I hope neither of you abandon this thread, for lack of other input nor fear of offending.

Bible/Christianity references, meanings or interpretation should remain. This thread was started as such, and I see no reason that it should change in another direction based on another's beliefs.

There is much within here that I haven't a damn clue what the hell you two are talking about, yet some I do swing out the fingers to Google search it.
I enjoy most of this, as long as dick measuring contest stay in the bedroom. There is no practical or meaningful point to toss a rock at another if they happen to fall into the category or not agreeing with some belief or faith.

Keep it up guys, gives me at least a break from headaches of trying to see and understand reason for time changing differences void of velocity and gravity, and how it might change stationary age, or days on calendar....

This goes out to Mike as well and I plan on a detailed response to him because I do respect his views but I have only a few minutes now.

I will continue posting now that I know it is interesting to a few people. My comment to Mike about a mostly back and forth netween us was not meant in a bad way. I just wasn't sure if it was worth the time spent.

I have a tendency to read quickly and post quickly so I may miss points, as Mike has clarified nicely when I mistake a comment. I finally replaced my laptop so I can start using that and using quotes since I won't be on this damn iPhone as much.

I also tend to use my old school debate tools from high school and college where we have limited time so I sometimes post quick responses and do stream of consciousness. I will try to slow it down and be more aware of my wording so it is understandable. My wife complains about her inability to follow me sometimes.

I am not worried about being offended but it can get heated, as Mike and I discussed before we started. My mothers family is Italian and we are from New York so you can imagine the debates we had.

I will respond to the issues Mike raised and then if anyone has an interest we can move it back to more of a scientific discussion. I have been reading a book from a Geologist who is a Creationist and it is interesting science. I am open to either young or old Earth theories since I have not been convinced either way. My geology class was a long time ago and I am out of touch with the field.

Quite a bit there. I assume you are joking about the difference between Plato and the Bible. I was referring to comments about ancient texts being historically assumed accurate in their copying. We assume Plato, Aristotle, and others are fairly accurate even if the extant copies we have were written centuries or millennia later. I hear a lot of people question the validity of the Old Testament saying any prophecies were written after they happen. That was my point but maybe I was not clear.

An argument of "it is mythology" is based on your opinion. I will not dissuade you, nor am I trying, so we will disagree. I state what I believe and why, nothing more. I do not evangelize or go out of my way because what others believe has no bearing on my life or mine on theirs as long as we do not interfere with each others liberty. I believe in freedom and that includes ideas. If that offends you, I am sorry. I do not wish to take away your freedom to believe whatever you like.

I still do not see the numerology connection as an explanation for my calculation. If you look at the text, there are two numbers in that prophecy. It is specific the days are symbolizing years. If you calculate the years based on when the captivity began from those two numbers and use Leviticus explanatory adjustment for the remainder after the 70 year captivity, you will always get the date I gave. If you disagree, that is fine. Numerology is not based on calculations as I understand it. I am not saying there is some hidden meaning behind any of those numbers. If you see an occult or hidden meaning, I would like to hear what I am missing. Perhaps I am just not up on numerology, having only read one book on it.

We are all biased as to what we believe. Yours is obvious, as is mine. I used to have all the same arguments when I was agnostic. You state I want magic and science as well as theology and reality. It is clear your opinion differs and you are free to make remarks that denigrate what I believe.

You jump to calling me arrogant and absurd, saying I insist my God is the answer. It may be my answer but that is all. Can I change my mind, who knows? I may not be the brightest bulb but I am far from an idiot and will evaluate information as I see it. I have never insisted anything and if I implied it, I made a mistake. I believe but I am not arrogant enough to insist I am right. I made a change based on years of looking into more than just the Bible.

When it comes to "magic", everything can be construed as magic until we understand the things we do not know, then we call it technology. Many technologies would have been magic a few hundred years ago. What we cannot see or detect is unbelievable until we find a way to detect it. You did state God may or may not be fanciful dreaming saying where did everything come from. That is a philosophical question and we could discuss that. I am not saying you are wrong, just that at this time, I have beliefs that differ.

As to the Darwin issue: you may have missed it but this whole thing started as a disagreement in a thread as Darwin being science and I then spoke up to disagree. I never had discussed religion on this site until then. That goes to my point that I never was trying to push my views on anyone. I was explaining my views, nothing more. I am happy to let Darwin's theory die if orhers quit bringing it up as evidence.

When did I say anyone is going to hell? You were probably referencing in a general way but I never said that and never have. Who am I to say what will happen to anyone? As far as Islam, I used to have 4-5 versions of the Quran (still have at least one), studied it for over 3 years and encourage my kids to read whatever is in my library that they wish. I have books on Ufology, Buddhism, Vedas, etc. I also learned some Arabic in order to study it from the original. I have on many occasions stood up for misinterpretations not only on the forums (SGN) but at work. Not all Christians act like you stated but I have seen this as well.

I'm in a bit of a crunch right now and since most of this boils down to "my opinion vs your opinion" I'll focus on Darwin, because truly I despise discussion of biblical prophecy with a passion, because it brings up far too many unpleasant memories and ultimately is worthless unless you are already a believer. PM me if you want the details.

I never hear the scientifically literate (read anyone who stayed awake in high school biology or better) promote Darwin as a valid theory of anything anymore. He is well and truly obsolete, and primarily of historical and cultural value. However he remains a popular target among some subsets of Christianity because the low hanging fruit debunking him is fairly easy in this day and age and it is easy to debunk Darwin and then say "see evolution is a sham." Nobody should discuss him at all outside of historical context.

Yes, but my point was that the 360 day year is listed in the Bible as what it was before Noah’s flood and is not based on solar days. Many calendars are also based on lunar years. I am not laying out a proof for a 360 day year in the past, whether solar or lunar, I am just giving the information as listed. If an interpretation is made of prophecy, you have to use the 360 day year that the text is using for any calculation since that is how it is used in the text. We could debate whether the number of days in a year has changed but it would be pointless since there could be no way to prove it either way. We may assume the solar system and objects in it have stayed in exactly the same orbits since it was formed to keep the years constant. We could also assume the axis of rotation has never fluctuated or the poles have always been as they are. If anyone calculates with a 365 day year for Biblical references, they would be incorrect, Biblically speaking, whether it is fact or fiction.



The difference between Nostradamus and Biblical prophecy is that Nostradamus used anagrams and jumbled up the letters of words. This leads to a confusing array of possibilities. I will agree that Biblical prophecy can have (and does) different interpretations but all aspects of what we study are subject to interpretation or we would never have debates.

I am listing just one example from Messianic prophecy only to show the style as being specific with no anagrams jumbling letters around. There is only one meaning, whether it happened and was true is not what I am looking at. We’ve beat the “is it true or not” issue to death. We will not agree on that. I am just clarifying my point between Nostradamus and OT prophecy style and clarity. Psalms were written at the time of David (this one is attributed to him). None of the prophecies in the Bible use anagrams. Nostradamus is said to predict Hitler when he speaks of Hister. Perhaps it is correct but it is not a simple reading. I have read Hogue’s book but am not convinced. I cannot decipher them as he says he can.

The Messiah would be pierced, garments divided and lots cast:
Psalm 22:16 “… they have pierced my hands and feet…they stare and gloat over me…they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.




Seem to be but not my intent. Are you thinking I chose Israel prophecies because there are others that are incorrect? I chose those because they relate to a recent event that we know the date. Older prophecies would not be as easily verified. They also happen to be a few of the ones I have researched the most. I am not sure where you get the widely applicable usage. I have a few thousand books in my library and I got my ideas from commentaries on Bible prophecy. I hoped to find a few that could be looked at without any resource needed. I could easily pick hundreds of other prophecies. If you have a specific one you would want me to look at let me know.



I have gotten this response any time I list any scientist, past or present who believes in the Bible. We could say this about any person. Going back to the original premise, if we are saying science does not have a place in theology, then pointing to many scientists who disagree is a valid point (at least I think it is).

As to birthed in one day, it is valid in my opinion (but not to say it is for you). The British had a mandate in Palestine that expired the same day Ben Gurion declared Israel a nation and the US recognized it. A lot of scholars hold to my opinion on this but we could be wrong. I find it a bit coincidental to have numerous prophecies pointing to this but, again, I could be wrong.



Of course I do. I am giving you not only my beliefs but those of many others. That is all I can do. I felt just as you do in the past.

I agree with you, let’s move back to other topics because I only list a few examples and do not wish to start listing hundreds of prophecy verses.

Onward! What do you wish to discuss?

Thank you for the response Steve. I can agree with that. I am sorry if the prophecy topic brought up bad memories. I think we all agree the prophecy issue is going nowhere so we can move on. Anything you want to get into? I am interested in any thoughts on what you discussed pertaining to how it all started. Is the universe finite, where did the energy come from, etc. Just take it away...

Honestly no clue how it all started and any speculation I have is of little importance as I lack the science to even attempt to support it, which makes it no better or worse than saying God did it. I write website content and study the history of American industrialization. Ask me about the Akron Smoking Pipe Company. That I have answers for.

My chiefest objection has always been the attempt to conflate the spirituality and superstition of some scientific greats with proof that the particular dogma they espouse must be correct or has a high probability of being correct. It only shows that human beings are inclined to hold religious beliefs and will from time to time invoke them when faced with great things. Since it does not stop them from doing real science, there is no harm. When we get harm is when religion is used to diminish or destroy science so that the superstition reigns supreme over the observable reality. That is the difference between say Jefferson and Ken Ham.

You're talking about prophecies, and I was referring to definitions of words.
I used the word numerology in a description of your calculation. You objected to the use of that word and gave a definition that is specific to a kookier use. I assured you that it was not meant in an offensive manner, then gave the Merriam-Webster definition and the direct link to Merriam-Webster. Your definition of numerology continues to ignore the use that I intended, gave examples of, and backed up with a link. You objected again, so I expanded my list of definitions, all the way to a decently long paragraph from Wikipedia. While Wikipedia is not a worthy source for research, it gives us a wide angle view of a subject and is worthy of an explanation for the usages of a word, and I had already listed a few respectable dictionary definitions.
You have a "feel" for the word that you don't like. Before you started this thread (and again in the first page) we talked about definitions of words, and the importance of understanding them and how they are used.
In the explanatory response I gave comprehensive definitions of occult and numerology, and it should be apparent to the most casual observer (without a tong in the fire so to speak) that both words are accurate and correct, and yet here we are 4 posts into a back and forth of you telling me that my use and definition are incorrect.
Finding a definition (on a numerology/astrology website) that is more specific than the Merriam-Webster definition is cherry picking to prove me wrong in my word choice.

If we need to go back into why 360 days in a year is a form of numerology, or the number 7 or 70 is numeralogical, then by all means lets delve into the meanings of those numbers.

I don't have any problem dropping a sub-topic that comes up, especially if it is opinion based. I've disagreed with other folks choices of words/definitions on a fairly regular basis (starting with the "faith" in the original post) but because the other definitions are also valid they stand without argument.
Just because I don't think that they are the best word choice doesn't make the other use wrong.



In no way shape or form have I ever limited my acknowledgement of the frailty of human minds to only those who believe in a religion. To the contrary, I have repeatedly given examples and named names of our natural and human tendencies to be easily led astray, to form foolish theories, misunderstand data, etc.
I have oft repeated the need to look at our data empirically and always be open to a better understanding. Holding Isaac Newton up as a paragon of Christianity is a dangerous step to take, since he devoted his time to biblical codes after a long physical illness and mental illness in which he exhibited signs of paranoia and schizophrenia.
The point is that we are all capable of being misled - by false data, misreading good data, childhood/parental influences (some good some bad) and especially by our tendency towards logical fallacies. The biggest logical fallacy that we suffer from is Confirmation Bias.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/conf ... n_bias.htm (One link, but there are thousands of others if you don't like this one.)


Every one of us suffers from Confirmation Bias, including all the great scientists and religionists in history and today.

Agreed, we should move on to other topics. I will take your word as true on numerology, as subject you have more knowledge than I.



I have no disagreement with your statement, however, I have tried to list numerous scientists and the list could be much longer but perhaps my writing is flawed and I have not conveyed my meaning as I should have. I am not intending it as a confirmation of truth; I am merely suggesting that a belief in divinity and being a scientist are not mutually exclusive. Newton is not the only scientist to have worked on these topics; I was using him as one example whom I still feel is a good one. All of the scientists I have studied seemed to have some mental issues. Perhaps that goes with the genius level but I would not know. My understanding was he had both scientific and religious works concurrently, but again, I am no expert on his life and have only read a few books in that area so I will defer to you.

I understand the concept of confirmation bias. Every human has a bias no matter the subject, yet it does not make their position incorrect. If we are arguing any case, we are arguing based on our bias from what we believe. It may be true or false but in our minds, we believe it to be true until enough evidence is given to sway our opinion. I did not intend to hold up Newton as a confirmation but as an example. When building a case for any view (especially to ourselves), we have to use many pieces of evidence (or data) and weigh those in our own minds to find what we believe is correct. It may be otherwise but this is how we mentally form our reality. I base my ideas on more than just a few issues I may post here and I also base my views on subjective experiences that are not fitting here.

Confirmation bias would be an issue if I had come at this as a Christian trying to confirm my Christian worldview as correct. The opposite was true. I came at this from the original premise of my mother being wrong and that I could disprove it to myself. If I had a confirmation bias, it would have been to confirm that my 5 decades of agnosticism was valid. It wasn’t as easy as it may sound for me to change my views. It took me a good part of almost 5 years and thousands of dollars to amass a library. Again, this does not mean my current ideas are correct. I am always skeptical of even my own beliefs. That is just my nature. My postings may not seem that way but I have argued in debates before on issues I don't even believe. I can see both sides of most arguments but I will always lean one way or another. Other things I learn may tip the scales another way.

I am not so arrogant as to think I know more than others but all that matters for my life is that it fits what I have come to see as evidentiary in my mind. I do not expect you or others to take as evidence anything I say. Once again, I am just stating why I believe. However, I have not simply read a few books and jumped to my conclusions. Perhaps I am totally off base and a fool but I have come at this topic with a plan in mind as I used to do when I was working in R&D. I tell my wife to question me all the time on what I believe. I do not wish to be complacent and avoid tackling hard questions. I have no problem being told I am wrong. If I did, I would never subject myself to this thread. I feel like a lone voice but it keeps me thinking, whether what I think is odd or wrong. Gaining new insight on tough issues is one reason I like discussing with you and others. If we all agreed on every subject, I would be bored.

I hope that clears up my stance a little.

------------------

After thinking about what Steve had said about magic and science, I wanted to look at this a bit more. It seems we all say, at times, that something or another we hear is impossible, but is anything truly impossible? Magic can be a word used when we do not understand or comprehend. Magic appears to be the impossible coming true only because we do not know the mechanism, as in a magician’s illusion or trick. I do not believe there is anything that is "magic". I feel it is contrived to show we do not understand something in nature. That nature could be beyond our dimension but it is nonetheless there yet undetectable.

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of magic

1. the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces; magic rites or incantations
2. an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source; something that seems to cast a spell
3. the art of producing illusions by sleight of hand
Note the first two definitions use the words “believed” and “seemingly” or “seems”. The last is sleight of hand. So magic is defined as a belief or something that seems supernatural. So what is supernatural?

Definition of supernatural

1. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2. departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature: attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

If we disregard the gods, spirits, or devil with a supernatural definition, it is basically saying something similar to magic. It “appears” something is beyond the usual and normal laws of nature or is outside of our observable universe (or at least what we can detect). That could encompass anything outside the currently held beliefs of science or culture within our universe or perhaps entities or forces in other dimensions.

Hundreds of years ago a 3D printer would appear to be magic or a supernatural force of creation. If it was connected through Wi-Fi, it would appear even more so. In the future, we might have matter compilers that use atoms to form molecules, perhaps from gases or atomic substrates that are not easily seen (think of a replicator). This would "appear" or "seem" as if matter was being created from nothing. Ray Kurzweil speaks of consciousness merging with robotics so we may even have entities (human consciousness) entering inanimate objects much like coding a computer. We might have artificially created bodies with DNA that could function as an organic container for moving consciousness in order to extend life. Magnetic levitation would appear as magic if the culture and science of the day did not understand magnetism. The list could include just about any scientific breakthrough we see today. Not long ago these would seem at least unlikely, if not magical or impossible.

When do we change our beliefs on a subject from the magical/supernatural to a scientific/realistic view? Can we say that something is impossible just because it is either unseen or we do not understand the mechanism? Perhaps it is impossible for a culture at their current scientific level. Do we assume we are the pinnacle of knowledge and technology? Are there no other entities in our universe or in other dimensions that cannot manipulate matter as we discussed with wave/particle duality in the quantum realm? If observation can collapse a wave, which we cannot see, into a usable particle that can be used to build some object, it seems feasible or even probable that some entity may have an advanced from of manipulating matter.

When I think of people who believe in aliens, entities (call them what we will), or forces outside our understanding, I have to at least wonder if their belief is just wild fantasy or is it possible. The first reaction when confronted with a new idea that seems like it is way out there (magic), is to discard it. Discarding odd ideas may be a coping mechanism to save our psyche from trauma or at least anxiety but is it the best way to think if we want to accrue knowledge?

Thinking on the magical, supernatural and impossible made me remember Arthur C. Clarke. This was the statement I first thought of “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” but his other two are as interesting.

http://physics.about.com/od/physics101t ... esLaws.htm

“Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

In the February 1977 Fantasy & Science Fiction magazine, fellow science fiction author Isaac Asimov wrote an essay entitled "Asimov's Corollary" which offered this corollary to Clarke's First Law:

Asimov's Corollary to the First Law: "When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right."

Clarke's Second Law

In the 1962 essay, Clarke made an observation which fans began calling his Second Law. When he published a revised edition of Profiles of the Future in 1973, he made the designation official:

Clarke's Second Law: "The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

Though not as popular as his Third Law, this statement really defines the relationship between science and science fiction, and how each field helps to inform the other.

Clarke's Third Law

When Clarke acknowledged the Second Law in 1973, he decided that there should be a third law to help round things out. After all, Newton had three laws and there were three laws of thermodynamics.

Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This is by far the most popular of the three laws. It is invoked frequently in popular culture and is often just referred to as "Clarke's Law."

Some authors have modified Clarke's Law, even going so far as to create an inverse corollary, though the precise origin of this corollary isn't exactly clear:

Third Law Corollary: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
or, as expressed in the novel Foundation's Fear,

"If technology is distinguishable from magic, it is insufficiently advanced.”

Clarke fails to examine the exposure of technology to a culture that has sufficient understanding of the basic laws of nature and reality to go "Ah, this must actually be advanced technology"

A thousand years ago a 3D printer might appear as magic to an uneducated peasant, but a person educated in the classic Greek and Roman schools of scientific thought (or better still the Islamic sciences that were building on them around that time) would soon perceive the mechanical functions of it and would not have too hard a time grasping the basic theory behind it and would see it as an advanced machine

Why would you say this Murray? My knowledge of numerology comes from the common knowledge, and from the Merriam-Webster definition.
I relied only on two simple and clear definitions.

Agreed sir.
I chuckle a little bit about your "lone voice" comment though. That is positively humorous in its irony to me.

I am also open to being shown to be wrong. I love it when I am shown to be wrong. I look forward to it with an eagerness. To me, it is about being honest with one's own self and with the world. I do not want to "trick" myself into feeling self-satisfied. I want to understand.
When I find an error in my belief or opinion (because it is based on incorrect knowledge) I feel my body and mind relax with pleasure and satisfaction... It is one of the chief joys in my life. It almost rises to euphoria for a short time.
I have a smaller boost when I find that one of my previously held beliefs was correct, but for reasons that I didn't fully understand at the time.

A common misconception made by those who use the bible as a reference source is to think that the person arguing from the viewpoint of science isn't as familiar with the bible and its teachings. (That goes for any topic or information source.)
Strongly held beliefs are no more or less accurate than weakly held beliefs.
Strongly held opinions are no more or less valid than weakly held opinions.
The number of adherents of a "truth" has absolutely no correlation with that "truth's" accuracy.

It is rare to find someone who has the ability to examine his/her own beliefs with the true desire to weed out inconsistencies and errors.

Islamic science was well advanced but I do not believe in the 600-900's Islamic culture would understand much of our current technology as being natural. Do you believe an Islamic, Greek, or Roman citizen would not believe a hologram of a person was magic or supernatural? Holograms are well known now but what about only 50 years ago? Use that hologram of Michael Jackson or Erdogan floating in the air 50 years ago and I highly doubt anyone would grasp it as normal. How about a laser? Would they feel the same way if they saw a metal object levitating even a few hundred years ago? This is simple technology now but levitation has been construed as magic in the past. You are assuming people have a sufficient understanding of the laws of nature or that we have a grasp on much of the universe. We are constantly making new discoveries, yet we only have concepts of what other dimensions are like. We do not even know if there is life on other planets, let alone in other galaxies. Our knowledge is far less than what most people care to believe. To think our current technology stretches the limits of possibility is, at least in my view, hubris. Look what has happened in the past 100-150 years. What will we be doing in 200, 500, 1000 years. Would we understand that technology or would we see it as magic or supernatural if a person seemed to materialize from out of nowhere, yet they were just using some cloaking technology. Cloaking technology is being worked on and has been used, even if rudimentary. What if we are able to change matter to pass objects through what we assume is solid. I say assume because nothing is really solid.

My only numerology book was one by a person named Glynnis Mccants (sp?) so that is what I was going by in my other posts.

Perhaps my wording was bad above. I meant your conclusion from the definitions as true since I must not understand numerology well enough. MW defines numerology as the occult significance of numbers and then we look at the occult definitions you already listed. I will bold what I take as your reference back to the numerological occult aspects (forgive me if I am off). Then I will try to give my explanation.

OCCULT
adjective
1.of or relating to magic, astrology, or any system claiming use or knowledge of secret or supernatural powers or agencies.
2.beyond the range of ordinary knowledge or understanding; mysterious.
3.secret; disclosed or communicated only to the initiated.
4.hidden from view.
5. not apparent on mere inspection but discoverable by experimentation.
of a nature not understood, as physical qualities.
dealing with such qualities; experimental:
occult science.
6.Medicine/Medical. present in amounts too small to be visible:
a chemical test to detect occult blood in the stool.
noun
7.the supernatural or supernatural agencies and affairs considered as a whole (usually preceded by the).
8.occult studies or sciences (usually preceded by the).
verb (used with object)
9.to block or shut off (an object) from view; hide.
10.Astronomy. to hide (a celestial body) by occultation.
verb (used without object)
11.to become hidden or shut off from view.

Maybe this has just become so simple for me that I am not seeing it as anything mysterious or supernatural to take a few verses and run a calculation. I have read a lot of commentaries that have done this as well. It is not something secret that only I have found. There is nothing mysterious, supernatural or hidden about the 360 day year as used in the Bible. It has been known for Millennia and used by others besides the ancient semitic people. Scholars have written about this but maybe it's not public knowledge. It is also in the text and is easily read as a straightforward value for anyone who has a Bible, we only need the ability to read and understand math.

Here is just one quick reference to the 360 issue and calendars: http://xwalk.ca/360day.html "The modern Jewish calendar is calculated according to both the lunar and solar cycles. Their twelve months are currently calculated as containing 354 days, which leaves their year eleven-and-one-fourth days short of the true solar year...Abraham, the father of Israel, continued to use the 360-day year, which was known in his home in Ur of the Chaldees...Sir Isaac Newton stated, "All nations, before the just length of the solar year was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn; and in making calendars for their festivals, they reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and twelve lunar months to a years, taking the nearest round numbers, whence came the division of the ecliptic into 360 degrees. All nations did this, there is no mystery why we have to convert to 360 days when calculating in the Bible. Again, whether we believe it is correct or incorrect, it was a well used number and if someone is calculating from the Bible, they better be using it as a conversion factor to Julian or Gregorian dating.

If you assume hidden or mysterious means the 7x value from Leviticus, that is also a well known fact in Biblical commentaries and I have yet to see a Jew or Christian who has studied Leviticus that is unaware of it. If someone has not studied Leviticus, I have to assume it would not be known.

Stripping out the text of Ezekiel 4, which may be confusing out of context of the full chapter, all we have are the number of years for punishment 430 (390+40). It is not hidden, it is right in the verse. What punishment infers for the Israelites is also not a hidden, it is all over the Bible. Punishment involves Israel being taken out of the promised land. A study of the Bible will show numerous references (ad nauseum) to Judah and Israel being warned of their punishment. It finally happens as the the Babylonian Captivity and is clearly referenced multiple times as 70 years across different books. At the Bible is so repetitive discussing Judah, Israel, their kings, the years, the length of the sins, the punishment, and Babylon, and Assyria that it gets tiring. However, none of it is hidden.

So no, I do not see the hidden or mysterious aspects, however, if you are using definition number 7 above to mean supernatural as a whole, then that may fit. I am unclear about what supernatural agencies as a whole infers. If the definition of numerology implies using some numbers from a religious text, then I agree there as well. I hope that long-winded explanation clarifies what I meant by the short statement. I meant no offense. Maybe I am just slow on this one (my wife might agree there also) but I am not trying to obfuscate the issue.

I thought you might get a laugh but wasn't sure if you would notice..

We may sound as if we disagree a lot but I have a lot of fun discussing these things with you, not matter how stupid I appear at times! Believe me, I am not being humble there. I make some dumbass comments at times and wonder what the hell was I thinking.

EDIT: And I can thank you for getting me to order two biographical books on Newton so I can get more information on his life. Damn, now I have another 600 page book to wade through. My wife will kill me if I buy another bookcase.