• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mathematics, Divinity and the Bible

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Mmmm, I would say more that these are ( some ) of the mathematical tools used by people that inhabited the offices that were associated with " divinity ", but I wouldn't say that's all there is, not by far

Wiki states there are two types of " divinity "
  • Divine force or power - powers or forces that are universal, or transcend human capacities
  • Divinity applied to mortals - qualities of individuals who are considered to have some special access or relationship to the divine

OK. Based on this, when I'm reading your posts, what I'm looking for is whether or not these mathematical tools represent a transcendance of human capability or special access to the divine. I'll also be looking for evidence that these tools are required for development of the text and are not coincidental.

My question at this point is, how do you know that these tools are either transcendant of human capacity (for members of a priestly tradition) or are derived from special access to the divine and not derived from special access to hallucinagenic drugs or other non-divine sources?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It appears to be merely a overly complicated exercise in confirmation bias. No actual math or coherent methodology seems to exist.

I was, of all things, driving across Kansas at night by myself some years ago.

"Coast to Coast" was better than low country music or preaching!

The guest was some numbers man

Talking a hundred miles an hour, correlating
the hypotenuse of the pyramid with Bigfoot
and who knows what, this bizarre frieze
of numbers spinning around his head.

Poor guy. That numbers thing picks off another victim now and then. Probably nothing can be
done for them.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
laughable claim at best, I call your bluff once again

You seem to think I don't know anything about mathematics ?

Why don't you pop up in this thread and leave some snarky comments, professor

Flood terminologies in the antiquities
Aah, projection.

And so far you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of mathematics. That earns snarky responses. By the way, name calling is not allowed here.

This is not an unreasonable request: Please explain a clear methodology for how you make your conclusions. It merely looks as if you try to force things to fit instead of finding evidence that actually fits.

Are you trying to take a scientific approach to the Bible? The approach of "if I do this, this and this it looks like it fits is not a rational way to approach a problem. All you end up with is an incoherent ad hoc explanation. That is not convincing at all to those that can reason.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I was, of all things, driving across Kansas at night by myself some years ago.

"Coast to Coast" was better than low country music or preaching!

The guest was some numbers man

Talking a hundred miles an hour, correlating
the hypotenuse of the pyramid with Bigfoot
and who knows what, this bizarre frieze
of numbers spinning around his head.

Poor guy. That numbers thing picks off another victim now and then. Probably nothing can be
done for them.
Art Bell I hope. It was all nonsense of course, but Art seemed to have more skill than his replacement.
 

Onoma

Active Member
OK. Based on this, when I'm reading your posts, what I'm looking for is whether or not these mathematical tools represent a transcendance of human capability or special access to the divine. I'll also be looking for evidence that these tools are required for development of the text and are not coincidental.

My question at this point is, how do you know that these tools are either transcendant of human capacity (for members of a priestly tradition) or are derived from special access to the divine and not derived from special access to hallucinagenic drugs or other non-divine sources?

OK, for one, I posted a standard colophon warning as it's seen in texts belong to priests in Mesopotamia, in my thread on flood terms, well over a month ago

I even posted the paper it's discussed in, ( In this thread as well )

I don't recall seeing anything about " hallucinogenic drugs " being required to read an ephemeris

Can you or anyone point out where hallucinogenic drugs are part of the exegetical traditions of knowing how to interpret a table of astrometry data ?

I'll wait for that one
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
OK, for one, I posted a standard colophon warning as it's seen in texts belong to priests in Mesopotamia, in my thread on flood terms, well over a month ago

I even posted the paper it's discussed in, ( In this thread as well )

I don't recall seeing anything about " hallucinogenic drugs " being required to read an ephemeris

Can you or anyone point out where hallucinogenic drugs are part of the exegetical traditions of knowing how to interpret a table of astrometry data ?

I'll wait for that one
You lost me. Sorry.

The point of my question is:

1) How does one determine if these mathematical tools are beyond human capabilty?

OR

2) How does one determine of these mathematical tools are derived from special access to the authentic divinity as opposed to imagined divinity?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Ok, so this is why I did this yesterday, but to be honest I didn't really expect anyone to catch it, so here it is:

That isn't a capital sigma Σ on the screenshot of the text of Revelation 13:18, it's a lowercase Xi ( ξ )

The nominative form ( nomen sacrum ) of the word " Christ " doesn't use a lowercase Xi ( ξ ), it uses a capital sigma Σ

So, the nomen sacrum identified in Revelation 13:18 doesn't use the nominative form of the word " Christ ", ΧΣ , and it doesn't equal 800, it equals 660

ΧΣ = 600 + 200

χξ = 600 + 60

Slight but obvious difference between Σ and ξ, probably a little hard to tell the difference in a Bible manuscript unless one actually has some training, precisely why I posted that
OK, it seems we won't get far going through the details. I just lack knowledge and training in ancient Greek and Greek numerals.

But it would be nice if you could answer my question about a translation of text following the NS, which could decide if the line above the letters should be read as going over the third.
Again, with your " numerology "

Where have I done anything remotely resembling " numerology " ?
Yep, to be precise, you are doing gematria, a necessary precursor to numerology. Do we at least agree that your above example is gematria?
[/QUOTE]
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Ah yes, three things destined to provoke ire when mentioned in the same sentence

Right up my alley

So, this thread is an offshoot from this thread:

Why Didn't God Leave Huge Quantities of Secular Evidence For Jesus?



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

Right, so lets look at the fallacy in your thinking first, sub, since you seem to claim I am not able to use logic while at the same time invoking an informal fallacy in logic yourself

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine

Arguments from incredulity can take the form:

  1. I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
  2. I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true


So, right off the bat, your argument is not even weak ( Hopefully you have something better to offer ). Personally, the 2nd preposition I cannot claim, because until I see some serious statistical analysis of what I will discuss in this thread, I retain some skepticism

But let's move on to some math, since you think I don't know how to " apply math to reality "

I claim that if the Bible is " divine ", and that if this is indeed demonstrable with mathematics, that in order for this to be taken as a valid statement,( " The Bible is divine " ) then " divinity " itself must first be rigorously defined

Not just rigorously, but objectively defined

Not only that, but it must be defined using traditions of priestly exegesis and not eisegesis ( numerology ) , so it must be based on actual traditions of literature from the period, and how divinity and math were related in literature in the antiquities

Now, before I get started here, does anyone want to first debate whether or not mathematics and divinity were closely intertwined in ancient literature prior to the Torah appearing ?

I understand that this is also a foreign concept to most ( The combining of sacerdotal literature, concepts of divinity and mathematics ), so I am willing to lay down a background for the discussion first, before we get to some math

Let me know, I'll give this first opener some time, and if you decide to skip this offer, we can get right to it :)

Math is like a faithful horse, who will go where you lead it. Math is not the final answer, since the math is only as good as the premises that lead the faithful math horse. For example, video game physics engines use math. The math employed allows for infinite lives in some games. Infinite lives is not real but is only real in game play. It has no basis in reality. However, the math will faithfully follow the premises, so the game is more fun to play.

If we assume the earth is flat, or the earth is almost spherical, were can set up the math for each premise. The math, like the faithful work horse, will follow the lead and walk to plow the eastern field. Every useful theory in science, has had math proof, including those that become obsolete. The math comes after the conceptual framework and is led by it. As the conceptual framework changes so does the needed math.

Newtonian gravity has certain assumptions that can be expressed through math. General Relativity, which came later muses different assumptions and also has math proof. Both are still used and each gives different results in extreme cases. The difference has to do with the directions given to the math horse, created by the conceptual assumptions.

I would be concerned if there was math proof for religion, since this could create a false positive if one is does not understand the proper hierarchy of the math horse. Too many seem to assume that math is the driver and not the beast of burden.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Math was man human consciously pondered by his own human man self presence with agreement group man men.

No man is God O circle owned by natural body huge mass in spatial vacuum.

Spatial vacuum highest force holds mass and circular form.

Science O used circle to think how to break form. Hence broke circle.

Breaking circle of God mass forms z mass space. Z given 2000 value. Christ and Satan 1000 each. Confessed caused it.

Bible a science confession with an applied status. Never give God O a name again.

Yet you did as wanton liars.

A sin removal. Symbol K constant.

K machine constant broke God seal removed it's mass left a space hole.

Hole a sink on God round a circle proves the vacuum owned holding circle. Otherwise no life would be living on God earth today.

Science thesis is before God O as held circle lied.
 
Top