From: Donald Nield (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 01:54:10 EDT
> There is no need to apologize for "not taking my word for it."
> Demanding that I produce evidence is exactly what I want. Case in
> point, the question of the "statistical significance" of the pattern.
> I have addressed this in my article "Probabilities: What are the
> Chances?" Here is the
> link: http://www.biblewheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp The
> calculations involve nothing but basic combinatorics and should be
> easy to follow for anybody reasonably comfortable with such. The
> results are that there is one chance in 688,324 that 66 objects
> divided into seven arbitrary divisions would exhibit both radial and
> bilateral symmetry when displayed in the form of the Wheel. But there
> is another aspect that should be considered. It would be a mistake to
> think that a pattern is not somehow "valid" or "important" if it can
> not be shown to be statistically rare. Think of the difficulties in
> computerized pattern recognition. Intelligent beings see real and
> important things all the time that can not be easily quantified. Try
> and program a computer to recognize the Face of Christ that shines in
> the believers' hearts as they read the Holy Bible. And this brings up
> the "apologetic value" that you question. Who said God put this
> pattern in Scripture as an apologetic? Maybe he did, maybe he didn't.
> But I have never suggested that an unbeliever would benefit from a
> faithless the study of the Wheel. An unbeliever must repent and
> believe the Gospel. I would have no reason to believe that anyone
> could see, let alone appreciate, the beauty and glory in the divine
> structure of God's Holy Word if they have yet to see and believe in
> Christ who is its central theme and purpose! On the other hand, it
> certainly is striking, and I see no reason God could not use it for
> His evangelical purposes. Actually, it does seem ideally suited to
> answer many problems unbelievers have with Scripture.
> <snip> This looks like a very interesting area for discussion. It
> wouldn't have to be limited to my work either. I hope someone takes up
> the suggestion. Finally, concerning the Wheel as "proof of God" or
> "proof of the Bible." It seems to me that such would be the
> *inevitable* consequence of its validity, but that does not mean that
> that is why God put it here. E.g. a car proves the existence of an
> engineer, but the car was not designed just to prove that engineers
> exist! It was designed to get you from point A to point B. The same
> goes for the Bible Wheel. Might I suggest you take it out for a "spin"
> and see what you think?
> Thanks again for taking the time to give such a thoughtful, honest,
> and insightful response. It is highly valued. In service of the
> everlasting Lord, Jesus Christ,
> Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
It would not surprise me if numerical considerations had some effect on
the final form of the OT canon. That there are 5 books in the Torah is
probably not an accident. That there are 12 books of the minor prophets
suggests some design. With 5 and 12 established, it is not surprising
that there might be 12 historical books and 5 books in the major
prophets section and 5 wisdom books. The 22 is probably just a
consequence of 5+5+12 =22.
The four gospels plus Acts forms a group of 5, and it is likely that the
early church saw this group as analogous to the Torah. That leaves 22
other NT books. That may be a coincidence -- not improbable.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 01:56:22 EDT