Relationship between Mathematics and Scripture

[RationalThought]

Sorry for the confusion. You are right, it is not the Bible Code, but it is a code in the Bible. I found the book I read almost 30 years ago, Theomatics by Jerry Lucas.

This really is simply a substitution cypher, not the type of mathematics which I have interest in applying to the Bible. Completeness, consistency, and truth as seen by mathematical logic are more what I have in mind.

I did some quick scanning of the Theomatics website and I am dubious of some of their methods and claims. Some quick questions which come to mind are which versions of the Bible are we using and what happens if we try the technique on a different version (I know it is in Greek and Hebrew, but even considering that there are variations and apocrypha), and what happens when the technique is used on other ancient texts like Plato's Republic or the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I have no trouble attributing the probabilistic results to chance. I also have no trouble with evolution.

Thanks for the info,


RationalThought

 

[Soldier of YAH]

If you try the same technique with another version of the Bible - ie those that include the apocrypha, then things begin to fall apart. The individual books (except for those in th apacrypha) still have their features, but the ones that span multiple books are destroyed. There are still a few patterns found, but they are minimal and are scattered, no real link between them.

If you tried them on the dead sea scrolls or other material, you will still find sporadic patterns. But these patterns are not in depth, consisting of maybe 1 or two patterns of a number in a page or the like. They are just as sporadic as the results from an ancient trade receipt - the like of the 'control' documents used by Ivan Painin to prove the 'uniqueness' of the result in the Bible.

Ivan Panin experimented with many versions of the Bible to see what happens.

He found that the Authorised Version (the King James) was the most accurate translation, probably because it was done by scholars and not people of a certain doctrine. It excludes the apocrypha, includes Mark 16:9-20, has the original 10 Commandments (not the doctored Catholic ones). But there are still errors in it. The translators added in 'Amen' as the last word in Mark, which ruins many features found in Mark and in the whole Bible. There are other few minor errors, but not any of doctrinal importance.

He was an aethiest, so he went about to scientifically prove the Bible, not to back up any belief that he may have had of it, or any particular religion or doctrine.

The Bible was proven to be the only one with such an arrangement.

Soldier of YAH

 

[MoonlessNight]

Something that always occurs to me when the "Bible gives the incorrect value of pi" thing comes up, but I never see mentioned is, who ever said that the "molten sea" was a perfect circle? The scripture says that it is round, sure, but we often apply the adjective to things that are not perfectly circular and I imagine the Hebrew word used can be applied to shapes other than a perfectly circular circle (in fact I would be greatly interested to know just what sorts of shapes it could describe) since this hang-up on perfect circles mainly comes from the greeks anyway.

 

[RationalThought]

If you try the same technique with another version of the Bible - ie those that include the apocrypha, then things begin to fall apart. The individual books (except for those in th apacrypha) still have their features, but the ones that span multiple books are destroyed. There are still a few patterns found, but they are minimal and are scattered, no real link between them.

If you tried them on the dead sea scrolls or other material, you will still find sporadic patterns. But these patterns are not in depth, consisting of maybe 1 or two patterns of a number in a page or the like. They are just as sporadic as the results from an ancient trade receipt - the like of the 'control' documents used by Ivan Painin to prove the 'uniqueness' of the result in the Bible.

Ivan Panin experimented with many versions of the Bible to see what happens.

He found that the Authorised Version (the King James) was the most accurate translation, probably because it was done by scholars and not people of a certain doctrine. It excludes the apocrypha, includes Mark 16:9-20, has the original 10 Commandments (not the doctored Catholic ones). But there are still errors in it. The translators added in 'Amen' as the last word in Mark, which ruins many features found in Mark and in the whole Bible. There are other few minor errors, but not any of doctrinal importance.

He was an aethiest, so he went about to scientifically prove the Bible, not to back up any belief that he may have had of it, or any particular religion or doctrine.

The Bible was proven to be the only one with such an arrangement.

Soldier of YAH

The theory has lost credibility with this talk of translations. I assumed that this was the Greek and Hebrew which was translated, not some kind of back translation from the King James Bible. I find it impossible to believe that a pattern which you put such importance upon would have not existed in versions which were closer to the time of Jesus and only gained coherence in the last 500 years. This moves into the coincindence category for me, like a rock found in a river which happens to be spherical. Or attempts at forcing patterns onto things like Farrakan and his "19" speech at the Million Man March.

The God in which I believe, creator of the universe, is consistent across time. He would not have caused a message to suddenly appear in the original language of the Bible only when the "proper" translation is done. His message is constant and unwavering. This said, I do find this interesting. I am not convinced and don't believe.


Wish you the best,

RationalThought