Mathematics, Divinity and the Bible

[dybmh]

" People cannot even begin to reason on how to mathematically prove the Bible [ is divine ]"

Typically, when it comes to how people define " divinity ", it's all over the place, that's no secret

There's no real objective definition for this concept, currently

If there's no objective definition for divine, why not scale back the assertion? When I researched this topic, the conclusion I came to was that a divine source, as generally understood, for the Pentateuch was one possible explanation of the phenomena, but it was not the only possible explanation.

All these possible explanations are equally fantastical; but, it would be possible to show ( depending on the scope and complexity of the encryption ) that it would be highly unlikely that the text was written in seperate parts at seperate times without technology that we have today.

If the text was written all at once, then perhaps the author was a savant, an intellectual outlier, or had aquired knowledge of advanced encryption techniques from the priestly tradition that you wrote about. These techniques could have been considered divine at that time, but they don't describe divine by today's standards.

Beyond that, even if the Pentateuch has a divine source, however one chooses to define it, if the evidence comes from an encrypted message that spans all five books, that doesn't mean that the unencrypted story on the surface is literally true.

 

[Audie]

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

A long fancy way to say the math ( like everything else in the bible) is at best only
approximately true.

We knew that.

 

[Audie]

Cool, let me know when you can demonstrate you're remotely familiar with literary traditions in the antiquities

You sure did not demonstrate even intro to remedial level of understanding of evolution.

 

[Onoma]

I guess a good place to go from here is triangular figurate numbers, since people be demanding math and shizz

The reason ?

There are multiple reasons why we should. One would be that a formula for the generation of triangular figurate numbers has been found in texts on Computus

Computus, if you didn't know, is the calculation of the date of Easter, celebrating the supposed resurrection of Jesus

Computus - Wikipedia

One of the older texts on Computus containing the formula for the generation of triangular numbers is from the Irish monk, Dicuil

cf. Esposito,M. An unpublished astronomical treatise by the Irish monk Dicuil. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, XXXVI C. Dublin, 1907, pages 378-446, specifically

From 814 and 816 Dicuil taught in one of the schools of Louis the Pious, ( Son of Charlemagne ), this is where he wrote his Computus

So, there's another obvious link between math and " divinity / divine things "


But I could think of a more obvious reason

Let's start with the list in Wikipedia which actually inaccurately reports the list of nomina sacra, and this is where you'll see the power of fact checking done properly

Wikipedia says that there are only 15 sacred names in New Testament manuscripts, it lists them as

God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Son, Spirit, David, Cross, Mother, Father, Israel, Savior, Man, Jerusalem, and Heaven

Nomina sacra - Wikipedia.

Each of these is written in Greek manuscripts as short form ( You could think of them like abbreviations ) and each is written with the little " horn " notation ( tittle ) for divinity as explained earlier in the thread

This is according to the work of Bruce Manning Metzger (February 9, 1914 – February 13, 2007) an American biblical scholar, Bible translator and textual critic who was a long time professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament textual criticism, and wrote prolifically on these subjects. Metzger was one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century

( That's according to wiki )

Makes Mr Metzger look rather educated, does it not ?

Let's fact check both wikipedia and it's source ( Metzger ) for accuracy

I'm going to use the largest online repository of New Testament manuscripts available online, since that's how I roll

This is known as the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

Home - CSNTM

Now, if Metzger's list is accurate, then manuscript p-47, which contains one of the oldest copies of Revelation 13:18, would have to been altered or falsified in a rather obvious way

Either that, or Metzger and wiki are wrong

Observe that the use of this notation for " divinity " is easily seen in the manuscripts

Now what you may be missing here is that fact that you are looking at a " divine " triangular figurate number ( For those wanting evidence of the association between math and divinity )

In specific, it's a " divine " triangular figurate ( Because it's written with the notation for divinity ) and it happens to have either been overlooked by Metzger ( Unlikely, that's evidence of sloppy work from a highly esteemed academic ), or it's been omitted for a reason

I'm going to say bias or general confusion

Can you guys read that ?

I'll walk everyone through it just to be sure we're all looking at the same thing

The first part is just the common nomen sacrum for the word " Christ " ( In Metzger's list )

Or, alternately, it says 600, 60

The next part, is either going to be stigma or digamma

Given that this text is dating to roughly 300ish, I'm going to say it's digamma, as stigma is a ligature of the Greek letters sigma (Σ) and tau (Τ) and dates to the Byzantine era

Interestingly though, as a word ( instead of a letter ), " stigma " is originally a common Greek noun meaning " a mark, dot, puncture", or generally "a sign", from the verb στίζω ("(I) puncture"); the related but distinct word stigme (στιγμή) is the classical and post-classical word for "geometric point; punctuation mark "

This word is used one time in the New Testament

" From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks ( stigma (στίγμα),of the Lord Jesus "

Galatians

Digamma was called episēmon during the Byzantine era and is now known as stigma after the Byzantine ligature combining σ-τ as ϛ

This would make the second part of the unlisted nomen sacrum the number 6

At first, one might be inclined to instead say this is a lunate sigma instead of a digamma, however, this would would be incorrect as the sum of the letters is 600 + 60 + 6 and not 600 + 60 + 200

Lunate sigma = 200, so this would make the unlisted nomen sacrum read as 860

In turn this would mean translators have gotten everything wrong when translating this verse, which says, infamously:

" Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six " ( 666 )

If it were a lunate sigma, it would say

" Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and two hundred " ( 860 )

Now since the unlisted nomen sacrum that Metzger conveniently left off his list coughbiascough is actually this verse, it means he left 666 off his little list of sacred names that's given on Wiki

I mean gosh ! Golly ! How could it be ?...........The nerve of the NT authors to write such an obvious lie !.........666 isn't sacred !!!!

.......except it is, and that's precisely how it's written, as a standard " sacred name " iow " divine "

No less a person that Jesus Christ was said to have uttered these words

" For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled "

.......yet a so-called authority on the Bible missed a rather obvious notation for divinity ( A tittle ) over a number that has been a central focus for so many

Sorry, but I call shenanigans, not to be a jerk er nuttin'

So there's a good demonstration of why we fact check things, in this case both Wikipedia and a well-respected academic were both incorrect

Since so many self-professed Bible experts I've encountered online over the years have bloviated at great length about the " little horn " of prophetic scriptures and attempt to use all sorts of eisegesis to connect the number 666 to the prophetic scriptures referring to the " little horn " ....., yet haven't even taken enough time to study how the text was actually written to see that a little " horn " is actually used over the number 666 they are trying to connect something to in the first place....

....I call double shenanigans


There you have a cursory example of a " divine number " in the Bible, ( 666 ) an example of fact checking and why academics don't always know what they are talking about, and also some proper exegesis ( Reading a text as it's written )

 

[Onoma]

Now, just a heads up, I purposely wove a rather deceitful untruth into my post, I want to see if you're fact checking my posts too

Let me know if you spot it

 

[Audie]

I guess a good place to go from here is triangular figurate numbers, since people be demanding math and shizz


View attachment 47064


The reason ?

There are multiple reasons why we should. One would be that a formula for the generation of triangular figurate numbers has been found in texts on Computus

Computus, if you didn't know, is the calculation of the date of Easter, celebrating the supposed resurrection of Jesus


View attachment 47070

Computus - Wikipedia

One of the older texts on Computus containing the formula for the generation of triangular numbers is from the Irish monk, Dicuil

cf. Esposito,M. An unpublished astronomical treatise by the Irish monk Dicuil. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, XXXVI C. Dublin, 1907, pages 378-446, specifically

From 814 and 816 Dicuil taught in one of the schools of Louis the Pious, ( Son of Charlemagne ), this is where he wrote his Computus

So, there's another obvious link between math and " divinity / divine things "


But I could think of a more obvious reason

Let's start with the list in Wikipedia which actually inaccurately reports the list of nomina sacra, and this is where you'll see the power of fact checking done properly

Wikipedia says that there are only 15 sacred names in New Testament manuscripts, it lists them as

God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Son, Spirit, David, Cross, Mother, Father, Israel, Savior, Man, Jerusalem, and Heaven

Nomina sacra - Wikipedia.

Each of these is written in Greek manuscripts as short form ( You could think of them like abbreviations ) and each is written with the little " horn " notation ( tittle ) for divinity as explained earlier in the thread

This is according to the work of Bruce Manning Metzger (February 9, 1914 – February 13, 2007) an American biblical scholar, Bible translator and textual critic who was a long time professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament textual criticism, and wrote prolifically on these subjects. Metzger was one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century

( That's according to wiki )

Makes Mr Metzger look rather educated, does it not ?

Let's fact check both wikipedia and it's source ( Metzger ) for accuracy

I'm going to use the largest online repository of New Testament manuscripts available online, since that's how I roll

This is known as the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

Home - CSNTM

Now, if Metzger's list is accurate, then manuscript p-47, which contains one of the oldest copies of Revelation 13:18, would have to been altered or falsified in a rather obvious way

Either that, or Metzger and wiki are wrong

Observe that the use of this notation for " divinity " is easily seen in the manuscripts



View attachment 47066


Now what you may be missing here is that fact that you are looking at a " divine " triangular figurate number ( For those wanting evidence of the association between math and divinity )

In specific, it's a " divine " triangular figurate ( Because it's written with the notation for divinity ) and it happens to have either been overlooked by Metzger ( Unlikely, that's evidence of sloppy work from a highly esteemed academic ), or it's been omitted for a reason

I'm going to say bias or general confusion


View attachment 47067


Can you guys read that ?

I'll walk everyone through it just to be sure we're all looking at the same thing

The first part is just the common nomen sacrum for the word " Christ " ( In Metzger's list )

Or, alternately, it says 600, 60


View attachment 47068


The next part, is either going to be stigma or digamma

Given that this text is dating to roughly 300ish, I'm going to say it's digamma, as stigma is a ligature of the Greek letters sigma (Σ) and tau (Τ) and dates to the Byzantine era

Interestingly though, as a word ( instead of a letter ), " stigma " is originally a common Greek noun meaning " a mark, dot, puncture", or generally "a sign", from the verb στίζω ("(I) puncture"); the related but distinct word stigme (στιγμή) is the classical and post-classical word for "geometric point; punctuation mark "

This word is used one time in the New Testament

" From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks ( stigma (στίγμα),of the Lord Jesus "

Galatians

Digamma was called episēmon during the Byzantine era and is now known as stigma after the Byzantine ligature combining σ-τ as ϛ

This would make the second part of the unlisted nomen sacrum the number 6


View attachment 47069



At first, one might be inclined to instead say this is a lunate sigma instead of a digamma, however, this would would be incorrect as the sum of the letters is 600 + 60 + 6 and not 600 + 60 + 200

Lunate sigma = 200, so this would make the unlisted nomen sacrum read as 860

In turn this would mean translators have gotten everything wrong when translating this verse, which says, infamously:

" Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six " ( 666 )

If it were a lunate sigma, it would say

" Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and two hundred " ( 860 )

Now since the unlisted nomen sacrum that Metzger conveniently left off his list coughbiascough is actually this verse, it means he left 666 off his little list of sacred names that's given on Wiki

I mean gosh ! Golly ! How could it be ?...........The nerve of the NT authors to write such an obvious lie !.........666 isn't sacred !!!!

.......except it is, and that's precisely how it's written, as a standard " sacred name " iow " divine "

No less a person that Jesus Christ was said to have uttered these words

" For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled "

.......yet a so-called authority on the Bible missed a rather obvious notation for divinity ( A tittle ) over a number that has been a central focus for so many

Sorry, but I call shenanigans, not to be a jerk er nuttin'

So there's a good demonstration of why we fact check things, in this case both Wikipedia and a well-respected academic were both incorrect

Since so many self-professed Bible experts I've encountered online over the years have bloviated at great length about the " little horn " of prophetic scriptures and attempt to use all sorts of eisegesis to connect the number 666 to the prophetic scriptures referring to the " little horn " ....., yet haven't even taken enough time to study how the text was actually written to see that a little " horn " is actually used over the number 666 they are trying to connect something to in the first place....

....I call double shenanigans


There you have a cursory example of a " divine number " in the Bible, ( 666 ) an example of fact checking and why academics don't always know what they are talking about, and also some proper exegesis ( Reading a text as it's written )

Off to ig city

 

[Onoma]

You sure did not demonstrate even intro to remedial level of understanding of evolution.

What ? What does evolution have to do with anything ?

 

[Onoma]

Off to ig city

Oh noes, I'm crushed

 

[JoshuaTree]

Now, just a heads up, I purposely wove a rather deceitful untruth into my post, I want to see if you're fact checking my posts too

Let me know if you spot it

You omitted YHWH as a divine name? If not I'll have to read it again. Exciting!

 

[Onoma]

If there's no objective definition for divine, why not scale back the assertion? When I researched this topic, the conclusion I came to was that a divine source, as generally understood, for the Pentateuch was one possible explanation of the phenomena, but it was not the only possible explanation.

All these possible explanations are equally fantastical; but, it would be possible to show ( depending on the scope and complexity of the encryption ) that it would be highly unlikely that the text was written in seperate parts at seperate times without technology that we have today.

If the text was written all at once, then perhaps the author was a savant, an intellectual outlier, or had aquired knowledge of advanced encryption techniques from the priestly tradition that you wrote about. These techniques could have been considered divine at that time, but they don't describe divine by today's standards.

Beyond that, even if the Pentateuch has a divine source, however one chooses to define it, if the evidence comes from an encrypted message that spans all five books, that doesn't mean that the unencrypted story on the surface is literally true.

Ok, I gotta get some sleep, but wanted to make a response to your post, which is well thought out and deserves a well thought response

Right, there's no objective definition of divinity we can just look up in a Sumerian or Akkadian text that just succinctly states it in plain English: " divinity is ______ "

However there are what we can reasonably, imo, consider to be fairly comprehensive definitive sources ( The websites I listed, and more ) that all cover the various associated topics that fall under the umbrella of " divine " ( people, places, objects, traditions, literature, mathematics ) If Yale, Oxford, Max Planck aren't considered definitive sources, I'm always open to hearing something better

Where you said " author was a savant, an intellectual outlier, or had acquired knowledge of advanced encryption techniques from the priestly tradition ", you almost hit the nail on the head, imo, except I don't see any sort of " encryption " in the book, at least as far as how we define encryption

What I do see, however, is the use of certain mathematical tools, like combinatorics, and they are combined with data from the known priestly ephemerides ( Tables of observations of " signs in the sky " ), as well as exploiting some relationships between square and triangular figurates in addition to some prime number theory

Not a shock for me, none of that math is out of place for the time the book comes out of

And where you finish with " that doesn't mean that the unencrypted story on the surface is literally true " I wholeheartedly agree, which Is why I have posted numerous times on this forum about the pitfalls of literalism where the exegesis of ancient literature is concerned

Think I even started a thread specifically on this, iirc

Anyhoo, catch yoo guys tomorrow

I'm hoping someone can manage to call me out on the little untruth I slipped into my post, but if nobody does, I'll point it out when I wake up

 

[Onoma]

You omitted YHWH as a divine name? If not I'll have to read it again. Exciting!

Good, very good, no we haven't discussed this yet, but since the concept of a " lord " is quite rigorously defined, at least in Mesopotamian texts / traditions, it's going to come up and will also help shed some light on a few things, imo

OK, need sleep , see you tomorrow

 

[Heyo]

View attachment 47067


Can you guys read that ?

No, I can't read Greek. But I can tell you what I see. I see a Greek capital Xi and a capital Sigma with a line above (which is, according to Wikipedia the nominus sacra for "Christ"). The line doesn't extend full length over the next letter, which I can't identify but it seems to be a small letter and those aren't usually used in nomina sacra.
As I said, I don't read Greek, but maybe you can help. What is the word following the "Christ" NS? read either with or without the small letter?

And, to come back from the nitty gritty, where is the maths? Even if you are right, we have a sacred number, and you said you wouldn't do numerology but maths.

 

[rational experiences]

Science said biology is natural hence divine .

Science is outside the realm of reality lied.

philosophical father advice. Think first and reason.

12 hours light.
Balanced.
12 hours darkness.

Reality burning produces a reaction that involves shifting of mass cold non burning gas.

Cold does not move.

Science said we died as there is no light just shifting. Due to sacrifice of cold clear.

Spiritual lied about death said we only slept. Due to sex reowning parent consciousness.

Was. Teaching about lying contradictions.

If cold clear earth should not be burning you factored burning. So tried to give it to night time sky.

Eventually vacuum removes it.

Not natural burning in vacuum. Sun a reaction caused it

Common sense. Practical basic science said never copy sun effect as it was only a cause of its big bang.

 

[rational experiences]

No, I can't read Greek. But I can tell you what I see. I see a Greek capital Xi and a capital Sigma with a line above (which is, according to Wikipedia the nominus sacra for "Christ"). The line doesn't extend full length over the next letter, which I can't identify but it seems to be a small letter and those aren't usually used in nomina sacra.
As I said, I don't read Greek, but maybe you can help. What is the word following the "Christ" NS? read either with or without the small letter?

And, to come back from the nitty gritty, where is the maths? Even if you are right, we have a sacred number, and you said you wouldn't do numerology but maths.

Grit all over my bench top this morning.

Last night we heard a blast.

My house showed the evidence experiment.

Yep I know you are doing it.

 

[Onoma]

No, I can't read Greek. But I can tell you what I see. I see a Greek capital Xi and a capital Sigma with a line above (which is, according to Wikipedia the nominus sacra for "Christ"). The line doesn't extend full length over the next letter, which I can't identify but it seems to be a small letter and those aren't usually used in nomina sacra.
As I said, I don't read Greek, but maybe you can help. What is the word following the "Christ" NS? read either with or without the small letter?

And, to come back from the nitty gritty, where is the maths? Even if you are right, we have a sacred number, and you said you wouldn't do numerology but maths.

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

Gives the naysayers in the crowd a chance to prove they understand what's in front of them

I grade them an F- in this case



Again, with your " numerology "

Where have I done anything remotely resembling " numerology " ?

I call your bluff, point out some " numerology " or blow it out yer wazoo

I recall in my thread on flood terminologies in the antiquities it went the same way

A few pages of " Bah, this is stoopid " and then they fell silent when they realized they were far out of their league

This will just be a repeat of that thread, to be honest

 

[dybmh]

What I do see, however, is the use of certain mathematical tools, like combinatorics, and they are combined with data from the known priestly ephemerides ( Tables of observations of " signs in the sky " ), as well as exploiting some relationships between square and triangular figurates in addition to some prime number theory

Then, if I understand the logic your proposal is: combinatorics AND ephemerides AND square/triangular figurates AND prime number theory = savant = divine?

 

[Onoma]

So, back at it

Let me start by examining a rather odd phenomenon I've noticed in this thread

People seem to really really want me to read that Wikipedia page on " numerology "

Now, ....lets forget about the fact that Wikipedia is not a great source for in-depth information,.....and let's also forget about the tendency of people to say things like " Oh, you're a Wikipedia scholar, lol " in the attempt to mock someone that uses wiki to breech a topic

Let's give these people the benefit of the doubt, and assume for a second that wiki's page on " numerology " doesn't also contain some rather obvious specious information

OK, I'm cool with that

My question is, all that effort to steer me to the Wikipedia page on " numerology " but not one attempt to post the wiki link to the page on " divinity " ?

Why not ?

Cherry picking much ?

Lets go there and see what it says, since people want me to accept that wiki's page on " numerology " is an acceptable authority on " numerology " , but doesn't seem to be one for " divinity "

Divinity - Wikipedia

Divinity as a quality has two distinct usages:

• 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.

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

Now, are you really going to attempt to tell me I haven't actually started to cover these topics over the past few pages ?

Sorry, but Stevie Wonder is blind and he'd even be able to see the gaffs here, lol

 

[Onoma]

Then, if I understand the logic your proposal is: combinatorics AND ephemerides AND square/triangular figurates AND prime number theory = savant = divine?

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

Now, had anyone bothered to post the wiki link for " divinity " along with the page on " numerology ' we could have just dissected this together yesterday

Divinity - Wikipedia

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

Had anyone bothered to also link to to the page on " Divinity applied to mortals " ( Apotheosis ), they would have seen that one of the very first names mentioned is Naram-Sin

" Before the Hellenistic period, imperial cults were known in Ancient Egypt (pharaohs) and Mesopotamia (since Naram-Sin to Hammurabi). From the New Kingdom, all deceased pharaohs were deified as the god Osiris. The architect Imhotep was deified after his death "

Now, cough, excuse me, but I clearly recall covering the start of deification of people in literature starting with Naram-Sin just yesterday

Multiple times, in multiple posts, all the while with people telling me I hadn't touched on the topic yet

In fact I also clearly recall mentioning the Sumerian mes, which are some of the earliest known duties of a priest-king

There are 60 mes known and since nobody here bothered to post any of them, I will post the first 9 and then you can attempt to tell me these have nothing to do with " divinity " or the roles of someone who is considered to be " divine " or responsible for " divine duties "

1. ENship
2. Godship
3. The exalted and enduring crown
4. The throne of kingship
5. The exalted sceptre
6. The royal insignia
7. The exalted shrine
8. Shepherdship
9. Kingship

Me (mythology) - Wikipedia.


Clearly, some people haven't bothered to learn about these things, but seem to be overly opinionated about something outside their sphere of study ( Ultracrepidarian at best )


Now, if yous wanna waffle semantics on wiki's two categories for " divinity " for a few pages, we can do that too

Let me know if you raise an objection to the fact there are two distinct categories listed

If not, I'll take this to mean you accept wiki's categorization ( I'm cool with that since you seem to accept what it has to say on numerology )

 

[Audie]

Then, if I understand the logic your proposal is: combinatorics AND ephemerides AND square/triangular figurates AND prime number theory = savant = divine?

Isn't " phone number " supposed to be in there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then, if I understand the logic your proposal is: combinatorics AND ephemerides AND square/triangular figurates AND prime number theory = savant = divine?

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