Mathematics, Divinity and the Bible

[exchemist]

It sounds to me as if he is working up to some version of the Bible Code:

Bible code - Wikipedia

The TLDR is one can use various algorithms to mine the Bible for words. But one can do that for any long book.

Hmm, I see.

But of course, claiming there is a code embedded in a book does not demonstrate that the meaning of the book consists solely of any such code.

In other words, the code would not be the book, though it could be in principle be one property of the book.

 

[Heyo]

Rabbi Munk points out that the value of קוה (100+6+5) is 111 and the value of קו (100+6) is 106. He interpreted the ratio of these two values – 111/106 – as a correction factor: if you multiply the textual " implied " value for π (3) by this factor, you get 333/106 = 3.14150…– an approximation of π accurate to the fourth decimal point

( Diameter / diameter )*3 = 3.14150

That is some nice digging to come to a predetermined conclusion. How did the rabbi know to divide 111 by 106 and not the other way around? And how did he know to divide instead of, say, subtract?
And how do you know about all this?

 

[Onoma]

you can't say that divinity and mathematics were closely entwined without first producing your "rigorous" definition of divinity and then some evidence of mathematics being "entwined" with it.

Let's look at this a little closer then, shall we ?

Since I've already covered the basic and well known literary traditions concerning " divinity " in Hebrew, Greek, Cuneiform and Egyptian, I'm going to assume that's comprehensive enough for you for the time being ?

Let me know if that's not satisfactory and I can go into much greater detail, I just wanted to establish that there is indeed a trail of obvious relationships in the ancient traditions, concerning " divinity " in writing

After all, we are talking about " God's " word, so by logic we'd want to also ask what exactly made something " God's word " or even " a god's word " in literature prior to the Bible, right ? ( Let me know if you have an objection to that )

Otherwise we are ignoring the foundation of such a concept in historical literature, and it does indeed exist. Most folks only think of the Bible when you are speaking of " God's / gods' " word, yet this concept of literature being " divine " or " God's / gods' " words is rather ancient and well known in the corpus of ancient priests

In short, don't expect to just sweep it off the table with a wave of your arm

Now where you say " some evidence of mathematics being "entwined" with it. ", I'm going to applaud you, because that's precisely what I would say if our roles were reversed

" Where's the beef ", as the old commercial goes, right ?

Now there are two approaches I can make here

One, is that I can point out that the ancient literary conventions associated with " divinity " do indeed have a relationship to mathematics, this can be begun to be established simply by examining cognates

In the Egyptian system of Hieroglyphic powers of ten, the " finger " hieroglyph represents the number 10,000 ( What later Greek mathematics considered the " Myriad " )

If you need another rather glaring clue, go no further than the Stele of Hammurabi, which is carved in the shape of a giant finger


The other approach requires an examination of the structure of the Hebrew and Greek alphabets, so I'll do that in the next post

 

[Heyo]

So lets consider Sub's statement " People cannot even begin to reason on how to mathematically prove the Bible "

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume he meant " mathematically prove the Bible ( is divine ) "

First of all, who says people can't even begin to reason how ?

This a claim ( The onus of proof is on Sub here, not I, just a reminder )

Unless he or someone else can provide even a reasonable explanation of why this claim would be true, it can be discarded ( Let me know if you have a good reason why " nobody can even begin to reason ", I'd be all ears )

I would say the exact opposite of Sub's claim is true, actually, that anybody can begin to reason ( Provided they have the ability to reason ). I don't know how far they'd get, but anybody can try

So that's my response to that part of his claim

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The next part, " mathematically prove the Bible ( is divine ) " is admittedly more difficult to approach

Typically, when it comes to how people define " divinity ", it's all over the place, that's no secret

There's no real objective definition for this concept, currently

However, what is objectively true about " divinity " are several relevant historical facts ( Feel free to offer refutation ):

1. Divinity in the NT ( Only ) ( Divine objects, places, people ) uses a specific notation that provides the nomina sacra ( sacred names )

Nomina sacra - Wikipedia.

In the scriptures, no less a figure than Jesus specifically mentions this notation for divinity

" For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. " Matthew 5:18

keraía – properly, a little "horn," i.e. " 'a little hook, an apostrophe' on letters of the alphabet, distinguishing them from other like-letters, or a 'separation stroke' between letters" (Souter); a tittle (KJV).

["Tittle" comes from the Latin, titulus – the stroke above an abbreviated word – and later, any small mark.

Strong's Greek: 2762. κεραία (keraia) -- a little horn

All " nomina sacra " have a little " horn " ( Tittle )

2. Divinity in pre-Biblical Mesopotamian literature also has a very specific notation:

Dingir

The concept of "divinity" in Sumerian is closely associated with the heavens, as is evident from the fact that the cuneiform sign doubles as the ideogram for "sky", and that its original shape is the picture of a star.

The cuneiform sign by itself was originally an ideogram for the Sumerian word an ("sky" or "heaven"); its use was then extended to a logogram for the word diĝir ("god" or goddess)and the supreme deity of the Sumerian pantheon An, and a phonogram for the syllable /an/. Akkadian took over all these uses and added to them a logographic reading for the native ilum and from that a syllabic reading of /il/ ( ʼĒl )

ʼĒl (also ʼIl or ʼÁl, Ugaritic: ; Phoenician: ;[1] Hebrew: אֵל‎; Syriac: ܐܠ‎; Arabic: إيل‎ or إله‎; cognate to Akkadian: , romanized: ilu) is a Northwest Semitic word meaning "god" or "deity"

This symbol for divinity was written next to the names of deified priest-kings, just like a trademark symbol ( Known as a silent determinative )

Determinative - Wikipedia

The practice of writing Dingir next to the name of a priest-king started with Naram-Sin, who is also who standardized all measurements in Mesopotamia under one system using a theoretical cuboid of water as it's foundation ( I covered this in my thread on flood terminologies, but if you have questions, ask away )

This can be read here, under " Classical system "

Ancient Mesopotamian units of measurement - Wikipedia

What this means is that the Judaic units in the Bible derive from the reformation under Naram-Sin, who is also the first person to claim to be " divine "

Since we are going to discuss " divinity ", we might as well be rigorous and at least look at the first known example of the use of a divinity determinant in cuneiform script ( Naram-Sin )

The reason, for me at least, is rather obvious, because the Bible directly borrows this earlier Mesopotamian concept of associating " stars " and " divinity "

- " a star from Jacob " ( Prophecy )
- " star of Bethlehem " ( Prophecy )
- " The star was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit " ( Prophecy )
- " there fell a great star from heaven " ( Prophecy )

Dingir = ideogram of a star ( God / god )

This also means that is cognate to the little " horn " ( Tittle ) of the NT nomina sacra

They are both literary signifiers for " divinity "

3. Divinity in pre-Biblical Egyptian texts also has a very specific type of notation

The flag is a triliteral (nTr) often used to denote a god, goddess, or divinity in general



--------------

So all I've done here so far is point out that the NT as well as pre-Biblical literature in both cuneiform as well as Egyptian, had strict traditions of literary notations for " divinity " ( Since we need to establish whether or not these traditions have any relationship to mathematics )

Bible = Tittle ( little " horn " )
Cuneiform = Dingir
Egyptian = nTr

View attachment 47053



Anybody have a problem with what I've presented in this post ? Please let me know

Interesting. Though you didn't define "divine", you at least gave a method to detect divinity in ancient middle eastern and Egyptian texts. Just look for the tittle, if it has it, it's divine, if not, it's not.
Do Jesus', the aposteles', John's or the angles' names have tittles?

I guess you are a scholar of ancient languages? Did you find this connection or is there some study you can point to?

Iow: [citation ****ing needed]

 

[exchemist]

Let's look at this a little closer then, shall we ?

Since I've already covered the basic and well known literary traditions concerning " divinity " in Hebrew, Greek, Cuneiform and Egyptian, I'm going to assume that's comprehensive enough for you for the time being ?

Let me know if that's not satisfactory and I can go into much greater detail, I just wanted to establish that there is indeed a trail of obvious relationships in the ancient traditions, concerning " divinity " in writing

After all, we are talking about " God's " word, so by logic we'd want to also ask what exactly made something " God's word " or even " a god's word " in literature prior to the Bible, right ? ( Let me know if you have an objection to that )

Otherwise we are ignoring the foundation of such a concept in historical literature, and it does indeed exist. Most folks only think of the Bible when you are speaking of " God's / gods' " word, yet this concept of literature being " divine " or " God's / gods' " words is rather ancient and well known in the corpus of ancient priests

In short, don't expect to just sweep it off the table with a wave of your arm

Now where you say " some evidence of mathematics being "entwined" with it. ", I'm going to applaud you, because that's precisely what I would say if our roles were reversed

" Where's the beef ", as the old commercial goes, right ?

Now there are two approaches I can make here

One, is that I can point out that the ancient literary conventions associated with " divinity " do indeed have a relationship to mathematics, this can be begun to be established simply by examining cognates

In the Egyptian system of Hieroglyphic powers of ten, the " finger " hieroglyph represents the number 10,000 ( What later Greek mathematics considered the " Myriad " )

View attachment 47054



If you need another rather glaring clue, go no further than the Stele of Hammurabi, which is carved in the shape of a giant finger


The other approach requires an examination of the structure of the Hebrew and Greek alphabets, so I'll do that in the next post

My point does not relate to any of this. It is far more basic.

What I need to see from you is a mathematical expression for the term "divine", or for "divinity", either will do, that can be used to set up mathematical relationships to other mathematical expressions. Because that is what you are going to need.

So, never mind all your researches, what is the mathematical expression for divine?

 

[Onoma]

Now, I feel like I gave a pretty good explanation of the use of the " finger " in the sacerdotal duties of a priest, in the thread on flood terminologies in the antiquities, but if you need a refresher, feel free to ask ( Hand and finger measures were common in the antiquities and are still used by modern astronomers )

No " numerology " there, just basic mathematical astronomy


-------------------------------------------------------------------


OK, so the next approach I could take, is to point out that the structure of the languages used to write the Bible, are taken from the script of Egyptian priests

The script is Hieratic, ( Not Hieroglyphics ), and it also happens to be the script that mathematical papyrii were primarily written in ( The Rhind papyrus is a famous example if you need an obvious example of Hieratic, another is the Moscow papyrus )

The term derives from the Greek for "priestly writing" (Koinē Greek: γράμματα ἱερατικά) because at that time, for more than eight and a half centuries, hieratic had been used traditionally only for religious texts and literature

Hieratic can also be an adjective meaning "[o]f or associated with sacred persons or offices; sacerdotal ( Priestly )."

We are talking about " divinity ", so along with " divinity " and being " divine " and all that yummy goodness, there are also " divine duties " ( sacerdotal ) as they were done by kings, priests, and priest-kings as well as Pharaohs

These types of priestly duties date back to the earliest Sumerian city states like Eridu and can be seen in the " Sumerian mes " ( Singular: me , Plural : mes ), these were related to the " mes trees "

Cf the text " Enki and the world order " if you need a citation for the " mes trees "

Enki and the world order: translation

Sumerian: me " Being, divine properties enabling cosmic activity; office; (cultic) ordinance " Akkadian: mû; parşu

In Sumerian mythology, a me (; Sumerian: me; Akkadian: paršu) is one of the decrees of the divine that is foundational to those social institutions, religious practices, technologies, behaviors, mores, and human conditions that make civilization, as the Sumerians understood it, possible. They are fundamental to the Sumerian understanding of the relationship between humanity and the gods

Me (mythology) - Wikipedia.

Now, I said that Hebrew and Greek take their structure from Egyptian priestly script, and I know that people love to make up stories like " It was transmitted directly to Moses ! ", but that's obviously a load of utter codswallop

It's always shocked me that people claim the Bible is " divine ", yet don't know enough about how " divinity " and divine roles / duties were actually treated, classically, in literature, to be able to offer a shred of evidence

So there you go, there's a nice start

Without borrowing the structure of the Egyptian priestly text most commonly used for both religious and mathematical literature, you'd never even have been able to write down Genesis 1:1, let alone the rest of the book, since the NT Greek uses the same system of writing as Hebrew

Objections ?

Refutations ?

let's hear 'em

 

[Onoma]

Interesting. Though you didn't define "divine", you at least gave a method to detect divinity in ancient middle eastern and Egyptian texts. Just look for the tittle, if it has it, it's divine, if not, it's not.
Do Jesus', the aposteles', John's or the angles' names have tittles?

I guess you are a scholar of ancient languages? Did you find this connection or is there some study you can point to?

Iow: [citation ****ing needed]

Study of what ?

The use of the determinants for divinity in those scripts is well known and easily googled, are you asking me to look it up for you ?

I kinda feel like you are ignoring what I've already posted, since you're asking me questions I already answered, not to be rude

" Do Jesus', the apostles', John's or the angles' names have tittles ? "

I clearly already linked to the page for nomina sacra ( Sacred names ) showing that both the genitive as well as nominative forms of the Greek word " Jesus " have Tittles

so, yup

 

[blü 2]

Lets look at what has been already pointed out about the Hebrew used in the verses describing this object: 1 Kings 7:23

But it seems clear enough that the value 3 for π in the bible is derived pragmatically and not mathematically.

π isn't derived mathematically till Archimedes in the 3rd century BCE, many centuries after Kings was written.

 

[McBell]

It sounds to me as if he is working up to some version of the Bible Code:

Bible code - Wikipedia

The TLDR is one can use various algorithms to mine the Bible for words. But one can do that for any long book.

I am wondering how many pages it will take him to convince himself divinity is divine...

 

[blü 2]

Cool, let me know when you can demonstrate you're remotely familiar with literary traditions in the antiquities

So, an argument from authority that happens to be an argument from your own authority?

Wow, cool!

 

[Onoma]

But it seems clear enough that the value 3 for π in the bible is derived pragmatically and not mathematically.

π isn't derived mathematically till Archimedes in the 3rd century BCE, many centuries after Kings was written.

OK, fair

I will point out, again, that if we accept that it says pi = 3, then we are assuming they are invoking a rather seemingly advanced concept in topology, especially for the times ( A purely mathematical object as opposed to a real world object )

Since the molten sea was simply for ablution ( washing ) of the priests, and was preceded by the bronze lavar of Moses, I'd have trouble accepting it says pi = 3, because it seems to assume the objects that we know were classically used and actually existed ,...didn't

The instructions given to Moses in the Book of Exodus included the creation of a bronze laver (Hebrew: כיור נחשת‎ kîyōr nəḥōšeṯ),

In Solomon's Temple, the laver was apparently superseded by the molten or brazen sea described in 1 Kings 7:23–26 and 2 Chronicles 4:2–5, which is what people are claiming say " pi = 3 "

Pi = 3 in itself isn't that out of place, it was a standard value in Babylonian texts, but most importantly, it was but one value given for pi, among many

What I've noticed in the mathematics of priests in these times, is that different values of pi are treated differently in texts, iow, some appear as simple solutions to problems that were presented to students, and some are solely invoked in the heavily guarded corpuses ( Libraries ) of the priests and pharaohs that deal with the calculations of eclipse and new moon cycles

 

[Onoma]

So, an argument from authority that happens to be an argument from your own authority?

Wow, cool!

Actually, smartypants, I've used nothing but the Bible, the online Hebrew and Greek Concordances, wiki, as well as the cuneiform database maintained by the University of Pennsylvania, which happens to be hyperlinked to the Yale and Oxford sites that are joint projects with the Max Planck University in Germany and join the CDLI to the ETCSL to the ePSD to the CCP

I've also spent the past 10 years studying from these sources and many more

So, Yawn, yes, I am somewhat of an authority on these subjects since I use the authoritative sources

Is that all you got ?

Lol

 

[Onoma]

I am wondering how many pages it will take him to convince himself divinity is divine...

Rather empty statement there, don't you think ?

All we've discussed so far are classical notations for divinity in different scripts and how they are related to mathematics in the antiquities

I don't need convincing of anything, since I'm already familiar with the literary traditions that give the closest thing to a definition

 

[Heyo]

I clearly already linked to the page for nomina sacra ( Sacred names ) showing that both the genitive as well as nominative forms of the Greek word " Jesus " have Tittles

so, yup

Yes, you did answer that and I missed it.
But you didn't answer the other question. How did you learn all this stuff? By flipping through Wikipedia?

 

[blü 2]

OK, fair

I will point out, again, that if we accept that it says pi = 3, then we are assuming they are invoking a rather seemingly advanced concept in topology, especially for the times ( A purely mathematical object as opposed to a real world object )

My own view would be that it was derived by artisans making round things. Or more generally, in order to do practical rather than theoretical / abstract things. So in the Canaan context I'm not persuaded there was topological thinking as such going on.

 

[blü 2]

Actually, smartypants, I've used nothing but the Bible, the online Hebrew and Greek Concordances, wiki, as well as the cuneiform database maintained by the University of Pennsylvania, which happens to be hyperlinked to the Yale and Oxford sites that are joint projects with the Max Planck University in Germany and join the CDLI to the ETCSL to the ePSD to the CCP

I've also spent the past 10 years studying from these sources and many more

So, Yawn, yes, I am somewhat of an authority on these subjects since I use the authoritative sources

Is that all you got ?

Lol

Good luck with that.

I just don't think you can use mathematical examples ─ or indeed any other kinds of examples ─ to demonstrate supernatural truths, because (a) the only manner in which the supernatural is known to exist is as a set of concepts / things imagined in individual brains, and (just as the name implies) not in nature and (b) since I use the 'correspondence' definition of truth, I don't see how true positive statements about supernatural things are possible at all.

 

[Onoma]

Yes, you did answer that and I missed it.
But you didn't answer the other question. How did you learn all this stuff? By flipping through Wikipedia?

right, so ..." wikipedia "

My opinion about it is this: It's a great place for the layman to start, but it's also riddled with incomplete information, inaccuracies, and biases ( Most articles can be edited by anyone )

I've learned a great deal of things just by fact checking wiki over the years, so if it's taught me anything, it's taught me to examine my sources to see whether or not they are considered authoritative ( I personally don't consider wiki to be authoritative for the reasons mentioned )

I tend to use the " authoritative " sources provided by the universities like Yale, Oxford, Max Planck, U of Penn, etc , because they are all collaborations and all the sites are hyperlinked to each others' databases

That's about as rigorous as you can get, for these subjects

These are sites like:

CDLI - Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative - A joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of Oxford, and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin

CCP - Cuneiform Commentaries Project - funded by Yale University (2013-2016) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (Division of Research Programs “Scholarly Editions and Translations,”

ETCSL - Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature - a project of the University of Oxford

ePSD - Electronic Pennsylvanian Sumerian Dictionary - University of Pennsylvania

Oracc - Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus - University of Cambridge, University of Pennsylvania, and the University of California Berkeley

I tend to use a few wiki links as a basic starter for most folks because it's all they can really stomach, especially when you start to dive into complicated topics like mathematics and ancient languages and so on, but for demands of more rigorous sources, I go to sites like the above mentioned ( and many more )

I also use the online Hebrew and Greek Bible concordances

I've yet to find any " numerology " on them

 

[Onoma]

Good luck with that.

I just don't think you can use mathematical examples ─ or indeed any other kinds of examples ─ to demonstrate supernatural truths, because (a) the only manner in which the supernatural is known to exist is as a set of concepts / things imagined in individual brains, and (just as the name implies) not in nature and (b) since I use the 'correspondence' definition of truth, I don't see how true positive statements about supernatural things are possible at all.

Well, actually I wouldn't need luck at all, it was standard tradition of priestly literature that the highly guarded mathematical material was only revealed with the help of classical tutelary deities, so there's your " supernatural " right there

It's discussed in this rather frequently cited paper published by Cambridge

" Secrets in the Library: Protected Knowledge and Professional Identity in Late Babylonian Uruk "

Secrets in the Library: Protected Knowledge and Professional Identity in Late Babylonian Uruk1 | IRAQ | Cambridge Core

If you really want to read the paper, just use sci-hub, that's how I get past paywalls

 

[JoshuaTree]

right, so ..." wikipedia "

My opinion about it is this: It's a great place for the layman to start, but it's also riddled with incomplete information, inaccuracies, and biases ( Most articles can be edited by anyone )

I've learned a great deal of things just by fact checking wiki over the years, so if it's taught me anything, it's taught me to examine my sources to see whether or not they are considered authoritative ( I personally don't consider wiki to be authoritative for the reasons mentioned )

I tend to use the " authoritative " sources provided by the universities like Yale, Oxford, Max Planck, U of Penn, etc , because they are all collaborations and all the sites are hyperlinked to each others' databases

That's about as rigorous as you can get, for these subjects

These are sites like:

CDLI - Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative - A joint project of the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of Oxford, and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin

CCP - Cuneiform Commentaries Project - funded by Yale University (2013-2016) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (Division of Research Programs “Scholarly Editions and Translations,”

ETCSL - Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature - a project of the University of Oxford

ePSD - Electronic Pennsylvanian Sumerian Dictionary - University of Pennsylvania

Oracc - Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus - University of Cambridge, University of Pennsylvania, and the University of California Berkeley

I tend to use a few wiki links as a basic starter for most folks because it's all they can really stomach, especially when you start to dive into complicated topics like mathematics and ancient languages and so on, but for demands of more rigorous sources, I go to sites like the above mentioned ( and many more )

I also use the online Hebrew and Greek Bible concordances

I've yet to find any " numerology " on them

I'm trying to keep up, fascinating.

Isn't the fermament presented in Genesis a Sumerian model of a flat earth theory? I'm asking, figure you'd know. Thanks!

 

[Onoma]

btw, you guys talking about " he's setting up some numerology " are sorely mistaken

I've actually gone to great lengths to read every single article and example of numerology and debunking I've been able to find, and I agree with 99% of them, so not sure where that leaves you and your claim I'm setting up some sort of " numerology ", lol

In fact, I challenge any one of you to post an example of " numerology " that I don't already agree is tripe

Go ahead, what are you going to post ?

ELS ? " Heptadic structure ", lol, I've already seen it all, but please show me