I'm not religious, but I found this pretty interesting

First of all, please don't bash me about the use of Chuck Missler. I know about his attempt to disprove evolution with a jar of peanut butter, but there is a significantly better proof of concept shown in this video.

The first 7 minutes of this video is not really anything to talk about, but it's kind of cool to learn about. It's basically just Chuck Missler showing the impossibility of coincidence, and informing us of the many multiples of 7 in the New Testament, creating a base on which he can make his latter argument. The number of words in each gospel, number of letters in each gospel, number of consonants, vowels, names nouns… the list goes on for awhile and is discussed much more in the video, but they are all multiples of 7.

While there is no actual proof shown in this video, all this information was apparently discovered and proven by Dr. Ivan Panin about 100 years ago.

Now, these days I really don't give much thought to religion, much less the Bible, but the second part of the video intrigued me quite a bit and is one of the most interesting thing I've ever heard about the Bible.

According to the works of Dr. Panin, each gospel of the New Testament was written based on every other gospel of the New Testament. They all have a quality that makes it statistically impossible for them to have had been written independently of each other.

The argument made is that there are words specific to each gospel. The Gospel of Matthew contains words that are not written in any other gospel. The number of unique words in the Gospel of Matthew, and the number of letters in those words are both multiples of 7. I could see this being coincidence for just one gospel, but this property exists for every one. Since they all have this property, you could reasonably call it proof of the fact that they were all written together, possibly a single creator. Dare I say God?

Hopefully you can just watch the video as it is all described in much better detail.

You always hear about the Bible code and the hidden meanings, but this is the most concrete example I've come across, assuming the information checks out.

I don't really have much else to add to this subject. More so I am just posting it so others can see it and evaluate.

Enjoy!

Sounds interesting...

Can't watch now but I have subscribed for later.

Sir Issac Newton was convinced the Bible was encoded and, so I read, worked tirelessly to decode it.

Drosnin's software, well...not very well accepted.

The bible has been translated into many languages. Some words were lost in translation, making the "7" theory totally bogus.

reply to post by kimish


Maybe the Bible was engineered to reflect the significance of such numbers. As in, the words themselves are of little consequence compared to the numerical patterns they portray.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Than the significance of those numbers would have to apply to every language that the Biblical Canon is written in.

Originally posted by kimish
The bible has been translated into many languages. Some words were lost in translation, making the "7" theory totally bogus.

My thoughts too, but the extent to which it is present is pretty amazing. It goes as far as to incorporate every single letter. It would require some seeerious dedication to engineer this. Did you watch the video?

ETA: This 'code' was also found in the Greek version which is believed to be the original language.

reply to post by scojak


I didn't watch the video, but this topic has been discussed, at length, before.

There's a lot of interesting coincidences in the Bible, in some versions, because you won't find the same coincidences in every version or translation. Regardless, some of the coincidences are impressive yet most of the others are far fetched.

Nonetheless, it's definitely interesting for someone to look into that hasn't already had already heard of this type of thing.

Thanks for bring it up, for our newer members.

ETA: In all versions. Especially the Dead Sea Scrolls (Aramaic?)

reply to post by capod2t


Yes, please watch it. I'm a huge skeptic when it comes to this type of stuff, but this has certainly made an impression on me.

The 7 phenomenon existing to the extent that it does makes a very strong statement. Why not just write the damn thing and call it quits? Why go to all the trouble to create such a seemingly nonsensical intricacy?

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by scojak

 

I didn't watch the video

Then I don't know how you can begin to feel qualified to discuss its content.

There's a lot of interesting coincidences in the Bible, in some versions, because you won't find the same coincidences in every version or translation. Regardless, some of the coincidences are impressive yet most of the others are far fetched.

You didn't watch the video, and apparently also did not read my OP either. I discussed how the video explains the impossibility of coincidence.

Nonetheless, it's definitely interesting for someone to look into that hasn't already had discussions on this type of thing.

So you feel you are too educated to learn a little more? 'Tis a sad day when we are convinced we have nothing else to learn.

Thanks for bring it up, for our newer members.

I suggest you watch it yourself.

reply to post by scojak


Like I said before, this has been discussed at length before. That was a subtle hint to use the ATS search.

I didn't feel as though I needed to elaborate because of the fact that a search engine on the subject is available for all to use.


Here's a good one. ask.abovetopsecret.com... ... You're welcome. That's the one that's not currently available.

ETA: Btw, If you're a newer Thread starter, Religion is not a good topic to touch on unless you like to get flamed. And I was by no means flaming you.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by kimish

 

Maybe the Bible was engineered to reflect the significance of such numbers. As in, the words themselves are of little consequence compared to the numerical patterns they portray.

After watching this video I certainly agree with you that there is much more going on in the Bible than just the verbiage. Though this example may exist to show the importance of the number 7, my thoughts are that it is there as an indicator that there is more there than just what we read. It is the only provable code that I have heard about, and one definitive example is all it takes to know that there are more.

reply to post by scojak


It certainly explains the nonsensical story telling. Maybe they just came up with a bunch of random stuff, added a few recorded events in to make it look legitimate, dropped a few names and places to give it the right tone, and then used the rest of the space to organize everything according to numerical significance. Maybe the real meaning of the Bible isn't in the words, but the numbers. That's what Nassim Haramein has been saying for a long time, and it's always made more sense than just stopping at the storytelling bit. Have you checked out his stuff? Really fascinating. Seriously.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by scojak

 

Like I said before, this has been discussed at length before. That was a subtle hint to use the ATS search.

I didn't feel as though I needed to elaborate because of the fact that a search engine on the subject is available for all to use.


Here's a good one. ask.abovetopsecret.com... ... You're welcome. That's the one that's not currently available.

I'm apparently an extremely uneducated newbie. You see I tried using that darn search function to see what I could find before I posted, but couldn't find a single mention of what the content of the video was about. Perhaps you would be so kind as to take a moment to find me one? TIA

ETA: Btw, If you're a newer Thread starter, Religion is not a good topic to touch on unless you like to get flamed. And I was by no means flaming you.

edit on 10-7-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)

Precisely why I address the lunacy factor in the first paragraph. Also why I mention that I am not religious in the title. Also why I say that I don't normally pay attention to this stuff. Also the reason that I DIDN'T TALK ABOUT RELIGION! The topic of this thread was about the occurrence of numbers in writing. The text just happens to be the Bible. I didn't address its meaning or try to preach the seven deadly sins, I simply wanted to talk about the fact that the 7 phenomenon exists in the Bible and that it cannot be credited as coincidence. Please keep your comments to any conceivable rational thought on that matter. Thanks again in advance.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


No, I have not seen any of his stuff. I haven't really done any research on the subject. Every theory I've heard up until now was not really something that could be proven so it was all just hearsay. And though this has not been proven to me yet either, it is a theory that can be proven. If it turns out to be legitimate, I will have officially changed my perspective on the contents of the Bible. Thanks for the name. I'll check him out.

reply to post by scojak


Now you're being a cock boy. I provided a hyper-link for the best ATS search engine for you.

When it boils down to it, the OP is bunk because of the fact that the bible has been written in different languages. Each language has different vowels and syllables. Some words in different languages have more letters than others, meaning some words will have more vowels and syllables therefore making your OP bogus.

And yes, I did watch it, finally, to appease you. Use the search engine I hyper-linked you to and don't be such a whiny-baby-pee-pants.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by scojak

 

Now you're being a cock boy. I provided a hyper-link for the best ATS search engine for you.

Which I told you I used... Would've taken you less time to provide me a link than to berate me.

When it boils down to it, the OP is bunk because of the fact that the bible has been written in different languages. Each language has different vowels and syllables. Some words in different languages have more letters than others, meaning some words will have more vowels and syllables therefore making your OP bogus.

So you're saying that the early Greek version used was actually hoaxed by the translater who realized that he could spend countless hours figuring out how to make his translation fit the 7's paradigm exactly? That sounds crazier to me than just accepting the fact that maybe I'm right and your wrong. Not saying that's the case, but I digress and accept the fact that you don't agree with me. I would a appreciate a link to a thread that discusses this so I can read what you read to put your mind in such a finite place on the subject.

reply to post by scojak


I'm saying to read the other threads on the matter.

reply to post by scojak


Here's the New International translation of Matthew 1: 1-11 from the Bible Gateway website:

This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:
Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob,
Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,
Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar,
Perez the father of Hezron,
Hezron the father of Ram,
Ram the father of Amminadab,
Amminadab the father of Nahshon,
Nahshon the father of Salmon,
Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab,
Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth,
Obed the father of Jesse,
and Jesse the father of King David.
David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife,
Solomon the father of Rehoboam,
Rehoboam the father of Abijah,
Abijah the father of Asa,
Asa the father of Jehoshaphat,
Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram,
Jehoram the father of Uzziah,
Uzziah the father of Jotham,
Jotham the father of Ahaz,
Ahaz the father of Hezekiah,
Hezekiah the father of Manasseh,
Manasseh the father of Amon,
Amon the father of Josiah,
and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.

For accuracy, I removed all of their superscripts and notations. The total word-count for these verses is 190. You'll notice that this does not divide evenly by 7.

190 / 7 = 27.1428571

So, I'm going to have to say that no, the video is incorrect. But wait! What about, as the video says, utilizing the original Greek version? Well, I went ahead and did that too. Here are the same 11 verses in Greek, provided by the website Bible Hub:

Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβρααμ.
Ἀβραὰμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ, Ισαὰκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰακώβ, Ἰακὼβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶτοὺς άδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ,
Ἰούδας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Φαρὲς καὶ τὸν Ζαρὰ ἐκ τῆς Θάμαρ, Φαρὲς δὲ ἐγέννησεντὸν Ἐσρώμ Ἐσρὼμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀράμ
Ἀρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμιναδάβ Ἀμιναδὰβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸνΝαασσών, Ναασσὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σαλμών,
Σαλμὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Βοὲς ἐκ τῆς, Ραχαβ Βοὲς δὲἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωβὴδ ἐκ τῆς Ρούθ Ἰωβὴδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰεσσαὶ,
Ἰεσσαὶ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Δαυὶδ τὸνβασιλέα.
Δαυὶδ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Σολομῶνα ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Οὐρίου,
Σολομὼν δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ροβοάμ Ροβοαμ δὲἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀβιά Ἀβιὰ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀσάφ,
Ἀσὰφ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσαφάτ Ἰωσαφὰτ δὲἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωράμ Ἰωρὰμ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ὀζίαν,
Ὀζίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωαθάμ Ἰωαθὰμ δὲἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἄχας Ἄχας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἐζεκίαν,
Ἐζεκίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Μανασσῆ Μανασσῆς δὲἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἀμώς Ἀμὼς δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰωσίαν,
Ἰωσίας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰεχονίαν καὶ τοὺςἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς μετοικεσίας βαβυλῶνος.

The Greek variation has 352 words in total. Which, again, when divided by 7 does not produce an even number:

352 / 7 = 50.2857143

So, I'm pretty satisfied that this is not a legitimate Biblical claim. Interesting video though.


~ Wandering Scribe

Suppose that there is some significance to this. What good is it to us? Does it feed the hungry? Does it clothe the naked? Does it heal the sick? Does it house the homeless? Isn't that what people should be doing, rather than chasing after stupid codes and details in a book that has contributed way too much negativity and destruction to people's lives? Screw religion.

reply to post by Wandering Scribe


So, Wandering Scribe, does that not confirm the point I am expressing?