Statistical Evidence of Literacy Configuration in the Bible

[Graviphoton]

When someone says ''Bible Code,'' many of us think of that ghastly television 4 program featuring the work of Dr. Eliyahu Rips and publisher Micheal Drosnin. Their work was highly flawed, and unlike my math, and findings, theirs acted very randomly, searching for possible connections. Instead, the work i will show you indicates intentional design, without randomly searching for Equi-Distant Letter Counting Codes.

 

Also keep in mind, i make no detail that it be of Divine inspiration within the text, or claims it needed to be of Divine intervention. Instead, i claim these codes are proof of intentional design, and none other.

 

Whilst certain patterns emerged from simple deduction of logic, there was certain times i had to integrate what i called ''shift values.'' The shift values did have about them, numerical importance, and also played the next generation in the math configuration of impressive numbers. Now to the original work i composed:

 

A Dr. Vernon Jenkins found the following facts… before we continue, we must have a look at the Greek Mathematics gematria, and the Chaldean numerical values are:

 

Alpha = 1

Beta = 2

Gamma = 3

Delta = 4

Epsilon = 6

Digamma = 7

Zeta = 8

Theta = 9

Iota = 10

Kappa = 20

Lambda = 30

Mu = 40

Nu = 50

Xi = 60

Omicron = 70

Pi = 80

Koppa = 90

Rho = 100

Sigma = 200

Tau = 300

Upsilon = 400

Phi = 500

Chi = 600

Psi = 700

Omega = 800

 

The idea that the ancient pages of the Kabala, is that it holds a hidden subtext of codes in numbers. This is not a myth, it is actually very much true.

 

Do not mistake these for the rather poor BBC 4 programmed a yonder of years back, whereas Dr. Eliyahu Rips claimed he had discovered empirical evidence of Bible code phenomena. He used a high-powered computer to [randomly] search for crossword like paragraphs speaking about events that had already happened, and events still to come to pass.

 

I wasn't moved by his finds. I found his contribution actually a bit shaming for the Bible mathematical community. However, he is a fantastic mathematician, well-renown actually, and he statistically put one of his codes down as 60,000 to 1.

 

But mathematicians came forward and found him to be incorrect, with a real statistical analysis of only 1 n 2. However, this should not deter the reader, as codes really do exist within the Bible, as i am going to show you.

Dr. Ivan Nikolayevich Panin, a scholar and famous agnostic, born in Russia found a most compelling and spine chilling set of codes... actually, hundreds of them. They where so intricate, the only explanation was intentional design... but why? It turns out that the codes where so complex, called 'the seven phenomena', no scholar or mathematician could really answer why anyone would go to such a lengthly way. The statistics of his finds go into the quadrillions to 1! [You can find his work on the internet - there are plenty of threads].

 

Another Dr. i wish to speak about today, and before moving onto my own personal find, is a Dr. Vernon Jenkins - he too has his own web page. He simply took the next step and applied geometric patterns into the text, and came up with some extraordinary results. He was able to obtain his calculations from an ancient Hebrew and Chaldean discipline called, 'Theomatics.' By applying each letter of the Hebrew (and) Greek alphabet with their own gematria values, he was able to devise ''whole'' answers. It turns out that these values also held quite a lot in store.

The most interesting find of his, was found in Genesis 1:1. He obtained the following values from using this system: 296-407-395-401-86-203-913.

He found the following facts (I’m mentioning just an iota of what he found) >

 

the entire system came to a value of 2701.

The entire system is also 37 x 73 (reflective symmetry)

The numbers 37 and 73 are the 12th and 21st primes (reflective system)

The number 2701 is the 703rd triangular number (similarities, almost an anagram) - 703 is also the calculation of 'and the earth' leaving a value of 666 + 666 + 666

 

This is just a pinch of what he found - you should really go to his site

His second work investigated the first paragraph of John 1:1, which is almost symmetrical in literature. He also found some rather remarkable mathematical results the word, ''Word'' came to a value of 373... This mirrors the 37 and 73 phenomena the entire passage valued 3627... Which is 39 x 93 (reflective symmetry) In fact, the entire thing could be used as a plinth to support the triangular basis of 2701

 

All coincidence? Perhaps, but he recently put statistical averages to this and found it was highly unlikely

 

Now, what stood out for me, was that seven was predominant in the first sentence. There are accordingly 7 words. There are 28 letters (Hebrew letters) which is of course 7 x 4. This was indicating something, i thought.

You just need to look at the entire Bible to understand that 7 was the holy number... God rested on the 7th day. Jesus was the 77th generation from Abraham. The 7 churches. The 7 Angels. The 7 plagues. The 7 spirits. The 7 woes... Ect.

 

As it turned out, the three nouns 'God', 'Heaven' and 'Earth' added to 777... A triplet... remember this.

 

So, i decided to investigate the gematria. What ''popped'' out at me, was the numbers 37, 7 and 39. The difference between the number 7 however, is that it was encoded in a differential fasion to both the findings of the 37 and 39 phenomena. So, i treated it differently by doing the following sums...

 

37 x 7 = 259

39 x 7 = 273

 

what of these numbers - your probably wondering? Well, if you multiply the two together, they obtain a very similar picture to adding the three nouns together, giving an answer of 70707! But this was only the edge of the blade. It turns out that the joining of 37x7 multiplications with 39x7 multiplications unraveled a host of continuous calculations, that 'may' go into infinity... though, I could be wrong…

 

Here are the extra calculations I found… But first, I call numbers which have a pattern of (let’s hypothetically say),70707 as ‘’Island Effects’’, and are calculations that are very rare. In short, I will call the Island Effect simply (IE).

 

37 x 273 = 10101 Palindrome/IE

39 x 259 = 10101 Palindrome/IE

37 x 7 = 259 x 39 x 39 = 393939

37 x 7 = 259 x 93 x 93 = 939393

39 x 7 = 273 x 37 x 37 = 373737

39 x 7 = 273 x 73 x 73 = 737373

 

So, let us continue… with a shift value of 13 and 7007 and 77.

 

77 x 37 x 13 = 37037

77 x 73 x 13 = 73073

77 x 39 x 13 = 39039

77 x 93 x 13 = 93093

77 x 7 x 13 = 7007

7007 x 39 = 273273

7007 x 37 = 259259

 

Now consider the following mathematics…

 

2701 + 1072 (mirrored symmetry)= 3773…

3773 is also an anagram of 37 x 73 totaling the value of 2701… (This was Dr. Vernon’s discovery)… but I found a special harmony, crystallizing a supersymmetry and palindrome > totally indicating seven phenomena…

 

3773(37 x 13 x 39)= 70777707

 

This alone, is it proof of an intentional design and placement of theomatics? Well, wouldn't statistics prove this? I statisticated this small work at: 1 in 1.9 x 10^24

 

or more precisely 1 in a massive 1,968,212,810,225,485,111,967,227

 

Not bad for as a conclusion from only 7 words and a finite amount of possibilities. But for such an elaborate design to appear from a few simple in-puts begs the question to an intentional design in the Bible. How many more intentional designs are there?

 

I also confirm that this work is a ground-base evidence for Dr. jenkins work of the first seven Hebrew words, and highlighting the link with John 1:1.

[ydoaPs]

Which copy does this work with? You do know manuscripts vary, right?

 

If it's so complicated and intricate(such that you even said the people wondered why it would be such a lengthy coding process), why would you assume it is really a code? Wouldn't it make more sense that they are trying to find intentional patterns where none exist?

[Graviphoton]

No other copy exists, other than the ancient Hebrew that used seven words.

 

Now, if there is a code, then wouldn't we expect to find it? Why should any code exist? Simply because odes at the time was very popular. But to say, ''i'm gonna find inetntional patterns where none exist,'' is a possible outcome, other than what we can weighy evidently. For instance, notice the code of 7? The three nouns, God, Heaven and Earth calculated to 777. The entire verse when shifted with the simple number of 7, released a cascade of 70707 (intentional?) and even a larger 70777707! This seems to me, very unlikely not to be accidental.

[ydoaPs]

No other copy exists, other than the ancient Hebrew that used seven words.

No differing manuscripts exist? So, what, the rest are fakes? Which one is real?

 

Also, how many manuscripts of John are in Hebrew?

 

Why should any code exist? Simply because odes at the time was very popular.

Oh, really? Codes in text are popular in a time when literacy wasn't? That's rich.

 

But to say, ''i'm gonna find inetntional patterns where none exist,'' is a possible outcome, other than what we can weighy evidently. For instance, notice the code of 7? The three nouns, God, Heaven and Earth calculated to 777. The entire verse when shifted with the simple number of 7, released a cascade of 70707 (intentional?) and even a larger 70777707! This seems to me, very unlikely not to be accidental.

 

Have you ever seen the Jim Carrey movie 23?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What, exactly, would this imply (assuming you are entirely correct)? That someone writing that section of the Bible thought it would be cool to make words add up?

[Graviphoton]

Correct. There is no differing manuscripts, because the dead sea scrolls are the oldest known records of the Bible. The first seven words, in their particular order, are anyhow the same found in any manuscript, so your arguement fails.

 

It was well-known, that many manuscripts written back in those times, did have about them, subsurface codes. The very fact that 15% of the Bible is configured from numbers themselves hints at the codical structure.

 

Don't patronize me. There is evidence. Its clear that 777, 70707 and 70777707 are all interelated. Not some stupid dual digit number that can be integrated into eveyday life. These numbers i have shown are unique.

 

What, exactly, would this imply (assuming you are entirely correct)? That someone writing that section of the Bible thought it would be cool to make words add up?

 

Well, it begs that if this is true, then man, when writing the Bible, carefully created and manipulated the text, so that this would happen. What of it? I'm not sure, only that if any other code is found in the Bible, and the author of the find claims it is of Divine Inspiration, i suggest they be overthrown.

[iNow]

What, exactly, would this imply?

 

That people inclined to believe the fairy tales in religious books are perhaps more likely to put some strange significance into numerology as well?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm talking about what this means about the writer of the "fairy tales", not the discoverer.

[ydoaPs]

Correct. There is no differing manuscripts

You've not seen them, have you?

 

the dead sea scrolls are the oldest known records of the Bible.

Sure about that?

 

The first seven words, in their particular order, are anyhow the same found in any manuscript, so your arguement fails.

What about your example from John? Are you now backpeddling and saying the "code" is only in the first 7 words?

 

It was well-known, that many manuscripts written back in those times, did have about them, subsurface codes.

Given the literacy rate at the time of the writing, I'd like to see some references here.

 

Its clear that 777, 70707 and 70777707 are all interelated.

Oh?

 

These numbers i have shown are unique.

No, you haven't.

[ecoli]

I find it telling that your using Greek numerology to explain a book written in Hebrew.

[Graviphoton]

Absolutely sure, i've even seen the scrolls with my own two eyes. The dead sea scrolls are the most accurate and oldest record we have of the Bible as a whole. And, any other confugred papyrus, still have in Hebrew the same words and configuration saying

 

''in the beginning God created the Heaven(s) and the Earth.''

 

Do you really believe there is some other interpretation we do't know about?

 

[[What about your example from John? Are you now backpeddling and saying the "code" is only in the first 7 words?]]

 

No not at all. In fact, i told the reader to read up on Dr. Jenkins findings of John 1:1. It shows a harmony of mathematics and even literature. The evidence was so strong, and now even stronger under the math i have presented.

 

...

 

I haven't shown the numbers are unique? What OP were you reading mmmm?

 

Mathematically show me they are not, and i will concede.

 

Ecoli

 

No, the Greek was just an example. I used Hebrew calculus.

 

For instance, when working with thew Hebrew text, if we applied the Greek math to it, it wouldn't work, and vice versa.

[ecoli]

lets take a look at some more awe-inspiring numerology.

 

Challah, a delicious type of bread eaten on the Sabbath is Chet-lamed- Hay, the numerical value of which is 43. Of course, the number 18 (chai) means 'life' in hebrew, and is very important. If you add these numbers you get 59. Which also corresponds to Yud-Aleph-Yud-Chet-Lamed. (my hebrew name). This is no coincidence. It means that I must sustain my life through the eating of bread!

 

 

 

Absolutely sure, i've even seen the scrolls with my own two eyes. The dead sea scrolls are the most accurate and oldest record we have of the Bible as a whole. And, any other confugred papyrus, still have in Hebrew the same words and configuration saying

 

I've seen the dead sea scrolls too, in a museum in Israel. How does that make numerology any less simple number games?

 

 

 

No, the Greek was just an example. I used Hebrew calculus.

 

For instance, when working with thew Hebrew text, if we applied the Greek math to it, it wouldn't work, and vice versa.

 

then why did you give the greek numerology, and not the gematria?

[ydoaPs]

Absolutely sure, i've even seen the scrolls with my own two eyes. The dead sea scrolls are the most accurate and oldest record we have of the Bible as a whole.

If you've seen them with your own eyes, then you'd know they aren't the whole bible.

[[What about your example from John? Are you now backpeddling and saying the "code" is only in the first 7 words?]]

 

No not at all. In fact, i told the reader to read up on Dr. Jenkins findings of John 1:1. It shows a harmony of mathematics and even literature. The evidence was so strong, and now even stronger under the math i have presented.

Be more clear. Is the code in the first seven words, or the entire collection of books?

 

I haven't shown the numbers are unique? What OP were you reading mmmm?

You've done no more than Jim Carrey did in 23.

 

Mathematically show me they are not, and i will concede.

Burden of proof is upon you to show that they are.

 

No, the Greek was just an example. I used Hebrew calculus.

Why even bring up Greek? Why didn't you use Hebrew as your example? How did you come up with the "shift values"?

[Graviphoton]

If you've seen them with your own eyes, then you'd know they aren't the whole bible.

Be more clear. Is the code in the first seven words, or the entire collection of books?

 

You've done no more than Jim Carrey did in 23.

 

Burden of proof is upon you to show that they are.

 

Why even bring up Greek? Why didn't you use Hebrew as your example? How did you come up with the "shift values"?

 

Ecoli, i will arrive to you soon.

 

The first seven words of the old testament, or the Torah, is what i have been working with. The value of 39, which i tagged as a ''shift value'' is actually an important value from the findings of the Greek gematria found in John 1:1.

 

I've not seen the movie, but 23 is rememdial next to the values of 777, 70707 and 70777707. Especially the plethora of 373737, 737373, or 393939, or even 939393. You would see the importance, if you where less ignorant of the value of statistical math.

 

Oh, and i did show some proof. I gave a statistical readingof the numbers. The pattern of codex is also proof alone of a design. Now you prove i am wrong.

 

lets take a look at some more awe-inspiring numerology.

 

Challah, a delicious type of bread eaten on the Sabbath is Chet-lamed- Hay, the numerical value of which is 43. Of course, the number 18 (chai) means 'life' in hebrew, and is very important. If you add these numbers you get 59. Which also corresponds to Yud-Aleph-Yud-Chet-Lamed. (my hebrew name). This is no coincidence. It means that I must sustain my life through the eating of bread!

 

 

 

 

 

I've seen the dead sea scrolls too, in a museum in Israel. How does that make numerology any less simple number games?

 

 

 

 

 

then why did you give the greek numerology, and not the gematria?

 

Forgive me, but the math you showed, or numerology as it might be best seen as, hardly scopes to the work i presented now does it? I do ask people be serious atleast. I gave the Greek, not only as an example, but because i used a shift value of 39, which was a key element in John 1:1, a Greek papyrus.

 

Now, i never said seeing the scrolls enhanced anything. It's just that one poster here thought that if i haven't seen them, it played a major role in determining my work. I simply corrected him.

[ecoli]

Now you prove i am wrong.

That's not how burden of proof works.

 

You still have yet to show that your 'numerology' is statistically significant.

 

 

Forgive me, but the math you showed, or numerology as it might be best seen as, hardly scopes to the work i presented now does it?

My point, is that it isn't 'statistically significant,' independent of the perceived importance of the numbers calculated.

To me, me eating bread is a lot more important than some arbitrary number that happens to have aesthetic value because of internal symmetry.

[ydoaPs]

The first seven words of the old testament, or the Torah, is what i have been working with. The value of 39, which i tagged as a ''shift value'' is actually an important value from the findings of the Greek gematria found in John 1:1.

How do you justify calculating your "shift value" from a separate book which not only is written in a different language by a different author but is written MUCH MUCH later? Don't you think that's a little ad hoc?

 

23 is rememdial next to the values of 777, 70707 and 70777707. Especially the plethora of 373737, 737373, or 393939, or even 939393.

How so?

 

You would see the importance, if you where less ignorant of the value of statistical math.

Is that supposed to be a variant of the Courtier's Reply?

 

Now you prove i am wrong.

Burden of proof is upon you, and as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

Now, i never said seeing the scrolls enhanced anything. It's just that one poster here thought that if i haven't seen them, it played a major role in determining my work. I simply corrected him.

Now that you are using other works, it IS relevant that manuscripts vary. Which manuscripts are you using and why?

[Graviphoton]

Ecoli

 

Did you see my statistics i applied.

 

How do you justify calculating your "shift value" from a separate book which not only is written in a different language by a different author but is written MUCH MUCH later? Don't you think that's a little ad hoc?

 

How so?

 

Is that supposed to be a variant of the Courtier's Reply?

 

Burden of proof is upon you, and as Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

 

 

Now that you are using other works, it IS relevant that manuscripts vary. Which manuscripts are you using and why?

 

I happily justify it, because of the findings. Have you still not bothered to find Dr. Vernons work?

 

You will find John 1;1 and Gen 1;1 are mathematically unque.

 

My extraordinary claim, isn't all that extraordinary. It simply states some intention. I have given mathematical proof and statistics. What else is really required? Its better than spouting off some claim without having nothing to back it up.

 

There is no other interpretation. Take this from someone who has studied theology for a long while. Why do you keep insideously investing that there is some alternative scripture with the first seven words?

 

[[ecoli]]

 

In other words, you asked for statistical evidence. I gave it in the OP. It seems you did not read properly.

[ecoli]

uh... no. There are no statistical calculations that I can see in this thread.

[Graviphoton]

Try when it says...

 

''This alone, is it proof of an intentional design and placement of theomatics? Well, wouldn't statistics prove this? I statisticated this small work at: 1 in 1.9 x 10^24

 

or more precisely 1 in a massive 1,968,212,810,225,485,111,967,227.''

 

Are you even reading the post? The whole thing i mean?

[ecoli]

yes, I know you said you 'statistically' proved this. What's missing is the work involved. How did you come up with 1 in 1.9x10^24? And how is this proof of intentional design. And, even if it is proof of intentional design, how is it proof of the design of a deity?

[Graviphoton]

Ecoli... i am not here to give mathematical lessons. I was here to show my results.

 

And as soon as you said

 

''And, even if it is proof of intentional design, how is it proof of the design of a deity?''

 

Why do you assume the last part? I strictly made a point of people to stay away from such claims. This work is to be divinitive proof that such claims cannot be used.

 

I am getting the impression you are not readin my post correctly.

[ecoli]

Ecoli... i am not here to give mathematical lessons. I was here to show my results.

What good are results without methodology?

 

And as soon as you said

 

''And, even if it is proof of intentional design, how is it proof of the design of a deity?''

 

Why do you assume the last part? I strictly made a point of people to stay away from such claims. This work is to be divinitive proof that such claims cannot be used.

Usually, the only people that bother wasting their time with numerology have the agenda to "prove" the existence of some deity. I suppose I should apologize for making that assumption, though.

 

I am getting the impression you are not readin my post correctly.

... or possibly you do not explain yourself clearly?

[iNow]

Why do I keep getting the feeling that Graviphoton is going to shave his head and take a power drill to his skull like that dude in Pi?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY1P-9xj_GA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pSPnAmO0pY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODdEmCuCi6I&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOr81_2kK8M&feature=related

[ecoli]

Why do I keep getting the feeling that Graviphoton is going to shave his head and take a power drill to his skull like that dude in Pi?

that was a cool movie

[ydoaPs]

I happily justify it, because of the findings. Have you still not bothered to find Dr. Vernons work?

lol

You will find John 1;1 and Gen 1;1 are mathematically unque.

You've still not shown how.

 

My extraordinary claim, isn't all that extraordinary. It simply states some intention.

No. Your claim is that in a time of minuscule literacy, a document was written(most likely dictated by someone who wasn't even literate) containing a code which only works when a "shift value" is calculated from a document written centuries later in a different language.

 

How is that not an extraordinary claim?

 

I have given mathematical proof and statistics. What else is really required?

Where? It sure wasn't in this thread.

 

There is no other interpretation.

Yes there is. Another interpretation is this is bad numerology which only works ad hoc.

 

Why do you keep insideously investing that there is some alternative scripture with the first seven words?

I didn't say anything about the first seven words. You're still not answering important questions. Does the code apply to only the first seven words of Genesis, the entire document, or the entire bible(or any other combination). You've at least used the first seven words of Genesis and part of John. Different manuscripts exist(that's part of how we date them), so if the code applies to entire documents(or groups of documents), then it would only apply to certain manuscripts.