Numeric Experiments
The one experiment presented so far showed how it was unlikely all this was due to chance. But one experiment is just that, one experiment. What if that one experiment was a fluke? To be truly closer to science, more experiments are necessary. The following will hopefully answer skeptics.
N.B. Jesus did many miracles, but the ruling class brushed everything aside searching for a vague proof even they themselves could not and refused to define because they didn't want to believe. Nothing Jesus did, and nothing his disciples did convinced them. Even when Jesus' prophecy for the fall of Jerusalem came true in 70 A.D., the ultimate proof that they were wrong [Deuteronomy 18:18-22; Ezekiel 33:33], did not change their minds. (Of course by then it was much too late.)
David said,
O taste and see that the LORD is good! Happy is the man who takes refuge in him! (Psalm 34:8)1
God has said,
Bring the full tithes into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house; and thereby put me to the test, says the LORD of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing. (Malachi 3:10; emphasis added)
Set a test that will satisfy you and stick with it or admit you don't want to see any evidence that will change your unbelief. Don't leave everything vague and test God over and over moving the goal posts each time (Hebrews 3:9-11). That guarantees your destruction.
How easy is it to manufacture a phrase and have a standard set of numeric features come from it?
Case 1: If it is just the mathematical odds, then generating 1000 phrases should produce approximately 143 that are divisible by 7. Of these 143, about twenty would be divisible by 49 (7 x 7), and two or three would be divisible by 343 (7 x 7 x 7). The same would apply if one were searching for a phrase that had one, two, or three methods of producing totals divisible by 7.
Case 2: If it was easy, or inherent in language that phrases are divisible by 7, then in 1000 phrases, there should be more than 143 of them divisible by 7. To ensure this wasn't some fluke, the bar should be at least twice what the odds would suggest and should be seen consistently.
Case 3: If it was inherently difficult, then perhaps little to nothing should be found. (This last case has already been disproved by all the verses presented on this site.)
The experiments to follow will show that the laws of mathematics take precedence. These experiments will follow the example below (with some adaptations).
Start with a basic complete sentence. (It has to make sense.)
He swiftly ran across the wide street.
Add possible variations to the words.
quickly trotted broad
He swiftly ran across the wide street.
rapidly jogged
0
With some of the experiments involving longer sentences and more word choices, the above format will be presented in a single line with the sentence partitioned into sections (using the |
pipe character), and choices in each section separated by a space. (Hyphens indicate words joined together as one choice.)
He|quickly swiftly rapidly 0|trotted ran jogged|across-the|broad wide|street.
A computer will run through the possibilities. In this case, there are 24 variations. This can be calculated by multiplying the choices: 4 x 3 x 2 = 24. (The zero represents the removal of a word, and is considered a fourth option. Strictly speaking, the calculation is 1 x 4 x 3 x 1 x 1 x 2 x 1, but the result is the same.)
1) He quickly trotted across the broad street. 2) He swiftly trotted across the broad street. 3) He rapidly trotted across the broad street. 4) He trotted across the broad street. 5) He quickly ran across the broad street. 6) He swiftly ran across the broad street. 7) He rapidly ran across the broad street. 8) He ran across the broad street. 9) He quickly jogged across the broad street. 10) He swiftly jogged across the broad street. 11) He rapidly jogged across the broad street. 12) He jogged across the broad street. 13) He quickly trotted across the wide street. 14) He swiftly trotted across the wide street. 15) He rapidly trotted across the wide street. 16) He trotted across the wide street. 17) He quickly ran across the wide street. 18) He swiftly ran across the wide street. 19) He rapidly ran across the wide street. 20) He ran across the wide street. 21) He quickly jogged across the wide street. 22) He swiftly jogged across the wide street. 23) He rapidly jogged across the wide street. 24) He jogged across the wide street.
Each completed sentence will then be examined for a standard set of numeric features, and the results will be tabulated. The computer searches up to sixteen different ways the words or letters can add up to a total divisible by 7. The chance of a single sentence having just eleven of the sixteen totals divisible by 7 is one in two billion. (711 is 1,977,326,743 or almost 2 billion.)
Not just any total divisible by 7 will do. The search is for orderly features following the patterns in Revelation 1:8.
Standard Numeric Features
- Phrase total.
- Total of odd positioned words.
- Total of even positioned words.
- Total of odd valued words.
- Total of even valued words.
- Total of every other pair of words (odd positioned).
- Total of every other pair of words (even positioned).
- Total of every other triplet of words (odd positioned).
- Total of every other triplet of words (even positioned).
- Total of every other set of 4 words (odd positioned).
- Total of every other set of 4 words (even positioned).
- Total of the first half.
- Total of the last half.
- Total of the first third.
- Total of the middle third.
- Total of the last third.
(All totals must be divisible by 7. If it is an English phrase, these sixteen categories are applied to the letters as well for a total of thirty-two searches.)
In the twenty-four generated phrases, not one of the eleven methods came up with a total divisible by 7. The odds would have suggested 3 might be found by one or more of the eleven methods.
This preliminary experiment shows it is not easy to manufacture numeric features and weakens Case 2, but more is needed to draw a firm conclusion.