Mike wrote:
Under the definition of "pattern" one would be hard pressed to find "disorderly patterns," no?

It is similar to the Pattern in DNA in
this Human design, that
MANY warn will become disorganized
if we mess with it.

The rotten idea of mixing human DNA with mice, that Hoggard etc warn is an abomination is similar to corruption of the word of God by cutting out parts or adding to it. (as the last chapter of the Book warns against.

don't pull the tapestry's thread!
--
Patterns of #s can mean something, as you say: and that is where Henry Morris focuses. He warns (in link below)

"...."spiritualizing" interpretations, whether based on numerology or typology or anything else, are not sound hermeneutics. Numbers in the Bible should never be used to prove or even to intimate any point of doctrine. The same caution should be observed in connection with any other structural phenomena in the Bible (types, first mentions, etc.)"

Morris goes on to look at patterns of #s similar to O.T. picture of N.T. truth that the ark, Joseph, Jonah, etc are examined to enlighten us.

B. McCausland wrote:
It appears to be an arithmetic principle based on the decimal system, and not an intrinsic matter related to the Bible text then ??

The answer to this question could only be obtained with a sophisticated statistical analysis. The analysis would contrast the meaningful, orderly mathematical patterns with the meaningless, random patterns in the same chapter.

So far as known, such an analysis has never been done. We must, therefore, rely on our own judgment or instinct. It is important to note that there are infinitely more random, disorderly patterns possible with a given number of components than there are orderly patterns. Randomness is statistically probable; order is statistically improbable. When one deals often with data of any kind on a statistical basis, the tendency is to develop an instinctive feeling as to what is and what is not strictly accidental'"

Dave wrote:
Gods finality no.

Take the number 3,568 for example:

pennned wrote:
Hebrew letters

2.
Greek Letters= #s

3.CILLI romans never got out of that habit either; er, silly.
----
Panin, says below

Genesis 1:1
"Bareshith Bara Elohim hashamayim waet ha eret." transliterated Hebrew.

B. McCausland wrote:
Criticism from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Panin
'...the same kind of numeric patterns can be found in any text, yet the methods used for casual demonstrations of this nature lack the requisite depth to draw conclusions"

"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller fleas to bite 'em.
And so proceeds Ad infinitum."

and a Mathematician expanded on this:
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."

Panin, in his day,
had no takers on his challenge to find the type of phenomena he presented.

And, as with a 'simple cell'
the more you look at incredible design,
the more you marvel.

B. McCausland wrote:
2. A. Panin.. Greek text,
B. 'coincidences':

That's why I gave Morris's take on Panin[10/7/15 8:02A]

(Dr. Morris helped confirm my take on Panin-who goes too far.)

"On the other hand, the phenomenon of "Bible numerics" which has been studied at great length by Dr. Ivan Panin and his followers is more questionable. These writers believe that the original Hebrew and Greek texts are filled with numerical patterns in the arrangement of the very words and letters. Panin even developed his own Greek New Testament by applying the criterion of the presence of numeric patterns as the test of authenticity of any particular passage. This evidence has very doubtful statistical significance, however, and some writers have claimed to be able to find similar numeric patterns in other books and documents. In some cases, Panin's approach seems persuasive, but in others it seems artificial. At best, this particular type of numerical study is still quite uncertain and so cannot be cited as a Christian evidence."HMM

B. McCausland wrote:
'hidden'

"The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."Deu 29:29

B. McCausland wrote:
The bulk of his revelation is given in ‘black-and-white’,

just so as they are not GEM-atria.
(yeah, a terrible pun)

Prov.25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
"The glory - It is agreeable to the nature of God;
it is a testimony of his infinite wisdom,
and of his absolute power and sovereignty.
To conceal - To keep his counsels,
and the reasons of his actions in his own breast.
Search out - To communicate their counsels to others, that so they may search and find out the right way."
Henry

Ecc. 7:29 "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."
Henry on "Sought out" - Were not contented with their present state, but studied new ways of making themselves more wise and happy, than God had made them. And we, their wretched children, are still prone to forsake the certain rule of God's word, and the true way to happiness, and to seek new methods of attaining it."
listening to this now from last year

B. McCausland wrote:
‘encrypted meaning’

the Counting vs Gematria prompted me to pull out my
'Defender's Study Bible:
by ICR founder Henry M. Morris

I found the above link after looking at his appendix 18 that is pretty much the same as the online link.

It is page 1586 of this commentary, and the very last Index:
never really focused on it much, but
Morris' caution:
"Any such "spiritualizing" interpretations, whether based on numerology or typology or anything else, are not sound hermeneutics. Numbers in the Bible should never be used
to prove
or even to intimate any point of doctrine.
The same caution should be observed in connection with any other structural phenomena in the Bible (types, first mentions, etc.)."

seems to be a good stopping point:

I think Hoggard, Kelly etc. tend toward showing divine structure when commenting on this widely noted phenomenon.

That Ivan Panin stuff below is a quantum leap beyond what you could do with the simple software that Pastor Mike uses.

even claiming to "just be a fan of Jesus "
is questionable
if teachers are despised thereby.

As Hoggard says
"if you can't find it in the Bible
it doesn't exist."

So doubting an area of inquiry
that isn't clear in scripture exposition is following his direction.

Be
a
Berean.

again I recommend:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31813940495

for the logic on Nephilim:
and note
Dr Daniel
says that was a one of a kind incident that was so bad it led to the flood.

Get Real wrote:
I made a disclaimer on what Connie said about fallen angels marrying

Now it is stated clearly.

But, you will note that Unprofitable Witness didn't seem to catch that either.

so just how is it that you call a person you call a heretic to testify against Chris's & my take on Pastor Hoggard?

Did you think that the use of numbers is something new with him?

[URL=http://www.levendwater.org/books/numbers/number_in_scripture_bullinger.pdf]]]Numbers in scripture:Bullinger's complete Book[/URL]
Many writers, from the earliest times, have called attention to the importance of the great subject
of Number in Scripture. It has been dealt with, for the most part, in a fragmentary way. One has
dealt with some particular number, such as "seven"; another has been content with a view of the
primary numbers, and even when defining their significance, has given only one or two
examples by way of illustration; another has confined himself to "symbolical numbers," such as
10, 40, 666, etc.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
. The article quote that is noted above was the author saying

[URL=http://bibleconundrumsandcontroversy.blogspot.com/2012/03/mike-hoggard-anti-apostasy-teacher-or.html]]]June 12 2012 at 11:46am Connie on angels[/URL]
and read Connie saying her own
opinion
"not a doctrine of demons, it is a biblical doctrine ABOUT demons.
The article you referenced has some errors. First you do not interpret an Old Testament usage of a word from the New Testament meaning. The Sons of God in the Old Testament did not refer to human believers. It referred to angels only. Secondly, just because angels do not marry does not mean they are sexless. " says Unprofitable Servan's "expert witness.

that is not a quote of someone else
that is the blog writer
talking to someone else(Paul)
about her own opinion.

not trying to strive,
but as Dr.Daniel said:
people ask about your take on it
and
Connie (your & Get Real's witness)
Bob Vincent
Jason Cooley
Michael Boehm
and
Mike Hoggar have the same take.

Connie's paper
http://bibleconundrumsandcontroversy.blogspot.com/2012/01/giants-nephilim-aliens-do-they-exist.html

is even more clear!

Get Real wrote:
the rabbinical kabbalah that Madonna brings to the masses is the same Jewish heresy that was brought to the Jewish population of long ago, According to the bible, deception in the end times will be the normal state of affairs. Counterfeit miracles, false prophets, and other evils will be rampant, like the evil witchcraft of the kabbalah or the fable of king Solomon's sorcery, The oldest biographical accounts of Solomon's life are in the Bible, specifically the books of Kings and Chronicles. They refer to his wisdom, but do not suggest that he practiced magical arts. Over a thousand years after Solomon died, a Jewish apocryphal work called the Testament of Solomon appeared. It told a fable about how Solomon is able to build the Temple by defeating demons and employing their skills by means of a ring and its seal given to him by the Archangel Michael, The Testament of Solomon influenced later Jewish mysticism, magical practice

As you just did, quite nicely here.

the same method I (& Chris)
see Hoggard using.

Mourner wrote:
I'm sure that many of you want to be 'right'
and will go along with me???

That remark is
Dr. McGee's
typical
homespun
humor.

which is why he drives the
Bible Bus.
[URL=http://www.ttb.org/]]]Thru the Bible on the Bible Bus[/URL]

& as
Christopher000 wrote:
"I'm not one of those who will defend someone no matter what any evidence might suggest or prove. Fact are facts and I always go with them and the bible."

And also

B. McCausland
" It is safe to love truth more than people."

"some things hard to understand"
in Paul says Peter
and
John 6 "this is a hard saying"
led to
A "hard sayings" series
that includes this overview of the differing perspectives on Gen 6:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31813940495

as this topic is brought up even in secular society, it is worth an hour's listen.

I used to be in Dr. McGee's camp, but
the type of teaching that Dr Daniel
has here got me to the current position.

Christopher000 wrote:
it's been keeping friendly.

except that
in the ellipsis ,

I removed his
"that the sons of God are actually angels"

meaning,
one of my favorite teachers, Dr.McGee, disagrees with me.

(I listen to Dr.McGee every day!)
[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1125122223445]]]Numbers(counting):Reg Kelly on SA:1of2[/URL]

Jn 21:11b "great fishes,
an hundred and fifty and three:

1 Jn 5:7
"For there are three
that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these
three
are
one."

Christopher000 wrote:
listen to what he, himself has to say

communication online is tricky: even face to face it may daunt:
A lady greets you and says
"I am Gay!"
1.is she happy? (her meds are kicking in?)
2.Is her name 'Gay'?
3.is this a sodomite?
4. 2 of 3?
----
I presume, it is good to cite:

[URL=http://davelivingston.com/sonsofgod.htm]]]Dr. Livingston Gen 6[/URL]

"sons of god?"
1.Some say they were fallen angels.
2. or the sons of Seth, the godly line.
3.rabbinical Jews say "sons of god" were rulers or princes.
4."sons of the gods" may be demon-possessed rulers!
----
[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=61215110035921]]]The Family and Social Media[/URL]
listen 20 min.into this audio:
re:an ungodly smear by self professed 'expert' on internet;
Example by Vic Elliason

Christopher000 wrote:
potent issues that arise.

1. not listening to Mike reject that
evil teaching;55 min.1st linked below

2.not hearing him directly, but listening to silly smears like '
--
he uses albert pike's morals and dogma along side the bible '
---

not realizing that EVERY time he refers to Fat Albert Pike it is to refute&reject Pike's devish lies.
...
(do you know that Ken Ham has a copy of Origin of Species right next to his Bible?...must be Ham is a secret Darwinist...)
.

as you say many here teach same

[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6161521284]]]Giants, Fossils and the Bible with Chris Lesley [/URL]
"The Bible claims that there were men of incredible height, some of which were up to 13 feet tall. Is this possible? Have any giant fossils been found that could corroborate with the scriptures? In this podcast were going to be talking to Chris Lesley of Greater Ancestors Museum about the existence of giant fossil discoveries from around the world."

Get Real wrote:
angels procreated with women?

[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=317132120465]]]Genesis 6 - Who were the Sons of God;Jason Cooley[/URL]
part of six audios by Cooley:
I
enjoy his looonng series on this.

or to read a similar
[URL=http://media.SermonAudio.com/mediapdf/8305222842.pdf]]]The Sons of God, Bob Vincent[/URL]
another SA preacher who agrees with Hoggard:
"to sum it up: Bnai Elohim used five times in the whole Old
Testament, three times clearly of angels in the book of Job. Here there is some kind of weird
offspring. It fits in with what we read of certain angels in 2 Peter two and in the book of Jude. It
fits in with the use of the word Tartaros, which was used of the special spiritual prison for the
Titans that Peter uses that particular Greek word. It fits in with the data that some angels are
free, but are scared to death. Some fallen angels are free, but are scared to death that they?re
going to be sent to Tartaros, or the abyss, before the time. And it has corroboration that this
interpretation has been around at least for almost 2000 years"
..
anyhow,
Hoggard teaches the same as many on SA

Christopher000 wrote:
We all like the new Get Real.

Just wanted to give a 'nudge' toward listening to the message
before
commenting:

(and also point out to those who might read a slam on Hoggard that was
180 off direction that
the EXACT message in question was a rebuttal to the rotten serpent seed doctrine that Get Real brought up.)