Look what flew out of Israel into Syria

[obedienttogod]

the Bible is already self-similar and in a sense fractal in its content and formulation. if you describe the scripture as a graph, with ever verse a node, it is a connected graph -- there exists a path between every vertex, where edges are described by theological & typological congruencies. every single verse is connected to every other verse in some way, whether it's direct or indirect ((i.e. you take a path along edges that passes through some number of other vertices)). it repeats motifs and coherently, ubiquitously, repeats certain truths. it all testifies of Christ, His person and work.

so just because you find a verse that says "the LORD is God" and you go through some kind of calculation & search that winds up connecting another verse in some way, and that verse also implies in a sense that "the LORD is God" that is in no way at all any kind of verification of your calculation process. keep multiplying random numbers by 2 and it's not really any surprise that the answer you get is always an even number. but when you understand that all even numbers are multiples of 2, that fact is useful. it's not useful to come up with a way to pick a blade of grass out a field and say 'this piece of grass is green!' -- they are all green.

mathematics requires rigor and justification. why are we multiplying chapters and verses?
and mathematics is not always about numbers. it is fundamentally not numeric but abstract, in that something like the integers or a subset of the integers is only one of an infinite number of spaces that an algebraic topology can describe. if you really want to approach the Bible with an integer-based method of interpretation, we ought to first establish a topology of equivalence relations that we can fully justify in the abstract before ever applying any kind of numerical calculation. without that, all this is completely arbitrary.

IOW
you found 375 somewhere and attached significance to it relative to Psalm 127:3
this is still completely arbitrary unless you can show somehow that relationship is unique to this verse.
this is still completely arbitrary unless you can show that the same relationship exists with Psalm 15:25 and Psalm 75:5 and is also unique to this equivalence set under the numerical congruency.
this is still completely arbitrary if you can't demonstrate that it is true for all verses in Psalms and their resultants, or prove that it must be so for whatever subset that it is, and show why it is so for either every verse in the whole book or why it is necessarily only the case for whatever subset it is actually so for.

i hope some of this makes sense.

i'm probably sounding very critical; don't take this the wrong way, please. as i said, i'm a mathematician - not just 'i do some math as part of my job' -- so i am scrutinizing this stuff with the goal of either fully establishing a legitimate algorithmic approach here or definitively discarding a meaningless pseudo-relationship.

No, I like your viewpoint very much.

And I agree that something important is repeated throughout the entire Bible, even certain phrases can be found this way like a pattern.

But the reason I am intrigued by this like I am, is due to the fact most contemporaries conclude Psalms to be concentric to Praise and Worship. Albeit, throughout the years of Biblical study, I have found connections from Psalms to the first creation, the old world, Yeshua dying upon the Cross, God expanding His frustration with sacrifice and burnt offerings, and much more. But I never really found connections to the end times specifically with Psalms. And this new mathematical method has pointed to several connections pertaining the end times, that I once did not see the connection before. The way David wrote it, plus how Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Christ (worded/not wrote), Paul, and John wrote their contemporaries, are not word for word. So it was never obvious what David was pointing at. But when I did the method and read the matched verse, I clearly could see how both verses meant same thing without wording it the same.

 

[posthuman]

I mentioned the Right Triangle as I did, because I meet a lot of Europeans who still have not heard of this term. The British Standard still does not use it and it's been a term in the USA for better than 50 years.

i just checked a few UK-based websites having to do geometry and they seem to use "right-angled triangle" instead of "right triangle"

i guess you could say they don't do math in the UK because they call it "maths" instead?

Euclid wrote his 'Elements' around 300 BC.
whatever specific language ((congruency relation )) someone uses, the concept and idea of a right triangle has been around for better than 2,000 years....

 

[obedienttogod]

i just checked a few UK-based websites having to do geometry and they seem to use "right-angled triangle" instead of "right triangle"

i guess you could say they don't do math in the UK because they call it "maths" instead?

Euclid wrote his 'Elements' around 300 BC.
whatever specific language ((congruency relation )) someone uses, the concept and idea of a right triangle has been around for better than 2,000 years....

But in all processes using mathematics from education, science (quantum mechanics), medical (human anatomy which is science), biology (medicines is still science), standard home building, weight, liquids, oxygen, manufacturing, height, gravity, inertia, electromagnetic's (all Laws of physics), everything in fact including counting money, buoyancy, you name it and the list continues...

...only in the machine shop environment is the proverbial RIGHT TRIANGLE being used in the method of trigonometry.

So, in my opinion (obviously), it's nice to know that I am working with a method unique to all other formulas. Plus, I work with this method not always specifically from GD&T, but from a truer process, the tooling ball!!

 

[posthuman]

But when I did the method and read the matched verse, I clearly could see how both verses meant same thing without wording it the same.

if the whole Bible is a testimony of Christ then we ought to expect any pair of verses to be related to each other through Him, regardless of arbitrary relationship through esoteric & ill-justified numerical calculation. any pair of sayings in the Bible can be related through an abstract topology defined along not-necessarily-numeric congruencies.

the NT is full of examples of interpretation of the OT -- this gives us an outline of a legitimate method of interpretation ((it doesn't prove it's the only legitimate method, but it gives us one that exists)) and the interpretations aren't numeric. they are still math, tho -- they are forms of typological, moral & literal congruencies, which form an algebraic topology. algebra doesn't have to involve numbers, and it's not a 'given' that any consistent algebraic topology has to be able to be mapped to the integers ((so that the type of calculations most people call 'math' are possible)). the typological interpretations of the scripture found in the NT might be able to be mapped in a consistent way to an algorithmic system of numerical relationships, and it might not. that system of relationships might be formulated in Euclidean space, or it might not.

because we do have examples of Jesus & the apostles interpreting the OT in the NT, we have what we can axiomatically call a 'right interpretation' and we can infer a schema of how the OT should be interpreted, at least in some limited sense. so, if we have any kind of hypothesized method of interpretation, we have a series of interpretations we can assume to be 'right' which we can test the hypothesized method against. if they hypothesized method - numeric or otherwise - can be shown to be have a congruency to the examples we have of a 'right' way, we still haven't proven the hypothesis is correct; that's inconclusive. but if we find it's not consistent with our axiomatic 'right' interpretations, then we prove the hypothesized system is false, even if it does in some cases happen to turn up something that's arguably interesting. a broken clock is still right twice a day..

so the example of Psalm 125:3 --- is it equivalent to Psalm 25:15 and Psalm 75:5 ?
if it's not, it's arbitrary - we already have strong reasons to see that the Bible is self-similar everywhere so the chapter*verse thing is potentially entirely meaningless. it remains to be shown why or why not these other ways of coming up with the number 375 are legitimate under this proposed algorithmic search pattern.

 

[obedienttogod]

 

[obedienttogod]

if the whole Bible is a testimony of Christ then we ought to expect any pair of verses to be related to each other through Him, regardless of arbitrary relationship through esoteric & ill-justified numerical calculation. any pair of sayings in the Bible can be related through an abstract topology defined along not-necessarily-numeric congruencies.

the NT is full of examples of interpretation of the OT -- this gives us an outline of a legitimate method of interpretation ((it doesn't prove it's the only legitimate method, but it gives us one that exists)) and the interpretations aren't numeric. they are still math, tho -- they are forms of typological, moral & literal congruencies, which form an algebraic topology. algebra doesn't have to involve numbers, and it's not a 'given' that any consistent algebraic topology has to be able to be mapped to the integers ((so that the type of calculations most people call 'math' are possible)). the typological interpretations of the scripture found in the NT might be able to be mapped in a consistent way to an algorithmic system of numerical relationships, and it might not. that system of relationships might be formulated in Euclidean space, or it might not.

because we do have examples of Jesus & the apostles interpreting the OT in the NT, we have what we can axiomatically call a 'right interpretation' and we can infer a schema of how the OT should be interpreted, at least in some limited sense. so, if we have any kind of hypothesized method of interpretation, we have a series of interpretations we can assume to be 'right' which we can test the hypothesized method against. if they hypothesized method - numeric or otherwise - can be shown to be have a congruency to the examples we have of a 'right' way, we still haven't proven the hypothesis is correct; that's inconclusive. but if we find it's not consistent with our axiomatic 'right' interpretations, then we prove the hypothesized system is false, even if it does in some cases happen to turn up something that's arguably interesting. a broken clock is still right twice a day..

so the example of Psalm 125:3 --- is it equivalent to Psalm 25:15 and Psalm 75:5 ?
if it's not, it's arbitrary - we already have strong reasons to see that the Bible is self-similar everywhere so the chapter*verse thing is potentially entirely meaningless. it remains to be shown why or why not these other ways of coming up with the number 375 are legitimate under this proposed algorithmic search pattern.

I am lost at how when I state chapter number times (multiplied by) verse number (i/e Psalms 10:4) (would be written out as 10 times 4, 10 x 4, 10 * 4) is so confusing that you ask about other mathematical scenarios that do not apply, nor have any reason to be mentioned.

It is as simple as 10 multiplied by 4, or 10 x 4 = 40.

There is nothing else relative to it. I mentioned it is as basic as it gets. I would encourage you to stop overthinking it and to accept it like the first time in grade school you were taught simple multiplication!!

 

[obedienttogod]

I need to run for a bit but will check in. I really want you to see how simple this process is. It's so simple, it is enlightening, just how God would have it be!!

 

[posthuman]

But in all processes using mathematics from education, science (quantum mechanics), medical (human anatomy which is science), biology (medicines is still science), standard home building, weight, liquids, oxygen, manufacturing, height, gravity, inertia, electromagnetic's (all Laws of physics), everything in fact including counting money, buoyancy, you name it and the list continues...

...only in the machine shop environment is the proverbial RIGHT TRIANGLE being used in the method of trigonometry.

So, in my opinion (obviously), it's nice to know that I am working with a method unique to all other formulas. Plus, I work with this method not always specifically from GD&T, but from a truer process, the tooling ball!!

that's not true at all.

Euclidean geometry is Euclidean geometry and perpendicularity and associated distance measures are used in every single one of those fields you mentioned, even in medicines and materials science, owing to the geometry at molecular levels of whatever chemicals are being considered. the fundamental unit of EM is a bipartite wave with an E field at a right angle to a B field. it's described by an equation formed by the addition of a sine and a cosine function. all the laws of physics are written in terms of mathematics and calculating vector contributions of whatever forces are involved in some field involves right triangles -- even if, in the case of some quantum-physics based calculations, we're working in a Hilbert space instead of a Euclidean plane, right triangles still exist there and have import. right triangles are fundamental elements of measurement in whatever setting, biomechanics, construction, molecular statics & dynamics, manufacturing, orbital mechanics, whatever, and certainly a very basic part of whatever sort of metrological methods are used to analyze and describe the quality metrics of al these things.

=|

 

[posthuman]

I am lost at how when I state chapter number times (multiplied by) verse number (i/e Psalms 10:4) (would be written out as 10 times 4, 10 x 4, 10 * 4) is so confusing that you ask about other mathematical scenarios that do not apply, nor have any reason to be mentioned.

It is as simple as 10 multiplied by 4, or 10 x 4 = 40.

There is nothing else relative to it. I mentioned it is as basic as it gets. I would encourage you to stop overthinking it and to accept it like the first time in grade school you were taught simple multiplication!!

you come up with 40.

there are a lot of ways to come up with 40. what's special about the way you did it?

is Psalm 10:4 equivalent to Psalm 4:10, Psalm 20:2, Psalm 5:8, Psalm 8:5, Psalm 40:1 ?

are they equivalent because they are all scripture and all scripture testifies of Christ's person and work, or are they all equivalent because of this numerical relationship?

you have to prove that multiplying an arbitrary chapter and arbitrary verse doesn't give you an arbitrary number.

 

[posthuman]

I would encourage you to stop overthinking it and to accept it like the first time in grade school you were taught simple multiplication!!

i'd encourage you to take a dozen classes in mathematical analysis & abstract algebra, so you'll understand that adding 2 + 2 is not simple at all. you have to define what "+" is and define what "2" is before you even begin to come up with something like "4"
and then you need to know whether "4" is even a legitimate answer.

2 + 2 is not necessarily 4 --- there are a lot of assumptions behind that. it is taught in a very simple way to children because essentially, children are assumed to be too stupid to understand all the fundamental principles behind the scenes, and by and large the underlying logical rigor is not necessary for anyone to do their jobs, earn their checks, eat their food, grow old and die. that kind of in-depth study isn't necessary, and it can be really hard to grasp, because it's very abstract. most people will go their whole lives without needing to expressly calculate the sum of two vectors. but the truth remains the same -- ||<0, 0, 2> + <0, 2, 0>|| ain't got an N.D. of 2, and N.D. ain't the only possible measure.

but if you are going to do something like establish a numerical approach to interpreting scripture, you darn well need to know more than arithmetic on ℕ under the operator '+' in the same way that if you're going to turn a threaded rod on a lathe you're potentially going to produce nothing but a knurled piece of garbage if you don't have a clue what 'pitch' is -- and it's possible you may never even know that it's a bad part until years later under some extreme circumstance it fails.

 

[posthuman]

. . . other mathematical scenarios that do not apply, nor have any reason to be mentioned.

from my perspective, you only say that because you don't know what algebraic topology ((for example)) is.

think of it this way:
you want to count how many sproos you have. easy: 1 sproo, 2 sproos, etc
you have two piles of sproos and you want to know how many there are. sure; x sproos in this pile, y sproos in that pile. x + y

now you want to multiply your total number of sproos by the color the sky over Zanzibar is at 11:51 AM every seventh tuesday of years divisible by roma tomatoes, and express the result in terms of average linear declination of your third cousins first pet's nape fur.

. . . you need to know more than simple arithmetic. you need to establish an algebra for a set containing all the elements involved in your calculation, some of which are numbers, some of which are not, some are qualitative, some are quantitative, and some really aren't either. there's a lot of holes that need to be filled in.

 

[obedienttogod]

that's not true at all.

Euclidean geometry is Euclidean geometry and perpendicularity and associated distance measures are used in every single one of those fields you mentioned, even in medicines and materials science, owing to the geometry at molecular levels of whatever chemicals are being considered. the fundamental unit of EM is a bipartite wave with an E field at a right angle to a B field. it's described by an equation formed by the addition of a sine and a cosine function. all the laws of physics are written in terms of mathematics and calculating vector contributions of whatever forces are involved in some field involves right triangles -- even if, in the case of some quantum-physics based calculations, we're working in a Hilbert space instead of a Euclidean plane, right triangles still exist there and have import. right triangles are fundamental elements of measurement in whatever setting, biomechanics, construction, molecular statics & dynamics, manufacturing, orbital mechanics, whatever, and certainly a very basic part of whatever sort of metrological methods are used to analyze and describe the quality metrics of al these things.

=|

Right Triangles used in teaching methods, maybe, but used in trigonometry to find sine-cosine-tangent is generally only found in certain fields. And typically, the field it's used the most, is in the world of tool & die.

But I see, you just want to play on words, so this is never going to end.

 

[obedienttogod]

you come up with 40.

there are a lot of ways to come up with 40. what's special about the way you did it?

is Psalm 10:4 equivalent to Psalm 4:10, Psalm 20:2, Psalm 5:8, Psalm 8:5, Psalm 40:1 ?

are they equivalent because they are all scripture and all scripture testifies of Christ's person and work, or are they all equivalent because of this numerical relationship?

you have to prove that multiplying an arbitrary chapter and arbitrary verse doesn't give you an arbitrary number.

I don't have to prove anything. It has worked for me in the way I explained it. And in my opinion, that is all that matters, since I can see something in light of scripture I never did before.

 

[posthuman]

View attachment 193536

 

[obedienttogod]

i'd encourage you to take a dozen classes in mathematical analysis & abstract algebra, so you'll understand that adding 2 + 2 is not simple at all. you have to define what "+" is and define what "2" is before you even begin to come up with something like "4"
and then you need to know whether "4" is even a legitimate answer.

2 + 2 is not necessarily 4 --- there are a lot of assumptions behind that. it is taught in a very simple way to children because essentially, children are assumed to be too stupid to understand all the fundamental principles behind the scenes, and by and large the underlying logical rigor is not necessary for anyone to do their jobs, earn their checks, eat their food, grow old and die. that kind of in-depth study isn't necessary, and it can be really hard to grasp, because it's very abstract. most people will go their whole lives without needing to expressly calculate the sum of two vectors. but the truth remains the same -- ||<0, 0, 2> + <0, 2, 0>|| ain't got an N.D. of 2, and N.D. ain't the only possible measure.

but if you are going to do something like establish a numerical approach to interpreting scripture, you darn well need to know more than arithmetic on ℕ under the operator '+' in the same way that if you're going to turn a threaded rod on a lathe you're potentially going to produce nothing but a knurled piece of garbage if you don't have a clue what 'pitch' is -- and it's possible you may never even know that it's a bad part until years later under some extreme circumstance it fails.

Why?

I have a mechanical engineering degree from Purdue, which is equivalent to MTI and others comparable to it. And I already took every mathematics class in order to take the several calculus classes required for my degree. I don't know who you are, and I am getting more than well paid for my mathematics, which tells me I am sufficient in my field with/or without your approval.

 

[obedienttogod]

from my perspective, you only say that because you don't know what algebraic topology ((for example)) is.

think of it this way:
you want to count how many sproos you have. easy: 1 sproo, 2 sproos, etc
you have two piles of sproos and you want to know how many there are. sure; x sproos in this pile, y sproos in that pile. x + y

now you want to multiply your total number of sproos by the color the sky over Zanzibar is at 11:51 AM every seventh tuesday of years divisible by roma tomatoes, and express the result in terms of average linear declination of your third cousins first pet's nape fur.

. . . you need to know more than simple arithmetic. you need to establish an algebra for a set containing all the elements involved in your calculation, some of which are numbers, some of which are not, some are qualitative, some are quantitative, and some really aren't either. there's a lot of holes that need to be filled in.

No, it tells me that I have been taught to find the easiest solution, which I have!!

So once again, your input is useless.

 

[posthuman]

No, it tells me that I have been taught to find the easiest solution, which I have!!

So once again, your input is useless.

Occam's razor is often misstated.

it is not merely 'the simplest explanation' -- it's the simplest explanation which takes into account and is able to explain all the data -- that Occam prefers.

 

[garee]

This is the equivalent of seeing a unicorn in a cloud formation.

Ridiculous.

Also equivalent of seeing the miracle of the Sun without a shade to take way the harmful effects of looking into the Sun. The Virgin Mary appeared to the children on May 13, 1917 as “a lady dressed in white, shining brighter than the sun, giving out rays of clear and intense light,” dos Santos wrote. She promised to come to the children on the 13th of each month.

 

[garee]

Im currently selling an invisible bridge. Its in excellent condition.

Payable with invisible money? I will take two. LOL

 

[obedienttogod]

Occam's razor is often misstated.

it is not merely 'the simplest explanation' -- it's the simplest explanation which takes into account and is able to explain all the data -- that Occam prefers.

OK, I cannot do anything with that. But let me ask one thing. Why do you want me to see other ways of achieving the same answer, unless you yourself, also see's actual mathematics within scripture. The entire Bible literally has God's direct point of view, when He says, "In the Beginning!!" There is no mistake in what God just said there. The clock was officially set there. To the point we have achieved in His knowledge, that we understand that this literally means, "God has officially clicked the stopwatch to Go, and the [Hour Glass] on the time to where I am going to End, begins!!

And from there, it was all about mathematics. How long does each creation live, how long does man live, how many generations of men. How many generations of everything. And this all pertains to the end.

If your mathematics reveals other views about the Word of God, then I am interested!!