Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Title: Bible Numerics, does it add up?
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Revival Doctrines we 'USED TO BELIEVE'	Go to subcategory：

Author	Content

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Date Posted：17/03/2007 8:56 PMCopy HTML

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：11/07/2005 12:13 AMCopy HTML

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Religions/Numerics/allis.html
Excerpt from

Oswald Thompson Allis, Bible Numerics.
Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1944.

p18                                           

Many other features found in the OT group of 21 "writers" might well be
considered. According to "Feature Six" (Sabiers), of the 21 names of
"writers," 7 only are "named" in the NT (Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeemiah,
Daniel, Hosea, Joel). This ignores Solomon and Jonah, both of whom are
included in the list of 21 writers and they are certainly "named" in
the NT. This invalidates three of the ten "features" stressed by
Sabiers. It is remarkable that both Panin and Sabiers should have made
such an obvious slip.

The "Writer" James

Turning our attention to the five NT "writers," we notice something
that is worse than a slip. These writers are James, Peter, Jude, Paul,
John. Since these are NT writers and their names all appear in the NT,
their names are either Greek or have a Greek form. We are entitled to
expect them to be used as they are spelled in the NT. In the Greek all
five end in "s"; and James, Peter, and Paul all have the ending "os" of
the so-called second declension. This ending has the numeric value of
270. We observe with no little surprise that in the case of the names
Peter (755) and Paul (781), this ending is included in the total. In
the case of the name James (ie. Iakobos) the ending "os" is not
counted. With the ending, the name James would have the value 1103;
without it the value is 833. 1103 is not, as is 833 (7x119); a multiple
of 7. If used, it would change the total for the 5 NT writers and for
the 26 biblical writers to one which would not be divisible by 7. Why
then is this ending omitted in the case of the name James?

p19

The answer to this question is to be carefully considered because it
shows with the utmost clearness the extremes to which a convinced
numericist may be prepared to go in his quest of numeric factors. 833
is not the numerical-value of the name James, as that name is spelled
in the NT. It is not the numerical value of the name Jacob as that name
is spelled in the Hebrew of the OT. It is the spelling in the NT of the
OT patriarch, Jacob. It is arbitrarily used in this list of NT writers
in preference to the NT spelling of the name of the writer James simply
because it lends support to that theory of numeric value which the
other spelling would oppose. But it is not fair to "juggle" with words
in this case. In the NT the spelling without the ending always refers
to the patiarch Jacob; and the name then appears as Jacob in our
English Bible. The name spelled with the ending is used of James the
son of Zebedee and of the others bearing that name in the NT, notably
of the author of the epistle of James. Whether this inconsistency goes
back to Panin or the blame is to be
placed on Sabiers we do not know. In Panin's booklet, Inspiration of
the Hebrew Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated (1928); only the OT
writers are discussed; and the features that are pointed out differ
considerably from those given by Sabiers. But whoever is responsible,
such a gross inconsistency should be corrected. It is misleading to
those who are ignorant of the facts. To those to whom the facts are
known it is an illustration of ingenuity in manipulating the facts
which is decidedly damaging to the theory which these alleged facts
are cited to prove.

 [Note from Brendan McKay: the writings of Sabiers that this extract
  refers to were taken by Sabiers from Panin's writings.]

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10760
Posts：346
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：11/07/2005 12:15 AMCopy HTML

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/83.htm

The Seven Pattern in GreekThe patterns, or features, which Panin discovered in Scripture involved chiefly the number seven. Had he placed an emphasis on almost any other number, it is doubtful if anyone would have paid any attention to his discovery. His emphasis on seven made his claims seem more believable because of the prominence of the number seven in the plain text of Scripture, especially in the book of Revelation. Whilst numerical patterns of seven are very numerous in the Scripture text, patterns based on lesser numbers occur even more often. In any list of words you care to examine, one in seven features might be expected to yield a pattern of seven (for example, the previous sentence has 21, or 3 x 7, words), whilst one in two features would be expected to yield a pattern of twos (for example, the previous sentence has 4, or 2 x 2, five-letter words). 

Consider for a moment a small sample of the evidence Panin advances for the inspiration of Scripture. Also bear in mind that for every seven features inspected for some kind of seven Pattern, on average one should succeed (that is, the actual numbers he wants to find are 7 or multiples of 7, such as 14, 21, 28, etc.). Matthew 1:18-25 is a passage about the birth of Christ. Partin informs us (we can check for ourselves, he says) that this passage (in Greek) contains 161 words, or 23 x 7 (feature 1), which occur in 105 forms, or 15 x 7 (feature 2), with a vocabulary of 77 words, itself 11 x 7 (feature 3). The sum of the two figures making up 77 is 14, or 2 x 7 (feature 4). Furthermore, the difference between the tens (70) and the units and tens (77) is also 7 (feature 5), etc. Eventually, after finding five more features involving the number seven, Partin says that this is sufficient to establish that there is a numerical design embedded in the Greek text, and that on the basis of this the passage is inspired. Most of these features are difficult to check. The number of words refers to the Greek words; classification into vocabulary, forms and figures requires a knowledge of Greek; and compilations of these data are subject to the investigator's discretion. Thus the ordinary reader cannot verify any but the simplest feature of the reported pattern of sevens. Moreover, Panin warns the reader that there are many pitfalls into which the inexperienced handler of Bible numerics is likely to fall; in particular, to verify any but the simplest of features requires the authentic Greek text that Panin himself published in 1934 and titled

The Numeric Greek New Testament. Oddly enough, the vocabulary he arrives at for the New Testament contains 5,304 words (not a multiple of 7), whilst Strong lists 5,523 words (789 x 7). Before he can check Panin's work the layman must decide which is the true vocabulary of the New Testament, Panin's or Strong's. This is not easy to decide, since Panin's vocabulary, at least as far as I can discover, is unpublished.The Seven Pattern in HebrewThe evidence Panin gives for the Hebrew text is no better. He uses the opening words of Scripture: 

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth". 

In Hebrew this verse contains 7 words (feature 1), which have 14 (7 x 2) syllables (feature 2) and 28 (7 x 4) letters (feature 3). Words containing the subject and predicate have 14 letters, and words containing the object 14 letters (feature 4). However, this example is even more extensive because Panin persists in examining it until he has discovered twenty-five features (some rather exotic) involving seven or a multiple of seven. To Panin this outcome was absolute proof of the inspiration of the verse. How was Panin able to find twenty-five features in such a short passage? The answer is that he probably examined many more and reported only those that succeeded. 

Theoretically, to find twenty-five he need only to have examined a total of 175 features, since by chance one in seven would succeed. Counting any feature involving seven that he finds (the number of possibilities is large) he is certain to succeed in finding ten features in any passage of reasonable length. Even finding as many as twenty-five features in Genesis 1:1 would not require an unreasonable effort. In fact, in forty years Panin was able to cover a lot of the Scriptures. It is reported that he produced some 40,000 pages of numeric notes. 

Panin's findings would be more striking if what he found in each verse followed the same pattern. Yet Genesis 1:2 contains 52 letters (not a multiple of 7), and fails to contain many of the features of verse. Should we then conclude that verse 2 is not inspired? Or has God set out a different pattern of sevens in verse two? Since Panin had so many features of seven to choose from, he could always persist until he had found his self-imposed ten features of seven. In examining the Greek text he often extended the number of features of seven by counting the sum of the Greek letters in words or phrases (each letter of the Greek alphabet was used as a symbol for a number).Objections to the Method

Eventually Panin's research led him to claim that numerics (as he called it) was capable of establishing that any passage of Scripture was inspired. The proof, Panin said, was based on the fact that all inspired Scripture contains so many patterns of seven that the probability of this happening by chance is extremely small. Not a page, paragraph or sentence in the whole Bible, he said, fails to show elaborate numeric designs. Yet in reality the large number of sevens was not all that impressive, since finding ten features of seven (or its multiples, 14, 21, 28, etc.) in a passage a sufficient number of times to claim that it is inspired requires the examination of approximately seventy features. What is extremely objectionable about Panin's methodology is that he multiplies reciprocals of numbers together to obtain what he claims are the probability of the features he finds occurring by chance. Thus if there are 7 words in a verse (feature 1) and 14 syllables (feature 2) the chance of this happening is 1/7 x 1/7 = 1/49. So if ten features are discovered, Panin suggests that the odds of this occurring are 1/282,475,249, that is, less that one in two hundred million, sufficient to establish the text as inspired. As a result of applying false assumptions, the probabilities obtained by Panin are considerably lower than the actual probabilities. Thus what Panin perceives to be irrefutable evidence for inspiration because of the low probability of the features he identifies is not nearly as irrefutable as he would have us believe. If the features were this improbable it would be fair to ask how he was able to find them in the first place, since investigation of 282,475,249 features at the rate of one a minute would take 537 years. Since he found so many involving seven they must be commonplace, since on average one in seven features is a multiple of seven.
 
For example, when I began to write this article I was sitting in a blue chair (1 of 28, or 7 x 4, chairs in our house - feature 1) on a Tuesday (1 of 7 days in the week - feature 2). Counting the dogs, there were 7 present (feature 3). Only 1 of the 14 (7 x 2) light bulbs in the room was burning (feature 4). The computer used for word processing this article had 28 (7 x 4) normal sized keys in the upper two rows (feature 5). 

According to Panin's reasoning, if I continued finding a sufficiently large list of features of 7(he says ten is enough), the probability of me writing this article under these circumstances would be extremely small. No one I know would consider this analysis to be a convincing argument, yet Panin's analysis of Bible numerics has much in common with the above. Yet Panin is convinced this method works, and even states the following: 

"The reader may now be prepared to be told that not a single question can be raised about the text of the Bible but can be settled by Bible numerics. Thus in the absence of punctuation in the manuscripts, numerics alone give certainty where the contents leaves in many cases the proper place of a comma doubtful". 

Panin illustrates this by using a passage from Luke, which we give unpunctuated: "Verily I say unto thee today thou shalt be with me in paradise" (Luke 23:43). By placing the comma after "thee", Panin finds an unusual pattern of sixes, elevens and nineteens in the phrase, "today thou shalt be with me in paradise". However, if the comma is placed after "today" there is no pattern, enabling Panin to say that the comma must be placed after "thee". If you are one who believes that you have invisible, immortal soul that flies off on the wings of angels to heaven when you die, then this is undoubtedly the 'right' answer. However, for those of us who put our faith in the promises made to Abraham, and who expect our reward to occur when the Son of Man returns to this earth (to raise the dead) and to inherit the kingdom of God on earth, then this is yet another indication that Panin's numeric method cannot be trusted.

Questionable Value

This type of searching of God's holy Word is surely a waste of time, and perhaps even blasphemous. Nowhere do the Scriptures suggest that a study of numerics can enrich our faith or establish inspiration. Instead they make the claim directly: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Surely Paul would have mentioned the use of Bible numerics to Timothy if it were of any value. Instead we find that Panin's methods have been applied to the Koran, the Book of Mormon and even Poe's poetry, 'proving' their inspiration through an abundant pattern of sevens. For those who wish to investigate their own or others' writing for such signs of 'inspiration', a computer program is available on the Internet. Bible codes have much in common with Panin's approach to proving inspiration. Unusual features are 'discovered' and said to have a low probability of occurring by chance. It is almost two years since Michael Drosnin's book 'The Bible Code' attracted a lot of media attention. Although his 'discoveries' could not have been 'revealed' until the computer age, for centuries curious men have expended considerable effort searching the Scriptures for various coded messages from God. Reflecting on the work of Drosnin and others, we can only sorrow that they wasted so much time'discovering' ambiguous, if not trivial, messages. How much better it would have been for them to have spent their time concentrating on and applying the Bible's outward message to their lives! 

Their superficial familiarity with a coded Scripture text has gained them but a moment's fame, instead of a share in the promises made to the faithful. Why are so many of us taken in by these ideas? (I was quite excited when I first heard about numeric and later Torah codes.) I think the answer can be found in one or more of the following (I forget the source I have adapted these from):A mystique - in this case Greek or Hebrew letters, or the concept that God might be behind it and we should not question it.A lack of tools to investigate it ourselves-in this case a lack of knowledge of Hebrew and Greek, and likely a weak background in probability theory.

A superficial reading-failure to see exactly what is being done because it is presented mysteriously or not fully explained.A desire by those who believe the Bible is inspired for additional ammunition to convince unbelievers.

A lack of the necessary time to investigate in depth what we hear about, and a feeling that there are better ways to spend our time.

It is disturbing to see these ideas gaining credibility in our midst. Some Bible Reading Seminar material that is distributed to our students even promotes Panin's pattern of sevens as evidence of the Bible's inspiration. Surely this is unwise when there is much better evidence provided in prophecy, or even in the obvious consistency of Scripture doctrinal teaching. Those who attend our Bible Seminars deserve better proof of inspiration than Panin's sevens or the Bible codes. There is a real danger that promoting these ideas will weaken rather than strengthen our witness to the inspiration of God's Word.

Source: The Testimony - March 2000 

Author: Jack Robinson

Probability theory says that the multiplication rule used by Panin is appropriate only for independent events (coin tossing is a good example). It should not be applied indiscriminately to all events or else the results will be incorrect and misleading. Moreover, by choosing a sufficient number of features it is possible to show that almost any set of events is impossible (that is, it has a very small probability of occurring). Besides omitting his failures, Panin often counts a single feature more than once, and then goes on to extract an incorrect probability. Perhaps he was not a brilliant mathematician after all. For example, features 3, 4 and 5 of Matthew 1:18-25 are in reality only a single feature (see main text). Consider that if the vocabulary is 77 words (11 x 7, feature 3), the sum of its figures 7 + 7 must be 14 (feature 4). Furthermore, Panin has the audacity to count it a third time as feature 5, the difference between the tens (70) and the units and tens (77). Mathematically, the probability of these three features occurring together is 1 (that is, the result is certain to occur), because the other two features must follow if the number is 77. Essentially what Panin has done applies equally to Bible code researchers. By giving a great prominence to their 'successes' they have convinced some that the improbable has happened. In reality, with so many possibilities the unusual is certain to occur.

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10760
Posts：346
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：11/07/2005 12:18 AMCopy HTML

Miracles in Edgar Allan PoeThe following example is an expansion of one first presented on USENET by Charles Culver of Computers for Christ. 
For this example, we will use numerical values for English letters assigned using the same pattern as used for Arabic, Greek and Hebrew. 
  A=1   B=2   C=3   D=4   E=5   F=6   G=7   H=8   I=9
  J=10  K=20  L=30  M=40  N=50  O=60  P=70  Q=80  R=90
  S=100 T=200 U=300 V=400 W=500 X=600 Y=700 Z=800
We will analyse the famous first line of Poe's classic poem "The Raven": 
   Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary

There are 7x7 letters. 
The first and last words sum to 202x7, of which the first letters contribute 80x7. 
The consonants in words starting with a consonant sum to 537x7. 
The consonants in words ending with a consonant sum to 485x7, of which 192x7 comes from the odd length words and 293x7 from the even length words. 
The consonants in words 2,4,6,8,10 sum to 177x7. 
There are 7 words ending with consonants. 
There are 3x7 consonants in words of even length. 
Considering words 1,3,5,7,9,11: 
There are 3x7 letters. 
The even (2,4,6..) letters in each word total 138x7. 
The last letters of each word total 205x7. 
The first and last letters of each word total 51x7x7. 

Considering the verb "pondered": 
The first letter has value 10x7. 
The vowels have total value 10x7. 
In his original article, Charles wrote: 
  There are a number of other objections to Panin's methodology 
  as well, which time does not permit me to go into.
It appears that Charles is just as good at writing numerical text as Poe was. 
The sentence has 3x7 words and a total value of 143x7x7. 
The first word has value 44x7. 
Words ending in vowels have value 230x7. 
Words ending in consonants have value 708x7. 
The three pronouns total 40x7. 
The words which start with a vowel and end with a consonant total 3x7x7x7. 
Considering just words 2,4,6,8,...,20: 
There are 6x7 letters. 
The 3x7 letters in odd position in the sentence total 53x7x7. 
The 3x7 letters in odd position in a word total 54x7x7. 
The first letters total 163x7. 
The consonants total 408x7. 

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10760
Posts：346
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：11/07/2005 12:24 AMCopy HTML

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Religions/Numerics/Mathematical Miracles in the Qur'an or the Bible? As you explore these materials, please bear in mind the nature and purpose for this web page, and a necessary disclaimer - (Why did I collect the material on this web page?). 
Similar pages: 
In Search of Mathematical Miracles (by Brendan McKay) 


Claims / facts on numerical features in the Qur'an 
The Submitters: [1] [2], [3], are the group which is the reason for me to respond to the whole issue in the first place and their web site contains a lot of information from this particular group of Muslims who hold the conviction that the "Number 19 miracle" in the Qur'an proves its divine origin. 
Not only 19 is miraculous in the Qur'an: 
Amazing Al Qur'an(Other miracle claims about eloquence, scientific foreknowledge, textual preservation, etc. are dealt with in the Qur'an section of the Answering Islam site.) 
Responses to their claims: 
Data: (The problem of interpreting the data and twisting the data to make it fit): 
The numerical miracle in the number of Islamic prayers and other miscounts 
The Basmallah: [1], [2] 
Changing the Qur'an? 
The Mysterious 19 in the Quran 
A Numeric Miracle of the Number 19? 
Miscounts, their repair and other number games: [1], [2] 
On the 365 days hoax: [1], [2],[3], [4], [a 19er response]

About the "false verses": [1], [2], [3], ...
Mathematics: What really are these probabilities and what is the correct way to view it statistically?
A mathematician's response

How to transform every number into 19

What exactly are these probabilities?
General:
Draft FAQ on the topic by 'AbdulraHman Lomax

The deception and its code

Response to the claims by Ibnu Ar Radi

A little satirical contribution

I have not read it myself but the following book has been recommended to me: 
Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips
The Qur'an's Numerical Miracle: 19- hoax and heresy
Abul Qasim Bookstore; Jeddah - Saudi Arabia
The final and most important miracle

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10760
Posts：346
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：11/07/2005 12:28 AMCopy HTML

http://www.greaterthings.com/Bible_Codes/Book_of_Mormon/index.html

'Book of Mormon' in Bible Code

Index
Evidences and exposition from words and numbers associated with 'Book of Mormon' in equidistant-letter-sequence Torah code and Alphabetics code
Page Contents
Studies by Sterling D. Allan | Studies by Dean Mansfield | Related Sites
See also:
Book of Mormon Resources @ GreaterThings.com

Get a Free Copy
 
Studies by Sterling D. Allan

Page Number Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Bible, and Sealed Portion - 531 (#pages in BofM) x 3 (3/3 = sealed + preparatory) = 1563.  LDS printing of Bible has 1560 pages.  Page 1563 is blank.

360 -- Many Evidences for the Book of Mormon - Skip sequence for 'sefer (Book) MORMON' in Bible Code is 360. Words and pages 360 in Bible-bases sources provide affirmative commentary on the Book of Mormon.

531 and the Book of Mormon - Words and Pages numbered 531 in the Old and New Testament Lexicons and several English dictionaries vindicate the Book of Mormon's witness of Jesus Christ.

Zenos' Allegory (Jacob 5) in the New Testament Lexicon - Eleven consecutive pages of definitions in Zodhiates New Testament dictionary contain key words from Zenos' Allegory and of vineyard imagery in general, confirming the allegory and offering additional insight.

515 'Book of Mormon' in Theomatics, Alphabetics - Theomatics: 'The Law' = 515 = 'The Book of Mormon'; 515 in Alphabetics: 'The esteemed book of Messiah, whose foundation is God.'
 
Studies by Dean Mansfield

 Is the Book Of Mormon of Hebrew Origin? - Pre- versus post-Babylon captivity Judaism, and the preservation of Messianic teachings and traditions.

Ets Ephraim va-Ets Yahudah - Following words encoded in Ezekiel 37: Bible, Book, Mormon, Joseph, Smith.

'Mormon Book' Skip Sequence in Torah Code - 'MRMN sefer (book)' skip sequence of 105 in Deuteronomy 32-34, includes phrases: 'from Egyptian,' 'Aramaic,' 'English,' and 'Hebrew;' also 'rosh Joseph,' 'America,' 'Jeshurun'

More: click here for many more writings by Dean on things Book of Mormon in Bible Codes
 
More

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：11/07/2005 12:45 PMCopy HTML

Yep, as I said, you can find number patterns in any text (even my grade fours scrawl)... what has me so interested in bible numbers is the themes that the numbers have been given from Gen to Rev.
. man in sin... man created on 6th yom. (falls short of 7 perfection)
.. rebellion... soloman took 13 years to build his house and only 7 years for the temple
. resurrection... 8 on ark... 8 is new octave... 8 is new day at end of week
.. rain... wandering.. fasting (trial and temptation)
.. obviousl - a good thing... (never 7 evil kings)
.. government (disciples... tribes) it's a number that is easily divided into smaller groups...
There are very obvious themes in the bible numbers. These are the things that fascinate me. I have tried to add gematrias before but had little luck and wasted my time greatly with bible codes. But these themes are quite awesome.
.. revelation (bible books 66 = revelation to man in sin?) 44th book is Acts?
Watch the theme play out in the Lords prayer. That it is laid out in this order dovetailing into the numeric theme is what I love. I mean this is amazing. This prayer was by design according to a numbered theme. Tell me it isn't...
Our Father (one unified undividable)
who art in heaven (two - a witness)
Holy be your name, thy kindome come, will be done (three - spiritually complete)
On earth as it is in heaven (four - creation.. earth and heaven)
Give us this day our daily bread (five- grace.. giving)
and forgive us our trespasses (six- man in sin... trespasses)
as we forgive those who trespass against us (seven - spirituality.. forgiving nature)
and deliver us from evil (eight - resurrection... 8 on Ark...deliverence)
for thine is the kingdom (nine - finality judgement)
Now that's a theme, that's what I'm talkin 'bout!
 

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：Lurker
Score：130
Posts：5
From：Unknown
Register：28/09/2005 10:20 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：03/10/2005 8:06 PMCopy HTML

Congratulations to "Mr Jonah" for his excellent critique of Bible Numerics. Any mathematician knows that if a problem is not properly posed, then any "solution" is possible. I was once asked "What is the probability of a book having all the features found by Panin?" by someone in TRF (with reference to the Bible). Had I thought of it at the time I could have replied, with reference to a particular (imagined) duck, "What is the probability of a duck having all of the features found in that duck?". That question would have been met with ridicule, and I would have been accused of showing contempt in parodying Panin's work.

Surely most people can reason effectively that the chance of throwing a six with a fair die is 1 in 6, and that there is a 50 percent chance of getting heads when tossing a coin. This is standard probability theory, taught early in school. Throw in a religious belief system, however, and that same critical ability seems to vanish. I suggest this has something to do with a demonstration of faith in the face of powerful logical counter-arguments. It seems that the stronger the counter-argument, and the more absurd the irrational belief, the more determined is the resistance to examine the counter-argument or to be influenced by it. This seems akin to a display of bravery in the face of a powerful and dangerous foe. I am reminded of "Religion Explained" by Pascal Boyer. How else can we explain the many intelligent people who are no intellectual slouches in many spheres of life, yet who hold to such beliefs as the veracity of Bible Numerics?

I think the more interesting questions are to be found in the analysis of WHY people believe what they do, and how they behave given their belief. That the Bible Numerics of Ivan Panin has been thoroughly refuted should be beyond doubt by now. We all believe things, some of them unsupported by scientific evidence. Indeed the "scientific method", however widespread it may be among the technologically advanced nations, is itself a cultural practice that is largely missing in "remote" areas. As Boyer points out, there are many more people who observe some form of irrational belief than there are proponents of science. The term "irrational" is taken by some to be derogatory, as we are living in "The Age of Reason". This is an unfortunate prejudice, which perhaps gets in the way of a more sensitive exploration of belief systems.

For those of us who need no further convincing that Ivan Panin's methods and findings leave a lot to be desired, let us concentrate instead on some of the broader issues. Ivan Panin merely sowed his intellectual seed on the fertile ground of people's minds, as many others before him have done, and as many will do in the future. Let us broaden our view and look to an ecosystems view of these fields that are so richly cultivated.

Of all those with nothing to say, the most agreeable are the silent.

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：04/10/2005 12:10 AMCopy HTML

"What is the probability of a duck having all of the features found in that duck?". 

Ha, yeah... I like that. Similar to the idea I have of why the solar system is absolutely perfectly placed to effectively shield us and sustain life. If it wasn't we be in another solar system billions of lightyears away enjoying perfect conditions somewhere else.
I've been a student of Bullinger and Panin for some years and have found much convoluted convolutions, but there has been some gems among the dirt, in my opinion. It's the whole poor old baby and the bathwater thing but I'm not going to bother preaching my holy numb3rs at anyone again... all I'm saying is that if you get to heaven and there is 2 doors: one on the left saying seven, and the other right saying thirteen.... pick the door on the left.
Cya in Hea7en

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：06/04/2001 10:54 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：17/06/2006 11:33 AMCopy HTML

$%*'`[From BRF Forum]%*'`@Some hold the opinion that the apocrypha are too inaccurate (historically, geographically) to have been 'inspired' by God.
I guess if God had wanted certain books in the Bible, they would be in there.
A bit like "what's the difference between historical writings in Bible times (such as those of Josephus) vs letters in the Bible"?
One is deemed by God to have been inspired and useful for learning and doctrine, the other isn't.

I'd like to hear some more replies on this topic.

First up, the Apocrypha and the so-called 'Dead Sea Scrolls' are two completely separate and dictinct groups of writings. Although the DSS does contain a number of the accepted Apocryphal books (which are normally limited to between 12 and 15 works, such as the 'Wisdom of Solomon'), they also contain a number of writings referred to as Pseudepigrapha (including as 'Enoch').

However, both the Apocrypha and 'Dead Sea Scrolls' provide us with something of a snapshot of Jewish beliefs during the time of Christ (or more correctly, the 'Second Temple' period, circa 400BC - AD70). For this reason, they often prove helpful in interpreting many of the contexts that underpin the canonical NT writings that we find in our Bibles. As but one example, the DSS have helped us better understand many of the things that John recorded in his gospel, not least being his theology on the Jewish Temple and its priesthood.

Another important aspect of these varied documents is that they help us to understand just how 'fluid' the boundaries of the biblical canon (as understood by the Jews of the time) was. This acknowledged, in in some cases certain of these works do support the established wording of individual books of our Bible (for example, the 'Great Isaiah Scroll' of Qumran is 1,000 years older than the previously oldest known copy of the Hebew Masoretic text, yet it is, bye-and-large, identical to that which underpins our English translation).

There are many other reasons why the DSS and the Apocrypha are important, but such reasons are usually of interest only to biblical scholars. 

Finally, I wouldn't place too much stock in the idea (offered by one correspondant here), that they were excluded because they didn't 'work' numerically. 'Bible Numerics' (whether by Panin or Drosnin) is the stuff of fiction and fantasy, not fact and reality.

Blessings, Ian

Phil,

'Bible Numerics' has been soundly and mathematically refuted, the evidence against this flawed theory being so conclusive that the RCI dropped the entire matter like a 'hot potato' several years ago. To summarise, the issue at stake is one of a very flawed understanding by 'numerics-supporters' of the subject of mathematical probability.

If you're interested in discovering the facts for yourself, then you might care to do a 'Google' on Dr Brendan MacKay, of the Australian National University. He is a professor of mathematics, and has published extensively on this subject.

I can also send you a copy of the RCI paper which led to the whole 'numerics' thing being immediately dumped from that church in 1999.

I find it interesting that you can state categorically that Bible Numerics has been disproved by Dr McKay. Similarly, I could state categorically that Dr McKay's works have been 'soundly' and 'mathematically' refuted by Dr. Haralick.

Since neither of us are mathematicians, it is foolish to make such comments. What value is there in seeing which mathematician with the most letters after their name supports an already prejudiced view?

If people want to believe in an unimportant topic such as Bible numerics based on the large amount of supporting material, good for them. If people want to disbelieve an unimportant topic such as Bible numerics based on the large amout of supporting material against it, good for them too.

Brisbane Revival Admin

Hi, Phil.

"If you have some bitter grudge and want to get people mad at each other and having fights, then just go away please. If not, I really appreciate your comments on this topic."

Thanks. Regardless of what 'Admin' alleges above, I'm *not* interested in causing fights, or in 'sowing dissention' within the RF. My position is quite simple: either 'BN' is factual, or it isn't. My issue is simple, as Christians we have an *obligation* to get to the truth of the matter, even if it upsets our own pet theories.

"I just want to know if bible numerics is true or false, and why it is or isn't."

As I've maintained, the evidence is against 'Bible Numerics' being true, and it doesn't relate simply to supposed mathematical patterns. The principle evidence is textual -- and relates to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts themselves. 

"Any info I get regarding the subject will be subject to approval from the relevant authorities (God) (James 1v5-8)."

Of course, and I have no issue with this.

Good morning, Nala and Phil.

Fred Payne's "The Seal of God" was something of a 'hot' seller during my RCI days, and most Revivalists I know have a 'dog-eared' copy tucked away on a bookshelf somewhere ;o)

Part of the 'blurb' to this book boldly states: "...creation in the Word: an unanswerable challenge to an unbelieving world..." Unfortunately, and despite the claim, this *doesn't* prove to be the case at all. Payne's arguments are in no way unanswerable, and for that matter, they don't present too much of a challenge to educated unbelievers at all.

As we all know, in his book Payne sets out to provide a Christian apologetic for the existence of God, in and of itself surely a noble and worthwhile task. Unfortunately, however, he (bye-and-large) attempts to 'prove' Scriptural claims by use of strictly 'secular' methods: 'science', 'mathematics' and the like. The problem that invariably arises when one attempts to do this, is that one tends to become quite selective in the data that one uses, the methods that one applies, and the results that one presents. Such is the case with the 'Seal of God'. In the end, what Payne attempted to do isn't all that different to what Dan Brown attempted with his references to the 'Vetruvian Man' in his 'The Da Vinci Code', both tried to use 'something mathematical' to prove quite dissimilar theories.

When all is said and done, Fred Payne relied upon the work of Ivan Panin. The issue at stake in the current discussion, is whether or not Panin's theories actually measure up to *reality*, and are verifiable beyond a shadow of a doubt. I've suggested that they don't and that they aren't, and I can prove such to be the case (with Admin's forebearance). So, the way I see it, it matters little what Payne has written, given that he owes his position to Panin. If the foundation is shonky, it matters very little what structure one attempts to build upon it.

God bless, Ian

Arthur Marshman here.

God set seven as the number of days in the week that is numerical and it is in the bible. He also set fourty as a period of preparation that is numerical and is in the bible. There are many other examples of numerical principles found in the bible. 
God set the mathematical growth pattern of all living things(re. fibonacci sequence). All the basic laws of nature, physics and everything were created by God and they all are based on mathematics.

Your assertion that God does not work Mathematically is silly.

It is true the endless letter counting is pointless and is definitely not needed to prove the existance of God. 

It is the tangible evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues that demonstrates the power of God to us personally.

I know that you believe that the Baptism in the Holy Ghost is some "mystical experience you have when you give your heart to the Lord". This is also silly.

For all those who don't know Ian he was a member of our fellowship back in the 89's but now he belongs to the official revival haters club.
Dear Ian,

I have been keeping up to date with this post, as with others you have contributed to for some time now. Out of complete and utter annoyance I will make the following comments,

I find your posts to be a very frustrating read. I feel you write as if you are speaking to a pack of misinformed, gullible, Neanderthals. This aside, I find your posts require four goings over before your point can be fully ascertained. Reminds me very much of University required readings, use enough big words and you can confuse the best of us! If it's confusing it must be very deep and super important...? Far above the heads of us simple "RF" folks!?

I think your arguments are tiresome, predictable and annoying. Using clever little technicalities like "I was never a member of RF", when marshman suggested you had been a member of "our fellowship in 89" is just a waste of space on this forum. We all know that RF didn't exist is 89; it is not necessary to make points such as these.

I have a theory about why you, and others like you invest so much time and effort into posting on this site. I think you enjoy arguing with us. I believe it is blatantly obvious that you want to prove everything we say and stand for as wrong...? Unfortunately the only way to prove me wrong is not to post :-o

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：17/03/2007 9:28 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Brolga 


Bible numerics is part of RC doctrine. I have gone along with it over the years, but now I bring it into question whether it is right or not as I have attempted to translate it from the Greek myselfbut cannot make it add up. Ref: Jesus in the Grk 888 and Satan 666, are but 2 examples I have tried. SOTTI or anyone be able toenlighten me? Thankyou.Brolga. 

Revivalists and students of Ivan Panin didn't refer to Satan as having a 'gemetria' (sum of alpha-numeric parts) of 666. It refers to the beast system of man, but not Satan in particular. Revelation somewhere - This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666. The theme of Bible Numerics has 6 listed as 'Man in sin'... ie. Man was created on the 6th day etc. Satan is represented by the number 13... 
The number 6 (sin) is one short of perfection (7), and the number 13 is one short also of perfection (2x7)
Now, annoying though it is for me, I can easily add up the gemetria for Jesus as 888 (IhsouV) 
And even though I don't bother trying to add up the verify the claims of people like Ivan Panin, E. W. Bullinger and Brad Smith, I do see the following patterns consistantly themed thoughout the 66 books. I have read recently that King James and his team were avid numerologists and it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine them making various number themes regulated thoughout their KJ version.
Unity, Oneness, sovereignty, light.
Witness, division/ duality, difference.
Divine perfection, Godhead, unity.
The world, creativity, material completeness.
Grace, heavenly favour, love.
Man under the curse of sin, time.
Spiritual perfection, rest.
Resurrection, new beginnings, Jesus.
Finality, judgment.
Perfection of order.
Subversion, disorder.
Perfect government.
Rebellion, corruption, Satan.
The Word of God.
Probation, trials, testing.
Sons of God.
Man's godless systems,

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：18/03/2007 4:50 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Brolga

Bible numerics is part of RC doctrine. I have gone along with it over the years, but now I bring it into question whether it is right or not as I have attempted to translate it from the Greek myselfbut cannot make it add up. Ref: Jesus in the Grk 888 and Satan 666, are but 2 examples I have tried. SOTTI or anyone be able toenlighten me? Thankyou.Brolga.

Hi, Brolga.

Nope. Bible 'numerics' is junk. 'Google' Dr Brendan McKay from the Australian National University (he's a world renowned mathematician). Dr McKay has written several papers debunking this nonsense, a couple of which are available online. Some of his material was made available to the RCI in 1999, and they dropped 'numerics' forthwith!

Blessings,

Ian

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：18/03/2007 5:20 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : SOTT1 


Hi, Brolga.Nope. Bible 'numerics' is junk. 'Google' Dr Brendan McKay from the Australian National University (he's a world renowned mathematician). Dr McKay has written several papers debunking this nonsense, a couple of which are available online. Some of his material was made available to the RCI in 1999, and they dropped 'numerics' forthwith!Blessings,Ian 

Yes but can that number theme I listed be completely denied..? Can you even at least admit that there is a simple theme of 7 being a good number... a seal?
Can you admit that the number 40 has been used to signify waiting and testing more than once? or that Jesus name actually does add up to 888?
and the others... I know numbers can be fudged, and forget gemetria, I know very well that pattern can be found anywhere, but what about the underlying theme here of 3 is a tri-une god, and others, even if it's only the significance place on number meaning. Can you deny all that or does refereing to Dr McKay's paper atone for everything and anything that might be said on the subject.

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：18/03/2007 8:26 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust

Moth,

Sure...the biblical writers often used certain numbers intentionally, no doubts about it. But it's quite the stretch to move from the overtly obvious to the supposedly hidden in this instance. For me, it's pleasing to note that you've finally discarded the Revival-esque gematria nonsense that you once defended  

Blessings,

Ian

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：18/03/2007 8:42 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : SOTT1 

Reply to : MothandRustMoth,Sure...the biblical writersoftenused certain numbers intentionally, no doubts about it. But it's quite the stretch to move from the overtly obvious to the supposedly hidden in this instance. For me, it's pleasing to note that you'vefinallydiscarded theRevival-esquegematria nonsense that you once defendedBlessings,Ian 

I agree, but I'm not sure if I've completely discarded it yet. it's way out on the backburner though, because I never was really able to get any of the gemetrias to work out and I doubt I'll ever waste precious life trying to see if it ever was true. The bible code, now there's some crapolla even the Revivals didn't bother to suck and see. I noticed in the foyer of Fred Needhams's Auckland assembly they have pamphlets that sing the praises of the Bible Code. pffft... come on Fred!
Can you believe that Brad Smith of Brisbane actually used gemetria to justify the length of time someone was 'put out' of fellowship... and you know what? people actually went along with it. Such is the power of a man in authority over the gullible and 'willing to follow blindly'.

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：Member
Score：1080
Posts：51
From：Unknown
Register：13/02/2007 9:56 AM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：18/03/2007 4:27 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Brolga 


Thankyou Guys,MothandRust, I stand corrected on Satan. I was trying my memory (scary hey!)instead of going back to the articles I haven't read for quite awhile. I obtained the book from GRC, Seal of God in Creation and Word by J C Payne,when I was in fellowship with them. On the surface, an "impressive article", I must say.S1, I will have a read of Dr Brendan McKay, again thankyou. 

Hey Brolga,
After reading Brendan McKay have a look at what Chuck Missler says about it. He has an awesome commentary on Matthew chapter 1. I only mention Matthew 1 as that is all I have heard from Missler but this guy is a freak. His IQ is almost as high as Sotts - Ha ha ha. Maybe the other way around. I don't give a rip who the translators were, nobody is smart enough to come up with the numerical pattern found in scripture, not Missler, Sott or anyone!! Just the Almighty God. Once again, this is my personal opinion, tear it apart if you wish, fact being, whether numerics are right or not does our opinion on this change our eternal destiny??? No Way!
Hey Moth, enjoyed your comments on this by the way. Whatever has happened to you over the years you still seem to have stuff deep within that comes out in a great way. 
If GWM is still on I would like to hear his take on this one.

Rank：Regular Poster
Score：3180
Posts：156
From：Unknown
Register：12/03/2007 10:25 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：18/03/2007 6:49 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Nahum 1v7 
I used to lap up "bible numerics" - I love maths. Unfortunately though, as SOTT pointed out, Panin's idea has been discredited. The key is that the probability model he uses is just plain wrong. It vastly over-estimates the rarity of the patterms he found. I cringe now when I hear of it being used to demonstrate the inspiration of the Bible.
7 years ago, the RCI website also had a great easily read paper on its errors and what the probabilty model should be, but I'm not sure if it's there now. (If I were as good as I'd like to be, I would have seen the fault myself. I went as far as 1st year uni stats, but if I recall correctly a year 11/12 high school student should be familiar with the maths.) Certainly clear thinking will be enough to follow the explanation about Panin's error.
I presented the information to my pastor, but he virtually dismissed it, [sigh] but some others have seen the error of numerics' way.  RF may have to wait for a generational change as with RCI!

Rank：Member
Score：1080
Posts：51
From：Unknown
Register：13/02/2007 9:56 AM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：20/03/2007 6:30 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : SOTT1 

Reply to : Nahum 1v7'morning, Nahum.Don't remember putting the words "bible scholar" in my post!!!Perhaps not, but you certainlyinferredas much. You might care to do a little research on Mr Missler; if nothing else, doing so will establish the need for confirming the facts of a matterbeforeclaiming someone to be an 'authority' on a given subject.So you actually think you are a meek christian?! Hmmm...okay.Meek? CertainlyInformed? Absolutely!Blessings,Ian 

Sounds like more informed than meek!! 
So how does one enrol in the SOTT1 bible college??? It seems to me that it must be the most profound, correct and only one of its kind in the world!! Does it really encourage people to go to the Roman Catholic Church?? Shame on the rest of you who agreed with that comment!!

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：20/03/2007 8:39 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Nahum 1v7

Nahum, again.

Sounds like more informed than meek!!

Thanks! 

So how does one enrol in the SOTT1 bible college???

Actually, I'm just on the academic staff, I don't actually own it   Oh, and it's a theological college, not a simple Bible college.

It seems to me that it must be the most profound, correct and only one of its kind in the world!!

Hardly, that would make it cultic  

Does it really encourage people to go to the Roman Catholic Church??

It's not the role of a college to recommend people to attend any denomination. The recommendation to check out the Roman Catholic church was mine  

Shame on the rest of you who agreed with that comment!!

Why? Because they might be a little more open-minded and informed by the facts than are you? You really should challenge your own biases, my friend. Ignorance is bad enough, but willful ignorance is much worse!

Broaden your vista (if just a little).

Ian

Rank：Poster Venti III
Score：10760
Posts：346
From：Unknown
Register：05/04/2003 2:38 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：22/03/2007 6:41 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Brolga

Hi Brolga,

You've just discovered one of the major reasons why 'Bible Numerics' is junk! Greek (and Hebrew as well) is an inflected language. In other words, the morphology of individual words changes depending upon the role the word plays in a given clause. The word 'Jesus' is a good case in point. Given that it's a noun, the name 'Jesus' can take one of several different 'case' endings, being written:

Iesous (the nominative inflection, or "subjective case", which is the 'dictionary' form of the name), 

Iesoun (the accusative inflection, or "objective case"), and

Iesou (the genitive inflection, or "possessive" case).

So, the name 'Jesus' won't always equal '888' at all   

Blessings,

Ian

Rank：Poster Venti II
Score：7160
Posts：343
From：Scotland
Register：06/02/2007 11:02 AM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：22/03/2007 4:58 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : earth5 

re bible numerics, i have heard recently that the rcf have abandoned this as it has been proven incorrect, so no need to keep up this threadearth5 

I bet grc still preach it. Hollins wont back down on any of his doctrine, part of his success. He would argue about his doctrine to Jesus face to face. Actually he probably will have to one day. Like to be a fly on the wall for that one!

¡uıɐƃɐ ʎɐqǝ ɯoɹɟ pɹɐoqʎǝʞ ɐ ƃuıʎnq ɹǝʌǝu

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：22/03/2007 5:37 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : earth5 


re bible numerics, i have heard recently that the rcf have abandoned this as it has been proven incorrect, so no need to keep up this threadearth5 

Well... the RF still haven't given it up yet and they display it proudly on their website:
http://www.trf.org.au/Bible_Numerics.asp
I'd argue that there are aspects of the Bible Numerics idealogy to be bunk, but other aspects that are possibly not so, so perhaps... if it's alright with you, we who are interested might keep up this thread - proven or otherwise... eh?
Maybe it's sentimentality... but numerics was the only thing that used to convince me that the bible was something special and possibly inspired... even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff (Rev. Lovejoy - Simpsons).

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：23/03/2007 8:47 AMCopy HTML

Reply to : Brolga 
Proof the Loch Ness Monster exists! It's in the bible. hahaha I came across this and thought it funny. Bible code patterning used in KJV (not to be confused with Bible Numerics of course).

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：Member
Score：1080
Posts：51
From：Unknown
Register：13/02/2007 9:56 AM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：24/03/2007 6:11 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : MothandRust 


Reply to : BrolgaProof the Loch Ness Monster exists! It's in the bible. hahaha I came across this and thought it funny. Bible code patterning used in KJV (not to be confused with Bible Numerics of course). 

Loch Ness??? Perhaps not but I have a better one for you all.
Go to Psalm 46 - count down to the 46th word and then count from the end of the chapter 46 words back. You will need to dig up those KJV bibles. Let me know who you find in there!
Hey, I was reading the new testament the other day and it appears that moth is in the bible also??? Juct coincidence??? lol

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：24/03/2007 11:45 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Nahum 1v7 

Loch Ness??? Perhaps not but I have a better one for you all.Go to Psalm 46 - count down to the 46th word and then count from the end of the chapter 46 words back. You will need to dig up those KJV bibles. Let me know who you find in there!

Q. Go to Psalm 46 - count down to the 46th word and then count from the end of the chapter 46 words back. You will need to dig up those KJV bibles. Let me know who you find in there!
Shakespeare and Psalm 46Some believe that Psalm 46 may have been translated by Shakespeare. The King James version of the Bible was printed when Shakespeare was 46 years old. Moreover, the 46th word from the beginning of the psalm is "shake" and the 46th word from the end of the psalm is "spear."

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：Forum Oracle
Score：41550
Posts：1881
From：Australia
Register：27/02/2004 11:21 PM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：25/03/2007 5:10 PMCopy HTML

Reply to : Nahum 1v7 
 PRESBYTERIAN:
 When  you rearrange the letters:
 BEST IN  PRAYER
REVIVAL FELLOWSHIP:
 When  you rearrange the letters:
 HAVE PELVIS FOR WILL
LLOYD LONGFIELD:
 When  you rearrange the letters:
 FLED GOD IN LOLLY (weird huh?)
NOEL HOLLINS:
 When you  rearrange the letters:
 HELL LION SON
 ASTRONOMER:
 When you  rearrange the letters:
 MOON  STARER

 DESPERATION:
 When you  rearrange the letters:
 A ROPE ENDS  IT

 DORMITORY:
 When you  rearrange the letters:
 DIRTY  ROOM

 THE EYES:
 When you  rearrange the letters:
 THEY  SEE

 GEORGE BUSH:
 When you  rearrange the letters:
 HE BUGS  GORE

 THE MORSE CODE:
 When!  You rearrange the letters:
 HERE COME  DOTS

 

 SLOT MACHINES:
 When you  rearrange the letters:
 CASH LOST IN  ME

 ANIMOSITY:
 When you  rearrange the letters:
 IS NO  AMITY

 ELECTION RESULTS:
 When  you rearrange the letters:
 LIES - LET'S  RECOUNT

 SNOOZE ALARMS:
 When  you rearrange the letters:
 ALAS! NO MORE Z  'S

 A DECIMAL POINT:
 When you  rearrange the letters:
 IM A DOT IN  PLACE

 THE  EARTHQUAKES:
 When you rearrange the letters:
  THAT QUEER SHAKE

 ELEVEN PLUS  TWO:
 When you rearrange the letters:
 TWELVE  PLUS ONE

 AND FOR THE GRAND  FINALE:

 MOTHER-IN-LAW:
 When  you rearrange the letters:
 WOMAN  HITLER

Instagram and Twitter: @mothpete

Rank：
Score：0
Posts：0
From：Unknown
Register：21/09/2018 12:36 AM

Re：Bible Numerics, does it add up?

Date Posted：12/10/2008 8:19 PMCopy HTML

Reply to brolga 

Bible numerics is part of RC doctrine. I have gone along with it over the years, but now I bring it into question whether it is right or not as I have attempted to translate it from the Greek myselfbut cannot make it add up. Ref: Jesus in the Grk 888 and Satan 666, are but 2 examples I have tried. SOTTI or anyone be able toenlighten me? Thankyou.Brolga.

Yep a lot of charismatically inclined churches use some form or variation of number patterns to validate scripture interpretation. I'm sure my lecturers would be most suitably unimpressed if I resorted to using numerical nonsense to form a basis of exegeses..Nine is the number of ultimate completed perfection while 12 is the number of ...... whatever !!

The trouble is that none of this numerical nonsense has ever had any place in any proper hermeneutical expression. And I'm sure Paul never engaged in such practice either.

... six is the number of the sensual... 

and the number five, well yes there is the FIVE fold ministry  

D.