From: Donald Nield (d.nield@auckland.ac.nz)
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 01:54:10 EDT
richard@biblewheel.com wrote:
<snip>
> 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,
> Richard
> Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
> http://www.BibleWheel.com
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.
Don Nield
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 01:56:22 EDT