Nothing new, here...

The important point about Genesis 1.1 is that it is the first verse now. As I said, this seems to have been a teleological process, and I believe the patterns were meant to be discovered at this time.

As for the force having characteristics identical to God. To guide the writers and editors of scripture, the development of the Hebrew and Greek languages and much else would require this force to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It would certainly be beyond the reach of any human cabal.

 

[zooterkin]

Thread moved to Religion and Philosophy from General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Posted By: zooterkin

 

[blue triangle]

I've gone over it repeatedly now, from multiple angles/methods. It does not work as advertized. The total is 3617. Anybody want to show me where I went wrong? (I'll attach an image of my spreadsheet so everyone can see it all one letter/number at a time.)

So we're not only adding numbers that came from different languages & alphabets, but also counting different kinds of items in the triangle now (first individual points/circles, now rows of them)?

Also, is that really a phrase in Hebrew? Each word independently (in Hebrew letters) gets 400000-500000 search hits, but together, they only get 102000, and those pages just contain both words somewhere, not a phrase combining them both like this. The closest thing I can think of is one English-speaking guy in one video several years ago who kept saying "Jehovah God" like it was all one word or at least an established phrase such as "Jesus Christ", while saying he was summoning alien spaceships and pointing his camera up at some recently-released shiny helium balloons in the sky. The reason the phrase stood out to me was because I never heard anyone else saying that, and I don't think I have since then either. And without that as a phrase, you're adding together the numerical values of two words that don't really belong together... to get them to equal a number of rows in a triangle that was previously defined by its number of points/circles... when the number of those in that triangle doesn't match the Bible verses that it's supposed to match anyway.

I can't really tell exactly what the procedure is here, but I do know there's no way it fits the actual numerical systems we're supposed to be working in. Values less than 1 were handled by fractions, not decimals, there was no way the system even could possibly have handled decimals because there was no decimal symbol or zero, and counting how many letters there are in a word or how many words there are in a phrase/sentence instead of adding up the individual numerical values was never the way anything worked (that would have been treating all letters/numbers as if they were #1, א). The letters'/numbers' values were what they were, and not any others. This is like claiming that there's a system of hidden numerical values in our modern base-10 digits based on the arrangements of loops, straight strokes, angles, and end points the written symbols have, instead of what numbers the symbols actually represent.

That doesn't make any sense. The two numbers you were just talking about (π and e) are not each other's negatives, or numerical pallindromes or any other such thing. And the Hebrew & Greek number systems didn't have negatives. And simply declaring one of them negative would not only be going against the way anything actually ever was in either of the relevant languages or alphabets or numerical systems, but also wouldn't get you "equal & opposite" values anyway because π and e weren't the same thing to start with as positives.

You're missing out the iota under the last letter of the second word. This has value 10, giving 3627.

On your last point, I was talking about the errors, which are equal and opposite. So one is +0.0011% and the other is -0.0012% of the true values.

I'm not sure why you don't understand the procedure. Jenkins clearly displays the calculations, which are identical in each case. What isn't clear is why they happen to give the first few digits of pi and e, the two best known and most significant transcendental numbers. And they are matched with two of the most significant verses in scripture, a phenomenon that would appear to me to be by design. Pi was known to that level of accuracy in biblical times, but e was completely in known, as far as we can tell.

Now, given that the verses were written by different authors, widely spaced in time, and that they reveal a coordinated pair of numbers, which can be expressed as triangle 2701 mounted upon plinth 3627, giving triangle 6328, 2701 being 37 X 73, 3627 being 39 X 93, and that these same verses also reveal reasonable estimates of pi and e, wouldn't you say that this is a phenomenon worthy of further study?

One last point. If you concatenation the verse values, to give 27013627, then square this number, you this time reveal the first few digits of alpha, the electromagnetic fine structure constant. The error is even less this time. Alpha was unknown until exactly 100 years ago.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Yeah, OK, this is all well and good, but I have to wonder what the point is of all this.

Assuming that, despite the numerous pitfalls of, among others, translation error, confirmation bias and pareidolia, there are coded numerological/ mathematical messages in the Bible, I'm asking myself why this god would bother? I cannot see how any atheist, agnostic, or any believer from Ahmadi to Zoroastrian would be converted by this. "So there are hidden number codes in the Bible? Really? Wow. Hallelujah! Praise the Lord, I'm a believer!" I really don't see it. Is this supposedly all-powerful god rubbing his holy hands with glee whilst muttering "That'll show those pesky atheists! Oh yes sirree Bob!"
None of this demonstrates in any way the existence of this god. At most, it's quite clever, and deserving of nothing more than a "cool!", followed by life as usual.

 

[blue triangle]

blue triangle

Reading through this thread, one phrase of yours, that you 'have convinced others, prompts me to write. If the 'others' you have convinced are adults, well, I think it's a pity, but that's their problem, but if the 'others' include children, then that counts as trying to indoctrinate children's minds with a belief in something which is entirely a human idea and has no basis in fact.

I don't know what your own views are, but [snip] I dearly hope you aren't foisting your own views on innocents.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove a breach of rule 0 and rule 12.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The important point about Genesis 1.1 is that it is the first verse now. As I said, this seems to have been a teleological process, and I believe the patterns were meant to be discovered at this time.

...what is the sound of one goalpost, moving?

As for the force having characteristics identical to God. To guide the writers and editors of scripture, the development of the Hebrew and Greek languages and much else would require this force to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It would certainly be beyond the reach of any human cabal.

Ooops. What is the sound of TWO goalposts, moving? (Cue vampiric Muppet laughter)

Never mind that the "scriptures" you choose to claim is the one out of all that contains this "message" demonstrates, in its content, that the "force" it pleases you to call 'god' does not exhibit any of these three characteristics? (...to say nothing of the fact that they are inherently self-contradictory...)

 

[Darat]

The important point about Genesis 1.1 is that it is the first verse now. As I said, this seems to have been a teleological process, and I believe the patterns were meant to be discovered at this time.

As for the force having characteristics identical to God. To guide the writers and editors of scripture, the development of the Hebrew and Greek languages and much else would require this force to be omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. It would certainly be beyond the reach of any human cabal.

Then why was God so inaccurate?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't know what your own views are, but if you can write such a presumptive, self-righteous, offensive piece of tripe I dearly hope you aren't foisting your own views on innocents.

Oh, dear...you may have confused yourself, here, a bit. The silliness that requires one to "square the concatenation" to "discover" the "hidden message" that "yhwh elohim" "hid" in the "apex" of "scripture" (within the last 1000 years) to show its omni-being is the "tripe" that you are pushing.

"Menudo pos los crudo", and all that...

 

[Stuart]

So what you’re saying is that there was another meaning out into a book, that has been written, translated, re-worded and re-written over 2000 years and somehow the other meaning has stayed intact? Really?

 

[asydhouse]

The hippies had the right idea: love is the answer. But their definition of love was too small and they were well before their time. In the long run, their kind will triumph though.

Too small? Love for all humankind, and by acid wisdom the entire ecosystem of the planet which is our provenance, our sustenance and ward?

So according to you, only injecting the smack of a god will make our lowly human experience… what? Meaningful? Heavy? Worthwhile? or what?

From all my experience I conclude that the only purpose of life is to be Experienced. That's sufficient. In fact it's necessary. No god required.

Since you picked up on the line about hippies, and you may be too young to have realised, that line "If the hippies cut off all their hair, I don't care, I don't care" is one of three instances of quotes in this thread from "If Six Was Nine", a Jimi Hendrix song on the album Are You Experienced?

The others are in my first post in this thread, and in the post I quoted in my first post.

If you want to dig the real spirit of the "hippies" or "heads" as we used to say in Glastonbury in 1971, look up The Whole Earth Catalog. It's a lot more alternative and progressive and positive and worthwhile than all the New Age bs being marketed in Glastonbury these days.

Actions speak louder than numerological bias confirmation and thumb-twiddling nonsense of its ilk.

Do us all a favour and read the book I recommended earlier in this thread. You just might free yourself to really get somewhere.