The Canonization of Maccabees

[Philip]

The first 17 books of history divide into two sections:

5 Books (Torah)
12 Books (History in the Promised Land)

Exactly the same numerical pattern is seen in the 17 books of Prophecy:

5 Books (Major Prophets)
12 Books (Minor Prophets)

Furthermore, the two groups of 12 divide in exactly the same way in terms of the Babylonian Exile:

12 History = 9 pre-exilic + 3 post exilic
12 Min Prophets = 9 pre-exilic + 3 post exilic.

Then there are 5 Books of Wisdom and poetry between the 17 books of history and the 17 books of prophecy.

Thus we have this perfect symmetry of the OT:

17 Books of History
Divided into 5 + 12, with the latter divided into 9 + 3

5 Books of Wisdom and Poetry

17 Books of Prophecy
Divided into 5 + 12, with the latter divided into 9 + 3

There seems to be some man made decisions in this. For example, you split the twelve minor prophets into twelve books. This was not always the case. Likewise, you keep Ezra and Nehemiah separate, as well as Ruth and Judges. These separations have not always existed.

The really impressive thing about this is that this pattern only appears when we adhere to the CONTENT of the Jewish canon and ORDER of the Vulgate, which is how the pattern appeared historically.

The 'CONTENT of the Jewish canon' is a dangerous statement. It is not clear if there was a closed Jewish canon before Christ. Which it may or may not have contained is even more debated. Finally, which, if any, textual family was favored is also debated.

 

[AngCath]

Its not the math per se - its the perfect symmetry of the Protestant Canon. It indicates design, and history proves that humans did not make this design. So there you go, God did it.

Richard

pardon, but all you did was rephrase what you said. you haven't shown that symmetry = from God

What about the Hebrew book order? just one example is that for them all the minor prophets are one book!

 

[Philip]

Its not the math per se - its the perfect symmetry of the Protestant Canon. It indicates design,

This is horrible logic. Symmetry in no way suggests design. Further, what you describe as 'perfect symmetry', others see as an interesting coincidence.

and history proves that humans did not make this design. So there you go, God did it.

History hardly proves any such thing. Your symmetry is based on man-made divisions of the Scriptures. Without those divisions, your theory breaks down. There is no logic reason to conclude that coincidences in man-made divisions must have a divine origin.

 

[BibleWheel]

There seems to be some man made decisions in this. For example, you split the twelve minor prophets into twelve books. This was not always the case. Likewise, you keep Ezra and Nehemiah separate, as well as Ruth and Judges. These separations have not always existed.

Man-made decisions? Absolutely! That's how God works in history. For example, wicked men chose to crucify Christ, and this fulfilled "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23) In the same way, men made decisions about the canon, but the outcome was exactly what God wanted.

As for the splitting of the Book of the Twelve into Twelve, this is what we have received from history. The key point is that no one did it in an effort to achieve the perfect symmetry that we now see in the protestant OT.

The course of the natural history of the production of the Bible really has nothing to do with the end result except to prove that it was not designed by humans.

The 'CONTENT of the Jewish canon' is a dangerous statement. It is not clear if there was a closed Jewish canon before Christ. Which it may or may not have contained is even more debated. Finally, which, if any, textual family was favored is also debated.

Dangerous? Yeah - I like living on the edge!

But seriously, no one can PROVE what the exact form of the canon was at the time of Christ. Sure, folks can - and certainly do! - argue about it, but proof evades us. But again, none of this impacts my primary argument that God Himself has provided us with His Canon, and He marked it with Perfect Symmetry - something truly worthy of (and to be expected from) an Eternal Author who is perfect in Wisdom and Knowledge.

Richard

 

[BibleWheel]

This is horrible logic. Symmetry in no way suggests design.

Symmetry in a literary work - especially one the size of the OT - is a strong sign of design. Books have been written on it cf. "The Symmetry of the Hebrew Old Testament" by David Noel Freedman - (you know, that super famous scholar who edited the six-volume Anchor Bible Dictionary (see http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=19350&event=CFN)

Also, just think about how many books have been written on the symmetric (chiastic) structures in the Bible. Many folks consider this a sign of design, albeit in this case of deliberate human design.

Further, what you describe as 'perfect symmetry', others see as an interesting coincidence.

Coincidence or no - it is symmetry three levels deep. There are seven pieces of this OT puzzle that "just happen" to fit together perfectly.

History hardly proves any such thing. Your symmetry is based on man-made divisions of the Scriptures. Without those divisions, your theory breaks down. There is no logic reason to conclude that coincidences in man-made divisions must have a divine origin.

As explained above, the divisions only look man-made because God use man to make them! Just like He used man to make the actual texts of Scripture. I hope you are not suggesting that the Bible is not inspired because God use man to accomplish His task. Exactly the same argument applies to the structure of the Holy Word.

Richard

 

[AngCath]

Man-made decisions? Absolutely! That's how God works in history.

Sounds more like you don't want to include the deuterocanon because it is too hard as a mathamagician to work it into your little system.

 

[AngCath]

Also, just think about how many books have been written on the symmetric (chiastic) structures in the Bible. Many folks consider this a sign of design, albeit in this case of deliberate human design.

umm, chaistic structure isn't any more divine than the Greco-Roman structure we use in English, it is simply the writing style of all the semitic languages.

 

[BibleWheel]

pardon, but all you did was rephrase what you said. you haven't shown that symmetry = from God

I'm sorry, I must have failed to make myself clear.

Here is the outline of the argument:

1) The symmetry runs three levels deep. It would be very unlikely that this happened by chance. You can do a simple combinatorial analysis to determine how many ways there are to divide 39 books into three levels like I posted above, and the number that are perfectly symmetric are much smaller than the number that show no symmetry at all.

2) In a literary work - which by its nature is "designed" by its author(s) - clear and lucid symmetry indicates design.

3) Since the natural history of the Bible prohibits this design as being due to the people who put it together (as shown above), the only conclusion is that God did it.

What about the Hebrew book order? just one example is that for them all the minor prophets are one book!

The Hebrew book order is just that. I'm talking about the Christian Bible which has never followed the Hebrew order. I don't know of any Christian Bible that presents the books in the Hebrew order, except I think I saw one recently produced by Messianic Jewish Christians in their efforts to be true to their "Hebraic roots." But that is clearly a modern anomaly and therefore not relevant to the discussion of the 66 Book Bible as it has been received by God through history.

Richard

 

[AngCath]

The Hebrew book order is just that. I'm talking about the Christian Bible which has never followed the Hebrew order. I don't know of any Christian Bible that presents the books in the Hebrew order, except I think I saw one recently produced by Messianic Jewish Christians in their efforts to be true to their "Hebraic roots." But that is clearly a modern anomaly and therefore not relevant to the discussion of the 66 Book Bible as it has been received by God through history.

What you're talking about is the Protestant Canon. What you're doing is disregarding the early Church's acceptance of the Deuterocanon and using the ordering of the books used in Christian tradition after taking out the deuterocanon and using a number game to justify it.
Philip and I don't deny the canonical nature of the 66 books you're referring too, but we both seriously doubt your numeroligical system for justifying the exclusion of the other books.
surely you must have a stronger argument than simply pattern recognition?

 

[BibleWheel]

umm, chaistic structure isn't any more divine than the Greco-Roman structure we use in English, it is simply the writing style of all the semitic languages.

Correct. That's why I never suggested any such thing! Here is what I wrote:

Also, just think about how many books have been written on the symmetric (chiastic) structures in the Bible. Many folks consider this a sign of design, albeit in this case of deliberate human design.

Maybe you should slow down a little. You misread my post as saying exactly the opposite of what I actual wrote!

But that's ok. I make mistakes all the time. I sure hope you folks will correct me with gentleness and respect.

Richard

 

[AngCath]

Correct. That's why I never suggested any such thing! Here is what I wrote:



Maybe you should slow down a little. You misread my post as saying exactly the opposite of what I actual wrote!

But that's ok. I make mistakes all the time. I sure hope you folks will correct me with gentleness and respect.

Richard

OK, but don't you see that in one case you dismiss what others see as a sign of the divine and in another you enthusiastically defend it?

 

[BibleWheel]

What you're talking about is the Protestant Canon. What you're doing is disregarding the early Church's acceptance of the Deuterocanon and using the ordering of the books used in Christian tradition after taking out the deuterocanon and using a number game to justify it.

Yes, my argument concerns the Protestant canon. But in the post you are responding to, I was talking about all forms of the Christian OT Canon - RCC, GO, Protestant - none of them have ever followed the pattern of the Jewish Tanakh.

Philip and I don't deny the canonical nature of the 66 books you're referring too, but we both seriously doubt your numeroligical system for justifying the exclusion of the other books.
surely you must have a stronger argument than simply pattern recognition?

Yes, I have many more arguments. But I have yet to understand why you think this one is weak. Three levels of perfect symmetry that was not designed by man seems to argue forcefully for the Divine Hand on the 66 book canon.

So here's the situation. It seems to me that for you to say my argument is not compelling, you must be denying that the pattern implies divine design. I'm still waiting for support for you position. In the previous posts, it seems like you simply denied that the design had to be of God. I gave arguments that seem to me to prove that it must be of God. As far as I can tell, I have not been shown wrong.

So before we move on to other arguments, lets settle this one. Can you show me the error in my argument?

Here's a recap:

1) The symmetry implies design (I supported this with a reference to combinatoric analysis that would show there are many more non-symmetric patterns possible than symmetric ones, so the probability of this being random chance is very low.

2) History proves the canon was not deliberately designed by humans to produce this symmetry. (I supported this by noting that the Vulgate established the ORDER and the Tanach the CONTENT, so neither group is responsible for the pattern.

3) Conclusion: The symmetry was designed by a non-human agent, and since we are talking about the Word of God, I have no hesitation in identifying the supernatural agent as the Lord God Almighty.

So there's the argument. Lets see if it will stand up under scrutiny.

Thanks guys! This is good conversation.

Richard

 

[BibleWheel]

OK, but don't you see that in one case you dismiss what others see as a sign of the divine and in another you enthusiastically defend it?

I'm not sure what you are refering to here AngCath. What "sign of the divine" am I dismissing?

Edit to add: Oh, I get it. Some folks see the chiastic structures as a sign of the divine design. Actually, would I agree with them in some special cases, such as if the design spanned multiple books, or something like that. In other words, if it was clearly beyond the scope of the human penman.

 

[Philip]

Man-made decisions? Absolutely! That's how God works in history. For example, wicked men chose to crucify Christ, and this fulfilled "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23) In the same way, men made decisions about the canon, but the outcome was exactly what God wanted.

And yet, you reject the testimony of the Church through the ages. You reject the canon established in council. You reject the citations of the deuterocanon as Scripture by countless fathers. But, you accept the proof that you have found for your canon. Why not accept what the Holy Spirit guided countless Christians to understand for more than 1000 years before you came along?

As for the splitting of the Book of the Twelve into Twelve, this is what we have received from history.

You accept this as 'received from history', but you deny the canon 'received from history'. You seem to be pick and choosing the evidence that fits your theory.

The course of the natural history of the production of the Bible really has nothing to do with the end result except to prove that it was not designed by humans.

Of course, to conclude this, you have to first assume your theory is correct and reject the canons used by countless Christians before you.

But seriously, no one can PROVE what the exact form of the canon was at the time of Christ. Sure, folks can - and certainly do! - argue about it, but proof evades us. But again, none of this impacts my primary argument that God Himself has provided us with His Canon, and He marked it with Perfect Symmetry

It has a direct bearing on your claim. You stated that you use the Jewish Canon in the Vulgate Order. However, it is impossible to establish what, if anything, the Jewish Canon was. You must assume what the Jewish Canon was. You, a human, make assumptions to fit your theory. This is not evidence of the Hand of God. It is evidence of a man defending his own ideas.

Symmetry in a literary work - especially one the size of the OT - is a strong sign of design.

Do you have a basis for this claim? Statistical theory suggests exactly the opposite. In any structure as complex as the OT, the chance of there not being some local organisation are astronomically small.

Books have been written on it cf. "The Symmetry of the Hebrew Old Testament" by David Noel Freedman - (you know, that super famous scholar who edited the six-volume Anchor Bible Dictionary (see http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=19350&event=CFN)

This is a flawed appeal to authority. The fact that one has written a large dictionary on the Bible hardly makes one an expect on the likelyhood of patterns randomly appearing in a complex structure.

Also, just think about how many books have been written on the symmetric (chiastic) structures in the Bible. Many folks consider this a sign of design, albeit in this case of deliberate human design.

You keep adding logical fallicies. This is a false association. The symmetry of a literary style such as chiasic structure has nothing to do with the symmetry you describe in the canon. If you were able to show a chiastic structure in the ordering of the books, you might have some support. However, your agument makes as much sense as arguing that a five act play must be writen in iambic pentameter.

Coincidence or no - it is symmetry three levels deep. There are seven pieces of this OT puzzle that "just happen" to fit together perfectly.

The fact that it only goes three layers deep is yet more evidence that it is mere coincidence. Most self-similar structures have a symmetry that extends to an infinite depth.

As explained above, the divisions only look man-made because God use man to make them! Just like He used man to make the actual texts of Scripture. I hope you are not suggesting that the Bible is not inspired because God use man to accomplish His task. Exactly the same argument applies to the structure of the Holy Word.

'Exactly the same argument'? Not even close. The same argument would be to argue for the canon accepted and testified to by the whole of Christianity. Arguing the canon based on some personal discovery of a shallow symmetry has nothing to do with historic arguments in support of the inspiration of the Scriptures.

 

[Philip]

1) The symmetry implies design (I supported this with a reference to combinatoric analysis that would show there are many more non-symmetric patterns possible than symmetric ones, so the probability of this being random chance is very low.

I dispute this. Symmetry need not imply design. Please post you combinatorial analysis. I would truly interested in reviewing it, expecially since I wrote my dissertation in combinatorics and graph theory.

2) History proves the canon was not deliberately designed by humans to produce this symmetry. (I supported this by noting that the Vulgate established the ORDER and the Tanach the CONTENT, so neither group is responsible for the pattern.

However, the person (that's you) who arbitrarily chose to use one particular canon and one particular ordering does have an influence on the pattern.

3) Conclusion: The symmetry was designed by a non-human agent, and since we are talking about the Word of God, I have no hesitation in identifying the supernatural agent as the Lord God Almighty.

Another logical flaw. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

So there's the argument. Lets see if it will stand up under scrutiny.

If you can not address my criticisms above, it has already failed to do so. To deal more with the first premise, let's look at one of my favorite self-similar structures: a julia set. It has several symmetries that extend to an infinite depth. Tell me, who designed the symmetries in it?

 

[BibleWheel]

Hey Philip,

That was a real "shot-gun" blast of a post. You brought up too many different topics all at once. For me to adequately answer all the points you raised, I need to write a mile long post.

In forums like this, it seems like the best way to have a fruitul discussion is to narrow down the argument to a single point that is then resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both posters. Agreed?

So I'll just jump to the part with the real meat:

Symmetry in a literary work - especially one the size of the OT - is a strong sign of design.

Do you have a basis for this claim? Statistical theory suggests exactly the opposite. In any structure as complex as the OT, the chance of there not being some local organisation are astronomically small.

Actually, statistical theory shows that the organization of the Old Testament as we have it in the Protestant Bible is extremely unlikely. There is exactly one chance in 34,871,760 that a three-level symmetry like what we find in the OT happened by chance.

The math is elementary. Consider a list of 39 objects. How many ways is there to divide them into three groups? The answer is easy to calculate. We need to just drop two "dividers" ^ in the list below.

1 2 3 4 ^ 5 6 7 8 ... 35 36 ^ 37 38 39

How many ways can we do this? Well, there are 38 slots to drop the first divider, and then there will be 37 slots to drop the second divider. Thus, there are 38 x 37 = 1406 ways to divide the 39 books into three groups. This is basic combinatorics.

And how many of these will show the symmetry like the 17 : 5 : 17 of the OT? That too is easy to calculate. Suppose the first divider is dropped between books n and n+1. To achieve the symmetry, the second divider must be dropped between books 39-n and 39-n+1. This symmetry can be written in terms of "n" as n : 39-2n : n. Since n can range over 1 to 19, we have exactly 19 possible ways to divide the 39 books into three symmetric groups.

So what is the probability that we would find a canon with the top-level symmetry of the OT "by chance"? It is simply the ratio 19/1406 = 1/74. Not too rare really. The top-level symmetry is not by itself proof of design.

But now lets consider the second level of symmetry. We do the same calculation as above, only now we drop in two more dividers.

38 x 37 x 36 x 35 = 1,771,560 ways to divide 39 books into 5 goups.

How many of these will show the second-level symmetry of the OT? To see this, we need to write it abstactly as follows:

Top-level n : 39-2n : n [OT has n=17 to give 17 : 5 : 17]

Second-level n-m : m : 39-2n : n-m : m [OT has n=17, m=12 to give 5 : 12 : 5 : 5 : 12 ]

Now to achieve a symmetry for all m like the second level of the OT, the size of the first, the third, and the fourth divisions must all the same. In the existing Canon, these groups all have 5 Books. Mathematically, this demands that n-m = 39-2n. This gives a restraint on both m and n:

m = 3n-39, and since 0 < m < n-1, we also have a restriction on n such that 13 < n < 20.

Therefore, second-level symmetry demands a structure that can be represented by a single variable "n" that ranges from 14 to 19:

39-2n:3n-39:39-2n:39-2n:3n-39 with 13<n<20

The are only six solutions that match the constraints. Here they are:

n=14 11:3:11:11:3
n=15 9:6:9:9:6
n=16 7:9:7:7:9
n=17 5:12:5:5:12
n=18 3:15:3:3:15
n=19 1:18:1:1:18

So there are six symmetric solutions out of 1,771,560 possibilities. Thus, there is one chance in 295,260 =6/1,771,560 that this structure would appear by accident. The numbers are starting to look pretty persuasive, and this is only at the second level of symmetry.

But there's another thing to consider before moving on to the third level. I speak of the self-witness of Scritpure to the meaning of the numbers God used in the design of the Old Testament. How many loaves fed the five thousand? FIVE. How many baskets left over? TWELVE. What is the symbolic meaning of BREAD in the Bible? It is the WORD OF GOD that feeds the disciples. There is much more to say on this, but now is not the time.

Moving on to the third level of symmetry, we do the same math as above and drop in two more divisions.

38 x 37 x 36 x 35 x 34 x 33 = 1,987,690,320 ways to divide 39 books into 7 goups.

That's about 1.98 BILLION ways to divide 39 books into seven divisions.

How many of these will show the third-level symmetry of the OT? That's easy. We just look at the six second level solutions listed above, and subdivide the second and fifth divisions. Here is how it looks abstractly:

Top level n:39-2n:n [OT has n=17 to give 17:5:17]

Second level 39-2n:3n-39:39-2n:39-2n:3n-39 [OT has n=17, m=12 to give 5:12:5:5:12]

Third level: 39-2n:3n-39-k:k:39-2n:39-2n:3n-39-k:k [OT has n=17 and k=3 to give 5:9:3:5:5:9:3]

The variable k must range between 0 and 39-2n. Here is a list of all possible solutions:

n=14 11 : 3-k : k : 11 : 11 : 3-k : k 0 < k < 3 = 2 Solutions
n=15 9 : 6-k : k : 9 : 9 : 6-k : k 0 < k < 6 = 5 Solutions
n=16 7 : 9-k : k : 7 : 7 : 9-k : k 0 < k < 9 = 8 Solutions
n=17 5 : 12-k : k : 5 : 5 : 12-k : k 0 < k < 12 = 11 Solutions
n=18 3 : 15-k : k : 3 : 3 : 15-k : k 0 < k < 15 = 14 Solutions
n=19 1 : 18-k : k : 1 : 1 : 18-k : k 0 < k < 18 = 17 Solutions

Summing up the solutions shows the total to be 57. Thus, there are exactly 57 out of 1,987,690,320 possible 39 Book canonical structures that exhibit the same three-level symmetry that we find in the Protestant OT. That is exactly one chance in 34,871,760.

Or in plain English: That is less than one chance in 34 MILLION!

No other form of the Christian Canon (RCC, GO, or any other) shows the same evidence of design. So there it is. Either I have made an error in the calculations, which I trust you will point out, or we are beholding a mathematical proof of the Divine Design of the Old Testament Canon.

Richard

 

[BibleWheel]

I dispute this. Symmetry need not imply design. Please post you combinatorial analysis. I would truly interested in reviewing it, expecially since I wrote my dissertation in combinatorics and graph theory.

Hey Philip - this is cool! I didn't see this post before I posted my analysis. I myself have degrees in math and physics. I worked on a PhD in Quantum Theory, though I never completed it.

I truly look forward to your evaluation of my calculations!

Richard

 

[AngCath]

Wow, now I'm caught between two mathematicians!

 

[BibleWheel]

While I'm waiting for a review of my statistical analysis, I will respond to your other points.

Man-made decisions? Absolutely! That's how God works in history. For example, wicked men chose to crucify Christ, and this fulfilled "the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23) In the same way, men made decisions about the canon, but the outcome was exactly what God wanted.

And yet, you reject the testimony of the Church through the ages. You reject the canon established in council. You reject the citations of the deuterocanon as Scripture by countless fathers. But, you accept the proof that you have found for your canon. Why not accept what the Holy Spirit guided countless Christians to understand for more than 1000 years before you came along?

I do not "reject the testimony of the Church through the ages." As I see it, there is only one universal testimony of the Church through the ages. All Christians agree that the 39 Books of the Protestant OT are canonical.

Some groups say there are other books that should be considered canonical but they disagree amongst themselves. The only OT books universally accepted by all Christians are the 39 Books of the Protestant OT.

As for the splitting of the Book of the Twelve into Twelve, this is what we have received from history.

You accept this as 'received from history', but you deny the canon 'received from history'. You seem to be pick and choosing the evidence that fits your theory.

No, I do not "pick and choose" the evidence. I have compared all forms of the OT canon and concluded that the Protestant form is unique in its structure. I have not ignored any evidence whatsoever.

As for my statement that the structure was "received from history," that was made in contrast to the idea that someone "made it up" to fit a pretty pattern. The point is that the pattern was implicit in the LXX and Vulgate, and only became solidly manifest when the 66 Book canon was produced by the Reformers. But the pattern was implicit in the Bible since at least the time of Jerome (4th-5th cent), who wrote against the acceptance of the deuteros.

The course of the natural history of the production of the Bible really has nothing to do with the end result except to prove that it was not designed by humans.

Of course, to conclude this, you have to first assume your theory is correct and reject the canons used by countless Christians before you.

I need assume no such thing. My point is that the natural history of the Protestant Bible prohibits the conclusion that is was deliberately designed by humans to fit a fancy pattern. There is no assumption whatsoever about which is the "correct" canon or that my "theory" is correct.

But seriously, no one can PROVE what the exact form of the canon was at the time of Christ. Sure, folks can - and certainly do! - argue about it, but proof evades us. But again, none of this impacts my primary argument that God Himself has provided us with His Canon, and He marked it with Perfect Symmetry

It has a direct bearing on your claim. You stated that you use the Jewish Canon in the Vulgate Order. However, it is impossible to establish what, if anything, the Jewish Canon was. You must assume what the Jewish Canon was. You, a human, make assumptions to fit your theory. This is not evidence of the Hand of God. It is evidence of a man defending his own ideas.

You twice highlighted the pronoun "you." This is misleading. "I" had nothing to do with the formation of the canon. I was talking about what the REFORMERS did when they rejected the deuteros. "I" had no hand in their decision.

The actual content of the Jewish canon at the time of Christ is irrelevent to the issue at hand. The Reformers used what they thought was the correct canon. Whether they were right or wrong does not impact my argument that their choice resulted in a wonderfully symmetric structure.

Of course, they had ample reason to assume that they knew the correct Jewish canon, since they have ancient witnesses such as Jerome and others that confirm it. But the reality is that no one can prove this point - either pro or con - so it is moot.

Books have been written on it cf. "The Symmetry of the Hebrew Old Testament" by David Noel Freedman - (you know, that super famous scholar who edited the six-volume Anchor Bible Dictionary (see http://www.christianbook.com/Christi...9350&event=CFN)

This is a flawed appeal to authority. The fact that one has written a large dictionary on the Bible hardly makes one an expect on the likelyhood of patterns randomly appearing in a complex structure.

It was not an appeal to authority. It was an merely an example that others have seen a relation between symmetry and design.

Also, just think about how many books have been written on the symmetric (chiastic) structures in the Bible. Many folks consider this a sign of design, albeit in this case of deliberate human design.

You keep adding logical fallicies. This is a false association. The symmetry of a literary style such as chiasic structure has nothing to do with the symmetry you describe in the canon. If you were able to show a chiastic structure in the ordering of the books, you might have some support. However, your agument makes as much sense as arguing that a five act play must be writen in iambic pentameter.

It would help if you didn't characterize every point of disagreement as a "logical fallacy" on my part. A little charity goes a long ways in forums like this.

You erred in evaluating my intent when I made this point. My intent was to show that many people infer that structure implies design. I thought it would be obvious that I was not applying this particular example to the structure of the OT.

Coincidence or no - it is symmetry three levels deep. There are seven pieces of this OT puzzle that "just happen" to fit together perfectly.

The fact that it only goes three layers deep is yet more evidence that it is mere coincidence. Most self-similar structures have a symmetry that extends to an infinite depth.

It does extend to an infinite depth. I just haven't shared the rest with you yet.

But even if the symmetry only went three levels deep, you conclusion would still be invalid because the three levels of symmetry by themselves are extremely rare.

As explained above, the divisions only look man-made because God use man to make them! Just like He used man to make the actual texts of Scripture. I hope you are not suggesting that the Bible is not inspired because God use man to accomplish His task. Exactly the same argument applies to the structure of the Holy Word.

'Exactly the same argument'? Not even close. The same argument would be to argue for the canon accepted and testified to by the whole of Christianity. Arguing the canon based on some personal discovery of a shallow symmetry has nothing to do with historic arguments in support of the inspiration of the Scriptures.

Your response seem to be non-sequitor. The argument you suggested as "the same" has nothing to do with the argument I presented, whereas the arguments I presented are obviously the same. They both are examples of how God accomplishes His purposes through humans, often without them even knowing it. You said that the proper comparison would be with "the canon accepted and testified to by the whole of Christianity."

But beyond not relating to the point I was making, your response also is flawed because the only OT canon that all Christians have ever agreed upon is the 39 books!

Richard

PS - Still looking forward to your review of my statistical analysis!

 

[BibleWheel]

2) History proves the canon was not deliberately designed by humans to produce this symmetry. (I supported this by noting that the Vulgate established the ORDER and the Tanach the CONTENT, so neither group is responsible for the pattern.

However, the person (that's you) who arbitrarily chose to use one particular canon and one particular ordering does have an influence on the pattern.

Your persistent assertion that I had "an influence on the pattern" baffles me. Is it not obvious that I had nothing to do with the formation of the 39 Book canon? Exactly how does the fact that I chose to study it have anything to do with any patterns it may or may not contain?

To deal more with the first premise, let's look at one of my favorite self-similar structures: a julia set. It has several symmetries that extend to an infinite depth. Tell me, who designed the symmetries in it?

The symmetries of the Julia set derive inevitably from a MATHEMATICAL LAW. The structure of the 39 Book OT Canon derives from (seemingly) free choices made by the many people that God used in the process of its formation. To compare the two seems to me to be utterly meaningless.

Richard