Are some extrabiblical KJV-only assertions based on a form of divination?

[Logos1560]

Could the KJV-only claims based on claimed numeric patterns in the new 2024 book SEALED BY THE KING by Brandon Peterson involve use of something like divination?

Brandon Peterson wrote: “If there are numeric patterns that verify God’s inspiration of the original languages, what if there are patterns in this Bible [referring to the KJV] that is speaking to me and sanctifying me” (p. 4). Brandon Peterson declared: “The amount of numeric verifications is unreal” (p. 354). Brandon Peterson claimed: “It leaves little to no doubt in the Christian’s mind that God has specifically inserted numeric details in the Bible that have some sort of deeper meaning. And yet the meaning is not revealed in the text” (p. 353). Brandon Peterson appealed to a “ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence)” “that spell out L-O-R-D” (p. 124). Peterson contended that “there are strong cases for them [ELS] in the Hebrew language” (p. 228).

Brandon Peterson asked: “What if we found signs and wonders, even miracles, in the King James Bible that point to God as its author?” (Sealed, p. 23). Peterson again asked: “What if the Holy Bible, and more specifically—the most influential version in history, is signed and sealed by God Himself?” (p. 24). Brandon Peterson claimed: “Every word in the King James Bible is placed by inspiration of God, including the italics” (p. 131). Brandon Peterson asserted: “The Authorized King James stands alone as the pure word of God, down to the last jot and tittle” (p. 340). Brandon Peterson asked: “Is it wrong to conclude that those concealed patterns are all miraculously pointing to God’s inspiration” (p. 478). Brandon Peterson claimed: “God chose to wait until His book was the most printed, read, and scrutinized book in world history before unveiling His perfect design within” (p. 391). G. John Rov asserted: “We have seen that the books, book order, chapters, verses, and words of the King James Bible are all divinely cut like facets of a jewel and set in exact place” (Concealed from Christians, p. 136).

Brandon Peterson wrote: “Several people have accused Bible numerics research as practicing ‘numerology’ or ‘divination’” (Sealed, p. 477). John Weldon maintained that there is a “problem with ‘code bibliomancy’—divination by Bible codes” (Decoding the Bible Code, p. 132). John Weldon asserted: “If the code constitutes a misuse of the biblical text, then it can be misused as a form of divination” (Ibid.). Brandon Peterson himself had seemed to connect Bible codes with numeric patterns. Claims concerning ELS Bible codes do seem to be a form of divination. David Cloud defined divination as “foretelling future events or discovering hidden knowledge through dreams, astrology, magic, etc.” (Concise KJB Dictionary, p.27). Unger’s Bible Dictionary defined divination “as the act of obtaining secret knowledge, especially of the future” (p. 271). According to these definitions, divination is not limited exclusively to foretelling the future since it can also include attempts to discover concealed special knowledge.

Can trying to discover concealed or hidden knowledge be regarded as being divination according to definitions of this term? Could trying to determine for certain the will of God concerning Bible translations by use of extrabiblical numeric patterns be considered divination? Implying that numeric patterns in effect predict and prove for certain the inspiration of the KJV could be regarded as a form of unscriptural divination (Deut. 18:10, 14). Asserting that numeric patterns are in effect God speaking or declaring which Bible translation is inspired could be like false prophets or diviners claiming to speak for God. Diviners and false prophets are sometimes connected in Scripture. Someone claiming God said something that He did not say could be considered a form of divination. Are numeric patterns used to put words in the mouth of God that He Himself does not state in the text of Scripture? When God seems to be declared ex cathedra as being the direct author of the KJV by means of numeric patterns, it could be regarded as an attempt to speak for God. The Scriptures clearly forbid divination (Deut. 18:10, 14; Lev. 19:26). John Weldon noted: “Clearly, if the God of the Bible prohibits divination, he cannot be the author of a Bible code that endorses it” (Decoding, p. 138). It is not the counting of chapters, verses, words, or letters that is considered divination. Instead, it would be any attempts to use the extrabiblical counts or numeric patterns as a means to divine God’s will or as a means to speak for God concerning Bible doctrine or truth that would be regarded as a possible form of divination. It would be the extrabiblical or nonscriptural assertions and claims based on the numeric patterns that are regarded as a seeming form of KJV-only divination. The numeric patterns are being misused to advocate blind acceptance of non-true, extrabiblical KJV-only opinions. Can believers be misled and deceived by extrabiblical KJV-only numeric divination?

In claiming that numeric patterns are a supernatural miracle directly from God, it seems to be suggested that God spoke through some form of numeric divination something that God does not reveal and state in His words of Scripture. Is it implied that divinely instituted numeric patterns are a way besides or beyond the inspired words of Scripture to gain additional direct knowledge and revelation from God? Is suggesting that believers can find “some sort of deeper meaning” in numeric patterns a form of divination, Gnosticism, or mysticism? Is it implied that God intentionally kept hidden the deeper meanings from numeric patterns until the invention of computers? Are the claimed divinely instituted numeric patterns indicated to be a superior revelation to what is in the text of Scripture? Could looking for extrabiblical numeric patterns be a philosophy of man since God did not command it? Does this appeal to extrabiblical numeric patterns in effect deny the sufficiency and completeness of all Scripture already given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles so that it is wrong? Attempting to bind the word of God in English to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England men in 1611 would be wrong. Suggesting that God inspired words added by men in the KJV would be wrong according to scriptural truth (Prov. 30:6, Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32). When God and the Bible are silent concerning these “concealed” numeric patterns, perhaps believers would be wiser to stick with the meaning or sense of the words of Scripture. Does God assert in His word that numeric patterns should be claimed to be a miracle of God? Is searching for or believing in numeric patterns a command of God that believers should acknowledge (1 Cor. 14:37)?

 

[Dr. Bob]

The concept of mystical connections to numbers/letters is usually a part of every religion in history. I spent a day in Sepphoris, Israel, discussing the Kabbalah with Jewish and Christian scholars, as this mystical school of thought that focuses on God's essence and the mysterious ways God moves has been part of Judaism since the time of the Crusades.

Still have many Christians who follow Bullinger's teachings - searching deeper, hidden meaning from words, numbers, letters, etc. I think that we can FIND ANYTHING and PROVE EVERYTHING with such methods. I concluded this all a part of Gnosticism and teach against it!

 

[Deacon]

David Cloud defined divination as “foretelling future events or discovering hidden knowledge through dreams, astrology, magic, etc.” (Concise KJB Dictionary, p.27). Unger’s Bible Dictionary defined divination “as the act of obtaining secret knowledge, especially of the future” (p. 271). According to these definitions, divination is not limited exclusively to foretelling the future since it can also include attempts to discover concealed special knowledge.

Walton, John H. 2024. The Lost World of the Prophets: Old Testament Prophecy and Apocalyptic Literature in Ancient Context. Lost World Series. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic: An Imprint of InterVarsity Press. p. 13, 15.

Readers familiar with the Old Testament will recognize that, in Israel, prophecy was treasured, respected, and a fundamental institution used by Yahweh while divination was suspect and forbidden. It may therefore seem counterintuitive to consider prophecy to be one form of divination. Nevertheless, this association can be affirmed once we recognize that divination, broadly speaking, refers to any means by which humans believed they could receive messages or direction from the gods.

[snip]

As mentioned, many forms of divination were forbidden to Israel. They did practice the casting of lots, and they at times received dreams—these were unobjectionable. In contrast, however, forms such as celestial divination and extispicy were censured. Why the distinction? By assessing the categories, I note that the approved forms of divination for Israel fall into two categories:

• those forms initiated by humans but with binary outcomes that are not subject to human mediation or manipulation (casting lots)
• those forms initiated by God in which God provided an interpreter (dreams; see Joseph and Daniel)​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I read something years ago about how every sentence in the Greek NT is divisible by seven, or some such stuff. I forget the details. All I will say is that the NT the guy was using was an early version of the UBS New Testament, so this nonsense is not limited to KJV enthusiasts.

 

[Logos1560]

I think that Peter Ruckman mentioned the man who used an edition of the UBS Greek NT for this, and then he made the following comments.

Peter Ruckman wrote: “The AV is unique in that not only can a numeric system be found in its Hebrew and Greek texts, but also in the chapter and verse numberings of its text, which sometimes extends to the number of words in a verse” (Bible Babel, p. 85). Peter Ruckman concluded: “I am convinced, by common sense, that God had His hand on its numerical divisions, into chapters and verses” (p. 90).

Kevin Mann claimed: “There is nothing accidental about the placement of the numbers, or words, or chapter and verse numbering in the King James Holy Bible” (First Mention Study Bible, Vol. I, p. 48).

 

[Logos1560]

Brandon Peterson seems to assume that there are numeric patterns or code in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Brandon Peterson appealed to a “ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence)” “that spell out L-O-R-D” (p. 124). Peterson contended that “there are strong cases for them [ELS] in the Hebrew language” (p. 228).

On the other hand, Randall Ingermanson carefully checked and tested the claims concerning ELS, and he concluded: “The truth is that there isn’t any scientific evidence for the Bible code in Genesis” (Who Wrote the Bible Code, p. 126). Randall Ingermanson asserted: “The ELSs found in the Torah are precisely those we would expect due to random chance. There is no Bible code in the Torah” (p. 134). He concluded: “Nobody wrote the Bible code. There is no Bible code” (p. 137). Randall Ingermanson noted: “I don’t see any evidence for a Bible code in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament” (p. 167).

 

[JD731]

Brandon Peterson seems to assume that there are numeric patterns or code in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Brandon Peterson appealed to a “ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence)” “that spell out L-O-R-D” (p. 124). Peterson contended that “there are strong cases for them [ELS] in the Hebrew language” (p. 228).

On the other hand, Randall Ingermanson carefully checked and tested the claims concerning ELS, and he concluded: “The truth is that there isn’t any scientific evidence for the Bible code in Genesis” (Who Wrote the Bible Code, p. 126). Randall Ingermanson asserted: “The ELSs found in the Torah are precisely those we would expect due to random chance. There is no Bible code in the Torah” (p. 134). He concluded: “Nobody wrote the Bible code. There is no Bible code” (p. 137). Randall Ingermanson noted: “I don’t see any evidence for a Bible code in either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament” (p. 167).

Well that certainly settles that! If Randall Ingermanson carefully checked it and tested the claims and found no evidence for it, let's move on. Nothing to see here. It is settled. Randy has spoken.He is much too smart to be doubted on spiritual matters because he is a pyscisist and has read the Torah in Hebrew..

About the Author
Dr. Randall Ingermanson is a theoretical physicist with a long-standing interest in computers and the Bible. He earned his Ph.D. in physics from the University of California at Berkeley in 1986 and works as a Senior Staff Scientist at Maxwell Technologies, Inc.. He has authored dozens of scientific articles and reports in quantum field theory, superstring theory, and plasma physics. He also reads Hebrew and has read the Torah in its original language. Dr. Ingermanson lives in San Diego, California, with his wife and three children.

Are you telling us that Randall is more qualified to teach the scriptures than Peterson because of his acedemic credentials in physics? Are you thinking that is what qualifies men for spiritual understanding?

Personally, I know nothing about a Bible code but I do know that God systematically uses numbers to reveal himself and his purposes to men. Why wouldn't he. Would he have written his book and then stood back when it was done and exclaimed, well look at that coincidence that found it's way in there.

I heard a guy ask a perfectly legitimate question one time, "has it ever occurred to you that nothing has ever occurred to God?

But, Dr Randall Ingermanson has spoken.

`

 

[Logos1560]

Are you telling us that Randall is more qualified to teach the scriptures than Peterson because of his acedemic credentials in physics?

`

Randall Ingermanson is more qualified concerning statistics and concerning ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence) as he developed tests and computer programs to check for ELS and to test claims for it.

D. A. Carson warned: “There are many methodological fallacies connected with statistical arguments” (Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 141-142). D. A. Carson wrote: “Word frequency statistics are normally calculated on the basis of the null hypothesis. This statistical model figures out how likely various occurrences would be in comparison to a random drawing of words out of a barrel. But writers do not choose words that day” (p. 142). Henry Virkler observed: “Correlation does not prove causation” (Christian’s Guide, p. 144). Randall Ingermanson claimed: “It’s easy to find remarkable patterns in the Bible, patterns that ’couldn’t possibly arise by chance’” (Who Wrote the Bible Code, p. 35). Randall Ingermanson observed: “If you ignore failures and record only successes, you stand an excellent chance of seeing the pattern you want to see” (p. 11). Randall Ingermanson noted: “Remarkable results aren’t enough unless the methods producing them are sound” (p. 25). Randall Ingermanson wrote: “Just look long enough, don’t report your failures, and you can always get ‘amazing results.’ It’s called coincidence” (p. 145). Randall Ingermanson maintained “that paradigm leaves wiggle room, which you can exploit. All you have to do is not report the unsurprising results. If you do find something surprising, then and only then do you report your exciting discovery” (p. 170). Randall Ingermanson maintained that it is easy “to cheat by simply ignoring data” (p. 52). Randall Ingermanson warned: “”We learned how you can manipulate statistics to say just about anything you jolly well please” (Who Wrote, pp. 75-76). Randall Ingermanson noted: “The lesson here is that statistics are useless unless they’re interpreted correctly” (p. 76).

Randall Ingermanson observed: “Redundancy is a natural feature of any language” (p. 67).

Could it be “wiggle room,” confirmation bias, sampling bias, or even coincidence or random chance that may result in claimed miraculous numeric patterns?

Extrabiblical numeric patterns do not determine nor establish sound Bible doctrine about the Scriptures and their inspiration.

 

[Logos1560]

In contrast to some KJV-only authors who suggest that the chapter divisions in the KJV are inspired, E. W. Bullinger asserted: “We cannot recognize any human arrangements or divisions of books, chapters, or verses, etc. We can take only that division, order, and arrangement which is Divine” (Number in Scripture, p. 93).

E. W. Bullinger noted: “The Book of Genesis is Divinely divided into twelve parts (consisting of an Introduction and eleven Tol’doth)” (Ibid.). Bullinger wrote: “It is instructive to notice these divine divisions, and see how different they are from either man’s chapters, or man’s theories as to the Jehovistic and Elohistic sections” (p. 35).

E. W. Bullinger observed: “Besides Genesis, the Book of Psalms is the only book which is marked by any similar Divine divisions. It consists of Five Books” (p. 94).

 

[JD731]

Randall Ingermanson is more qualified concerning statistics and concerning ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence) as he developed tests and computer programs to check for ELS and to test claims for it.

D. A. Carson warned: “There are many methodological fallacies connected with statistical arguments” (Exegetical Fallacies, pp. 141-142). D. A. Carson wrote: “Word frequency statistics are normally calculated on the basis of the null hypothesis. This statistical model figures out how likely various occurrences would be in comparison to a random drawing of words out of a barrel. But writers do not choose words that day” (p. 142). Henry Virkler observed: “Correlation does not prove causation” (Christian’s Guide, p. 144). Randall Ingermanson claimed: “It’s easy to find remarkable patterns in the Bible, patterns that ’couldn’t possibly arise by chance’” (Who Wrote the Bible Code, p. 35). Randall Ingermanson observed: “If you ignore failures and record only successes, you stand an excellent chance of seeing the pattern you want to see” (p. 11). Randall Ingermanson noted: “Remarkable results aren’t enough unless the methods producing them are sound” (p. 25). Randall Ingermanson wrote: “Just look long enough, don’t report your failures, and you can always get ‘amazing results.’ It’s called coincidence” (p. 145). Randall Ingermanson maintained “that paradigm leaves wiggle room, which you can exploit. All you have to do is not report the unsurprising results. If you do find something surprising, then and only then do you report your exciting discovery” (p. 170). Randall Ingermanson maintained that it is easy “to cheat by simply ignoring data” (p. 52). Randall Ingermanson warned: “”We learned how you can manipulate statistics to say just about anything you jolly well please” (Who Wrote, pp. 75-76). Randall Ingermanson noted: “The lesson here is that statistics are useless unless they’re interpreted correctly” (p. 76).

Randall Ingermanson observed: “Redundancy is a natural feature of any language” (p. 67).

Could it be “wiggle room,” confirmation bias, sampling bias, or even coincidence or random chance that may result in claimed miraculous numeric patterns?

Extrabiblical numeric patterns do not determine nor establish sound Bible doctrine about the Scriptures and their inspiration.

Randall ingermanson has not produced a single word from the scriptures that proves anything as far as the subject is related to the Bible. Therefore you are presenting his opinions. He might be an orthodox Jew who does not believe the NT scriptures for all I know. What else does he believe or don't believe about the scriptures and why should we give weight to his claims?

 

[37818]

Randall ingermanson has not produced a single word from the scriptures that proves anything as far as the subject is related to the Bible.

Who Wrote the Bible Code? by Randall Ingermanson: 9780307805515 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

 

[JD731]

Who Wrote the Bible Code? by Randall Ingermanson: 9780307805515 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books

I don't know. I don't even know what a Bible code is. I gathered from one poster that Randall Ingermanson opposed it. I don't know him either. I just wondered if being a Physicist made his opinion better that Peterson's relating to the doctrines of the Bible. That's all.

 

[Logos1560]

I just wondered if being a Physicist made his opinion better that Peterson's relating to the doctrines of the Bible.

It was not suggested that a physicist is more qualified in understanding and teaching doctrines of the Bible. You were already answered.

It was clearly stated that Randall Ingermanson is more qualified concerning statistics and concerning ELS-code (Equidistant Letter Sequence) as he developed tests and computer programs to check for ELS and to test claims for it. He is more qualified concerning matters relating to math, statistics, and numeric patterns.

Brandon Peterson was unwisely using claims relating to extrabiblical matters involving numeric patterns to make assertions concerning Bible doctrine. He made no case directly from the Scriptures themselves for his KJV-only assertions.

 

[Logos1560]

In one example of claimed numeric patterns, Brandon Peterson asserted: “Both of these verses [Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21] have exactly 44 letters” (Sealed, p. 340). Brandon Peterson claimed: “The first and last verses of the KJB are perfectly identical by number of consonants and vowels” (Ibid.).

Concerning “heaven” in Genesis 1:1, G. John Rov declared: “Every other Bible adds the letter ‘s’” (Concealed, p. 137). G. John Rov added: “This artificially added letter ‘s’ of all other Bibles destroys the perfect ‘letter, consonant’ count match that the first verse of the Bible has with the last verse of the Bible in the King James Bible alone” (Ibid.). John Rov alleged: “These other Bibles which have added the letter ‘s’ do not pass the geometric test of God” (p. 138).

In his 1530 English translation, William Tyndale translated Genesis 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” Tyndale’s translation of this verse does not have 44 letters, and it is on the KJV-only view’s pure stream of Bibles. Would a consistent, just application of the claims of Peterson and Rov condemn William Tyndale, God’s primary translator of our English Bible? The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible, 1537 Matthew’s Bible, and 1539 Great Bible render Genesis 1:1 the same as Tyndale’s. When the Hebrew noun translated “heaven” at Genesis 1:1 in the KJV is plural in number, how are other English Bibles supposedly artificially adding the letter “s” when they translate it as a plural in English? The KJV itself translated the same Hebrew noun as a plural [“heavens”] at Genesis 2:1 and 2:4. William Tyndale had consistently translated this plural Hebrew noun as “heaven” at these three verses [Genesis 1:1, 2:1, 2:4]. The KJV kept Tyndale’s singular “heaven” at Genesis 1:1 but changed the other two to a plural “heavens” in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible. Did the Geneva Bible and the KJV introduce an unnecessary inconsistency between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:1? Would the faithful, literal, accurate rendering “God made the earth and the heavens” at Genesis 2:4 be considered wrong since it has “heavens”? If this claimed “44” numeric pattern at Genesis 1:1 was directly given and intended by God, then God would be expected to have given a Hebrew noun that was singular in number?

 

[37818]

In his 1530 English translation, William Tyndale translated Genesis 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” Tyndale’s translation of this verse does not have 44 letters, and it is on the KJV-only view’s pure stream of Bibles.

My electronic edition of Tyndale Genesis 1:1, In the begynnynge God created heaven and erth.

 

[MrW]

In one example of claimed numeric patterns, Brandon Peterson asserted: “Both of these verses [Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21] have exactly 44 letters” (Sealed, p. 340). Brandon Peterson claimed: “The first and last verses of the KJB are perfectly identical by number of consonants and vowels” (Ibid.).

Concerning “heaven” in Genesis 1:1, G. John Rov declared: “Every other Bible adds the letter ‘s’” (Concealed, p. 137). G. John Rov added: “This artificially added letter ‘s’ of all other Bibles destroys the perfect ‘letter, consonant’ count match that the first verse of the Bible has with the last verse of the Bible in the King James Bible alone” (Ibid.). John Rov alleged: “These other Bibles which have added the letter ‘s’ do not pass the geometric test of God” (p. 138).

In his 1530 English translation, William Tyndale translated Genesis 1:1 as follows: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth.” Tyndale’s translation of this verse does not have 44 letters, and it is on the KJV-only view’s pure stream of Bibles. Would a consistent, just application of the claims of Peterson and Rov condemn William Tyndale, God’s primary translator of our English Bible? The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible, 1537 Matthew’s Bible, and 1539 Great Bible render Genesis 1:1 the same as Tyndale’s. When the Hebrew noun translated “heaven” at Genesis 1:1 in the KJV is plural in number, how are other English Bibles supposedly artificially adding the letter “s” when they translate it as a plural in English? The KJV itself translated the same Hebrew noun as a plural [“heavens”] at Genesis 2:1 and 2:4. William Tyndale had consistently translated this plural Hebrew noun as “heaven” at these three verses [Genesis 1:1, 2:1, 2:4]. The KJV kept Tyndale’s singular “heaven” at Genesis 1:1 but changed the other two to a plural “heavens” in agreement with the 1560 Geneva Bible. Did the Geneva Bible and the KJV introduce an unnecessary inconsistency between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 2:1? Would the faithful, literal, accurate rendering “God made the earth and the heavens” at Genesis 2:4 be considered wrong since it has “heavens”? If this claimed “44” numeric pattern at Genesis 1:1 was directly given and intended by God, then God would be expected to have given a Hebrew noun that was singular in number?

Straining at gnats.

 

[Logos1560]

My electronic edition of Tyndale Genesis 1:1, In the begynnynge God created heaven and erth.

I quoted Tyndale's Old Testament from a modern spelling edition since I wanted it to be comparable to a present KJV edition. In original spelling and in modern spelling, Tyndale's does not have 44 letters in Genesis 1:1.