The Genesis Wheel

[Bethsheba Ashe]

It is still a failed test. You are assuming that one will be right. It is far more likely that both are wrong. That is why your test has no value. I cannot base a test of whether 2 + 2 = 5 on how a competing idea that claims 2 + 2 = 3 does. Once again your test must be based upon the merits of your idea independent of how others do with the same info.

It is. You just don't understand what I said. Sorry but your analogy is stupid.

 

[Unguru]

It is still a failed test. You are assuming that one will be right. It is far more likely that both are wrong. That is why your test has no value.

You are confused. Are you ready to admit that you are wrong and try again?

Once again you demonstrate an ignorance of the scientific method. Scientific claims are based upon concepts tested and confirmed with empirical evidence (1 +1 = 2). Once more you only demonstrate a need for remedial education. You are using a combination of an argument from ignorance along with confirmation bias. You have still only provided a fatally failed argument against Bethsheba Ashe who has provided facts, whether you agree or disagree with will not affect the distinct scientific accuracy of her methods. Your opinion is not valid here, you are only demonstrating your ignorance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is. You just don't understand what I said. Sorry but your analogy is stupid.

No, I understood what you said and my analogy is spot on. You are probably just as wrong as all of the other Bible code people. I can see now that you parroted the term cognitive dissonance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are confused. Are you ready to admit that you are wrong and try again?

Once again you demonstrate an ignorance of the scientific method. Scientific claims are based upon concepts tested and confirmed with empirical evidence (1 +1 = 2). Once more you only demonstrate a need for remedial education. You are using a combination of an argument from ignorance along with confirmation bias. You have still only provided a fatally failed argument against Bethsheba Ashe who has provided facts, whether you agree or disagree with will not affect the distinct scientific accuracy of her methods. Your opinion is not valid here, you are only demonstrating your ignorance.

No, projection.

Scientific concepts are never absolutely confirmed. Tests that can potentially falsify an idea are much more valuable than tests that "confirm" it. Our OP simply believes in a failed analysis of the Bible. That is all. She does not know how to test it properly.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

No, I understood what you said and my analogy is spot on. You are probably just as wrong as all of the other Bible code people. I can see now that you parroted the term cognitive dissonance.

You understand what I said do you? I don't believe you. Prove it. Tell me, what are the seven palaces and what role do they play in the test? Tell me, what is a gate of the seven palaces? Give me one example of how you calculate a gate - the Gate of Ayin for instance. And show me a demonstration of gematria that features ancient scribal conventions concerning mathematical notation in the expression. Prove that you understand.

Bible code people dont bother with the scribal conventions over math notation. Bible code people dont know about or use the Seven Palaces. Ergo, to compare my work with theirs shows your ignorance.

And if you are insulting my intelligence it means you're losing and you have nothing else to say.

 

[Darkforbid]

You understand what I said do you? I don't believe you. Prove it. Tell me, what are the seven palaces and what role do they play in the test? Tell me, what is a gate of the seven palaces? Give me one example of how you calculate a gate - the Gate of Ayin for instance. And show me a demonstration of gematria that features ancient scribal conventions concerning mathematical notation in the expression. Prove that you understand.

If you are insulting my intelligence it means you're losing and you have nothing else to say.

There must be a way of turning atheist word soups into something useful.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

No, projection.

Scientific concepts are never absolutely confirmed. Tests that can potentially falsify an idea are much more valuable than tests that "confirm" it. Our OP simply believes in a failed analysis of the Bible. That is all. She does not know how to test it properly.

I dont need a test to confirm it. I have already confirmed it beyond reasonable doubt and presented overwhelming evidence (that you refuse to even look at before you call it failed) to show its correct. You asked for a way to potentially falsify the idea and I gave you one, but you made another assumption. Its useless talking to you. You lack the honesty that a scientist needs. You talk more like a politician.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

I've just invited Randy Ingermanson and Brendan McKay to review the book. I am that confident in my analysis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You understand what I said do you? I don't believe you. Prove it. Tell me, what are the seven palaces and what role do they play in the test? Tell me, what is a gate of the seven palaces? Give me one example of how you calculate a gate - the Gate of Ayin for instance. And show me a demonstration of gematria that features ancient scribal conventions concerning mathematical notation in the expression. Prove that you understand.

Bible code people dont bother with the scribal conventions over math notation. Bible code people dont know about or use the Seven Palaces. Ergo, to compare my work with theirs shows your ignorance.

And if you are insulting my intelligence it means you're losing and you have nothing else to say.

You were the first to imply that others were using cognitive dissonance. You should not be so offended with turn about. Second I really do not need to go over the nonsense that you believe in to explain why your so called test was flawed. Once again a proper test does not rely on whether a competing idea is shown to be correct or not. If the competing idea is wrong as well, and that appears to be the case, it can never be shown to be correct but that does not support your claim at all. By the way, your claim that my example was "stupid" only supports my claim of possible cognitive dissonance. There was nothing wrong with that simple explanation. It made your error obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I dont need a test to confirm it. I have already confirmed it beyond reasonable doubt and presented overwhelming evidence (that you refuse to even look at before you call it failed) to show its correct. You asked for a way to potentially falsify the idea and I gave you one, but you made another assumption. Its useless talking to you. You lack the honesty that a scientist needs. You talk more like a politician.

If you had done so you would have clear evidence for your claims. This is classic confirmation bias. It cannot be a "reasonable doubt" for you. To use that phrase it has to be beyond a reasonable doubt for others. And I explained to you why your so called test failed. Odds are just as the people claiming that 2 = 2 + 5 and another claiming that 2 + 2 = 3 neither can use the fact that the other is wrong as evidence for their claims. An idea has to pass or fail on its own merits to have evidence.

 

[Darkforbid]

You were the first to imply that others were using cognitive dissonance. You should not be so offended with turn about. Second I really do not need to go over the nonsense that you believe in to explain why your so called test was flawed. Once again a proper test does not rely on whether a competing idea is shown to be correct or not. If the competing idea is wrong as well, and that appears to be the case, it can never be shown to be correct but that does not support your claim at all. By the way, your claim that my example was "stupid" only supports my claim of possible cognitive dissonance. There was nothing wrong with that simple explanation. It made your error obvious.

More word soup

 

[Skwim]

I've just invited Randy Ingermanson and Brendan McKay to review the book. I am that confident in my analysis.

And we should care because ___________________________________________________________________________ .

.

 

[Darkforbid]

And we should care because ___________________________________________________________________________ .

.

Why did you post that? What part of 'wanted her book reviewed' is beyond your comprehension?

 

[Subduction Zone]

More word soup

If you do not understand ask questions.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

You were the first to imply that others were using cognitive dissonance. You should not be so offended with turn about.

People don't use cognitive dissonance, Subdu. People experience cognitive dissonance, which is unpleasant for them and I was concerned for Rev Bob who seems like a nice old chap. That's why I gave him the warning, not because I was trying to insult his intelligence. This isn't my first book to be published and its not my first rodeo. I've seen my work cause cognitive dissonance in others, and I've had people pour a great deal of derision on my head and then come back months or sometimes years later with "I am so so sorry I acted that way. Everything you said was spot on, but at the time I just couldn't accept it." Unlike you, I don't think of discussions on the internet as a kind of sport. I care about the actual content of what we discuss and the people behind these words on a screen. I'm not interested in bagging trophies for my wall, and I don't feel the need to insult people without provocation because I'm not trying to project some sense of inner loathing onto others.

So turn about? Didn't happen except in your own mind.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

Second I really do not need to go over the nonsense that you believe in to explain why your so called test was flawed. Once again a proper test does not rely on whether a competing idea is shown to be correct or not. If the competing idea is wrong as well, and that appears to be the case, it can never be shown to be correct but that does not support your claim at all. By the way, your claim that my example was "stupid" only supports my claim of possible cognitive dissonance. There was nothing wrong with that simple explanation. It made your error obvious.

You haven't directly explained why the test was flawed. You've used a metaphor to explain why you think it might be flawed but since you don't understand the test itself you also don't understand why your metaphor is stupid. You don't understand that using a different number set is not a competing idea because you don't understand that its not the only thing or even the main thing that matters to biblical gematria or what distinguishes it from bible code nonsense. If you try and use biblical gematria without knowing the mathematical notation of the scribes then you would end up in error. If you don't know the seven palaces - same deal. And if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about you have no way to judge. Now I'm pretty sure you've gotten this nonsense about tests from a book someone else wrote, and you're just parroting at me, expecting a certain result. But unless you wrap your head around the fact that what I'm doing is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the usual bible code bull****, and start using your own brains for once you won't understand why, in this particular case, your metaphorical example is really really stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, I'm saying you're making a fundamental error in judgement because you haven't bothered to check your facts before you open your mouth.

 

[Bethsheba Ashe]

And we should care because ___________________________________________________________________________ .

.

Brendan McKay is a famous debunker of Bible codes. Randy Ingermanson is a physicist and writer that has written about debunking Bible codes. My work is not a Bible code but since its approximate to them and is receiving the same attention as if it were, then having them review the book would be useful to people who are too lazy or too closed minded to research the matter for themselves.

Torah Codes

 

[Skwim]

Brendan McKay is a famous debunker of Bible codes. Randy Ingermanson is a physicist and writer that has written about debunking Bible codes. My work is not a Bible code but since its approximate to them and is receiving the same attention as if it were, then having them review the book would be useful to people who are too lazy or too closed minded to research the matter for themselves.

​

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You haven't directly explained why the test was flawed. You've used a metaphor to explain why you think it might be flawed but since you don't understand the test itself you also don't understand why your metaphor is stupid. You don't understand that using a different number set is not a competing idea because you don't understand that its not the only thing or even the main thing that matters to biblical gematria or what distinguishes it from bible code nonsense. If you try and use biblical gematria without knowing the mathematical notation of the scribes then you would end up in error. If you don't know the seven palaces - same deal. And if you don't know what the hell I'm talking about you have no way to judge. Now I'm pretty sure you've gotten this nonsense about tests from a book someone else wrote, and you're just parroting at me, expecting a certain result. But unless you wrap your head around the fact that what I'm doing is quantitatively and qualitatively different from the usual bible code bull****, and start using your own brains for once you won't understand why, in this particular case, your metaphorical example is really really stupid. I'm not calling you stupid, I'm saying you're making a fundamental error in judgement because you haven't bothered to check your facts before you open your mouth.

"Using a different number set" still makes it Bible code nonsense.
And yes, I did explain how your test failed. Not understanding something does not mean that it did not happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Brendan McKay is a famous debunker of Bible codes.

And a major league pitcher:

Brendan McKay Stats | Baseball-Reference.com

He keeps himself pretty busy.