Colors proof of Divine origin of Bible?

I looked at some more of his claims. He correlates the gematric values of the words for "day", "month" and "year" with (deep breath) the natural logarithm of the reciprocal of the length of the period measured in seconds.First, we should note that he has again ignored the distinction between intial/medial and final consonants. To be fair to him, this is sometimes done by others. It would be interesting to know if he has consistently used this convention.Second, of the two words used in the Bible for "month", he has chosen far and away the most uncommon one (ירח ) ignoring the more common חודש either out of ignorance of its existence or because it failed to fit his scheme.Third, in a further act of cherry-picking, he has ignored other definite periods of time in the Bible such as the word for "week".Here is a table of the gematric values of the various time words in the Bible, in ascending numerical order:night 75 לילהmonth 218 ירחmonth 318 חודשyear 355 שנהweek 378 שבועday 616 יוםUsing Shore's preferred system^* of gematria, we get:day 68 יוםnight 75 לילהmonth 218 ירחmonth 318 חודשyear 355 שנהweek 378 שבוע * I say "Shore's preferred system", but I haven't been able to find out whether he uses the same system consistently.---Some general remarks on what we've seen so far.* Firstly, he is free to relate gematric values with numbers taken from nature in any way he chooses. Taking g(s) to represent the gematric value of the Hebrew value of a preiod of time expressed in seconds, his equation for Hebrew time words is -10.33 - 0.0197 g(s) = ln(s^-1). If one is allowed to use functions that abstruse, it is not hard to relate any two small data sets to the degree of accuracy that satisfies Professor Shore.* Secondly, he is free to select the rules of gematria to bring the data in line with his conclusions.* Thirdly, he is free to change the facts to bring the data in line with his conclusions, as when he decides that magenta has a wave frequency of 546 THz.* Fourthly, he is free to pick among synonyms to find the ones that best fit his conclusions, as when he decides to use the less common synonym for "month".* Fifthly, he is free to pick among words in a given category to find the ones that best fit his conclusions, as when in his survey of periods of time he omits "week".* Sixthly, he is free to cherry-pick reality: for example, if he had found that the duration of a solar year better suited his purposes than the duration of twelve lunar months, he could have used that as the value for the length of a year and aroused little (indeed less) comment.* Seventhly, although for obvious reasons this is not made explicit, like every numerologist he is free to abandon any line of enquiry that fails to fit his scheme. If, to take a simple example, he found that the Hebrew words for "small", "medium" and "large" did not have ascending gematric values, he could pass over this fact in silence. We have no way of knowing the number of his failures, because like all numerologists he does not list them.* Finally, he does not require that his formulae should be exact, only that they should be close. For example, even after all the liberties he allows himself, he declares a 94% correlation in the case of his five color words to be a success.And so like all numerologists, he commits the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. He ends up pointing to the correlation that he himself has contrived, and proudly asks: "what are the odds of that"? But given the great liberties he allows himself, it is absolutely certain that he will be able to manufacture such correlations.What would be astonishing is if the rules he used in each case were chosen in advance. If, with no trial and error, he started off by saying: "I'm going to conduct gematria on Hebrew color words found in the Bible, excluding black, white, brown, gray and gold, and I'm going to use a method of gematria in which the final forms of letters are assigned the values of the corresponding initial/medial forms, and I'm going to translate the word everyone else translates as "purple" as "magenta" instead, and I'm going to assign to magenta a wave frequency of 546 THz, which is actually green, and then I'm going to take each gematric value, multiply it by 0.22114, and add 471.43, and then compare the result to the wave frequency of each color rather than the more usual measure of the wavelength ..." --- if, as I say, he had said all this in advance, then we might find a 93% correlation remarkable. As it is, we have to wonder if that was really the best he can do. A man who can blithely decide that purple is magenta and has a wave frequency of 546 THz could surely have done even better than that by similar abuses of reality.

This site concerning the No webpage found at provided URL: Hebrew Alphabet suggests that the higher numbers for the final forms of Kaf, Mem, Nun, Pei, and Tzadei may not be the norm for the ancient Hebrews. This may be why he's coming up with a smaller number than you did concerning the colors.So now the question is: How does one respond to someone presenting this as something significant?We know he didn't include all colors mentioned in the Bible. He only pulled the colors of the rainbow (conveniently left out orange).All I see is that if we pick and choose enough we can get the results we want. No webpage found at provided URL: Color Symbolism and Color Meaning in The BibleWhat is a good response since the claim is that this info supposedly stumps atheists?

It would be a bit odd to write nun sofit at the start of a "word", wouldn't it? The question is how it should be interpreted when it occurs naturally at the end of one.However, as I acknowledged in my last post, there are variants in gematric methods; but Shore is still open to the criticism that he has chosen one that suits him and could have chosen another if it suited him better. Orange isn't mentioned in the Bible, so he has an excuse. One points out that magenta isn't green; a fact which is known to atheists but apparently not to Professor Shore.

quote:

---

One points out that magenta isn't green; a fact which is known to atheists but apparently not to Professor Shore.

---

Nice simple answer.I found this article that shows the graphs and also gets into the issue of green. I had missed your comment concerning green and had to read your post again. No webpage found at provided URL: Are the Names of the Colours in the Bible Special? So magenta has no frequency and the number used for magenta is in the green zone.I can see why no one would have a come back in a general conversation. If they were just hearing the info for the first time and didn't have all this color info in their head, they would have no response. That doesn't make a person stumped, just caught without resources to check. Of course with smart phones that may change. Thanks

I was really hoping for a defense of this by Livingstone Morford, but I guess he has decided not to try to defend the indefensible. I think my suspicions are confirmed that the Livingstone Morford that stated this is the same one we have participating in this forum. If it were not him he would have let us know very clearly.Well I guess we are just going to have to wait for a real "atheist stumper".

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Actually, then it comes out as 26 again... eerie.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Orange, as I say, does not occur, but in Exodus, Numbers and 1 Lamentations we have תולע (scarlet, i.e. orangish-red) with a value of 506, putting it between green and blue.---One probably-not-final thought: even if we ignore scarlet and pretend that purple is magenta is green, the graph is still a pretty poor fit. I could have done better myself, had I designed Hebrew. Professor Shore compares it to what might be achieved by chance --- but we might also compare it to what would be achieved by God Almighty. By choosing a few consonants different, he could have achieved a much closer fit to a straight line.

Note: I don’t know that the blogger’s isn’t misrepresenting Shore’s claims. I also don’t know that Shore claims that the numbers derived actually map to the RGB and CMY(K) colors. The blogger claimed this and as the OP linked to the blog, that’s what I’ll argue against here: that the numbers given are the same frequencies for RBG/CMY. The color terms are not as flexible as the blogger or most people seem to believe. By the blogger claiming they correspond to 4-color printing and to RGB, the blogger has limited the range considerably in where these colors can be located in the spectrum. ‘Blue’ is certainly a large umbrella, but ‘primary blue’ is a much smaller territory within ‘blue’ by any reasonable standard.

quote:

---

From the blog: The Bible mentions five colors in Hebrew: red (adom), Yellow (tzahov), green (yerakon), blue (tchelet) and magenta (argaman). One curious observation is immediately apparent, in that this list not only includes the primary colors - red, yellow and blue but it also includes the only two other colors green and magenta that are necessary to produce the complete color palate for four color printing.

---

Green is not a pigment used to produce 4-color printing.The above excerpt cannot be correct. If the ‘blue’ is ‘primary blue’ then ‘blue’ cannot also be the same blue used in printing which is ‘cyan’. That is if Tchelet refers to a specific hue it cannot refer to two different hues of blue. Tchelet cannot refer specifically to ‘primary blue’ by frequency and have that frequency also refer to the subtractive hue of cyan. I’m reaching a bit here because my experience is ink and not light, but as cyan is derived in the same means as magenta, cyan also wouldn’t be a frequency as they’re subtractive colors.When the blogger invokes RGB and CMYK then he’s invoking relationships which also must be correct. Some versions of Red, Green, Blue, Yellow, and so on are not enough, the frequencies claimed must maintain the relationships needed to create colors. The frequency given for Red and for Blue must yield a ‘magenta’, for Red, Green, and Blue a ‘yellow’ and not an ‘orange’ color and so on.R + G = Y
R + B = M
G + B = C
Likewise the reverse:
Y + M = R
Y + C = G
M + C = BIf tchelet (blue) is ‘primary blue’ then combining it with the frequencies for adom (red) and yerakon (green), should yield ‘white’ light.
If the green (yerakon) corresponds to the green in RGB (as seems to be the claim) then it cannot be mint green, teal, turquoise, or even DeForest Kelly Green.All these add up to restrict where the frequencies of each color can be valid. It can’t just be a red, it has to be in a certain range, etc. If I understood the physics of light I might go so far as to say, when you say they correspond to RGB values Edited by Trae, : ... those values are actually specific frequencies. But I don't know that's a fact.

Do I have either the wrong values or the wrong chart? When I look up the values I get:Red (443) -- This not only isn’t red but is in the purplish blue spectrum.
Yellow (520) -- This isn’t in the yellow spectrum, but is right up next to the green spectrum (yellow green spectrum). It is close to the Green in RGB.
Magenta (546) -- In addition to it not being magenta, can I point out that this is actually more yellow than the number given for yellow?
Green (565) -- This is also more yellow then the value given for yellow (lower frequencies are cooler).
Blue (650) -- This is actually what I’d call true red, apple red, maybe even fire truck red.Am I wrong or do these magic numbers not hit a single color correctly?

Yes. You're looking at wavelengths in nanometers while Shore's figures are for wave frequencies in terahertz.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Shore article

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

If Shore was red-green color-blind, would that explain why he thinks magenta is green?

Don't you remove green to get magenta? Does the wavelength of the green that you remove correspond to the wavelength he's using for magenta?Maybe that's what's going on...

Yes, pretty close to that.

Just one question.A wave frequency is the number of wawes that pass a given point each second.Did the ancient Hebrews use the same measurement for time?Im not sure but i think that the ancient Greeks defined the Hour as 15 degrees of the movement of the shadow on a sundial (24X15=360 degrees) so the 24 hour days where bourne did the aincent hebrews use the same mesurment of time or was it different say an hour is 10 degrees on a sundial giving the day 36 hours.And aggain the frequencies we use now are in seconds ((24hrs/60)/60) did they use the same second as we now use or did they use another version of a second.If the unit of time is different so is the frequency.Edited by frako, : No reason given.