Proof we were Created - Yes, I said Proof!

reply to post by boncho


I'll do this from time to time depending on the thread:

3 - System, 33 - Truth

A few posts down

The Phi spiral describes the surface of the torus, the basic element of matter. Now if we put the Phi spiral inside a tetrahedron and then slowly revolve it around a pivot axis, and shine a light from behind the Phi spiral, all of the Hebrew characters will show up as the shadows on the inside face of the tetrahedron. Hence, the characters of the Hebrew alphabet are the projections of a Golden Mean spiral.

Source

This quote seems to clearly explain the significance of the ratio 3:6:9 - The relative frequency of all sympathetic streams is in the ratio 3:6:9. Those whose relative frequencies are 3:9 are mutually attractive, while those having the relation of 6:9 are mutually repellent.

Source

I don't think anybody could know just what is going on. You can't be told what reality is, or read it from a book. You have to experience reality and define for yourself what you think is happening. If you had never heard of religion or read a philosophical document what would you think reality is? What is it in your body that tells your limbs to move? Where do thoughts originate in the human cortical system? If you follow another persons beliefs then you are being led around. Leaders are nothing without their flock (of sheep). Proof accounts for nothing. It doesn't matter what you can prove through duplicate outcomes of experimentation if the person still refuses to believe it. To subjective consciousness the only truth is what you choose to be real.

What makes any of this real to begin with? What makes you believe this life isn't an illusion like some kind of dream that we will one day wake up from? Organized religion has a hard time accepting new ideas and has a hard time describing their old ideas.

reply to post by Kaboose


Great reply. If you consider the Genesis 1 account, Elohim created mankind on day six, then rested on day seven. There were no restrictions of the fruit or trees. In Genesis 2, YHVH created Adam and planted Eden. He restricted the two trees. Eve was taken from Adam. Genesis 1 states that mankind was BOTH male and female. This makes sense when you consider Eve and the chromosome needed. Genesis 2 is a second account, making it the start of 8000 years. Today, we are at 13,000 years.

I was beginning to wonder if anyone else with some common sense was out there. Thank you for the kind words.

reply to post by boncho


Hilarious, classy & instructive zealot smackdown.

Looks like Enoch Was Wrong..

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Wow you know nothing about science look the holgraphic universe hypothesis went down in flames it couldnt hold up to data we knew to be true this was a pipe dream of fringe science. As far as DNA being like code of course it is it helps us comprehend it so naturally we make analogies. But we created the cose to help understand DNA we assigned values and we organized the information so we can better understand it. So does it really surprise you we would look at it as binary code and set it up that way to better understand it. We didnt create DNA but we did create the terminology used and we decided how the information should be displayed. We just as easily could have assigned number values to DNA in which case we could use math to explain DNA but then you would be claiming thats proof of god as well.

Please dont try to learn about science off christian websites they are biased and only tell you things that confirm there belief and ignore the other 90 percent that doesnt.

The physicists in those videos are not fringe scientists. The holographic theory is the leading concept of our day. DNA is digital. Your are discounting the four Nobel Prize Laureates. Let's see you refute the Head of the Genome Project, who became a Christian based on his research into DNA. Are you sure you think Leonard Suskind is a fringe scientist? Really? Argue with the Head of the Genome Project. I agree with him.

edit on 25-8-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)

Ill do a quick explination as to why the holographic universe has idea has been rejected by most of science. Theres still a couple out there who may be truing to rework the theory to fit new data but it is defiantly fringe science. First why physicists reject it in the first place it does away with a law we know to be correct and has been proven time and time again. The law was created no wait discovered by Einstein and it says this:

NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THEN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Sp how does this apply to the holographic universe? This means the entire universe has to receive information up dates from the source supposedly a black hole wont go in to this right now. Well, the problem is that instantaneous communication regardless of distance violates the speed of light. If information is being up dated on a galaxy billions of light years from us at the same time as electrons firing in our brain then it would have to be instantaneous communication. The other problem is energy and mass conversion a holographic universe does away with this completely a universe without E=mc2.Will we can come back to this later but it would require a coupe of posts, but let us say through observation we know the 2 are linked in a holographic universe there just projections or grains on space time.

Now in order for this whole theory to hold up that means everything is made of grains projected on to space time much like looking at a television small dots making up the big picture. And just like a TV the closer you look the fuzzier the picture should get. Try putting your nose on your television you see the dots but not the picture they create. Well in a holographic universe we should be able to detect this fuzziness in physics the term is quantized.

Since science never rejects an idea outright we started looking in to it in fact Fermi labs started building a holometer to detect this graininess unfortunately for them something else showed up on the scene. Its from the European Space agency meaning construction will end let me explain. Integral gamma-ray observatory a satellite shows no quantization of the universe,Iin other words when we look at the very small we still get a clear picture. In order to detect if the universe is grainy we look at a gamma ray burst if it is twisted meaning polarized much light light shinning through a prism. Because in order to project this universal hologram the universe itself would have to be polarized much like wearing 3 D glasses.Well, in short its not here is the article.

www.esa.int...

Originally posted by Kaboose
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I like Chuck Missler, he really got me into the Bible more than I was before.

There are a lot of good people out there showing the stupidity of atheism, it is so absurd to think all life came from nothing by nothing. I actually breaks a lot of mathematical, scientific, and common sense laws to think everything came into existence from nothing and by nothing, and organized itself for life by random chance. The entire idea is actually what I would define as madness.

The problem is Darwins Evolution has big money and big power behind it, the driving force behind socialist government is an atheistic belief system. Making the government god who grants you rights, instead of the one true God. This is what we have in power today controlling our government, education, and media. Brainwashing kids at a young age all their life. Creating good little secular brain washed government drones who worship government, or themselves, or entertainment stars, etc.. you name it.

I believe this creation we have today (possible 2nd creation if you accept the Gap theory) is only around 6000 years old. Comets themselves attest to young a universe. Comets can't last longer than 15,000 years max, yet we have them today. What does the secular community come up with in response to this fact? "Uh there is this Oort cloud that has comets bouncing around in it." Another completely made up idea, based on zero evidence, in fact, it isn't even theoretically possible if one looks at the idea of an "Oor cloud of comets". There are other facts like size of the sun in the past based on its current loss of mass etc... Without billions of years, Evolution has no chance, even with billions of years life creating itself it is still impossible actually, but the atheist either don't get it, or want to deny the obvious problems with the lack of a creator.


Anyways, just wanted to throw in my two cents on this topic,
Good day to all

edit on 26-8-2013 by Kaboose because: (no reason given)

This makes no sense new comets are created all the time stay off the religious science websites comets come from 2 places either the Kuiper belt or for long period comets the Oort cloud these guys are not from our solar system at all but are interlopers lol.

reply to post by dragonridr

Ill do a quick explination as to why the holographic universe has idea has been rejected by most of science. Theres still a couple out there who may be truing to rework the theory to fit new data but it is defiantly fringe science. First why physicists reject it in the first place it does away with a law we know to be correct and has been proven time and time again. The law was created no wait discovered by Einstein and it says this:

NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THEN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Sp how does this apply to the holographic universe? This means the entire universe has to receive information up dates from the source supposedly a black hole wont go in to this right now. Well, the problem is that instantaneous communication regardless of distance violates the speed of light. If information is being up dated on a galaxy billions of light years from us at the same time as electrons firing in our brain then it would have to be instantaneous communication. The other problem is energy and mass conversion a holographic universe does away with this completely a universe without E=mc2.Will we can come back to this later but it would require a coupe of posts, but let us say through observation we know the 2 are linked in a holographic universe there just projections or grains on space time.

Now in order for this whole theory to hold up that means everything is made of grains projected on to space time much like looking at a television small dots making up the big picture. And just like a TV the closer you look the fuzzier the picture should get. Try putting your nose on your television you see the dots but not the picture they create. Well in a holographic universe we should be able to detect this fuzziness in physics the term is quantized.

Since science never rejects an idea outright we started looking in to it in fact Fermi labs started building a holometer to detect this graininess unfortunately for them something else showed up on the scene. Its from the European Space agency meaning construction will end let me explain. Integral gamma-ray observatory a satellite shows no quantization of the universe,Iin other words when we look at the very small we still get a clear picture. In order to detect if the universe is grainy we look at a gamma ray burst if it is twisted meaning polarized much light light shinning through a prism. Because in order to project this universal hologram the universe itself would have to be polarized much like wearing 3 D glasses.Well, in short its not here is the article.

These guys would argue with you. Link

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ill do a quick explination as to why the holographic universe has idea has been rejected by most of science. Theres still a couple out there who may be truing to rework the theory to fit new data but it is defiantly fringe science. First why physicists reject it in the first place it does away with a law we know to be correct and has been proven time and time again. The law was created no wait discovered by Einstein and it says this:

NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THEN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Sp how does this apply to the holographic universe? This means the entire universe has to receive information up dates from the source supposedly a black hole wont go in to this right now. Well, the problem is that instantaneous communication regardless of distance violates the speed of light. If information is being up dated on a galaxy billions of light years from us at the same time as electrons firing in our brain then it would have to be instantaneous communication. The other problem is energy and mass conversion a holographic universe does away with this completely a universe without E=mc2.Will we can come back to this later but it would require a coupe of posts, but let us say through observation we know the 2 are linked in a holographic universe there just projections or grains on space time.

Now in order for this whole theory to hold up that means everything is made of grains projected on to space time much like looking at a television small dots making up the big picture. And just like a TV the closer you look the fuzzier the picture should get. Try putting your nose on your television you see the dots but not the picture they create. Well in a holographic universe we should be able to detect this fuzziness in physics the term is quantized.

Since science never rejects an idea outright we started looking in to it in fact Fermi labs started building a holometer to detect this graininess unfortunately for them something else showed up on the scene. Its from the European Space agency meaning construction will end let me explain. Integral gamma-ray observatory a satellite shows no quantization of the universe,Iin other words when we look at the very small we still get a clear picture. In order to detect if the universe is grainy we look at a gamma ray burst if it is twisted meaning polarized much light light shinning through a prism. Because in order to project this universal hologram the universe itself would have to be polarized much like wearing 3 D glasses.Well, in short its not here is the article.

These guys would argue with you. Link

Only one of them the rest of the panel waqs dodging unwilling to say it. They said words like seems that way and then even dodged the narrators questions on if the universe was digital.Narrater is a joke seems rude and beligerant by the way. Truth is its quantum mechanical on its smallest scale meaning yeah it can seem digital but wave functions are more analog so in effect its both and neither. Heres my challenge find anyone working with Quantum mechanics to agree because this would throw out there whole field of science and thats where the real science is right now.

Ps im just so glad scientists try to remain neutural when it comes to science and let the data lead them where it might its peopl elike you that had us believing the earth was the center of the universe thank god science divested itself from religion at the loss of many lives i might add.

reply to post by EnochWasRight


While you try and pass yourself off as someone who is enlightened. You have shown yourself to be nothing more than a student of the beast.

The religious mumbo jumbo, mixed with numerology, mixed with whatever else, you are nothing more than a false prophet trying to gain some traction.

This is nothing more than my opinion, but there are 100 of these guys on youtube, and they are doing nothing but talking, in order to try and make some cash.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Originally posted by tremex

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
This is your pretext, not mine. I have outlined my context accurately.

I don't think you did. You employed a very cumbersome technique to derive Pi from Genesis. How does this discovery relate to a conclusion that the function of Pi is to dismiss the evolution theory?

Don't you think that the supporting discovery of number e (e = 2.7182...) in the Gospel of John is mighty counterproductive to your argument? Number e is the base of NATURAL logarithms, and it is NATURE that is responsible for evolution. How do you reconcile the presence of number e with your claim? How does number e support the idea of the creation, especially when the initial of "evolution" is letter "e"?

Pi and e are a small part of the thread and original post. They are there by design, just as God's name of Father is Aleph Bet and His Son is the Word. That's pretty obvious information. Having two mathematical constants hidden in the verses is another enigma. Showing that we are in a hologram, and God calling this an image of Word, takes the cake. Having four Nobel Physicists proclaim the same information--priceless. I really don't get the trouble you are having. Taken together, the probability of this beyond evidence. It confirms we are created. Again, I ask for you to provide a counterargument.

You are using an appeal to authority (Nobel Physicists), but that's useless if they can't think about the expected options. God is held almighty, and therefore . . .

If the omnipotent god of the bible (who presumably created the hebrew language along with everything else) couldn't construct a sentence even as close as "355/113" then it's not very impressive. More impressive would be something simple like to take the number of letters in the book of Genesis and divide by all words and get a really really close approximation, but this doesn't happen. The best someone comes up with is a convoluted calculation of Gen1:1 to get something not all that accurate.

sguforums.com...

Your OP clearly says that the presence of Pi in Genesis is a strong indication of mankind being indeed created. But that constant never caused a headache for evolutionary science. Your Pi in Genesis seems to be completely useless in advocating the creation. But as you could see, it gets very busy when secretly supporting the evolution.

You are making the same mistake like those bible coders by turning God into a complete dumbass who can't think straight.

Sure, God was messing with simian DNA, but that doesn't count as the biblical creation. All what God encoded in the Bible is that the nature is not solely responsible for us being here.

Once again, how does Pi = 3.14 relate to the biblical creation?

If God was messing with simian DNA, then it would relate to the first three digits of Pi, that is 314. For example:

DNA = 3 letters ---> 3
DNA is a (one) molecule ----> 1
DNA contain 4 bases ----> 4
evolution.berkeley.edu...

Those four bases make the genetic code.
www.brooklyn.cuny.edu...

That edition of Pi that you have derived is not the functional Pi hidden elsewhere.

Originally posted by Kaboose
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

I like Chuck Missler, he really got me into the Bible more than I was before.

Chuck Missler, of Koinonia House, how many of his $19.95 DVDs did you have to watch before he really 'got to you'?

It might have been his spot-on premonitions concerning the Y2K bug, that wiped us out didn't it?

5. He was among the group of doomsday quacks that believed and preached that the Y2K glitch would usher in the "end times".

*

Thank god (no pun intended) he's strictly about the truth though...

This is a monthly "journal" newsletter that is nothing more than a propaganda/profiteering venture. The first part of this booklet-style piece is the propaganda. There is an abundance of rationalization of skeptical questioning, circular reasoning, question-begging, and wild unsupported theories that attempt to discredit biblical criticism on all points.

(Speaking of his company's monthly newsletter.) I'm sure he's in it just for the good will though, he must be, I mean, what other reason is there?

The last pages consist of a catalog of apologetic tapes, videos, DVD's and instructional materials for sale at unbelievably high prices, ranging from $15 to over $100 each.

They must be making a fortune fleecing the flock.

*

There are a lot of good people out there showing the stupidity of atheism, it is so absurd to think all life came from nothing by nothing.

Well no... It's not really like that. Argument ad absurdum. To address this we must first clarify a huge problem with your generalization. It is not simply atheists that may disagree with you, or who believe your account, or the Christian account is correct. Some people might think aliens created us, and they are certainly not atheists, but also not Christians, and then you have other religions as well, and don't forget agnostics.

In any case, a rational atheist is looking at scientific discovery, the way the universe is structured, and how life breeds from the laws governing the mass in the universe. All these things (functions) which create life, have all been documented, and they work all by themselves.

And agnostics, while they too look at life very much the same as an atheist, they realize it's very possible, or may even have a deep-seeded belief (nearly close to faith if you will) that we may have had help in our creation, by the seeding of our planet, etc.

(This could be in a supernatural way, or no different than a comet/asteroid being directed at Earth with all the component needed to spark something...)

In any case, the people who don't think the same as you, are very diverse, and their beliefs nearly as diverse as they are. For many, the underlying scientific explanation on how/why life forms, grows, progresses, evolves, is a good enough answer for the time being given that we do not have iron clad, clear cut explanations beyond this. To say you know without proper evidence is foolish and arrogant.

actually breaks a lot of mathematical, scientific, and common sense laws to think everything came into existence from nothing and by nothing, and organized itself for life by random chance. The entire idea is actually what I would define as madness.

Ignoring all scientific evidence to believe a literal interpretation of the bible is completely sane however? Your categorization of "nothing" from "nothing" is ambiguous, and does not detail any realistic insight into what people may or may not believe. Sometimes saying "I don't know" is fine too. And many poeple say, I DONT KNOW. Thats it! Nothing more, nothing less. They dont have to preach they have the answer to everything because they dont. They just live their lives happy with what they do know and hope someday in the future their descendants will be lucky to receive the full and complete answer.

It shows the deep seeded arrogance, to not only say "you know" everything about the universe, but apparently you know how everyone who doesn't believe your idea thinks.

The problem is Darwins Evolution has big money and big power behind it, the driving force behind socialist government is an atheistic belief system.

I direct you back to the opening of this post. And your good buddy Chuck Missler.

Mr. "Buy my DVDs for $19.95 so you can get closer to god."

reply to post by EnochWasRight


By the way i took a look at there math in your proof first they manipulate the numbers and then still cant get it to come out right. Or alternative is god couldn't figure out the circumference of a circle ??

According to them the book of Genesis something is really odd so we take one book from the bible and they counted the words then they take there numerical value and multiply. so according to them the numerical value for each word was 3.041554509 now they explain they average it out and come up with this number bu lowest common denominator but thats not what they did because that means the numerical value for words in genesis was just over 3 thats impossible since we have 28 characters the average has to be somewhere around 12.

Now then they tell us the number of words to times it by is based on the number of words in Genesis They give us a total of 10 to 17 x7=1000000000000000000 x7 = 7000000000000000000 so according to them there are 7000000000000000000 words funny nice round number but wow its a big one isnt it. Since im to lazy to count the words in Genesis i guess well compare it.

Number of words in war and peace glad i didnt count it is 587,287 wow thats not even 1 % of the number of words in genesis but war and peace has been compared to the entire bible not just one book. And luckily someone has counted that for me. so we have 593,493 in the Old Testament and 181,253 in the New Testament giving 774,746 words.

Odd thats still no where near what they claim the number of words are in just one book of the bible. Something tells me there wrong again they must have randomly picked this number to approximate pie didnt want it to be exact because well people might actually check how that was possible this way they van make a claim and deny it later by saying well we didnt look at the math to closely obviously its wrong.

Also they tell us the diffrence between the number they got and pie is off by a mere .0012% Well thats not right either the diffrence is actually .000121436 % even smaller then then the number they gave but none the less proves they cant do math!

So much for that proof from the bible so why were you lying to all of us making us believe pie is in the
Bible you seem to be smart didnt you look at there math?




Ps maybe god gave them these numbers and there just not explaining it correctly in there proof.

Originally posted by tremex

If the omnipotent god of the bible (who presumably created the hebrew language along with everything else) couldn't construct a sentence even as close as "355/113" then it's not very impressive. More impressive would be something simple like to take the number of letters in the book of Genesis and divide by all words and get a really really close approximation, but this doesn't happen. The best someone comes up with is a convoluted calculation of Gen1:1 to get something not all that accurate.

sguforums.com...

I need to reply to myself, because the above quote committed by a skeptic includes a spectacular nonsense. I didn't read it thoroughly, and so it sneaked through.

The skeptic's suggestion to count all letters in the Book of Genesis and then divide the result by the number of words can hardly come close to Pi, because the average length of an English word is 4 to 5 letters. That probably applies to other Indo-European languages as well as Hebrew. There are other "gems" in the linked article which make a very poor debunking effort.

The idea to use a "convoluted" method as shown in the OP has its own advantage and disadvantage: The advantage lies in the fact that when a probability analysis is employed, the chances of the occurrence being a mere coincidence would be very low due to the large amount of data manipulation involved . The disadvantage is that the probabilistic math would be very difficult and inconclusive. Here is the reason why: Do you think that the Pi in Genesis was discovered on the first try, meaning that the folks who made the discovery had not tried other methods to arrive at something familiar? I don't think so. They were probably shuffling the words and numbers around for a long time when they finally came across something they could recognize. This hunt for a coincidence must be taken into account when the probabilities are computed. In this case, the mathematician doesn't ask the question what is the probability of stumbling across number Pi; he asks what is the probability that various searches return a coincidence in the form of a familiar number/constant.

Pi is a ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. God should at least mention the word "circle" in Geneses to somewhat validate the presence of Pi. But he didn't. As a matter of fact, there is nothing in the whole Bible that would suggest to do what the OP came up with. The only thing which is there is an advice not to mess with the word of God, which the author of OP ignored. The "reward" for that shall manifest itself soon.
WELCOME.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Ill do a quick explination as to why the holographic universe has idea has been rejected by most of science. Theres still a couple out there who may be truing to rework the theory to fit new data but it is defiantly fringe science. First why physicists reject it in the first place it does away with a law we know to be correct and has been proven time and time again. The law was created no wait discovered by Einstein and it says this:

NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THEN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.

Sp how does this apply to the holographic universe? This means the entire universe has to receive information up dates from the source supposedly a black hole wont go in to this right now. Well, the problem is that instantaneous communication regardless of distance violates the speed of light. If information is being up dated on a galaxy billions of light years from us at the same time as electrons firing in our brain then it would have to be instantaneous communication. The other problem is energy and mass conversion a holographic universe does away with this completely a universe without E=mc2.Will we can come back to this later but it would require a coupe of posts, but let us say through observation we know the 2 are linked in a holographic universe there just projections or grains on space time.

Now in order for this whole theory to hold up that means everything is made of grains projected on to space time much like looking at a television small dots making up the big picture. And just like a TV the closer you look the fuzzier the picture should get. Try putting your nose on your television you see the dots but not the picture they create. Well in a holographic universe we should be able to detect this fuzziness in physics the term is quantized.

Since science never rejects an idea outright we started looking in to it in fact Fermi labs started building a holometer to detect this graininess unfortunately for them something else showed up on the scene. Its from the European Space agency meaning construction will end let me explain. Integral gamma-ray observatory a satellite shows no quantization of the universe,Iin other words when we look at the very small we still get a clear picture. In order to detect if the universe is grainy we look at a gamma ray burst if it is twisted meaning polarized much light light shinning through a prism. Because in order to project this universal hologram the universe itself would have to be polarized much like wearing 3 D glasses.Well, in short its not here is the article.

These guys would argue with you. Link

Only one of them the rest of the panel waqs dodging unwilling to say it. They said words like seems that way and then even dodged the narrators questions on if the universe was digital.Narrater is a joke seems rude and beligerant by the way. Truth is its quantum mechanical on its smallest scale meaning yeah it can seem digital but wave functions are more analog so in effect its both and neither. Heres my challenge find anyone working with Quantum mechanics to agree because this would throw out there whole field of science and thats where the real science is right now.

Ps im just so glad scientists try to remain neutural when it comes to science and let the data lead them where it might its peopl elike you that had us believing the earth was the center of the universe thank god science divested itself from religion at the loss of many lives i might add.

edit on 8/26/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

Man is the center of the universe by size.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

While you try and pass yourself off as someone who is enlightened. You have shown yourself to be nothing more than a student of the beast.

The religious mumbo jumbo, mixed with numerology, mixed with whatever else, you are nothing more than a false prophet trying to gain some traction.

This is nothing more than my opinion, but there are 100 of these guys on youtube, and they are doing nothing but talking, in order to try and make some cash.

I would need to be preaching something other than Christ for this to be true. I am showing, with every post, that Christ is the Son of God and Word. The Father is the Aleph Bet (Strong House) and the Holy Spirit is the Aleph Mem (Mother). The Trinity of Christian Faith is stated at a deeper level. This may cause you fear, but it is not, on any level, different than what is stated in the Bible. It is the same theology you know, but deeper by a few degrees.

reply to post by tremex


You are incorrect. See this Proof of Genesis 1 and John 1 by the numbers. The link you added uses weak logic and you keep confusing English with Hebrew.

The evaluation of p from within Genesis 1:1

The Bible's first verse comprises 7 Hebrew words formed from a total of 28 letters. Hitherto, attention has focused particularly on the sums of the word CVs in total and in part. Now, however, it is the word and letter products that occupy centre stage. Observe that, although each word CV is the sum of its letter CVs, the product of the latter bears no clear and obvious relationship to the former. Essential features of this analysis involve the two verse ratios

(product of letter CVs) / (product of word CVs) = R1, say, and
(number of letters) / (number of words) = R2, say
Writing the product (R1 x R2) in standard mathematical form, an accurate value for p is revealed.

I gave you this link...

The evaluation of e from within John 1:1

The number of words in this verse is 17, comprising a total of 52 letters.

Again, writing the product (R1 x R2) in standard mathematical form, an accurate value for e is revealed.

John 1 Here.

If you bothered to read the first link above, you would see this:

Let us briefly recap:

The Hebrew letters and words of the Old Testament and the Greek letters and words of the New Testament each have an uncontrived numerical dimension (the CV, or "characteristic value") that arises directly from their involvement in the alphabetic numbering systems of these early peoples.

The application of a simple numerical procedure to the Hebrew letters and words of the Bible's first verse (Gen.1:1) generates an approximation of p, correct to 5 significant figures (error: 0.0012%).

The application of the identical procedure to the first verse of the Gospel of John (which has much in common with Gen.1:1) generates an approximation of e, also correct to 5 significant figures (error: 0.0011%).

It would be extremely unreasonable to suppose that these events are fortuitous accidents; rather, highly likely that they are features of purposeful design.

The circumstantial evidence, viz the textual and geometrical links between these verses, strongly confirms this view.

reply to post by dragonridr

By the way i took a look at there math in your proof first they manipulate the numbers and then still cant get it to come out right. Or alternative is god couldn't figure out the circumference of a circle ??

Hebrew. Take a look at my last post. The three links show that you are incorrect. Use 3.14 if you like and you will get a circle. The verses take it to decimal places further. That's enough to see it clearly.

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

I would need to be preaching something other than Christ for this to be true. I am showing, with every post, that Christ is the Son of God and Word. The Father is the Aleph Bet (Strong House) and the Holy Spirit is the Aleph Mem (Mother). The Trinity of Christian Faith is stated at a deeper level. This may cause you fear, but it is not, on any level, different than what is stated in the Bible. It is the same theology you know, but deeper by a few degrees.

As I said before you keep mixing faith with proof and they are not the same. If you have proof, faith is not needed, but you throw the word "faith" around a lot along with "proof". How does one prove "words" were inspired by God? All your examples, links, theories, conjectures etc. are not "proof" that God exists much less inspired "words".

I'll tell you a story...

I use to work with a guy that read the bible all day long when ever he had a chance, extremely religious guy. At his church they would have miracles, talk in tongues, play with rattlers and I ask him why did they need all that and he said to show proof that god exists.

I asked him why does he need proof if he has faith, he couldn't answer that question.....

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by boncho

 

I'll do this from time to time depending on the thread:

3 - System, 33 - Truth

A few posts down

The Phi spiral describes the surface of the torus, the basic element of matter. Now if we put the Phi spiral inside a tetrahedron and then slowly revolve it around a pivot axis, and shine a light from behind the Phi spiral, all of the Hebrew characters will show up as the shadows on the inside face of the tetrahedron. Hence, the characters of the Hebrew alphabet are the projections of a Golden Mean spiral.

Source

This quote seems to clearly explain the significance of the ratio 3:6:9 - The relative frequency of all sympathetic streams is in the ratio 3:6:9. Those whose relative frequencies are 3:9 are mutually attractive, while those having the relation of 6:9 are mutually repellent.

Source

edit on 26-8-2013 by Americanist because: (no reason given)

How does all this lead to intelligent design of our universe and not just basic fundamental principles of our universe. I always feel that the argument for intelligent design goes the direction of if things didn't work in our universe as they do we would not be here, so there is a God.

reply to post by Xtrozero




Infinite Capacity

You answered your own question. Fundamental principles denote something other than random nature. The computer you're using required concept, planning. and implementation.