Mathematics, Divinity and the Bible

[Brian2]

Given it doesn't get the geometry of circle right, the Bible isn't good for math. Or really even the divine if a book is proven to be mathematical inaccurate.

Do you mean when it says that the wind comes from the 4 corners of the earth?

 

[Onoma]

I'm trying to keep up, fascinating.

Isn't the fermament presented in Genesis a Sumerian model of a flat earth theory? I'm asking, figure you'd know. Thanks!

You're asking about " supuk same " ( the firmament )

I've got a forum of my own for my writing and studies that cover more fringe topics, and I published on this topic not too long ago

Flat Earth Origins | Secretsoftheages

Turns out the claim the ancients thought the earth is flat, is both true, and also not true, but read my article and you'll see why this topic has actually never been properly vetted in a single youtube video or forum debate

It's rather amusing to see people bickering so much over something when they are both wrong and both right at the same time

 

[JoshuaTree]

You're asking about " supuk same " ( the firmament )

I've got a forum of my own for my writing and studies that cover more fringe topics, and I published on this topic not too long ago

Flat Earth Origins | Secretsoftheages

Turns out the claim the ancients thought the earth is flat, is both true, and also not true, but read my article and you'll see why this topic has actually never been properly vetted in a single youtube video or forum debate

It's rather amusing to see people bickering so much over something when they are both wrong and both right at the same time

Thanks for the link, very interesting!

Did Satan employ the concept of the firmament you presented in your article when he took Jesus to a high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world?

 

[ppp]

Oh, yes sir

Check my last post. I'm going to cover exactly how " divinity " is treated in both the Bible as well as pre-Biblical literature in both cuneiform and Egyptian scripts, but that post was getting rather lengthy and there's quite a bit of material to cover, so I cut it short

Oh no, sir. That is not anywhere close to what I asked for. Thanks anyway.

 

[Onoma]

The literary techniques are besides the point. And I have a feeling that an actual expert would be laughing at your posts.

Try to properly support your claims.

Weird, because I also get a strange feeling. I get the strange feeling you don't know what you're talking about, but since I explained on the 2nd page what my sources actually are ( Hint - the " experts " you just mentioned but aren't even remotely familiar with )

 

[McBell]

Rather empty statement there, don't you think ?

No more so than your blatant stalling to present any math...

All we've discussed so far are classical notations for divinity in different scripts and how they are related to mathematics in the antiquities

I don't need convincing of anything, since I'm already familiar with the literary traditions that give the closest thing to a definition

So why then all the delay tactics in getting to the math?

 

[Onoma]

Sure. So, did you have that definition for 'divine' handy?

Oh no, sir. That is not anywhere close to what I asked for. Thanks anyway.

ah yes, more of this

Easy to squash

You say you asked for a " definition " of " divinity " and I didn't provide it ?

Oddly enough, I provided the closest thing which is pretty much every single literary tradition and duty associated with " divinity " in the antiquities, as well as how they are signified in literature in multiple languages, over thousands of years, over numerous posts on multiple pages, from the Bible to the earliest known Sumerian cities like Eridu and you say what now ?

I didn't provide a definition ?

You're not serious are you ?

I was trying to keep things simple, to be fair, but OK ?

Here's the ePSD that is shared by the universities I mentioned who maintain my sources

ePSD

" Divinity " as listed in the ePSD gives one solitary listing, with no definition ( Surprise ! )

However, what it does give us are several clues:

Gee, lookie there, the thing I've already discussed at length in this thread

diĝir, ( an ) the cuneiform determinant for divinity

There are zero known texts containing the " definition " you seem to be looking for, and a preponderance of texts and traditions that deal with " divinity ", " divine office ", " divine duties ", and even " divine lineages ", all of which I've already covered

..... you say I didn't provide a " definition ", are you sure about that ?

If you like, we can also cover the classical minutiae of " nam " if you need some further clarification, because this will take us right back to the Bible and the " decree of the watchers " in the 4th Chapter of Daniel, which covers Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Daniel's interpretation of it

Daniel 4:17 " This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men "

Obviously, if we are talking " divinity " we'd also have to bring " fate " ( nam ) into the discussion, because " determined order; will, testament; fate, destiny " are all supposedly " divinely ordained " according to the Bible at the very least

Or are they not ?

let me know

 

[Onoma]

No more so than your blatant stalling to present any math...


So why then all the delay tactics in getting to the math?

gee, really ?

So, forget the isomorphism between Hieratic and the languages used to write the Bible ?

And forget the literary determinant of the " finger / horn ' and it's direct connection to the astrometry of the priests, because why would we invoke mathematical astronomy and astrometry, that's not math, gosh darnit, and doesn't have anything to do with " divinity " or " divine duties " or any of the other well known subjects dealing with " divinity " in the antiquities !

Yawn, wrong

I'd say there's no blatant stalling, just an inability to comprehend what's already been posted, toots

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Do you mean when it says that the wind comes from the 4 corners of the earth?

No, I did not say corners or wind.
I specifically said "the geometry of a circle."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oddly enough, I provided the closest thing which is pretty much every single literary tradition and duty associated with " divinity " in the antiquities, as well as how they are signified in literature in multiple languages, over thousands of years, over numerous posts on multiple pages, from the Bible to the earliest known Sumerian cities like Eridu and you say what now ?

To many, god is not personal. The divine doesn't have human like features or qualities.
So, you provided an assumption, not a definition.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Erm, you're referring to the molten sea value of Pi, correct ?

The approximation given is 3.1395348837

"The Bible Says pi = 3"

3 is an approximation of pi, just like 3.1395348837 is an approximation as is the current record of pi to 50 trillion digits is also an approximation

Any value of pi is an approximation to a degree of accuracy, so not too sure what you what you mean when you say " doesn't get the geometry of the circle right " ( Can you clarify that for me ? )

Might want to read this first:

Approximations of π - Wikipedia.

You seem to think that because it's not pi to some arbitrary degree of precision which you have yet to define ( Please do ) as a standard of " getting the geometry of the circle right " ( For me that's a meaningless statement, no offense )

If this discussion of a "sea", or large bowl, had been referring to what is called an "ideal" bowl (a mathematical object, not existing in a physical sense, and having no thickness that could be felt or handled), then the text would indeed be claiming that the value of pi is 3

But the text is referring to a real-world physical object, having the thick sidewalls necessary to support its own weight

Lets look at what has been already pointed out about the Hebrew used in the verses describing this object:

1 Kings 7:23 " And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about "

קו qav {kav} or קו qav {kawv} - line, ruler, cord, line, measuring-line

This word, specifically referring to the device used to measure something, is polysemic ( Both Hebrew and Greek and polysemic and thus serve as numbers )

In I Kings, the written word (ktiv) used for “diameter” is “קוה” (Kuf-Vav-Heh), which makes no sense in this context. By contrast, in Chronicles II, the word for diameter is spelled as “קָו” (Kuf-Vav), meaning “line.” However, according to the Mesorah (Masoretic tradition), the word in I Kings is read differently than it is written (kri)—it is read as קָו (Kuf-Vav), just as it is written in Chronicles II

Rabbi Munk points out that the value of קוה (100+6+5) is 111 and the value of קו (100+6) is 106. He interpreted the ratio of these two values – 111/106 – as a correction factor: if you multiply the textual " implied " value for π (3) by this factor, you get 333/106 = 3.14150…– an approximation of π accurate to the fourth decimal point

( Diameter / diameter )*3 = 3.14150

However, this is trivial, imo, for reason that all values given for pi are approximations

Personally, I think you may have overlooked some things about the molten sea, they pertain to mathematical astronomy as practiced by priests, but I can debate this with you as well if you like

3 is a definite number. If you try to do this in real world applications it will only lead to failure.
And math is math. It doesn't matter who practics it or how they practice it. It's right or it is wrong. And giving numbers that put pi at 3 is incorrect, and miserably so for a book allegedly being gods sacred amd divine word.

 

[McBell]

gee, really ?

So, forget the isomorphism between Hieratic and the languages used to write the Bible ?

And forget the literary determinant of the " finger / horn ' and it's direct connection to the astrometry of the priests, because why would we invoke mathematical astronomy and astrometry, that's not math, gosh darnit, and doesn't have anything to do with " divinity " or " divine duties " or any of the other well known subjects dealing with " divinity " in the antiquities !

Yawn, wrong

I'd say there's no blatant stalling, just an inability to comprehend what's already been posted, toots

I wonder how many pages before you stop the stalling and get to the math...

I understand you dislike the blatant call out of your stalling, but perhaps you can get over yourself, stop all the ego masturbation, and start presenting some math?
Maybe?
Perhaps?

 

[Onoma]

To many, god is not personal. The divine doesn't have human like features or qualities.
So, you provided an assumption, not a definition.

Good grief, I'd hoped people could read along, so now I will repeat exactly what I've already repeated at least once

There is no ancient equivalent to the modern Oxford English dictionary

Things have to be defined in context, and the only way that happens is with a comprehensive view of the subject material ( Already provided over 3 pages )

There are zero assumptions on my part, sister, but I've already explained what my sources are, so if you want to want to claim Oxford, Yale, et al, are " making assumptions ", I'd like to see you explain why

 

[Onoma]

I wonder how many pages before you stop the stalling and get to the math...

I understand you dislike the blatant call out of your stalling, but perhaps you can get over yourself, stop all the ego masturbation, and start presenting some math?
Maybe?
Perhaps?

Okie dokie, keep it up, but you're just going to end up with egg on your face

I'll tackle all of you one by one, with ease

 

[JoshuaTree]

ah yes, more of this

Easy to squash

You say you asked for a " definition " of " divinity " and I didn't provide it ?

Oddly enough, I provided the closest thing which is pretty much every single literary tradition and duty associated with " divinity " in the antiquities, as well as how they are signified in literature in multiple languages, over thousands of years, over numerous posts on multiple pages, from the Bible to the earliest known Sumerian cities like Eridu and you say what now ?

I didn't provide a definition ?

You're not serious are you ?

I was trying to keep things simple, to be fair, but OK ?

Here's the ePSD that is shared by the universities I mentioned who maintain my sources

ePSD

" Divinity " as listed in the ePSD gives one solitary listing, with no definition ( Surprise ! )

However, what it does give us are several clues:


View attachment 47063


Gee, lookie there, the thing I've already discussed at length in this thread

diĝir, ( an ) the cuneiform determinant for divinity

There are zero known texts containing the " definition " you seem to be looking for, and a preponderance of texts and traditions that deal with " divinity ", " divine office ", " divine duties ", and even " divine lineages ", all of which I've already covered

..... you say I didn't provide a " definition ", are you sure about that ?

If you like, we can also cover the classical minutiae of " nam " if you need some further clarification, because this will take us right back to the Bible and the " decree of the watchers " in the 4th Chapter of Daniel, which covers Nebuchadnezzar's dream and Daniel's interpretation of it

Daniel 4:17 " This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men "

Obviously, if we are talking " divinity " we'd also have to bring " fate " ( nam ) into the discussion, because " determined order; will, testament; fate, destiny " are all supposedly " divinely ordained " according to the Bible at the very least

Or are they not ?

let me know

This thread puts me in mind of Jesus teaching Nicodemus who in my opinion was trying to obtain salvation (prove divinity) through a concise set of rules (the law). Nicodemus, a rule based dude and probably a mathematician and map guy, smart as he was, could not comprehend what Jesus meant in saying that he had to be born again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven which was/is that God picks the time and place of our second birth just as the time and place of our first birth, there is no procedure, no mathematics for proving or acquiring the divine. Not sure that is relevant here or not as was my first post in this thread, don't mean to derail an interesting excursion into historical texts, carry on.

John 3:1-12
New International Version

Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Now, I feel like I gave a pretty good explanation of the use of the " finger " in the sacerdotal duties of a priest, in the thread on flood terminologies in the antiquities, but if you need a refresher, feel free to ask ( Hand and finger measures were common in the antiquities and are still used by modern astronomers )


View attachment 47055


No " numerology " there, just basic mathematical astronomy


-------------------------------------------------------------------


OK, so the next approach I could take, is to point out that the structure of the languages used to write the Bible, are taken from the script of Egyptian priests

The script is Hieratic, ( Not Hieroglyphics ), and it also happens to be the script that mathematical papyrii were primarily written in ( The Rhind papyrus is a famous example if you need an obvious example of Hieratic, another is the Moscow papyrus )

The term derives from the Greek for "priestly writing" (Koinē Greek: γράμματα ἱερατικά) because at that time, for more than eight and a half centuries, hieratic had been used traditionally only for religious texts and literature

Hieratic can also be an adjective meaning "[o]f or associated with sacred persons or offices; sacerdotal ( Priestly )."

We are talking about " divinity ", so along with " divinity " and being " divine " and all that yummy goodness, there are also " divine duties " ( sacerdotal ) as they were done by kings, priests, and priest-kings as well as Pharaohs

These types of priestly duties date back to the earliest Sumerian city states like Eridu and can be seen in the " Sumerian mes " ( Singular: me , Plural : mes ), these were related to the " mes trees "

Cf the text " Enki and the world order " if you need a citation for the " mes trees "

Enki and the world order: translation

Sumerian: me " Being, divine properties enabling cosmic activity; office; (cultic) ordinance " Akkadian: mû; parşu

In Sumerian mythology, a me (; Sumerian: me; Akkadian: paršu) is one of the decrees of the divine that is foundational to those social institutions, religious practices, technologies, behaviors, mores, and human conditions that make civilization, as the Sumerians understood it, possible. They are fundamental to the Sumerian understanding of the relationship between humanity and the gods

Me (mythology) - Wikipedia.

Now, I said that Hebrew and Greek take their structure from Egyptian priestly script, and I know that people love to make up stories like " It was transmitted directly to Moses ! ", but that's obviously a load of utter codswallop



View attachment 47056




It's always shocked me that people claim the Bible is " divine ", yet don't know enough about how " divinity " and divine roles / duties were actually treated, classically, in literature, to be able to offer a shred of evidence

So there you go, there's a nice start

Without borrowing the structure of the Egyptian priestly text most commonly used for both religious and mathematical literature, you'd never even have been able to write down Genesis 1:1, let alone the rest of the book, since the NT Greek uses the same system of writing as Hebrew

Objections ?

Refutations ?

let's hear 'em

I'm in the middle of reading a book called 'Myths of Babylonia and Assyria' by Donald. A . Mackenzie, and in it he says, 'The Babylonians had ten antediluvian kings, who were reputed to have reigned for vast periods, the total of which amounted to 120 saroi, or 432,000 years. These figures at once recall the Indian Maha-yuga of 4,320,000 years = 432,000 x10. Apparently the Babylonian and Indian systems of calculation were of common origin. In both countries the measurements of time and space were arrived at by utilising the numerals 10 and 6.'

It seems that the numbers of greatest significance in the earliest calculations were those closely associated with human anatomy.

'When primitive man began to count he adopted a method which comes naturally to every schoolboy; he utilized his fingers. Twice five gave him ten, and from ten he progressed to twenty, and then on to a hundred and beyond. In making measurements his hands, arms, and feet were at his service. We are still measuring by feet and yards (standardised strides) [the book was published in 1915] in this country, while those who engage in the immemorial art of knitting, and, in doing so, repeat designs found on neolithic pottery, continue to measure in finger breadths as did the ancient folks who called an arm length a cubit. Nor has the span been forgotten, especially by boys in their games with marbles; the space from the end of the thumb to the end of the little finger when the hand is extended must have been an important measurement from the earliest times.
As he made progress in calculations, the primitive Babylonian appears to have been struck by other details in his anatomy besides his sets of five fingers and five toes. He observed, for instance, that his fingers were divided into three parts and his thumb into two parts only; four fingers multiplied by three gave him twelve, and multiplying 12 by 3 he reached 36. Apparently the figure 6 attracted him.' [Mackenzie]

The reason I write this is to suggest that number does no more than point to the truth. Number goes together with form to distinguish between that which is created and that which is Creator. Here is what Paul has to say,
Romans 1:18-25. 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.'

Number is only one of many ways in which we are able to point to God as Creator. Are there not, however, many great mathematicians who have failed to see beyond the numbers?

 

[Onoma]

No, I did not say corners or wind.
I specifically said "the geometry of a circle."

3 is a definite number. If you try to do this in real world applications it will only lead to failure.
And math is math. It doesn't matter who practics it or how they practice it. It's right or it is wrong. And giving numbers that put pi at 3 is incorrect, and miserably so for a book allegedly being gods sacred amd divine word.

look, I'm not trying to be rude here, but you are displaying a rather bad grasp of the fact that whether it's 3 or 50 trillion digits, they are all approximations

all of them are " wrong ", no matter accurate, because it's impossible to calculate pi to 100% precision

That's a fact, mam

And precision to an arbitrary number of digits is no indication of the usefulness of the value

Case in point, the value 3.1395348837 from the Purplemath site is almost suitable for building something as large as the Great Pyramid ( 3.14 is what is required for that extra bit of precision )

It only takes 15 or so digits for GPS, and only 1 or two to build a structure like a pyramid

Engineers routinely use 3 as pi when they are doing quick and dirty pseudo calculations ( BOTE ) on the back of a napkin

3 is a whole lot easier than working with 3.14159265.... Your answer will only be off by about 5% so if you don't care about that margin then using 3 is perfectly sufficient. You could also go with 3.1 and cut the difference down to 1.3%.

..so, in short, I disagree with your post, in numerous ways

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good grief, I'd hoped people could read along, so now I will repeat exactly what I've already repeated at least once

There is no ancient equivalent to the modern Oxford English dictionary

Things have to be defined in context, and the only way that happens is with a comprehensive view of the subject material ( Already provided over 3 pages )

There are zero assumptions on my part, sister, but I've already explained what my sources are, so if you want to want to claim Oxford, Yale, et al, are " making assumptions ", I'd like to see you explain why

More assumptions with this Oxford amd Yale.
Spinoza offers a concept of god, and he wasn't a dictionary.
What you provided is foriegn to many Eastern societies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

look, I'm not trying to be rude here, but you are displaying a rather bad grasp of the fact that whether it's 3 or 50 trillion digits, they are all approximations

all of them are " wrong ", no matter accurate, because it's impossible to calculate pi to 100% precision

That's a fact, mam

It doesn't matter pi goes on indefinitely. Saying it is three does not work, and yet the Bible gives us a definite three as the value for pi. That just does not work.
Try running it a CADD program if you have access. Things will not line up.

 

[Onoma]

I'm in the middle of reading a book called 'Myths of Babylonia and Assyria' by Donald. A . Mackenzie, and in it he says, 'The Babylonians had ten antediluvian kings, who were reputed to have reigned for vast periods, the total of which amounted to 120 saroi, or 432,000 years. These figures at once recall the Indian Maha-yuga of 4,320,000 years = 432,000 x10. Apparently the Babylonian and Indian systems of calculation were of common origin. In both countries the measurements of time and space were arrived at by utilising the numerals 10 and 6.'

It seems that the numbers of greatest significance in the earliest calculations were those closely associated with human anatomy.

'When primitive man began to count he adopted a method which comes naturally to every schoolboy; he utilized his fingers. Twice five gave him ten, and from ten he progressed to twenty, and then on to a hundred and beyond. In making measurements his hands, arms, and feet were at his service. We are still measuring by feet and yards (standardised strides) [the book was published in 1915] in this country, while those who engage in the immemorial art of knitting, and, in doing so, repeat designs found on neolithic pottery, continue to measure in finger breadths as did the ancient folks who called an arm length a cubit. Nor has the span been forgotten, especially by boys in their games with marbles; the space from the end of the thumb to the end of the little finger when the hand is extended must have been an important measurement from the earliest times.
As he made progress in calculations, the primitive Babylonian appears to have been struck by other details in his anatomy besides his sets of five fingers and five toes. He observed, for instance, that his fingers were divided into three parts and his thumb into two parts only; four fingers multiplied by three gave him twelve, and multiplying 12 by 3 he reached 36. Apparently the figure 6 attracted him.' [Mackenzie]

The reason I write this is to suggest that number does no more than point to the truth. Number goes together with form to distinguish between that which is created and that which is Creator. Here is what Paul has to say,
Romans 1:18-25. 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.'

Number is only one of many ways in which we are able to point to God as Creator. Are there not, however, many great mathematicians who have failed to see beyond the numbers?

Yup, that first bit mentions the " Sumerian Kings List ", something I'm familiar with ( although not intimately like I am with other texts )

The origin of the finger / hand / body measures is best seen, imo, in things like Naram-Sin's mathematical conventions, see bottom right of this page ( One of the few times Wiki has actually been useful where these topics are concerned )

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Sumerian_Calendar_ISO_B0.svg

This ties the notation for " divinity " ( a finger / horn ) into the computation of the moon's orbit, in addition to the Pendulum equation, the SI unit of the second and the principle unit of the " grain " which is the standard smallest modern Judaic unit of keeping time, the " chelek " ( A Babylonian " she " or " grain " ) but also the unit used to measure water volumes used to fill water clocks in such a way that the mass flow rate had to remain constant to match 1:1 the apparent movement of the moon through the sky

Babylonians had tables that covered these water clock measures for every single day of the year, from the shortest to the longest days

Otto E. Neugebauer has covered this extensively in his publications, btw

Otto E. Neugebauer - Wikipedia

Hopefully nobody is going to say his work is " numerology ", because that would have them looking rather ill-informed

Your last question is a great one !

" Are there not, however, many great mathematicians who have failed to see beyond the numbers ? "

Newton was a prime example. Anybody who has actually read his writing on the Bible ( I have ) can see he was grasping at straws, for the most part

He felt he was " chosen by God " to reveal " mathematical secrets " in the Bible, yet, Newton readily admitted he " stood on the shoulders of giants "

Then you have to take into account that most of what we know currently about cuneiform and Egyptian didn't even come until after Newton's day, so he was ignorant of a great many things that have since been discovered

He probably would have been fascinated with what we know now

Another example about someone who can't see past the numbers, ( And I mean no ill will towards this guy, I liked him ) Richard at the Biblewheel website

Before he was a Christian, he was a mathematician and a computer scientist ( Also going for a physics degree ), but he supposedly at some point became a Christian, and had some dream and from this dream he ended up putting forth his so-called " Biblewheel ". Sold many of his books, viscously defended his work, and also fairly well learned, at least as far as Hebrew and Greek

This was his " thing " for years, and he created all these complex diagrams involving figurate numbers and star centered blah blah, huge website

In Richard's mind, the " Biblewheel " was the " mathematical proof the Bible is divine "

Then I showed up one day on his forum and poked a hole in his bubble simply by stating that if the Bible contained a mathematical proof of it's " divinity ", it, " divinity " first have to be defined in such a way it's considered objective ( through consensus )

Then I went on to state to Richard that in the event the Bible actually did contain some sort of " mathematical proof " ( Of it's divinity ), it likely wouldn't be revealed by Richard, but rather someone prophesized about in the Bible itself

Richard promptly turned around and using some rigorous statistics, ( What he should have done initially ) debunked his own work he had so vehemently defended for all those years, and all it took was two simple observations from myself

He distanced himself from his work that he at one point considered " sacred " in his subsequent posts on his website, explaining how he was blinded by his own biases and thus his " Biblewheel " was a bunch of malarkey

This was about 8 or so years ago, so as you can see, I've already been down this road before, and it was with someone who had a degree in mathematics, yet couldn't " see past the numbers "

He also didn't know anything about prior literature, prior languages, prior mathematical conventions, prior traditions, ( Prior to the Bible ) because he was a fundamentalist " God fearing man who took God's word literally, word for word " like many do, so studying the things I've started to discuss on this thread was completely out of his sphere of knowledge

In that case his own biases kept him from advancing his studies because new information would have undermined his beliefs at the time

So, when you ask me this, those are two great examples I can think off the top of my head

" Are there not, however, many great mathematicians who have failed to see beyond the numbers ? "