The Life Foundations Nexus
SEMINAR ON THE “TRUE TEXT”
LESSON 58 – THE PROBABILITY/CERTAINTY MATRIX PRINCIPLE
AKA “WE AIN’T IN KANSAS ANYMORE, DOROTHY.............AND DOROTHY II”
By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti
We have jumped ahead to lesson 58 because of criticisms that we have been receiving via email. It is time to silence this particular batch of critics. We call this particular batch of critics “The Number Crunchers” or “TNCs” for short.
The Probability/Certainty Matrix Principle states:
There is a causal relationship between probability and certainty. This relationship is a mechanism built into the human psyche by the Creator. Experience has taught us that we can use the psychomechanistic events associated with this mechanism, which we have named the “psi mechanism,” to extrapolate “future moves”…as in a chess game. An illustration is in order:
A good chess player, according to one expert, sees a minimum of ten moves ahead…a great chess player sees 50 moves ahead…and a master chess player sees 200 moves ahead.
Our point is that your ability to anticipate future consequences is directly proportional to the intensity and duration of your involvement in the intellectual processes associated with the forecasting of those consequences.
Now, what does this have to do with confirming the ancient, biblical text? Science is not simply a matter of information. It is also a matter of prediction. (Forgive me but I have to interject a note on a totally unrelated topic and that is that the theory of evolution HAS NEVER PREDICTED ANYTHING!) Now, prediction extends the boundary of information. It extends the boundary of information into the Unknown.
No 100% confirmation of the biblical text is possible unless you can cross over into the realm of the Unknown. We have capitalized the word “Unknown” so that you will understand that we are not talking about the “normal unknown.” We are talking about the “scientific unknown.” The scientific unknown, the Unknown, unlike the normal unknown, has restrictions placed upon it.
In order to gain the benefit of the knowledge in the realm of the Unknown, via predictions (more specifically, predictive science or forecast science, which is totally based in statistics and the new science of textual calculus established by us) we must have a big enough “knowledge base.” Now, this knowledge base is far more than what statisticians call “a statistically valid sample.” It is a multiply cross-referenced matrix of data. THIS DATA IS ALL NUMERICAL. The reason that it is all numerical is that 100% certainty is only possible in the world of numbers. Verbal logic can get you 99.9999999999% of the way to the truth. This, of course, is well beyond the percentile necessary for “reasonable certainty.” This means that NO ONE ACTUALLY NEEDS OUR RESEARCH IN ORDER TO BE CERTAIN OF THE TRUTH. MORE SPECIFICALLY, NO ONE NEEDS OUR RESEARCH IN ORDER TO BE REASONABLY CERTAIN OF THE TRUTH.
The logical question, then, is why bother to achieve 100% certainty. 100% certainty is necessary for those who either REFUSE OR ARE UNABLE to believe the truth once they have been provided with reasonable certainty. Those who are unable fall into a special category. These are people that God has appointed special tasks in the administration of the world.
Now, we can talk about numerical logic as opposed to verbal logic.
WE WILL NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME ANYWHERE REVEAL ONE OF THE GREAT SECRETS OF OUR RESEARCH:
First, we will give you an example/illustration to ease you into the truth:
Up until about ten years ago medical science believed that the computer-generated, computer screen configurations (patterns) representing the beating of defective, human hearts was totally random. They kept collecting data on these (seemingly) random configurations and, lo and behold, after several years, their analytical program DETECTED A PATTERN. Now, don’t miss the following:
The pattern was so complex that it would have taken two million people working seven million years to figure it out. However, the analytic program being used was able to accomplish in one second what it would have taken one person a year to accomplish. The end result is that the analytic program was able to perform seven million years of work by two million people in a week.
Now, what application does this have to the confirmation of the ancient, biblical texts. Very simply THERE ARE “NONRANDOM PATTERNS” IN THE ANCIENT, BIBLICAL TEXTS. Now, this is something totally new. This has nothing to do with any “Bible Code” discoveries that have been in the news in the last couple of years or so.
Here for the first time revealed anywhere are the “Heartbeat Engines” of the ancient, biblical text. The term “Heartbeat Engines” comes, in part, from the analogy of the human heart study that we referred to above. HERE ARE THE FIRST THREE “HEARTBEAT ENGINES” OF THE ANCIENT GREEK NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS:
There are, in all, 777 Heartbeat Engines. 90% of what we need to accomplish can be accomplished using the AD, BC, and GL engines above.
The most important discovery made through the application of these first three engines is that it is 99.9999999999% probable that the Alexandrian manuscripts have been edited from their original form. Of course, are goal was 100% probability; so we didn’t stop there. Applying most of over one hundred other HX (HX = Heartbeat Engine) engines we were able to establish the 100% probability that the Alexandrian manuscripts were edited from their original form. Note that “100% probability” is “textual calculus” language for “documented certainty.” Documented certainty is “more certainty than you need to be certain.” It is “more certainty than ‘reasonable certainty.’”
We have provided enough information on this web page to refute all of the arguments and so-called proofs presented by the TNCs referred to above. For a detailed discussion of Heartbeat Engines read What Is A Heartbeat Engine And How Do You Build One?
Following are the conventions used in the Greek text we are using in our seminar. See Lesson Six for a sample of the use of the variant tags.
We are using a compilation of the Greek New Testament that has variants identified and tagged for reference to source of transmission and schools of emphasis.
For ease of reference, the verse numbering scheme has been made to conform closely to that found in most standard English versions of the New Testament, following the Authorized (King James) Version of 1611. Where considerate verse numbering differences occur, they are added to the text in brackets.
Breathings, Accents, And Diacritical Markings
All breathings, accents, capitalization, punctuation, and diacritical markings have been omitted. These are primarily a product of modern editorship and are lacking in ancient manuscripts.
Book Titles And Colophons
Book titles do not appear. The Greek closing colophons to the epistles that appear in the English of the Authorized Version have been placed in brackets  wherever they occur in the Stephens 1550 edition (only).
Variant Tagging Method
The following tags have been applied to those words peculiar to one stream of transmission or scholarly group that emphasizes a particular variant word. Those words with no tag do not differ in the various printings of the Greek.
T = Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus.
The text used is George Ricker Berry's edition of "The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament." This text is virtually identical to Erasmus 1516, Beza 1598, and the actual Textus Receptus: Elzevir 1633. Berry states, "In the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus." (Berry, p. ii)
These early printed Greek New Testaments closely parallel the text of the English King James Authorized Version of 1611, since that version was based closely upon Beza 1598, which differed little from its "Textus Receptus" predecessors. These Textus Receptus editions follow the Byzantine Majority manuscripts, which was predominant during the period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts.
S = Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
The text used is "h Kainh Diaqhkh: The New Testament. The Greek Text underlying the English Authorized Version of 1611" (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1977). This is an unchanged reprint of Scrivener's "The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorized Version" (Cambridge: University Press, 1894, 1902).
Scrivener attempted to reconstruct the Greek text underlying the English 1611 KJV for comparison to the 1881 English Revised Version. In those places where the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate (John 10:16), Scrivener inserted the Greek reading, as opposed to back-translating the Latin to Greek--which would have produced a Greek word with no Greek manuscript evidence. Scrivener's work follows the Byzantine Majority texts, and in many places matches the modern Alexandrian-based editions.
B = Byzantine Majority
The text is that identified by Freiherr Von Soden, "Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer altesten erreichbaren Textgestalt" (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911) and Herman C. Hoskier, "Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse" (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929). This technique of Byzantine identification and weighting was utilized by Hodges and Farsted in "The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text" (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982; 1985). It was subsequently utilized by Robinson and Pierpont, resulting in 99.75 percent agreement between the two texts.
The Byzantine Majority text is closely identified with the Textus Receptus editions, and well it should with greater than 98% agreement. As Maurice Robinson pointed out in his edition of the Byzantine Majority: "George Ricker Berry correctly noted that 'in the main they are one and the same; and [any] of them may be referred to as the Textus Receptus' (George Ricker Berry, ed., The Interlinear Literal Translation of the Greek New Testament [New York: Hinds & Noble, 1897], p. ii).
A = Alexandrian
(Some of the comments that follow will be confusing to anyone learned in the “Alexandrian dispute.” We will clear up this confusion at a later stage in the “text building” process.) The differences are those identified by the United Bible Society, 3rd edition, and utilized by modern translations such as the NIV and the NASB. While these variants come from manuscripts with less textual evidence than the Byzantine Majority, many of the differences are exactly the same as those identified by the Byzantine Majority and Scrivener. The percentage of variants is quite small and occurs mainly in word placement and spelling. Many of the variations identified are omitted or bracketed words, which is not surprising due to a significantly smaller base of text from this stream of transmission.