Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 9:47:35 GMT -6
Good point, MissusMack08, I should have been more careful. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Post by whatif on Sept 3, 2017 10:17:35 GMT -6
Good morning, bhswah535! Welcome to the forum!
|
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Sept 12, 2017 21:18:36 GMT -6
Silentknight's study is an excellent example for Chuck Misslers motto: Every number and detail in the scripture has a purpose and a meaning. Well done! I never discovered this difference (EDIT: 14-13) before.... The 17 verses before verse 18 remind me of the basis of the famous 153 fish number, which is associated with fullness. 1+2+3+....+17 = 153 I had to look up the fish number because I didn't know what you were talking about. Here is a link for other people like me. I'm sure yardstick could explain it better, but if you slow down to read it, this seems to be a pretty good explanation. home.earthlink.net/~bobseller1/id89.htmlThanks for your confidence. I have a little less reliance on the number patterns than most, primarily because I believe all underlying patterns must have a mathematical model; in the sense that a Divine Creator will have used mathematical formulae as the underlying basis for all creation. Thus, one should see patterns. Randomness (entropy) has no mathematical formula/pattern/equation/model. I hope this makes sense. I am a little tired, having just returned from a long trip to visit my dad this past week. I apologize in advance if my communications appear a bit short/snarky/trite/terse/taciturn, et c, ad nauseam... |
|
|
|
Post by sawdy on Sept 12, 2017 21:42:29 GMT -6
I had to look up the fish number because I didn't know what you were talking about. Here is a link for other people like me. I'm sure yardstick could explain it better, but if you slow down to read it, this seems to be a pretty good explanation. home.earthlink.net/~bobseller1/id89.htmlThanks for your confidence. I have a little less reliance on the number patterns than most, primarily because I believe all underlying patterns must have a mathematical model; in the sense that a Divine Creator will have used mathematical formulae as the underlying basis for all creation. Thus, one should see patterns. Randomness (entropy) has no mathematical formula/pattern/equation/model. I hope this makes sense. I am a little tired, having just returned from a long trip to visit my dad this past week. I apologize in advance if my communications appear a bit short/snarky/trite/terse/taciturn, et c, ad nauseam... I appreciate your bluntness. I am sometimes a bit too much "to the point" in my verbal communication. I hope your trip went well. |
|
|
|
Post by watchmanjim on Sept 13, 2017 9:30:05 GMT -6
If you expect to see natural randomness because that's what would happen if nature simply started itself and ran itself, then you would not find the specific mathematic orderly design that we do find in everything in our universe. Things may look kind of random sometimes, but the more you compare apples to apples and apricots to apricots, the more patterns and mathematical accuracy you see.
|
|
