Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2013, 02:27 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Didn't someone also use Moby Dick with greater accuracy?


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(02-05-2013 12:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There have been other books compared. You are CORRECT. They never do compare with the scriptures. Thanks, BB.
So, I've looked around a bit and found these (one of them is from a Christian source)...

http://mukto-mona.net/Articles/mark_pera...oramus.htm

http://revivalcentres.org/wp-content/upl...proved.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2013, 09:12 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Also the quran makes use of your bible code. lol.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
23-06-2013, 10:18 AM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2013 10:45 AM by JesuisSean.)
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(02-05-2013 01:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-05-2013 12:32 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  There have been other books compared. You are CORRECT. They never do compare with the scriptures. Thanks, BB.

No, this has been analyzed by mathematicians and done with other texts. They all show the same kinds of results.

The 'codes' are purely random statistical artifacts. There is no magic, folks, move along.

Please note that the codes that I, JesuisSean, referred to were of a completely different code language.

The code language that you are referring to is the sloppiest code language that anyone could ever have dreamed up.
It's designed such that you can find just about whatever you want to find, and where ever you want to find it.

[Image: rubbish.gif]

As shown in the above video clip, the letters of a word can be spaced apart, and be spaced apart by no specific number of letters apart, and a word can be angular and thus tilt to the left or to the right, or it can be vertical, or horizontal, and the words do not have to be connected, meaning words do not have to share a common letter for them to still be classified as connected together and thus in turn give a special message of some kind.

It's an absolute joke.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 10:42 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(23-06-2013 10:18 AM)JesuisSean Wrote:  
(02-05-2013 01:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, this has been analyzed by mathematicians and done with other texts. They all show the same kinds of results.

The 'codes' are purely random statistical artifacts. There is no magic, folks, move along.

Please note that the codes that I, JesuisSean, referred to were of a completely different code language.

The code language that you are referring to is the sloppiest code language that anyone could ever have dreamed up.
It's designed such that you can find just about whatever you want to find, and where ever you want to find it.

The link you provided shows nothing different. It is sloppy analysis.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(23-06-2013 10:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-06-2013 10:18 AM)JesuisSean Wrote:  Please note that the codes that I, JesuisSean, referred to were of a completely different code language.

The code language that you are referring to is the sloppiest code language that anyone could ever have dreamed up.
It's designed such that you can find just about whatever you want to find, and where ever you want to find it.

The link you provided shows nothing different. It is sloppy analysis.

Unless it's done in archaic Biblical Hebrew, it's utterly meaningless.
Hebrew is written right to left, and BiblicalHebrewwasruntogetherlikethis.
It's all a huge stinking pile of crap, AND no corollary analysis of (supposed) "codes" has ever been searched for. You could find, statistically, the very same occurrences, statistically occurring at the same frequency in other texts, (Shakespeare).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 11:17 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Doesn't numerology debunk itself ?
Or does it ?

I think I discovered something in the code.

N=14=1+4=5
U=21=2+1=3
M=13=1+3=4
E=5
R=18=1+8=9
O=15=1+5=6
L=12=1+2=3
O=15=1+5=6
G=7
Y=25=2+5=7

5+3+4+5+9+6+3+6+7+7
Taking two numbers at a time and adding them we get 8+9+15+9+14
Again 17+24+14
41+14
(4+1=5 + 1+4=5) = 5+5=10

Lastly 1+0=1

Right there numerology proved that there is only 1 god

What more proof do you need ?

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
23-06-2013, 11:29 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(23-06-2013 11:17 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Doesn't numerology debunk itself ?
Or does it ?

I think I discovered something in the code.

N=14=1+4=5
U=21=2+1=3
M=13=1+3=4
E=5
R=18=1+8=9
O=15=1+5=6
L=12=1+2=3
O=15=1+5=6
G=7
Y=25=2+5=7

5+3+4+5+9+6+3+6+7+7
Taking two numbers at a time and adding them we get 8+9+15+9+14
Again 17+24+14
41+14
(4+1=5 + 1+4=5) = 5+5=10

Lastly 1+0=1

Right there numerology proved that there is only 1 god

What more proof do you need ?

Rahn, I can't believe you took the time to do this...BRILLIANT! I once again believe...in you!

R = 18=1+8=9
A = 1=1
H = 8=8
N = 14=1+4=5
1 = 1
2 = 2
7 = 7

Added up = 33! The age of Jesus when crucified.

Rahn127 IS JEEBUS! Bowing

"Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's."- Mark Twain in Eruption
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
23-06-2013, 12:00 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2013 12:11 PM by JesuisSean.)
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(23-06-2013 10:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-06-2013 10:18 AM)JesuisSean Wrote:  Please note that the codes that I, JesuisSean, referred to were of a completely different code language.

The code language that you are referring to is the sloppiest code language that anyone could ever have dreamed up.
It's designed such that you can find just about whatever you want to find, and where ever you want to find it.

The link you provided shows nothing different. It is sloppy analysis.

Wow, that was quick.

When I reach certainty about something, I have at least studied it for several years. If not studying the subject, I at least keep what is known of at the time in the back of my mind for further future analysis. I keep it detached from certainty.

For instance, as I was growing up, I noticed that the motion of objects that I saw occurring within this reality, was an impossible form of motion. I could not understand why other folks did not notice the obvious. I even pointed it out to one of my science teachers and he told me to sit down and shut up and that I did not know what I was talking about. But at a later date I looked closely at what was really going on concerning motion. Once understood, I created a rudimentary geometric representation of my understandings, and then used this geometric representation to convert my understandings into equations. I then borrowed my older brothers physics text book to see if my equations were shared by others. Sure enough, my equations were identical to the famous equations known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and the Velocity Addition equation.

In other words, I had acquired a full understanding of what is known as Einstein's Special Principle of Relativity, and did so before having received any education at all in the field of physics.

In other cases I did not achieve certainty until 35 years or so of on and off analysis had passed by. This in turn created a very reliable, but very lengthy, equation of thought concerning whatever the subject was. Thus in turn people thought that I was a stupid idiot because unlike them I was not able to jump to a frame of mind known of as certainty, and do so in a matter of minutes or seconds just as I was expected to do, just as others in general do.

Others, thought that the faster you could achieve certainty, the smarter you were.

Thus they thought that the shorter the equation is that you use to achieve certainty, the more reliable it is. Thus as far as they were concerned, if you work very hard for a very long time to develop a very reliable but lengthy equation that is used to achieve certainty, the stupider you were.

My finding the true proof of God's existence that was hidden within the Bible via True Bible Codes, was not the result of mere days, or weeks, or perhaps just a few years. Instead it took many years of thought to figure out how information would be encoded within the Bible. Once the code language was understood, you knew what to look for, and sure enough, when you looked, there it was right before your eyes just as you expected to see it.

JesuisSean Wrote:Go to http://goo.gl/38qhp and click on the flashing words "Watch / Listen". This takes you on a web page tour of such proof of God's existence, and does so via automatic web page scrolling along with complete audio coverage.

The sloppy code language folk use a computer to search and search and search until they find some kind of vague message that they think is a valid message.

In their case, they do not understand their sloppy code language. They do not think of what is to be found, and then find it immediately exactly as one saw it within ones mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2013, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2013 12:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Ho hum. Another nut-job, who (alone) is just certain, that he alone has "discovered", the *real* meaning of the Bible, and ONLY he has the secret. All the scholars are wrong. The humans who wrote the Bible assembled the texts, from other texts. There are many versions of the texts. It just happens to be his, NON-Hebrew text. He doesn't even know any Archaic Hebrew. How many is this this week ? 4 ? 5 ? I've lost count.

I suspect this must be a mental disorder, where people in complete isolation, do what they call "study" the Bible. They would be laughed out of, and flunked out of, any real classroom. Is it Asperger's ? We need a name for it in the official list of mental disorders.

The OnlyIKnowTHETruthOfTheBible Syndrome. Maybe they can look for a drug to treat it. Weeping

I found a MUCH better proof of Jebus, for ya.
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/jesus..._dogs_butt

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: