Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2017-05-19T01:44:06Z

PatternOfPersona: added second paragraph to section on water cycle, and extended the title of that section to describe the content of that second paragraph

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|200px|alt=Isaac Newton, cornerstone of the scientific revolution, based his research on the scientific authority of the [[Bible]].|thumb|[[Portrait]] of [[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible.]]

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is how the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science]] far ahead of its time. The Bible is a superb roadmap to future scientific discoveries. Unfortunately [[Bible denier]]s, including many [[Atheism|atheist]]s and [[evolution]]ists, refuse to read the Bible, and '''''their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

The [[Book of Genesis]] gives [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge#Anesthesia|an example of anesthesia]] long before man discovered it in 1846. And the underlying chaos and uncertainty in the physical world was explained in the Bible long before [[quantum mechanics]] confirmed it in the 1900s.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has an additional benefit: it guides a more precise translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as the reference to the universe in [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10]], and the changing of [[Essay:Water into Wine|water into wine]] at the wedding feast.

==Geology==

===Massive flooding===
Atheist scientists long opposed a [[young earth]] [[creation|created]] by [[God]] where cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] described in the Bible, shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood in the region had indeed occurred thousands of years ago. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be universally accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>[http://www.iafi.org/floods.html The Ice Age Flood Institute reports on the massive floods in the Northwest.]</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was proposed by [[creationist]] Antonio Snider-Pellegrini in 1859 based on [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)#Chapter 1|Genesis 1:9-10]],<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html Christian Answers explains Antonio Snider's divine inspiration</ref> which states, {{cquote|And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.}} Because land is no longer all in [[Pangaea|one place]], this implies that the continents have shifted over the six millennia to their current positions. [[Atheists]] and [[scientist]]s who hadn't seen the light of [[creationism]] were in [[liberal denial]] about this concept for a century, until finally accepting its truth. This is just more data that the Bible knew millennia before [[secular]] [[science]] caught up.
However, The Continents are still connected; under the ocean is land if you dry up the water. This interpretation of this verse is in error, the separation spoken of here is the waters under the sky (Firmament) and the water out in space (beyond the heavens). Comets prove this theory, as many of them contain ice, and today as much as 1% of terrestrial rain comes from extraterrestrial sources.{{citation needed|date=September 2015}}
The most likely reason for the current position and shape of the land mass is the Flood of Noah. Pangea does not work without flipping, shrinking, and sometimes removing countries entirely. Any Biblical statements of continents is in Genesis 10:25 when Peleg is mentioned "for in his days was the earth divided" this in particular refers to the separation of what today is Russia, Japan, and Alaska, when the oceans arose, and also to the division of the peoples by languages, who migrated together according to their language after the confusing of tongues at the tower of Babel, obviously the migration took place before the oceanic divide which led to the natives of the Far West. Everyone laughed at Columbus, not because they thought earth was flat, but because they had forgotten the Far West (America) was there, and they thought he didn't have nearly enough supplies or a big enough ship to go to Asia the long way around, and they would have been right if he didn't hit the Caribbean first by complete accident. Recent findings of biblical stone tablets, in Byzantine script prove that trade between Europe and the Far West was common prior to the dark age which began in 400 or 500 AD.

===Underwater springs===
Only in modern times have scientists become aware of the enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans. However, the Bible repeatedly described this thousands of years earlier in [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Genesis 7:11]], which states, {{cquote|In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.}} Again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible states that, {{cquote|And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.}}
And Job 38:16 “Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? Or hast thou walked in the search of the depths?"

This is ''obvious'' proof to all but [[liberals]] that the Bible had foreknowledge of subcrustal oceans, something the ancient Jews could not have possibly known, and thus proof of the Bible's God-given accuracy and divine nature.

==Agriculture==

===Malthusianism===
Since Thomas [[Robert Malthus|Malthus's]] 1798 work, ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'', [[liberal]] [[intellectual]]s insisted that the world's population would grow faster than the [[food]] supply and result in mass starvation. However, there are examples in both the [[Old Testament|Old]]{{citation needed|date=September 2015}} and [[New Testament]]s{{citation needed|date=September 2015}}, as well as the example of [[William Bradford]] at Plymouth Colony,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bradford|first1=William|title=The History of Plimoth Plantation|date=1669|pages=135–136}}</ref> of the food supply increasing to be more far plentiful than expected, mostly due to faith in [[God|God's]] powers and use of [[conservative]] [[economics]]. Indeed, in modern times [[obesity]] is far more prevalent and harmful than [[hunger]] worldwide, and food production far exceeds the ability to consume even in impoverished nations. Hunger remains a problem only in places with [[liberal]] and/or [[leftist]] political systems that impede food distribution or destroy the [[free market]].

==History==

=== Psychogenic hematidrosis ===

Psychogenic hematidrosis, which is sweat turning into blood, happens rarely but in the cases it does happen, it usually happens with death row inmates. In 70 percent of all studies that document this condition, the condition occurs in death row inmates.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjXMsq6SscA Police Detective Examines the Resurrection of Jesus becomes Christian]</ref> In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus sweat blood (Luke 22:44). The early church was puzzled by the account of Jesus sweating blood given in Scripture and they didn't know what to make of it.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjXMsq6SscA Police Detective Examines the Resurrection of Jesus becomes Christian]</ref>

=== Pleural effusion ===

The early church was puzzled by the blood and water that came out of Jesus' side when the soldier plunged his spear into him. The blood was not a problem in their understanding, but the water was. Medical science can now explain the water coming out of Jesus' side as being the result of pleural effusion.<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjXMsq6SscA Police Detective Examines the Resurrection of Jesus becomes Christian]</ref>

===Great Flood ice mummy===
[[File:The building of the ark.jpg|thumb|The building of the Ark by Bertram of Minden, ancient [[German Painting]].]]
According to the Bible, a [[Great Flood]] occurred around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries [[atheist]]s and [[liberals]] have mocked it, claiming that it was impossible. However, in 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered in the [[Alps]]. Scientists located a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, which was due to an extraordinary ice storm. By radiometric [[carbon dating]],<ref>http://www.nupecc.org/iai2001/report/B44.pdf Radiocarbon dating of the Iceman Ötzi with
accelerator mass spectrometry</ref> the scientists discovered that this massive ice storm occurred 5300 years ago, which perfectly matches the Biblical Great Flood.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html PBS on the "Iceman" in the Alps</ref> This is obvious proof of the Great Flood, as no natural occurrence could possibly explain how somebody came to be preserved by ice in the [[Alps]].

===Oldest Living Organism===

Bristlecone pine trees in California's White Mountains are the oldest living unitary organism. As predicted by the Bible, they are not as old as 6,000 years but are as old as 5,000 years,<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/worlds-oldest-living-things-23385913/image-23386256</ref> roughly the time of the [[Great Flood]].

===False theories===
Jesus' recognition that the truth would remain hidden from arrogant "intellectuals" while simultaneously revealed to humbler, [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|more openminded]] people. This foreshadowed the creation of theories to pull self-centered intellectual wannabees away from [[God]], such as the [[Theory of Evolution]], the [[Theory of Relativity]], the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[secular]] culture of [[abortion]], [[Communism]], and countless other [[liberal]] and atheistic ideas and ideologies.

===Mankind remains extant===
The Bible predicts that the end of [[mankind]] will not occur by chance, but rather at a time known only to God. Despite the extinction of many species each year throughout history, the expectation by scientists that Earth would have been hit by chance by a massive, extinction-causing meteor, and laws of probability that predict other immense catastrophes, mankind continues and Christianity grows just as Jesus predicted.

===Construction of ancient sky-high structures===

The Bible—the [[Book of Genesis]] chapter 11—explains how ancient people arrogantly sought to construct a sky-high "[[Tower of Babel]]" to try to reach [[Heaven]]. Then, in the 1900s, archaeologists discovered the great ziggurat of ancient Ur, located in present-day southern Iraq, having characteristics similar to the biblical description of the Tower of Babel.<ref>http://www.bible-history.com/babylonia/BabyloniaThe_Ziggurat.htm</ref>

===Hometown of Goliath===

1 Samuel 17 of the Bible discusses the giant Goliath from a Philistine city named Gath, located in central Israel. In July 2015, archaeologists discovered its entrance in an excavation that began in 1899. They also uncovered evidence of a massive earthquake that occurred in the eighth century BC, as described in the biblical book of Amos.<ref>http://www.christiantoday.com/article/gates.to.goliaths.city.discovered/61124.htm</ref>

===Effect of Deafness on Speech===

For 2000 years after [[Christ]], scientists overlooked the close connection between hearing and speech, and the brain, and are just starting to discover this now.<ref>http://www.zdnet.com/article/deafness-can-have-unexpected-consequences-on-speech-patterns/</ref> But [[Jesus]] illustrated the connection when he cured a problem with speech primarily by opening someone's ears, after which the man "spoke plainly."<ref>Mark 7:34-35 ([[ESV]])</ref>

===Common DNA===
[[John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 1|John 1:3]] explains that "All things were made by Him; not one thing was made without Him." If something had been made without Him then creatures would exist that had completely different DNA from other creatures.

===Psychiatry===

[[Jesus Christ]] and [[Christianity|Christendom]] have emphasized the important of forgiveness and in the last few decades mental health specialists have increasingly seen the importance of forgiveness to alleviate anger/depression/bitterness and other emotional problems within individuals.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2755173/ Indian J Psychiatry. 2009 Apr-Jun; 51(2): 153–156. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.49459, PMCID: PMC2755173, ''Forgiveness: A note for psychiatrists'' by Prakash Gangdev]</ref>

Modern medicine now realizes that obsessing with one's past is a big cause of psychiatric problems.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-flux/201104/5-ways-find-closure-the-past</ref> Jesus had the same insight 2000 years earlier: "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the [[kingdom of God]]."<ref>Luke 9:62 ([[ESV]]).</ref>

See also: [[Atheism and anger]] and [[Atheism and bitterness]]

== The Bible and health practices ==

''See also:'' [[The Bible and health]]

Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" states concerning the Mosaic laws:
{{cquote|The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics, suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths,[17] food, housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision, laws concerning food (interdiction of blood and pork), measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women, and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.<ref name="Neuburger, Max 1910, p. 38">Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref>}}

===Blood clotting on the eighth day===
In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===
The Bible puts the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest modern recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving all of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest human ancestor===
The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor — [[Eve]] — first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the most recent common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===
The first surgical operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia — thousands of years before anesthesia using inhaled ether was developed by William Morton in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting—the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient—was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

===Eyesight===
The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

===Maximum human height===
Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

===Leprosy===
Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), Leviticus 13 and 14 set forth rules to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

Centuries ahead of medical science, Jesus subsequently explained that leprosy was not as contagious as people thought.{needs citation}

===Hygiene===
Millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene laws that included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

In Matthew 15:2, Jesus then curbed compulsive hand-washing by explaining why it was no longer typically necessary (in a non-farming, non-medical context) with respect to man's digestive system.

===Digestive system===
It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

It is part of the Jewish kosher law to not eat milk with meat. In some Jewish homes they have separate refrigerators for meat and milk products. It comes from Deuteronomy 14:21 "...Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk." There is evidence that the body has difficulty digesting both meat and milk at the same time.

Also, as part of the Jewish kosher law a pork is on the list of prohibited foods. Under cooked pork can transmit Trichinosis, a parasitic disease that can infect muscle tissue, the brain, and the central nervous system, among other [[parasite]]s and zoonotic diseases. [[Creation denial|Creation deniers]] can counter this point only with such desperate non-arguments as asking why God had to create trichinae at all and then allow them onto the [[Ark]].

=== Dietary ===
====Animal Toxicity====
[[File:David Macht.jpg|thumbnail|right||200px|Dr. David Macht]]
In 1953 Dr. [http://www.creationwiki.org/David_Macht David Macht], a Johns Hopkins researcher, conducted toxicity tests on many different kinds of animals and fish and concluded that the toxicity of Levitically [[Mosaic law and unclean animals|"unclean" animals]] was higher than that of the [[Mosaic law and clean animals|"clean" animals]], and that the correlation with the description in Leviticus was 100%.<ref name=Macht1>Macht, David I., MD. "[http://members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/Macht1953.pdf An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV]." ''Bulletin of the History of Medicine'' 27(5):444-450, September–October, 1953. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref>

Macht's study in terms of classifying kosher and non-kosher animals matched the kosher classification performed by James W. Atz, Ph.D., Curator and Dean Bibliographer in the Department of Ichthyology of the American Museum of Natural History, NY, NY and Adjunct Professor of Biology, Graduate School of Arts and Science on New York University. Dr. Atz's list of kosher and non-kosher animals was published by the Orthodox Union in Kosher Guide and in the Orthodox Union Kosher Consumer Directory.<ref name=Atz>Atz, James W., contrib. "[http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fish/ KASHRUT.COM - Kosher and Non-kosher fish]" Scharf Associates, 2008. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> According to a list of kosher and non-kosher fish published by the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, deciding what fish have scales, in the Orthodox Jewish community, appears to involve semantics as scales which are not visible to the human eye or scales that cannot be removed without tearing the skin are not considered "scales" in terms of the Torah law for determining which fish are kosher. It appears that Jewish religious authorities do appeal to well known Torah commentators.<ref name=Goldberg>Goldberg, Chaim. "[http://www.kashrut.com/articles/fishfaq/ Consumers’ FAQ’s on Kosher fish]." Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, 2004. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> Also, Dr. Macht's classification of swans as kosher is in accordance with the research done at Ohr Somayach Institutions in Jerusalem, Israel.<ref name=ask1>"[http://ohr.edu/ask/ask210.htm Ask the Rabbi - Are swans kosher]?" Ohr Somayach Website, Ohr.edu, October 24, 1998. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref>

Furthermore, Dr. Macht states in the peer reviewed journal ''Science'' that the toxicology test he used was a reliable method for detecting zoological toxins as it was a toxicology test sensitive to these type of toxins, and therefore one could conclude it was also suitable for testing the toxicity levels of fish, meat, and poultry.<ref name=Macht3>Macht, D.I. , Science 1930, 71 :302</ref> (The toxicological method that Dr. Macht used was also cited in the Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine.<ref name=Macht2>Macht, D.I. and Macht, M.B. ''Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine'' 1941, 26: 597</ref>) In addition, Dr. Macht was an expert in cobra venom, which is a zoological toxin. Macht's conclusions, however, were challenged by three of his science community peers in a Seventh Day Adventist publication although one partially affirmed his study.<ref name=Harris>Harris, Lester E., Jr. "[https://archive.is/20070709234205/members.dslextreme.com/users/hollymick/web/ministry-1954-March-p37.htm This Question of Unclean Meats]." Ministry Magazine, March 1953, p37-38. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> This was partly due to a likely unfamiliarity with what food is kosher and non-kosher. Also, perhaps they were unfamiliar with the toxicity test Dr. Macht used, and its apparent effectiveness in testing zoological toxins.

In the short term, eating non-kosher food often appears to have no dramatic ill effects in general. For example, the Arabs, who do not eat kosher, consider camel to be a delicacy. Clearly, non-kosher Arabs do not fall dead right after eating camel meat. However, the long term optimality of eating clean versus unclean meat is an unanswered question of science. Also, eating non-kosher foods clearly has some nutritional benefit. For example, shrimp and pork contain protein. The New Testament declares, {{Bible quote|For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.|book=1_Timothy|chap=4|verses=4-5|version=NKJV}}

In regard to the aforementioned verse, it could be argued that prayer does sanctify food. The Bible has plenty of verses regarding God's protection. Also, it could be argued that the benefits outweigh the costs in all foods and thus all food is good. Clearly there is some nutritional goodness in foods that the Torah declared unclean (for example, shrimp has protein). What foods are optimal from an empirically tested science viewpoint is often controversial. In short, in regard to eating strictly a kosher diet versus a non-kosher diet, science has no definitive answers at the present time. From a Christian theological point of view, it could be argued that food should not be an impediment to anyone making a decision to become a Christian. It should be noted that orthodox Christian believers in Biblical scientific foreknowledge believe that Christians can eat the food that was declared [[Clean and unclean animals|unclean]] in the Old Testament, and {{Bible ref|book=1_Timothy|chap=4|verses=4-5}} and {{Bible ref|book=Galations|chap=2|verses=7-16}} make this very clear.

In addition to the aforementioned study testing kosher and non-kosher foods for toxicity levels, Macht developed evidence indicating that combining meat and milk tended to be more toxic than either foodstuff alone.<ref name=Macht4>David I. Macht, Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184</ref> In addition, he compared conventional animal slaughtering versus kosher slaughtering and determined that kosher slaughtering produced less toxic meat.<ref name=Macht4/>

A 1985 study by Nanji and French found that there was a significant correlation between cirrhosis and pork consumption (Macht claimed that swine was more toxic than the animal meat the Bible called clean).<ref name=Nanji>Nanji AA, and French SW. "[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2858627&dopt=Abstract Relationship between pork consumption and cirrhosis]." ''Lancet'' 1985 Mar 23, 1(8430):681-3. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref> Modern pork production methods are different from ancient methods of raising pigs, so the result of this study might be hard to apply to the ancients or those who raise pigs by [[organic farming]] methods, without the use of hormones or antiobiotics.

Jane Cahill reported in ''Biblical Archaeological Review'' that the toilets of a Jewish household in [[Jerusalem]] were examined and no [[parasite]]s or [[infectious disease|infectious agents]] were found.<ref name=Cahill>[http://cojs.org/cojswiki/It_Had_to_Happen,_Jane_M._Cahill,_Karl_Reinhard,_David_Tarler_and_Peter_Warnock,_BAR_17:03,_May/Jun_1991. It had to happen, Scientist Examines Ancient Bathrooms of Romans 586 B.C.] by Jane Cahill and Peter Warnock. BAR May/June 1991</ref>

Today, some "alternative medicine" practitioners do not recommend pork to their patients and subscribed advisees. Their reasons include the possible content of hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides, and also the undiscriminating diet of the pig. Joseph Mercola, DO, who has a private practice in alternative general medicine, writes:{{cquote|Pigs are scavenger animals and will eat just about anything. Their appetite for less-than-wholesome foods makes pigs a breeding ground for potentially dangerous infections. Even cooking pork for long periods is not enough to kill many of the retroviruses and other parasites that many of them harbor.<ref name=Mercola>Mercola, Joseph, DO, ed. "[http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/12/are-there-deadly-superbugs-in-your-pork.aspx?source=nl Are There Deadly Superbugs In Your Pork]?" <http://www.mercola.com/>, July 12, 2008. Accessed September 12, 2008.</ref>}}

Dr. Mercola does not even recommend pasture-raised pork, because wild boars will often infect herds of pork with [[Trichinella spiralis]] or other parasites.<ref name=Mercola/>

===Feasibility of abiogenesis===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from non-living material, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, God creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator. For addition information, please see [http://creation.com/origin-of-life origin of life]

===Awareness while unborn===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling awareness, began while unborn.

===Embalming===
[[Mark 9-16 (Translated)#Chapter 14|Mark 14:3-8]] describes an embalming process to preserve a body after death, which was not discovered in the West until 1867.

===Significance of blood===
The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.<ref>[http://wap.bible.org/nbw/deu12_notes.htm Net Bible: Notes] to [http://wap.bible.org/nbw/deu12.htm#1234 Deuteronomy 12:23] {{dead link}}</ref>

===Menstruation===
The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref name="Neuburger, Max 1910, p. 38">Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref> Also, modern science has only very recently discovered that following such rules dramatically reduces the rate of illegitimacy.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604182027.htm How Religion Promotes Confidence About Paternity]</ref>

===Cloning===
{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=2|verses=21-22|version=KJV}} records that God made a [[woman]] out of one of [[Adam]]'s [[rib]]s. Secular scientists did not believe that [[cloning]] such a complex organism (apart from plants) was possible until 1997.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml Cloning Fact Sheet] {{dead link}}</ref> It should be noted, however, that this is not strictly 'cloning' as a clone would be identical to its original, most obviously in terms of its sex.

===Common X Chromosome===

Women have the same X chromosome as men, but this was not discovered until the late 1800s. The Book of Genesis explained this thousands years earlier, describing how the first woman was created directly from man.

===Inbreeding===
Leviticus 18:7-11 elaborates in detail the relationships it regards as incestuous unions, to forbid inbreeding. Secular science was able to scientifically explain the mechanisms and risks of inbreeding only in modern times.

==Cosmology==

===Distance of Oldest Star to Earth===

The Book of Genesis implies that the distance of the oldest star to Earth is how far light would travel during the age of mankind: about 6000 light-years. In 2014, a team of researchers discovered that the oldest star is indeed only 6000 light-years away.<ref>http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/6012/the-oldest-star-in-the-known-universe</ref>

===Planet formation===
Theories of an old universe insisted that planet formation did not occur until long after the origin of the universe, contrary to the [[Book of Genesis]]. But in 2012 scientists announced the existence of planets that formed "at dawn of universe."<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0330/Planets-found-at-dawn-of-universe-but-their-existence-is-a-mystery</ref>

===Extraterrestrial life===
For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the Bible. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Starlight Problem===
The [[Starlight Problem]] confounds atheistic theories about the universe: light has reached us from stars that are too far away to transmit the light within the age of the universe. But the Book of Genesis explains this easily: "let there be light" means that God created light, not merely stars.

===Number of stars===
The Bible repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Uniqueness of stars===
Although the use of telescopes to chart the outer-reaches of God's heavenly creation was developed around the 16th century in Europe, the Bible accurately hypothesized that every star is unique.

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory"- 1 Corinthians 15:41 <ref>http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml</ref>

===Spherical Sun and Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - [[Isaiah 34-42 (Translated)#Chapter 40|Isaiah 40:22 (CBP]])}}

Likewise, with respect to the [[sun]], the Book of Proverbs 8:27 ([[ESV]]) states:
{{cquote|When he established the heavens, ... he drew a circle on the face of the deep}}

The Book of Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, and the Book of Proverbs even earlier. This was centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round, and it was not discovered until 2012 that the sun is perfectly spherical. Astronomers were not able to conclude until well into the second millennium of [[Christ]] that the Earth is also a sphere.

===Earth free floating in space===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the [[Earth]] on nothing." It also contrasts with Greek Mythology's belief that [[Atlas]] holds up the Earth, or ancient Hindu and Native American myths that the Earth was on top of a gigantic turtle.

The Bible presaged the modern view that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century when ether theories became disfavored.

===Cosmic Background Radiation===
[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that God created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

===Meteoroids===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

===Stellar proper movement===
In [[Job]], a list of challenges are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can. Among these challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. Only recently, astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

===Space flight===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The Bible explains, in 17 different verses, that God "stretched out" the heavens,<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref> in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to be expanding, or "stretching out."

==Meteorology==

===Water cycle, and the Six days of Creation Week===
The existence of the water cycle was widely unknown to pagan people's until imperial Roman times. But the Bible described the water cycle over a thousand years before that. In general, see [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6.

There may be a more Biblically central reference to the water cycle: The reports in Genesis 1 of five things that God names (v. 5=two, v. 8=one, v. 10=two) seem to be consistent with five basic features of the geophysical half of Earth's life-support cycle. In Earth sciences, it is known that the total life-support cycle is irreducibly complex in relation to Earth's distance to the Sun, and this complexity maintained on an order of mere days' reserve: flora and fauna are interdependent, their interaction is necessary for the maintenance of the atmosphere, and if any one of those five features suddenly ceased, Earth would fail to support life in a matter of days.

==Physics==

=== Immense power within atoms alluded to in 2 Peter chapter 3 ===
[[Image:Abomb.jpg|thumbnail|right|200px|The [[atomic bomb]] that was dropped on [[Hiroshima]] unleashed the equivalent of about 15 kilotons of TNT.]]
The immense power within atoms is alluded to in the Bible in 2 Peter chapter 3.<ref name="bcnn1wp.wordpress.com">[https://bcnn1wp.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/listen-breaking-prophecy-news-the-world-at-war-part-3-the-prophet-daniels-report-568-with-daniel-whyte-iii/ LISTEN: Breaking Prophecy News; The World at War, Part 3 (The Prophet Daniel’s Report #568 with Daniel Whyte III)]</ref>

Daniel White III declares:
{{Cquote|John Phillips notes that Peter’s prophecy of a great, end-times conflagration of the earth and its atmosphere uses precise terminology that accurately describes a nuclear explosion. Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon define the “elements” as “the components into which matter is divided” (or atoms), and the term “dissolved” comes from the basic Greek word meaning to “loose” that which is bound (as in nuclear fission). The term “great noise” is found nowhere else in the New Testament and signifies “a rushing sound of roaring flames.” The term “fervent heat” is derived from a Greek medical term denoting a fever. But Peter’s use of it in application to inanimate objects is the only such known usage anywhere in Greek literature. Thus, Phillips observes, “Peter describes in accurate terms the untying of the atom and the resulting rushing, fiery destruction which follows it.”<ref name="bcnn1wp.wordpress.com">[https://bcnn1wp.wordpress.com/2015/11/10/listen-breaking-prophecy-news-the-world-at-war-part-3-the-prophet-daniels-report-568-with-daniel-whyte-iii/ LISTEN: Breaking Prophecy News; The World at War, Part 3 (The Prophet Daniel’s Report #568 with Daniel Whyte III)]</ref>}}

===Impossibility of a Grand Unified Theory===
Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by scientists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)#Chapter 1|Genesis]] explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of theoretical unification with matter.

===Light and color===
Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

===Action-at-a-distance===
[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

===Quantum mechanics===
The fundamental principle of [[quantum mechanics]] is that the underlying reality is in random fluctuation, or chaos, until there is intelligent observation of it. This is precisely what [[Luke 1-8 (Translated)#Luke 4:6|Luke 4:6]] reveals when it quotes the [[devil]] in saying that he has dominion over this world.

The world was an abyss of chaos at the moment of creation, as explained in Genesis. The order created by God is on a foundation of uncertainty. The discovery of this in subatomic particles in the 1900s, known as quantum mechanics, confirms the nature of the world as described in Genesis.

====Observation of the wave function====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John 1-7 (Translated)#Chapter 2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. The drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

====Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle====
Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." -- [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* "The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later." -- [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

====Wave-particle duality====
Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:<ref>[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).</ref>
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
In a more general sense, Jesus could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of God. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... '''''and still could'''''.

====Quantum tunneling====
[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

Jesus proved this was possible in [[John 15-21 (Translated)#Chapter 20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

===Classical relativity===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

===Modern relativity===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown recently, and modern experiments in quantum mechanics have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

===Second Law of Thermodynamics===
The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction.

[[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10-11]] explains that the universe shall "wear out" like a "garment", centuries before the discovery of the physical law that [[entropy]] is always increasing.

===Nature of air===
Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 states, "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

===Conservative forces===
James 1:17 describes the electromagnetic forces (light) as having no "shadow of turning." Not understood for nearly 2000 years, this predicts that electromagnetic forces are [[conservative]] such that their [[line integrals]] over a closed loop are zero.

==Mathematics==
''See main article: [[Math and the Bible]]''
===Zero===
Mathematicians in Western Europe did not discover [[zero]] until many centuries after the Bible was written. But there are hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout the Bible.

===Banach-Tarski Paradox===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by Jesus, thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object out of no extra material.

===Axiomatization of Arithmetic===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

===Infinity===
Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of [[infinity]] for thousands of years, despite it being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#20:1|Matthew 20:1-14]] ([[parable]] of the wages for the workers in the vineyard); Matthew 16:26 (one's soul has an infinite value to him, and nothing else can be worth more).

But [[Georg Cantor]], deeply inspired by [[Christianity]], established a logical foundation for infinity that revolutionized all of mathematics as a result, with his development of [[set theory]] to accomplish his goal.

===Calculus===
The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.<ref>[http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000</ref>

James 1:17 states that the first and second derivatives of God's light (truth) is zero, more than 1600 years before calculus was discovered: "with [God] there is no variation or shadow of turning."<ref name="Shadow%252525252525252520of%252525252525252520Turning">[http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/no-variation-or-shadow-of-turning-calculus-in-the-bible/ Nathan Albright: ''"No Variation Or Shadow Of Turning: Calculus In The Bible"''], Blog-Entry, Feb 24, 2011</ref>

===Arithmetic with Negative Numbers===

Negative numbers were not fully accepted by mathematicians until the 1800s,<ref>http://nrich.maths.org/5961</ref> including how a negative number dominates the result in multiplication with a positive number, to yield a negative outcome. Yet Jesus' parable of the sower and the seed, in Matthew 13:1-23, Mark 4:1-8, and Luke 8:4-8, explained the same effect nearly 2000 years earlier.

=== Indeterminacy ===

The Bible repeatedly emphasizes that God is "unsearchable". See Job 5:9 (God "does great things and unsearchable"); Job 26:1 ("God's Majesty Is Unsearchable"); Job 36:26 ("Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable.") Psalm 145:3 ("Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable."); Proverbs 25:3 ("As the heavens for height, and the earth for depth, so the heart of kings is unsearchable."); Isaiah 40:28 ("Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable."); Romans 11:33 ("Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!")' Ephesians 3:8 ("to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ").<ref>All quotations are to the ESV of the Bible.</ref>

John 1:1 teaches that logic is part of God, and thus logic itself must also be "unsearchable". For many decades the finest mathematicians thought that the consistency of logic could be proven, until [[Kurt Godel]] (himself a frequent reader of the Bible) proved the indeterminacy, or "unsearchability", of mathematics.

==Sociology==

===Trolls===

The existence of malicious trolls on the internet is difficult to understand, until one reads Matthew 13:24-30 - the Parable of the Wheat and the Chaff.

===Crime===
Mark 4:22 says how nothing can be hid, neither can anything be kept secret. Empirical statistics show that the vast majority of crimes worldwide are solved.

==Zoology==

===Morality of animals===
[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. No animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself. However, as limited case, animals do demonstrate altruistic behavior.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of Job describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species. Other dinosaur like creatures mentioned are the cockatrice and satyr <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Killing methods of lions===
Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions suffocated their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Lions fit their mouth over the mouth and nose of their prey and hold it while it suffocates, in addition to other killing methods.

===Giant sea creatures and Jonah===
The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material and the lack of breathable air inside marine animals.

In 2010, scientists found the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

===Gender of worker ants===
Proverbs 6:6-8 correctly states the sex of worker [[ant]]s (female), using the correct one of the two [[Grammar#Gender|grammatical genders]] available in Biblical [[Hebrew]]. Secular entomologists would not discover that fact until the 19th century.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=rzwSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=ant+undeveloped+female+worker+date:1700-1850&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#v=onepage&q&f=false The study of medicine, Volume 5 By John Mason Good]</ref>

=== Harvester ants ===

19th century [[Europe]]an naturalists were wrong about [[ant]] behavior - namely the issue of ants/harvesting (Harvester ants). The Bible was correct about ant behavior.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm</ref>

=== Hearing and snakes ===

The scientific consensus and the ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' both indicated that snakes can't hear.<ref>[http://creation.com/snake-charming-and-bible-accuracy Charmed, I’m sure!] by Calvin Smith</ref><ref>[http://ed5015.tripod.com/BCobra94.htm The Cobra and the Bible]</ref> The Bible said that snakes can hear. 21st century research showed that snakes can hear.

=== Vegetarian lion ===

The prophet Isaiah says that there will be a time when the [[lion]] will lay down with the lamb and the lion will eat straw like the ox (Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25). There was a vegetarian lion named Little Tyke that refused to eat meat.<ref name="The lion who would not eat meat">[http://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat The lion who would not eat meat]</ref>
[[File:8790lion-wont-eat-meat.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|There was a vegetarian lion named Little Tyke that refused to eat meat.<ref name="The lion who would not eat meat">[http://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat The lion who would not eat meat]</ref>]]
David Catchpoole wrote at the website of [[Creation Ministries International]]:
{{Cquote|From 1946 to 1955, A female African lion, born and raised in America, lived her entire lifetime of nine years without ever eating meat.1 In fact, her owners, Georges and Margaret Westbeau,2 alarmed by scientists’ reports that carnivorous animals cannot live without meat, went to great lengths to try to coax their unusual pet (‘Little Tyke’) to develop a taste for it. They even advertised a cash reward for anyone who could devise a meat-containing formula that the lioness would like. The curator of a New York zoo advised the Westbeaus that putting a few drops of blood in Little Tyke’s milk bottle would help in weaning her, but the lioness cub refused to touch it—even when only a single drop of blood had been added.

The more knowledgeable animal experts among the many visitors to the Westbeaus’ 100 acre (40 hectare) ranch also proffered advice, but nothing worked. Meanwhile, Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk. By four years of age she was fully grown and weighed 352 pounds (160 kg)...

Mr Westbeau’s observation of the lioness that ‘To condition her stomach she would spend an hour at a time eating the succulent tall grass in the fields’, is also a vivid reminder of the prophecies of Isaiah 11:7 and 65:25, ‘ … the lion will eat straw like the ox.’<ref name="The lion who would not eat meat">[http://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat The lion who would not eat meat]</ref>}}

==Linguistics==
[[File:The Tower of Babel by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, 1563.jpg|thumb|350px|The Tower of Babel by [[Pieter Bruegel the Elder]], 1563.]]
===Common descent theory===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

==Economics==
===Poverty===
Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

===Socialism and Capitalism===
Ecclesiastes 5:18-19 says that [[capitalism]] is a gift from God:

"Behold that which I have seen: it is good and comely for one to eat and to drink, and to enjoy the good of all his labour that he taketh under the sun all the days of his life, which God give the him: for it is his portion. Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God."

Similarly, Ecclesiastes 6:1-2 condemns [[socialism]]:

"There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, and it is common among men: A man to whom God hath given riches, wealth, and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but a stranger eateth it: this is vanity, and it is an evil disease."

==Government and Politics==
''See also [[Biblical political foreknowledge]]''

===Nation-state===
Ancient Israel, as described in the [[Old Testament]], was a [[nation-state]] and that model was not utilized again until thousands of years later, well after the Renaissance in Western Europe. This model of a nation-state has become the modern standard worldwide.

===Separation of Powers===
The separation of powers adopted successfully by the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1787, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches having separate authority and jurisdiction, was first described in the Old Testament.<ref>See Jeremiah 17:19 and Isaiah 33:22.</ref>

===Liberal influence on the media===
The Third [[Three Temptations of Christ|Temptation of Christ]] is to bow down and worship the [[Satan]] in exchange for becoming ruler of the world. The media plays that role and its influence is predictably liberal and anti-[[Christian]].

==Engineering==
Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>
{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}
Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]]), and a piece of fine linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image.<ref>John Calvin, who opposed the Catholic Church, wrote a book in 1543 criticizing all material evidence of Jesus and the martyrs. In it he claimed that because the negative image on the Shroud is not described in the Gospels, it must not be authentic. [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by Valerian Krasinski: ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>

==Alleged "contradictions"==
Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]],<ref>http://creation.com/modern-medicine Creation Ministries International on "Modern" Medicine</ref> [[Answers in Genesis]],<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp Answers in Genesis on "Modern" Medicine</ref> and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref>

Atheists and liberals unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

===Value of Pi===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. Atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], allege that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>[http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139 The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris -]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23</ref>

Additionally, Pi to one significant digit is 3. Just because the measurement is given to only one significant digit, that does not mean it was precisely that amount. Of course, since Pi is an irrational number, it would be impossible to give a truly precise measurement. Since decimal notation was not in use in Biblical times, there was no way to express Pi to greater accuracy in the language of the day.

===Bat as a bird===
A favorite [[evolutionist]] canard is that [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:13-19]] labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. The [[KJV]] translation of "fowl" is simply incorrect, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-scientific category simply referring to ''any'' winged creature. A popular Jewish translation, used to explain the laws of keeping kosher, translates the term as "winged flying things."

===Rabbits, coneys, and cud===
In [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:5-6]], the Bible states, {{cquote|And the coney ''(or hyrax)'', because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.}} While rabbits do not, in fact, regurgitate food and re-chew it, they have the same jaw motions as animals that do<ref>http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-badger-and-rabbit-chew-cud</ref> and thus appeared as cud-chewing to the Jews of Moses's time. Atheists and liberals love to misrepresent this passage only because they are in [[liberal denial]] of the truth.

===Number of legs of insects===
In [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:20-23]], the Bible states, {{cquote|All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the
grasshopper after his kind.

But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.}}While this may appear to indicate that insects have four legs (they have six), the passage is in fact referring to the manner in which the grasshopper moves. Grasshoppers have large back legs mainly used for jumping, and not for walking, which is when it uses its smaller four front legs. Thus, the ancient Hebrews were just describing things as they saw them, not according to scientific nomenclature.

==See also==
*[[Essay:Rebuttal to Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]
*[[Biblical political foreknowledge]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Prodigal Son]]

==External links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Biblical scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/scientific-consensus-and-evolutionary.html Jesus vs. the scientific consensus and evolution. Jesus wins!]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Liberal Denial]]

{{Creation vs. evolution}}

Bible codes

2017-03-30T03:43:26Z

PatternOfPersona: added two words to third paragraph for clarification: 'particular' and 'certain'.

Bible codes are various kinds of patterns identified in the subtext of the Bible which some [[Christians]] and [[Jews]] think were deliberately crafted into the text by God or by the original writers.

All human languages have patterns, and, when a spoken language is put into written form, many of its patterns are more easily noticed.

Among those who believe that at least some of the subtextual patterns in the Bible are unique to literature, there is the contention that one or more profound dynamics are uniquely involved in these patterns in the Bible. For example, there is the idea that prose records which are wholly true may naturally contain particular patterns of subtext which are not found in faulty or fictional prose, and that, if this is so, then a wholly true prose record of the origins of humanity, of its nations, and of God's own nation may naturally contain certain subtextual patterns which are unique to literature.

'''On the conservative side''', there is a wide acceptance of the idea that some of the subtext patterns in the Bible, specifically in the [[Pentateuch]], were created by the original Hebrew scribes in order to help preserve the exactness to which the texts were copied, and to detect inferior copies that might be made by ignorant or nefarious persons. However, [[evangelical Christians]] largely reject the idea that the Bible codes have any meaning beyond that,<ref>[http://www.cft.org.za/news/davinci/response.htm A Christian Response to "The Bible Code"]</ref> some going as far as to call pursuit of numerological codes in the Bible 'occult' and 'Satanic'.<ref>http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/cmc-31.html</ref> Specifically, critics draw parallels between the theory of 'Bible codes' and ancient [[Gnostic]] [[Heresy|heresies]], condemned by the Church since the [[Apostolic Age]]: the essential attribute of Gnostic teachings was the idea of a special hidden doctrine, accessible only to the elite. The [[early Church]], on the contrary, held that Christ's teachings - and the whole of God's revelation - are open and available to all men.

'''On the extreme side''' (that of extremely motivated ‘Bible Code’ believers), there has been every manner of attempt to create a stir in favor of the idea that at least some of these patterns constitute a kind of high-tech mechanism for predicting any number of trivial and non-trivial future events.

'''In any case''', rare important patterns exist in any world in which telic (purposeful) agents exist (such as humans), which means that for such a world never to contain 'amazing' coincidences, someone would have to rig (or otherwise control) that world in such a way as to prevent these coincidences.

== Kinds of Bible codes ==

As with any text, there are very many different subtextual patterns in the Biblical text. In the interest of brevity, only a select set of these Biblical subtext patterns will be mentioned here.

* One kind of 'Bible code' is that found in Equidistant Letter Sequences, or ELS. The 'ELS codes' were made popular in the last century by Israeli mathematician [[Eliyahu Rips]], his associate [[Doron Witztum]], and several others.
* Another kind of 'Bible code' (and, for many people, the most interesting kind of subtextual pattern in the Bible), is that found by listing, in chronological sequence, the meanings of the names of the [[antediluvian]] [[patriarchs]] given in Genesis chapter 5.
* A third kind of 'Bible code' is that of a complex set of interconnecting subtextual patterns based on the number 144. 144 is the number of hours in the six days of the [[Creation Week]], and, when 'visually' coded as 930 (Adam's age at death), leads to the Equidistant Verse Sequence (EVS) code of 111: '''a.''' By observing the sum of the three digits (1, 4, and 4), and then observing the differences, or 'distances', between the contiguous digits (1-4, 4-4), the number 144 is seen to 'state' "930" in a way similar to how a perfect circle is visually observed to 'state' "[[pi]]"; '''b.''' 930 is the unique number of the man who represents all of humanity, and is found at the 111th verse (Genesis 5:5); '''c.''' According to this particular 'Bible Code', the unit of 111 contiguous <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Bible_Codes</ref> verses is the primary key to pinpointing both explicit and implicit prophetically pivotal passages in the plain text of the [[Pentateuch]]. For example, the Old Testament verse made famous by the founder of [[Morse Code]], [[Numbers 23:23]] is the 40th multiple of 111. A common criticism of this 'EVS code system' is in the fact that the original texts had no explicit verse divisions. But, while it is true that no explicit verse divisions existed in the original texts, and that any such divisions that were made were made only recently in world history, the text itself, like any text or any linguistic vocalization, is not comprised either of random or indifferent linguistic sets, which means there are many different kinds of implicit divisions in the text, including that at the level of the standing verses. Furthermore, while the standing verse divisions of the Bible may not be perfect, the kind of verse division of which they make use is, in general, superior for the purpose of general reference than are all other possible kinds of verse division. This is like the distance between any two bodies of the Solar system, including the [[astronomical unit]], which, regardless of the units of measure used, or of the resultant numbers denoting these distances, are individually and interrelatedly critical.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Bible Study]]

Highly composite number

2017-01-15T07:46:53Z

PatternOfPersona:

On the opposite extreme from a [[prime]] number is a '''highly composite number'''.

Along with a [[composite number]], a highly composite number is one of two types of number that is the opposite of a prime number. A composite number is the ''general'' opposite to a prime. A highly composite number (HCN) is the special opposite of a prime. The set of HCNs is a subset of composite numbers, specifically by being made of the type of composite number that has more factors than any number both lesser than itself and lesser than its higher HCN neighbor.

A prime has the least quantity of factors, namely two. A highly composite number is a number that '''''initiates''''' an ''increase'' in quantity of factors over that of any lesser number.

For example, 120 has more factors than any smaller number, and also has more factors than numbers lesser than 180. 180, in turn, has an additional two more factors than 120. And 180 has more factors than numbers less than 240. And 240 has more factors than numbers lesser than 360.

Additionally, the unifying number for all highly composite numbers is 12. This is because of three facts:
#the ''initiation'' above 6 is always at multiples of twelve but not always at multiples of 6;
#the initiation span from 12 to 60 is unbroken; and
#composite equivalence is unbroken from 60 to 120. These three facts together imply a spike graph beginning with 1 and ending with 120, in which there are two sequences of six spikes, in which the ''60 spike'' functions both as the final of the first sequence and as the initial of the second sequence, and the second sequence for which only its first and final numbers are initials.

==Further reading==
https://danielsmathnotes.wordpress.com/144-and-the-bridge-between-two-mathematical-worlds/

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Highly composite number

2017-01-15T07:46:00Z

PatternOfPersona: added the second paragraph, and edited the third

On the opposite extreme from a [[prime]] number is a '''highly composite number'''.

Along with a [[composite number]], a highly composite number is one of two types of number that is the opposite of a prime number. A composite number is the ''general'' opposite to a prime. A highly composite number (HCN) is the special opposite of a prime. The set of HCNs is a subset of composite number, specifically by being made of the type of composite number that has more factors than any number both lesser than itself and lesser than its higher HCN neighbor.

A prime has the least quantity of factors, namely two. A highly composite number is a number that '''''initiates''''' an ''increase'' in quantity of factors over that of any lesser number.

For example, 120 has more factors than any smaller number, and also has more factors than numbers lesser than 180. 180, in turn, has an additional two more factors than 120. And 180 has more factors than numbers less than 240. And 240 has more factors than numbers lesser than 360.

Additionally, the unifying number for all highly composite numbers is 12. This is because of three facts:
#the ''initiation'' above 6 is always at multiples of twelve but not always at multiples of 6;
#the initiation span from 12 to 60 is unbroken; and
#composite equivalence is unbroken from 60 to 120. These three facts together imply a spike graph beginning with 1 and ending with 120, in which there are two sequences of six spikes, in which the ''60 spike'' functions both as the final of the first sequence and as the initial of the second sequence, and the second sequence for which only its first and final numbers are initials.

==Further reading==
https://danielsmathnotes.wordpress.com/144-and-the-bridge-between-two-mathematical-worlds/

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Composite number

2017-01-15T07:42:10Z

PatternOfPersona: expanded second paragraph of intro

A '''composite number''' is a positive [[integer]] greater than 1 which is not a [[prime number]]. Composite numbers can always be written as a product of prime numbers, which represent a [[prime factorization]].<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CompositeNumber.html</ref> For example, the prime factorization of the composite number 42 is 2 x 3 x 7.

A composite number is one of two types of number that is the opposite of a prime number. Specifically, a composite number is the ''general'' opposite to a prime. The special opposite number to a prime is a ''[[highly composite number]]'' (HCN). The set of HCNs is a subset of composite number, specifically by being made of the type of composite number that has more factors than any number both lesser than itself and lesser than its higher HCN neighbor.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Number Theory]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

Composite number

2017-01-15T07:32:28Z

PatternOfPersona:

Prime number

2017-01-15T07:30:48Z

PatternOfPersona:

[[File:Eratosthenes.jpg|thumb|[[Eratosthenes]].]]
A '''prime number''' is a [[natural number]] greater than 1 that is [[divisible]] by only 1 and itself. Described another way, a prime number has only two [[factor]]s, 1 and itself. The first few prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 ....

The opposites of a prime number are a [[composite number]] and a [[highly composite number]]. A [[composite number]] is the ''general'' opposite to a prime number. And a [[highly composite number]] is the ''special'', or ''extreme'', opposite to a prime number.

[[Leonhard Euler]] wrote: <blockquote>
''Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate.''
</blockquote>

There are infinitely many primes. The only [[even]] prime number is 2. The [[Bible]] includes many references to prime numbers.

==Sieve of Eratosthenes==
{|class="wikitable" align="right"
|{{User:ClementB/SieveOfErathosthenes}}
|-
|Here, '''n''' equals 100
|}
To construct a table of all prime numbers less than ''n'', you can use a method called the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]]. Simply write down an ordered list of all counting numbers from 1 to ''n''. Beginning with 2*2 = 4, cross out every second number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8</s> 9 <s>10</s> 11 ...

then beginning with 3*3 = 9 cross out every third number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8 9 10</s> 11 ...

Beginning with 5*5 = 25, cross out every fifth number, then repeat for the primes 7, 11, 13, etc. until <math>\sqrt{n}</math>.

The number of primes smaller than a given number <math>N</math> is roughly <math>\frac{N}{\ln(N)}</math>, where <math>\ln(N)</math> is the [[natural logarithm]] (base ''[[e]]'') of <math>N</math>.<ref>http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/primes.htm</ref> This is a formulation of a more general statement known as the [[Prime Number Theorem]].

==How many prime numbers==
{{main|Prime Number Theorem}}

It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem: Imagine there is a finite set consisting of all the primes. Multiply them all together, add 1, and call this N. N would not be divisible by any number in the set—there would always be a remainder of 1. Because all non-prime numbers can be decomposed into a product of underlying primes (by the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]), N must be divisible by some prime not in the set (possibly itself), thus contradicting the assumption that the set contained all of the primes.

Another proof that there are infinitely many primes shows something stronger, namely the sum of the reciprocals of primes less than n "grows like" log(log(n)):
<math>\sum_{p\le x}p^{-1}\approx\log\log x</math>

The largest known prime is ''257,885,161-1'', a 17,425,169 digit number beginning with 581,887,266,232... and ending with ...951; it was discovered in 2013 by Curtis Cooper with the '''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search''' ('''GIMPS'''),<ref>http://www.mersenne.org/</ref> a distributed computing project launched by George Woltman in early 1996.<ref>Multiple references:
* http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html
* 257,885,161 = 10 ^ (57,885,161 log10 2). The number two raised to successively larger powers cause the last three digits to fairly quickly begin repeating themselves in cycles of one hundred, so it is known that the last digits of this Mersenne prime end with ...951. Written out, the number would be Five hundred eighty-one quinmilliamilliaoctingenoctomilliatrecenoctooctogintillion eight hundred eighty-seven quinmilliamilliaoctingenoctomilliatrecenseptenoctogintillion etc.</ref>

A '''Mersenne prime''' is a prime number ''M'' that is of the form ''M = 2n − 1'', where ''n'' is some prime number.<ref>[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MersennePrime.html Mersenne Prime] from Wolfram</ref> As of 2015, only 48 Mersenne Primes have been found.<ref>http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html#largest</ref> The largest known prime, ''257885161-1'', is a Mersenne Prime. The concept of a Mersenne Prime was discovered by the French theologian, philosopher and mathematician [[Marin Mersenne]].

==Unique factorization==
{{main|Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic}}

According to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]], proven by [[Carl Friedrich Gauss]], every positive integer has a unique [[factorization]] into prime numbers.

This means that every integer larger than 1 can be expressed as a product of one or more primes in only one way. For example, 132 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 11. There is no other product of primes that equals 132.

Finding the prime factors for large numbers (having hundreds of digits) can take considerable time (millions of years) even with the most advanced computers.

==Alternative definition==
Beyond the integers, mathematicians are interested in other structures with addition and multiplication; they are called [[Ring (mathematics)|ring]]s. When working in rings, mathematicians use a different definition for a "prime" element: <blockquote>''A prime element is a non-unit (i.e., not 1 or -1 for the integers) which whenever it divides the product of two numbers will divide at least one of the factors.''</blockquote>

Or in symbolic notation:

<math>p \in \mathbb{Z} \quad prime :\Leftrightarrow p \not\in \{-1, 1\} \wedge (\forall a,b \in \mathbb{Z}: p \vert ab \Rightarrow p \vert a \vee p \vert b) </math>

For the integers, this definition is equivalent to the one stated above. However, in general the two definitions are not equivalent. The earlier definition is still important in rings, and is given the name [[irreducibility]], since it literally states that the element cannot be broken into smaller pieces.

The preference for this alternate definition of "prime" is that this definition gives you unique [[factorization]] theorems analogous to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]. For more information, consult an abstract algebra book<ref>'''Abstract Algebra: An Introduction''', Thomas Hungerford. Brooks Cole; 2 edition (1996)</ref>

==Primality testing==
To determine whether a number is prime, you can use the trial division method, provided the number you are testing is not too large. Let ''N'' be the number being tested and ''s'' be its square root. Divide ''N'' by each number in the prime table, beginning with 2. If there is no remainder, stop--''N'' is composite. Otherwise, test again with the next largest prime in the table. If the next largest prime is greater than ''s'', stop--''N'' is prime.

For larger values of ''N'', a method based on Fermat's theorem can be used, though it usually requires a computer. Start with the number 1, and double it ''N-1'' times. Divide this number by ''N'', keeping only the remainder. If the remainder is greater than 1, ''N'' is composite. Unfortunately, the converse is not true—if the remainder is 1, ''N'' is ''probably'' prime, but not necessarily. Algorithms which improve on this method exist, and primality testing is today an active subject of mathematical research.

==Open problems about prime numbers==

===Twin primes===
{{main|twin primes}}

[[Twin primes]] or '''prime twins''' are pairs of prime number which differ from each other by only 2. Since all primes other than 2 are odd numbers, this is the closest two primes can be to each other, with the exception of 2 and 3. The first few twin primes are 3 and 5, 5 and 7, 11 and 13, 17 and 19, and 29 and 31.

Twin primes become increasingly scarce among larger numbers. For example, there are twenty-four sets of twin primes between 0 and 500, but only eleven sets between 500 and 1000. Computer programmes have calculated some extremely large sets of twin primes. While there are undoubtedly an unlimited number of primes, opinions differ among mathematicians whether there is also an infinite number of twin primes or whether there is an upper limit. This debate is captured by the [[twin primes conjecture]]

Mathematicians have long been fascinated by twin primes and the relationship between them. There seems to be no distinct pattern in their occurrence. For example, there are no twin primes between 700 and 800, or between 900 and 1000, but there are five sets between 800 and 900 (809 and 811; 821 and 823; 827 and 829; 857 and 859; 881 and 883).

===Goldbach's conjecture===

Goldbach's conjecture asserts that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers. For example: 4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 3 + 5, and so on.

This conjecture is one of the oldest unsettled statements in mathematics. For centuries mathematicians have attempted to prove this statement, without success. The conjecture is known to hold for numbers less than 3 <math>\cdot</math>1017.

===Riemann hypothesis===
{{main|Riemann hypothesis}}

The [[Riemann hypothesis]] is related to patterns in the distribution of prime numbers. ''The Clay Mathematics Institute'' has offered a one million dollar prize for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.<ref>http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/</ref>

==Cryptography==
The security of [[public-key cryptography]] schemes such as [[RSA]] depend on the difficulty of prime factorization, if a pattern in the distribution of prime numbers is discovered, then such [[cryptographic]] schemes could become vulnerable to attack.

==See also==

* [[Composite number]]
* [[Fibonacci sequence]]
* [[Perfect number]]

==External links==
*[http://www.mersenne.org/ ''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search'' project website]
*[http://primes.utm.edu/ Prime Number resource Archive]
*[http://educ.queensu.ca/%7Efmc/december2003/Sieve.html Sieve of Eratosthenes]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Number Theory]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Highly composite numbers

2017-01-15T07:28:32Z

PatternOfPersona: this is the earlier page, namely the one to which the prime number page did not link. The prime number page linked only to the composite number page. And the prime number page confounded the term 'highly composite' with 'composite'

On the opposite extreme from a [[prime]] number is a '''highly composite number'''. A prime has the least quantity of factors, namely two. A highly composite number is one which has a greater number of factors than any smaller number. In other words, a highly composite number '''''initiates''''' an ''increase'' in quantity of factors over that of any lesser number.

For example, 120 has more factors than any smaller number, and also has more factors than numbers lesser than 180. 180, in turn, has an additional two more factors than 120. And 180 has more factors than numbers less than 240. And 240 has more factors than numbers lesser than 360.

Additionally, the unifying number for all highly composite numbers is 12. This is because of three facts:
#the ''initiation'' above 6 is always at multiples of twelve but not always at multiples of 6;
#the initiation span from 12 to 60 is unbroken; and
#composite equivalence is unbroken from 60 to 120. These three facts together imply a spike graph beginning with 1 and ending with 120, in which there are two sequences of six spikes, in which the ''60 spike'' functions both as the final of the first sequence and as the initial of the second sequence, and the second sequence for which only its first and final numbers are initials.

==Further reading==
https://danielsmathnotes.wordpress.com/144-and-the-bridge-between-two-mathematical-worlds/

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Highly composite number

2017-01-15T07:21:39Z

PatternOfPersona: replaces page for "highly composite numbers" (note plural s: 'numbers')

Prime number

2017-01-15T07:09:35Z

PatternOfPersona: separated intro into two paragraphs, and expanded the second to include highly composite numbers

[[File:Eratosthenes.jpg|thumb|[[Eratosthenes]].]]
A '''prime number''' is a [[natural number]] greater than 1 that is [[divisible]] by only 1 and itself. Described another way, a prime number has only two [[factor]]s, 1 and itself. The first few prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 ....

The opposites of a prime number are a [[composite number]] and a [[highly composite number]]. A [[composite number]] is the ''general opposite'' to a prime number, and a [[highly composite number]] is the ''special opposite'' to a prime number.

[[Leonhard Euler]] wrote: <blockquote>
''Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate.''
</blockquote>

There are infinitely many primes. The only [[even]] prime number is 2. The [[Bible]] includes many references to prime numbers.

==Sieve of Eratosthenes==
{|class="wikitable" align="right"
|{{User:ClementB/SieveOfErathosthenes}}
|-
|Here, '''n''' equals 100
|}
To construct a table of all prime numbers less than ''n'', you can use a method called the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]]. Simply write down an ordered list of all counting numbers from 1 to ''n''. Beginning with 2*2 = 4, cross out every second number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8</s> 9 <s>10</s> 11 ...

then beginning with 3*3 = 9 cross out every third number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8 9 10</s> 11 ...

Beginning with 5*5 = 25, cross out every fifth number, then repeat for the primes 7, 11, 13, etc. until <math>\sqrt{n}</math>.

The number of primes smaller than a given number <math>N</math> is roughly <math>\frac{N}{\ln(N)}</math>, where <math>\ln(N)</math> is the [[natural logarithm]] (base ''[[e]]'') of <math>N</math>.<ref>http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/primes.htm</ref> This is a formulation of a more general statement known as the [[Prime Number Theorem]].

==How many prime numbers==
{{main|Prime Number Theorem}}

It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem: Imagine there is a finite set consisting of all the primes. Multiply them all together, add 1, and call this N. N would not be divisible by any number in the set—there would always be a remainder of 1. Because all non-prime numbers can be decomposed into a product of underlying primes (by the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]), N must be divisible by some prime not in the set (possibly itself), thus contradicting the assumption that the set contained all of the primes.

Another proof that there are infinitely many primes shows something stronger, namely the sum of the reciprocals of primes less than n "grows like" log(log(n)):
<math>\sum_{p\le x}p^{-1}\approx\log\log x</math>

The largest known prime is ''257,885,161-1'', a 17,425,169 digit number beginning with 581,887,266,232... and ending with ...951; it was discovered in 2013 by Curtis Cooper with the '''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search''' ('''GIMPS'''),<ref>http://www.mersenne.org/</ref> a distributed computing project launched by George Woltman in early 1996.<ref>Multiple references:
* http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html
* 257,885,161 = 10 ^ (57,885,161 log10 2). The number two raised to successively larger powers cause the last three digits to fairly quickly begin repeating themselves in cycles of one hundred, so it is known that the last digits of this Mersenne prime end with ...951. Written out, the number would be Five hundred eighty-one quinmilliamilliaoctingenoctomilliatrecenoctooctogintillion eight hundred eighty-seven quinmilliamilliaoctingenoctomilliatrecenseptenoctogintillion etc.</ref>

A '''Mersenne prime''' is a prime number ''M'' that is of the form ''M = 2n − 1'', where ''n'' is some prime number.<ref>[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MersennePrime.html Mersenne Prime] from Wolfram</ref> As of 2015, only 48 Mersenne Primes have been found.<ref>http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html#largest</ref> The largest known prime, ''257885161-1'', is a Mersenne Prime. The concept of a Mersenne Prime was discovered by the French theologian, philosopher and mathematician [[Marin Mersenne]].

==Unique factorization==
{{main|Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic}}

According to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]], proven by [[Carl Friedrich Gauss]], every positive integer has a unique [[factorization]] into prime numbers.

This means that every integer larger than 1 can be expressed as a product of one or more primes in only one way. For example, 132 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 11. There is no other product of primes that equals 132.

Finding the prime factors for large numbers (having hundreds of digits) can take considerable time (millions of years) even with the most advanced computers.

==Alternative definition==
Beyond the integers, mathematicians are interested in other structures with addition and multiplication; they are called [[Ring (mathematics)|ring]]s. When working in rings, mathematicians use a different definition for a "prime" element: <blockquote>''A prime element is a non-unit (i.e., not 1 or -1 for the integers) which whenever it divides the product of two numbers will divide at least one of the factors.''</blockquote>

Or in symbolic notation:

<math>p \in \mathbb{Z} \quad prime :\Leftrightarrow p \not\in \{-1, 1\} \wedge (\forall a,b \in \mathbb{Z}: p \vert ab \Rightarrow p \vert a \vee p \vert b) </math>

For the integers, this definition is equivalent to the one stated above. However, in general the two definitions are not equivalent. The earlier definition is still important in rings, and is given the name [[irreducibility]], since it literally states that the element cannot be broken into smaller pieces.

The preference for this alternate definition of "prime" is that this definition gives you unique [[factorization]] theorems analogous to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]. For more information, consult an abstract algebra book<ref>'''Abstract Algebra: An Introduction''', Thomas Hungerford. Brooks Cole; 2 edition (1996)</ref>

==Primality testing==
To determine whether a number is prime, you can use the trial division method, provided the number you are testing is not too large. Let ''N'' be the number being tested and ''s'' be its square root. Divide ''N'' by each number in the prime table, beginning with 2. If there is no remainder, stop--''N'' is composite. Otherwise, test again with the next largest prime in the table. If the next largest prime is greater than ''s'', stop--''N'' is prime.

For larger values of ''N'', a method based on Fermat's theorem can be used, though it usually requires a computer. Start with the number 1, and double it ''N-1'' times. Divide this number by ''N'', keeping only the remainder. If the remainder is greater than 1, ''N'' is composite. Unfortunately, the converse is not true—if the remainder is 1, ''N'' is ''probably'' prime, but not necessarily. Algorithms which improve on this method exist, and primality testing is today an active subject of mathematical research.

==Open problems about prime numbers==

===Twin primes===
{{main|twin primes}}

[[Twin primes]] or '''prime twins''' are pairs of prime number which differ from each other by only 2. Since all primes other than 2 are odd numbers, this is the closest two primes can be to each other, with the exception of 2 and 3. The first few twin primes are 3 and 5, 5 and 7, 11 and 13, 17 and 19, and 29 and 31.

Twin primes become increasingly scarce among larger numbers. For example, there are twenty-four sets of twin primes between 0 and 500, but only eleven sets between 500 and 1000. Computer programmes have calculated some extremely large sets of twin primes. While there are undoubtedly an unlimited number of primes, opinions differ among mathematicians whether there is also an infinite number of twin primes or whether there is an upper limit. This debate is captured by the [[twin primes conjecture]]

Mathematicians have long been fascinated by twin primes and the relationship between them. There seems to be no distinct pattern in their occurrence. For example, there are no twin primes between 700 and 800, or between 900 and 1000, but there are five sets between 800 and 900 (809 and 811; 821 and 823; 827 and 829; 857 and 859; 881 and 883).

===Goldbach's conjecture===

Goldbach's conjecture asserts that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers. For example: 4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 3 + 5, and so on.

This conjecture is one of the oldest unsettled statements in mathematics. For centuries mathematicians have attempted to prove this statement, without success. The conjecture is known to hold for numbers less than 3 <math>\cdot</math>1017.

===Riemann hypothesis===
{{main|Riemann hypothesis}}

The [[Riemann hypothesis]] is related to patterns in the distribution of prime numbers. ''The Clay Mathematics Institute'' has offered a one million dollar prize for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.<ref>http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/</ref>

==Cryptography==
The security of [[public-key cryptography]] schemes such as [[RSA]] depend on the difficulty of prime factorization, if a pattern in the distribution of prime numbers is discovered, then such [[cryptographic]] schemes could become vulnerable to attack.

==See also==

* [[Composite number]]
* [[Fibonacci sequence]]
* [[Perfect number]]

==External links==
*[http://www.mersenne.org/ ''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search'' project website]
*[http://primes.utm.edu/ Prime Number resource Archive]
*[http://educ.queensu.ca/%7Efmc/december2003/Sieve.html Sieve of Eratosthenes]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Number Theory]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Highly composite numbers

2017-01-15T07:01:30Z

PatternOfPersona: changed link in further reading to better version of text at the linked-to-page

On the opposite extreme from the primes are the '''highly composite numbers'''. The primes have the least quantity of factors, namely two. A highly composite number is one which has a greater number of factors than any smaller number. In other words, the highly composite numbers each '''''initiate''''' an ''increase'' in quantity of factors over that of any lesser number.

For example, 180 has more factors than any smaller number, or any greater one up to 240. Then, 240 has an additional two more factors than 180. Then, no number above 240 has more factors than 240, until you get to 360, while the quantity of factors of 336 merely ''equals'' that of 240.

Additionally, the unifying number for all highly composite numbers is 12. This is because of three facts:
#the ''initiation'' above 6 is always at multiples of twelve but not always at multiples of 6;
#the initiation span from 12 to 60 is unbroken; and
#composite equivalence is unbroken from 60 to 120. These three facts together imply a spike graph beginning with 1 and ending with 120, in which there are two sequences of six spikes, in which the ''60 spike'' functions both as the final of the first sequence and as the initial of the second sequence, and the second sequence for which only its first and final numbers are initials.

==Further reading==
https://danielsmathnotes.wordpress.com/144-and-the-bridge-between-two-mathematical-worlds/

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Composite number

2017-01-15T06:58:49Z

PatternOfPersona: added section, and new page link to, Highly Composite Numbers

A '''composite number''' is a positive [[integer]] greater than 1 which is not a [[prime number]]. Composite numbers can always be written as a product of prime numbers, which represent a [[prime factorization]].<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CompositeNumber.html</ref> For example, the prime factorization of the composite number 42 is 2 x 3 x 7.

Related to composite numbers are ''[[highly composite numbers]]'' (HCN's). The HCN's are the higher order of the two types of numbers that are the opposite to [[prime]] numbers.

==Highly Composite Numbers==

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Number Theory]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

The Euthyphro Dilemma

2016-09-08T20:38:01Z

PatternOfPersona: added discussion of the fallacy, and of the solution

{{merge|Euthyphro}}

The '''Euthyphro Dilemma''' is an ancient problem first postulated by [[Plato]]. It challenges religious accounts of morality by asking 'Is an act good because God approves of it, or does [[God]] approve of an act because it is good?'.

If the former option is chosen, morality becomes wholly arbitrary. [[God]] could descend from the clouds and declare the murder of black people to be morally good, and it would be so. Many theists understandably find this repulsive. Some have argued for this position, but claim that God would never do such a thing, raising further problems with regards to the [[omnipotence]] paradox.

If the latter option is chosen, God becomes wholly arbitrary, as he is reduced to merely applauding or booing human actions as they occur, which theists also find unsatisfactory. Again, the [[omnipotence]] paradox comes into play.

'''---Fallacy and Solution---'''

Taken as-is as a linguistic or conceptual construct, the Euthyphro Dilemma necessarily is insolvable.

But the Euthyphro Dilemma is a false dilemma for a combination of at least the following four reasons.

1) God is Creator of the basic functions of all basic things in the world;

2) God is perfectly wise;

3) The world that God created is fallen.

Therefore, the Euthyphro Dilemma is not a dilemma in reality, but only within the sum of the concepts that constitutes the Euthyphro Dilemma.

An analogy to the reality is that of a modern fighter jet that humans build. If we rightly warn some reckless person not to put maple syrup in the fuel tank of an in-service jet, our warning does not create the wrongness of putting maple syrup in the fuel tank of an in-service jet. That wrongness is rather a matter of how we have made the jet to function in terms of the jet's in-service purposes.

So, the Euthyphro Dilemma is nothing more than an instance of '''dissociative philosophy''': the intellectual phenomenon of failing to see all of the basics of a matter necessary to come to a conclusion that does justice to the reality of the matter.

So, it is only within the Euthyphro Dilemma's philosophically incomplete bounds that it poses any problem for attempts to integrate theology and ethics.

[[Category:Philosophical Works|Euthyphro]]

Historiography

2015-09-23T00:22:20Z

PatternOfPersona: added Judao-Christian qualifying details, and an explanatory section for those details

'''Historiography''' is "the writing of [[history]]", or otherwise-preserving of historical facts to the generations in hence of the I-witnesses of the events.

In the bulk of cases, this writing, or preserving, of a future knowledge of past events is based on such things as "the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods."<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historiography Historiography - Merriam-Webster dictionary]</ref>

But this bulk of cases is made so partly by the fact that most documentations of history are created by those individuals who, by inspiration of some kind of journalistic desire, set out to gather the facts from I-witnesses and other sources. In other words, both most preserved narratives of, and most narratives purporting to be, accurate of the pasts they respectively claim to represent are constructed by persons who were not I-witness of the events. In short, the bulk of historiography is a kind of secular academic exercise of carefully, in many cases painstakingly, confirming the sources.

The implication of this bulk is that some historiography is that by I-witnesses of the events represented in the preserved forms. And, contrary to secular critics and other skeptics, some of the most promising candidate instances of historiographic forms for this core minority of historiography are those accounts comprising the book of Genesis.

= On the Core Historiography of Genesis and the Pentateuch =

William Propp (UC San Diego Department of History), claims that the account of the Exodus ''shows no sign of authentication'', and that the readers are being expected to take the account as that by an 'omniscient observer'. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TsppQ5UNY)

But Propp, in effect, assumes that a merely secular historiography is the original and universal default form of historiography. Though this assumption is justified for secular, or otherwise religiously disharmonious, societies, it is inconsistent with the natures of innocence, concern for preservation of historically crucial facts, and a ‘choir’ to which to pass on knowledge of those facts.

In other words, core historiography does not necessarily begin as a secular authorship to an audience that values skeptical reservation of judgment of authenticity; and may in fact begin with a core audience that, regardless of exact degree of assent by a wider set of associates, are as intent to have the knowledge preserved as the I-witness author(s) is/are intent to.

So, despite its own necessary pragmatic standards, secular historiography in any culture may well be founded on a non-secular original set of direct accounts of some original events. And such original accounts easily could lack most or all anti-skeptic details, such as exact authorship, and such as the fact-and-form of other prior sources used.

== See also ==

*[[Atheists and historical illiteracy]]
*[[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism]]
*[[Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler]]
*[[Postmodernism]]

== External links ==

*[http://amorebeautifulquestion.com/historians-view-of-questioning/ Some keen insights from the historian and Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer]

*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2013/09/history-1701-reading-for-week-two.html Introduction to history]

*[http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: History]]

Numbers 23:23

2015-08-19T03:29:09Z

PatternOfPersona:

Numbers 23:23 is an important verse in the [[Bible]], which reads: "Surely [there is] no enchantment against Jacob, neither [is there] any divination against Israel: according to this time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel, What hath God wrought!" KJV

It was a prophetic utterance given to [[Balaam]] by God.

== Trivia ==

The final phrase of the verse, "What hath God wrought" was made famous in the English speaking world when, on May 24, 1844 [[Samuel Morse]] used it as the text of the first [[telegraph]] message ever transmitted.

Numbers 23:23 is the 4,440th (four thousand, four hundred, fortieth) verse in the [[Pentateuch]], or 40 x 111 (the 111th is [[Genesis]] 5:5). According to some Christians who subscribe to the idea that the Bible contains various kinds of subtextual 'codes' or patterns, 111 is a key unit in some of these "[[Bible codes]]".

== Other versions ==

"For there is no sorcery against Jacob, Nor any divination against Israel. It now must be said of Jacob And of Israel, 'Oh, what God has done!' NKJV

No curse can touch Jacob; no magic has any power against Israel. For now it will be said of Jacob, 'What wonders God has done for Israel!' NLT

There is no sorcery against Jacob, no divination against Israel. It will now be said of Jacob and of Israel, 'See what God has done!' NIV
[[Category:Book of Numbers]]

Bible codes

2015-08-19T03:27:42Z

PatternOfPersona:

Bible codes are various kinds of patterns identified in the subtext of the Bible which some [[Christians]] and [[Jews]] think were deliberately crafted into the text by God or by the original writers.

All human languages have patterns, and, when a spoken language is put into written form, many of its patterns are more easily noticed.

Among those who believe that at least some of the subtextual patterns in the Bible are unique to literature, there is the contention that one or more profound dynamics are uniquely involved in these patterns in the Bible. For example, there is the idea that prose records which are wholly true may naturally contain patterns of subtext which are not found in faulty or fictional prose, and that, if this is so, then a wholly true prose record of the origins of humanity, of its nations, and of God's own nation may naturally contain subtextual patterns which are unique to literature.

'''On the conservative side''', there is a wide acceptance of the idea that some of the subtext patterns in the Bible, specifically in the [[Pentateuch]], were created by the original Hebrew scribes in order to help preserve the exactness to which the texts were copied, and to detect inferior copies that might be made by ignorant or nefarious persons. However, [[evangelical Christians]] largely reject the idea that the Bible codes have any meaning beyond that<ref>[http://www.cft.org.za/news/davinci/response.htm A Christian Response to "The Bible Code"]</ref>, some going as far as to call pursuit of numerological codes in the Bible 'occult' and 'Satanic'<ref>http://www.christianmediaresearch.com/cmc-31.html</ref>. Specifically, critics draw parallels between the theory of 'Bible codes' and ancient [[Gnostic]] [[Heresy|heresies]], condemned by the Church since the [[Apostolic Age]]: the essential attribute of Gnostic teachings was the idea of a special hidden doctrine, accessible only to the elite. The [[Early Church|early Church]], on the contrary, held that Christ's teachings - and the whole of God's revelation - are open and available to all men.

'''On the extreme side''' (that of extremely motivated ‘Bible Code’ believers), there has been every manner of attempt to create a stir in favor of the idea that at least some of these patterns constitute a kind of high-tech mechanism for predicting any number of trivial and non-trivial future events.

'''In any case''', rare important patterns exist in any world in which telic (purposeful) agents exist (such as humans), which means that for such a world never to contain 'amazing' coincidences, someone would have to rig (or otherwise control) that world in such a way as to prevent these coincidences.

== Kinds of Bible codes ==

As with any text, there are very many different subtextual patterns in the Biblical text. In the interest of brevity, only a select set of these Biblical subtext patterns will be mentioned here.

* One kind of 'Bible code' is that found in Equidistant Letter Sequences, or ELS. The 'ELS codes' were made popular in the last century by Israeli mathematician [[Eliyahu Rips]], his associate [[Doron Witztum]], and several others.
* Another kind of 'Bible code' (and, for many people, the most interesting kind of subtextual pattern in the Bible), is that found by listing, in chronological sequence, the meanings of the names of the [[antediluvian]] [[patriarchs]] given in Genesis chapter 5.
* A third kind of 'Bible code' is that of a complex set of interconnecting subtextual patterns based on the number 144. 144 is the number of hours in the six days of the [[Creation Week]], and, when 'visually' coded as 930 (Adam's age at death), leads to the Equidistant Verse Sequence (EVS) code of 111: '''a.''' By observing the sum of the three digits (1, 4, and 4), and then observing the differences, or 'distances', between the contiguous digits (1-4, 4-4), the number 144 is seen to 'state' "930" in a way similar to how a perfect circle is visually observed to 'state' "[[pi]]"; '''b.''' 930 is the unique number of the man who represents all of humanity, and is found at the 111th verse (Genesis 5:5); '''c.''' According to this particular 'Bible Code', the unit of 111 contiguous <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Bible_Codes</ref> verses is the primary key to pinpointing both explicit and implicit prophetically pivotal passages in the plain text of the [[Pentateuch]]. For example, the Old Testament verse made famous by the founder of [[Morse Code]], [[Numbers 23:23]] is the 40th multiple of 111. A common criticism of this 'EVS code system' is in the fact that the original texts had no explicit verse divisions. But, while it is true that no explicit verse divisions existed in the original texts, and that any such divisions that were made were made only recently in world history, the text itself, like any text or any linguistic vocalization, is not comprised either of random or indifferent linguistic sets, which means there are many different kinds of implicit divisions in the text, including that at the level of the standing verses. Furthermore, while the standing verse divisions of the Bible may not be perfect, the kind of verse division of which they make use is, in general, superior for the purpose of general reference than are all other possible kinds of verse division. This is like the distance between any two bodies of the Solar system, including the [[astronomical unit]], which, regardless of the units of measure used, or of the resultant numbers denoting these distances, are individually and interrelatedly critical.)

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Bible Study]]

Highly composite numbers

2014-02-07T21:29:58Z

PatternOfPersona:

On the opposite extreme from the primes are the highly composite numbers. The primes have the least quantity of factors, namely two. A highly composite number is one which has the greatest quantity of factors compared to any lesser number. In other words, the highly composite numbers each '''''initiate''''' an ''increase'' in quantity of factors over that of any lesser number.

For example, every number above 180 has less factors than has 180, until you get to 240. Then, 240 has an additional two factors over 180. Then, no number above 240 has more factors than 240, until you get to 360, while the quantity of factors of 336 mere ''equals'' that of 240.

Additionally, the unifying number for all highly composite numbers is 12. This is because of three facts: '''1)''' the ''initiation'' above 6 is always at multiples of twelve but not always at multiples of 6; '''2)''' the initiation span from 12 to 60 is unbroken; and '''3)''' composite equivalence is unbroken from 60 to 120. These three facts together imply a spike graph beginning with 1 and ending with 120, in which there are two sequences of six spikes, in which the ''60 spike'' functions both as the final of the first sequence and as the initial of the second sequence, and the second sequence for which only its first and final numbers are initials.

==Further Reading==
http://autismtoohuman.wordpress.com/keys-to-the-highly-composite-numbers-map/

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2014-02-06T22:05:05Z

PatternOfPersona: /* Leprosy */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=Isaac Newton, cornerstone of the scientific revolution, based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible.|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is the fact that the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science]] far ahead of its time. Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible by educating us about truth in the [[Universe]]. However, [[Bible denier]]s, such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution|evolutionist]]s, [[liberal denial|liberally deny]] the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]], the reference to the universe in [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10]], and the changing of [[Essay:Water into Wine|water into wine]] at the wedding feast.

==Geology==

===Massive regional floods===
[[Atheist]] scientists long opposed a [[young earth]] [[creation|created]] by [[God]] where cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] described in the [[Bible]], shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood in the region had indeed occured thousands of years ago. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be universally accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>[http://www.iafi.org/floods.html The Ice Age Flood Institute reports on the massive floods in the Northwest.]</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was proposed by [[creationist]] [[Antonio Snider-Pellegrini]] in 1859 based off of [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)#Chapter 1|Genesis 1:9-10]],<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html Christian Answers explains Antonio Snider's divine inspiration</ref> which states, {{cquote|And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.}} Because land is no longer all in [[Pangaea|one place]], this implies that the continents have shifted over the six millenia to their current positions. [[Atheists]] and [[scientist]]s who hadn't seen the light of [[creationism]] were in [[liberal denial]] about this concept for a century, until finally accepting its truth. This is just more data that the Bible knew millenia before [[secular]] [[science]] caught up.

===Underwater springs===
Only in modern times have scientists become aware of the enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans. However, the Bible repeatedly described this thousands of years earlier in [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Genesis 7:11]], which states, {{cquote|In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.}} Again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible states that, {{cquote|And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.}} This is ''obvious'' proof to all but [[liberals]] that the Bible had foreknowledge of subcrustal oceans, something the ancient Jews could not have possibly known, and thus proof of the Bible's God-given accuracy and divine nature.

==Agriculture==

===Malthusianism===
Since Thomas [[Malthus|Malthus's]] 1798 work, ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'', [[liberal]] [[intellectual]]s insisted that the world's population would grow faster than the [[food]] supply and result in mass starvation. However, there are examples in both the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s of the food supply increasing to be more far plentiful than expected, mostly due to faith in [[God|God's]] powers and use of [[conservative]] [[economics]]. Indeed, in modern times [[obesity]] is far more prevalent and harmful than [[hunger]] worldwide, and food production far exceeds the ability to consume even in impoverished nations. Hunger remains a problem only in places with [[liberal]] and/or [[leftist]] political systems that impede food distribution or destroy the [[free market]].

==History==

===Great Flood ice mummy===
According to the Bible, a [[Great Flood]] occured around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries [[atheist]]s and [[liberals]] have mocked it, claiming that it was impossible. However, in 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered in the [[Alps]]. Scientists located a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, which was due to an extraordinary ice storm. By radiometric [[carbon dating]]<ref>http://www.nupecc.org/iai2001/report/B44.pdf Radiocarbon dating of the Iceman Ötzi with
accelerator mass spectrometry</ref>, the scientists discovered that this massive ice storm occured 5300 years ago, which perfectly matches the [[Bible|Biblical]] Great Flood.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html PBS on the "Iceman" in the Alps</ref> This is is obvious proof of the Great Flood, as no natural occurence could possibly explain how somebody came to be preserved by ice in the [[Alps]].

===False theories===
Jesus's recognition that the truth would remain hidden from arrogant "intellectuals" while simultaneously revealed to humbler, [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|more openminded]] people. This foreshadowed the creation of theories to pull self-centered intellectual wannabees away from [[God]], such as the [[Theory of Evolution]], the [[Theory of Relativity]], the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[secular]] culture of [[abortion]], [[Communism]], and countless other [[liberal]] and [[atheist|atheistic]] ideas and ideologies.

===Mankind remains extant===
The Bible predicts that the end of [[mankind]] will not occur by chance, but rather at a time known only to [[God]]. Despite the extinction of many species each year throughout history, the expectation by scientists that Earth would have been hit by chance by a massive, extinction-causing meteor, and laws of probability that predict other immense catastrophes, mankind continues and Christianity grows just as Jesus predicted.

==Medicine and biology==

===Common DNA===
[[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_1|John 1:3]] explains that "All things were made by Him; not one thing was made without Him." If something had been made without Him then creatures would exist that had completely different DNA from other creatures.

===Psychiatry===
Modern medicine now realizes that obsessing with one's past is a big cause of psychiatric problems.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-flux/201104/5-ways-find-closure-the-past</ref> Jesus had the same insight 2000 years earlier: "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the [[kingdom of God]]."<ref>Luke 9:62 ([[ESV]]).</ref>

===Obesity===
[[File:11834504 3cc3c49559.jpg|187px|right|thumbnail|Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref> According to the [[Gallup poll|Gallup Inc.]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/wader/11834504/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]

The [[Saint Paul|Apostle Paul]] wrote that in the [[end times]], men would be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Timothy 3:1-4). In May of 2012, the [[World Health Organization]] reported that "Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980."<ref>[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ World Health Organization - obesity fact sheet]</ref> In 2008, more than 1.4 billion adults, 20 and older, were overweight. Of these over 200 million men and nearly 300 million women were obese.<ref>[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ World Health Organization - obesity fact sheet]</ref>

Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref> In addition, [[Chuck Norris]] says the most common cause of obesity is a hedonistic lifestyle (see: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]). According to [[Gallup poll|Gallup Inc.]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>

Christians have good reasons to believe a [[Hedonism|hedonist lifestyle]] is a causal factor of [[atheism]] (see: [[Causes of atheism]]).<ref>[http://creation.com/atheist-god-hate Why do atheists hate God?]</ref>

See also:
*[[Atheism and obesity]]
*[[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]
* [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]

===Blood clotting on the eigth day===
In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===
The Bible puts the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest modern recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving all of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest human ancestor===
The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor — [[Eve]] — first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the most recent common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===
The first surgical operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia — thousands of years before anesthesia using inhaled ether was developed by William Morton in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

===Eyesight===
The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

===Maximum human height===
Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

===Leprosy===
Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), Leviticus 13 and 14 set forth rules to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

Centuries ahead of medical science, Jesus subsequently explained that leprosy was not as contagious as people thought.{needs citation}

===Hygiene===
Millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene laws that included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

In Matthew 15:2, Jesus then curbed compulsive hand-washing by explaining why it was no longer typically necessary (in a non-farming, non-medical context) with respect to man's digestive system.

===Digestive system===
It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

It is part of the Jewish kosher law to not eat milk with meat. In some Jewish homes they have separate refrigerators for meat and milk products. It comes from Deuteronomy 14:21 "...Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk." There is evidence that the body has difficulty digesting both meat and milk at the same time.

Also, as part of the Jewish kosher law a pork is on the list of prohibited foods. Under cooked pork can transmit Trichinosis, a parasitic disease that can infect muscle tissue, the brain, and the central nervous system, among other [[parasite]]s and zoonotic diseases. [[Creation denial|Creation deniers]] can counter this point only with such desperate non-arguments as asking why God had to create trichinae at all and then allow them onto the [[Ark]].

===Feasibility of abiogenesis===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

===Awareness while unborn===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling awareness, began while unborn.

===Embalming===
[[Mark_9-16_(Translated)#Chapter_14|Mark 14:3-8]] describes an embalming process to preserve a body after death, which was not discovered in the West until 1867.

===Significance of blood===
The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.<ref>[http://wap.bible.org/nbw/deu12_notes.htm Net Bible: Notes] to [http://wap.bible.org/nbw/deu12.htm#1234 Deuteronomy 12:23] {{dead link}}</ref>

===Menstruation===
The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref> Also, modern science has only very recently discovered that following such rules dramatically reduces the rate of [[illegitimacy]].<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604182027.htm How Religion Promotes Confidence About Paternity]</ref>

===Cloning===
{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=2|verses=21-22|version=KJV}} records that God made a [[woman]] out of one of [[Adam]]'s [[rib]]s. Secular scientists did not believe that [[cloning]] such a complex organism (apart from plants) was possible until 1997.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml Cloning Fact Sheet] {{dead link}}</ref> It should be noted, however, that this is not strictly 'cloning' as a clone would be identical to its original, most obviously in terms of its sex.

===Inbreeding===
Leviticus 18:7-11 elaborates in detail the relationships it regards as incestuous unions, to forbid inbreeding. Secular science was able to scientifically explain the mechanisms and risks of inbreeding only in modern times.

==Cosmology==

===Starlight Problem===
The [[Starlight Problem]] confounds all theories about the universe: light has reached us from stars that are too far away to transmit the light within the age of the universe. But Genesis explains this easily: "let there be light" means that God created light, not merely stars.

===Planet formation===
Theories of an old universe insisted that planet formation did not occur until long after the origin of the universe, contrary to the [[Book of Genesis]]. But in 2012 scientists announced the existence of planets that formed "at dawn of universe."<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0330/Planets-found-at-dawn-of-universe-but-their-existence-is-a-mystery</ref>

===Extraterrestrial life===
For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of stars===
The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Uniqueness of stars===
Although the use of telescopes to chart the outer-reaches of God's heavenly creation was developed around the 16th century in Europe, the Bible accurately hypothesized that every star is unique.

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory"- 1 Corinthians 15:41 <ref>http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml</ref>

===Spherical Sun and Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - [[Isaiah_34-42_(Translated)#Chapter_40|Isaiah 40:22 (CBP]])}}

Likewise, with respect to the [[sun]], the Book of Proverbs 8:27 ([[ESV]]) states:
{{cquote|When he established the heavens, ... he drew a circle on the face of the deep}}

The Book of Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, and the Book of Proverbs even earlier. This was centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round, and it was not discovered until 2012 that the sun is perfectly spherical. Astronomers were not able to conclude until well into the second millennium of [[Christ]] that the Earth is also a sphere.

===Earth free floating in space===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the [[Earth]] on nothing." It also contrasts with Greek Mythology's belief that [[Atlas]] holds up the Earth, or ancient Hindu and native American myths that the Earth was on top of a gigantic turtle.

The Bible presaged the modern view that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century when ether theories became disfavored.

===Cosmic Background Radiation===
[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

===Meteoroids===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

===Stellar proper movement===
In [[Job]], a list of challenges are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can. Among these challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. Only recently, astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

===Space flight===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens,<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref> in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to be expanding, or "stretching out."

==Meteorology==

===Jet stream===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the [[jet stream]] long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

===Water cycle===
The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that.
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

==Physics==

===Impossibility of a Grand Unified Theory===
Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by scientists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But [[Genesis_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter_1|Genesis]] explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of theoretical unification with matter.

===Light and color===
Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

===Action-at-a-distance===
[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

===Quantum mechanics===
The fundamental principle of [[quantum mechanics]] is that the underlying reality is in random fluctuation, or chaos, until there is intelligent observation of it. This is precisely what [[Luke 1-8 (Translated)#Luke 4:6|Luke 4:6]] reveals when it quotes the [[devil]], which is derived from an ancient word for chaos, in saying that he has dominion over this world.

====Observation of the wave function====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm. This famous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

====Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle====
Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." -- [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* "The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later." -- [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

====Wave-particle duality====
Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

====Quantum tunneling====
[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

===Classical relativity===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

===Modern relativity===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

===Second Law of Thermodynamics===
The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts a heat death for the universe; thus the universe will eventually be dark and chaotic. Thus, the validity of this statement is questionable.

[[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10-11]] explains that the universe shall "wear out" like a "garment", centuries before the discovery of the physical law that [[entropy]] is always increasing.

===Nature of air===
Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 states, "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

===Conservative forces===
James 1:17 describes the electromagnetic forces (light) as having no "shadow of turning." Not understood for nearly 2000 years, this predicts that electromagnetic forces are [[conservative]] such that their [[line integrals]] over a closed loop are zero.

==Mathematics==

===Zero===
Mathematicians in Western Europe did not discover [[zero]] until many centuries after the [[Bible]] was written. But there are hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout the Bible.

===Banach-Tarski Paradox===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object out of no extra material.

===Axiomatization of Arithmetic===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister.<ref>[http://www.biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/MathAndBible.pdf J. C. Keister: "''Math and the Bible''"], Biblical Blueprints Omaha, NE, 1999 (pdf)</ref> For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

===Infinity===
Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of [[infinity]] for thousands of years, despite it being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#20:1|Matthew 20:1-14]] ([[parable]] of the wages for the workers in the vineyard); Matthew 16:26 (one's soul has an infinite value to him, and nothing else can be worth more).

But [[Georg Cantor]], deeply inspired by [[Christianity]], established a logical foundation for infinity that revolutionized all of mathematics as a result, with his development of [[set theory]] to accomplish his goal.

===Set theory===
[[Georg Cantor]]'s development of [[set theory]] in the late 19th century was initially rejected by many great mathematicians, including [[Henri Poincare]], before it became the basis for nearly all of mathematics today. But the Bible contains many hints in support of set theory, as in the "last shall be first, and the first shall be last."

===Calculus===
The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.<ref>[http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000</ref>

James 1:17 states that the first and second derivatives of God's light (truth) is zero, more than 1600 years before calculus was discovered: "with [God] there is no variation or shadow of turning."<ref name="Shadow%252525252525252520of%252525252525252520Turning">[http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/no-variation-or-shadow-of-turning-calculus-in-the-bible/ Nathan Albright: ''"No Variation Or Shadow Of Turning: Calculus In The Bible"''], Blog-Entry, Feb 24, 2011 </ref>

===Arithmetic with Negative Numbers===

Negative numbers were not fully accepted by mathematicians until the 1800s,<ref>http://nrich.maths.org/5961</ref> including how a negative number dominates the result in multiplication with a positive number, to yield a negative outcome. Yet Jesus's parable of the sower and the seed, in Matthew 13:1-23, Mark 4:1-8, and Luke 8:4-8, explained the same effect nearly 2000 years earlier.

==Sociology==

===Crime===
Mark 4:22 says how nothing can be hid, neither can anything be kept secret. Empirical statistics show that the vast majority of crimes worldwide are solved.

==Zoology==

===Morality of animals===
[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. No animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself. However, as as limited case, animals do demonstrate altruistic behavior.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species. Other dinosaur like creatures mentioned are the cockatrice and satyr <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Killing methods of lions===
Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions suffocated their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Lions fit their mouth over the mouth and nose of their prey and hold it while it suffocates, in addition to other killing methods.

===Giant sea creatures and Jonah===
The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material and the lack of breathable air inside marine animals.

In 2010, scientists found the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

===Gender of worker ants===
Proverbs 6:6-8 correctly states the sex of worker [[ant]]s (female), using the correct one of the two [[Grammar#Gender|grammatical genders]] available in Biblical [[Hebrew]]. Secular entomologists would not discover that fact until the 19th century.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=rzwSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=ant+undeveloped+female+worker+date:1700-1850&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#v=onepage&q&f=false The study of medicine, Volume 5 By John Mason Good]</ref>

==Linguistics==

===Common descent theory===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

==Economics==
Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Government and Politics==

===Nation-state===
Ancient Israel, as described in the [[Old Testament]], was a [[nation-state]] and that model was not utilized again until thousands of years later, well after the Renaissance in Western Europe. This model of a nation-state has become the modern standard worldwide.

===Separation of Powers===
The separation of powers adopted successfully by the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1787, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches having separate authority and jurisdiction, was first described in the Old Testament.<ref>See Jeremiah 17:19 and Isaiah 33:22.</ref>

===Liberal influence on the media===
The Third [[Three Temptations of Christ|Temptation of Christ]] is to bow down and worship the [[Satan]] in exchange for becoming ruler of the world. The media plays that role and its influence is predictably [[liberal]] and anti-[[Christian]].

==Engineering==
Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>
{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}
Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]]), and a piece of fine linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>John Calvin, who opposed the Catholic Church, wrote a book in 1543 criticizing all material evidence of Jesus and the martyrs. In it he claimed that because the negative image on the Shroud is not described in the Gospels, it must not be authentic. [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by Valerian Krasinski: ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

==Alleged "contradictions"==
Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]],<ref>http://creation.com/modern-medicine Creation Ministries International on "Modern" Medicine</ref> [[Answers in Genesis]],<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp Answers in Genesis on "Modern" Medicine</ref> and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref>

[[Atheists]] and [[liberals]] unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

===Value of Pi===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. Atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], allege that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Additionally, Pi to one significant digit is 3. Just because the measurement is given to only one significant digit, that does not mean it was precisely that amount. Of course, since Pi is an irrational number, it would be impossible to give a truly precise measurement. Since decimal notation was not in use in Biblical times, there was no way to express Pi to greater accuracy in the language of the day.

===Bat as a bird===
A favorite [[evolutionist]] canard is that [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:13-19]] labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. The [[KJV]] translation of "fowl" is simply incorrect, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-scientific category simply referring to ''any'' winged creature. A popular Jewish translation, used to explain the laws of keeping kosher, translates the term as "winged flying things."

===Rabbits, coneys, and cud===
In [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:5-6]], the Bible states, {{cquote|And the coney ''(or hyrax)'', because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.}} While rabbits do not, in fact, regurgitate food and re-chew it, they have the same jaw motions as animals that do<ref>http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-badger-and-rabbit-chew-cud</ref> and thus appeared as cud-chewing to the Jews of Moses's time. [[Atheist]]s and [[liberal]]s love to misrepresent this passage only because they are in [[liberal denial]] of the truth.

===Number of legs of insects===
In [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:20-23]], the Bible states, {{cquote|All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the
grasshopper after his kind.

But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.}}While this may appear to indicate that insects have four legs (they have six), the passage is in fact referring to the manner in which the grasshopper moves. Grasshoppers have large back legs mainly used for jumping, and not for walking, which is when it uses its smaller four front legs. Thus, the ancient Hebrews were just describing things as they saw them, not according to scientific nomenclature.

==See Also==
*[[Biblical political foreknowledge]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Biblical scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Liberal denial]]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2014-02-06T22:01:50Z

PatternOfPersona: /* Lifespan */

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=Isaac Newton, cornerstone of the scientific revolution, based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible.|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is the fact that the [[Bible]] shows a comprehension of [[science]] far ahead of its time. Biblical scientific foreknowledge illustrates what is possible by educating us about truth in the [[Universe]]. However, [[Bible denier]]s, such as [[atheist]]s and [[evolution|evolutionist]]s, [[liberal denial|liberally deny]] the many truths in the Bible. '''''Their irrational [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|closed-mindedness]] against the Bible obstructs the advancement of science'''''.

'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' has another benefit: it facilitates improvements in the translation of verses that describe scientific-related events, such as [[Jesus]]'s [[Essay:Calming the Storm|Calming the Storm]], the reference to the universe in [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10]], and the changing of [[Essay:Water into Wine|water into wine]] at the wedding feast.

==Geology==

===Massive regional floods===
[[Atheist]] scientists long opposed a [[young earth]] [[creation|created]] by [[God]] where cataclysmic flooding, such as the [[Great Flood]] described in the [[Bible]], shaped the landscape. However, ample [[counterexamples to an old earth]] exist and the discovery in the Northwest of "giant ripple marks, 50 feet high and 200-500 feet apart" proved that a cataclysmic flood in the region had indeed occured thousands of years ago. As a result, "[a]mong geologists, the concept of a catastrophic flood came to be universally accepted by the late 1950s."<ref>[http://www.iafi.org/floods.html The Ice Age Flood Institute reports on the massive floods in the Northwest.]</ref>

===Continental drift===
[[Continental drift]] was proposed by [[creationist]] [[Antonio Snider-Pellegrini]] in 1859 based off of [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)#Chapter 1|Genesis 1:9-10]],<ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c001.html Christian Answers explains Antonio Snider's divine inspiration</ref> which states, {{cquote|And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.}} Because land is no longer all in [[Pangaea|one place]], this implies that the continents have shifted over the six millenia to their current positions. [[Atheists]] and [[scientist]]s who hadn't seen the light of [[creationism]] were in [[liberal denial]] about this concept for a century, until finally accepting its truth. This is just more data that the Bible knew millenia before [[secular]] [[science]] caught up.

===Underwater springs===
Only in modern times have scientists become aware of the enormous underwater springs feeding into the oceans, and the very deep valleys at the bottom of the oceans. However, the Bible repeatedly described this thousands of years earlier in [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)#Chapter 7|Genesis 7:11]], which states, {{cquote|In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.}} Again, in 2 Samuel 22:16, the Bible states that, {{cquote|And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils.}} This is ''obvious'' proof to all but [[liberals]] that the Bible had foreknowledge of subcrustal oceans, something the ancient Jews could not have possibly known, and thus proof of the Bible's God-given accuracy and divine nature.

==Agriculture==

===Malthusianism===
Since Thomas [[Malthus|Malthus's]] 1798 work, ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'', [[liberal]] [[intellectual]]s insisted that the world's population would grow faster than the [[food]] supply and result in mass starvation. However, there are examples in both the [[Old Testament|Old]] and [[New Testament]]s of the food supply increasing to be more far plentiful than expected, mostly due to faith in [[God|God's]] powers and use of [[conservative]] [[economics]]. Indeed, in modern times [[obesity]] is far more prevalent and harmful than [[hunger]] worldwide, and food production far exceeds the ability to consume even in impoverished nations. Hunger remains a problem only in places with [[liberal]] and/or [[leftist]] political systems that impede food distribution or destroy the [[free market]].

==History==

===Great Flood ice mummy===
According to the Bible, a [[Great Flood]] occured around 3300 B.C., or about 5300 years ago. It involved a cataclysmic rainstorm of a magnitude never seen before or since. For centuries [[atheist]]s and [[liberals]] have mocked it, claiming that it was impossible. However, in 1991, an "ice mummy" was discovered in the [[Alps]]. Scientists located a remarkably preserved ancient body, including even the contents of his last meal, which was due to an extraordinary ice storm. By radiometric [[carbon dating]]<ref>http://www.nupecc.org/iai2001/report/B44.pdf Radiocarbon dating of the Iceman Ötzi with
accelerator mass spectrometry</ref>, the scientists discovered that this massive ice storm occured 5300 years ago, which perfectly matches the [[Bible|Biblical]] Great Flood.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html PBS on the "Iceman" in the Alps</ref> This is is obvious proof of the Great Flood, as no natural occurence could possibly explain how somebody came to be preserved by ice in the [[Alps]].

===False theories===
Jesus's recognition that the truth would remain hidden from arrogant "intellectuals" while simultaneously revealed to humbler, [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|more openminded]] people. This foreshadowed the creation of theories to pull self-centered intellectual wannabees away from [[God]], such as the [[Theory of Evolution]], the [[Theory of Relativity]], the [[homosexual agenda]], the [[secular]] culture of [[abortion]], [[Communism]], and countless other [[liberal]] and [[atheist|atheistic]] ideas and ideologies.

===Mankind remains extant===
The Bible predicts that the end of [[mankind]] will not occur by chance, but rather at a time known only to [[God]]. Despite the extinction of many species each year throughout history, the expectation by scientists that Earth would have been hit by chance by a massive, extinction-causing meteor, and laws of probability that predict other immense catastrophes, mankind continues and Christianity grows just as Jesus predicted.

==Medicine and biology==

===Common DNA===
[[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_1|John 1:3]] explains that "All things were made by Him; not one thing was made without Him." If something had been made without Him then creatures would exist that had completely different DNA from other creatures.

===Psychiatry===
Modern medicine now realizes that obsessing with one's past is a big cause of psychiatric problems.<ref>http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-flux/201104/5-ways-find-closure-the-past</ref> Jesus had the same insight 2000 years earlier: "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the [[kingdom of God]]."<ref>Luke 9:62 ([[ESV]]).</ref>

===Obesity===
[[File:11834504 3cc3c49559.jpg|187px|right|thumbnail|Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref> According to the [[Gallup poll|Gallup Inc.]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/wader/11834504/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
See also: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]] and [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]

The [[Saint Paul|Apostle Paul]] wrote that in the [[end times]], men would be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God (2 Timothy 3:1-4). In May of 2012, the [[World Health Organization]] reported that "Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since 1980."<ref>[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ World Health Organization - obesity fact sheet]</ref> In 2008, more than 1.4 billion adults, 20 and older, were overweight. Of these over 200 million men and nearly 300 million women were obese.<ref>[http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ World Health Organization - obesity fact sheet]</ref>

Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref> In addition, [[Chuck Norris]] says the most common cause of obesity is a hedonistic lifestyle (see: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]]). According to [[Gallup poll|Gallup Inc.]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>

Christians have good reasons to believe a [[Hedonism|hedonist lifestyle]] is a causal factor of [[atheism]] (see: [[Causes of atheism]]).<ref>[http://creation.com/atheist-god-hate Why do atheists hate God?]</ref>

See also:
*[[Atheism and obesity]]
*[[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]
* [[Evolutionists who have had problems with being overweight and/or obese]]

===Blood clotting on the eigth day===
In Genesis 17:12, God mandated that Abraham circumcise his sons on the 8th day after birth. In 1935, it was discovered that Vitamin K, together with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, (important in any surgical procedure). On the 8th day, the amount of prothrombin present is elevated above 100% of normal and is therefore the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case (normally). If surgery is to be performed, day 8 is the perfect day to do it as vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak.

===Lifespan===
The Bible puts the maximum lifespan for man at 120 years (Genesis 6:3), the typical lifespan at 70 years and the typical for a good-living person at 80 years (Psalm 90:10).

Thousands of years after that was written, despite immense advances in medicine and technology, these figures remain remarkably accurate. The longest modern recorded life of a man is precisely 120 years (Shigechiyo Izumi), the average lifespan for a man is roughly 70 years, and the average for a good-living man is about 80 years.

[[Jeanne Calment]] lived to age 122, only two years past 120. She was said to have never worked and used olive oil on her skin, outliving all of of her [[feminist]] counterparts.

===Oldest human ancestor===
The Bible suggests that the oldest maternal ancestor — [[Eve]] — first lived slightly more than 6000 years ago.<ref>http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html</ref> The mutation rate of [[mitochondria]] indicates roughly the same date for the most recent common human ancestor.<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Mitochondrial_Eve_lived_only_6500_years_ago_%28Talk.Origins%29</ref>

===Anesthesia===
The first surgical operation described in the Bible was the removal of a rib from [[Adam]], which was performed by first putting Adam into an unconscious, "deep sleep-like trance."<ref>[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 2:21]]</ref> This was the equivalent of anesthesia — thousands of years before anesthesia using inhaled ether was developed by William Morton in 1846. Had scientists and physicians been more [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|openminded]] about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives.

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air, and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of [[George Washington]], hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given ''instead of'' crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

===Eyesight===
The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.<ref>This newspaper account is not specific but describes the overall sensation of restored sight: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-138886/Robot-eye-restore-lost-sight-20-years.html]</ref>

===Maximum human height===
Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

===Leprosy===
Although leprosy is not as contagious as other infectious diseases, and some forms of it (such as tuberculoid or paucibacillary form are not contagious), Leviticus 13 and 14 set forth rules to prevent epidemics of this disease among the people of Israel. Western science did not catch up until, in 1663, such laws were introduced in America in an attempt to curb an outbreak of smallpox.

Centuries ahead of medical science, Jesus subsequently explained that leprosy was not as contagious as people thought.

===Hygiene===
Millennia before germ theory was proposed in the late 19th century, Leviticus 15 mandated hygiene laws that included bathing, washing of clothing, destruction of contaminated pottery and washing of hands.

In Matthew 15:2, Jesus then curbed compulsive hand-washing by explaining why it was no longer typically necessary (in a non-farming, non-medical context) with respect to man's digestive system.

===Digestive system===
It was common thought throughout history that infections and illness resulted from the digestive system, based on unclean hands or food. Jesus rejected that view, and declared hand-washing before meals to be typically unnecessary. It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this.

It is part of the Jewish kosher law to not eat milk with meat. In some Jewish homes they have separate refrigerators for meat and milk products. It comes from Deuteronomy 14:21 "...Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk." There is evidence that the body has difficulty digesting both meat and milk at the same time.

Also, as part of the Jewish kosher law a pork is on the list of prohibited foods. Under cooked pork can transmit Trichinosis, a parasitic disease that can infect muscle tissue, the brain, and the central nervous system, among other [[parasite]]s and zoonotic diseases. [[Creation denial|Creation deniers]] can counter this point only with such desperate non-arguments as asking why God had to create trichinae at all and then allow them onto the [[Ark]].

===Feasibility of abiogenesis===
Although scientists dismissed ideas involving [[Abiogenesis|abiogenesis]], or the process from which life emerges from nothing, as nothing more than archaic beliefs in [[spontaneous generation]], the Bible very clearly depicts an occurrence of this phenomenon, for beginning in Genesis 1:20, [[God]] creates life from nothing. It was not until the early 20th century that science finally began to accept the viability of abiogenesis, a view that the Bible had held for almost 2000 years, except that [[atheists]] falsely claim that abiogenesis is somehow possible without a creator.

===Awareness while unborn===
[[Abortion]] advocates argue that it is ok to terminate a baby while dismissing the pain inflicted by ending an innocent life. They argue that a fetus cannot feel pain because senses are incomplete. There is a heart-beating human in the womb that can feel even though still unborn and developing. In modern times, we now know the baby in the womb is alert, aware of their mother's emotions, recognizes voices, responds to stimuli and music. The Bible tells us the baby feels (1 Luke 44), ''"the babe leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice."'' The inwomb developing baby, John the Baptist, notices the presence of the unborn [[Lord]] in [[Mary]], and is excited. In addition (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15), ''"God… from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace."'' Paul's very first thought, feeling awareness, began while unborn.

===Embalming===
[[Mark_9-16_(Translated)#Chapter_14|Mark 14:3-8]] describes an embalming process to preserve a body after death, which was not discovered in the West until 1867.

===Significance of blood===
The Old Testament teaches that the [[life]] of all flesh is its [[blood]] ({{Bible ref|book=Leviticus|chap=17|verses=13-14|version=KJV}}). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.<ref>[http://wap.bible.org/nbw/deu12_notes.htm Net Bible: Notes] to [http://wap.bible.org/nbw/deu12.htm#1234 Deuteronomy 12:23] {{dead link}}</ref>

===Menstruation===
The Biblical laws concerning [[menstruation]], including the setting apart of the menstruating woman and the prohibition on intimacy during menstruation, address health concerns that were not known to secular science until the 20th century.<ref>Neuburger, Max. History of Medicine. Oxford University Press, 1910, Vol. I, p. 38.</ref> Also, modern science has only very recently discovered that following such rules dramatically reduces the rate of [[illegitimacy]].<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120604182027.htm How Religion Promotes Confidence About Paternity]</ref>

===Cloning===
{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=2|verses=21-22|version=KJV}} records that God made a [[woman]] out of one of [[Adam]]'s [[rib]]s. Secular scientists did not believe that [[cloning]] such a complex organism (apart from plants) was possible until 1997.<ref>[http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/cloning.shtml Cloning Fact Sheet] {{dead link}}</ref> It should be noted, however, that this is not strictly 'cloning' as a clone would be identical to its original, most obviously in terms of its sex.

===Inbreeding===
Leviticus 18:7-11 elaborates in detail the relationships it regards as incestuous unions, to forbid inbreeding. Secular science was able to scientifically explain the mechanisms and risks of inbreeding only in modern times.

==Cosmology==

===Starlight Problem===
The [[Starlight Problem]] confounds all theories about the universe: light has reached us from stars that are too far away to transmit the light within the age of the universe. But Genesis explains this easily: "let there be light" means that God created light, not merely stars.

===Planet formation===
Theories of an old universe insisted that planet formation did not occur until long after the origin of the universe, contrary to the [[Book of Genesis]]. But in 2012 scientists announced the existence of planets that formed "at dawn of universe."<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0330/Planets-found-at-dawn-of-universe-but-their-existence-is-a-mystery</ref>

===Extraterrestrial life===
For most of the 20th century, scientists typically believed in the existence of extraterrestrial life, despite the lack of any reference to it in the [[Bible]]. After spending many billions of dollars looking for such life, and investigating countless reports of UFOs, no such life has been found.

===Number of stars===
The [[Bible]] repeatedly refers to the number of stars as being innumerable,<ref>''See'' Genesis 15:5, Jeremiah 33:22 and Hebrews 11:12.</ref> despite scientists insisting throughout most of history that there were only about 6000 stars. In the early 17th century [[Galileo]] turned a telescope to the heavens and discovered a great number of stars that had been previously invisible to the naked eye.<ref>http://galileo.rice.edu/lib/student_work/astronomy95/orionpleiades.html</ref>

Not until the 20th century did scientists discover the tremendous number of stars:<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/index.html</ref>

:There are "10 times as many stars as grains of sand on all the world's beaches and deserts," totaling "7 followed by 22 zeros or, more accurately, 70 sextillion.

But even that scientific estimate was much too low. On December 1, 2010, scientists admitted:<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/1201/Universe-might-hold-three-times-more-stars-than-previously-thought</ref>

:"a cosmic embarrassment of riches – ''the universe appears to hold three times the number of stars many [[astronomer]]s might have estimated only a year ago''."

===Uniqueness of stars===
Although the use of telescopes to chart the outer-reaches of God's heavenly creation was developed around the 16th century in Europe, the Bible accurately hypothesized that every star is unique.

"There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory"- 1 Corinthians 15:41 <ref>http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml</ref>

===Spherical Sun and Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|He sits above the sphere of the earth, and its inhabitants look to him like grasshoppers. He stretches out the galaxies like a curtain, spreading them out like a tent to live under: - [[Isaiah_34-42_(Translated)#Chapter_40|Isaiah 40:22 (CBP]])}}

Likewise, with respect to the [[sun]], the Book of Proverbs 8:27 ([[ESV]]) states:
{{cquote|When he established the heavens, ... he drew a circle on the face of the deep}}

The Book of Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, and the Book of Proverbs even earlier. This was centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round, and it was not discovered until 2012 that the sun is perfectly spherical. Astronomers were not able to conclude until well into the second millennium of [[Christ]] that the Earth is also a sphere.

===Earth free floating in space===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the [[Earth]] on nothing." It also contrasts with Greek Mythology's belief that [[Atlas]] holds up the Earth, or ancient Hindu and native American myths that the Earth was on top of a gigantic turtle.

The Bible presaged the modern view that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century when ether theories became disfavored.

===Cosmic Background Radiation===
[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis Chapter 1]] explains that [[God]] created light first, rather than merely stars. A "big bang" would result in light everywhere, without darkness, and without ripples in cosmic background radiation. Yet in the 21st century ripples were discovered in cosmic background radiation, which can only be plausibly explained by recognizing that light was created first.

===Meteoroids===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes meteoroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

===Stellar proper movement===
In [[Job]], a list of challenges are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can. Among these challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. Only recently, astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

===Space flight===
Many theorize that the book of [[Ezekiel]] contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago. [http://www.spaceshipsofezekiel.com/ Author Blumrich] has even published an entire book about this.

===Expanding universe===
The [[Bible]] explains, in 17 different verses, that [[God]] "stretched out" the heavens,<ref>http://www.creationists.org/God-streched-out-the-universe-bible-verses.html</ref> in other words, expanding the fabric of space-time from a smaller size to a much larger one. Scientists have discovered only in the last 100 years that, by studying the red shift of galaxies, the universe indeed appears to be expanding, or "stretching out."

==Meteorology==

===Jet stream===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the [[jet stream]] long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

===Water cycle===
The existence of the water cycle was not known until imperial Roman times, but the Bible described it over a thousand years before that.
See [[Ecclesiastes]] 11:3, [[Job]] 26:8 and [[Amos]] 9:6

==Physics==

===Impossibility of a Grand Unified Theory===
Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by scientists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But [[Genesis_1-8_(Translated)#Chapter_1|Genesis]] explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of theoretical unification with matter.

===Light and color===
Prior to the work of [[Isaac Newton]], white was considered to be the fundamental color of light, and other colors (such as red, green and blue) were formed by adding to white light. Under that traditional theory, the fullness of all light (a combination of all colors of light) would result in something other than pure white.

The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).

===Action-at-a-distance===
[[Jesus]] demonstrated [[action-at-a-distance]], as recounted in [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]]. Scientists, particularly [[atheists]], denied the possibility of this phenomenon for thousands of years. When Newton proposed action-at-a-distance as the basis of gravity, scientists continued to reject it, but eventually accepted it as being true.

Later the [[Theory of Relativity]] again denied the possibility of action-at-a-distance, but [[quantum mechanics]] subsequently proved that it does occur.<ref>See also [[Counterexamples to Relativity]].</ref>

===Quantum mechanics===
The fundamental principle of [[quantum mechanics]] is that the underlying reality is in random fluctuation, or chaos, until there is intelligent observation of it. This is precisely what [[Luke 1-8 (Translated)#Luke 4:6|Luke 4:6]] reveals when it quotes the [[devil]], which is derived from an ancient word for chaos, in saying that he has dominion over this world.

====Observation of the wave function====
The second chapter of the [[Gospel of John]] describes the conversion of water into wine by [[Jesus]] at a wedding reception. [[John_1-7_(Translated)#Chapter_2|John 2:9]] states: "When the host of the wedding feast tasted the water, it had been made into wine." This passage implies that the drink was not wine until it had been tasted, or observed. Possibly, the drink was a superposition of the state of wine and the state of water until it was observed as wine.

A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm. This famous [[Essay:Calming the Storm|calming of the storm]] is typically translated as the result of a "rebuke" by [[Jesus]] of the bad weather. But a closer look at the Greek reveals that the key term means "judge" rather than "rebuke", and thus it was the act of Jesus observing the chaos that caused it to "collapse" into an orderly state, similar to the effect of observing a wave function.

In Matthew 16:19, Jesus draws a then-unusual distinction between what is fixed and what is uncertain by declaring, "Whatever you make binding on earth will be binding in heaven, and whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Matthew_10-19_%28Translated%29&oldid=870778#Chapter_16</ref> This may describe the fundamental uncertainty that continues unless and until there is human observation that then causes the wave function to collapse into a particular ("bound") state.

====Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle====
Both the Old and New Testaments refer to a fundamental uncertainty that requires observation to resolve, akin to the [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]] discovered in the 1920s:

* "The earth came to exist in an utterly formless and empty state." -- [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 1:2]].
* "The master refusing to order the removal of the weeds sowed among the wheat because of the uncertainty in distinguishing between the two until later." -- [[Matthew 10-19 (Translated)|Matthew 13:24-30]].

====Wave-particle duality====
Wave-particle duality, first discovered in the 20th century, allows for a particle to sometimes be subject to gravity and sometimes not.

The wave-particle duality was described nearly 2000 years earlier in the Gospel account of Jesus walking on water: [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:45-54]]. A close reading of the passage reveals the wave-like (or light-like) characteristic of the walking on water:
{{cquote|he walked on the surface of the lake and came to the boat, ''nearly passing it''. But when they saw him walking on water, they thought it must have been ''a ghost'', and cried out.}}
[[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Mark 6:48-49]] (italics added).

In a more general sense, [[Jesus]] could be viewed as the "particle" and the [[Holy Spirit]] as the "wave" of [[God]]. A fuller understanding of the [[Trinity]] could have opened the eyes of scientists much earlier to the fundamental wave-particle duality of nature ... and still could.

====Quantum tunneling====
[[Quantum tunneling]] is the ability of particles to move through energy barriers even though ostensibly impossible based on classical laws of mechanical physics. This was not discovered by scientists until the 20th century.

[[Jesus]] proved this was possible in [[John_15-21_(Translated)#Chapter_20|John 20:26]], when he appeared before the [[Apostles]] in a closed room with completely shut doors.

===Classical relativity===
Romans 10:6-7: But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

Equating ascending into heaven to bringing Christ down is an example of the fact that there is no universal reference frame, and only relative speeds matter.

===Modern relativity===
The [[Theory of Relativity]] denies the possibility of action-at-a-distance. But several passages in the Bible, such as [[John 1-7 (Translated)|John 4:46-54]] and [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)|Matthew 27:51]], describe simultaneous actions from afar.

The list of [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] has grown recently, and modern experiments in [[quantum mechanics]] have confirmed action-at-a-distance.

===Second Law of Thermodynamics===
The [[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Book of Genesis]] states that the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order. This same concept was not discovered in physics until the development of the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], which holds that heat (or order or light) always travels in the direction of cold (or disorder or darkness), and never in the opposite direction. On the other hand, the Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts a heat death for the universe; thus the universe will eventually be dark and chaotic. Thus, the validity of this statement is questionable.

[[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11|Hebrews 1:10-11]] explains that the universe shall "wear out" like a "garment", centuries before the discovery of the physical law that [[entropy]] is always increasing.

===Nature of air===
Until about 300 years ago, common knowledge believe that the air was "empty" and didn't weigh anything. But [[Job]] 28:25 states, "To establish a '''weight''' for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure" indicating that the divinely inspired author knew the air had substance and weight.

===Conservative forces===
James 1:17 describes the electromagnetic forces (light) as having no "shadow of turning." Not understood for nearly 2000 years, this predicts that electromagnetic forces are [[conservative]] such that their [[line integrals]] over a closed loop are zero.

==Mathematics==

===Zero===
Mathematicians in Western Europe did not discover [[zero]] until many centuries after the [[Bible]] was written. But there are hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout the Bible.

===Banach-Tarski Paradox===
The only miracle described in all four [[Gospels]] is the multiplication of loaves and fish by [[Jesus]], thought for thousands of years to be a mathematical and physical impossibility. But the 20th century discovery of the so-called [[Banach-Tarski Paradox]] proved a mathematical basis for creating identical copies of an object out of no extra material.

===Axiomatization of Arithmetic===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister.<ref>[http://www.biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/MathAndBible.pdf J. C. Keister: "''Math and the Bible''"], Biblical Blueprints Omaha, NE, 1999 (pdf)</ref> For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

===Infinity===
Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of [[infinity]] for thousands of years, despite it being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); [[Matthew 20-28 (Translated)#20:1|Matthew 20:1-14]] ([[parable]] of the wages for the workers in the vineyard); Matthew 16:26 (one's soul has an infinite value to him, and nothing else can be worth more).

But [[Georg Cantor]], deeply inspired by [[Christianity]], established a logical foundation for infinity that revolutionized all of mathematics as a result, with his development of [[set theory]] to accomplish his goal.

===Set theory===
[[Georg Cantor]]'s development of [[set theory]] in the late 19th century was initially rejected by many great mathematicians, including [[Henri Poincare]], before it became the basis for nearly all of mathematics today. But the Bible contains many hints in support of set theory, as in the "last shall be first, and the first shall be last."

===Calculus===
The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.<ref>[http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000</ref>

James 1:17 states that the first and second derivatives of God's light (truth) is zero, more than 1600 years before calculus was discovered: "with [God] there is no variation or shadow of turning."<ref name="Shadow%252525252525252520of%252525252525252520Turning">[http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/no-variation-or-shadow-of-turning-calculus-in-the-bible/ Nathan Albright: ''"No Variation Or Shadow Of Turning: Calculus In The Bible"''], Blog-Entry, Feb 24, 2011 </ref>

===Arithmetic with Negative Numbers===

Negative numbers were not fully accepted by mathematicians until the 1800s,<ref>http://nrich.maths.org/5961</ref> including how a negative number dominates the result in multiplication with a positive number, to yield a negative outcome. Yet Jesus's parable of the sower and the seed, in Matthew 13:1-23, Mark 4:1-8, and Luke 8:4-8, explained the same effect nearly 2000 years earlier.

==Sociology==

===Crime===
Mark 4:22 says how nothing can be hid, neither can anything be kept secret. Empirical statistics show that the vast majority of crimes worldwide are solved.

==Zoology==

===Morality of animals===
[[Genesis 1-8 (Translated)|Genesis 3:1-10]] explains that only humans understand good and evil, and clothe themselves because of it. Repeatedly scientists have attempted to demonstrate that animals can understand morality also, but every attempt has failed. No animal (other than humans) has ever been found that clothes itself. However, as as limited case, animals do demonstrate altruistic behavior.

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species. Other dinosaur like creatures mentioned are the cockatrice and satyr <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Killing methods of lions===
Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions suffocated their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.<ref>http://ed5015.tripod.com/BLions87.htm</ref> Lions fit their mouth over the mouth and nose of their prey and hold it while it suffocates, in addition to other killing methods.

===Giant sea creatures and Jonah===
The [[Jonah (Translated)|Book of Jonah]] describes his survival in the belly of a giant sea creature for 2.5 to 3 days. Scientists declared this to be impossible due to powerful stomach acids that quickly break down any material and the lack of breathable air inside marine animals.

In 2010, scientists found the following materials intact in the belly of a gray whale that had died after being stranded on a Northwest beach:<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/19/pair-sweat-pants-garbage-beached-whales-stomach/</ref>

*a pair of sweat pants
*a golf ball
*over 20 plastic bags
*small towels
*duct tape
*surgical gloves

Of course, many sea creatures have gone extinct in the thousands of years since Jonah lived.

===Gender of worker ants===
Proverbs 6:6-8 correctly states the sex of worker [[ant]]s (female), using the correct one of the two [[Grammar#Gender|grammatical genders]] available in Biblical [[Hebrew]]. Secular entomologists would not discover that fact until the 19th century.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=rzwSAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=ant+undeveloped+female+worker+date:1700-1850&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#v=onepage&q&f=false The study of medicine, Volume 5 By John Mason Good]</ref>

==Linguistics==

===Common descent theory===
The [[theory of evolution]] suggests that all languages are descended from a common ancestral language, and for a century (1860 to about 1960) scientists clung to that view. But now most linguists identify many different families of languages that have no common ancestor, just as described in Genesis 11 with the [[Tower of Babel]].

===Earliest Hebrew writings===
Skeptics have claimed that [[Hebrew]] writing did not exist before the 6th century B.C. But a recent Israeli archaeological dig dated four centuries earlier, in the 10th century B.C., included an artifact found at Khirbet Qeiyafa in the Elah Valley. This artifact contained a written inscription in Hebrew relating to "slaves, widows and orphans." Haifa University Professor Gershon Galil noted that this disproves the theory that the Bible could not have been written before the 6th century.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/01/08/Bible-may-be-centuries-older-than-thought/UPI-21171262997765/</ref>

==Economics==
Jesus stated that there will always be poverty,<ref>See Mark 14:7, Matthew 26:11 and John 12.8.</ref> yet [[liberals]] repeatedly insist that poverty can be eliminated with more government spending. Every attempt to eliminate poverty has failed just as Jesus predicted. In 1991 [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] in [[Economics]] for the [[Coase Theorem]], which implies that government attempts to reduced poverty will interfere with efficient operation of the economy, and thereby reduce wealth.

==Government and Politics==

===Nation-state===
Ancient Israel, as described in the [[Old Testament]], was a [[nation-state]] and that model was not utilized again until thousands of years later, well after the Renaissance in Western Europe. This model of a nation-state has become the modern standard worldwide.

===Separation of Powers===
The separation of powers adopted successfully by the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1787, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches having separate authority and jurisdiction, was first described in the Old Testament.<ref>See Jeremiah 17:19 and Isaiah 33:22.</ref>

===Liberal influence on the media===
The Third [[Three Temptations of Christ|Temptation of Christ]] is to bow down and worship the [[Satan]] in exchange for becoming ruler of the world. The media plays that role and its influence is predictably [[liberal]] and anti-[[Christian]].

==Engineering==
Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>
{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}
Classical photography, using negative imaging, was predated by the [[Shroud of Turin]] with respect to the imaging on the Shroud likely due to the light of the [[Resurrection]]. The Shroud ([[Greek]]: σινδών - sindón) is mentioned in three Gospels: Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, while John 20:5-7 talks about a face cloth or napkin ([[Greek]]: σουδάριον - soudárion - perhaps the [[Sudarium of Oviedo]]), and a piece of fine linen ([[Greek]]: ὀθόνιον - othonion). The description by the eyewitness John implies that his sighting of the Shroud may have confirmed his [[faith]], though he doesn't mention its photograph-like image <ref>John Calvin, who opposed the Catholic Church, wrote a book in 1543 criticizing all material evidence of Jesus and the martyrs. In it he claimed that because the negative image on the Shroud is not described in the Gospels, it must not be authentic. [[John Calvin]]: ''Traité des Reliques'', Geneve 1543, translated by Valerian Krasinski: ''A treatise on Relics'', Edingburgh 1854</ref>.

==Alleged "contradictions"==
Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]],<ref>http://creation.com/modern-medicine Creation Ministries International on "Modern" Medicine</ref> [[Answers in Genesis]],<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp Answers in Genesis on "Modern" Medicine</ref> and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref>

[[Atheists]] and [[liberals]] unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

===Value of Pi===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. Atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], allege that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Additionally, Pi to one significant digit is 3. Just because the measurement is given to only one significant digit, that does not mean it was precisely that amount. Of course, since Pi is an irrational number, it would be impossible to give a truly precise measurement. Since decimal notation was not in use in Biblical times, there was no way to express Pi to greater accuracy in the language of the day.

===Bat as a bird===
A favorite [[evolutionist]] canard is that [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:13-19]] labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. The [[KJV]] translation of "fowl" is simply incorrect, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-scientific category simply referring to ''any'' winged creature. A popular Jewish translation, used to explain the laws of keeping kosher, translates the term as "winged flying things."

===Rabbits, coneys, and cud===
In [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:5-6]], the Bible states, {{cquote|And the coney ''(or hyrax)'', because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.}} While rabbits do not, in fact, regurgitate food and re-chew it, they have the same jaw motions as animals that do<ref>http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-badger-and-rabbit-chew-cud</ref> and thus appeared as cud-chewing to the Jews of Moses's time. [[Atheist]]s and [[liberal]]s love to misrepresent this passage only because they are in [[liberal denial]] of the truth.

===Number of legs of insects===
In [[Leviticus 10-18 (Translated)#Chapter 11|Leviticus 11:20-23]], the Bible states, {{cquote|All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;

Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the
grasshopper after his kind.

But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.}}While this may appear to indicate that insects have four legs (they have six), the passage is in fact referring to the manner in which the grasshopper moves. Grasshoppers have large back legs mainly used for jumping, and not for walking, which is when it uses its smaller four front legs. Thus, the ancient Hebrews were just describing things as they saw them, not according to scientific nomenclature.

==See Also==
*[[Biblical political foreknowledge]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Biblical scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Liberal denial]]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

Talk:Secular Science

2014-02-06T21:57:04Z

PatternOfPersona: /* Secular science vs Science */

"Until the end of the Middle Ages there was no distinction between theology and science. Knowledge was deduced from self-evident principles received from God so science and theology were essentially the same thing"

There is another way of phrasing that...

"Until the end of the Middle Ages, science was constrained by theology. Any discoveries that were contrary to priestly interpretations of scripture were suppressed. Following the [[Renaissance]], and during the [[enlightenment]], a so-called [[scientific revolution]] occurred, where more and more science was free to investigate the natural world without being bound by religious perspectives. This is known as '''secular science''', and it has always been controversial among fundamentalist religious groups, for abandoning the Word of God in pursuit of knowledge." [[User:Human|Human]] 14:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:"scientists will continue to search for a natural explanation for a phenomenon until they find one, instead of settling with a supernatural explanation." This implies they will find one. And I '''support''' the move to Physical science. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:09, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "in the belief that they will find one" or "based on the expectation that they will find one" in place of "until they find one"? As far as the merge, it makes sense to me, will anyone ever search for "secular science"? They might ''link'' to it, I suppose, but that's what redirects are for. So I '''support''' the move. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:20, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I think the title "secular science" is just wierd. It seems to imply that anything which actually looks for knowledge outside the Bible is evil and liberal, which certainly isn't true. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I'll change, the sentence "based on the expectation that they will find one".
But, it is true scientists never keep searching for an explanation until they find one, you wouldn't be a good scientist if you didn't.

Oh, Hojimachong, add egocentric to that (why do these people they think scientists are only out to get the Abrahamic religions?)

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Secular science vs Science ==

Conservative, noticed that you just did this change [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secular_Science&curid=22793&diff=146564&oldid=144738] and claimed it to be unsupported materialism. But one dosen't need to do anything else than just write "secular science" to google and notice that it's very true what the article said. Only times when there is talk specially about "secular science" is when religion is closely linked to the subject, and even then this is usually not done by the scientists themselfs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry no footnote and 55% of american scientists are theists and if memory serves 50% of american scientists are theistic evolutionists. (see: [[Evolution]] ). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::::While that might be true, one dont still see them referring science as "secular science" and no matter what their personal beliefs are, their research is based on natural phenomens and supernatural is left outside off it. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that section should be added back in as it's very relevant. And to counter Conservative's claim that 55% of scientists are theists: that doesn't matter, any good scientist/human can separate their beliefs from their work to come to a valid independent conclusion. When one starts injecting personal opinions and creeds into their research the outcome may not be correct. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:::My view is that, within a Conservative American encyclopedia, and within current norms of usage of terms, articles titled "Secular Science" and "Natural Science" respectively should '''''not''''' be merged so as to function together as a single, philosophically undifferentiated article. Of course, within a more-or-less secular encyclopedia, such a merger may, in many cases, naturally be required. But, even then, it is not unprecedented for such publications to feature entries, or, even, whole articles, of differing content by differing authors writing from their respective philosophical commitments. [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]

== increasingly atheistic rejection of God by scientists? ==

"After the Middle Ages the increasingly atheistic rejection of God by scientists[1] led to the creation of materialist secular science"

I'm skeptical about that phrase, and the reference needs subscription. The rejection was not of God, but of the blind reading of the Bible. Instead, science was seen as a discovery of the wonderful creations and the power of God. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 07:46, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Natural science

2014-02-06T21:36:16Z

PatternOfPersona: added one clarifying term, within ()s, to initial paragraph: "created"."

{{merge from|Secular Science}}
'''Natural science''' refers to the branches of [[science]] dedicated to study of the natural (that is, created) world.

The best known natural sciences include [[astronomy]], [[physics]], [[chemistry]], and [[biology]].

== Objectivity ==
Science is popularly thought of as being a very objective pursuit, but some evolutionists argue otherwise.

Milford Wolpoff:{{QuoteBox|In my view, “objectivity” does not exist in science. Even in the act of gathering data, decisions about what data to record and what to ignore reflect the framework of the scientist.<ref>Wolpoff, M.H., ''Paleoanthropology'', Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Boston, p. iv, 1999, quoted by Ryan Jaroncyk, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4946/ Turkana Boy—getting past the propaganda] (Creation Ministries International), 21st March 2007.</ref>}}

John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas:{{QuoteBox|…we do know that the popular image of the scientist as a dispassionate seeker after the truth could not be further from reality.<ref>Gribbin, J. and Cherfas, J., ''The First Chimpanzee: In Search of Human Origins'', Penguin Books, London, p. 148, 2001, quoted by Ryan Jaroncyk, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4946/ Turkana Boy—getting past the propaganda] (Creation Ministries International), 21st March 2007.</ref>}}

Nevertheless, the [[scientific method]] and [[peer review]] are intended to ensure that scientific research is done as objectively as possible.

== Beginnings ==

Although some early [[civilization]]s, particularly [[Ancient Greece|Greece]], developed some scholarship, it was not until the 1500s in [[Europe]] that science proper developed. This was due to the prevailing [[Christian]] world view, that taught that the creation was not itself Divine, but was the product of a consistent Creator who didn't change His creation, such as the laws of physics, on a whim.

Loren Eiseley:
{{QuoteBox|The philosophy of experimental science … began its discoveries and made use of its methods in the faith, not the knowledge, that it was dealing with a rational universe controlled by a creator who did not act upon whim nor interfere with the forces He had set in operation … . It is surely one of the curious paradoxes of history that science, which professionally has little to do with faith, owes its origins to an act of faith that the universe can be rationally interpreted, and that science today is sustained by that assumption.<ref>L. Eiseley: ''Darwin’s Century: Evolution and the Men who Discovered It'' (Anchor, NY: Doubleday, 1961), quoted in Sarfati, Jonathan, ''Refuting Evolution'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 Chapter 1].</ref>}}

[[Rodney Stark]]:
{{QuoteBox|...theological assumptions unique to Christianity explain why science was born only in Christian Europe. Contrary to the received wisdom, religion and science not only were compatible; they were inseparable.<ref>Stark, 2003, [http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7501.html introduction].</ref>}}

David A. Noebel:
{{QuoteBox|The fact that science arose at all is powerful testimony to the truth of Christianity. As Louis Victor de Broglie says, "We are not sufficiently astonished by the fact that any science may be possible." This is especially true of the Marxist and the Secular Humanist. They do not understand that science could never have been conceived in a society dominated by their worldviews. Historian and philosopher of science Stanley Jaki says that "the belief in a personal rational Creator ... as cultivated especially within a Christian matrix ... supported the view for which the world was an objective and orderly entity investigable by the mind because the mind too was an orderly and objective product of the same rational, that is, perfectly consistent Creator." Man believed science possible because man believed in a God of reason and order.<ref>Noebel, David A., "The Battle for Truth", p. 355, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 2001 ISBN 0-7369-0782-3.</ref>}}

Indeed, many of the early scientists, such as [[Galileo]], [[Johannes Kepler]], and Sir [[Isaac Newton]] were people who believed in the literal truth of Genesis and who based their science on their belief in a Creator.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4985/ Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>

=== Philosophical basis ===

The following philosophical assumptions provide a basis for science.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, "Leaving your Brains at the Church Door", Video 2 of "Retaking the Ground", Creation Ministries International.</ref>
Christianity provides each one.

* '''That the universe is real'''. Not all philosophies believe that the universe really exists.
* '''That the universe is orderly'''. The Bible teaches that God is not the the author of confusion.<ref>{{Bible ref|1_Corinthians|14|33}}</ref> Some other views (e.g. atheistic views) hold that the universe is the result of chance or that the gods are capricious (e.g. ancient Greek religion).
* '''That mankind may investigate the universe'''. Some religions believe that the creation itself is divine, whereas the Bible teaches that God gave man dominion over creation.<ref>{{Bible ref|Genesis|1|28}}</ref>
* '''That our thoughts are rational'''. The Bible teaches that God made man in His image<ref>{{Bible ref|Genesis|1|26}}</ref>, whereas atheism believes that our thoughts are the result of a series of accidents, and our thoughts are merely electrochemical processes.

== Types of science ==

Science can be subdivided into two categories, ''operational science'' and ''origins science''.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, and Matthews, Michael, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3256 Chapter 1]</ref>

'''[[Operational science]]''' deals mostly with things in the present, which scientists are able to observe, measure, and test. If, for example, someone claims that water boils at 110 degrees Celsius at sea level, you can test for yourself to see if that is really true (and discover that it's not).

'''[[Origins science]]''' deals with things in the past. Scientists do not have the past to observe, measure, and test, so the conclusions of historical science must be somewhat more tentative than empirical science. If, for example, someone claims that birds evolved from dinosaurs more than 65 million years ago, it is difficult to formulate an experiment to effectively support or deny this claim. Because of this, origins science tends to function through observation of historical records, as well as extrapolating current data (which ''can'' easily be experimentally validated) into the past. In addition, it is common for theories to be tested on their adherence to the available evidence; for example, the discovery of ''Tiktaalik'' in the predicted strata for a transitional form between tetrapods and fish.<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html</ref>

In some cases, such as astronomy, the distinction between the two becomes somewhat muddled; Due to the finiteness of the speed of light over astronomical distances, current observations of most astronomical phenomena are dealing with the far-distant past, but experiments and observations are easily performed - it is common for a theoretical prediction to be compared with observed data.

== Bibliography ==

Stark, Rodney, ''For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-hunts and the End of Slavery'', Princeton University Press, 2003, ISBN 978-0691114361.

==References==

<references />

[[Category:Natural Sciences]]

Transcendence

2014-02-06T21:30:27Z

PatternOfPersona: improved grammatic clarity-specificity of second paragraph

'''Transcendence''' is the state of [[God]]'s being as being the state of limitlessness. The term normally is used to describe the state in which God's being transcends all the limits of cosmic and physical boundaries. Transcendence typically is thought to be contrasted both with limited (local) presence/action and with [[omnipresence]], though there has, for centuries, been much thought taken to harmonizing transcendence with omnipresence.

One metaphor for God's transcendence is that in mathematics called ''transcendence theory''. This theory in mathematics is the branch of thought that studies [[transcendental number]]s. However inadequate and distracting a description of [[God]] which this metaphor creates, the point of this metaphor is that the transcendental God lacks synthetic [[natural]] characteristics, just as the transcendental numbers lack algebraic properties.

[[category:Theology]]

Omnipotence

2014-02-06T21:24:05Z

PatternOfPersona: added one comma in initial paragraph, and added "See Also" section including 'Omnipresence'

'''Omnipotence''' refers to an agent which is [[axiom|axiomatically]] over all other agents. Abstractly, such an agent is said to have ''unlimited power'', or, '''omnipotence'''. This abstraction, called the ''concept of omnipotence'', is a concept that we draw by ''contrast''<ref>The Paradox of the Stone; C. Wade Savage; The Philosophical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Jan., 1967), pp. 74-79
</ref> to limited powers (limited agents), and by the possession, or instantiation, of ''every kind'' of power <ref>Omnipotence and Quantification; Tersur Aben [http://www.tcnn.org/index_files/abenomnipotence.html]</ref>

[[God]] is described as being omnipotent <ref>Revelation 19:6, [http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rev&c=19&t=KJV#comm/6]</ref>.

== Coherence vs. incoherence of omnipotence ==

Prior to any act, divine omnipotence is perceived as coherent with itself. In other words, omnipotence, as a concept, is ''immediately'' coherent.

The immediate coherence of the concept of omnipotence is how we even ''can'' get the sense that omnipotence is paradoxical: it's immediate coherence is (mis)interpreted as a limitation upon it. Only by allowing that it may apply its own agency upon itself, and, thus, upon the fact that things can be identified, is this supposed limitation 'remedied'. Know-ability is a function of the fact that there is a connection, or correspondence, between the knower and the knowable. But, the position that the immediate coherence of omnipotence is a limitation upon omnipotence is tantamount to the position that the possibility of knowledge constitutes an agent which is distinct from, and superior to, an omnipotent agent. In other words, this position is equivalent to the statement: "''rationality is not co-extensive with omnipotence, despite that omnipotence is known immediately to be coherent''".<ref>Some Puzzles Concerning Omnipotence; George I. Mavrodes[http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Modern_S10/Handouts/Mavrodes.pdf]</ref>

== Limited powers ==

A limited power is a collection of other powers which lack an unlimited power to remain held together. A human hand holds itself together in a good way unless some other power causes the hand to break internally or to become separated into a number of parts. That same hand, combined with the brain to which it is connected, has the power to make a hammer. But, since the hand already is not all-powerful, then the hammer, when applied to the hand, is more powerful in some ways than the hand. Only an unlimited power can hold itself together, or remain coherent, no matter what other powers are applied.

== The central components of the debate ==

The controversies concerning how to understand or define omnipotence in regard to the nature of its relations to other things are all resolvable in terms of the respective [[ontology|ontologies]] of [[power]], all-ness, and [[logic]]. Since the concept of omnipotence is coherent prior to any task, any task which does not abide the concept is precluded by the concept. Of course, some tasks, as such, are difficult to understand, while others are difficult to rightly understand in the first place.

== Details of the debate ==

Some [[atheist]]s have argued that omnipotence is an inherent paradox, as it can be construed as self-contradictory. For example, suppose an omnipotent God were to attempt to create a rock so large that he could not lift it. This attempt must be either successful or unsuccessful. If it is unsuccessful, then this is a task which this God is not capable of, and thus the God cannot be truly omnipotent. If, however, the attempt is successful then God is now presented with a rock which he cannot lift. Again, this means that there is an action which the God is incapable of, and thus the God cannot be omnipotent.

The problem with the argument is that it poses a nonsense request (akin to asking if God can create a green smile or a fast tree), and then presents a [[false dichotomy]] (specifically, by way of positing an ''unexceedable power which is exceedable''). There simply is no such thing, so the argument does not address what omnipotence is: a peerless agent. To ask if God can create a rock too heavy for Him to lift amounts to asking if He has the power to create something that's more powerful than Himself. It's an invalid, untenable question, like asking if infinity is finite. But, some people misunderstand their own thinking in regard to the concept when the question is answered with "No".

The only reason it is possible to come up with questions that seem to show that omnipotence is a paradoxical concept is by drawing from certain kinds of facts about limited powers. A human has limited powers, yet a human has the power to smash her own hand to bits with a hammer that she has the power to make. Clearly, this does not mean that her hand has the power to be smashed to bits; rather, it means that the things that make up her hand are limited in their power to hold themselves together. Only God is coherent no matter what other powers are applied to Him. And, only God is able to think straight no matter what facts anyone thinks can be applied to Him.

According to most atheists, omnipotence is nonsense. But, if omnipotence were ''pure'' nonsense, then there would be no way to construe it as a paradox: Pure nonsense has no meaning whatever, such as any nonsense word that does not include sensible words (sgfdpfkp). So, there must be some sense to omnipotence to begin with. Furthermore, if, as even many atheists admit, omnipotence is a logically necessary (but, to them, incoherent) concept, then omnipotence cannot be an inherent paradox without making logic into a set of incoherent rules of reasoning <ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2265.00152/abstract] Reconsidering Absolute Omnipotence, by Louis Groarke </ref><ref>Omnipotence Paradox: Overview; Wikipedia article[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox#Overview]</ref>. Some atheists admit that omnipotence is coherent, though they reject the idea that it can apply to a sentient agent.

== The omnipotence of God ==

God is not capable of doing anything which is against His nature.
For example, as God is by definition truth, then He cannot lie.

Skeptics [[problem of evil|argue]] that it is impossible for God to be both wholly good (benevolent) and wholly powerful. This argument states that "if God is both benevolent and capable of putting an end to suffering, then He would put an end to suffering; As suffering still exists, God must not be omnipotent or must not be benevolent."

However, this argument presumes that God would see the elimination of suffering as the benevolent thing to do. God has provided man with the gift of [[free will]], but if God prevented all bad consequences resulting from our decisions, then He would be overriding our free will.

[[category:theology]]

==See Also==
[[Omnipresence]]

==Further Reading==
[[Essay: Omnipotence, and the logic of power]]

[[Essay: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?]]

----
'''References'''<references/>

Science

2014-02-06T20:55:09Z

PatternOfPersona: added Further Reading section, including link to David Huron lecture on science

'''Science''' consists of three aspects: first, it provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience, generally considered as scientific [[knowledge]]. Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else. Third, there are the methods by which they carry out this work (see [[scientific method]]).
Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]], although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] were not yet popular.
In addition, [[Christianity]] played a pivotal role in the development of modern science (see [[Christianity and Science]]). With further scientific advancement, the scientific approach has become increasingly [[atheism|atheistic]],<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> rejecting the supernatural. Scientific fields of study observing a clear atheistic bent include [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[global warming]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]], which are based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which predates the Christian time of [[creation]]. There are hubs of real scientific research, however, in places like the Institute for Creation Research and the Heartland Institute.

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is capable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]]. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis. It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

The [[scientific method]] consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the [[inductive reasoning|inductive]] procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.

[[Karl Popper]], considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively [[Falsifiable|falsified]] by such means.

The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and [[deductive reasoning|deductive]] methods and is characterized by the principle of falsification:

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)
* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.
* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.
* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.
* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')
* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.
* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to the beginning of the process.

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumulated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.

==Naturalism and science==
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''[[a priori]]'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref> For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution|evolutionary]] position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]], [[Atheism and the suppression of science]]

According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship. <ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321 </ref> The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930's, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrespect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref> * [http://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6 </ref>

Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref> [http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).

{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref> [[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19 </ref>
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref> ''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]] </ref>

==Notes==

{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Scientific method]]
* [[Computing]]

==Further Reading==
*http://www.music-cog.ohio-state.edu/Music220/Bloch.lectures/3.Methodology.html -
(Systematic Musicology in a Postmodern Age, 1999 Lecture by David Huron, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Music)

[[Category:science]] [[Category:Methodology of Science]]

Semantics

2014-02-06T20:30:14Z

PatternOfPersona:

'''Semantics''' means knowing and interpreting the meaning of [[word]]s,---or, more fundamentally, what a given person in a given instance means by a given word or words.

So, when a baby says "Bottle" in asking for his bottle, you would be making a ''semantic error'' if you thought he means he wants every bottle that's on the planet just because he does not specify that he wants only his.

A common phrase about semantics is "It's all a matter of semantics", meaning that it comes down to what one thinks the words mean.

Semantics is part of classical, Socratic, [[logic]], in that the idea of ''formal semantics'' is the same thing as the formal, that is, ''reductive'', use of classical logic. For example, the reductive sense of the statement, "I got four hours of sleep last year" means that no more nor less than that "I got no more nor less than four hours of sleep last year."

Of course, for sake of natural efficiency in everyday speaking, we normally make use of implied context. So, by the statement "I got four hours of sleep last year", we normally mean "I got four hours of sleep last year ''in contrast'' to getting plenty of sleep last year.".

But, in the non-reductive (but still literal) sense, the statement "I got four hours of sleep last year", can mean any of a host of things, including something along the lines of "See those two horses?" or "Look at the poison oak rash on my arm!"(while your legs, too, are covered in the rash): "I got a ''certain'' four hours of sleep last year, and I'm not concerned with mentioning all of the ''other'' hours of sleep I got last year."

[[Category:Rhetoric]]

Semantics

2014-02-06T20:26:36Z

PatternOfPersona: added four paragraphs for exemplifying semantics

'''Semantics''' means knowing and interpreting the meaning of [[word]]s,---or, more fundamentally, what a given person in a given instance means by a given word or words.

So, when a baby says "Bottle" in asking for his bottle, you would be making a ''semantic error'' if you thought he means he wants every bottle that's on the planet just because he does not specify that he wants only his.

A common phrase about semantics is "It's all a matter of semantics", meaning that it comes down to what one thinks the words mean.

Semantics is part of classical, Socratic, logic, in that the idea of ''formal semantics'' is the same thing as the formal, that is, ''reductive'', use of classical logic. For example, the reductive sense of the statement, "I got four hours of sleep last year" means that no more nor less than that "I got no more nor less than four hours of sleep last year."

Of course, for sake of natural efficiency in everyday speaking, we normally make use of implied context. So, by the statement "I got four hours of sleep last year", we normally mean "I got four hours of sleep last year ''in contrast'' to getting plenty of sleep last year.".

But, in the non-reductive (but still literal) sense, the statement "I got four hours of sleep last year", can mean any of a host of things, including something along the lines of "See those two horses?" or "Look at the poison oak rash on my arm!"(while your legs, too, are covered in the rash): "I got a ''certain'' four hours of sleep last year, and I'm not concerned with mentioning all of the ''other'' hours of sleep I got last year."

[[Category:Rhetoric]]

Highly composite numbers

2014-02-06T19:23:28Z

PatternOfPersona: elaborated the third paragraph

Highly composite numbers

2013-12-19T23:18:03Z

PatternOfPersona: clearer and simpler definition

Highly composite numbers

2013-12-18T04:01:00Z

PatternOfPersona:

On the opposite extreme from the primes are the highly composite numbers. The primes have the least quantity of factors, namely two. The highly composite numbers are those not only with the greatest quantity of factors compared to all lesser numbers, but the quantity of factors of which remains un-exceeded by any greater number in its vicinity.

For example, every number above 180 has less factors than has 180, until you get to 240. Then, 240 has an additional two factors over 180. Then, no number above 240 has more factors than 240, until you get to 360, while the quantity of factors of 336 mere ''equals'' that of 240.

So, the way to identify a number as highly composite is if it '''''initiates''''' an increase in quantity of factors above that of all lesser numbers.

The key factor for all highly composite numbers beginning with 12 is 12. So, every highly composite number greater than 12 is divisible by twelve. And, otherwise, there is no single number (except, of course, 1) by which all highly composite numbers are divisible.

Highly composite numbers

2013-12-18T04:00:25Z

PatternOfPersona: Created page with "On the opposite extreme from the primes are the highly composite numbers. The primes have the least quantity of factors, namely two. The highly composite numbers are those not on..."

On the opposite extreme from the primes are the highly composite numbers. The primes have the least quantity of factors, namely two. The highly composite numbers are those not only with the greatest quantity of factors compared to all lesser numbers, but the quantity of factors of which remains un-exceeded by any greater number its vicinity.

For example, every number above 180 has less factors than has 180, until you get to 240. Then, 240 has an additional two factors over 180. Then, no number above 240 has more factors than 240, until you get to 360, while the quantity of factors of 336 mere ''equals'' that of 240.

So, the way to identify a number as highly composite is if it '''''initiates''''' an increase in quantity of factors above that of all lesser numbers.

The key factor for all highly composite numbers beginning with 12 is 12. So, every highly composite number greater than 12 is divisible by twelve. And, otherwise, there is no single number (except, of course, 1) by which all highly composite numbers are divisible.

Prime number

2013-12-18T03:28:46Z

PatternOfPersona: added observation in first paragraph of the quantitative minimum factoral extreme, and its opposite.

[[File:Eratosthenes.jpg|thumb|[[Eratosthenes]].]]
A '''prime number''' is a [[natural number]] greater than 1 that is [[divisible]] by only 1 and itself. Equivalently, the number has exactly two [[factor]]s, 1 and itself, making primes an 'extreme' kind of number. On the opposite extreme from the primes are [[highly composite numbers]]. The first few prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13...

On the opposite extreme from

[[Leonhard Euler]] wrote: <blockquote>
''Mathematicians have tried in vain to this day to discover some order in the sequence of prime numbers, and we have reason to believe that it is a mystery into which the mind will never penetrate.''
</blockquote>

There are infinitely many primes. The only [[even]] prime number is 2. The [[Bible]] includes many references to prime numbers.

==Sieve of Eratosthenes==
{|class="wikitable" align="right"
|{{User:ClementB/SieveOfEratosthenes}}
|-
|Here, '''n''' equals 144
|}
To construct a table of all prime numbers less than ''n'', you can use a method called the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]]. Simply write down an ordered list of all counting numbers from 1 to ''n''. Beginning with 2*2 = 4, cross out every second number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8</s> 9 <s>10</s> 11 ...

then beginning with 3*3 = 9 cross out every third number:

:2 3 <s>4</s> 5 <s>6</s> 7 <s>8 9 10</s> 11 ...

Beginning with 5*5 = 25, cross out every fifth number, then repeat for the primes 7, 11, 13, etc. until <math>\sqrt{n}</math>.

The number of primes smaller than a given number <math>N</math> is roughly <math>\frac{N}{\ln(N)}</math>, where <math>\ln(N)</math> is the [[natural logarithm]] (base ''[[e]]'') of <math>N</math>.<ref>http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/primes.htm</ref> This is a formulation of a more general statement known as the [[Prime Number Theorem]].

==How many prime numbers==
{{main|Prime Number Theorem}}

It is easy to prove that there are an infinite number of primes using Euclid's second theorem: Imagine there is a finite set consisting of all the primes. Multiply them all together, add 1, and call this N. N would not be divisible by any number in the set--there would always be a remainder of 1. Because all non-prime numbers can be decomposed into a product of underlying primes (by the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]), N must be divisible by some prime not in the set (possibly itself), thus contradicting the assumption that the set contained all of the primes.

Another proof that there are infinitely many primes shows something stronger, namely the sum of the reciprocals of primes less than n "grows like" log(log(n)):
<math>\sum_{p\le x}p^{-1}\approx\log\log x</math>

The largest known prime is ''243112609-1''; it was discovered by the '''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search''' ('''GIMPS''')<ref>http://www.mersenne.org/</ref>, a distributed computing project launched by George Woltman in early 1996.<ref>http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html</ref>

A '''Mersenne prime''' is a prime number ''M'' that is of the form ''M = 2n − 1'', where ''n'' is some [[prime number]]<ref>[http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MersennePrime.html Mersenne Prime] from Wolfram</ref>. As of 2012, only 47 Mersenne Primes have been found.<ref>http://primes.utm.edu/largest.html#largest</ref> The largest known prime, ''243112609-1'', is a Mersenne Prime. The concept of a Mersenne Prime was discovered by the French theologian, philosopher and mathematician [[Marin Mersenne]].

==Unique Factorization==
{{main|Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic}}

According to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]], proven by [[Carl Friedrich Gauss]], every positive integer has a unique [[factorization]] into prime numbers.

This means that every integer larger than 1 can be expressed as a product of one or more primes in only one way. For example, 132 = 2 * 2 * 3 * 11. There is no other product of primes that equals 132.

Finding the prime factors for large numbers (having hundreds of digits) can take considerable time (millions of years) even with the most advanced computers.

==Alternative Definition==
Beyond the integers, mathematicians are interested in other structures with addition and multiplication; they are called [[Ring_(mathematics)|ring]]s. When working in rings, mathematicians use a different definition for a "prime" element: <blockquote>''A prime element is a non-unit (i.e., not 1 or -1 for the integers) which whenever it divides the product of two numbers will divide at least one of the factors.''</blockquote>

Or in symbolic notation:

<math>p \in \mathbb{Z} \quad prime :\Leftrightarrow p \not\in \{-1, 1\} \wedge (\forall a,b \in \mathbb{Z}: p \vert ab \Rightarrow p \vert a \vee p \vert b) </math>

For the integers, this definition is equivalent to the one stated above. However in general the two definitions are not equivalent. The earlier definition is still important in rings, and is given the name [[irreducibility]], since it literally states that the element cannot be broken into smaller pieces.

The preference for this alternate definition of "prime" is that this definition gives you unique [[factorization]] theorems analogous to the [[Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic]]. For more information, consult an abstract algebra book<ref>'''Abstract Algebra: An Introduction''', Thomas Hungerford. Brooks Cole; 2 edition (1996)</ref>

==Primality testing==
To determine whether a number is prime, you can use the trial division method, provided the number you are testing is not too large. Let ''N'' be the number being tested and ''s'' be its square root. Divide ''N'' by each number in the prime table, beginning with 2. If there is no remainder, stop--''N'' is composite. Otherwise, test again with the next largest prime in the table. If the next largest prime is greater than ''s'', stop--''N'' is prime.

For larger values of ''N'', a method based on Fermat's theorem can be used, though it usually requires a computer. Start with the number 1, and double it ''N-1'' times. Divide this number by ''N'', keeping only the remainder. If the remainder is greater than 1, ''N'' is composite. Unfortunately, the converse is not true--if the remainder is 1, ''N'' is ''probably'' prime, but not necessarily. Algorithms which improve on this method exist, and primality testing is today an active subject of mathematical research.

==Open Problems about Prime Numbers==

===Twin primes===
{{main|twin primes}}

[[Twin primes]] or '''prime twins''' are pairs of prime number which differ from each other by only 2. Since all primes other than 2 are odd numbers, this is the closest two primes can be to each other, with the exception of 2 and 3. The first few twin primes are 3 and 5, 5 and 7, 11 and 13, 17 and 19, and 29 and 31.

Twin primes become increasingly scarce among larger numbers. For example, there are twenty-four sets of twin primes between 0 and 500, but only eleven sets between 500 and 1000. Computer programmes have calculated some extremely large sets of twin primes. While there are undoubtedly an unlimited number of primes, opinions differ among mathematicians whether there is also an infinite number of twin primes or whether there is an upper limit. This debate is captured by the [[twin primes conjecture]]

Mathematicians have long been fascinated by twin primes and the relationship between them. There seems to be no distinct pattern in their occurrence. For example, there are no twin primes between 700 and 800, or between 900 and 1000, but there are five sets between 800 and 900 (809 and 811; 821 and 823; 827 and 829; 857 and 859; 881 and 883).

===Goldbach's conjecture===

Goldbach's conjecture asserts that every even integer greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers. For example: 4 = 2 + 2, 6 = 3 + 3, 8 = 3 + 5, and so on.

This conjecture is one of the oldest unsettled statements in mathematics. For centuries mathematicians have attempted to prove this statement, without success. The conjecture is known to hold for numbers less than 3 <math>\cdot</math>1017.

===Riemann hypothesis===
{{main|Riemann hypothesis}}

The [[Riemann hypothesis]] is related to patterns in the distribution of prime numbers. ''The Clay Mathematics Institute'' has offered a one million dollar prize for a proof of the Riemann hypothesis.<ref>http://www.claymath.org/millennium/Riemann_Hypothesis/</ref>

==Cryptography==
The security of [[public-key cryptography]] schemes such as [[RSA]] depend on the difficulty of prime factorization, if a pattern in the distribution of prime numbers is discovered, then such [[cryptographic]] schemes could become vulnerable to attack.

==See also==

* [[Composite number]]
* [[Fibonacci sequence]]
* [[Perfect number]]

==External links==
*[http://www.mersenne.org/ ''Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search'' project website]
*[http://primes.utm.edu/ Prime Number resource Archive]
*[http://educ.queensu.ca/%7Efmc/december2003/Sieve.html Sieve of Eratosthenes]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Number Theory]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Deduction

2013-12-17T16:14:40Z

PatternOfPersona: multiple minor edits, some presentational edits, and some objective additions.

A '''deduction''' in [[formal logic]] is a way of proving a proposition. Specifically, when a conclusion is inferred from premises or facts, it is said to "follow" (''like the water downstream to the spring source''), from previously stated propositions via certain logical rules.

Deduction is used most often in geometry, but also has its place in philosophy and law. Deduction is often un-used in science, as deduction requires that one have certainty of truth of both the major and minor premises--something science is unwilling to make claims about.

The normal contrast to deduction is [[induction]], whereby the two are posed as distinct opposites. However, they are not so distinct as to be alien to each other. Rather, induction and deduction have a single common root from which they necessarily are operationally distinguished: the mind. So, in regard to formal logic in this root sense, a merely mechanical or electronic simulator of genuine mental operations does not possess either any actual deductive or actual inductive logic.

The most famous formal deductive rule goes as follows:

#A is true.
#If A is true, then B is true.
#Therefore, B is true.

Another type of deduction, known as "[[proof by contradiction]]", is:

#If Q is true, then R is true.
#R is not true.
#Therefore, Q is not true.

== Truth Values in Sentential Logic ==
T implies T, True
T implies F, False
F implies F, True
F implies T, True

The final two are rooted in the fact that the consequent following from an antecedent that is not true says nothing about the truth or falsity of the statement, it must be ''assumed'' to be true.

Aristotle codified the rules of syllogistic deduction two millenia ago in [[Ancient Greece]]. He created 256 forms of syllogisms relating to groups of things. For example, an AAA1 syllogism:

#All men are mortal.
#Socrates is a man.
#Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

[[category:logic]]

See also:
* [[induction]]
* [[proof by contradiction]]

Essay: Bible Codes

2013-05-30T01:35:29Z

PatternOfPersona: /* We are all one man’s sons */

== General Introduction ==

It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.

In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.

So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.

If such a text naturally contains subtextual patterns which are unique to, and most compelling of, all those in all of literature, then there need be no authentication codes deliberately crafted into the text in order for such a text to contain authentication codes. Ho hum. All that is needed to authenticate supposed copies of the original is first to determine the original (a process which may include determining the patterns that ought to exist in the original). But, a true copy of an original cannot be determined without directly ascertaining that every word and phrase in the copy is the same as the original. So, an authentication code would not itself serve the purpose of authentication, but would serve only to screen for candidates of authenticity.

With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning [[Melchizedek]] and [[Abraham]] believed, then it was [[Shem]] who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.

Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.

By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the [[Jewish]] tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].

The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in the 11th chapter of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]].
Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.

The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.

The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain?

Shem couldn’t save humanity, no matter how much he knew, or how well his brain worked: the entire world had changed, and now people were fortunate to remain strong, if still alive, to the age at which a man formerly got married and had his first child. And, if the old world had been abominable, this present one didn’t look to be shaping up any better: Nations were being made, and each, in turn, was failing the law of righteousness from their inception. Shem was worried, as any mere man would be who understood the world from such a depressingly privileged position. Though he had never known Adam, he had been in mind of Adam’s death, and of God’s first great promise, because he had seen first-hand the grace by which God had preserved the elect, and by the sign in the cloud the remembrance of which God never again would so ‘grace’ the world. So, when he learned that Abram was the best suited for being the father of the next world, he took action. Shem had a hunch, at the very least, of what God would do, and that it would be a new thing, never vainly the old thing twice. So, even if, according to some students of scripture, Shem didn’t know of the patterns that were possible in a text, the whole point of ‘Melchizedek’ was to make a statement about [[Shiloh]], and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was something of which Shem, at that time, had no foreknowledge: a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.

That incident centers on the 555th verse.

== Introduction to the other keys ==

When a man is born, he is not yet equal to his father. Even when the man has reached full maturity, and by then ideally is married, he still is not equal. And, even when he has a son of his own, he is merely halfway to being equal to his father. Only when his own son has a son of his own is he equal to his father. Four generations. Two fathers, each of whom has a son-who-has-a-son. According to ancient Jewish culture, what may be the ideal age of the younger of the two? And, what does it mean to be halfway to infinity?

Now that I’ve either confused you, got your attention, or both, here’s an easier question: what is the spiritual significance of Genesis 42:9-11? In other words, if there is a spiritual allegory to be drawn from that passage, then what is it? In the preceding paragraph, it is suggested that, in order for a son to be equal to his father, he must have a son who is equal to him; and, that the only way by which a man, as such, may be equal to his father is to have a son, even as his father has a son.

Now, the only other number that visually codes into ‘930’ the way 144 does is 522. It would be simple, in a way, to demonstrate that claim here; but, if a man is to be equal to his friend, then he must go where his friend goes. And, he must come from where his friend comes from. Where all men but one came from. One good turn deserves another. That’s the key to the other keys. You step, and you find a solid place for your foot. The mountain is high, and the air is thin, and few can be convinced to climb it. There is no Bible code except that which emphasizes the simple, but most significant, message in the plain text. It is a 'hidden message' only to those who will not believe it.

The root of the most powerful infinite fractal does not leave anything except itself the same each time it comes around. A minimum of spirituality is not enough. God ''does'' have a message. And, only God is unchanging. The question is, what is the root of the most powerful spiritual 'fractal'? It has always been there. In terms of it, every key is an 'other key'.

== Judah and Reuben ==

[[Reuben]], the eldest son of [[Jacob]], was always well-intentioned (Genesis 37:22, 29-30), but unstable and rash (Genesis 49:4, 42:37). [[Judah]], the fourth son, was stable, if slow to make up his mind for himself<ref>"[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Judah#The_Plot_against_Joseph|The Plot against Joseph]]"</ref> (Genesis 37:26-27, 43:8-9). So, it was to Judah that his father gave the primary blessing (Genesis 49:8-9).

It is no meaningless coincidence, then, that Judah, of his own siblings, is pinpointed by the unit of 111 at Genesis 37:26 (the tenth multiple of 111 verses), just as Isaac was most dramatically pinpointed by the fifth multiple (as hinted at in the final two sentences of the Introduction, i.e., Genesis 22:7). Both Judah and Isaac are figures of Christ, each in a different way. Joseph is a third figure of Christ, in still another, and even more powerful, way.

== Joseph ==

The first multiple of 111 which pinpoints Joseph is Genesis 41:25. In this verse (which is the 11th multiple of 111 verses), Joseph is beginning his answer to Pharaoh to interpret Pharaoh's dream: ''"The [two] dreams are one: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do."''

Now, if you'll count thirty (30) verses after 41:25, you'll find the verse that names Joseph to all the Egyptians as the man to whom they must appeal for food. The significance of 30 is well known to those Jews and Christians who study the significances of various numbers. Even Jesus began his ministry at 'about' thirty years of age, and, so, Joseph begins his to the people.

By the time of the 12th multiple (Genesis 44:7), Joseph's brothers have bowed themselves to the ground to Joseph (whom they do not recognize as such since he disguises himself as a rough-talking Egyptian government prime minister), have had a special meal with him, and have been on their way back toward their father Jacob with the grain. Joseph's servant has caught up with them and has flatly accused them of theft. The charge is that they have stolen an empty vessel that was precious to the prime minister for it's powers of divining the future. Now they deny their guilt, saying, furthermore, that if any of them is so guilty, then that one ought to die and that the rest of them will submit to being slaves to the prime minister. But, of course, Joseph has set them up for a fall of which they have been guilty for twenty years, when all their sacks are opened.

The 13th multiple states that, though Joseph's wisdom has caused all the lands of Egypt to be bought up by him for Pharaoh, the lands of the priests were exempt from this purchase because the priests needs were already supported by Pharaoh and didn't need to sell their lands in order to get by.

== Moses ==

In a similar manner to the fact that Joseph's Pharaoh did not get the lands of the priests, the 14th multiple (Exodus 1:21) puts God Himself in place of the next (and evil) Pharaoh in respect to the midwives, who would not allow for that evil Pharaoh to have an easy means of oppressing the Hebrews: those midwives were blessed by God in a very tangible way: 'houses' of their own. But, who, in a specific future way, were they protecting? Question: what type did that specific protected person's works fill?

Answer: Christ's type. 30 verses after Exodus 1:21, you'll find the call of Moses at the burning bush.
Of course, you could just go to the 40th verse after Exodus 1:21 (and to 14:14). But, that call to Moses establishes the next set of every-111, because the next four units of 111 verses are Exodus 3:4, 10:28, '''14:27''', and 19:1. Imagine if that third one was the text of something like 14:10, by the verse divisions being rather different from how we do have them.

== We are all one man’s sons ==

If you have read the contexts of verses pinpointed by the unit of 111 verses, then you will know that it does not exclude the verses immediately before and after the verse pinpointed. Otherwise, there is no context by which to understand the verse pinpointed. And, the whole point is context.

Genesis 42:10 is pinpointed by a different key than that of the 111 unit, by “branching off” of 930 without adding another layer as the 111 unit does. So, what we are doing, instead, is following the trunk straight up/straight down: 144 is visually coded as 930, and 930 is visually coded as 1263. You will find that the 1,263rd verse is Genesis 42:10, which I asked about in the second section of this essay.

In Genesis 44, by way of his servant, Joseph was to accuse his bothers of theft of a common item of luxury which he represents to them as that by which he has power to divine. But, these brothers all sincerely deny having committed such a thing, '''having already denied in Genesis 42''' to being covertly adverse to Egypt.

Back then, they, for the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being covertly adverse to Egypt, had claimed to being there for want of food, and that they were all reputable sons of one man. And, they really are all one man’s sons: Adam’s.

But, this verse, 42:10, by being related to 44:5, is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ, because Christ was not a son of Adam and so could judge all Adam's sons.

So, the story surrounding this verse (the 1,263rd) has the men pleading innocence, and as consenting to the guilt of the one among them of whom might be found the object of guilt. Yet, as 'counter-conspired' by Joseph, that one (Benjamin) is not guilty at all, but all of them ''except'' that one: to steal a mere drinking vessel from a 'house of a luxury of such vessels' was nothing to the theft of the very life of one who had never known either any luxury save the one by which he had been specially clothed, nor any way to defend against both having that clothing stolen from him and of being murdered in any case.

== You and All the rest ==

Do I have to?

What does it mean that a father and his son agree to do something by which others have plotted to kill them?

And, what did God think of a world in which all good land was already inhabited by peoples who had lost their way and who would not listen or consider? In regard to the former world, all the Earth had been reclaimed by God as one great act.

Now, there was not to be a repeat of that world, which is why God scattered everyone who had congregated in Babel and at its great tower. So, what, really, was left to be done when God called Abram? Answer: give the man a reason to keep at his original way because of which he was called.

It was the earliest opportunity to select a man to take Shem's place. Even though Shem was to outlive him by decades, the much younger man was the better one for the current job. Shem, had been preceded by Enoch in terms of perspective, but not even Shem could claim to understand what it was like to live as a native of that present world. Shem had never been so stupid. So, it had to be a father and his son who, in all innocence and determination, began the next stage of the world.

By all this, find it, if you can. Otherwise, it doesn't look like it belongs in all this, or that it could ever amount to anything. It stands out precisely because it doesn't. All the other nations wanted nothing to do with such humble beginnings. And, Egypt itself did so only because Egypt was forced to it by the need to survive: there was no where else for so many people to go to live; only the Nile delta, which they already were so good at keeping; everything else was a bareness which simply could not support them. If you were determined to go out anyway, Godspeed to you. But, if you were determined to stay, then you were not allowed to jeapordize the lives of everyone (including yourself) by simply staying. You had to commit, by a means that would allow you to stay without the fatal risk that had promised to wipe them all out.

For only one people was it an election, and who did not live in the delta. Their land was at the junction of all Earth's trade, and because God, in His wisdom, had selected that land for to be the land of His own nation. In a fallen world only. To wit:

<blockquote>
At some point in the rise of ancient Egypt as a center of civilization, the yearly flood of the Nile basin had spread enough disease organisms, such as through septic contamination, through the waist-high crop water, that the foreskins of a small number of laborers became irreparably infected, requiring the removal of the infected portion of their foreskins. In some cases it became apparent that the removal of the infected portions was required to save the sufferers’ lives, and, through laying with their wives, the lives of their wives.

Thus began the method of circumcision used by the Egyptians: free-hand cutting of the skin at both sides just beyond the infection, the infected portion removed, and the originally distant two ends of skin moved together to heal into one.

By decree of the leader of the Egyptians, the state of these first newly-circumcised men was closely monitored, to see whether and how well they healed, how long the healing might take, and any means to help the process. Also, the causes of the disease were sought out, and were thereby found to be the water-born filth of both man and herd-animal (thus were shepherds banned from approaching Egypt with their flocks; Genesis 46:34). And, thus was learned and recorded the details of the success of the operation upon these men. Women either already were spared infection by not being needed to labor in the flood fields, or were soon removed from such laboring due to the difficulty of successfully treating infection of the more complex female anatomy.

The now-healed circumcised Egyptian men returned to work, and were observed not to become further infected, thus foretelling a preventive means of treatment for the disease.

But, more men of Egypt became so infected, and thus were circumcised. And, since not all Egyptian men were yet circumcised, the disease organism grew so strong that even some circumcised men began to become re-infected. Once it became known that the infection was so spreading, and that the infection could be fatal to both a man and his wife, it became a matter of survival that all men of Egypt be circumcised: there was nowhere else that the masses of Egyptians could live so well, if at all; The surrounding lands were far too sparse of growth to support the masses. Once all men of Egypt were circumcised, it was observed that the disease was stopped.

So became the state of circumcision seen by all in those lands as a sign of an easily prosperous, and thus luxurious, way of life. And, it was required that, for any males from other lands to be accorded the freedom to live-and-work in Egypt, those males first had to submit to circumcision lest the disease again be activated.

Some baby boys had become infected at the height of the outbreak, and were successfully treated by circumcision. Thus became to be observed and recorded the lowest uncomplicating limit of circumcising babies due to the acquisition of the coagulation factor in living blood. And, when it was seen that the cut healed quicker and better in babies than in men, thus began the routine circumcision of Egyptian baby boys, at eight days old. But, as routine as it became to circumcise its infant boys, ancient Egypt at least as well routinely delayed circumcising boys until the boys were culturally old enough to have to labor, as had their fathers, in the flood waters of the delta.

Moreover, as necessary as it was for the Egyptian people to have their men circumcised, some of richest men in Egypt could afford not to labor in the flood waters that made the Nile delta such a prosperous place to live. Thus occasioned some of these men opting not to get circumcised.

Now, the land just north-east of Egypt, along the eastern-most side of the Mediterranean, was (and is) the most heavily travelled cross-roads to the Earth’s host of travelers and merchants. That land thus saw the most traffic in terms of amount and variety of disease organisms, both in and out of water. Therefore, the best way for a people to live on that land included permanent exposure of all penile skin to the bacterial ‘desert’ of the open air, thus ensuring that they neither caught nor spread the diseases which begin in, afflict, and are spread by, uncircumcised men in a disease-organism-heavy environment. Those travelling through needed not be circumcised. But, those who remained as functional residents must be circumcised, lest they acquire and spread those diseases to any who live there and/or to any who merely visit.

But, Abra(ha)m, in receiving the sign of God’s geographic covenant with his descendants, was wise and good. So, he invented the kosher method of circumcision, unlike the method the Egyptians were too proud to replace. Abra(ha)m’s method was the shield method, which was neat and quick, which meant it required little or no anesthetic, and healed well and even. The Egyptian method was most primitive by every measure: it not only was ragged and thus healed slowly and was especially bloody and painful, but, given its by-then merely customary target-skin, it unnecessarily removed most of the tactile-sensitive tissue which comprises the inner portion of the foreskin. Thus, unlike the Egyptian method and its origins, the original Jewish method of circumcision was both '''the best possible in every measure including being entirely preventive''. In a word, the method of circumcision which Abraham performed was 'kosher' in the ancient sense of the word.
</blockquote>

And, now, in the aforementioned thing which a certain father and his son agreed to do (as hinted at in the previous section of this essay), what they agreed to do was anything but preventive as far as they were concerned. What they agreed to do was so deeply traumatic for them that they were immobilized, as if by nails, and even seemed to the onlookers to be babbling the nonsense of men in fever. But, that father and son had counted the cost, and were still willing to go through with it so that they should obtain what those conspiring against them had pretended to agree to share with them. But, what that first, prophetic set of those conspirers did not know was that their future types would fail to keep from the father and son what those future types would not even pretend to offer to the father and son.

== 144 and 153 ==

The primary complex number is 144. It is twelve squared, in which twelve is the number of full council, and the squaring of which is to spread full council over a surface, as the surface of the Earth.

John 21:11 actually bothers to specify the number of fish in a certain flawlessly made catch. But, why would anyone do so, unless they had a knowledge of numbers beyond the ignorant impression that "numbers are just numbers, and therefore trivial in the extreme". But, even [[Numbers 23:23]] is anything but trivial.

Now, when the number of those fish is added to 144, the result is one of exactly nine numbers which collectively reverse all asymmetric three-digit numbers: 99, 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792, 891.

...Which is only the '''''beginning''''' of that topic, because the '''''153rd''''' verse gives the '''''dimensions of Noah's ark''''', and the '''''144th''''' says, ''And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.''

== Adam's life of toil, spelled '930' ==

To begin with...

...A man's total years of fallen life in the fallen world may be thought of as his 'week' of toil, because, when a man dies, he no longer toils. So, however many years he lived, those are 'one week of years.' 'Six days' of toil.

Adam lived 930 years of toil, or 'one week of 930 years'. So, each of Adam's 'six days' of years was 155 years.

Now, in terms of textual reference of Adam's years of life, Genesis is book one (1), with chapter 5 and verse 5. That, too, is '155'.

This adds to the already demonstrated efficacy of the unit of 111 verses.

== Beyond 930 ==

Prime numbers are those with the least possible quantity of factors/divisors (respectively themselves, and 1). In that sense, and in many other senses, they are very much predictable, like soldiers of the most exquisite skill carrying out the most demanding of 'marching orders'. But, despite these finely tuned 'marching orders', the prime numbers also are extremely unpredictable: you never know exactly when or where they will turn up...

(((FYI: I believe there is relative utility within any set of algorithms intended to more-or-less predict, or find more-or-less predictive patterns for, the occurrence of the prime numbers: not all such algorithms are equally useful to that intent. In other words, I believe that, given all the various attempts, to date, to predict the primes, there is a general narrowing down of the predictive power of algorithms so intended. But, I believe there logically can never be any sub-set of all algorithms-so-intended that can actually strictly predict the primes. Which means I believe there is no finite maximum of such algorithms that can perfectly predict the primes.)))

...But, there is a reverse side of that coin...

...namely '''12'''.

Let me explain.

Twelve, or any multiple of twelve, is always the first in the natural series to have an increase in quantity of factors over any lesser number. This implies that any greater number lesser than the next multiple of twelve never has an excess of that quantity of factors. I call this Quantitative Factoral Initiation (QFI).

So, twelve and its multiples are numbers that 'mother the most children', for which the factors of those numbers are the children. This is reflected by 2 as the root QFI number over 1, and also as reflected by 6 as the highest of the smallest non-primes with a continuous string of factors:

QFI is at every sixth number-divisible-by-two, and that sixth number is always a multiple of 12 (rather than of 6):

2 is divisible by 2 and 1.

4 is divisible by 2 and 1 (into 2+2 and 1+1+1=1).

6 is divisible by 2, 1, and 3 (This is the first progress: Per 3a., above; and, Per that one of these three options is a dynamic prime, specifically, the First Dynamic Prime, per 3b. above).

8 is divisible by 2, 1, and 4 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

10 is divisible by 2, 1, and 5 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

12 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Aha! The first ‘large’ number).

14 is divisible by 2, 1, and 7 (Uh-oh! NOW we’re SINKING!).

16 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, and 8 (no better than for 12).

18 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 6, and 9 (no better than for 12).

20 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 5, and 10 (no better than 12, so the sharks still circle).

22 is divisible by 2, 1, and 11 (My Gosh! Have we forgotten even how to tread water?!).

24 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8…and 12 (Yeeeaahh! A leap of two-dolphins-more-than 20’s zero dolphins, to give us a ride to shore!).

26 is divisible by 2, 1, and 13 (The dolphins have dumped us amidst a veritable horde of sharks!).

28 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 7, and 14 (no better than for 20, sharks still circle).

30 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 (no better than for 24, but at least now we’re back on the dolphins, heading for shore).

32 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 8 and 16 (no better than for 20, the dolphins have again dumped us off).

34 is divisible by 2, 1, and 17 (no better than for 6! AHH! A shark just brushed our leg!!!).

36 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 (that’s a jump of +5 more than for 34!).

This reflects the root partnership between 2 and 6. So, beginning with 12, every sixth number-divisible-by-two is a QFI number.

QFI permits an exact 'grid' for the entire natural series, in terms of QFI=6 as multiples of twelve. Compare this to a 'grid' using any other multiple, say, multiples of 5 or 10: such an alternate 'grid' is a more arbitrary, less-interrelated, 'grid', partly because, unlike twelve, 10 lacks a continuous string of factors (1, 2, and 5 for 10; whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 12). Any number with a continuous string of at least four factors is divisible by 12, but not any number with a continuous string of three factors is divisible by 10 or 5.

So, 12 and its multiples, per QFI, are the perfect compliment, or counter-balance, to the Principle of Primes (including, but not limited to, minimal factorization), with 2 being the root-in-common between primes and non-primes, and with 6 being the mediator between 2 and 12.

Now, if my ‘grid’ theory is correct for all this, then the only question is: What is the algorithm that defines that ‘grid’? I think it must involve a ‘dance’ between QFI and the primes.

'''A NOTE ABOUT THE ROLE OF 2'''

'''1a.''' Any number which is divisible only by ‘itself and 1’ is called ‘prime’ because a number which is ‘divisible only by 1’ is a tautology. I repeat, it’s a tautology. In other words, to say that A=A is no more informative than simply saying ‘A’.

'''1b.''' This implies, firstly, that any number which is divisible by 1 also is ‘divisible’ by itself (i.e. resulting in ‘1’, that is, in a single instance of the original number---as if that’s not IMMEDIATELY obvious).

'''2a.''' Secondly, it implies that any number divisible by 2 (including 2) is a number a property of which is the ‘Principle of Division’, distinction, dichotomy, basic logic, learning, symmetry, intelligence, etc..

'''2b.''' Any number greater than 2 which is divisible by 2 also is divisible by at least one other number, namely, half the original number.

'''3a.''' But, per 1a. and 1b., above, numbers which are divisible by 2 also are divisible by 1 (which is tantamount to the original number). This means that, for ‘large’ numbers which are divisible by 2, they are divisible by at least two other numbers: half the original number and 1 (with the original number being simply an alternate expression of that 1).

Therefore, I observe that:

'''3b.''' 2 is divisible by 2, and 1, in that it is made of exactly two 1’s. But, 2 is NOT divisible by any other number (i.e., it cannot be otherwise divided into equal units). So, per 1a and 1b, above, 2 is not a ‘dynamic’ prime, but merely is the simple, ‘static’ prime. In other words, 2 has no alterative, unlike all other numbers which are not 1. And, unlike all other primes above 1, 2 is divisible by 2, which serves to further establish the ‘Property of Division’ noted in 2a.

.

.

== References ==
<References></References>

[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Essays]]

Genesis 42:10

2013-05-30T01:32:41Z

PatternOfPersona:

In Genesis 44, by way of his servant, Joseph was to accuse his bothers of theft of a common item of luxury which he represents to them as that by which he has power to divine. But, these brothers all sincerely deny having committed such a thing, having already denied in Genesis 42, to being covertly adverse to Egypt.

Back then, they, for the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being covertly adverse to Egypt, had claimed to being there for want of food, and that they were all reputable sons of one man. And, they really are all one man’s sons: Adam’s.

But, this verse, 42:10, by being related to 44:5, is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ, because Christ was not a son of Adam and so could judge all Adam's sons.

So, the story surrounding this verse has the men pleading innocence, and as consenting to the guilt of the one among them of whom might be found the object of guilt. Yet, as 'counter-conspired' by Joseph, that one (Benjamin) is not guilty at all, but all of them ''except'' that one: to steal a mere drinking vessel from a 'house of a luxury of such vessels' was nothing to the theft of the very life of one who had never known either any luxury save the one by which he had been specially clothed, nor any way to defend against both having that clothing stolen from him and of being murdered in any case.

Essay: Bible Codes

2013-05-30T01:18:17Z

PatternOfPersona: /* We are all one man’s sons */

== General Introduction ==

It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.

In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.

So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.

If such a text naturally contains subtextual patterns which are unique to, and most compelling of, all those in all of literature, then there need be no authentication codes deliberately crafted into the text in order for such a text to contain authentication codes. Ho hum. All that is needed to authenticate supposed copies of the original is first to determine the original (a process which may include determining the patterns that ought to exist in the original). But, a true copy of an original cannot be determined without directly ascertaining that every word and phrase in the copy is the same as the original. So, an authentication code would not itself serve the purpose of authentication, but would serve only to screen for candidates of authenticity.

With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning [[Melchizedek]] and [[Abraham]] believed, then it was [[Shem]] who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.

Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.

By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the [[Jewish]] tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].

The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in the 11th chapter of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]].
Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.

The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.

The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain?

Shem couldn’t save humanity, no matter how much he knew, or how well his brain worked: the entire world had changed, and now people were fortunate to remain strong, if still alive, to the age at which a man formerly got married and had his first child. And, if the old world had been abominable, this present one didn’t look to be shaping up any better: Nations were being made, and each, in turn, was failing the law of righteousness from their inception. Shem was worried, as any mere man would be who understood the world from such a depressingly privileged position. Though he had never known Adam, he had been in mind of Adam’s death, and of God’s first great promise, because he had seen first-hand the grace by which God had preserved the elect, and by the sign in the cloud the remembrance of which God never again would so ‘grace’ the world. So, when he learned that Abram was the best suited for being the father of the next world, he took action. Shem had a hunch, at the very least, of what God would do, and that it would be a new thing, never vainly the old thing twice. So, even if, according to some students of scripture, Shem didn’t know of the patterns that were possible in a text, the whole point of ‘Melchizedek’ was to make a statement about [[Shiloh]], and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was something of which Shem, at that time, had no foreknowledge: a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.

That incident centers on the 555th verse.

== Introduction to the other keys ==

When a man is born, he is not yet equal to his father. Even when the man has reached full maturity, and by then ideally is married, he still is not equal. And, even when he has a son of his own, he is merely halfway to being equal to his father. Only when his own son has a son of his own is he equal to his father. Four generations. Two fathers, each of whom has a son-who-has-a-son. According to ancient Jewish culture, what may be the ideal age of the younger of the two? And, what does it mean to be halfway to infinity?

Now that I’ve either confused you, got your attention, or both, here’s an easier question: what is the spiritual significance of Genesis 42:9-11? In other words, if there is a spiritual allegory to be drawn from that passage, then what is it? In the preceding paragraph, it is suggested that, in order for a son to be equal to his father, he must have a son who is equal to him; and, that the only way by which a man, as such, may be equal to his father is to have a son, even as his father has a son.

Now, the only other number that visually codes into ‘930’ the way 144 does is 522. It would be simple, in a way, to demonstrate that claim here; but, if a man is to be equal to his friend, then he must go where his friend goes. And, he must come from where his friend comes from. Where all men but one came from. One good turn deserves another. That’s the key to the other keys. You step, and you find a solid place for your foot. The mountain is high, and the air is thin, and few can be convinced to climb it. There is no Bible code except that which emphasizes the simple, but most significant, message in the plain text. It is a 'hidden message' only to those who will not believe it.

The root of the most powerful infinite fractal does not leave anything except itself the same each time it comes around. A minimum of spirituality is not enough. God ''does'' have a message. And, only God is unchanging. The question is, what is the root of the most powerful spiritual 'fractal'? It has always been there. In terms of it, every key is an 'other key'.

== Judah and Reuben ==

[[Reuben]], the eldest son of [[Jacob]], was always well-intentioned (Genesis 37:22, 29-30), but unstable and rash (Genesis 49:4, 42:37). [[Judah]], the fourth son, was stable, if slow to make up his mind for himself<ref>"[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Judah#The_Plot_against_Joseph|The Plot against Joseph]]"</ref> (Genesis 37:26-27, 43:8-9). So, it was to Judah that his father gave the primary blessing (Genesis 49:8-9).

It is no meaningless coincidence, then, that Judah, of his own siblings, is pinpointed by the unit of 111 at Genesis 37:26 (the tenth multiple of 111 verses), just as Isaac was most dramatically pinpointed by the fifth multiple (as hinted at in the final two sentences of the Introduction, i.e., Genesis 22:7). Both Judah and Isaac are figures of Christ, each in a different way. Joseph is a third figure of Christ, in still another, and even more powerful, way.

== Joseph ==

The first multiple of 111 which pinpoints Joseph is Genesis 41:25. In this verse (which is the 11th multiple of 111 verses), Joseph is beginning his answer to Pharaoh to interpret Pharaoh's dream: ''"The [two] dreams are one: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do."''

Now, if you'll count thirty (30) verses after 41:25, you'll find the verse that names Joseph to all the Egyptians as the man to whom they must appeal for food. The significance of 30 is well known to those Jews and Christians who study the significances of various numbers. Even Jesus began his ministry at 'about' thirty years of age, and, so, Joseph begins his to the people.

By the time of the 12th multiple (Genesis 44:7), Joseph's brothers have bowed themselves to the ground to Joseph (whom they do not recognize as such since he disguises himself as a rough-talking Egyptian government prime minister), have had a special meal with him, and have been on their way back toward their father Jacob with the grain. Joseph's servant has caught up with them and has flatly accused them of theft. The charge is that they have stolen an empty vessel that was precious to the prime minister for it's powers of divining the future. Now they deny their guilt, saying, furthermore, that if any of them is so guilty, then that one ought to die and that the rest of them will submit to being slaves to the prime minister. But, of course, Joseph has set them up for a fall of which they have been guilty for twenty years, when all their sacks are opened.

The 13th multiple states that, though Joseph's wisdom has caused all the lands of Egypt to be bought up by him for Pharaoh, the lands of the priests were exempt from this purchase because the priests needs were already supported by Pharaoh and didn't need to sell their lands in order to get by.

== Moses ==

In a similar manner to the fact that Joseph's Pharaoh did not get the lands of the priests, the 14th multiple (Exodus 1:21) puts God Himself in place of the next (and evil) Pharaoh in respect to the midwives, who would not allow for that evil Pharaoh to have an easy means of oppressing the Hebrews: those midwives were blessed by God in a very tangible way: 'houses' of their own. But, who, in a specific future way, were they protecting? Question: what type did that specific protected person's works fill?

Answer: Christ's type. 30 verses after Exodus 1:21, you'll find the call of Moses at the burning bush.
Of course, you could just go to the 40th verse after Exodus 1:21 (and to 14:14). But, that call to Moses establishes the next set of every-111, because the next four units of 111 verses are Exodus 3:4, 10:28, '''14:27''', and 19:1. Imagine if that third one was the text of something like 14:10, by the verse divisions being rather different from how we do have them.

== We are all one man’s sons ==

If you have read the contexts of verses pinpointed by the unit of 111 verses, then you will know that it does not exclude the verses immediately before and after the verse pinpointed. Otherwise, there is no context by which to understand the verse pinpointed. And, the whole point is context.

Genesis 42:10 is pinpointed by a different key than that of the 111 unit, by “branching off” of 930 without adding another layer as the 111 unit does. So, what we are doing, instead, is following the trunk straight up/straight down: 144 is visually coded as 930, and 930 is visually coded as 1263. You will find that the 1,263rd verse is Genesis 42:10, which I asked about in the second section of this essay.

By way of his servant, here Joseph had just accused his bothers of theft of a common item of luxury which he represents to them as that by which he has power to divine. But, these brothers all sincerely deny having committed such a thing, by saying that they are not covertly adverse to Egypt.

For the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being adverse to one's own good, all men will claim that they are good and are all one man’s sons. And, they really are all one man’s sons: Adam’s. But, this verse is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ, because Christ was not a son of Adam and so could judge all Adam's sons.

But, the story surrounding this verse has the men pleading innocence, and as consenting to the guilt of the one among them of whom shall be found the object of guilt. Yet, as 'counter-conspired' by Joseph, that one is not guilty at all, but all of them except that one: to steal a mere drinking vessel from a 'house of a luxury of such vessels' was nothing to the theft of the very life of one who had never known either any luxury nor any way to defend against being murdered.

== You and All the rest ==

Do I have to?

What does it mean that a father and his son agree to do something by which others have plotted to kill them?

And, what did God think of a world in which all good land was already inhabited by peoples who had lost their way and who would not listen or consider? In regard to the former world, all the Earth had been reclaimed by God as one great act.

Now, there was not to be a repeat of that world, which is why God scattered everyone who had congregated in Babel and at its great tower. So, what, really, was left to be done when God called Abram? Answer: give the man a reason to keep at his original way because of which he was called.

It was the earliest opportunity to select a man to take Shem's place. Even though Shem was to outlive him by decades, the much younger man was the better one for the current job. Shem, had been preceded by Enoch in terms of perspective, but not even Shem could claim to understand what it was like to live as a native of that present world. Shem had never been so stupid. So, it had to be a father and his son who, in all innocence and determination, began the next stage of the world.

By all this, find it, if you can. Otherwise, it doesn't look like it belongs in all this, or that it could ever amount to anything. It stands out precisely because it doesn't. All the other nations wanted nothing to do with such humble beginnings. And, Egypt itself did so only because Egypt was forced to it by the need to survive: there was no where else for so many people to go to live; only the Nile delta, which they already were so good at keeping; everything else was a bareness which simply could not support them. If you were determined to go out anyway, Godspeed to you. But, if you were determined to stay, then you were not allowed to jeapordize the lives of everyone (including yourself) by simply staying. You had to commit, by a means that would allow you to stay without the fatal risk that had promised to wipe them all out.

For only one people was it an election, and who did not live in the delta. Their land was at the junction of all Earth's trade, and because God, in His wisdom, had selected that land for to be the land of His own nation. In a fallen world only. To wit:

<blockquote>
At some point in the rise of ancient Egypt as a center of civilization, the yearly flood of the Nile basin had spread enough disease organisms, such as through septic contamination, through the waist-high crop water, that the foreskins of a small number of laborers became irreparably infected, requiring the removal of the infected portion of their foreskins. In some cases it became apparent that the removal of the infected portions was required to save the sufferers’ lives, and, through laying with their wives, the lives of their wives.

Thus began the method of circumcision used by the Egyptians: free-hand cutting of the skin at both sides just beyond the infection, the infected portion removed, and the originally distant two ends of skin moved together to heal into one.

By decree of the leader of the Egyptians, the state of these first newly-circumcised men was closely monitored, to see whether and how well they healed, how long the healing might take, and any means to help the process. Also, the causes of the disease were sought out, and were thereby found to be the water-born filth of both man and herd-animal (thus were shepherds banned from approaching Egypt with their flocks; Genesis 46:34). And, thus was learned and recorded the details of the success of the operation upon these men. Women either already were spared infection by not being needed to labor in the flood fields, or were soon removed from such laboring due to the difficulty of successfully treating infection of the more complex female anatomy.

The now-healed circumcised Egyptian men returned to work, and were observed not to become further infected, thus foretelling a preventive means of treatment for the disease.

But, more men of Egypt became so infected, and thus were circumcised. And, since not all Egyptian men were yet circumcised, the disease organism grew so strong that even some circumcised men began to become re-infected. Once it became known that the infection was so spreading, and that the infection could be fatal to both a man and his wife, it became a matter of survival that all men of Egypt be circumcised: there was nowhere else that the masses of Egyptians could live so well, if at all; The surrounding lands were far too sparse of growth to support the masses. Once all men of Egypt were circumcised, it was observed that the disease was stopped.

So became the state of circumcision seen by all in those lands as a sign of an easily prosperous, and thus luxurious, way of life. And, it was required that, for any males from other lands to be accorded the freedom to live-and-work in Egypt, those males first had to submit to circumcision lest the disease again be activated.

Some baby boys had become infected at the height of the outbreak, and were successfully treated by circumcision. Thus became to be observed and recorded the lowest uncomplicating limit of circumcising babies due to the acquisition of the coagulation factor in living blood. And, when it was seen that the cut healed quicker and better in babies than in men, thus began the routine circumcision of Egyptian baby boys, at eight days old. But, as routine as it became to circumcise its infant boys, ancient Egypt at least as well routinely delayed circumcising boys until the boys were culturally old enough to have to labor, as had their fathers, in the flood waters of the delta.

Moreover, as necessary as it was for the Egyptian people to have their men circumcised, some of richest men in Egypt could afford not to labor in the flood waters that made the Nile delta such a prosperous place to live. Thus occasioned some of these men opting not to get circumcised.

Now, the land just north-east of Egypt, along the eastern-most side of the Mediterranean, was (and is) the most heavily travelled cross-roads to the Earth’s host of travelers and merchants. That land thus saw the most traffic in terms of amount and variety of disease organisms, both in and out of water. Therefore, the best way for a people to live on that land included permanent exposure of all penile skin to the bacterial ‘desert’ of the open air, thus ensuring that they neither caught nor spread the diseases which begin in, afflict, and are spread by, uncircumcised men in a disease-organism-heavy environment. Those travelling through needed not be circumcised. But, those who remained as functional residents must be circumcised, lest they acquire and spread those diseases to any who live there and/or to any who merely visit.

But, Abra(ha)m, in receiving the sign of God’s geographic covenant with his descendants, was wise and good. So, he invented the kosher method of circumcision, unlike the method the Egyptians were too proud to replace. Abra(ha)m’s method was the shield method, which was neat and quick, which meant it required little or no anesthetic, and healed well and even. The Egyptian method was most primitive by every measure: it not only was ragged and thus healed slowly and was especially bloody and painful, but, given its by-then merely customary target-skin, it unnecessarily removed most of the tactile-sensitive tissue which comprises the inner portion of the foreskin. Thus, unlike the Egyptian method and its origins, the original Jewish method of circumcision was both '''the best possible in every measure including being entirely preventive''. In a word, the method of circumcision which Abraham performed was 'kosher' in the ancient sense of the word.
</blockquote>

And, now, in the aforementioned thing which a certain father and his son agreed to do (as hinted at in the previous section of this essay), what they agreed to do was anything but preventive as far as they were concerned. What they agreed to do was so deeply traumatic for them that they were immobilized, as if by nails, and even seemed to the onlookers to be babbling the nonsense of men in fever. But, that father and son had counted the cost, and were still willing to go through with it so that they should obtain what those conspiring against them had pretended to agree to share with them. But, what that first, prophetic set of those conspirers did not know was that their future types would fail to keep from the father and son what those future types would not even pretend to offer to the father and son.

== 144 and 153 ==

The primary complex number is 144. It is twelve squared, in which twelve is the number of full council, and the squaring of which is to spread full council over a surface, as the surface of the Earth.

John 21:11 actually bothers to specify the number of fish in a certain flawlessly made catch. But, why would anyone do so, unless they had a knowledge of numbers beyond the ignorant impression that "numbers are just numbers, and therefore trivial in the extreme". But, even [[Numbers 23:23]] is anything but trivial.

Now, when the number of those fish is added to 144, the result is one of exactly nine numbers which collectively reverse all asymmetric three-digit numbers: 99, 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792, 891.

...Which is only the '''''beginning''''' of that topic, because the '''''153rd''''' verse gives the '''''dimensions of Noah's ark''''', and the '''''144th''''' says, ''And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.''

== Adam's life of toil, spelled '930' ==

To begin with...

...A man's total years of fallen life in the fallen world may be thought of as his 'week' of toil, because, when a man dies, he no longer toils. So, however many years he lived, those are 'one week of years.' 'Six days' of toil.

Adam lived 930 years of toil, or 'one week of 930 years'. So, each of Adam's 'six days' of years was 155 years.

Now, in terms of textual reference of Adam's years of life, Genesis is book one (1), with chapter 5 and verse 5. That, too, is '155'.

This adds to the already demonstrated efficacy of the unit of 111 verses.

== Beyond 930 ==

Prime numbers are those with the least possible quantity of factors/divisors (respectively themselves, and 1). In that sense, and in many other senses, they are very much predictable, like soldiers of the most exquisite skill carrying out the most demanding of 'marching orders'. But, despite these finely tuned 'marching orders', the prime numbers also are extremely unpredictable: you never know exactly when or where they will turn up...

(((FYI: I believe there is relative utility within any set of algorithms intended to more-or-less predict, or find more-or-less predictive patterns for, the occurrence of the prime numbers: not all such algorithms are equally useful to that intent. In other words, I believe that, given all the various attempts, to date, to predict the primes, there is a general narrowing down of the predictive power of algorithms so intended. But, I believe there logically can never be any sub-set of all algorithms-so-intended that can actually strictly predict the primes. Which means I believe there is no finite maximum of such algorithms that can perfectly predict the primes.)))

...But, there is a reverse side of that coin...

...namely '''12'''.

Let me explain.

Twelve, or any multiple of twelve, is always the first in the natural series to have an increase in quantity of factors over any lesser number. This implies that any greater number lesser than the next multiple of twelve never has an excess of that quantity of factors. I call this Quantitative Factoral Initiation (QFI).

So, twelve and its multiples are numbers that 'mother the most children', for which the factors of those numbers are the children. This is reflected by 2 as the root QFI number over 1, and also as reflected by 6 as the highest of the smallest non-primes with a continuous string of factors:

QFI is at every sixth number-divisible-by-two, and that sixth number is always a multiple of 12 (rather than of 6):

2 is divisible by 2 and 1.

4 is divisible by 2 and 1 (into 2+2 and 1+1+1=1).

6 is divisible by 2, 1, and 3 (This is the first progress: Per 3a., above; and, Per that one of these three options is a dynamic prime, specifically, the First Dynamic Prime, per 3b. above).

8 is divisible by 2, 1, and 4 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

10 is divisible by 2, 1, and 5 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

12 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Aha! The first ‘large’ number).

14 is divisible by 2, 1, and 7 (Uh-oh! NOW we’re SINKING!).

16 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, and 8 (no better than for 12).

18 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 6, and 9 (no better than for 12).

20 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 5, and 10 (no better than 12, so the sharks still circle).

22 is divisible by 2, 1, and 11 (My Gosh! Have we forgotten even how to tread water?!).

24 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8…and 12 (Yeeeaahh! A leap of two-dolphins-more-than 20’s zero dolphins, to give us a ride to shore!).

26 is divisible by 2, 1, and 13 (The dolphins have dumped us amidst a veritable horde of sharks!).

28 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 7, and 14 (no better than for 20, sharks still circle).

30 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 (no better than for 24, but at least now we’re back on the dolphins, heading for shore).

32 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 8 and 16 (no better than for 20, the dolphins have again dumped us off).

34 is divisible by 2, 1, and 17 (no better than for 6! AHH! A shark just brushed our leg!!!).

36 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 (that’s a jump of +5 more than for 34!).

This reflects the root partnership between 2 and 6. So, beginning with 12, every sixth number-divisible-by-two is a QFI number.

QFI permits an exact 'grid' for the entire natural series, in terms of QFI=6 as multiples of twelve. Compare this to a 'grid' using any other multiple, say, multiples of 5 or 10: such an alternate 'grid' is a more arbitrary, less-interrelated, 'grid', partly because, unlike twelve, 10 lacks a continuous string of factors (1, 2, and 5 for 10; whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 12). Any number with a continuous string of at least four factors is divisible by 12, but not any number with a continuous string of three factors is divisible by 10 or 5.

So, 12 and its multiples, per QFI, are the perfect compliment, or counter-balance, to the Principle of Primes (including, but not limited to, minimal factorization), with 2 being the root-in-common between primes and non-primes, and with 6 being the mediator between 2 and 12.

Now, if my ‘grid’ theory is correct for all this, then the only question is: What is the algorithm that defines that ‘grid’? I think it must involve a ‘dance’ between QFI and the primes.

'''A NOTE ABOUT THE ROLE OF 2'''

'''1a.''' Any number which is divisible only by ‘itself and 1’ is called ‘prime’ because a number which is ‘divisible only by 1’ is a tautology. I repeat, it’s a tautology. In other words, to say that A=A is no more informative than simply saying ‘A’.

'''1b.''' This implies, firstly, that any number which is divisible by 1 also is ‘divisible’ by itself (i.e. resulting in ‘1’, that is, in a single instance of the original number---as if that’s not IMMEDIATELY obvious).

'''2a.''' Secondly, it implies that any number divisible by 2 (including 2) is a number a property of which is the ‘Principle of Division’, distinction, dichotomy, basic logic, learning, symmetry, intelligence, etc..

'''2b.''' Any number greater than 2 which is divisible by 2 also is divisible by at least one other number, namely, half the original number.

'''3a.''' But, per 1a. and 1b., above, numbers which are divisible by 2 also are divisible by 1 (which is tantamount to the original number). This means that, for ‘large’ numbers which are divisible by 2, they are divisible by at least two other numbers: half the original number and 1 (with the original number being simply an alternate expression of that 1).

Therefore, I observe that:

'''3b.''' 2 is divisible by 2, and 1, in that it is made of exactly two 1’s. But, 2 is NOT divisible by any other number (i.e., it cannot be otherwise divided into equal units). So, per 1a and 1b, above, 2 is not a ‘dynamic’ prime, but merely is the simple, ‘static’ prime. In other words, 2 has no alterative, unlike all other numbers which are not 1. And, unlike all other primes above 1, 2 is divisible by 2, which serves to further establish the ‘Property of Division’ noted in 2a.

.

.

== References ==
<References></References>

[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Essays]]

Genesis 42:10

2013-05-30T01:16:39Z

PatternOfPersona: Created page with "By way of his servant, here Joseph had just accused his bothers of theft of a common item of luxury which he represents to them as that by which he has power to divine. But, thes..."

By way of his servant, here Joseph had just accused his bothers of theft of a common item of luxury which he represents to them as that by which he has power to divine. But, these brothers all sincerely deny having committed such a thing, by saying they are not covertly adverse to Egypt.

For the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being adverse to one's own good, all men will claim that they are good and are all one man’s sons. And, they really are all one man’s sons: Adam’s. But, this verse is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ, because Christ was not a son of Adam and so could judge all Adam's sons.

But, the story surrounding this verse has the men pleading innocence, and as consenting to the guilt of the one among them of whom shall be found the object of guilt. Yet, as 'counter-conspired' by Joseph, that one is not guilty at all, but all of them except that one: to steal a mere drinking vessel from a 'house of a luxury of such vessels' was nothing to the theft of the very life of one who had never known either any luxury nor any way to defend against being murdered.

Essay: Bible Codes

2013-05-30T01:06:20Z

PatternOfPersona: /* We are all one man’s sons */

== General Introduction ==

It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.

In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.

So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.

If such a text naturally contains subtextual patterns which are unique to, and most compelling of, all those in all of literature, then there need be no authentication codes deliberately crafted into the text in order for such a text to contain authentication codes. Ho hum. All that is needed to authenticate supposed copies of the original is first to determine the original (a process which may include determining the patterns that ought to exist in the original). But, a true copy of an original cannot be determined without directly ascertaining that every word and phrase in the copy is the same as the original. So, an authentication code would not itself serve the purpose of authentication, but would serve only to screen for candidates of authenticity.

With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning [[Melchizedek]] and [[Abraham]] believed, then it was [[Shem]] who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.

Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.

By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the [[Jewish]] tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].

The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in the 11th chapter of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]].
Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.

The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.

The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain?

Shem couldn’t save humanity, no matter how much he knew, or how well his brain worked: the entire world had changed, and now people were fortunate to remain strong, if still alive, to the age at which a man formerly got married and had his first child. And, if the old world had been abominable, this present one didn’t look to be shaping up any better: Nations were being made, and each, in turn, was failing the law of righteousness from their inception. Shem was worried, as any mere man would be who understood the world from such a depressingly privileged position. Though he had never known Adam, he had been in mind of Adam’s death, and of God’s first great promise, because he had seen first-hand the grace by which God had preserved the elect, and by the sign in the cloud the remembrance of which God never again would so ‘grace’ the world. So, when he learned that Abram was the best suited for being the father of the next world, he took action. Shem had a hunch, at the very least, of what God would do, and that it would be a new thing, never vainly the old thing twice. So, even if, according to some students of scripture, Shem didn’t know of the patterns that were possible in a text, the whole point of ‘Melchizedek’ was to make a statement about [[Shiloh]], and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was something of which Shem, at that time, had no foreknowledge: a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.

That incident centers on the 555th verse.

== Introduction to the other keys ==

When a man is born, he is not yet equal to his father. Even when the man has reached full maturity, and by then ideally is married, he still is not equal. And, even when he has a son of his own, he is merely halfway to being equal to his father. Only when his own son has a son of his own is he equal to his father. Four generations. Two fathers, each of whom has a son-who-has-a-son. According to ancient Jewish culture, what may be the ideal age of the younger of the two? And, what does it mean to be halfway to infinity?

Now that I’ve either confused you, got your attention, or both, here’s an easier question: what is the spiritual significance of Genesis 42:9-11? In other words, if there is a spiritual allegory to be drawn from that passage, then what is it? In the preceding paragraph, it is suggested that, in order for a son to be equal to his father, he must have a son who is equal to him; and, that the only way by which a man, as such, may be equal to his father is to have a son, even as his father has a son.

Now, the only other number that visually codes into ‘930’ the way 144 does is 522. It would be simple, in a way, to demonstrate that claim here; but, if a man is to be equal to his friend, then he must go where his friend goes. And, he must come from where his friend comes from. Where all men but one came from. One good turn deserves another. That’s the key to the other keys. You step, and you find a solid place for your foot. The mountain is high, and the air is thin, and few can be convinced to climb it. There is no Bible code except that which emphasizes the simple, but most significant, message in the plain text. It is a 'hidden message' only to those who will not believe it.

The root of the most powerful infinite fractal does not leave anything except itself the same each time it comes around. A minimum of spirituality is not enough. God ''does'' have a message. And, only God is unchanging. The question is, what is the root of the most powerful spiritual 'fractal'? It has always been there. In terms of it, every key is an 'other key'.

== Judah and Reuben ==

[[Reuben]], the eldest son of [[Jacob]], was always well-intentioned (Genesis 37:22, 29-30), but unstable and rash (Genesis 49:4, 42:37). [[Judah]], the fourth son, was stable, if slow to make up his mind for himself<ref>"[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Judah#The_Plot_against_Joseph|The Plot against Joseph]]"</ref> (Genesis 37:26-27, 43:8-9). So, it was to Judah that his father gave the primary blessing (Genesis 49:8-9).

It is no meaningless coincidence, then, that Judah, of his own siblings, is pinpointed by the unit of 111 at Genesis 37:26 (the tenth multiple of 111 verses), just as Isaac was most dramatically pinpointed by the fifth multiple (as hinted at in the final two sentences of the Introduction, i.e., Genesis 22:7). Both Judah and Isaac are figures of Christ, each in a different way. Joseph is a third figure of Christ, in still another, and even more powerful, way.

== Joseph ==

The first multiple of 111 which pinpoints Joseph is Genesis 41:25. In this verse (which is the 11th multiple of 111 verses), Joseph is beginning his answer to Pharaoh to interpret Pharaoh's dream: ''"The [two] dreams are one: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do."''

Now, if you'll count thirty (30) verses after 41:25, you'll find the verse that names Joseph to all the Egyptians as the man to whom they must appeal for food. The significance of 30 is well known to those Jews and Christians who study the significances of various numbers. Even Jesus began his ministry at 'about' thirty years of age, and, so, Joseph begins his to the people.

By the time of the 12th multiple (Genesis 44:7), Joseph's brothers have bowed themselves to the ground to Joseph (whom they do not recognize as such since he disguises himself as a rough-talking Egyptian government prime minister), have had a special meal with him, and have been on their way back toward their father Jacob with the grain. Joseph's servant has caught up with them and has flatly accused them of theft. The charge is that they have stolen an empty vessel that was precious to the prime minister for it's powers of divining the future. Now they deny their guilt, saying, furthermore, that if any of them is so guilty, then that one ought to die and that the rest of them will submit to being slaves to the prime minister. But, of course, Joseph has set them up for a fall of which they have been guilty for twenty years, when all their sacks are opened.

The 13th multiple states that, though Joseph's wisdom has caused all the lands of Egypt to be bought up by him for Pharaoh, the lands of the priests were exempt from this purchase because the priests needs were already supported by Pharaoh and didn't need to sell their lands in order to get by.

== Moses ==

In a similar manner to the fact that Joseph's Pharaoh did not get the lands of the priests, the 14th multiple (Exodus 1:21) puts God Himself in place of the next (and evil) Pharaoh in respect to the midwives, who would not allow for that evil Pharaoh to have an easy means of oppressing the Hebrews: those midwives were blessed by God in a very tangible way: 'houses' of their own. But, who, in a specific future way, were they protecting? Question: what type did that specific protected person's works fill?

Answer: Christ's type. 30 verses after Exodus 1:21, you'll find the call of Moses at the burning bush.
Of course, you could just go to the 40th verse after Exodus 1:21 (and to 14:14). But, that call to Moses establishes the next set of every-111, because the next four units of 111 verses are Exodus 3:4, 10:28, '''14:27''', and 19:1. Imagine if that third one was the text of something like 14:10, by the verse divisions being rather different from how we do have them.

== We are all one man’s sons ==

If you have read the contexts of verses pinpointed by the unit of 111 verses, then you will know that it does not exclude the verses immediately before and after the verse pinpointed. Otherwise, there is no context by which to understand the verse pinpointed. And, the whole point is context.

Genesis 42:10 is pinpointed by a different key than that of the 111 unit, by “branching off” of 930 without adding another layer as the 111 unit does. So, what we are doing, instead, is following the trunk straight up/straight down: 144 is visually coded as 930, and 930 is visually coded as 1263. You will find that the 1,263rd verse is Genesis 42:10, which I asked about in the second section of this essay. For the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being adverse to one's own good, all men will claim that they are good and are all one man’s sons. And, they really are all one man’s sons: Adam’s. But, this verse is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ, because Christ was not a son of Adam and so could judge all Adam's sons.

But, the story surrounding this verse has the men pleading innocence, and as consenting to the guilt of the one among them of whom shall be found the object of guilt. Yet, as 'counter-conspired' by Joseph, that one is not guilty at all, but all of them except that one: to steal a mere drinking vessel from a 'house of a luxury of such vessels' was nothing to the murder one who had never known either any luxury nor any way to defend against being murdered.

== You and All the rest ==

Do I have to?

What does it mean that a father and his son agree to do something by which others have plotted to kill them?

And, what did God think of a world in which all good land was already inhabited by peoples who had lost their way and who would not listen or consider? In regard to the former world, all the Earth had been reclaimed by God as one great act.

Now, there was not to be a repeat of that world, which is why God scattered everyone who had congregated in Babel and at its great tower. So, what, really, was left to be done when God called Abram? Answer: give the man a reason to keep at his original way because of which he was called.

It was the earliest opportunity to select a man to take Shem's place. Even though Shem was to outlive him by decades, the much younger man was the better one for the current job. Shem, had been preceded by Enoch in terms of perspective, but not even Shem could claim to understand what it was like to live as a native of that present world. Shem had never been so stupid. So, it had to be a father and his son who, in all innocence and determination, began the next stage of the world.

By all this, find it, if you can. Otherwise, it doesn't look like it belongs in all this, or that it could ever amount to anything. It stands out precisely because it doesn't. All the other nations wanted nothing to do with such humble beginnings. And, Egypt itself did so only because Egypt was forced to it by the need to survive: there was no where else for so many people to go to live; only the Nile delta, which they already were so good at keeping; everything else was a bareness which simply could not support them. If you were determined to go out anyway, Godspeed to you. But, if you were determined to stay, then you were not allowed to jeapordize the lives of everyone (including yourself) by simply staying. You had to commit, by a means that would allow you to stay without the fatal risk that had promised to wipe them all out.

For only one people was it an election, and who did not live in the delta. Their land was at the junction of all Earth's trade, and because God, in His wisdom, had selected that land for to be the land of His own nation. In a fallen world only. To wit:

<blockquote>
At some point in the rise of ancient Egypt as a center of civilization, the yearly flood of the Nile basin had spread enough disease organisms, such as through septic contamination, through the waist-high crop water, that the foreskins of a small number of laborers became irreparably infected, requiring the removal of the infected portion of their foreskins. In some cases it became apparent that the removal of the infected portions was required to save the sufferers’ lives, and, through laying with their wives, the lives of their wives.

Thus began the method of circumcision used by the Egyptians: free-hand cutting of the skin at both sides just beyond the infection, the infected portion removed, and the originally distant two ends of skin moved together to heal into one.

By decree of the leader of the Egyptians, the state of these first newly-circumcised men was closely monitored, to see whether and how well they healed, how long the healing might take, and any means to help the process. Also, the causes of the disease were sought out, and were thereby found to be the water-born filth of both man and herd-animal (thus were shepherds banned from approaching Egypt with their flocks; Genesis 46:34). And, thus was learned and recorded the details of the success of the operation upon these men. Women either already were spared infection by not being needed to labor in the flood fields, or were soon removed from such laboring due to the difficulty of successfully treating infection of the more complex female anatomy.

The now-healed circumcised Egyptian men returned to work, and were observed not to become further infected, thus foretelling a preventive means of treatment for the disease.

But, more men of Egypt became so infected, and thus were circumcised. And, since not all Egyptian men were yet circumcised, the disease organism grew so strong that even some circumcised men began to become re-infected. Once it became known that the infection was so spreading, and that the infection could be fatal to both a man and his wife, it became a matter of survival that all men of Egypt be circumcised: there was nowhere else that the masses of Egyptians could live so well, if at all; The surrounding lands were far too sparse of growth to support the masses. Once all men of Egypt were circumcised, it was observed that the disease was stopped.

So became the state of circumcision seen by all in those lands as a sign of an easily prosperous, and thus luxurious, way of life. And, it was required that, for any males from other lands to be accorded the freedom to live-and-work in Egypt, those males first had to submit to circumcision lest the disease again be activated.

Some baby boys had become infected at the height of the outbreak, and were successfully treated by circumcision. Thus became to be observed and recorded the lowest uncomplicating limit of circumcising babies due to the acquisition of the coagulation factor in living blood. And, when it was seen that the cut healed quicker and better in babies than in men, thus began the routine circumcision of Egyptian baby boys, at eight days old. But, as routine as it became to circumcise its infant boys, ancient Egypt at least as well routinely delayed circumcising boys until the boys were culturally old enough to have to labor, as had their fathers, in the flood waters of the delta.

Moreover, as necessary as it was for the Egyptian people to have their men circumcised, some of richest men in Egypt could afford not to labor in the flood waters that made the Nile delta such a prosperous place to live. Thus occasioned some of these men opting not to get circumcised.

Now, the land just north-east of Egypt, along the eastern-most side of the Mediterranean, was (and is) the most heavily travelled cross-roads to the Earth’s host of travelers and merchants. That land thus saw the most traffic in terms of amount and variety of disease organisms, both in and out of water. Therefore, the best way for a people to live on that land included permanent exposure of all penile skin to the bacterial ‘desert’ of the open air, thus ensuring that they neither caught nor spread the diseases which begin in, afflict, and are spread by, uncircumcised men in a disease-organism-heavy environment. Those travelling through needed not be circumcised. But, those who remained as functional residents must be circumcised, lest they acquire and spread those diseases to any who live there and/or to any who merely visit.

But, Abra(ha)m, in receiving the sign of God’s geographic covenant with his descendants, was wise and good. So, he invented the kosher method of circumcision, unlike the method the Egyptians were too proud to replace. Abra(ha)m’s method was the shield method, which was neat and quick, which meant it required little or no anesthetic, and healed well and even. The Egyptian method was most primitive by every measure: it not only was ragged and thus healed slowly and was especially bloody and painful, but, given its by-then merely customary target-skin, it unnecessarily removed most of the tactile-sensitive tissue which comprises the inner portion of the foreskin. Thus, unlike the Egyptian method and its origins, the original Jewish method of circumcision was both '''the best possible in every measure including being entirely preventive''. In a word, the method of circumcision which Abraham performed was 'kosher' in the ancient sense of the word.
</blockquote>

And, now, in the aforementioned thing which a certain father and his son agreed to do (as hinted at in the previous section of this essay), what they agreed to do was anything but preventive as far as they were concerned. What they agreed to do was so deeply traumatic for them that they were immobilized, as if by nails, and even seemed to the onlookers to be babbling the nonsense of men in fever. But, that father and son had counted the cost, and were still willing to go through with it so that they should obtain what those conspiring against them had pretended to agree to share with them. But, what that first, prophetic set of those conspirers did not know was that their future types would fail to keep from the father and son what those future types would not even pretend to offer to the father and son.

== 144 and 153 ==

The primary complex number is 144. It is twelve squared, in which twelve is the number of full council, and the squaring of which is to spread full council over a surface, as the surface of the Earth.

John 21:11 actually bothers to specify the number of fish in a certain flawlessly made catch. But, why would anyone do so, unless they had a knowledge of numbers beyond the ignorant impression that "numbers are just numbers, and therefore trivial in the extreme". But, even [[Numbers 23:23]] is anything but trivial.

Now, when the number of those fish is added to 144, the result is one of exactly nine numbers which collectively reverse all asymmetric three-digit numbers: 99, 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792, 891.

...Which is only the '''''beginning''''' of that topic, because the '''''153rd''''' verse gives the '''''dimensions of Noah's ark''''', and the '''''144th''''' says, ''And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.''

== Adam's life of toil, spelled '930' ==

To begin with...

...A man's total years of fallen life in the fallen world may be thought of as his 'week' of toil, because, when a man dies, he no longer toils. So, however many years he lived, those are 'one week of years.' 'Six days' of toil.

Adam lived 930 years of toil, or 'one week of 930 years'. So, each of Adam's 'six days' of years was 155 years.

Now, in terms of textual reference of Adam's years of life, Genesis is book one (1), with chapter 5 and verse 5. That, too, is '155'.

This adds to the already demonstrated efficacy of the unit of 111 verses.

== Beyond 930 ==

Prime numbers are those with the least possible quantity of factors/divisors (respectively themselves, and 1). In that sense, and in many other senses, they are very much predictable, like soldiers of the most exquisite skill carrying out the most demanding of 'marching orders'. But, despite these finely tuned 'marching orders', the prime numbers also are extremely unpredictable: you never know exactly when or where they will turn up...

(((FYI: I believe there is relative utility within any set of algorithms intended to more-or-less predict, or find more-or-less predictive patterns for, the occurrence of the prime numbers: not all such algorithms are equally useful to that intent. In other words, I believe that, given all the various attempts, to date, to predict the primes, there is a general narrowing down of the predictive power of algorithms so intended. But, I believe there logically can never be any sub-set of all algorithms-so-intended that can actually strictly predict the primes. Which means I believe there is no finite maximum of such algorithms that can perfectly predict the primes.)))

...But, there is a reverse side of that coin...

...namely '''12'''.

Let me explain.

Twelve, or any multiple of twelve, is always the first in the natural series to have an increase in quantity of factors over any lesser number. This implies that any greater number lesser than the next multiple of twelve never has an excess of that quantity of factors. I call this Quantitative Factoral Initiation (QFI).

So, twelve and its multiples are numbers that 'mother the most children', for which the factors of those numbers are the children. This is reflected by 2 as the root QFI number over 1, and also as reflected by 6 as the highest of the smallest non-primes with a continuous string of factors:

QFI is at every sixth number-divisible-by-two, and that sixth number is always a multiple of 12 (rather than of 6):

2 is divisible by 2 and 1.

4 is divisible by 2 and 1 (into 2+2 and 1+1+1=1).

6 is divisible by 2, 1, and 3 (This is the first progress: Per 3a., above; and, Per that one of these three options is a dynamic prime, specifically, the First Dynamic Prime, per 3b. above).

8 is divisible by 2, 1, and 4 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

10 is divisible by 2, 1, and 5 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

12 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Aha! The first ‘large’ number).

14 is divisible by 2, 1, and 7 (Uh-oh! NOW we’re SINKING!).

16 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, and 8 (no better than for 12).

18 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 6, and 9 (no better than for 12).

20 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 5, and 10 (no better than 12, so the sharks still circle).

22 is divisible by 2, 1, and 11 (My Gosh! Have we forgotten even how to tread water?!).

24 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8…and 12 (Yeeeaahh! A leap of two-dolphins-more-than 20’s zero dolphins, to give us a ride to shore!).

26 is divisible by 2, 1, and 13 (The dolphins have dumped us amidst a veritable horde of sharks!).

28 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 7, and 14 (no better than for 20, sharks still circle).

30 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 (no better than for 24, but at least now we’re back on the dolphins, heading for shore).

32 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 8 and 16 (no better than for 20, the dolphins have again dumped us off).

34 is divisible by 2, 1, and 17 (no better than for 6! AHH! A shark just brushed our leg!!!).

36 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 (that’s a jump of +5 more than for 34!).

This reflects the root partnership between 2 and 6. So, beginning with 12, every sixth number-divisible-by-two is a QFI number.

QFI permits an exact 'grid' for the entire natural series, in terms of QFI=6 as multiples of twelve. Compare this to a 'grid' using any other multiple, say, multiples of 5 or 10: such an alternate 'grid' is a more arbitrary, less-interrelated, 'grid', partly because, unlike twelve, 10 lacks a continuous string of factors (1, 2, and 5 for 10; whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 12). Any number with a continuous string of at least four factors is divisible by 12, but not any number with a continuous string of three factors is divisible by 10 or 5.

So, 12 and its multiples, per QFI, are the perfect compliment, or counter-balance, to the Principle of Primes (including, but not limited to, minimal factorization), with 2 being the root-in-common between primes and non-primes, and with 6 being the mediator between 2 and 12.

Now, if my ‘grid’ theory is correct for all this, then the only question is: What is the algorithm that defines that ‘grid’? I think it must involve a ‘dance’ between QFI and the primes.

'''A NOTE ABOUT THE ROLE OF 2'''

'''1a.''' Any number which is divisible only by ‘itself and 1’ is called ‘prime’ because a number which is ‘divisible only by 1’ is a tautology. I repeat, it’s a tautology. In other words, to say that A=A is no more informative than simply saying ‘A’.

'''1b.''' This implies, firstly, that any number which is divisible by 1 also is ‘divisible’ by itself (i.e. resulting in ‘1’, that is, in a single instance of the original number---as if that’s not IMMEDIATELY obvious).

'''2a.''' Secondly, it implies that any number divisible by 2 (including 2) is a number a property of which is the ‘Principle of Division’, distinction, dichotomy, basic logic, learning, symmetry, intelligence, etc..

'''2b.''' Any number greater than 2 which is divisible by 2 also is divisible by at least one other number, namely, half the original number.

'''3a.''' But, per 1a. and 1b., above, numbers which are divisible by 2 also are divisible by 1 (which is tantamount to the original number). This means that, for ‘large’ numbers which are divisible by 2, they are divisible by at least two other numbers: half the original number and 1 (with the original number being simply an alternate expression of that 1).

Therefore, I observe that:

'''3b.''' 2 is divisible by 2, and 1, in that it is made of exactly two 1’s. But, 2 is NOT divisible by any other number (i.e., it cannot be otherwise divided into equal units). So, per 1a and 1b, above, 2 is not a ‘dynamic’ prime, but merely is the simple, ‘static’ prime. In other words, 2 has no alterative, unlike all other numbers which are not 1. And, unlike all other primes above 1, 2 is divisible by 2, which serves to further establish the ‘Property of Division’ noted in 2a.

.

.

== References ==
<References></References>

[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay: Bible Codes

2013-05-30T00:52:28Z

PatternOfPersona: /* You and All the rest */

== General Introduction ==

It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.

In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.

So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.

If such a text naturally contains subtextual patterns which are unique to, and most compelling of, all those in all of literature, then there need be no authentication codes deliberately crafted into the text in order for such a text to contain authentication codes. Ho hum. All that is needed to authenticate supposed copies of the original is first to determine the original (a process which may include determining the patterns that ought to exist in the original). But, a true copy of an original cannot be determined without directly ascertaining that every word and phrase in the copy is the same as the original. So, an authentication code would not itself serve the purpose of authentication, but would serve only to screen for candidates of authenticity.

With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning [[Melchizedek]] and [[Abraham]] believed, then it was [[Shem]] who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.

Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.

By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the [[Jewish]] tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].

The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in the 11th chapter of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]].
Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.

The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.

The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain?

Shem couldn’t save humanity, no matter how much he knew, or how well his brain worked: the entire world had changed, and now people were fortunate to remain strong, if still alive, to the age at which a man formerly got married and had his first child. And, if the old world had been abominable, this present one didn’t look to be shaping up any better: Nations were being made, and each, in turn, was failing the law of righteousness from their inception. Shem was worried, as any mere man would be who understood the world from such a depressingly privileged position. Though he had never known Adam, he had been in mind of Adam’s death, and of God’s first great promise, because he had seen first-hand the grace by which God had preserved the elect, and by the sign in the cloud the remembrance of which God never again would so ‘grace’ the world. So, when he learned that Abram was the best suited for being the father of the next world, he took action. Shem had a hunch, at the very least, of what God would do, and that it would be a new thing, never vainly the old thing twice. So, even if, according to some students of scripture, Shem didn’t know of the patterns that were possible in a text, the whole point of ‘Melchizedek’ was to make a statement about [[Shiloh]], and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was something of which Shem, at that time, had no foreknowledge: a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.

That incident centers on the 555th verse.

== Introduction to the other keys ==

When a man is born, he is not yet equal to his father. Even when the man has reached full maturity, and by then ideally is married, he still is not equal. And, even when he has a son of his own, he is merely halfway to being equal to his father. Only when his own son has a son of his own is he equal to his father. Four generations. Two fathers, each of whom has a son-who-has-a-son. According to ancient Jewish culture, what may be the ideal age of the younger of the two? And, what does it mean to be halfway to infinity?

Now that I’ve either confused you, got your attention, or both, here’s an easier question: what is the spiritual significance of Genesis 42:9-11? In other words, if there is a spiritual allegory to be drawn from that passage, then what is it? In the preceding paragraph, it is suggested that, in order for a son to be equal to his father, he must have a son who is equal to him; and, that the only way by which a man, as such, may be equal to his father is to have a son, even as his father has a son.

Now, the only other number that visually codes into ‘930’ the way 144 does is 522. It would be simple, in a way, to demonstrate that claim here; but, if a man is to be equal to his friend, then he must go where his friend goes. And, he must come from where his friend comes from. Where all men but one came from. One good turn deserves another. That’s the key to the other keys. You step, and you find a solid place for your foot. The mountain is high, and the air is thin, and few can be convinced to climb it. There is no Bible code except that which emphasizes the simple, but most significant, message in the plain text. It is a 'hidden message' only to those who will not believe it.

The root of the most powerful infinite fractal does not leave anything except itself the same each time it comes around. A minimum of spirituality is not enough. God ''does'' have a message. And, only God is unchanging. The question is, what is the root of the most powerful spiritual 'fractal'? It has always been there. In terms of it, every key is an 'other key'.

== Judah and Reuben ==

[[Reuben]], the eldest son of [[Jacob]], was always well-intentioned (Genesis 37:22, 29-30), but unstable and rash (Genesis 49:4, 42:37). [[Judah]], the fourth son, was stable, if slow to make up his mind for himself<ref>"[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Judah#The_Plot_against_Joseph|The Plot against Joseph]]"</ref> (Genesis 37:26-27, 43:8-9). So, it was to Judah that his father gave the primary blessing (Genesis 49:8-9).

It is no meaningless coincidence, then, that Judah, of his own siblings, is pinpointed by the unit of 111 at Genesis 37:26 (the tenth multiple of 111 verses), just as Isaac was most dramatically pinpointed by the fifth multiple (as hinted at in the final two sentences of the Introduction, i.e., Genesis 22:7). Both Judah and Isaac are figures of Christ, each in a different way. Joseph is a third figure of Christ, in still another, and even more powerful, way.

== Joseph ==

The first multiple of 111 which pinpoints Joseph is Genesis 41:25. In this verse (which is the 11th multiple of 111 verses), Joseph is beginning his answer to Pharaoh to interpret Pharaoh's dream: ''"The [two] dreams are one: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do."''

Now, if you'll count thirty (30) verses after 41:25, you'll find the verse that names Joseph to all the Egyptians as the man to whom they must appeal for food. The significance of 30 is well known to those Jews and Christians who study the significances of various numbers. Even Jesus began his ministry at 'about' thirty years of age, and, so, Joseph begins his to the people.

By the time of the 12th multiple (Genesis 44:7), Joseph's brothers have bowed themselves to the ground to Joseph (whom they do not recognize as such since he disguises himself as a rough-talking Egyptian government prime minister), have had a special meal with him, and have been on their way back toward their father Jacob with the grain. Joseph's servant has caught up with them and has flatly accused them of theft. The charge is that they have stolen an empty vessel that was precious to the prime minister for it's powers of divining the future. Now they deny their guilt, saying, furthermore, that if any of them is so guilty, then that one ought to die and that the rest of them will submit to being slaves to the prime minister. But, of course, Joseph has set them up for a fall of which they have been guilty for twenty years, when all their sacks are opened.

The 13th multiple states that, though Joseph's wisdom has caused all the lands of Egypt to be bought up by him for Pharaoh, the lands of the priests were exempt from this purchase because the priests needs were already supported by Pharaoh and didn't need to sell their lands in order to get by.

== Moses ==

In a similar manner to the fact that Joseph's Pharaoh did not get the lands of the priests, the 14th multiple (Exodus 1:21) puts God Himself in place of the next (and evil) Pharaoh in respect to the midwives, who would not allow for that evil Pharaoh to have an easy means of oppressing the Hebrews: those midwives were blessed by God in a very tangible way: 'houses' of their own. But, who, in a specific future way, were they protecting? Question: what type did that specific protected person's works fill?

Answer: Christ's type. 30 verses after Exodus 1:21, you'll find the call of Moses at the burning bush.
Of course, you could just go to the 40th verse after Exodus 1:21 (and to 14:14). But, that call to Moses establishes the next set of every-111, because the next four units of 111 verses are Exodus 3:4, 10:28, '''14:27''', and 19:1. Imagine if that third one was the text of something like 14:10, by the verse divisions being rather different from how we do have them.

== We are all one man’s sons ==

If you have read the contexts of verses pinpointed by the unit of 111 verses, then you will know that it does not exclude the verses immediately before and after the verse pinpointed. Otherwise, there is no context by which to understand the verse pinpointed. And, the whole point is context.

Genesis 42:10 is pinpointed by a different key than that of the 111 unit, by “branching off” of 930 without adding another layer as the 111 unit does. So, what we are doing, instead, is following the trunk straight up/straight down: 144 is visually coded as 930, and 930 is visually coded as 1263. You will find that the 1,263rd verse is Genesis 42:10, which I asked about in the second section of this essay. For the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being unfriendly spies, all men will claim, and rightly so, that they are all one man’s sons. And, they really are all one man’s sons. Adam’s. This is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ, in that Christ was not a son of Adam and so he could be a judge of all sons of Adam.

== You and All the rest ==

Do I have to?

What does it mean that a father and his son agree to do something by which others have plotted to kill them?

And, what did God think of a world in which all good land was already inhabited by peoples who had lost their way and who would not listen or consider? In regard to the former world, all the Earth had been reclaimed by God as one great act.

Now, there was not to be a repeat of that world, which is why God scattered everyone who had congregated in Babel and at its great tower. So, what, really, was left to be done when God called Abram? Answer: give the man a reason to keep at his original way because of which he was called.

It was the earliest opportunity to select a man to take Shem's place. Even though Shem was to outlive him by decades, the much younger man was the better one for the current job. Shem, had been preceded by Enoch in terms of perspective, but not even Shem could claim to understand what it was like to live as a native of that present world. Shem had never been so stupid. So, it had to be a father and his son who, in all innocence and determination, began the next stage of the world.

By all this, find it, if you can. Otherwise, it doesn't look like it belongs in all this, or that it could ever amount to anything. It stands out precisely because it doesn't. All the other nations wanted nothing to do with such humble beginnings. And, Egypt itself did so only because Egypt was forced to it by the need to survive: there was no where else for so many people to go to live; only the Nile delta, which they already were so good at keeping; everything else was a bareness which simply could not support them. If you were determined to go out anyway, Godspeed to you. But, if you were determined to stay, then you were not allowed to jeapordize the lives of everyone (including yourself) by simply staying. You had to commit, by a means that would allow you to stay without the fatal risk that had promised to wipe them all out.

For only one people was it an election, and who did not live in the delta. Their land was at the junction of all Earth's trade, and because God, in His wisdom, had selected that land for to be the land of His own nation. In a fallen world only. To wit:

<blockquote>
At some point in the rise of ancient Egypt as a center of civilization, the yearly flood of the Nile basin had spread enough disease organisms, such as through septic contamination, through the waist-high crop water, that the foreskins of a small number of laborers became irreparably infected, requiring the removal of the infected portion of their foreskins. In some cases it became apparent that the removal of the infected portions was required to save the sufferers’ lives, and, through laying with their wives, the lives of their wives.

Thus began the method of circumcision used by the Egyptians: free-hand cutting of the skin at both sides just beyond the infection, the infected portion removed, and the originally distant two ends of skin moved together to heal into one.

By decree of the leader of the Egyptians, the state of these first newly-circumcised men was closely monitored, to see whether and how well they healed, how long the healing might take, and any means to help the process. Also, the causes of the disease were sought out, and were thereby found to be the water-born filth of both man and herd-animal (thus were shepherds banned from approaching Egypt with their flocks; Genesis 46:34). And, thus was learned and recorded the details of the success of the operation upon these men. Women either already were spared infection by not being needed to labor in the flood fields, or were soon removed from such laboring due to the difficulty of successfully treating infection of the more complex female anatomy.

The now-healed circumcised Egyptian men returned to work, and were observed not to become further infected, thus foretelling a preventive means of treatment for the disease.

But, more men of Egypt became so infected, and thus were circumcised. And, since not all Egyptian men were yet circumcised, the disease organism grew so strong that even some circumcised men began to become re-infected. Once it became known that the infection was so spreading, and that the infection could be fatal to both a man and his wife, it became a matter of survival that all men of Egypt be circumcised: there was nowhere else that the masses of Egyptians could live so well, if at all; The surrounding lands were far too sparse of growth to support the masses. Once all men of Egypt were circumcised, it was observed that the disease was stopped.

So became the state of circumcision seen by all in those lands as a sign of an easily prosperous, and thus luxurious, way of life. And, it was required that, for any males from other lands to be accorded the freedom to live-and-work in Egypt, those males first had to submit to circumcision lest the disease again be activated.

Some baby boys had become infected at the height of the outbreak, and were successfully treated by circumcision. Thus became to be observed and recorded the lowest uncomplicating limit of circumcising babies due to the acquisition of the coagulation factor in living blood. And, when it was seen that the cut healed quicker and better in babies than in men, thus began the routine circumcision of Egyptian baby boys, at eight days old. But, as routine as it became to circumcise its infant boys, ancient Egypt at least as well routinely delayed circumcising boys until the boys were culturally old enough to have to labor, as had their fathers, in the flood waters of the delta.

Moreover, as necessary as it was for the Egyptian people to have their men circumcised, some of richest men in Egypt could afford not to labor in the flood waters that made the Nile delta such a prosperous place to live. Thus occasioned some of these men opting not to get circumcised.

Now, the land just north-east of Egypt, along the eastern-most side of the Mediterranean, was (and is) the most heavily travelled cross-roads to the Earth’s host of travelers and merchants. That land thus saw the most traffic in terms of amount and variety of disease organisms, both in and out of water. Therefore, the best way for a people to live on that land included permanent exposure of all penile skin to the bacterial ‘desert’ of the open air, thus ensuring that they neither caught nor spread the diseases which begin in, afflict, and are spread by, uncircumcised men in a disease-organism-heavy environment. Those travelling through needed not be circumcised. But, those who remained as functional residents must be circumcised, lest they acquire and spread those diseases to any who live there and/or to any who merely visit.

But, Abra(ha)m, in receiving the sign of God’s geographic covenant with his descendants, was wise and good. So, he invented the kosher method of circumcision, unlike the method the Egyptians were too proud to replace. Abra(ha)m’s method was the shield method, which was neat and quick, which meant it required little or no anesthetic, and healed well and even. The Egyptian method was most primitive by every measure: it not only was ragged and thus healed slowly and was especially bloody and painful, but, given its by-then merely customary target-skin, it unnecessarily removed most of the tactile-sensitive tissue which comprises the inner portion of the foreskin. Thus, unlike the Egyptian method and its origins, the original Jewish method of circumcision was both '''the best possible in every measure including being entirely preventive''. In a word, the method of circumcision which Abraham performed was 'kosher' in the ancient sense of the word.
</blockquote>

And, now, in the aforementioned thing which a certain father and his son agreed to do (as hinted at in the previous section of this essay), what they agreed to do was anything but preventive as far as they were concerned. What they agreed to do was so deeply traumatic for them that they were immobilized, as if by nails, and even seemed to the onlookers to be babbling the nonsense of men in fever. But, that father and son had counted the cost, and were still willing to go through with it so that they should obtain what those conspiring against them had pretended to agree to share with them. But, what that first, prophetic set of those conspirers did not know was that their future types would fail to keep from the father and son what those future types would not even pretend to offer to the father and son.

== 144 and 153 ==

The primary complex number is 144. It is twelve squared, in which twelve is the number of full council, and the squaring of which is to spread full council over a surface, as the surface of the Earth.

John 21:11 actually bothers to specify the number of fish in a certain flawlessly made catch. But, why would anyone do so, unless they had a knowledge of numbers beyond the ignorant impression that "numbers are just numbers, and therefore trivial in the extreme". But, even [[Numbers 23:23]] is anything but trivial.

Now, when the number of those fish is added to 144, the result is one of exactly nine numbers which collectively reverse all asymmetric three-digit numbers: 99, 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792, 891.

...Which is only the '''''beginning''''' of that topic, because the '''''153rd''''' verse gives the '''''dimensions of Noah's ark''''', and the '''''144th''''' says, ''And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.''

== Adam's life of toil, spelled '930' ==

To begin with...

...A man's total years of fallen life in the fallen world may be thought of as his 'week' of toil, because, when a man dies, he no longer toils. So, however many years he lived, those are 'one week of years.' 'Six days' of toil.

Adam lived 930 years of toil, or 'one week of 930 years'. So, each of Adam's 'six days' of years was 155 years.

Now, in terms of textual reference of Adam's years of life, Genesis is book one (1), with chapter 5 and verse 5. That, too, is '155'.

This adds to the already demonstrated efficacy of the unit of 111 verses.

== Beyond 930 ==

Prime numbers are those with the least possible quantity of factors/divisors (respectively themselves, and 1). In that sense, and in many other senses, they are very much predictable, like soldiers of the most exquisite skill carrying out the most demanding of 'marching orders'. But, despite these finely tuned 'marching orders', the prime numbers also are extremely unpredictable: you never know exactly when or where they will turn up...

(((FYI: I believe there is relative utility within any set of algorithms intended to more-or-less predict, or find more-or-less predictive patterns for, the occurrence of the prime numbers: not all such algorithms are equally useful to that intent. In other words, I believe that, given all the various attempts, to date, to predict the primes, there is a general narrowing down of the predictive power of algorithms so intended. But, I believe there logically can never be any sub-set of all algorithms-so-intended that can actually strictly predict the primes. Which means I believe there is no finite maximum of such algorithms that can perfectly predict the primes.)))

...But, there is a reverse side of that coin...

...namely '''12'''.

Let me explain.

Twelve, or any multiple of twelve, is always the first in the natural series to have an increase in quantity of factors over any lesser number. This implies that any greater number lesser than the next multiple of twelve never has an excess of that quantity of factors. I call this Quantitative Factoral Initiation (QFI).

So, twelve and its multiples are numbers that 'mother the most children', for which the factors of those numbers are the children. This is reflected by 2 as the root QFI number over 1, and also as reflected by 6 as the highest of the smallest non-primes with a continuous string of factors:

QFI is at every sixth number-divisible-by-two, and that sixth number is always a multiple of 12 (rather than of 6):

2 is divisible by 2 and 1.

4 is divisible by 2 and 1 (into 2+2 and 1+1+1=1).

6 is divisible by 2, 1, and 3 (This is the first progress: Per 3a., above; and, Per that one of these three options is a dynamic prime, specifically, the First Dynamic Prime, per 3b. above).

8 is divisible by 2, 1, and 4 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

10 is divisible by 2, 1, and 5 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

12 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Aha! The first ‘large’ number).

14 is divisible by 2, 1, and 7 (Uh-oh! NOW we’re SINKING!).

16 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, and 8 (no better than for 12).

18 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 6, and 9 (no better than for 12).

20 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 5, and 10 (no better than 12, so the sharks still circle).

22 is divisible by 2, 1, and 11 (My Gosh! Have we forgotten even how to tread water?!).

24 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8…and 12 (Yeeeaahh! A leap of two-dolphins-more-than 20’s zero dolphins, to give us a ride to shore!).

26 is divisible by 2, 1, and 13 (The dolphins have dumped us amidst a veritable horde of sharks!).

28 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 7, and 14 (no better than for 20, sharks still circle).

30 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 (no better than for 24, but at least now we’re back on the dolphins, heading for shore).

32 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 8 and 16 (no better than for 20, the dolphins have again dumped us off).

34 is divisible by 2, 1, and 17 (no better than for 6! AHH! A shark just brushed our leg!!!).

36 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 (that’s a jump of +5 more than for 34!).

This reflects the root partnership between 2 and 6. So, beginning with 12, every sixth number-divisible-by-two is a QFI number.

QFI permits an exact 'grid' for the entire natural series, in terms of QFI=6 as multiples of twelve. Compare this to a 'grid' using any other multiple, say, multiples of 5 or 10: such an alternate 'grid' is a more arbitrary, less-interrelated, 'grid', partly because, unlike twelve, 10 lacks a continuous string of factors (1, 2, and 5 for 10; whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 12). Any number with a continuous string of at least four factors is divisible by 12, but not any number with a continuous string of three factors is divisible by 10 or 5.

So, 12 and its multiples, per QFI, are the perfect compliment, or counter-balance, to the Principle of Primes (including, but not limited to, minimal factorization), with 2 being the root-in-common between primes and non-primes, and with 6 being the mediator between 2 and 12.

Now, if my ‘grid’ theory is correct for all this, then the only question is: What is the algorithm that defines that ‘grid’? I think it must involve a ‘dance’ between QFI and the primes.

'''A NOTE ABOUT THE ROLE OF 2'''

'''1a.''' Any number which is divisible only by ‘itself and 1’ is called ‘prime’ because a number which is ‘divisible only by 1’ is a tautology. I repeat, it’s a tautology. In other words, to say that A=A is no more informative than simply saying ‘A’.

'''1b.''' This implies, firstly, that any number which is divisible by 1 also is ‘divisible’ by itself (i.e. resulting in ‘1’, that is, in a single instance of the original number---as if that’s not IMMEDIATELY obvious).

'''2a.''' Secondly, it implies that any number divisible by 2 (including 2) is a number a property of which is the ‘Principle of Division’, distinction, dichotomy, basic logic, learning, symmetry, intelligence, etc..

'''2b.''' Any number greater than 2 which is divisible by 2 also is divisible by at least one other number, namely, half the original number.

'''3a.''' But, per 1a. and 1b., above, numbers which are divisible by 2 also are divisible by 1 (which is tantamount to the original number). This means that, for ‘large’ numbers which are divisible by 2, they are divisible by at least two other numbers: half the original number and 1 (with the original number being simply an alternate expression of that 1).

Therefore, I observe that:

'''3b.''' 2 is divisible by 2, and 1, in that it is made of exactly two 1’s. But, 2 is NOT divisible by any other number (i.e., it cannot be otherwise divided into equal units). So, per 1a and 1b, above, 2 is not a ‘dynamic’ prime, but merely is the simple, ‘static’ prime. In other words, 2 has no alterative, unlike all other numbers which are not 1. And, unlike all other primes above 1, 2 is divisible by 2, which serves to further establish the ‘Property of Division’ noted in 2a.

.

.

== References ==
<References></References>

[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay: Bible Codes

2013-05-30T00:51:38Z

PatternOfPersona: /* You and All the rest */

== General Introduction ==

It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.

In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.

So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.

If such a text naturally contains subtextual patterns which are unique to, and most compelling of, all those in all of literature, then there need be no authentication codes deliberately crafted into the text in order for such a text to contain authentication codes. Ho hum. All that is needed to authenticate supposed copies of the original is first to determine the original (a process which may include determining the patterns that ought to exist in the original). But, a true copy of an original cannot be determined without directly ascertaining that every word and phrase in the copy is the same as the original. So, an authentication code would not itself serve the purpose of authentication, but would serve only to screen for candidates of authenticity.

With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning [[Melchizedek]] and [[Abraham]] believed, then it was [[Shem]] who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.

Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.

By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the [[Jewish]] tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].

The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in the 11th chapter of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]].
Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.

The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.

The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain?

Shem couldn’t save humanity, no matter how much he knew, or how well his brain worked: the entire world had changed, and now people were fortunate to remain strong, if still alive, to the age at which a man formerly got married and had his first child. And, if the old world had been abominable, this present one didn’t look to be shaping up any better: Nations were being made, and each, in turn, was failing the law of righteousness from their inception. Shem was worried, as any mere man would be who understood the world from such a depressingly privileged position. Though he had never known Adam, he had been in mind of Adam’s death, and of God’s first great promise, because he had seen first-hand the grace by which God had preserved the elect, and by the sign in the cloud the remembrance of which God never again would so ‘grace’ the world. So, when he learned that Abram was the best suited for being the father of the next world, he took action. Shem had a hunch, at the very least, of what God would do, and that it would be a new thing, never vainly the old thing twice. So, even if, according to some students of scripture, Shem didn’t know of the patterns that were possible in a text, the whole point of ‘Melchizedek’ was to make a statement about [[Shiloh]], and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was something of which Shem, at that time, had no foreknowledge: a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.

That incident centers on the 555th verse.

== Introduction to the other keys ==

When a man is born, he is not yet equal to his father. Even when the man has reached full maturity, and by then ideally is married, he still is not equal. And, even when he has a son of his own, he is merely halfway to being equal to his father. Only when his own son has a son of his own is he equal to his father. Four generations. Two fathers, each of whom has a son-who-has-a-son. According to ancient Jewish culture, what may be the ideal age of the younger of the two? And, what does it mean to be halfway to infinity?

Now that I’ve either confused you, got your attention, or both, here’s an easier question: what is the spiritual significance of Genesis 42:9-11? In other words, if there is a spiritual allegory to be drawn from that passage, then what is it? In the preceding paragraph, it is suggested that, in order for a son to be equal to his father, he must have a son who is equal to him; and, that the only way by which a man, as such, may be equal to his father is to have a son, even as his father has a son.

Now, the only other number that visually codes into ‘930’ the way 144 does is 522. It would be simple, in a way, to demonstrate that claim here; but, if a man is to be equal to his friend, then he must go where his friend goes. And, he must come from where his friend comes from. Where all men but one came from. One good turn deserves another. That’s the key to the other keys. You step, and you find a solid place for your foot. The mountain is high, and the air is thin, and few can be convinced to climb it. There is no Bible code except that which emphasizes the simple, but most significant, message in the plain text. It is a 'hidden message' only to those who will not believe it.

The root of the most powerful infinite fractal does not leave anything except itself the same each time it comes around. A minimum of spirituality is not enough. God ''does'' have a message. And, only God is unchanging. The question is, what is the root of the most powerful spiritual 'fractal'? It has always been there. In terms of it, every key is an 'other key'.

== Judah and Reuben ==

[[Reuben]], the eldest son of [[Jacob]], was always well-intentioned (Genesis 37:22, 29-30), but unstable and rash (Genesis 49:4, 42:37). [[Judah]], the fourth son, was stable, if slow to make up his mind for himself<ref>"[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Judah#The_Plot_against_Joseph|The Plot against Joseph]]"</ref> (Genesis 37:26-27, 43:8-9). So, it was to Judah that his father gave the primary blessing (Genesis 49:8-9).

It is no meaningless coincidence, then, that Judah, of his own siblings, is pinpointed by the unit of 111 at Genesis 37:26 (the tenth multiple of 111 verses), just as Isaac was most dramatically pinpointed by the fifth multiple (as hinted at in the final two sentences of the Introduction, i.e., Genesis 22:7). Both Judah and Isaac are figures of Christ, each in a different way. Joseph is a third figure of Christ, in still another, and even more powerful, way.

== Joseph ==

The first multiple of 111 which pinpoints Joseph is Genesis 41:25. In this verse (which is the 11th multiple of 111 verses), Joseph is beginning his answer to Pharaoh to interpret Pharaoh's dream: ''"The [two] dreams are one: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do."''

Now, if you'll count thirty (30) verses after 41:25, you'll find the verse that names Joseph to all the Egyptians as the man to whom they must appeal for food. The significance of 30 is well known to those Jews and Christians who study the significances of various numbers. Even Jesus began his ministry at 'about' thirty years of age, and, so, Joseph begins his to the people.

By the time of the 12th multiple (Genesis 44:7), Joseph's brothers have bowed themselves to the ground to Joseph (whom they do not recognize as such since he disguises himself as a rough-talking Egyptian government prime minister), have had a special meal with him, and have been on their way back toward their father Jacob with the grain. Joseph's servant has caught up with them and has flatly accused them of theft. The charge is that they have stolen an empty vessel that was precious to the prime minister for it's powers of divining the future. Now they deny their guilt, saying, furthermore, that if any of them is so guilty, then that one ought to die and that the rest of them will submit to being slaves to the prime minister. But, of course, Joseph has set them up for a fall of which they have been guilty for twenty years, when all their sacks are opened.

The 13th multiple states that, though Joseph's wisdom has caused all the lands of Egypt to be bought up by him for Pharaoh, the lands of the priests were exempt from this purchase because the priests needs were already supported by Pharaoh and didn't need to sell their lands in order to get by.

== Moses ==

In a similar manner to the fact that Joseph's Pharaoh did not get the lands of the priests, the 14th multiple (Exodus 1:21) puts God Himself in place of the next (and evil) Pharaoh in respect to the midwives, who would not allow for that evil Pharaoh to have an easy means of oppressing the Hebrews: those midwives were blessed by God in a very tangible way: 'houses' of their own. But, who, in a specific future way, were they protecting? Question: what type did that specific protected person's works fill?

Answer: Christ's type. 30 verses after Exodus 1:21, you'll find the call of Moses at the burning bush.
Of course, you could just go to the 40th verse after Exodus 1:21 (and to 14:14). But, that call to Moses establishes the next set of every-111, because the next four units of 111 verses are Exodus 3:4, 10:28, '''14:27''', and 19:1. Imagine if that third one was the text of something like 14:10, by the verse divisions being rather different from how we do have them.

== We are all one man’s sons ==

If you have read the contexts of verses pinpointed by the unit of 111 verses, then you will know that it does not exclude the verses immediately before and after the verse pinpointed. Otherwise, there is no context by which to understand the verse pinpointed. And, the whole point is context.

Genesis 42:10 is pinpointed by a different key than that of the 111 unit, by “branching off” of 930 without adding another layer as the 111 unit does. So, what we are doing, instead, is following the trunk straight up/straight down: 144 is visually coded as 930, and 930 is visually coded as 1263. You will find that the 1,263rd verse is Genesis 42:10, which I asked about in the second section of this essay. For the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being unfriendly spies, all men will claim, and rightly so, that they are all one man’s sons. And, they really are all one man’s sons. Adam’s. This is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ, in that Christ was not a son of Adam and so he could be a judge of all sons of Adam.

== You and All the rest ==

Do I have to?

What does it mean that a father and his son agree to do something by which others have plotted to kill them?

And, what did God think of a world in which all good land was already inhabited by peoples who had lost their way and who would not listen or consider? In regard to the former world, all the Earth had been reclaimed by God is one great act.

Now, there was not to be a repeat of that world, which is why God scattered everyone who had congregated in Babel and at its great tower. So, what, really, was left to be done when God called Abram? Answer: give the man a reason to keep at his original way because of which he was called.

It was the earliest opportunity to select a man to take Shem's place. Even though Shem was to outlive him by decades, the much younger man was the better one for the current job. Shem, had been preceded by Enoch in terms of perspective, but not even Shem could claim to understand what it was like to live as a native of that present world. Shem had never been so stupid. So, it had to be a father and his son who, in all innocence and determination, began the next stage of the world.

By all this, find it, if you can. Otherwise, it doesn't look like it belongs in all this, or that it could ever amount to anything. It stands out precisely because it doesn't. All the other nations wanted nothing to do with such humble beginnings. And, Egypt itself did so only because Egypt was forced to it by the need to survive: there was no where else for so many people to go to live; only the Nile delta, which they already were so good at keeping; everything else was a bareness which simply could not support them. If you were determined to go out anyway, Godspeed to you. But, if you were determined to stay, then you were not allowed to jeapordize the lives of everyone (including yourself) by simply staying. You had to commit, by a means that would allow you to stay without the fatal risk that had promised to wipe them all out.

For only one people was it an election, and who did not live in the delta. Their land was at the junction of all Earth's trade, and because God, in His wisdom, had selected that land for to be the land of His own nation. In a fallen world only. To wit:

<blockquote>
At some point in the rise of ancient Egypt as a center of civilization, the yearly flood of the Nile basin had spread enough disease organisms, such as through septic contamination, through the waist-high crop water, that the foreskins of a small number of laborers became irreparably infected, requiring the removal of the infected portion of their foreskins. In some cases it became apparent that the removal of the infected portions was required to save the sufferers’ lives, and, through laying with their wives, the lives of their wives.

Thus began the method of circumcision used by the Egyptians: free-hand cutting of the skin at both sides just beyond the infection, the infected portion removed, and the originally distant two ends of skin moved together to heal into one.

By decree of the leader of the Egyptians, the state of these first newly-circumcised men was closely monitored, to see whether and how well they healed, how long the healing might take, and any means to help the process. Also, the causes of the disease were sought out, and were thereby found to be the water-born filth of both man and herd-animal (thus were shepherds banned from approaching Egypt with their flocks; Genesis 46:34). And, thus was learned and recorded the details of the success of the operation upon these men. Women either already were spared infection by not being needed to labor in the flood fields, or were soon removed from such laboring due to the difficulty of successfully treating infection of the more complex female anatomy.

The now-healed circumcised Egyptian men returned to work, and were observed not to become further infected, thus foretelling a preventive means of treatment for the disease.

But, more men of Egypt became so infected, and thus were circumcised. And, since not all Egyptian men were yet circumcised, the disease organism grew so strong that even some circumcised men began to become re-infected. Once it became known that the infection was so spreading, and that the infection could be fatal to both a man and his wife, it became a matter of survival that all men of Egypt be circumcised: there was nowhere else that the masses of Egyptians could live so well, if at all; The surrounding lands were far too sparse of growth to support the masses. Once all men of Egypt were circumcised, it was observed that the disease was stopped.

So became the state of circumcision seen by all in those lands as a sign of an easily prosperous, and thus luxurious, way of life. And, it was required that, for any males from other lands to be accorded the freedom to live-and-work in Egypt, those males first had to submit to circumcision lest the disease again be activated.

Some baby boys had become infected at the height of the outbreak, and were successfully treated by circumcision. Thus became to be observed and recorded the lowest uncomplicating limit of circumcising babies due to the acquisition of the coagulation factor in living blood. And, when it was seen that the cut healed quicker and better in babies than in men, thus began the routine circumcision of Egyptian baby boys, at eight days old. But, as routine as it became to circumcise its infant boys, ancient Egypt at least as well routinely delayed circumcising boys until the boys were culturally old enough to have to labor, as had their fathers, in the flood waters of the delta.

Moreover, as necessary as it was for the Egyptian people to have their men circumcised, some of richest men in Egypt could afford not to labor in the flood waters that made the Nile delta such a prosperous place to live. Thus occasioned some of these men opting not to get circumcised.

Now, the land just north-east of Egypt, along the eastern-most side of the Mediterranean, was (and is) the most heavily travelled cross-roads to the Earth’s host of travelers and merchants. That land thus saw the most traffic in terms of amount and variety of disease organisms, both in and out of water. Therefore, the best way for a people to live on that land included permanent exposure of all penile skin to the bacterial ‘desert’ of the open air, thus ensuring that they neither caught nor spread the diseases which begin in, afflict, and are spread by, uncircumcised men in a disease-organism-heavy environment. Those travelling through needed not be circumcised. But, those who remained as functional residents must be circumcised, lest they acquire and spread those diseases to any who live there and/or to any who merely visit.

But, Abra(ha)m, in receiving the sign of God’s geographic covenant with his descendants, was wise and good. So, he invented the kosher method of circumcision, unlike the method the Egyptians were too proud to replace. Abra(ha)m’s method was the shield method, which was neat and quick, which meant it required little or no anesthetic, and healed well and even. The Egyptian method was most primitive by every measure: it not only was ragged and thus healed slowly and was especially bloody and painful, but, given its by-then merely customary target-skin, it unnecessarily removed most of the tactile-sensitive tissue which comprises the inner portion of the foreskin. Thus, unlike the Egyptian method and its origins, the original Jewish method of circumcision was both '''the best possible in every measure including being entirely preventive''. In a word, the method of circumcision which Abraham performed was 'kosher' in the ancient sense of the word.
</blockquote>

And, now, in the aforementioned thing which a certain father and his son agreed to do (as hinted at in the previous section of this essay), what they agreed to do was anything but preventive as far as they were concerned. What they agreed to do was so deeply traumatic for them that they were immobilized, as if by nails, and even seemed to the onlookers to be babbling the nonsense of men in fever. But, that father and son had counted the cost, and were still willing to go through with it so that they should obtain what those conspiring against them had pretended to agree to share with them. But, what that first, prophetic set of those conspirers did not know was that their future types would fail to keep from the father and son what those future types would not even pretend to offer to the father and son.

== 144 and 153 ==

The primary complex number is 144. It is twelve squared, in which twelve is the number of full council, and the squaring of which is to spread full council over a surface, as the surface of the Earth.

John 21:11 actually bothers to specify the number of fish in a certain flawlessly made catch. But, why would anyone do so, unless they had a knowledge of numbers beyond the ignorant impression that "numbers are just numbers, and therefore trivial in the extreme". But, even [[Numbers 23:23]] is anything but trivial.

Now, when the number of those fish is added to 144, the result is one of exactly nine numbers which collectively reverse all asymmetric three-digit numbers: 99, 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792, 891.

...Which is only the '''''beginning''''' of that topic, because the '''''153rd''''' verse gives the '''''dimensions of Noah's ark''''', and the '''''144th''''' says, ''And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.''

== Adam's life of toil, spelled '930' ==

To begin with...

...A man's total years of fallen life in the fallen world may be thought of as his 'week' of toil, because, when a man dies, he no longer toils. So, however many years he lived, those are 'one week of years.' 'Six days' of toil.

Adam lived 930 years of toil, or 'one week of 930 years'. So, each of Adam's 'six days' of years was 155 years.

Now, in terms of textual reference of Adam's years of life, Genesis is book one (1), with chapter 5 and verse 5. That, too, is '155'.

This adds to the already demonstrated efficacy of the unit of 111 verses.

== Beyond 930 ==

Prime numbers are those with the least possible quantity of factors/divisors (respectively themselves, and 1). In that sense, and in many other senses, they are very much predictable, like soldiers of the most exquisite skill carrying out the most demanding of 'marching orders'. But, despite these finely tuned 'marching orders', the prime numbers also are extremely unpredictable: you never know exactly when or where they will turn up...

(((FYI: I believe there is relative utility within any set of algorithms intended to more-or-less predict, or find more-or-less predictive patterns for, the occurrence of the prime numbers: not all such algorithms are equally useful to that intent. In other words, I believe that, given all the various attempts, to date, to predict the primes, there is a general narrowing down of the predictive power of algorithms so intended. But, I believe there logically can never be any sub-set of all algorithms-so-intended that can actually strictly predict the primes. Which means I believe there is no finite maximum of such algorithms that can perfectly predict the primes.)))

...But, there is a reverse side of that coin...

...namely '''12'''.

Let me explain.

Twelve, or any multiple of twelve, is always the first in the natural series to have an increase in quantity of factors over any lesser number. This implies that any greater number lesser than the next multiple of twelve never has an excess of that quantity of factors. I call this Quantitative Factoral Initiation (QFI).

So, twelve and its multiples are numbers that 'mother the most children', for which the factors of those numbers are the children. This is reflected by 2 as the root QFI number over 1, and also as reflected by 6 as the highest of the smallest non-primes with a continuous string of factors:

QFI is at every sixth number-divisible-by-two, and that sixth number is always a multiple of 12 (rather than of 6):

2 is divisible by 2 and 1.

4 is divisible by 2 and 1 (into 2+2 and 1+1+1=1).

6 is divisible by 2, 1, and 3 (This is the first progress: Per 3a., above; and, Per that one of these three options is a dynamic prime, specifically, the First Dynamic Prime, per 3b. above).

8 is divisible by 2, 1, and 4 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

10 is divisible by 2, 1, and 5 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

12 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Aha! The first ‘large’ number).

14 is divisible by 2, 1, and 7 (Uh-oh! NOW we’re SINKING!).

16 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, and 8 (no better than for 12).

18 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 6, and 9 (no better than for 12).

20 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 5, and 10 (no better than 12, so the sharks still circle).

22 is divisible by 2, 1, and 11 (My Gosh! Have we forgotten even how to tread water?!).

24 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8…and 12 (Yeeeaahh! A leap of two-dolphins-more-than 20’s zero dolphins, to give us a ride to shore!).

26 is divisible by 2, 1, and 13 (The dolphins have dumped us amidst a veritable horde of sharks!).

28 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 7, and 14 (no better than for 20, sharks still circle).

30 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 (no better than for 24, but at least now we’re back on the dolphins, heading for shore).

32 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 8 and 16 (no better than for 20, the dolphins have again dumped us off).

34 is divisible by 2, 1, and 17 (no better than for 6! AHH! A shark just brushed our leg!!!).

36 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 (that’s a jump of +5 more than for 34!).

This reflects the root partnership between 2 and 6. So, beginning with 12, every sixth number-divisible-by-two is a QFI number.

QFI permits an exact 'grid' for the entire natural series, in terms of QFI=6 as multiples of twelve. Compare this to a 'grid' using any other multiple, say, multiples of 5 or 10: such an alternate 'grid' is a more arbitrary, less-interrelated, 'grid', partly because, unlike twelve, 10 lacks a continuous string of factors (1, 2, and 5 for 10; whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 12). Any number with a continuous string of at least four factors is divisible by 12, but not any number with a continuous string of three factors is divisible by 10 or 5.

So, 12 and its multiples, per QFI, are the perfect compliment, or counter-balance, to the Principle of Primes (including, but not limited to, minimal factorization), with 2 being the root-in-common between primes and non-primes, and with 6 being the mediator between 2 and 12.

Now, if my ‘grid’ theory is correct for all this, then the only question is: What is the algorithm that defines that ‘grid’? I think it must involve a ‘dance’ between QFI and the primes.

'''A NOTE ABOUT THE ROLE OF 2'''

'''1a.''' Any number which is divisible only by ‘itself and 1’ is called ‘prime’ because a number which is ‘divisible only by 1’ is a tautology. I repeat, it’s a tautology. In other words, to say that A=A is no more informative than simply saying ‘A’.

'''1b.''' This implies, firstly, that any number which is divisible by 1 also is ‘divisible’ by itself (i.e. resulting in ‘1’, that is, in a single instance of the original number---as if that’s not IMMEDIATELY obvious).

'''2a.''' Secondly, it implies that any number divisible by 2 (including 2) is a number a property of which is the ‘Principle of Division’, distinction, dichotomy, basic logic, learning, symmetry, intelligence, etc..

'''2b.''' Any number greater than 2 which is divisible by 2 also is divisible by at least one other number, namely, half the original number.

'''3a.''' But, per 1a. and 1b., above, numbers which are divisible by 2 also are divisible by 1 (which is tantamount to the original number). This means that, for ‘large’ numbers which are divisible by 2, they are divisible by at least two other numbers: half the original number and 1 (with the original number being simply an alternate expression of that 1).

Therefore, I observe that:

'''3b.''' 2 is divisible by 2, and 1, in that it is made of exactly two 1’s. But, 2 is NOT divisible by any other number (i.e., it cannot be otherwise divided into equal units). So, per 1a and 1b, above, 2 is not a ‘dynamic’ prime, but merely is the simple, ‘static’ prime. In other words, 2 has no alterative, unlike all other numbers which are not 1. And, unlike all other primes above 1, 2 is divisible by 2, which serves to further establish the ‘Property of Division’ noted in 2a.

.

.

== References ==
<References></References>

[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay: Bible Codes

2013-05-30T00:20:49Z

PatternOfPersona: /* We are all one man’s sons */

== General Introduction ==

It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.

In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.

So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.

If such a text naturally contains subtextual patterns which are unique to, and most compelling of, all those in all of literature, then there need be no authentication codes deliberately crafted into the text in order for such a text to contain authentication codes. Ho hum. All that is needed to authenticate supposed copies of the original is first to determine the original (a process which may include determining the patterns that ought to exist in the original). But, a true copy of an original cannot be determined without directly ascertaining that every word and phrase in the copy is the same as the original. So, an authentication code would not itself serve the purpose of authentication, but would serve only to screen for candidates of authenticity.

With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning [[Melchizedek]] and [[Abraham]] believed, then it was [[Shem]] who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.

Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.

By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the [[Jewish]] tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].

The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in the 11th chapter of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]].
Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.

The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.

The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain?

Shem couldn’t save humanity, no matter how much he knew, or how well his brain worked: the entire world had changed, and now people were fortunate to remain strong, if still alive, to the age at which a man formerly got married and had his first child. And, if the old world had been abominable, this present one didn’t look to be shaping up any better: Nations were being made, and each, in turn, was failing the law of righteousness from their inception. Shem was worried, as any mere man would be who understood the world from such a depressingly privileged position. Though he had never known Adam, he had been in mind of Adam’s death, and of God’s first great promise, because he had seen first-hand the grace by which God had preserved the elect, and by the sign in the cloud the remembrance of which God never again would so ‘grace’ the world. So, when he learned that Abram was the best suited for being the father of the next world, he took action. Shem had a hunch, at the very least, of what God would do, and that it would be a new thing, never vainly the old thing twice. So, even if, according to some students of scripture, Shem didn’t know of the patterns that were possible in a text, the whole point of ‘Melchizedek’ was to make a statement about [[Shiloh]], and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was something of which Shem, at that time, had no foreknowledge: a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.

That incident centers on the 555th verse.

== Introduction to the other keys ==

When a man is born, he is not yet equal to his father. Even when the man has reached full maturity, and by then ideally is married, he still is not equal. And, even when he has a son of his own, he is merely halfway to being equal to his father. Only when his own son has a son of his own is he equal to his father. Four generations. Two fathers, each of whom has a son-who-has-a-son. According to ancient Jewish culture, what may be the ideal age of the younger of the two? And, what does it mean to be halfway to infinity?

Now that I’ve either confused you, got your attention, or both, here’s an easier question: what is the spiritual significance of Genesis 42:9-11? In other words, if there is a spiritual allegory to be drawn from that passage, then what is it? In the preceding paragraph, it is suggested that, in order for a son to be equal to his father, he must have a son who is equal to him; and, that the only way by which a man, as such, may be equal to his father is to have a son, even as his father has a son.

Now, the only other number that visually codes into ‘930’ the way 144 does is 522. It would be simple, in a way, to demonstrate that claim here; but, if a man is to be equal to his friend, then he must go where his friend goes. And, he must come from where his friend comes from. Where all men but one came from. One good turn deserves another. That’s the key to the other keys. You step, and you find a solid place for your foot. The mountain is high, and the air is thin, and few can be convinced to climb it. There is no Bible code except that which emphasizes the simple, but most significant, message in the plain text. It is a 'hidden message' only to those who will not believe it.

The root of the most powerful infinite fractal does not leave anything except itself the same each time it comes around. A minimum of spirituality is not enough. God ''does'' have a message. And, only God is unchanging. The question is, what is the root of the most powerful spiritual 'fractal'? It has always been there. In terms of it, every key is an 'other key'.

== Judah and Reuben ==

[[Reuben]], the eldest son of [[Jacob]], was always well-intentioned (Genesis 37:22, 29-30), but unstable and rash (Genesis 49:4, 42:37). [[Judah]], the fourth son, was stable, if slow to make up his mind for himself<ref>"[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Judah#The_Plot_against_Joseph|The Plot against Joseph]]"</ref> (Genesis 37:26-27, 43:8-9). So, it was to Judah that his father gave the primary blessing (Genesis 49:8-9).

It is no meaningless coincidence, then, that Judah, of his own siblings, is pinpointed by the unit of 111 at Genesis 37:26 (the tenth multiple of 111 verses), just as Isaac was most dramatically pinpointed by the fifth multiple (as hinted at in the final two sentences of the Introduction, i.e., Genesis 22:7). Both Judah and Isaac are figures of Christ, each in a different way. Joseph is a third figure of Christ, in still another, and even more powerful, way.

== Joseph ==

The first multiple of 111 which pinpoints Joseph is Genesis 41:25. In this verse (which is the 11th multiple of 111 verses), Joseph is beginning his answer to Pharaoh to interpret Pharaoh's dream: ''"The [two] dreams are one: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do."''

Now, if you'll count thirty (30) verses after 41:25, you'll find the verse that names Joseph to all the Egyptians as the man to whom they must appeal for food. The significance of 30 is well known to those Jews and Christians who study the significances of various numbers. Even Jesus began his ministry at 'about' thirty years of age, and, so, Joseph begins his to the people.

By the time of the 12th multiple (Genesis 44:7), Joseph's brothers have bowed themselves to the ground to Joseph (whom they do not recognize as such since he disguises himself as a rough-talking Egyptian government prime minister), have had a special meal with him, and have been on their way back toward their father Jacob with the grain. Joseph's servant has caught up with them and has flatly accused them of theft. The charge is that they have stolen an empty vessel that was precious to the prime minister for it's powers of divining the future. Now they deny their guilt, saying, furthermore, that if any of them is so guilty, then that one ought to die and that the rest of them will submit to being slaves to the prime minister. But, of course, Joseph has set them up for a fall of which they have been guilty for twenty years, when all their sacks are opened.

The 13th multiple states that, though Joseph's wisdom has caused all the lands of Egypt to be bought up by him for Pharaoh, the lands of the priests were exempt from this purchase because the priests needs were already supported by Pharaoh and didn't need to sell their lands in order to get by.

== Moses ==

In a similar manner to the fact that Joseph's Pharaoh did not get the lands of the priests, the 14th multiple (Exodus 1:21) puts God Himself in place of the next (and evil) Pharaoh in respect to the midwives, who would not allow for that evil Pharaoh to have an easy means of oppressing the Hebrews: those midwives were blessed by God in a very tangible way: 'houses' of their own. But, who, in a specific future way, were they protecting? Question: what type did that specific protected person's works fill?

Answer: Christ's type. 30 verses after Exodus 1:21, you'll find the call of Moses at the burning bush.
Of course, you could just go to the 40th verse after Exodus 1:21 (and to 14:14). But, that call to Moses establishes the next set of every-111, because the next four units of 111 verses are Exodus 3:4, 10:28, '''14:27''', and 19:1. Imagine if that third one was the text of something like 14:10, by the verse divisions being rather different from how we do have them.

== We are all one man’s sons ==

If you have read the contexts of verses pinpointed by the unit of 111 verses, then you will know that it does not exclude the verses immediately before and after the verse pinpointed. Otherwise, there is no context by which to understand the verse pinpointed. And, the whole point is context.

Genesis 42:10 is pinpointed by a different key than that of the 111 unit, by “branching off” of 930 without adding another layer as the 111 unit does. So, what we are doing, instead, is following the trunk straight up/straight down: 144 is visually coded as 930, and 930 is visually coded as 1263. You will find that the 1,263rd verse is Genesis 42:10, which I asked about in the second section of this essay. For the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being unfriendly spies, all men will claim, and rightly so, that they are all one man’s sons. And, they really are all one man’s sons. Adam’s. This is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ, in that Christ was not a son of Adam and so he could be a judge of all sons of Adam.

== You and All the rest ==

Do I have to?

What does it mean that a father and his son agree to do something by which others have plotted to kill them?

And, what did God think of a world in which all good land was already inhabited by peoples who had lost their way and who would not listen or consider? In regard to the former world, all the Earth had been reclaimed by God is one great act.

Now, there was not to be a repeat of that world, which is why God scattered everyone who had congregated in Babel and at its great tower. So, what, really, was left to be done when God called Abram? Answer: give the man a reason to keep at his original way because of which he was called.

It was the earliest opportunity to select a man to take Shem's place. Even though Shem was to outlive him by decades, the much younger man was the better one for the current job. Shem, had been preceded by Enoch in terms of perspective, but not even Shem could claim to understand what it was like to live as a native of that present world. Shem had never been so stupid. So, it had to be a father and his son who, in all innocence and determination, began the next stage of the world.

By all this, find it, if you can. Otherwise, it doesn't look like it belongs in all this, or that it could ever amount to anything. It stands out precisely because it doesn't. All the other nations wanted nothing to do with such humble beginnings. And, Egypt itself did so only because Egypt was forced to it by the need to survive: there was no where else for so many people to go to live; only the Nile delta, which they already were so good at keeping; everything else was a bareness which simply could not support them. If you were determined to go out anyway, Godspeed to you. But, if you were determined to stay, then you were not allowed to jeapordize the lives of everyone (including yourself) by simply staying. You had to commit, by a means that would allow you to stay without the fatal risk that had promised to wipe them all out.

For only one people was it an election, and who did not live in the delta. Their land was at the junction of all Earth's trade, and because God, in His wisdom, had selected that land for to be the land of His own nation. In a fallen world only. To wit:

<blockquote>
At some point in the rise of ancient Egypt as a center of civilization, the yearly flood of the Nile basin had spread enough disease organisms, such as through septic contamination, through the waist-high crop water, that the foreskins of a small number of laborers became irreparably infected, requiring the removal of the infected portion of their foreskins. In some cases it became apparent that the removal of the infected portions was required to save the sufferers’ lives, and, through laying with their wives, the lives of their wives.

Thus began the method of circumcision used by the Egyptians: free-hand cutting of the skin at both sides just beyond the infection, the infected portion removed, and the originally distant two ends of skin moved together to heal into one.

By decree of the leader of the Egyptians, the state of these first newly-circumcised men was closely monitored, to see whether and how well they healed, how long the healing might take, and any means to help the process. Also, the causes of the disease were sought out, and were thereby found to be the water-born filth of both man and herd-animal (thus were shepherds banned from approaching Egypt with their flocks; Genesis 46:34). And, thus was learned and recorded the details of the success of the operation upon these men. Women either already were spared infection by not being needed to labor in the flood fields, or were soon removed from such laboring due to the difficulty of successfully treating infection of the more complex female anatomy.

The now-healed circumcised Egyptian men returned to work, and were observed not to become further infected, thus foretelling a preventive means of treatment for the disease.

But, more men of Egypt became so infected, and thus were circumcised. And, since not all Egyptian men were yet circumcised, the disease organism grew so strong that even some circumcised men began to become re-infected. Once it became known that the infection was so spreading, and that the infection could be fatal to both a man and his wife, it became a matter of survival that all men of Egypt be circumcised: there was nowhere else that the masses of Egyptians could live so well, if at all; The surrounding lands were far too sparse of growth to support the masses. Once all men of Egypt were circumcised, it was observed that the disease was stopped.

So became the state of circumcision seen by all in those lands as a sign of an easily prosperous, and thus luxurious, way of life. And, it was required that, for any males from other lands to be accorded the freedom to live-and-work in Egypt, those males first had to submit to circumcision lest the disease again be activated.

Some baby boys had become infected at the height of the outbreak, and were successfully treated by circumcision. Thus became to be observed and recorded the lowest uncomplicating limit of circumcising babies due to the acquisition of the coagulation factor in living blood. And, when it was seen that the cut healed quicker and better in babies than in men, thus began the routine circumcision of Egyptian baby boys, at eight days old.

Now, the land just north-east of Egypt, along the eastern-most side of the Mediterranean, was (and is) the most heavily travelled cross-roads to the Earth’s host of travelers and merchants. That land thus saw the most traffic in terms of amount and variety of disease organisms, both in and out of water. Therefore, the best way for a people to live on that land included permanent exposure of all penile skin to the bacterial ‘desert’ of the open air, thus ensuring that they neither caught nor spread the diseases which begin in, afflict, and are spread by, uncircumcised men in a disease-organism-heavy environment. Those travelling through needed not be circumcised. But, those who remained as functional residents must be circumcised, lest they acquire and spread those diseases to any who live there and/or to any who merely visit.

But, Abra(ha)m, in receiving the sign of God’s geographic covenant with his descendants, was wise and good. So, he invented the kosher method of circumcision, unlike the method the Egyptians were too proud to replace. Abra(ha)m’s method was the shield method, which was neat and quick, which meant it required little or no anesthetic, and healed well and even. The Egyptian method was most primitive by every measure: it not only was ragged and healed slowly, but, given its by-then merely customary target-skin, it unnecessarily removed most of the tactile-sensitive tissue which comprises the inner portion of the foreskin. Thus, unlike the Egyptian method and its origins, the original Jewish method of circumcision was both state-of-the-art and entirely preventive.
</blockquote>

== 144 and 153 ==

The primary complex number is 144. It is twelve squared, in which twelve is the number of full council, and the squaring of which is to spread full council over a surface, as the surface of the Earth.

John 21:11 actually bothers to specify the number of fish in a certain flawlessly made catch. But, why would anyone do so, unless they had a knowledge of numbers beyond the ignorant impression that "numbers are just numbers, and therefore trivial in the extreme". But, even [[Numbers 23:23]] is anything but trivial.

Now, when the number of those fish is added to 144, the result is one of exactly nine numbers which collectively reverse all asymmetric three-digit numbers: 99, 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792, 891.

...Which is only the '''''beginning''''' of that topic, because the '''''153rd''''' verse gives the '''''dimensions of Noah's ark''''', and the '''''144th''''' says, ''And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.''

== Adam's life of toil, spelled '930' ==

To begin with...

...A man's total years of fallen life in the fallen world may be thought of as his 'week' of toil, because, when a man dies, he no longer toils. So, however many years he lived, those are 'one week of years.' 'Six days' of toil.

Adam lived 930 years of toil, or 'one week of 930 years'. So, each of Adam's 'six days' of years was 155 years.

Now, in terms of textual reference of Adam's years of life, Genesis is book one (1), with chapter 5 and verse 5. That, too, is '155'.

This adds to the already demonstrated efficacy of the unit of 111 verses.

== Beyond 930 ==

Prime numbers are those with the least possible quantity of factors/divisors (respectively themselves, and 1). In that sense, and in many other senses, they are very much predictable, like soldiers of the most exquisite skill carrying out the most demanding of 'marching orders'. But, despite these finely tuned 'marching orders', the prime numbers also are extremely unpredictable: you never know exactly when or where they will turn up...

(((FYI: I believe there is relative utility within any set of algorithms intended to more-or-less predict, or find more-or-less predictive patterns for, the occurrence of the prime numbers: not all such algorithms are equally useful to that intent. In other words, I believe that, given all the various attempts, to date, to predict the primes, there is a general narrowing down of the predictive power of algorithms so intended. But, I believe there logically can never be any sub-set of all algorithms-so-intended that can actually strictly predict the primes. Which means I believe there is no finite maximum of such algorithms that can perfectly predict the primes.)))

...But, there is a reverse side of that coin...

...namely '''12'''.

Let me explain.

Twelve, or any multiple of twelve, is always the first in the natural series to have an increase in quantity of factors over any lesser number. This implies that any greater number lesser than the next multiple of twelve never has an excess of that quantity of factors. I call this Quantitative Factoral Initiation (QFI).

So, twelve and its multiples are numbers that 'mother the most children', for which the factors of those numbers are the children. This is reflected by 2 as the root QFI number over 1, and also as reflected by 6 as the highest of the smallest non-primes with a continuous string of factors:

QFI is at every sixth number-divisible-by-two, and that sixth number is always a multiple of 12 (rather than of 6):

2 is divisible by 2 and 1.

4 is divisible by 2 and 1 (into 2+2 and 1+1+1=1).

6 is divisible by 2, 1, and 3 (This is the first progress: Per 3a., above; and, Per that one of these three options is a dynamic prime, specifically, the First Dynamic Prime, per 3b. above).

8 is divisible by 2, 1, and 4 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

10 is divisible by 2, 1, and 5 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

12 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Aha! The first ‘large’ number).

14 is divisible by 2, 1, and 7 (Uh-oh! NOW we’re SINKING!).

16 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, and 8 (no better than for 12).

18 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 6, and 9 (no better than for 12).

20 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 5, and 10 (no better than 12, so the sharks still circle).

22 is divisible by 2, 1, and 11 (My Gosh! Have we forgotten even how to tread water?!).

24 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8…and 12 (Yeeeaahh! A leap of two-dolphins-more-than 20’s zero dolphins, to give us a ride to shore!).

26 is divisible by 2, 1, and 13 (The dolphins have dumped us amidst a veritable horde of sharks!).

28 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 7, and 14 (no better than for 20, sharks still circle).

30 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 (no better than for 24, but at least now we’re back on the dolphins, heading for shore).

32 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 8 and 16 (no better than for 20, the dolphins have again dumped us off).

34 is divisible by 2, 1, and 17 (no better than for 6! AHH! A shark just brushed our leg!!!).

36 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 (that’s a jump of +5 more than for 34!).

This reflects the root partnership between 2 and 6. So, beginning with 12, every sixth number-divisible-by-two is a QFI number.

QFI permits an exact 'grid' for the entire natural series, in terms of QFI=6 as multiples of twelve. Compare this to a 'grid' using any other multiple, say, multiples of 5 or 10: such an alternate 'grid' is a more arbitrary, less-interrelated, 'grid', partly because, unlike twelve, 10 lacks a continuous string of factors (1, 2, and 5 for 10; whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 12). Any number with a continuous string of at least four factors is divisible by 12, but not any number with a continuous string of three factors is divisible by 10 or 5.

So, 12 and its multiples, per QFI, are the perfect compliment, or counter-balance, to the Principle of Primes (including, but not limited to, minimal factorization), with 2 being the root-in-common between primes and non-primes, and with 6 being the mediator between 2 and 12.

Now, if my ‘grid’ theory is correct for all this, then the only question is: What is the algorithm that defines that ‘grid’? I think it must involve a ‘dance’ between QFI and the primes.

'''A NOTE ABOUT THE ROLE OF 2'''

'''1a.''' Any number which is divisible only by ‘itself and 1’ is called ‘prime’ because a number which is ‘divisible only by 1’ is a tautology. I repeat, it’s a tautology. In other words, to say that A=A is no more informative than simply saying ‘A’.

'''1b.''' This implies, firstly, that any number which is divisible by 1 also is ‘divisible’ by itself (i.e. resulting in ‘1’, that is, in a single instance of the original number---as if that’s not IMMEDIATELY obvious).

'''2a.''' Secondly, it implies that any number divisible by 2 (including 2) is a number a property of which is the ‘Principle of Division’, distinction, dichotomy, basic logic, learning, symmetry, intelligence, etc..

'''2b.''' Any number greater than 2 which is divisible by 2 also is divisible by at least one other number, namely, half the original number.

'''3a.''' But, per 1a. and 1b., above, numbers which are divisible by 2 also are divisible by 1 (which is tantamount to the original number). This means that, for ‘large’ numbers which are divisible by 2, they are divisible by at least two other numbers: half the original number and 1 (with the original number being simply an alternate expression of that 1).

Therefore, I observe that:

'''3b.''' 2 is divisible by 2, and 1, in that it is made of exactly two 1’s. But, 2 is NOT divisible by any other number (i.e., it cannot be otherwise divided into equal units). So, per 1a and 1b, above, 2 is not a ‘dynamic’ prime, but merely is the simple, ‘static’ prime. In other words, 2 has no alterative, unlike all other numbers which are not 1. And, unlike all other primes above 1, 2 is divisible by 2, which serves to further establish the ‘Property of Division’ noted in 2a.

.

.

== References ==
<References></References>

[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Essays]]

Marriage

2012-12-04T17:18:06Z

PatternOfPersona: added final summary sentence

[[Image:Bride and groom signing the book.jpg|right|275px]]
'''Marriage''' is the divinely ordained union between one man and one woman. (Genesis 2:24) It has been practiced as such in most cultures across geography and time.<ref> "Because there is a natural complementarity between men and women - sexual, emotional, temperamental, spiritual - marriage allows for a wholeness and a completeness that cannot be won in any other way. ([[Bill Bennett]], ''The Broken Hearth'', Page 197) </ref>
Marriage is a life-long commitment, and typically this involves a public ceremony (a [[wedding]]) in which vows are exchanged by the parties and before God. Approximately half of all traditional marriages in America end in [[divorce]], many due to [[Facebook]] and other [[liberal]] activities.

[[Dinesh D'Souza]] wrote:
:Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. Note that this definition excludes people who want to marry children, or guys who want to marry their sisters, or Muslims who want to take four wives, or that strange guy who wants to marry his dog.<ref> [http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/05/19/gay_rights_vs_democracy Gay Rights vs. Democracy]</ref>

The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that God desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the [[Garden of Eden]], in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.

[[Bill Bennett]] wrote:
:Based as it is on the principle of [[complementarity]], marriage is also about a great deal more than love. That "great deal" encompasses, above all, [[procreation]]. The timeless function of marriage is childbearing and child-rearing, and the best arrangement ever developed to that end is the marital union between one man and one woman ... <ref>''The Broken Hearth'', Page 197)</ref>

What Bennett's words ultimately imply is that, in terms of the value of marriage to anything which stands outside of it, marriage is most principally for the production of additional marriages, and, thus, is a progressive type of [[scale-invariance]] such as the Mandelbrot fractal.<ref>[http://www.dectech.org/publications/LinksNick/FoundationsTheoryAndMethodology/Scale-invariance%20as%20a%20unifying%20psychological%20principle.pdf Scale-invariance as a unifying psychological principle; 1999]</ref>

So, marriage is the most glorious kind of relation between human individuals because it alone is what most essentially defines humanity. The ''good'' of humanity is defined as an integration of all naturally enduring mutual benefits between all free individuals. But, all those benefits are created-and-sustained by the existence of marriage as that one relation for the preservation of which is invoked the most special legal recognition, because...

...'''Marriage not only historically is the very first form of human society, it is logically the most beautiful, perfect, simple, and potentially productive human institution possible.'''

==Biblical marriage advice==
1 Corinthians 7:1-16:
{{cquote|Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. But this I say by way of concession, not of command. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?}}

==Modern marriage licenses==
In the present-day [[United States]], "getting married" typically involves a marriage license issued by the [[state]] [[government]] or a subdivision thereof (e.g., a county). However, marriage licenses are nowhere mentioned in Scripture; in fact, they are a relatively recent innovation and originally applied only to marriages that were otherwise forbidden.<ref>Information on marriage licenses from Mercy Seat Christian Church [http://www.mercyseat.net/BROCHURES/marriagelicense.htm]</ref>

==Definition of marriage==

For Christians, marriage has traditionally been seen as "a union that takes its distinctive character from being founded, unlike other friendships, on bodily unity of the kind that sometimes generates new life."<ref> [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0123.htm Gay Marriage, Democracy, and the Courts]</ref> As such, marriage is the one and only form of companionship from which all other forms spring: it is the single irreducible core of [[society]].

==Attacks on the institution of marriage==
Any society which has lessened the sanctity of marriage has perished, whereas those that have upheld the sanctity of marriage have endured. It has been argued that Ancient Rome's decline and its eventual fall in A.D. 476 were due in no small part to a growing tolerance of extramarital sex, particularly of [[homosexual acts]], beginning in the Late Republic period ending in 27 B.C.<ref>[http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/11-02-2011/116875-homosexuality-0/ Is there anyone left to defend traditional marriage?]</ref>

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, there is no approval of [[sexual intercourse]] other than between man and wife. Anything which tolerates or permits [[promiscuity]] weakens society.

Since the middle of the 20th century, [[Liberalism]] has sought to dismantle the societal pressures that dissuade people from engaging in extramarital and [[premarital sex]]. Removing the stigma from these behaviors, creating no-fault [[divorce]] laws, exalting adultery as liberating, rejuvenating, and "stimulating", and especially the de-stigmatizing of [[homosexuality]] all weaken the institution of marriage.

A recent ''Newsweek'' article complained that [[Biblical figures]] have not provided good historical examples of marriage, noting that [[Abraham]] begat [[Ishmael]] by a maidservant and [[Jacob]] had [[polygamy|two wives]] and had sons with both of their [[concubine|servants]]. The article also criticizes [[Jesus]] and [[St. Paul]] for remaining single. <ref>http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See also==
*[[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony]], an example of a traditional marriage service
*[[Civil marriage]]
*[[Marriage in the Unification Church]]
*[[Essay: The Irreducible Core of Politics]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/marriage/ What Liberals Say - Category: Marriage], [[Accuracy In Media]]
* [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155 What Is Marriage?; 2010 paper by Girgis, George, & Anderson]

[[Category:Culture]]
[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Marriage|*]]

Essay: Bible Codes

2012-11-30T05:06:27Z

PatternOfPersona: /* Beyond 930 */

== General Introduction ==

It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.

In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.

So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.

If such a text naturally contains subtextual patterns which are unique to, and most compelling of, all those in all of literature, then there need be no authentication codes deliberately crafted into the text in order for such a text to contain authentication codes. Ho hum. All that is needed to authenticate supposed copies of the original is first to determine the original (a process which may include determining the patterns that ought to exist in the original). But, a true copy of an original cannot be determined without directly ascertaining that every word and phrase in the copy is the same as the original. So, an authentication code would not itself serve the purpose of authentication, but would serve only to screen for candidates of authenticity.

With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning [[Melchizedek]] and [[Abraham]] believed, then it was [[Shem]] who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.

Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.

By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the [[Jewish]] tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].

The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in the 11th chapter of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]].
Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.

The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.

The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain?

Shem couldn’t save humanity, no matter how much he knew, or how well his brain worked: the entire world had changed, and now people were fortunate to remain strong, if still alive, to the age at which a man formerly got married and had his first child. And, if the old world had been abominable, this present one didn’t look to be shaping up any better: Nations were being made, and each, in turn, was failing the law of righteousness from their inception. Shem was worried, as any mere man would be who understood the world from such a depressingly privileged position. Though he had never known Adam, he had been in mind of Adam’s death, and of God’s first great promise, because he had seen first-hand the grace by which God had preserved the elect, and by the sign in the cloud the remembrance of which God never again would so ‘grace’ the world. So, when he learned that Abram was the best suited for being the father of the next world, he took action. Shem had a hunch, at the very least, of what God would do, and that it would be a new thing, never vainly the old thing twice. So, even if, according to some students of scripture, Shem didn’t know of the patterns that were possible in a text, the whole point of ‘Melchizedek’ was to make a statement about [[Shiloh]], and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was something of which Shem, at that time, had no foreknowledge: a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.

That incident centers on the 555th verse.

== Introduction to the other keys ==

When a man is born, he is not yet equal to his father. Even when the man has reached full maturity, and by then ideally is married, he still is not equal. And, even when he has a son of his own, he is merely halfway to being equal to his father. Only when his own son has a son of his own is he equal to his father. Four generations. Two fathers, each of whom has a son-who-has-a-son. According to ancient Jewish culture, what may be the ideal age of the younger of the two? And, what does it mean to be halfway to infinity?

Now that I’ve either confused you, got your attention, or both, here’s an easier question: what is the spiritual significance of Genesis 42:9-11? In other words, if there is a spiritual allegory to be drawn from that passage, then what is it? In the preceding paragraph, it is suggested that, in order for a son to be equal to his father, he must have a son who is equal to him; and, that the only way by which a man, as such, may be equal to his father is to have a son, even as his father has a son.

Now, the only other number that visually codes into ‘930’ the way 144 does is 522. It would be simple, in a way, to demonstrate that claim here; but, if a man is to be equal to his friend, then he must go where his friend goes. And, he must come from where his friend comes from. Where all men but one came from. One good turn deserves another. That’s the key to the other keys. You step, and you find a solid place for your foot. The mountain is high, and the air is thin, and few can be convinced to climb it. There is no Bible code except that which emphasizes the simple, but most significant, message in the plain text. It is a 'hidden message' only to those who will not believe it.

The root of the most powerful infinite fractal does not leave anything except itself the same each time it comes around. A minimum of spirituality is not enough. God ''does'' have a message. And, only God is unchanging. The question is, what is the root of the most powerful spiritual 'fractal'? It has always been there. In terms of it, every key is an 'other key'.

== Judah and Reuben ==

[[Reuben]], the eldest son of [[Jacob]], was always well-intentioned (Genesis 37:22, 29-30), but unstable and rash (Genesis 49:4, 42:37). [[Judah]], the fourth son, was stable, if slow to make up his mind for himself<ref>"[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Judah#The_Plot_against_Joseph|The Plot against Joseph]]"</ref> (Genesis 37:26-27, 43:8-9). So, it was to Judah that his father gave the primary blessing (Genesis 49:8-9).

It is no meaningless coincidence, then, that Judah, of his own siblings, is pinpointed by the unit of 111 at Genesis 37:26 (the tenth multiple of 111 verses), just as Isaac was most dramatically pinpointed by the fifth multiple (as hinted at in the final two sentences of the Introduction, i.e., Genesis 22:7). Both Judah and Isaac are figures of Christ, each in a different way. Joseph is a third figure of Christ, in still another, and even more powerful, way.

== Joseph ==

The first multiple of 111 which pinpoints Joseph is Genesis 41:25. In this verse (which is the 11th multiple of 111 verses), Joseph is beginning his answer to Pharaoh to interpret Pharaoh's dream: ''"The [two] dreams are one: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do."''

Now, if you'll count thirty (30) verses after 41:25, you'll find the verse that names Joseph to all the Egyptians as the man to whom they must appeal for food. The significance of 30 is well known to those Jews and Christians who study the significances of various numbers. Even Jesus began his ministry at 'about' thirty years of age, and, so, Joseph begins his to the people.

By the time of the 12th multiple (Genesis 44:7), Joseph's brothers have bowed themselves to the ground to Joseph (whom they do not recognize as such since he disguises himself as a rough-talking Egyptian government prime minister), have had a special meal with him, and have been on their way back toward their father Jacob with the grain. Joseph's servant has caught up with them and has flatly accused them of theft. The charge is that they have stolen an empty vessel that was precious to the prime minister for it's powers of divining the future. Now they deny their guilt, saying, furthermore, that if any of them is so guilty, then that one ought to die and that the rest of them will submit to being slaves to the prime minister. But, of course, Joseph has set them up for a fall of which they have been guilty for twenty years, when all their sacks are opened.

The 13th multiple states that, though Joseph's wisdom has caused all the lands of Egypt to be bought up by him for Pharaoh, the lands of the priests were exempt from this purchase because the priests needs were already supported by Pharaoh and didn't need to sell their lands in order to get by.

== Moses ==

In a similar manner to the fact that Joseph's Pharaoh did not get the lands of the priests, the 14th multiple (Exodus 1:21) puts God Himself in place of the next (and evil) Pharaoh in respect to the midwives, who would not allow for that evil Pharaoh to have an easy means of oppressing the Hebrews: those midwives were blessed by God in a very tangible way: 'houses' of their own. But, who, in a specific future way, were they protecting? Question: what type did that specific protected person's works fill?

Answer: Christ's type. 30 verses after Exodus 1:21, you'll find the call of Moses at the burning bush.
Of course, you could just go to the 40th verse after Exodus 1:21 (and to 14:14). But, that call to Moses establishes the next set of every-111, because the next four units of 111 verses are Exodus 3:4, 10:28, '''14:27''', and 19:1. Imagine if that third one was the text of something like 14:10, by the verse divisions being rather different from how we do have them.

== We are all one man’s sons ==

If you have read the contexts of verses pinpointed by the unit of 111 verses, then you will know that it does not exclude the verses immediately before and after the verse pinpointed. Otherwise, there is no context by which to understand the verse pinpointed. And, the whole point is context.

Genesis 42:10 is pinpointed by a different key than that of the 111 unit, by “branching off” of 930 without adding another layer as the 111 unit does. So, what we are doing, instead, is following the trunk straight up/straight down: 144 is visually coded as 930, and 930 is visually coded as 1263. You will find that the 1,263rd verse is Genesis 42:10, which I asked about in the second section of this essay. For the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being unfriendly spies, all men will claim, and rightly so, that they are all one man’s sons. And, they really are all one man’s sons. Adam’s. This is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ.

== You and All the rest ==

Do I have to?

What does it mean that a father and his son agree to do something by which others have plotted to kill them?

And, what did God think of a world in which all good land was already inhabited by peoples who had lost their way and who would not listen or consider? In regard to the former world, all the Earth had been reclaimed by God is one great act.

Now, there was not to be a repeat of that world, which is why God scattered everyone who had congregated in Babel and at its great tower. So, what, really, was left to be done when God called Abram? Answer: give the man a reason to keep at his original way because of which he was called.

It was the earliest opportunity to select a man to take Shem's place. Even though Shem was to outlive him by decades, the much younger man was the better one for the current job. Shem, had been preceded by Enoch in terms of perspective, but not even Shem could claim to understand what it was like to live as a native of that present world. Shem had never been so stupid. So, it had to be a father and his son who, in all innocence and determination, began the next stage of the world.

By all this, find it, if you can. Otherwise, it doesn't look like it belongs in all this, or that it could ever amount to anything. It stands out precisely because it doesn't. All the other nations wanted nothing to do with such humble beginnings. And, Egypt itself did so only because Egypt was forced to it by the need to survive: there was no where else for so many people to go to live; only the Nile delta, which they already were so good at keeping; everything else was a bareness which simply could not support them. If you were determined to go out anyway, Godspeed to you. But, if you were determined to stay, then you were not allowed to jeapordize the lives of everyone (including yourself) by simply staying. You had to commit, by a means that would allow you to stay without the fatal risk that had promised to wipe them all out.

For only one people was it an election, and who did not live in the delta. Their land was at the junction of all Earth's trade, and because God, in His wisdom, had selected that land for to be the land of His own nation. In a fallen world only. To wit:

<blockquote>
At some point in the rise of ancient Egypt as a center of civilization, the yearly flood of the Nile basin had spread enough disease organisms, such as through septic contamination, through the waist-high crop water, that the foreskins of a small number of laborers became irreparably infected, requiring the removal of the infected portion of their foreskins. In some cases it became apparent that the removal of the infected portions was required to save the sufferers’ lives, and, through laying with their wives, the lives of their wives.

Thus began the method of circumcision used by the Egyptians: free-hand cutting of the skin at both sides just beyond the infection, the infected portion removed, and the originally distant two ends of skin moved together to heal into one.

By decree of the leader of the Egyptians, the state of these first newly-circumcised men was closely monitored, to see whether and how well they healed, how long the healing might take, and any means to help the process. Also, the causes of the disease were sought out, and were thereby found to be the water-born filth of both man and herd-animal (thus were shepherds banned from approaching Egypt with their flocks; Genesis 46:34). And, thus was learned and recorded the details of the success of the operation upon these men. Women either already were spared infection by not being needed to labor in the flood fields, or were soon removed from such laboring due to the difficulty of successfully treating infection of the more complex female anatomy.

The now-healed circumcised Egyptian men returned to work, and were observed not to become further infected, thus foretelling a preventive means of treatment for the disease.

But, more men of Egypt became so infected, and thus were circumcised. And, since not all Egyptian men were yet circumcised, the disease organism grew so strong that even some circumcised men began to become re-infected. Once it became known that the infection was so spreading, and that the infection could be fatal to both a man and his wife, it became a matter of survival that all men of Egypt be circumcised: there was nowhere else that the masses of Egyptians could live so well, if at all; The surrounding lands were far too sparse of growth to support the masses. Once all men of Egypt were circumcised, it was observed that the disease was stopped.

So became the state of circumcision seen by all in those lands as a sign of an easily prosperous, and thus luxurious, way of life. And, it was required that, for any males from other lands to be accorded the freedom to live-and-work in Egypt, those males first had to submit to circumcision lest the disease again be activated.

Some baby boys had become infected at the height of the outbreak, and were successfully treated by circumcision. Thus became to be observed and recorded the lowest uncomplicating limit of circumcising babies due to the acquisition of the coagulation factor in living blood. And, when it was seen that the cut healed quicker and better in babies than in men, thus began the routine circumcision of Egyptian baby boys, at eight days old.

Now, the land just north-east of Egypt, along the eastern-most side of the Mediterranean, was (and is) the most heavily travelled cross-roads to the Earth’s host of travelers and merchants. That land thus saw the most traffic in terms of amount and variety of disease organisms, both in and out of water. Therefore, the best way for a people to live on that land included permanent exposure of all penile skin to the bacterial ‘desert’ of the open air, thus ensuring that they neither caught nor spread the diseases which begin in, afflict, and are spread by, uncircumcised men in a disease-organism-heavy environment. Those travelling through needed not be circumcised. But, those who remained as functional residents must be circumcised, lest they acquire and spread those diseases to any who live there and/or to any who merely visit.

But, Abra(ha)m, in receiving the sign of God’s geographic covenant with his descendants, was wise and good. So, he invented the kosher method of circumcision, unlike the method the Egyptians were too proud to replace. Abra(ha)m’s method was the shield method, which was neat and quick, which meant it required little or no anesthetic, and healed well and even. The Egyptian method was most primitive by every measure: it not only was ragged and healed slowly, but, given its by-then merely customary target-skin, it unnecessarily removed most of the tactile-sensitive tissue which comprises the inner portion of the foreskin. Thus, unlike the Egyptian method and its origins, the original Jewish method of circumcision was both state-of-the-art and entirely preventive.
</blockquote>

== 144 and 153 ==

The primary complex number is 144. It is twelve squared, in which twelve is the number of full council, and the squaring of which is to spread full council over a surface, as the surface of the Earth.

John 21:11 actually bothers to specify the number of fish in a certain flawlessly made catch. But, why would anyone do so, unless they had a knowledge of numbers beyond the ignorant impression that "numbers are just numbers, and therefore trivial in the extreme". But, even [[Numbers 23:23]] is anything but trivial.

Now, when the number of those fish is added to 144, the result is one of exactly nine numbers which collectively reverse all asymmetric three-digit numbers: 99, 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792, 891.

...Which is only the '''''beginning''''' of that topic, because the '''''153rd''''' verse gives the '''''dimensions of Noah's ark''''', and the '''''144th''''' says, ''And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.''

== Adam's life of toil, spelled '930' ==

To begin with...

...A man's total years of fallen life in the fallen world may be thought of as his 'week' of toil, because, when a man dies, he no longer toils. So, however many years he lived, those are 'one week of years.' 'Six days' of toil.

Adam lived 930 years of toil, or 'one week of 930 years'. So, each of Adam's 'six days' of years was 155 years.

Now, in terms of textual reference of Adam's years of life, Genesis is book one (1), with chapter 5 and verse 5. That, too, is '155'.

This adds to the already demonstrated efficacy of the unit of 111 verses.

== Beyond 930 ==

Prime numbers are those with the least possible quantity of factors/divisors (respectively themselves, and 1). In that sense, and in many other senses, they are very much predictable, like soldiers of the most exquisite skill carrying out the most demanding of 'marching orders'. But, despite these finely tuned 'marching orders', the prime numbers also are extremely unpredictable: you never know exactly when or where they will turn up...

(((FYI: I believe there is relative utility within any set of algorithms intended to more-or-less predict, or find more-or-less predictive patterns for, the occurrence of the prime numbers: not all such algorithms are equally useful to that intent. In other words, I believe that, given all the various attempts, to date, to predict the primes, there is a general narrowing down of the predictive power of algorithms so intended. But, I believe there logically can never be any sub-set of all algorithms-so-intended that can actually strictly predict the primes. Which means I believe there is no finite maximum of such algorithms that can perfectly predict the primes.)))

...But, there is a reverse side of that coin...

...namely '''12'''.

Let me explain.

Twelve, or any multiple of twelve, is always the first in the natural series to have an increase in quantity of factors over any lesser number. This implies that any greater number lesser than the next multiple of twelve never has an excess of that quantity of factors. I call this Quantitative Factoral Initiation (QFI).

So, twelve and its multiples are numbers that 'mother the most children', for which the factors of those numbers are the children. This is reflected by 2 as the root QFI number over 1, and also as reflected by 6 as the highest of the smallest non-primes with a continuous string of factors:

QFI is at every sixth number-divisible-by-two, and that sixth number is always a multiple of 12 (rather than of 6):

2 is divisible by 2 and 1.

4 is divisible by 2 and 1 (into 2+2 and 1+1+1=1).

6 is divisible by 2, 1, and 3 (This is the first progress: Per 3a., above; and, Per that one of these three options is a dynamic prime, specifically, the First Dynamic Prime, per 3b. above).

8 is divisible by 2, 1, and 4 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

10 is divisible by 2, 1, and 5 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

12 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Aha! The first ‘large’ number).

14 is divisible by 2, 1, and 7 (Uh-oh! NOW we’re SINKING!).

16 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, and 8 (no better than for 12).

18 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 6, and 9 (no better than for 12).

20 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 5, and 10 (no better than 12, so the sharks still circle).

22 is divisible by 2, 1, and 11 (My Gosh! Have we forgotten even how to tread water?!).

24 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8…and 12 (Yeeeaahh! A leap of two-dolphins-more-than 20’s zero dolphins, to give us a ride to shore!).

26 is divisible by 2, 1, and 13 (The dolphins have dumped us amidst a veritable horde of sharks!).

28 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 7, and 14 (no better than for 20, sharks still circle).

30 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 (no better than for 24, but at least now we’re back on the dolphins, heading for shore).

32 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 8 and 16 (no better than for 20, the dolphins have again dumped us off).

34 is divisible by 2, 1, and 17 (no better than for 6! AHH! A shark just brushed our leg!!!).

36 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 (that’s a jump of +5 more than for 34!).

This reflects the root partnership between 2 and 6. So, beginning with 12, every sixth number-divisible-by-two is a QFI number.

QFI permits an exact 'grid' for the entire natural series, in terms of QFI=6 as multiples of twelve. Compare this to a 'grid' using any other multiple, say, multiples of 5 or 10: such an alternate 'grid' is a more arbitrary, less-interrelated, 'grid', partly because, unlike twelve, 10 lacks a continuous string of factors (1, 2, and 5 for 10; whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 12). Any number with a continuous string of at least four factors is divisible by 12, but not any number with a continuous string of three factors is divisible by 10 or 5.

So, 12 and its multiples, per QFI, are the perfect compliment, or counter-balance, to the Principle of Primes (including, but not limited to, minimal factorization), with 2 being the root-in-common between primes and non-primes, and with 6 being the mediator between 2 and 12.

Now, if my ‘grid’ theory is correct for all this, then the only question is: What is the algorithm that defines that ‘grid’? I think it must involve a ‘dance’ between QFI and the primes.

'''A NOTE ABOUT THE ROLE OF 2'''

'''1a.''' Any number which is divisible only by ‘itself and 1’ is called ‘prime’ because a number which is ‘divisible only by 1’ is a tautology. I repeat, it’s a tautology. In other words, to say that A=A is no more informative than simply saying ‘A’.

'''1b.''' This implies, firstly, that any number which is divisible by 1 also is ‘divisible’ by itself (i.e. resulting in ‘1’, that is, in a single instance of the original number---as if that’s not IMMEDIATELY obvious).

'''2a.''' Secondly, it implies that any number divisible by 2 (including 2) is a number a property of which is the ‘Principle of Division’, distinction, dichotomy, basic logic, learning, symmetry, intelligence, etc..

'''2b.''' Any number greater than 2 which is divisible by 2 also is divisible by at least one other number, namely, half the original number.

'''3a.''' But, per 1a. and 1b., above, numbers which are divisible by 2 also are divisible by 1 (which is tantamount to the original number). This means that, for ‘large’ numbers which are divisible by 2, they are divisible by at least two other numbers: half the original number and 1 (with the original number being simply an alternate expression of that 1).

Therefore, I observe that:

'''3b.''' 2 is divisible by 2, and 1, in that it is made of exactly two 1’s. But, 2 is NOT divisible by any other number (i.e., it cannot be otherwise divided into equal units). So, per 1a and 1b, above, 2 is not a ‘dynamic’ prime, but merely is the simple, ‘static’ prime. In other words, 2 has no alterative, unlike all other numbers which are not 1. And, unlike all other primes above 1, 2 is divisible by 2, which serves to further establish the ‘Property of Division’ noted in 2a.

.

.

== References ==
<References></References>

[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay: Bible Codes

2012-11-30T05:04:50Z

PatternOfPersona: /* Beyond 930 */

== General Introduction ==

It is my '''s'''omewhat-'''i'''nformed, '''m'''ore-'''o'''r-'''l'''ess '''d'''eeply '''s'''tudied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.

In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.

So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.

If such a text naturally contains subtextual patterns which are unique to, and most compelling of, all those in all of literature, then there need be no authentication codes deliberately crafted into the text in order for such a text to contain authentication codes. Ho hum. All that is needed to authenticate supposed copies of the original is first to determine the original (a process which may include determining the patterns that ought to exist in the original). But, a true copy of an original cannot be determined without directly ascertaining that every word and phrase in the copy is the same as the original. So, an authentication code would not itself serve the purpose of authentication, but would serve only to screen for candidates of authenticity.

With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning [[Melchizedek]] and [[Abraham]] believed, then it was [[Shem]] who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.

Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.

By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the [[Jewish]] tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after [[Abraham died]].

The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in the 11th chapter of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]].
Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.

The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.

The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain?

Shem couldn’t save humanity, no matter how much he knew, or how well his brain worked: the entire world had changed, and now people were fortunate to remain strong, if still alive, to the age at which a man formerly got married and had his first child. And, if the old world had been abominable, this present one didn’t look to be shaping up any better: Nations were being made, and each, in turn, was failing the law of righteousness from their inception. Shem was worried, as any mere man would be who understood the world from such a depressingly privileged position. Though he had never known Adam, he had been in mind of Adam’s death, and of God’s first great promise, because he had seen first-hand the grace by which God had preserved the elect, and by the sign in the cloud the remembrance of which God never again would so ‘grace’ the world. So, when he learned that Abram was the best suited for being the father of the next world, he took action. Shem had a hunch, at the very least, of what God would do, and that it would be a new thing, never vainly the old thing twice. So, even if, according to some students of scripture, Shem didn’t know of the patterns that were possible in a text, the whole point of ‘Melchizedek’ was to make a statement about [[Shiloh]], and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was something of which Shem, at that time, had no foreknowledge: a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.

That incident centers on the 555th verse.

== Introduction to the other keys ==

When a man is born, he is not yet equal to his father. Even when the man has reached full maturity, and by then ideally is married, he still is not equal. And, even when he has a son of his own, he is merely halfway to being equal to his father. Only when his own son has a son of his own is he equal to his father. Four generations. Two fathers, each of whom has a son-who-has-a-son. According to ancient Jewish culture, what may be the ideal age of the younger of the two? And, what does it mean to be halfway to infinity?

Now that I’ve either confused you, got your attention, or both, here’s an easier question: what is the spiritual significance of Genesis 42:9-11? In other words, if there is a spiritual allegory to be drawn from that passage, then what is it? In the preceding paragraph, it is suggested that, in order for a son to be equal to his father, he must have a son who is equal to him; and, that the only way by which a man, as such, may be equal to his father is to have a son, even as his father has a son.

Now, the only other number that visually codes into ‘930’ the way 144 does is 522. It would be simple, in a way, to demonstrate that claim here; but, if a man is to be equal to his friend, then he must go where his friend goes. And, he must come from where his friend comes from. Where all men but one came from. One good turn deserves another. That’s the key to the other keys. You step, and you find a solid place for your foot. The mountain is high, and the air is thin, and few can be convinced to climb it. There is no Bible code except that which emphasizes the simple, but most significant, message in the plain text. It is a 'hidden message' only to those who will not believe it.

The root of the most powerful infinite fractal does not leave anything except itself the same each time it comes around. A minimum of spirituality is not enough. God ''does'' have a message. And, only God is unchanging. The question is, what is the root of the most powerful spiritual 'fractal'? It has always been there. In terms of it, every key is an 'other key'.

== Judah and Reuben ==

[[Reuben]], the eldest son of [[Jacob]], was always well-intentioned (Genesis 37:22, 29-30), but unstable and rash (Genesis 49:4, 42:37). [[Judah]], the fourth son, was stable, if slow to make up his mind for himself<ref>"[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Judah#The_Plot_against_Joseph|The Plot against Joseph]]"</ref> (Genesis 37:26-27, 43:8-9). So, it was to Judah that his father gave the primary blessing (Genesis 49:8-9).

It is no meaningless coincidence, then, that Judah, of his own siblings, is pinpointed by the unit of 111 at Genesis 37:26 (the tenth multiple of 111 verses), just as Isaac was most dramatically pinpointed by the fifth multiple (as hinted at in the final two sentences of the Introduction, i.e., Genesis 22:7). Both Judah and Isaac are figures of Christ, each in a different way. Joseph is a third figure of Christ, in still another, and even more powerful, way.

== Joseph ==

The first multiple of 111 which pinpoints Joseph is Genesis 41:25. In this verse (which is the 11th multiple of 111 verses), Joseph is beginning his answer to Pharaoh to interpret Pharaoh's dream: ''"The [two] dreams are one: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do."''

Now, if you'll count thirty (30) verses after 41:25, you'll find the verse that names Joseph to all the Egyptians as the man to whom they must appeal for food. The significance of 30 is well known to those Jews and Christians who study the significances of various numbers. Even Jesus began his ministry at 'about' thirty years of age, and, so, Joseph begins his to the people.

By the time of the 12th multiple (Genesis 44:7), Joseph's brothers have bowed themselves to the ground to Joseph (whom they do not recognize as such since he disguises himself as a rough-talking Egyptian government prime minister), have had a special meal with him, and have been on their way back toward their father Jacob with the grain. Joseph's servant has caught up with them and has flatly accused them of theft. The charge is that they have stolen an empty vessel that was precious to the prime minister for it's powers of divining the future. Now they deny their guilt, saying, furthermore, that if any of them is so guilty, then that one ought to die and that the rest of them will submit to being slaves to the prime minister. But, of course, Joseph has set them up for a fall of which they have been guilty for twenty years, when all their sacks are opened.

The 13th multiple states that, though Joseph's wisdom has caused all the lands of Egypt to be bought up by him for Pharaoh, the lands of the priests were exempt from this purchase because the priests needs were already supported by Pharaoh and didn't need to sell their lands in order to get by.

== Moses ==

In a similar manner to the fact that Joseph's Pharaoh did not get the lands of the priests, the 14th multiple (Exodus 1:21) puts God Himself in place of the next (and evil) Pharaoh in respect to the midwives, who would not allow for that evil Pharaoh to have an easy means of oppressing the Hebrews: those midwives were blessed by God in a very tangible way: 'houses' of their own. But, who, in a specific future way, were they protecting? Question: what type did that specific protected person's works fill?

Answer: Christ's type. 30 verses after Exodus 1:21, you'll find the call of Moses at the burning bush.
Of course, you could just go to the 40th verse after Exodus 1:21 (and to 14:14). But, that call to Moses establishes the next set of every-111, because the next four units of 111 verses are Exodus 3:4, 10:28, '''14:27''', and 19:1. Imagine if that third one was the text of something like 14:10, by the verse divisions being rather different from how we do have them.

== We are all one man’s sons ==

If you have read the contexts of verses pinpointed by the unit of 111 verses, then you will know that it does not exclude the verses immediately before and after the verse pinpointed. Otherwise, there is no context by which to understand the verse pinpointed. And, the whole point is context.

Genesis 42:10 is pinpointed by a different key than that of the 111 unit, by “branching off” of 930 without adding another layer as the 111 unit does. So, what we are doing, instead, is following the trunk straight up/straight down: 144 is visually coded as 930, and 930 is visually coded as 1263. You will find that the 1,263rd verse is Genesis 42:10, which I asked about in the second section of this essay. For the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being unfriendly spies, all men will claim, and rightly so, that they are all one man’s sons. And, they really are all one man’s sons. Adam’s. This is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ.

== You and All the rest ==

Do I have to?

What does it mean that a father and his son agree to do something by which others have plotted to kill them?

And, what did God think of a world in which all good land was already inhabited by peoples who had lost their way and who would not listen or consider? In regard to the former world, all the Earth had been reclaimed by God is one great act.

Now, there was not to be a repeat of that world, which is why God scattered everyone who had congregated in Babel and at its great tower. So, what, really, was left to be done when God called Abram? Answer: give the man a reason to keep at his original way because of which he was called.

It was the earliest opportunity to select a man to take Shem's place. Even though Shem was to outlive him by decades, the much younger man was the better one for the current job. Shem, had been preceded by Enoch in terms of perspective, but not even Shem could claim to understand what it was like to live as a native of that present world. Shem had never been so stupid. So, it had to be a father and his son who, in all innocence and determination, began the next stage of the world.

By all this, find it, if you can. Otherwise, it doesn't look like it belongs in all this, or that it could ever amount to anything. It stands out precisely because it doesn't. All the other nations wanted nothing to do with such humble beginnings. And, Egypt itself did so only because Egypt was forced to it by the need to survive: there was no where else for so many people to go to live; only the Nile delta, which they already were so good at keeping; everything else was a bareness which simply could not support them. If you were determined to go out anyway, Godspeed to you. But, if you were determined to stay, then you were not allowed to jeapordize the lives of everyone (including yourself) by simply staying. You had to commit, by a means that would allow you to stay without the fatal risk that had promised to wipe them all out.

For only one people was it an election, and who did not live in the delta. Their land was at the junction of all Earth's trade, and because God, in His wisdom, had selected that land for to be the land of His own nation. In a fallen world only. To wit:

<blockquote>
At some point in the rise of ancient Egypt as a center of civilization, the yearly flood of the Nile basin had spread enough disease organisms, such as through septic contamination, through the waist-high crop water, that the foreskins of a small number of laborers became irreparably infected, requiring the removal of the infected portion of their foreskins. In some cases it became apparent that the removal of the infected portions was required to save the sufferers’ lives, and, through laying with their wives, the lives of their wives.

Thus began the method of circumcision used by the Egyptians: free-hand cutting of the skin at both sides just beyond the infection, the infected portion removed, and the originally distant two ends of skin moved together to heal into one.

By decree of the leader of the Egyptians, the state of these first newly-circumcised men was closely monitored, to see whether and how well they healed, how long the healing might take, and any means to help the process. Also, the causes of the disease were sought out, and were thereby found to be the water-born filth of both man and herd-animal (thus were shepherds banned from approaching Egypt with their flocks; Genesis 46:34). And, thus was learned and recorded the details of the success of the operation upon these men. Women either already were spared infection by not being needed to labor in the flood fields, or were soon removed from such laboring due to the difficulty of successfully treating infection of the more complex female anatomy.

The now-healed circumcised Egyptian men returned to work, and were observed not to become further infected, thus foretelling a preventive means of treatment for the disease.

But, more men of Egypt became so infected, and thus were circumcised. And, since not all Egyptian men were yet circumcised, the disease organism grew so strong that even some circumcised men began to become re-infected. Once it became known that the infection was so spreading, and that the infection could be fatal to both a man and his wife, it became a matter of survival that all men of Egypt be circumcised: there was nowhere else that the masses of Egyptians could live so well, if at all; The surrounding lands were far too sparse of growth to support the masses. Once all men of Egypt were circumcised, it was observed that the disease was stopped.

So became the state of circumcision seen by all in those lands as a sign of an easily prosperous, and thus luxurious, way of life. And, it was required that, for any males from other lands to be accorded the freedom to live-and-work in Egypt, those males first had to submit to circumcision lest the disease again be activated.

Some baby boys had become infected at the height of the outbreak, and were successfully treated by circumcision. Thus became to be observed and recorded the lowest uncomplicating limit of circumcising babies due to the acquisition of the coagulation factor in living blood. And, when it was seen that the cut healed quicker and better in babies than in men, thus began the routine circumcision of Egyptian baby boys, at eight days old.

Now, the land just north-east of Egypt, along the eastern-most side of the Mediterranean, was (and is) the most heavily travelled cross-roads to the Earth’s host of travelers and merchants. That land thus saw the most traffic in terms of amount and variety of disease organisms, both in and out of water. Therefore, the best way for a people to live on that land included permanent exposure of all penile skin to the bacterial ‘desert’ of the open air, thus ensuring that they neither caught nor spread the diseases which begin in, afflict, and are spread by, uncircumcised men in a disease-organism-heavy environment. Those travelling through needed not be circumcised. But, those who remained as functional residents must be circumcised, lest they acquire and spread those diseases to any who live there and/or to any who merely visit.

But, Abra(ha)m, in receiving the sign of God’s geographic covenant with his descendants, was wise and good. So, he invented the kosher method of circumcision, unlike the method the Egyptians were too proud to replace. Abra(ha)m’s method was the shield method, which was neat and quick, which meant it required little or no anesthetic, and healed well and even. The Egyptian method was most primitive by every measure: it not only was ragged and healed slowly, but, given its by-then merely customary target-skin, it unnecessarily removed most of the tactile-sensitive tissue which comprises the inner portion of the foreskin. Thus, unlike the Egyptian method and its origins, the original Jewish method of circumcision was both state-of-the-art and entirely preventive.
</blockquote>

== 144 and 153 ==

The primary complex number is 144. It is twelve squared, in which twelve is the number of full council, and the squaring of which is to spread full council over a surface, as the surface of the Earth.

John 21:11 actually bothers to specify the number of fish in a certain flawlessly made catch. But, why would anyone do so, unless they had a knowledge of numbers beyond the ignorant impression that "numbers are just numbers, and therefore trivial in the extreme". But, even [[Numbers 23:23]] is anything but trivial.

Now, when the number of those fish is added to 144, the result is one of exactly nine numbers which collectively reverse all asymmetric three-digit numbers: 99, 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792, 891.

...Which is only the '''''beginning''''' of that topic, because the '''''153rd''''' verse gives the '''''dimensions of Noah's ark''''', and the '''''144th''''' says, ''And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.''

== Adam's life of toil, spelled '930' ==

To begin with...

...A man's total years of fallen life in the fallen world may be thought of as his 'week' of toil, because, when a man dies, he no longer toils. So, however many years he lived, those are 'one week of years.' 'Six days' of toil.

Adam lived 930 years of toil, or 'one week of 930 years'. So, each of Adam's 'six days' of years was 155 years.

Now, in terms of textual reference of Adam's years of life, Genesis is book one (1), with chapter 5 and verse 5. That, too, is '155'.

This adds to the already demonstrated efficacy of the unit of 111 verses.

== Beyond 930 ==

Prime numbers are those with the least possible quantity of factors/divisors (respectively themselves, and 1). In that sense, and in many other senses, they are very much predictable, like soldiers of the most exquisite skill carrying out the most demanding of 'marching orders'. But, despite these finely tuned 'marching orders', the prime numbers also are extremely unpredictable: you never know exactly when or where they will turn up.

.
FYI: I believe there is relative utility within any set of algorithms intended to more-or-less predict, or find more-or-less predictive patterns for, the occurrence of the prime numbers: not all such algorithms are equally useful to that intent. In other words, I believe that, given all the various attempts, to date, to predict the primes, there is a general narrowing down of the predictive power of algorithms so intended. But, I believe there logically can never be any sub-set of all algorithms-so-intended that can actually strictly predict the primes. Which means I believe there is no finite maximum of such algorithms that can perfectly predict the primes.

...But, there is a reverse side of that coin...

...namely 12.

Let me explain.

Twelve, or any multiple of twelve, is always the first in the natural series to have an increase in quantity of factors over any lesser number. This implies that any greater number lesser than the next multiple of twelve never has an excess of that quantity of factors. I call this Quantitative Factoral Initiation (QFI).

So, twelve and its multiples are numbers that 'mother the most children', for which the factors of those numbers are the children. This is reflected by 2 as the root QFI number over 1, and also as reflected by 6 as the highest of the smallest non-primes with a continuous string of factors:

QFI is at every sixth number-divisible-by-two, and that sixth number is always a multiple of 12 (rather than of 6):

2 is divisible by 2 and 1.

4 is divisible by 2 and 1 (into 2+2 and 1+1+1=1).

6 is divisible by 2, 1, and 3 (This is the first progress: Per 3a., above; and, Per that one of these three options is a dynamic prime, specifically, the First Dynamic Prime, per 3b. above).

8 is divisible by 2, 1, and 4 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

10 is divisible by 2, 1, and 5 (same quantity of divisors as 6).

12 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Aha! The first ‘large’ number).

14 is divisible by 2, 1, and 7 (Uh-oh! NOW we’re SINKING!).

16 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, and 8 (no better than for 12).

18 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 6, and 9 (no better than for 12).

20 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 5, and 10 (no better than 12, so the sharks still circle).

22 is divisible by 2, 1, and 11 (My Gosh! Have we forgotten even how to tread water?!).

24 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8…and 12 (Yeeeaahh! A leap of two-dolphins-more-than 20’s zero dolphins, to give us a ride to shore!).

26 is divisible by 2, 1, and 13 (The dolphins have dumped us amidst a veritable horde of sharks!).

28 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 7, and 14 (no better than for 20, sharks still circle).

30 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 (no better than for 24, but at least now we’re back on the dolphins, heading for shore).

32 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 8 and 16 (no better than for 20, the dolphins have again dumped us off).

34 is divisible by 2, 1, and 17 (no better than for 6! AHH! A shark just brushed our leg!!!).

36 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 (that’s a jump of +5 more than for 34!).

This reflects the root partnership between 2 and 6. So, beginning with 12, every sixth number-divisible-by-two is a QFI number.

QFI permits an exact 'grid' for the entire natural series, in terms of QFI=6 as multiples of twelve. Compare this to a 'grid' using any other multiple, say, multiples of 5 or 10: such an alternate 'grid' is a more arbitrary, less-interrelated, 'grid', partly because, unlike twelve, 10 lacks a continuous string of factors (1, 2, and 5 for 10; whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 12). Any number with a continuous string of at least four factors is divisible by 12, but not any number with a continuous string of three factors is divisible by 10 or 5.

So, 12 and its multiples, per QFI, are the perfect compliment, or counter-balance, to the Principle of Primes (including, but not limited to, minimal factorization), with 2 being the root-in-common between primes and non-primes, and with 6 being the mediator between 2 and 12.

Now, if my ‘grid’ theory is correct for all this, then the only question is: What is the algorithm that defines that ‘grid’? I think it must involve a ‘dance’ between QFI and the primes.

'''A NOTE ABOUT THE ROLE OF 2'''

'''1a.''' Any number which is divisible only by ‘itself and 1’ is called ‘prime’ because a number which is ‘divisible only by 1’ is a tautology. I repeat, it’s a tautology. In other words, to say that A=A is no more informative than simply saying ‘A’.

'''1b.''' This implies, firstly, that any number which is divisible by 1 also is ‘divisible’ by itself (i.e. resulting in ‘1’, that is, in a single instance of the original number---as if that’s not IMMEDIATELY obvious).

'''2a.''' Secondly, it implies that any number divisible by 2 (including 2) is a number a property of which is the ‘Principle of Division’, distinction, dichotomy, basic logic, learning, symmetry, intelligence, etc..

'''2b.''' Any number greater than 2 which is divisible by 2 also is divisible by at least one other number, namely, half the original number.

'''3a.''' But, per 1a. and 1b., above, numbers which are divisible by 2 also are divisible by 1 (which is tantamount to the original number). This means that, for ‘large’ numbers which are divisible by 2, they are divisible by at least two other numbers: half the original number and 1 (with the original number being simply an alternate expression of that 1).

Therefore, I observe that:

'''3b.''' 2 is divisible by 2, and 1, in that it is made of exactly two 1’s. But, 2 is NOT divisible by any other number (i.e., it cannot be otherwise divided into equal units). So, per 1a and 1b, above, 2 is not a ‘dynamic’ prime, but merely is the simple, ‘static’ prime. In other words, 2 has no alterative, unlike all other numbers which are not 1. And, unlike all other primes above 1, 2 is divisible by 2, which serves to further establish the ‘Property of Division’ noted in 2a.

.

.

== References ==
<References></References>

[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay: No mere rock: Issues in cost of orbital spaceflight

2012-10-30T23:04:47Z

PatternOfPersona:

Blue Origin, the private spaceflight company founded by amazon dot com's founder, aims to make orbital spaceflight economical. I'm not confident he, or anyone, is ever going to achieve that aim. But, I do have some thoughts on how it might be achieved:

'''Leonardo Da Vinci envisioned human flight.'''

But, Da Vinci didn’t know about space. Nevertheless, he knew about Alexander the Great.

Alexander the Great was the man who understood the cost-effective means of conquering worlds: ‘travelling light’. That is, he sought to understand the ‘mundane’, down-to-Earth things of domain-specific systems, to adapt himself to them, to master them, and to fully own each of them. This is how he penetrated far beyond the place of his origin. This is how he became the first mere man to truly ‘fly above his world’.

Do you recall the scene in the original Star Wars movie showing the '''''Millenium Falcon''''' escaping Mos Eisley space port? Or, the scenes showing Luke Skywalker’s magically floating '''''Landspeeder'''''? Such fantasies of technology are not faithful to what we know, only to what we desire. They’re just magic carpets we’ve repackage to give ourselves ‘airs’ about the ultimate technology: spaceflight.

(re: AIRS: Aerometric Information Retrieval System).

The unfortunate real-world version of the '''''Millenium Falcon''''', namely the ground-to-orbit rocketry system, is an attempt to keep it as simple as Newton envisioned it. But, Newton was very pre-aviation.

'''''Nevertheless, Newton was by no means pre-balloon.''''' Nor was Da Vinci. Nor, really, was Alexander. Nor, for that matter, were the Nazca ‘Indians’ who made those geoglyphs out in the American deserts.

''But, with the advent of the airplane, the balloon took a backseat: the airplane fulfilled Da Vinci’s vision. Then, with the advent of the rocket, the airplane took a backseat: the rocket promised to fulfill Newton’s vision: Space, the final frontier to Other Worlds.''

''But, there is a catch to that Final Frontier.''

'''The title of the TV sitcom, ''3rd Rock from the Sun''''', is telling of the failure to fully distinguish between the desire for mastery of space and the need for ‘mundane’ knowledge of transport systems. We don’t live on a zero-atmosphere chunk of rock. In fact, the atmosphere is much more an advantage in terms of costs of travel on and above the globe than it is an obstacle to such travel.

Of course, a lack of atmosphere would, in some ways, ‘assist’ space flight: you’re already in space, so the only obstacle is the challenge of achieving escape velocity and orbital flight; There is no atmosphere to drag you down, so no need to master aerodynamics. But, if you’re actually going to be '''''living''''' on that world...

A lack of atmosphere is massively prohibitive. It not only increases the cost of non-orbital above-ground travel-steering-breaking to that of rocketry, it makes on-ground travel massively costly in terms of in-vehicle life support systems. And, to further complicate matters, not only could you not hear the sirens of emergency vehicles, but, without a spacesuit, you couldn’t get out of your car just anywhere, much less when your tire goes flat. Gravity still works, but you’re caught outside in a vacuum: you can’t '''''live''''' there.

And, do you know how much a spacesuit costs just to operate, much less to rent or buy? Your very life would depend on not getting too cheap a one just to ride a bike. The '''''Wright Brothers''''' would understand: without an outdoors atmosphere, the cost of living would make renting a New York Luxury Apartment on the real world much-more-than-suspiciously cheap on a no-atmosphere world.

'''High atmosphere is Earth’s front door to space.''' The question is whether we can build much of anything just inside that threshold. The back kitchen may be hot, but at least it’s livable. Not so with standing at the threshold to space with the door wide open.

Think about how we’ve made the Terra-bound transportation system so cost-effective: it’s comprised of the various land and ocean transport subsystems. Now imagine how inefficient it would be if we relied on only one or, at most, two such systems. The reason we’ve made the various sub-systems is because each is a Cost-Effect Specialist System. There is no way around this, short of an obscenely cheap form of locomotive force allowing the extreme inefficiencies of a mono-system to be ignored.

So, what's the most cost-effective means of putting mass into high atmosphere? I'm ignorant, but I think it's the balloon.

Again, the current huge costs in sending mass to orbit is due to a failure to fully distinguish between the intensity of our desire to achieve a science-fictional mastery of orbital/space flight and the ‘mundane’ need to understand technologies best suited for each stage of the trip to orbit.

So, think about a balloon-based high atmosphere station ('''High Atmosphere Balloon-based Station/HABBS''').

Add '''Rutan''''s idea of a Ferry plane (for the orbital rocket-propelled craft), or, in my ignorant ideal, a Ferry Zeppelin.

Add, also, a Ground-to-HABBS Primary Supply System.

That makes '''four''' primary Cost-Effect Specialist Systems: '''1)''' orbital craft, '''2)''' ground-to-high-atmosphere ferry craft, '''3)''' high-atmosphere refueling-and-maintenance station (HABBS), and '''4)''' primary ground-to-HABBS supply system.

The Ferry craft, (2), does double-duty: One, it gets the orbital craft to high-atmosphere. Two, given its airplane design, it prevents the rocket launch of the orbital craft from effecting the High Atmosphere Balloon-based Station (HABBS). The Ferry craft has enough fuel to get from ground-to-HABBS and back while loaded with the orbital craft. But, the HABBS is basically a high-atmosphere version of the ground stations. This allows, first, a docking station for the ferry.

But, secondly, and more importantly, it allows the orbital craft to be made big enough to have on-board fuel sufficient both for achieving orbital velocity and for the above-atmosphere back-burn necessary to rejoin with the ferry. This second advantage allows the orbital craft to entirely avoid the otherwise-indispensable heat shielding needed for passive re-entry. Any heat shielding used would then be a mere compliment to the back-burn.

Moreover, given the HABBS as a high-altitude base for fuel, the orbital craft can be built so big that it can take on enough fuel to allow a much slower acceleration to orbital velocity, thus retaining its structure integrity much longer---'''''perhaps much longer, even, than that of atmospheric craft'''''.

Today, given the common man's near-zero-employment in above-Terra transportation technology, we have a near-exclusion of that employment to highly trained specialists. Such exclusion was never the case for on-Terra transportation. So, the most the common man today has ready access to working with above-Terra transport technology is little beyond the leaf-on-a-string we call a kite: hobby aircraft and balloons. Even the advent of the automobile had more ready potential of advancement. But, the reason for this exclusion is fairly simple: there is nothing naturally habitable about either space or our planetary neighbors. Otherwise, we would have mastered economical space flight by now.

Nevertheless, if you want economical spaceflight, you need more than ambition, money, and a love of perfectly fantastical versions of science fiction.

…You need a '''fourth''' element: a ‘down-to-Earth’ knowledge of specialist transport systems.
Specifically, you need to master, and to fully own, the threshold to space. The foyer cannot be left to the weather alone, even if you ''do'' leave the front door wide open.

Essay: No mere rock: Issues in cost of orbital spaceflight

2012-10-30T22:28:23Z

PatternOfPersona: added bolds and italics

Blue Origin, the private spaceflight company founded by amazon dot com's founder, aims to make orbital spaceflight economical. I'm not confident he, or anyone, is ever going to achieve that aim. But, I do have some thoughts on how it might be achieved:

'''Leonardo Da Vinci envisioned human flight.'''

But, Da Vinci didn’t know about space. Nevertheless, he knew about Alexander the Great.

Alexander the Great was the man who understood the cost-effective means of conquering worlds: ‘travelling light’. That is, he sought to understand the ‘mundane’, down-to-Earth things of domain-specific systems, to adapt himself to them, to master them, and to fully own each of them. This is how he penetrated far beyond the place of his origin. This is how he became the first mere man to truly ‘fly above his world’.

Do you recall the scene in the original Star Wars movie showing the '''''Millenium Falcon''''' escaping Mos Eisley space port? Or, the scenes showing Luke Skywalker’s magically floating '''''Landspeeder'''''? Such fantasies of technology are not faithful to what we know, only to what we desire. They’re just magic carpets we’ve repackage to give ourselves ‘airs’ about the ultimate technology: spaceflight.

(re: AIRS: Aerometric Information Retrieval System).

The unfortunate real-world version of the '''''Millenium Falcon''''', namely the ground-to-orbit rocketry system, is an attempt to keep it as simple as Newton envisioned it. But, Newton was very pre-aviation.

'''''Nevertheless, Newton was by no means pre-balloon.''''' Nor was Da Vinci. Nor, really, was Alexander. Nor, for that matter, were the Nazca ‘Indians’ who made those geoglyphs out in the American deserts.

''But, with the advent of the airplane, the balloon took a backseat: the airplane fulfilled Da Vinci’s vision. Then, with the advent of the rocket, the airplane took a backseat: the rocket promised to fulfill Newton’s vision: Space, the final frontier to Other Worlds.''

''But, there is a catch to that Final Frontier.''

'''The title of the TV sitcom, ''3rd Rock from the Sun''''', is telling of the failure to fully distinguish between the desire for mastery of space and the need for ‘mundane’ knowledge of transport systems. We don’t live on a zero-atmosphere chunk of rock. In fact, the atmosphere is much more an advantage in terms of costs of travel on and above the globe than it is an obstacle to such travel.

Of course, a lack of atmosphere would, in some ways, ‘assist’ space flight: you’re already in space, so the only obstacle is the challenge of achieving escape velocity and orbital flight; There is no atmosphere to drag you down, so no need to master aerodynamics. But, if you’re actually going to be '''''living''''' on that world...

A lack of atmosphere is massively prohibitive. It not only increases the cost of non-orbital above-ground travel-steering-breaking to that of rocketry, it makes on-ground travel massively costly in terms of in-vehicle life support systems. And, to further complicate matters, not only could you not hear the sirens of emergency vehicles, but, without a spacesuit, you couldn’t get out of your car just anywhere, much less when your tire goes flat. Gravity still works, but you’re caught outside in a vacuum: you can’t '''''live''''' there.

And, do you know how much a spacesuit costs just to operate, much less to rent or buy? Your very life would depend on not getting too cheap a one just to ride a bike. The '''''Wright Brothers''''' would understand: without an outdoors atmosphere, the cost of living would make renting a New York Luxury Apartment on the real world much-more-than-suspiciously cheap on a no-atmosphere world.

'''High atmosphere is Earth’s front door to space.''' The question is whether we can build much of anything just inside that threshold. The back kitchen may be hot, but at least it’s livable. Not so with standing at the threshold to space with the door wide open.

Think about how we’ve made the Terra-bound transportation system so cost-effective: it’s comprised of the various land and ocean transport subsystems. Now imagine how inefficient it would be if we relied on only one or, at most, two such systems. The reason we’ve made the various sub-systems is because each is a Cost-Effect Specialist System. There is no way around this, short of an obscenely cheap form of locomotive force allowing the extreme inefficiencies of a mono-system to be ignored.

So, what's the most cost-effective means of putting mass into high atmosphere? I'm ignorant, but I think it's the balloon.

Again, the current huge costs in sending mass to orbit is due to a failure to fully distinguish between the intensity of our desire to achieve a science-fictional mastery of orbital/space flight and the ‘mundane’ need to understand technologies best suited for each stage of the trip to orbit.

So, think about a balloon-based high atmosphere station ('''High Atmosphere Balloon-based Station/HABBS''').

Add '''Rutan''''s idea of a Ferry plane (for the orbital rocket-propelled craft), or, in my ignorant ideal, a Ferry Zeppelin.

Add, also, a Ground-to-HABBS Primary Supply System.

That makes '''four''' primary Cost-Effect Specialist Systems: '''1)''' orbital craft, '''2)''' ground-to-high-atmosphere ferry craft, '''3)''' high-atmosphere refueling-and-maintenance station (HABBS), and '''4)''' primary ground-to-HABBS supply system.

Today, given the common man's near-zero-employment in above-Terra transportation technology, we have a near-exclusion of that employment to highly trained specialists. Such exclusion was never the case for on-Terra transportation. So, the most the common man today has ready access to working with above-Terra transport technology is little beyond the leaf-on-a-string we call a kite: hobby aircraft and balloons. Even the advent of the automobile had more ready potential of advancement. But, the reason for this exclusion is fairly simple: there is nothing naturally habitable about either space or our planetary neighbors. Otherwise, we would have mastered economical space flight by now.

Nevertheless, if you want economical spaceflight, you need more than ambition, money, and a love of perfectly fantastical versions of science fiction.

…You need a '''fourth''' element: a ‘down-to-Earth’ knowledge of specialist transport systems.
Specifically, you need to master, and to fully own, the threshold to space. The foyer cannot be left to the weather alone, even if you ''do'' leave the front door wide open.

Essay: No mere rock: Issues in cost of orbital spaceflight

2012-10-30T22:21:22Z

PatternOfPersona: Created page with "Blue Origin, the private spaceflight company founded by amazon dot com's founder, aims to make orbital spaceflight economical. I'm not confident he, or anyone, is ever going to a..."

Blue Origin, the private spaceflight company founded by amazon dot com's founder, aims to make orbital spaceflight economical. I'm not confident he, or anyone, is ever going to achieve that aim. But, I do have some thoughts on how it might be achieved:

Leonardo Da Vinci envisioned human flight.

But, Da Vinci didn’t know about space. Nevertheless, he knew about Alexander the Great.

Alexander the Great was the man who understood the cost-effective means of conquering worlds: ‘travelling light’. That is, he sought to understand the ‘mundane’, down-to-Earth things of domain-specific systems, to adapt himself to them, to master them, and to fully own each of them. This is how he penetrated far beyond the place of his origin. This is how he became the first mere man to truly ‘fly above his world’.

Do you recall the scene in the original Star Wars movie showing the Millenium Falcon escaping Mos Eisley space port? Or, the scenes showing Luke Skywalker’s magically floating Landspeeder? Such fantasies of technology are not faithful to what we know, only to what we desire. They’re just magic carpets we’ve repackage to give ourselves ‘airs’ about the ultimate technology: spaceflight.

(re: AIRS: Aerometric Information Retrieval System).

The unfortunate real-world version of the Millenium Falcon, namely the ground-to-orbit rocketry system, is an attempt to keep it as simple as Newton envisioned it. But, Newton was very pre-aviation.

Nevertheless, Newton was by no means pre-balloon. Nor was Da Vinci. Nor, really, was Alexander. Nor, for that matter, were the Nazca ‘Indians’ who made those geoglyphs out in the American deserts.

But, with the advent of the airplane, the balloon took a backseat: the airplane fulfilled Da Vinci’s vision. Then, with the advent of the rocket, the airplane took a backseat: the rocket promised to fulfill Newton’s vision: Space, the final frontier to Other Worlds.

But, there is a catch to that Final Frontier.

The title of the TV sitcom, 3rd Rock from the Sun, is telling of the failure to fully distinguish between the desire for mastery of space and the need for ‘mundane’ knowledge of transport systems. We don’t live on a zero-atmosphere chunk of rock. In fact, the atmosphere is much more an advantage in terms of costs of travel on and above the globe than it is an obstacle to such travel.

Of course, a lack of atmosphere would, in some ways, ‘assist’ space flight: you’re already in space, so the only obstacle is the challenge of achieving escape velocity and orbital flight; There is no atmosphere to drag you down, so no need to master aerodynamics. But, if you’re actually going to be living on that world...

A lack of atmosphere is massively prohibitive. It not only increases the cost of non-orbital above-ground travel-steering-breaking to that of rocketry, it makes on-ground travel massively costly in terms of in-vehicle life support systems. And, to further complicate matters, not only could you not hear the sirens of emergency vehicles, but, without a spacesuit, you couldn’t get out of your car just anywhere, much less when your tire goes flat. Gravity still works, but you’re caught outside in a vacuum: you can’t live there.

And, do you know how much a spacesuit costs just to operate, much less to rent or buy? Your very life would depend on not getting too cheap a one just to ride a bike. The Wright Brothers would understand: without an outdoors atmosphere, the cost of living would make renting a New York Luxury Apartment on the real world much-more-than-suspiciously cheap on a no-atmosphere world.

High atmosphere is Earth’s front door to space. The question is whether we can build much of anything just inside that threshold. The back kitchen may be hot, but at least it’s livable. Not so with standing at the threshold to space with the door wide open.

Think about how we’ve made the Terra-bound transportation system so cost-effective: it’s comprised of the various land and ocean transport subsystems. Now imagine how inefficient it would be if we relied on only one or, at most, two such systems. The reason we’ve made the various sub-systems is because each is a Cost-Effect Specialist System. There is no way around this, short of an obscenely cheap form of locomotive force allowing the extreme inefficiencies of a mono-system to be ignored.

So, what's the most cost-effective means of putting mass into high atmosphere? I'm ignorant, but I think it's the balloon.

Again, the current huge costs in sending mass to orbit is due to a failure to fully distinguish between the intensity of our desire to achieve a science-fictional mastery of orbital/space flight and the ‘mundane’ need to understand technologies best suited for each stage of the trip to orbit.

So, think about a balloon-based high atmosphere station (High Atmosphere Balloon-based Station/HABBS).

Add Rutan's idea of a Ferry plane (for the orbital rocket-propelled craft), or, in my ignorant ideal, a Ferry Zeppelin.

Add, also, a Ground-to-HABBS Primary Supply System.

That makes four primary Cost-Effect Specialist Systems: 1) orbital craft, 2) ground-to-high-atmosphere ferry craft, 3) high-atmosphere refueling-and-maintenance station (HABBS), and 4) primary ground-to-HABBS supply system.

Today, given the common man's near-zero-employment in above-Terra transportation technology, we have a near-exclusion of that employment to highly trained specialists. Such exclusion was never the case for on-Terra transportation. So, the most the common man today has ready access to working with above-Terra transport technology is little beyond the leaf-on-a-string we call a kite: hobby aircraft and balloons. Even the advent of the automobile had more ready potential of advancement. But, the reason for this exclusion is fairly simple: there is nothing naturally habitable about either space or our planetary neighbors. Otherwise, we would have mastered economical space flight by now.

Nevertheless, if you want economical spaceflight, you need more than ambition, money, and a love of perfectly fantastical versions of science fiction.

…You need a fourth element: a ‘down-to-Earth’ knowledge of specialist transport systems.
Specifically, you need to master, and to fully own, the threshold to space. The foyer cannot be left to the weather alone, even if you do leave the front door open.

Conservapedia:Essays

2012-10-30T22:13:01Z

PatternOfPersona: /* Science */ added essay on spaceflight

'''''This is an Index of "Essays" written by Conservapedia Members.'''''

Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view. If you write an essay, please attribute it to yourself and link it to this top page. Essays are still subject to control for obscenities, etcetera.
==Politics==
#'''[[Essay:Gun control]]''' by [[User:StephenW|StephenW]]
#'''[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
#'''[[Essay:End Gates' Tax Exemption]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods]]'''
#'''[[Cuban Dealings Essay]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Title IX]]''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power]]'''
#'''[[Essay: 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity]] by American Solutions
#'''[[Essay:School Prayer and the First Amendment]] by Leo Samuels
#'''[[Essay:Liberals can't lose in the 2010 UK Elections]] - [[User:Newton|Newton]] 11:53, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
#'''[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]] by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]
#'''[[Essay: Why the Liberals will Never Beat Us.]] by --[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 14:07, 31 May 2011 (EDT)
#'''[[Essay: The Irreducible Core of Politics]] by --[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] February 14 2011 (PST)

==Religion==
#'''[[Essay:Oath of Saint Luke]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power#What Is All This About?]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Noah's Ark Was Real]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Young Earth Cosmology]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:Allegiance]]''' by [[User:DanH|DanH]]
#'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]
#'''[[Essay:Shock "Value"?]]''' by [[User:JY23|JY23]]
#'''[[Essay:Christianity Under Attack]]''' by [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]]
#'''[[Essay: Bible Codes]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]
#'''[[Essay: The Nature of the Sabbath]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]
#'''[[Essay: Omnipotence, and the logic of power]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]
#'''[[Essay: Networks: sacred vs secular]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]
#'''[[Essay: One person's view of the Ontological Argument]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]
#'''[[Essay: Did God Truly Die?]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]
#'''[[Essay: Answering Secular Defenses of Homosexual Behavior]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]

==Conservapedia==
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Rules_of_Chivalry_for_Students]]''', by [[User:Aschlafly|Ashlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]

==Wikipedia==
#'''[[Essay:Wikipedia's Ads-for-Charity]]
#'''[[Essay:Uses of Wikipedia]]'''
==Conservative popular culture==
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Music is not neutral]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Born Again American]]'''

==Science==
#'''[[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine]]''' by [[User:RobS|RobS]]
# '''[[Essay: Out-of-place Artifacts, ET's, and the Great Flood]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:Darwin's The Origin of Species: Supplanting William Paley's Notion of Creator]] by [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]
# '''[[Essay: Steven Pinker's Cyborg: How Teaching Reading Became More Complicated than Rocket Science]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]
# '''[[Essay: Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]
# '''[[Essay: No mere rock: Issues in cost of orbital spaceflight]]''' by [[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]]

==Other==
#'''[[Essay: Is File-sharing a Moral Action?]]''' by [[user:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
#'''[[Essay:Most Influential Persons]]
#'''[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
#'''[[Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Adultress Story]]''' by ([[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]])

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Essays|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Essay:Answering Secular Defenses of Homosexual Behavior

2012-09-04T22:21:51Z

PatternOfPersona: added major parts as first half of essay

A certain '''John Corvino''' is a homosexual man who is well-respected by secular people for his attempts at rational defense of homosexual behavior. He recently put out a DVD defending homosexuality called '''What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?'''

I take it as uncontroversial that unethical acts are the function of injuring the hapless and weak by way of a too-convenient means of seeking one’s own personal happiness. Such convenience is the prime case of ‘It’s too good to be true.’ There is no garden of Eden in any of our lives, and woe to those who try to live as if there is.

A caste system is defined as the injury of some by way of the convenience of others. On this definition, a caste system can exist between as few as two persons. Think of a bad marriage. Of course, some bad marriages are bad because each partner injures the other more-or-less equally. But, I’ll contain the present discussion to the fact that some adverse acts-of-convenience are far more injurious to the hapless than are other adverse acts-of-convenience.

Now, it is a fact that some adverse acts-of-convenience are not as obviously adverse as are others. In fact, for some such acts, the only immediate evidence of their adverse nature is a sense of subjective repulsion to them. But, some of the most adverse acts possible are acts the accompanying sense of repulsion to which are often the most subject to being overcome. And I’m not talking about things like smoking. I’m talking about the microbiological caste system so deeply produced by the worst sexual acts.

Sex is a very powerful force in the human psyche. I would even say it is the most powerful. In any case, it has the power to overcome its own rightful bounds, if not in all individuals at the same time, then in a population over time and generations. Anyone with a libido will admit that.

Certain kinds of biological acts create and deepen a caste system on the microbiological level, without respect to either social or economic status. Most importantly, the inherent adverse microbiological outcomes of certain sexual acts, in terms of everyone who is at a microbiological disadvantage, is the creation of deeper microbiological disadvantages to those already so disadvantaged.

Sexual mores are not founded on general social norms. General social norms are founded on sexual mores. And the instincts that work to protect ecologically sound sexual mores inhere in the microbiology of the individual organism. Steven Pinker would agree.

Liberals are right to abhor economic greed, for the damage such greed causes both to the human and non-human parts of the Earth. But, in how many of an individual human life’s basic features is it possible to cause disease to others?

But, many Liberals, who love to invoke the ‘butterfly theory’ of cause-and-effect, are unwilling to see past their own noses when it comes to the way in which the Earth’s ecology actually coheres as an ecology (much less as a stable ecology). Who truly is the more diseased: the one who gets the disease, or the one who causes it?

A human being cannot see, much less keep track of, the microbiological world. So, a human being does not directly know externally that disease to others is caused by certain sexual acts. John Corvino would have humanity believe that the conspiracy between two persons to engage in certain biological acts between themselves cannot inherently produce disease in the wider population.

But, what, if any, is the microbiological basis for outlawing sex/marriage between father and son? By Corvino’s logic, if there is not known to be a microbiological reason to outlaw such an act, then there is, in fact, no microbiological reason to outlaw such an act.

But, if it is a fact that the microbiology of the offspring of the union of father-and-daughter is compromised, leading to the accumulation of disease by the continuation of such a means of reproduction, then shall we assert that such a sexual act does not already inject microbiological adversity into the wider population? And, if the repulsion to the idea of full siblings mating is reducible to the adverse results to any offspring, then whence the sense of repulsion in the individual at all?

Once something becomes existentially 'natural', Corvino would have us all presume that it is rightly allowed in terms of the microbiological ecology of which we have our respective and collective being.

I suppose Corvino has a problem with Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior. But, Apostle Paul was simply implying that there must be many things which are unnatural and bad despite that people can become attracted to these unnatural things; And that, in fact, for every realm of human life, there are many bad things possible which humans nevertheless can become changed into enjoying—and even changed into seeming to themselves to have a perfect right to do.

I recently watched the Extended trailer for '''What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?''' as linked to on '''Wikipedia’s''' John Corvino page. From what that trailer contains, it seems Corvino’s logic in defense of homosexual behavior is on the level of a stand-up comic: any rebuttal one can come up with which at all seems to deflate any point made adversely to one's own favored position on a matter is automatically accounted to be the superior logic over that adverse point.

In defending his belief that homosexual behavior is rationally justified, the key rebuttal Corvino makes is that, contrary to some people's adverse point that 'the parts don't fit', ‘the parts do fit’. Corvino’s point here is that, contrary to what some homophobes say, "Homosexual sex is mechanically effective to its intentions."

I could, in stand-up comic fashion, simply ‘observe’ that, by Corvino’s logic here, lesbian behavior is less-than-ideally ineffective.

But, my serious reply to Corvino's rebuttal that 'the parts do fit' is that literally everything, according to some intention, fits together effectively. And, many of these things which ‘fit together’ no reasonable human would ever attempt (and every reasonable person would resist doing): throwing one's own baby in a trash compactor, snorting cocaine, having sex with an animal, or just plain being stupid.

Another of Corvino’s points is that virus causes AIDS (that homosexual behavior does not cause AIDS any more inherently than heterosexual sex causes aids). But, here, Corvino could be construed as saying that "the pleasure of nicotine addiction does not cause lung cancer, and that, in fact, there is nothing inherently wrong with any pleasurable act no matter how contrary it may be to the complex microbiological ecology within which we live and by which we have our own physical being."

But the worst part about the logic of John Corvino's defense of homosexual behavior is that he has had to form it in face of the emptily inbred form of Christian doctrine. That Christian doctrinal inbreeding goes like this: "You ask us why we believe that this or that is wrong? We believe that this or that is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong."

The absurdity of this inbred 'Biblicist' logic is seen by imagining someone today asking Apostle Paul so many of the questions that Christians today get asked, and then imagining Paul replying that his own words addressing those questions in the New Testament are really there in the authoritative Bible. Paul would not have been so thick. He would have endeavored to answer the questions at least as sincerely and insightfully as the person asking the questions. This is just like what Jesus himself always did, though Jesus is recorded as having had to answer mainly doctrinally inbred Jews.

So, if you think you can answer a question with wisdom, at least first try to understand who it is you are answering, and try to understand the actual subject about which they ask. Because you can't play chess with someone by insisting that they accept that you are going to be playing by the rules of checkers.

Essay:Answering Secular Defenses of Homosexual Behavior

2012-09-01T01:37:13Z

PatternOfPersona:

A certain John Corvino is a homosexual man who is well-respected by secular people for his attempts at rational defense of homosexual behavior. He recently put out a DVD called What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?

I suppose Corvino has a problem with Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior. But, Apostle Paul was simply implying that there must be many things which are unnatural and bad despite that people can become attracted to these unnatural things; And that, in fact, for every realm of human life, there are many bad things possible which humans nevertheless can become changed into enjoying—and even changed into seeming to themselves to have a perfect right to do.

I recently watched the Extended trailer for '''What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?''' as linked to on '''Wikipedia’s''' John Corvino page. From what that trailer contains, it seems Corvino’s logic in defense of homosexual behavior is on the level of a stand-up comic: any rebuttle one can come up with which at all seems to deflate any point made adversely to one's own favored position on a matter is automatically accounted to be the superior logic over that adverse point.

In defending his belief that homosexual behavior is rationally justified, the key rebuttle Corvino makes is that, contrary to some people's adverse point that 'the parts don't fit', ‘the parts do fit’. Corvino’s point here is that, contrary to what some homophobes say, "Homosexual sex is mechanically effective to its intentions."

I could, in stand-up comic fashion, simply ‘observe’ that, by Corvino’s logic here, lesbian behavior is less-than-ideally ineffective.

But, my serious reply to Corvino's rebuttle that 'the parts do fit' is that literally everything, according to some intention, fits together effectively. And, many of these things which ‘fit together’ no reasonable human would ever attempt (and every reasonable person would resist doing): throwing one's own baby in a trash compactor, snorting cocaine, having sex with an animal, or just plain being stupid.

Another of Corvino’s points is that virus causes AIDS (that homosexual behavior does not cause AIDS any more inherently than heterosexual sex causes aids). But, here, Corvino could be construed as saying that "the pleasure of nicotine addiction does not cause lung cancer, and that, in fact, there is nothing inherently wrong with any pleasurable act no matter how contrary it may be to the complex microbiological ecology within which we live and by which we have our own physical being."

But the worst part about the logic of John Corvino's defense of homosexual behavior is that he has had to form it in face of the emptily inbred form of Christian doctrine. That Christian doctrinal inbreeding goes like this: "You ask us why we believe that this or that is wrong? We believe that this or that is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong."

The absurdity of this inbred 'Biblicist' logic is seen by imagining someone today asking Apostle Paul so many of the questions that Christians today get asked, and then imagining Paul replying that his own words addressing those questions in the New Testament are really there in the authoritative Bible. Paul would not have been so thick. He would have endeavored to answer the questions at least as sincerely and insightfully as the person asking the questions. This is just like what Jesus himself always did, though Jesus is recorded as having had to answer mainly doctrinally inbred Jews.

So, if you think you can answer a question with wisdom, at least first try to understand who it is you are answering, and try to understand the actual subject about which they ask. Because you can't play chess with someone by insisting that they accept that you are going to be playing by the rules of checkers.

Essay:Answering Secular Defenses of Homosexual Behavior

2012-09-01T01:35:46Z

PatternOfPersona: Created page with "A certain John Corvino is a homosexual man who is well-respected by secular people for his attempts at rational defense of homosexual behavior. He recently put out a DVD called W..."

A certain John Corvino is a homosexual man who is well-respected by secular people for his attempts at rational defense of homosexual behavior. He recently put out a DVD called What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?

I suppose Corvino has a problem with Apostle Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior. But, Apostle Paul was simply implying that there must be many things which are unnatural and bad despite that people can become attracted to these unnatural things; And that, in fact, for every realm of human life, there are many bad things possible which humans nevertheless can become changed into enjoying—and even changed into seeming to themselves to have a perfect right to do.

I recently watched the Extended trailer for '''What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?''' as linked to on '''Wikipedia’s''' John Corvino page. From what that trailer contains, it seems Corvino’s logic in defense of homosexual behavior is on the level of a stand-up comic: any rebuttle one can come up with which at all seems to deflate any point made adversely to one's own favored position on a matter is automatically accounted the superior logic over that adverse point.

In defending his belief that homosexual behavior is rationally justified, the key rebuttle Corvino makes is that, contrary to some people's adverse point that 'the parts don't fit', ‘the parts do fit’. Corvino’s point here is that, contrary to what some homophobes say, "Homosexual sex is mechanically effective to its intentions."

I could, in stand-up comic fashion, simply ‘observe’ that, by Corvino’s logic here, lesbian behavior is less-than-ideally ineffective.

But, my serious reply to Corvino's rebuttle that 'the parts do fit' is that literally everything, according to some intention, fits together effectively. And, many of these things which ‘fit together’ no reasonable human would ever attempt (and every reasonable person would resist doing): throwing one's own baby in a trash compactor, snorting cocaine, having sex with an animal, or just plain being stupid.

Another of Corvino’s points is that virus causes AIDS (that homosexual behavior does not cause AIDS any more inherently than heterosexual sex causes aids). But, here, Corvino could be construed as saying that "the pleasure of nicotine addiction does not cause lung cancer, and that, in fact, there is nothing inherently wrong with any pleasurable act no matter how contrary it may be to the complex microbiological ecology within which we live and by which we have our own physical being."

But the worst part about the logic of John Corvino's defense of homosexual behavior is that he has had to form it in face of the emptily inbred form of Christian doctrine. That Christian doctrinal inbreeding goes like this: "You ask us why we believe that this or that is wrong? We believe that this or that is wrong because the Bible says it is wrong."

The absurdity of this inbred 'Biblicist' logic is seen by imagining someone today asking Apostle Paul so many of the questions that Christians today get asked, and then imagining Paul replying that his own words addressing those questions in the New Testament are really there in the authoritative Bible. Paul would not have been so thick. He would have endeavored to answer the questions at least as sincerely and insightfully as the person asking the questions. This is just like what Jesus himself always did, though Jesus is recorded as having had to answer mainly doctrinally inbred Jews.

So, if you think you can answer a question with wisdom, at least first try to understand who it is you are answering, and try to understand the actual subject about which they ask. Because you can't play chess with someone by insisting that they accept that you are going to be playing by the rules of checkers.