A Second Channel of Communication?

[blue triangle]

And if the number yielded had been different someone (probably the same person) would almost certainly have found some way of showing that number to be significant. And in the unlikely event that they couldn't find anything, they would have found some other way of generating a number from the verse for which they could find something.

Some numbers are richer in properties than others, that is a fact. 2701 is particularly rich in interesting properties. Surely you're not denying that?

And pointing out these properties is not the same as inventing arbitrary ones. The triangle is the simplest polygon, only 1 in 3 triangles generates a hexagram, few triangles have cubic outlines, very, very few numbers are stellar (can be displayed as a star of stars). 2701 has all these properties and more.

So a particularly interesting example of the simplest numerical polygon is found in the first verse, by the simplest mathematical procedure possible, addition. The substitution system that converts the letters into numbers is the one used by the Hebrews themselves for everyday counting, (and is based on the earlier Greek system, used by the Greeks). What is contrived about this? What about the encoding of the triangle's internal structure in the verse? If it had been contrived by ingenious calculations, someone would have said it would have been more believable if it was something as simple as this.

 

[sackett]

Blue triangle,* do you know that the Mogen David is sometimes given 8 points rather than 6? Some Jews, in the 18th. century & earlier, superimposed 2 squares instead 2 triangles. Why would they do that? Maybe just to mess with your mind? (Tricky, them Hebrews!) Maybe the devil made 'em do it?



*Hmmm, a triangle. Verrrry interesting.

Or boring.

 

[blue triangle]

It was an inquiry about what the future "study" you appeared to be proposing would be like. Apparently you were not saying it should be studied more in the future, but referring to what we have so far here as the result of past studying.

I wasn't proposing future study. I was referring to what he'd done, yes.

 

[Dancing David]

Nope.

Satan.

Biblical Satan, "the Beast" his own self.

I can prove it. With fewer math errors than the OP...

In hebrew KBL the latin word SUM

S=60
V=6
M=600

But Barney sure looks demonic to me

 

[Slowvehicle]

You are missing the point. The question you might be better asking is "how could it have been done at all in a universe governed only by the laws of nature?"

As for the level of accuracy, I think it's sufficient to show it is by design, especially given the importance of the numbers, the importance of the verses In which they are found and the fact that there are many more patterns in there. As Vernon Jenkins says, it is nothing less than a standing miracle.

In hebrew KBL the latin word SUM

S=60
V=6
M=600

But Barney sure looks demonic to me

I can prove that Barney is "the Beast", the adversary, without any rounding or "getting close enough" (which, for an omnipotent 'god' seems...odd...); in an older system than Arabic numerals. By the PO's standards, that indicates that 'god' declared that Barney really is "the Beast" (and knew that the original Sandy Duncan/Barney tapes [where the Purple One sounded and acted more like Perry Como] esset delenda [so to speak]).

 

[blue triangle]

Which basis of numerology?

Ah hebrai and the don't even get it right the final value of 'mem' is 600 and not 40, so they messed that up the value they give of 'heaven' as 395 should be 655!

So that is a big old NOPE!

The final values don't have to be counted. In Hebrew gematria that would be the mispar gadol method. The mispar hechrachi, or ragil, or standard method simply takes the normal values of each letter. The method Vernon Jenkins is using is exactly that, although he equates it to the counting system used by the Hebrews in biblical times.

 

[blue triangle]

No, they do not "reveal" reasonable estimates of pi and e. What happened here is that somebody fiddled about with the numbers until they found a way to make numbers that were close to pi and e. That is not the same thing as revealing a meaning in the text

But in the case of John 1.1, nobody knew that e even existed! It wasn't known until the late 17th Century. How do you explain that?

Pi was known to about that level of accuracy, although perhaps not by the Hebrews. But you have still to explain how it could have been done. The verse still had to make grammatical sense too. Finally, you don't mention how this person simultaneously managed to work the rest of the patterns in. It was certainly done, but was, and still is, far beyond human capacity.

 

[Delvo]

The dasaia over the 'o' has no numerical value, unlike the iota, and the 70 for each o is already counted. The total is 3627.

You're still claiming that the hypogegrammene is an iota. It isn't. They converted the letter into a diacritic for a reason: to make it not a letter. It's the same as with the creation of the daseia from (h)eta, except that that one at least continued to represent the letter's original sound, so at least some case could be made for counting those and not the hypogegrameni. (I did have the wrong numerical value for (h)eta, though: that's 8. 70 would have been for the omicron alone.)

Every geometric figure displayed as discrete units has structural properties. 112 is the number of counters along the base of triangle 6328. It is therefore also it's positional value in the sequence. In fact it would often be written as T112.

Yes, but the jump from paying attention to one of those numbers to then paying attention to another is an inconsistency in how these things are to be analyzed and how you're saying the numbers were used.

Yes, YHVH Elohim is found in the Hebrew Bible, in Genesis 2.

"Found" is not the same as that they really belong together as a unit such that adding their numbers makes sense.

Pi and e couldn't be handled that well by ancient counting systems, but they can be handled very well by Arabic numerals and the decimal system.

So you're taking the parts you like from separate incompatible systems and trying to smush them together, resulting in something that accurately represents neither. There's never been anybody anywhere who did numbers this way.

 

[Delvo]

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.

Of course not. That's just hopelessly absurd. The knowledge it requires is a few bits of modern high-school math and a couple of languages, the only "presence" it requires is to be where the writers were when or before they wrote, and the only "power" it requires is the ability to communicate with humans. Yyblax of Zebulon is an immensely more rational and likely fit than what you've described.

 

[Delvo]

I don't see a link to a page describing the π & e thing in detail.When they were first brought up, I presumed you must mean numbers that actually only had as many digits as were said to match π & e; in other words, that they surely must end where they're rounded off, not keep going after that with more digits that are wrong. There was still the problem with pretending you can just list digits after a decimal point with no indicator of where a decimal point would be in the Hebrew system, but I figured surely at least all of the digits you get from the formula must at least be the right digits, or there'd be no point in making the claim, would there?

But the claim about the fine structure constant turned to actually be a 15- digit number in which we were supposed to be amazed by the first four digits and pretend the other 11 weren't there. So the same pitifully low standard, so shabby that a critic of this whole thing like me didn't even imagine it at first, might also have applied to π & e. So... were those Jenkins numbers actually just those few digits and nothing else, or did they go on past that magic point with more digits that we're just supposed to ignore because they don't fit the real numbers they're supposed to fit?

 

[Delvo]

BTW, if this highly impressive message of "I'm here and I know some fancy numbers" is being delivered to us on a second channel, what was the first?

 

[Foolmewunz]

BTW, if this highly impressive message of "I'm here and I know some fancy numbers" is being delivered to us on a second channel, what was the first?

I had a friend back in NYC who was a tad obsessive compulsive, who went through all sorts of holy texts to prove that numerology had found a constant in all the great religious texts of the world. "Snacks are fine in moderation."

 

[jsfisher]

I've attached a document that displays some of the many fascinating properties of the figurate number 2701 and asserts that the number may have been used as a means of communicating with us. I'd be grateful if any of you who are interested could read it and comment.

http://www.whatabeginning.com/Misc/Miracle_2701.pdf

I'll be on holiday until Saturday, so if I don't reply right away, that's why.

On page one, this appears:

Such a regular arrangement (and, for other numbers there may be
alternatives which include square, hexagon, hexagram and cube) is a fundamental and comparatively rare property of certain numbers which are said to be figurate. Such digital structures are impervious to manipulation, and are completely independent of place, time, and of the things represented

(1) What makes you think they are comparatively rare? There are just as many figurate numbers as there are integers. That seems the opposite of rare.
(2) What numbers aren't impervious to manipulation and completely independent of all those things listed?

In Mathematics, all numbers are interesting. (The proof of this is trivial.) However, some numbers are more interesting than others. Zero and one, for example, now those numbers are interesting. Pi, fabulously interesting.

Your 2701? Well, let's call it cute, but I wouldn't go much further.

 

[gypsyjackson]

I can prove that Barney is "the Beast", the adversary, without any rounding or "getting close enough" (which, for an omnipotent 'god' seems...odd...); in an older system than Arabic numerals. By the PO's standards, that indicates that 'god' declared that Barney really is "the Beast" (and knew that the original Sandy Duncan/Barney tapes [where the Purple One sounded and acted more like Perry Como] esset delenda [so to speak]).

I was going to post the Barney/Latin thing earlier, but didn't.

If anyone knows, what does Matthew 1:1 sum to? Mark 1:1? Genesis 1:2? Etc.

 

[jsfisher]

I was going to post the Barney/Latin thing earlier, but didn't.

If anyone knows, what does Matthew 1:1 sum to? Mark 1:1? Genesis 1:2? Etc.

We may need to consult George R Simpson on all of this.

 

[Pixel42]

Some numbers are richer in properties than others, that is a fact. 2701 is particularly rich in interesting properties. Surely you're not denying that?.

Agreed, which is obviously why this way of generating a number is the one that was picked for this particular verse. If it had not happened to generate a mildly interesting number some other method would have been found that did. Or, if there was still no luck, some other verse, say the first in the NT, or another particularly important one. [ETA of course we have no way of knowing how many combinations of verse and method were tried before this one].

This is why data mining is an unreliable way to obtain meaningful information. It's sometimes used in real science, but repetition is always the key to establishing whether any particular finding is significant, or just a random artifact. It's usually not until a separate team of scientists have found exactly the same thing in separately collected data that this sort of correlation is considered potentially meaningful.

In this case, for example, the 2701 might be considered potentially meaningful if it was found in significantly more verses than would be expected by chance in the entire Bible.

 

[gypsyjackson]

We may need to consult George R Simpson on all of this.

Thanks - bit OT, but if it weren't for the lawsuits I'd have assumed he was a numerology satirist. Especially as some of his hidden meanings seem quite humorous, as does a caption on a photo on his game site.

 

[shriram]

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.

Is it because I studied only school level physics and school level math that don't see the first few digits of square of 27013627,which is 729736043695129, matching the first few digits of the value of alpha, which is 0.007297351?

 

[asydhouse]

You know, I might just look at the Whole Earth Catalogue. I'd like to know more about the movement.

As for the other book, are you talking about The God Delusion? I read that one. Alister McGrath's tiny The Dawkins Delusion throws some well-aimed stones at it and knocks Goliath to the ground.

Doh! No, I said I doubted you would get on with the Dawkins, and suggested you read this:

How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking For a New Age by Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn.

I also posted this at the time:

It's an eye-opener, and far more useful to your personal enlightenment than this nonsense you are enamoured of just now. Seriously. Learn how the brain works, and how we are fooled by it. Fascinating stuff, and far more likely to lead to your happiness than leading yourself up the garden path (or worse being led by those who are looking to exploit your gullibility). (To which I have to add now: the worst of all by far would be to increase someone else's gullibility and start leading them up fruitless garden paths, especially if they are children. Numerology is fancy pareidolia, and teaching children to waste their lives in this sort of mystical pursuit is really a form of child abuse. I resent the wasted decades I had to struggle with after having a psychotic episode induced by my open minded allowance of magical "possibilities". Science was developed precisely to overcome our faulty brain habits that mislead us into self-delusion, and it has shown me that all that agonising and struggle was a waste of time and of my life. We are free! Free to be, not beholden to anything but ourselves. That's my message of peace and joy.)

Seriously.

 

[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.

If you looked further into it you would see ever more. All you have seen so far is the roof of the cathedral sticking out through the soil. If you dug further and saw more, the response would hopefully be more than 'cool'. Why would your life go on as usual? Aren't you interested in who sculpted this frozen miracle and why?

Why would he not? Remember that most of the hidden information is meant to be displayed as geometric figures, which are independent of which numerals or which base The numbers are written in.

According to your own words, if I look into this further, I will find more geometry. Moreover, as has been shown, the maths is not accurate, which is odd considering it was supposedly placed there by an omniscient god (or at least some kind of super-intelligent being: I'm not sure where you stand on this).
So, if I look deeper, I find geometry and maths, some correct and some not.

My response, then, is that this is not even worth a 'cool'. This still does nothing to prove the existence of whatever being you imagine is responsible.
As for the question of who did this, nothing you have posted so far has addressed this. Thus far, you have shown that, with a certain amount of tortuous mathematics involving carefully cherrypicked selected Biblical verses, it is possible to approximate some mathematical constants and other numerological curiosities. This does not, as far as I can see, shed any light at all on the supposed authors of the verses in question.
In fact, this leads me to ask whether all the verses of the Bible can be interpreted in this way? If they cannot, what does that tell us about their authorship? Were the numerologically significant verses penned by the super-being, and the others by mere human scribes? How can you tell?