Over the past few years, my research on numeric patterns in the King James Bible has gained some attention online. If you’re new to this subject, a helpful place to begin is kjvcode.com or my YouTube channel @TruthisChrist, where I document many of these patterns in detail.
For those already familiar with the claims, an important question naturally arises: where does this research fit within the world of apologetics? Do these patterns have any legitimate place in defending the King James Bible? As with most things, opinions differ. Some see the patterns as compelling evidence of God’s hand in scripture, while others strongly object to them. One of the most notable critics has been Bryan Ross, author of several books and pastor of Grace Life Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Although Ross affirms the King James Bible as God’s preserved word for the English-speaking world, he has produced a video series arguing that these numeric patterns are misguided and harmful to KJB defense.
And that’s okay. I come from a design background. In my experience, criticism plays an important role. In design, it exposes frustrations, oversights, and flaws, and leads to a better end product; higher in quality and more user-friendly. In doctrine and theology, it leads to self-examination, sharpening of the mind, refined reasoning, and deeper study of scripture. But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: (1 Pet. 3:15).
So I appreciate Bryan taking the time to examine these claims. Anyone who hears the assertion that “God has proven the Bible with numeric patterns” should approach it with healthy skepticism. That is reasonable. At the same time, scripture also reminds us: “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him” (Proverbs 18:13).
Since Ross released his series in the summer of 2025, I have written several responses addressing the points he raised. Some of these responses were sent to Bryan privately at the time; others have never been published until now. In this article I will present them in the order they were written, alongside the relevant portions of his series.
I will not address every argument Ross (and later Nate) makes, since not all of it pertains directly to my research. Instead, I will focus on the areas where my work was criticized or represented inaccurately. For clarity, the article is organized as a timeline beginning with the correspondence Bryan and I had before his series was published. I am publishing this timeline so readers can see the full context of my interaction with Bryan Ross before and during his video series.
This will be a lengthy and detailed article, but I hope readers will examine the matter carefully. My goal is not controversy or condemnation. I only pray this brings clarity and honesty to those who are truly seeking out these matters in sincerity and singleness of heart.
All glory to our Lord Jesus Christ, world without end.
TIMELINE
November 2024: First contact with Bryan Ross
About 6 or 7 months before publishing his video series, Bryan Ross reached out to me with several questions regarding my research:
Ross to Peterson, 11-21-2024
Here are some of the questions I have. Please know that I ask these questions in complete sincerity.
- What verse in the KJB tells you to do all the searching & counting that you do?
- What verse in the KJB tells us how to do the counting?
- If there are no verses how do you know you are doing it currently and getting legitimate results?
- Could anyone have found these things out before the advent of more Bible search software?
- How do you know which software program is the correct one to use?
- Which edition of the AV are you searching 1611, 1769 or some other edition? How do you know which is the right one to search?
- What are you searching? Only the Biblical text? The Biblical text plus book names, chapter headings, marginal notes, postscripts, etc.? How do you know where to draw the line?
That is enough for now. I might have some follow-ups depending on your answers. Thanks for your consideration. Take your time answering if you need to.
Later that same day (November 21, 2024), I responded with a PDF explaining my answers in detail. Because the response was lengthy, it was easier to organize it in that format.
You can view that response here:
Peterson to Ross, 11-21-2024 (PDF)
The next day, Ross replied by annotating directly on top of my PDF. His annotated response can be viewed here:
Ross to Peterson, 11-22-2024 (Annotated PDF)
I then responded to those annotations with my own comments. After that exchange, the conversation ended and I did not receive any further reply.
You can view that final response here:
Peterson to Ross, 11-22-24 (Annotated PDF)
I believe it is important for readers to review this exchange. As you will see later in Ross’ video series, many of the questions and objections he raises there had already been addressed in this correspondence. For that reason, the way my position is later represented in the series was surprising to watch.
March 2025: Ross contemplates video series
In early 2025, I reached out to Bryan regarding his book on Passover while preparing for a discussion about Easter in the King James Bible on our podcast. During that exchange, Bryan informed me that he was considering producing a video series addressing his concerns about numerics in KJB defense.
He wrote the following:
Ross to Peterson, 3-3-2025
Hi Brandon,
I appreciate you reaching out last week regarding my book on Easter. I have recently purchased a copy of your book as well.
We have spoken in the past about my misgivings regarding the place of numerology in KJB defense. I am sure you are aware of my series of videos critiquing the teaching and methodologies of Gary Rovarino (Above God’s Name). Let me be clear: I do not think that you and Gary are the same. I see clear and large differences between the two of you. That said, you both occupy a similar space when it comes to KJB defense. I recently saw a video where Gary was trying to piggyback on one of your videos. While I am curious about what you make of Gary and his ministry, my main reason for writing is to notify you that I am contemplating making a couple of videos about my general concerns regarding numerology. This would include engagement with some of your material. I wanted to notify you of this directly and personally. Furthermore, I want to assure you that I have no issues with you and have appreciated the private conversations we have had. I simply don’t agree with some of your arguments and am worried about where all this is going in the pro-King James space. Anyway, I thought it was appropriate to notify you regarding these matters.
Grace,
Bryan
To which, I responded on the same day:
Peterson to Ross, 3-3-2025
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for reaching out about this. I’m glad you see a gap/difference between Gary and myself. I have no issue with Gary personally, but the way he does numerics is loose. He is very confident in his findings, but they really don’t hold against scrutiny. It fails the basic condition of a “miracle” or sign from God since anybody could produce similar (or greater) things in any book. I have seen some of Howard Elseth’s book as well, promoting numeric discoveries in the 1611 printing. They are nothing more than selective reporting and data dredging.
This is not to boast at all- I only boast in the Lord, as I myself am nothing if Christ is not abiding in me. I only say this in hope that you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater: the numeric anomalies I have presented have held against the scrutiny of mathematicians and PhD engineers from multiple countries/nationalities, and I’ve said before, have led many to believe the KJB is God’s perfect word. These perfect numeric counts have led staunch atheists to faith in Christ. I have received testimony after testimony (all glory to the Lamb!).
Again, I am not perfect. I am only perfect in Christ Jesus our Saviour. Jesus is perfect. The Holy Ghost is perfect. His word is perfect.
And it is a pure doctrinal fact that God uses numbers in scripture. We see this from testament to testament, cover to cover.
Read Genesis 1-2 where God rests on the 7th day and sanctifies it.
Read Matthew 1 which opens with Matthew’s numeric observation: 14 generations from Abraham to David. 14 generations from David to carrying away to Babylon. 14 generations from Babylon to Christ.
Read Luke 3 where Jesus is the 77th from God.
Read in Revelation where the Lamb has 7 horns, 7 eyes, standing in the midst of 7 golden candlesticks with 7 stars in his right hand.
Read in Psalms where God’s words are purified 7 times.
It is not a far-fetched idea that God would also number the words of his books perfectly, in a way that only he could do. That’s why many have speculated the same and tried to prove as much in the past.
But most of those people have utterly come short. I don’t think they have properly considered it. And maybe I haven’t either, but here is my underlying philosophy: If God did such a thing as number the words/names in his book, where would he place all the highest perfection? The Lord Jesus Christ. The Bible is the testimony of Jesus Christ. It’s all about him. If there is something more perfectly numbered than Jesus, all of it is meaningless because why would God elevate something higher than his Son?
If you haven’t reviewed this video yet (the numeric evidence presented after the 16 minute mark), I hope you find the time:
https://youtu.be/cYcB15SX6OU?t=980
On another note, I have taken a great interest in one of your previous questions to me: Where do we draw the line? How do we know where Bible numerics ends and mystic numerology (unbiblical numerics) begins?
On the surface, I believe it is quite simple: look at how God uses sevens in the Bible. When God commands Naaman to dip 7 times in the Jordan, was it just because God wanted to see him dip 7 times? Of course not. It’s to show Naaman that God is the true God. “Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel:”
Naaman doesn’t need to divide the 7 by anything or multiply it by anything, or apply it to anything other than the sign itself. It’s merely meant as a sign to confirm the pattern and will of God. To Naaman, who dipped seven times, the word of God was in perfect alignment with its fulfillment.
So when we see perfect alignments with Jesus and his own number of complete forgiveness (70×7), or other perfectly sevened numbers of high magnitude, or the 153 fishermen and the number 153, or Daniel and the number 70, or the men associated with 666 and 666, or with the first and last words/verses/chapters- the only conclusion a logical person can come to is that God did this. It wasn’t accidental. And again, all these patterns are clearly detailed and verifiable on kjvcode.com.
Nevertheless, your question has led me to research the numerical claims of Muslims, Torah ELS codes, Ivan Panin, Del Washburn’s theomatics, etc. And in general, I have looked into their critics who have disproved them.
This research is immensely helpful and has only strengthened my understanding and position that the KJB is uniquely inspired by God, and I would encourage you to dig into it as well so you have a fuller understanding of what you’re dealing with in the field of “numerics.”
https://www.truth-defined.com/CritiqueOfBibleNumerics.htm
https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/panin.html
https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/panin_mark.html
https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/moby.html
https://users.cecs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/mobygen.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/number-symbolism
https://ableever.net/wordpress/articles/theomatics/I have not watched the video you sent, nor do I really have any desire to. But maybe as a third-party witness, you can describe the difference between Gary’s discoveries and my own.
Thanks for the email and I pray the Lord gives you wisdom from above, which is pure and full of good fruits.
In Christ Jesus our Saviour,
BrandonPS- I wrote SBTK a few years ago, in 2022, when this was all pretty new. We have come a long way since then, so I pray your judgment is more heavily applied toward the featured patterns of KJVCode rather than the patterns in SBTK. I hope soon to write another book that filters out all of the dross, and only focuses on the most prominent witnesses.
There is an important detail in that exchange that readers should notice.
In the postscript of my response, I specifically acknowledged that my earlier book Sealed By The King (written in 2022) contained some patterns that were weaker than others. I explained that the research had progressed since then and encouraged Bryan to focus his evaluation on the strongest patterns presented on KJVCode.com, rather than relying primarily on material from earlier research in the book.
Again, I wrote:
“I wrote SBTK a few years ago, in 2022, when this was all pretty new. We have come a long way since then, so I pray your judgment is more heavily applied toward the featured patterns of KJVCode rather than the patterns in SBTK. I hope soon to write another book that filters out all of the dross, and only focuses on the most prominent witnesses.”
Despite this clarification, Ross’ first video does not begin by engaging the strongest patterns documented on KJVCode.com (or even from Sealed By The King). Instead, he highlights what is arguably one of the weakest patterns one could possibly find in my published research, without mentioning my own acknowledgement that some earlier material needed refinement.
Thus, absent from Ross’ critique are the major patterns repeatedly referenced in our correspondence, such as those related to the name of Jesus, the 153 patterns, and the 666 patterns, and his audience is censored from the greatest evidence, as Ross examines a tiny sampling of my weaker claims.
But don’t take my word for it. Watch for yourself.
May 2025: Ross publishes videos, I watch the first two
Episode 1: Addressing Misgivings Regarding Numerology In King James Bible Defense
When I finished watching the first episode, I was honestly surprised by what I had just seen. Given our previous correspondence, much of the presentation struck me as misleading. Instead of introducing the patterns that serve as strongest evidence, Ross focuses on some of the weakest examples from an my book; a book in which I had already informed him needed refinement.
Nevertheless, I decided not to respond immediately. Scripture warns against answering a matter before hearing it fully (Proverbs 18:13), so I chose to continue watching the series before forming a final judgment. I moved on to the second video.
Before doing so, however, there is something important to point out regarding the way Ross frames the entire discussion.
Ross repeatedly uses the word “numerology” in his titles, thumbnails, and vocabulary.
In common usage, numerology refers to something very specific: the belief that numbers influence human destiny or can be used to predict future events. In other words, it is associated with fortune-telling and occult practices.
For example:
- Merriam-Webster: “the study of the occult significance of numbers”
- Dictionary.com (American): “the study of numbers… to determine their supposed influence on one’s life or future”
- Dictionary.com (British): “the study of numbers, such as the figures in a birth date, and of their supposed influence on human affairs”
- Cambridge Dictionary: “the study of numbers in the belief that they have a special importance in people’s lives… Numerology gives individuals a life path number that is reached by a calculation involving date of birth… Currently numerology is used to predict the future and better understand human behavior patterns”
Numerology typically involves calculating “life path numbers” from birth dates or using numerical systems to predict future outcomes.
Ross’ video thumbnails feature my book Sealed By The King alongside astrology charts.
Ross’ thumbnail places my book beside astrology imagery, comparing KJB patterns with occult “numerology”
That is not what my research involves.
The claims I present have nothing to do with predicting the future or guiding one’s life through numbers. Instead, they examine observable numerical patterns that already exist in the biblical text itself: patterns which many of us believe point to the intentional design of God in the King James Bible.
For that reason, a more accurate description of the work would be:
- Bible numerics
- numeric patterns in the KJB
- numeric claims within the King James Bible
This distinction matters, because equating textual numeric analysis with occult numerology creates an inaccurate impression of the research before the discussion even begins.
Episode 2: ELS Bible Codes & The Inspiration of Moby Dick
While watching the second episode, I decided to reach out to Bryan and let him know I was following the series. I sent the following email on May 31, 2025.
Peterson to Ross, 5-31-2025
Going through your videos brother. I’m in part 2.
I’m open to being corrected, and I believe you are right about ELS codes. I’ve actually discarded them as insignificant a while ago.
I have also shied away from gematria. Your point is strong – it is often just selective reporting depending on which “cipher” (that’s what they’re called) produces the winning number. I haven’t discarded it entirely, but I’m very cautious, and I’m becoming more and more reluctant with it.
Bible numeric claims have been heavily dependent on gematria in the past, long before me. And there are a few gematria patterns that are hard to pass off as random, as they perfectly revolve around the values for Jesus Christ in both Hebrew and Greek, perfectly intertwined. I’ll continue to pray for discernment in this area.
As I said before, there are things in Sealed By The King that make too great of stretches. I’m looking forward to the day I get time to put together an updated book. Things like that 389 LORD els code would be gone in a heartbeat. All of this was new back when I wrote SBTK. I was excited but not matured in my understanding of all these things. I didn’t even identify them as Pure or Raw back then.
Btw, it’s strange why you’re starting off with all of the weak evidence. Hacking off low hanging fruit isn’t much of a concern to me. But it’s a bit misleading to your viewers, don’t you think? You grazed over the 77,777 pattern without telling people what it is, and how it perfectly overlaps with the last word Amen 77x case sensitive by itself. Maybe you will in a future episode? These are not “you can find it any book” patterns, and they perfectly align with God’s number 7 and his Alpha and Omega title. To ignore or downplay this is simply disingenuous, and shows you are probably just confirming your own bias.
Anyways, I am thankful you have made a clear separation between myself and Gary. I ended up watching 5 mins of his stuff today and I told my wife that there must be a better word than “cringe” and I’m not sure how people take them seriously.
There are many things you’re saying I object to, and it’s a bit grieving to watch a lot of this to be honest. But you’re new to all of this as well. And I’ll save my final judgment until I’ve seen everything you have to say.
Your approach is kind for the most part and your intentions are pure. God bless you. Praying for you in the Spirit.
Proverbs 2:3-7
In Christ,
Brandon
Bryan replied later that same day:
Ross to Peterson, 5-31-2025
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for reaching out. I truly have no ill will against you and appreciate your stance on the KJB as God’s word for English-speaking people. That said, I am concerned with how this subject matter is impacting KJB defense.
I am glad that you no longer support ELS Codes and most Gematria.
Your 77,777 number pattern was addressed in the 5th video. This was done by looking at your most recent video (5/20) titled, “A Simplified Breakdown of the Elton Anomaly (KJV 7^7 Count)”. My problem is that your pattern only works for the 8 criteria you listed in two editions of the AV (PCE & Concord). What are the implications for all other editions? The majority of the printed editions throughout history are not identical matches to the PCE & Concord texts. Are these not the word of God because they don’t match your number count? What about people who lived in the 17th, 18th, 19th, & 20th centuries, before the PCE & Concord editions? Why exclude the 12 items below the line? Gary would include everything in the 1611. Whose math and criteria are correct? How is one supposed to know?
The accusation that ELS & Gematria are “low-hanging fruit” is subjective. These things are not low-hanging fruit to anyone who accepts them. Was it low-hanging fruit when you supported these methodologies? Many are embracing them. Have you told your audience that you no longer believe that ELS & Gematria are legitimate? If so, where? In the meantime, people continue to be exposed to these methodologies via your book.
I am open to further discussions with you on these matters.
Grace,
Bryan
Just a quick note, neither Ross nor his associate Nate covered the 77,777 pattern in Episode 5 – which is quite unfortunate. He may have confused it with the 7^7 Elton Anomaly.
Here is my response, also sent the same day:
Peterson to Ross, 5-31-2025
Hey Bryan,
Hope you are well. Thanks for the quick reply. Here are my answers to your questions:
Your 77,777 number pattern was addressed in the 5th video.
Awesome, looking forward to Ep 5.
“What are the implications for all other editions? The majority of the printed editions throughout history are not identical matches to the PCE & Concord texts? Are these not the word of God because they don’t match your number count?”
Every KJB printed today matches the Concord or PCE word counts. KJBs before the 1900s were not fully standardized and they contained printing errors of various sorts. The King of kings would not place his divine seal of perfection (completion) on a copy of his book that is still being tried and purified. That would be illogical, and quite the blunder by the God who inhabits eternity. The only possibility that makes sense is that God waited until the printing errors were fixed and standardized readings were in place, in a point in time when (A) men could preserve that book forever in an unaltering state, and (B) men could verify it and behold it with their own eyes. Otherwise, his seal would fade into oblivion, and it would be pointless.
Question for you: Are we on the same page regarding the Bible? How would you answer Jesus if he asked: “Whence was it? from heaven, or of men?”
Why exclude the 12 items below the line?
Because they are debatable, alterable, and unnecessary for a complete King James Bible. The verse divisions have absolutely no variance from KJB to KJB. Chapter summaries do.
Gary would include everything in the 1611. Whose math and criteria are correct?
- Gary’s criteria (which doesn’t claim a 7^7 count) is limited to one edition of the KJB that includes printing errors and the Apocrypha.
- Elton’s criteria (which is verified with a 7^7 count) works with the word count of every KJB published both now and in the future, all around the world, generation after generation, world without end.
How is one supposed to know?
They said the same of Jesus, despite the obvious miracles in front of their eyes. (John 9:29-30)
But wisdom is justified of all her children. (Luke 7:35)
I’ve told you a few times now that I’ve received testimonies from around the world- atheists, prodigal sons, Muslims, and men of all sorts of backgrounds- who have come to Christ for salvation as a result of seeing these patterns. It makes it clear to them that the Bible is from God. It is the ultimate answer to the question: Is the Bible really from God?
RE: ELS & Gematria are “low-hanging fruit”
Based on your videos and this email thread, a spectator would think my research is heavily dependent on ELS and Gematria patterns. The fact of the matter is that these things are rarely mentioned in my research, which is one of the reasons why I call it low-hanging fruit.
As of now, I have not had the time to publish a new book, in which I plan to discuss all these things in depth. And it’s not super urgent either, since the major patterns I present and emphasize are not related to ELS codes. But I do have plans to make a video, possibly a small series, about these things in the future. Besides criticizing the weaker patterns in my own book, I have plans to scrutinize Ivan Panin’s research, and possibly Gary’s if the Lord leads me too.
But in the meantime, on KJVCode.com (FAQ page), I condemn ELS codes under the question “Hasn’t the Bible code (or ‘Torah code’) already been debunked?”:
https://kjvcode.com/faq/.I don’t have a public condemnation on Gematria. As I said in the last email, there are a few patterns that make it difficult to dismiss entirely. I discuss it a little bit here, explaining why mentions of words are much stronger empirical evidence than Gematria (Timestamp 31:24):
https://youtu.be/oDOnoAodINw?t=1884, but I will have a greater discussion on it in due time.Thank you for caring and for your defense of the KJB. Hopefully I’ll have the time to resume watching this coming week.
In Christ Jesus,
Brandon
Ross did not reply.
And just to clarify, I was not saying the KJB was not scripture before standardization. I’m simply trying to point out that the high-precision numeric patterns in the KJB today presupposes a settled text. The doctrine of preservation does not require every historical print-run to be numerically identical.
July 2025: I watch Ross’ 3rd video and respond privately
For the sake of the timeline, please note that Ross’ third video was published May 28, but I didn’t watch and respond to it until the end of July.
Episode 3: Numerology Nonsense: #7, the Quran, the Vedas, the KJB, Gematria & Text Criticism
After watching this episode, I began drafting a response that I initially intended to leave as a public comment on the video. However, before doing so, I was convicted to share my thoughts with Bryan privately first.
So instead of posting it publicly, I sent my response in an email. The following message reflects my thoughts at the time, written immediately after watching the episode.
Peterson to Ross, 7-30-2025
Hey Bryan,
Hope you are doing well.
I just listened to ep 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhM3bOPBvRc
I was going to leave a public comment, but I felt convicted about not telling you privately first. Here is my response I have typed out, copy and pasted:
Hi, Brandon here.
I love Bryan Ross as a brother in Christ. Thank you for giving the gospel so clearly at the end.
That being said, I must admit that it is shameful to watch all of the misinformation, ignorance, demonization, and false equivalences being set forth. I agree we need to have critical eyes, in the sense that we cannot allow anything to fly, since numbers can be creatively calculated into oblivion. We must be careful in this subject, and be cautious to understand something before making a faulty judgment, which so many have done hitherto, and continue to do to this day. At this point, I don’t believe we need any more people searching for hidden number patterns in the Bible, unless God calls them to. We simply need to read the Bible and believe it for what it plainly says.
Now then, here is my response to this video (Ep 3). I apologize in advance if anything comes across harshly. I write it all with a meek and contrite spirit:
Ross discusses gematria for most of this episode. I rarely ever bring up gematria so I’m not sure why it is being so heavily emphasized here. It is clear that Ross doesn’t understand how gematria works. He calls all of Ivan Panin’s research gematria, even when it’s clearly not gematria- such as the last 12 verses of Mark. Ross clearly does not understand the things he is criticizing.
Regarding Ivan Panin, Ross does not seem to know that Panin manipulated scripture to get his results (I have personally fact checked portions of it and documented it on my Telegram several months back). Panin’s methodology can produce “sevens” in virtually any lengthy text. I have replicated Panin’s methods in the last paragraph of Lord of the Rings and found 30-something Panin-esque “features of seven” that would supposedly suggest Lord of the Rings is inspired. Panin’s research is faulty and pointless, and perfectly fits the category of Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. Ross says all of Panin’s research is “the same in every way” as my own, attempting to lump Panin’s bogus claims with mine. This is bizarre and inaccurate. However, I think this is due to Ross not understanding what he is looking at- not sinister toward me.
Ross claims there is no objective standard. There is: the number of times words or names appear in the Bible. This is the principal method behind the strongest patterns, though for some reason Ross has chosen to highlight only weaker examples from my book… many of which were not even included on the KJVCode website, where I directed him to the most compelling evidence. This almost does seem sinister, or at least deceptive.
Ross says there are no scriptural grounds for how to count. On the contrary, the number of times a word shows up in the Bible has plenty of scriptural grounds. The Bible says, Every word of God is pure. That is a mathematical claim; “every” word must mean all. We are not to add or take away from his words because he has them exactly the way he wants them. This presupposes knowing the exact count of God’s words. Furthermore, God’s words, according to himself, are purified seven times (“seven” is a number, a number that God uses to signify rest and perfection).
Imagine if we didn’t know how many times the name of Jesus showed up in the Bible; how would we know if we ever took away from God’s word? It’s implicitly commanded that we know every word of God in order to not diminish or add to his word. And when we find marvellous alignments with the most important names of scripture and the number that perfectly fits the context of that person (e.g., Jesus / 70×7), then what are we to make of it? Nothing at all? Jesus accidentally spoke a number that represents complete forgiveness of sins, which would accidentally end up in perfect alignment with how many times his own name shows up in his own book? Ross’ bias seems to get in the way of seeing these clear connections.
These are the real patterns that have caused many to believe the KJB is inspired, and even to come to Christ for salvation. Ross hasn’t mentioned the Jesus 70×7 patterns though. I’m curious if he will. If he does, I can almost predict his approach: talk about them as briefly as possible, make them seem confusing, isolated, or cherry picked, as Ross himself isolates and cherry picks which pieces of info he is willing to share with his audience in order to make his case stronger. Ross is not the first to do this. Mark Ward and Jonathan Burris did the same. In their bias, they try to make the stronger patterns look as weak, insignificant, and confusing as they can (Burris, however, avoided the stronger patterns altogether).
I’m also trying to wrap my head around Ross’ point that these patterns are not intricately prescribed in scripture. I’m quite sure that Ross wouldn’t say that Jesus failed to fulfill prophecy because the shape of the cross wasn’t plainly described in the Law, and the exact location of Calvary was nowhere specified in the Prophets, neither was it anywhere stated in the Old Testament that the Messiah would rise again from the dead after three days in a garden tomb. Most messianic prophecies are concealed and spread throughout various times and places that would not seem to be talking about Christ in their immediate contexts. The most important part of the Bible, the gospel of our salvation, was hid from the world and from God’s own people until the appointed time. Even the angels desired to look into these things.
That’s how God works.
God fulfills prophecy through patterns, not specific detailed instructions as we would find on a Tylenol bottle, or as Ross demands for these patterns. Ross also condemns deeper meanings and mysteries and hidden wisdom, which is literally the words used by Paul to describe the gospel itself: “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory… But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.”
The “plain” truth is that God often fulfills his word through “deep” truths, not always through surface-level statements. “O LORD, how great are thy works! and thy thoughts are very deep.”
Ross further attempts to associate statistical word counts in the KJB with divination and gnosticism. These railings are both disturbing and unwarranted. Has Ross defined divination from the Bible? The number of times an author signed his name into his own book has absolutely nothing to do with putting a curse on somebody else, or proclaiming a false dream/prophecy, or fortune telling, or looking into a liver in order to decide which path to take.
Does Ross know what Gnostics believed? That the material world is evil… That the true God is distant and unknowable… That a lesser god (Demiurge) created the world… That human souls are divine sparks trapped in bodies… That Jesus came to reveal secret knowledge for the soul’s escape… heresy upon heresy. Gnostics twisted the scriptures to fit their perverted ideas. They tried to authenticate things that were not at all prescribed by God.
On the other hand, God does authenticate what he has himself prescribed, all throughout scripture. That’s the entire purpose of signs and miracles, and the recording of them. Ross and everybody else who uses the term “gnosticism” to label these patterns trivializes the repulsive heresies of the gnostics, and demonizes brothers in Christ who are genuinely seeking the Lord.
Question for Ross: Do you have a verse to suggest that God would never authenticate his word? Or that Jesus is not interested in the finest of details in scripture?
I hope I haven’t made you upset in my response. It is not my intention to hurt, but to bless, and to see the truth of God bless others. Prayerfully, seek the Lord on whether or not you judged these things with righteous judgment.
Ross acknowledged this response and invited me to post it publicly on his video, saying that it was only fair, since he has publicly criticized my claims. But I withheld. I really had no desire to cause division or judge the faults of my brother. I myself am so full of them.
Despite our disagreements, I still believe Bryan’s concerns were sincere. His hope appears to be protecting the King James Only position from arguments he believes could lead people into confusion or error.
That said, one issue remained difficult for me to understand: throughout the series, Bryan consistently avoids engaging what I have repeatedly presented as the strongest examples of the numeric patterns.
Many of those patterns, such as those involving the name of Jesus, and others I had previously shared, are never meaningfully addressed.
Because of that, the critique often focuses on weaker or peripheral examples while leaving the central evidence largely untouched.
After this exchange, our communication ended.
I set the video series aside for a time and did not return to it again until 2026. When I eventually continued watching the remaining episodes, I found myself once again amazed by how my research and arguments were being presented.
February 2026: I watch remaining videos, prepare detailed responses to Episodes 4 & 5
Episode 4: If This, Therefore That: The Self-Defeating Nature Of Numerology (Deductive Argument)
After watching Episode 4, I decided to write a response with the intent to share it publicly. I took the time to organize my reply over the course of a week or two, knowing I would eventually post it here on TruthisChrist.com. Neither Bryan Ross nor his friend Nate has seen this response until now.
RESPONSE TO EPISODE 4
Roadmap (what I’m going to show)
Before getting into details, here is an outline of what I’ll be touching:
- What would refute my case?
- The error of Nate evaluating my argument with deductive logic
- The strawman of “Any book with numerics is inspired”
- My actual argument
- Is it even possible to use a syllogism?
- Special pleading from Nate
- The Romans 6:6 illustration is not representative of my case
- Responses to methodological objections
- Where does the Bible tell us to count these things?
- “Other religions do this”
- Using both Raw and Pure counts
- Are repdigit numbers like 77 or 777 a scriptural form of emphasizing the number “7”? or is it a ‘logical fallacy’ as Nate describes?
1) What would refute my case?
I also want to be clear about what would genuinely undermine the argument I’m making.
If someone can reproduce a comparable network in another large body of text, where the most important names and figures are paired with contextually meaningful numbers (for example: Jesus and 70×7, the fishermen and 153, the men associated with 666, God and structured sevens of high magnitude like 7x7x7, 7777, etc.)—using consistent and coherent counting rules, and without selecting arbitrary targets or boundaries, then the force of my case would collapse.
In other words, we should be able to find a character—call him “Joe”—in a book where Joe is meaningfully associated with a particular number or numbers within the story itself. If the text were truly capable of producing the same kind of phenomenon, Joe’s name would then appear throughout the book in precise accordance with those very numbers in the most blatant and profound way (ideally in larger, highly specific magnitudes, where coincidence becomes increasingly unlikely due to the law of probability).
If such a structured, contextually meaningful network of numeric alignments could be demonstrated under fixed rules in other large texts, then my argument would fail.
In other words: this research is not “unfalsifiable.” It lives or dies on whether the patterns are truly constrained, coherent, and easy to replicate.
2) The error of Nate evaluating my argument with deductive logic
Nate claims to steel-man my position (build it up into the strongest possible argument), but in this episode at least, he does the opposite, and strawmans it into an house of cards. To be clear, I am not saying my position is a house of cards, but Nate’s redefined version of it definitely is.
To begin, it would help to clarify the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, since they are very different. Nate probably should have broken this down himself, since this video is intended for a general audience that doesn’t know the difference between deductive and inductive logic.
Deductive reasoning is pretty straightforward. With deduction, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is what Nate attempted to “steel-man” my argument with. The following syllogism is an example of deductive reasoning:
- If it is raining, the ground gets wet.
- It is raining.
- Therefore, the ground is wet.
Inductive reasoning, by contrast, moves from observations and patterns to the most reasonable explanation. Its conclusions are not guaranteed, but they are likely to be true if the argument is sound. We reason this way in most areas of life. For example:
- A suspicious man with a mask was seen entering and exiting a bank at the same time as the reported bank robbery
- Therefore, that man is a suspect for robbing that bank
My argument for the numeric patterns in the KJB is inductive, not deductive. So right off the bat, there is a huge category error taking place. Nate attempts to force my argument into a deductive form and then critiques that deductive version.
So the issue isn’t, “Peterson’s argument fails deductively.”
The issue is, deduction is the wrong tool for Peterson’s argument.
The next video in the series (episode 5) has “inductive argument” in the title, so I would assume Nate addresses my argument more legitimately then. But for now I will respond to the episode at hand where Nate chooses to employ deductive logic.
3) The strawman of “Any book with numerics is inspired”
I would never assert a universal rule like “any book with numerics is the Word of God,” as Nate claims. That’s a strawman because it replaces my actual argument with a much broader and weaker one that I have never defended (in fact I’ve directly opposed it to a man who was financially supporting my ministry at the time). Numerics could never serve as the foundation for divine inspiration. That would lead to confusion because the standard for which numbers to use would be completely arbitrary.
- Who decides which numbers are significant?
- Why those numbers rather than others?
- Why choose one sacred text over another?
- How would anyone know which boundaries and rules are legitimate?
Without scripture as the foundation, there is no stable standard at all. My argument begins with the Bible as the foundation, not with numbers. With the Bible as my foundation, I can see which numbers are significant and patterned by God himself.
4) My actual argument
Having established the Bible as the foundation, and not numbers themselves, here is the case I am actually making.
I have documented a very specific class of numeric structures that exist in the text of the King James Bible in its standardized and settled form. These numeric structures (or “patterns” as I call them) contain contextually charged numbers such as 70×7 (complete forgiveness, Mat. 18:22), 153 (the gospel catch, Joh. 21:11), 666 (the number of the beast, Rev. 13:18) and 7 (rest and perfection, Gen 2:2-3, Psa. 12:6, Rev. 5:6), however in greater and more unlikely forms such as 7x7x7, 777, 777×7, 77×77, 7777, 77,777 etc. Furthermore, these patterns have precise alignment with the subjects and themes in which they appear in scripture.
For example, the primary names of the fishermen who catch the 153 fishes are mentioned 153 times in the Gospels. The reasoning here is not “numerics → therefore God,” but rather that the contextually meaningful, constrained, and cumulative nature of these patterns greatly reduces the number of plausible explanations such as coincidence or human interference.
- Contextually meaningful: the numbers and their implied meanings are tied to the names of persons involved with those numbers in scripture (e.g. the men who caught the 153 fishes showing up in accordance with the number 153, all men associated with 666 showing up in accordance with the number 666, the man who forgave our sins 70×7 showing up in accordance with 70×7).
- Constrained: the numbers, subjects, meanings, and textual boundaries are fixed in advance, leaving very few degrees of freedom for accidental alignment. A coincidence that could occur in millions of ways is weak evidence. A coincidence that could occur in only a few specific (“constrained”) ways is strong evidence. For example, no other name in the Bible is associated with 70×7. No other groups of names found in the gospels produce 153 mentions.
- Cumulative: there are not just individual patterns sitting by themselves in isolation; there are sequences of patterns that bear witness to each other in progression and coherency.
If these patterns are as intentional as they appear, they would require orchestration and intelligence from a mind that knew exactly how the King James Bible would end up. And what other mind would we look to other than the author who put these numbers in scripture in the first place? The most straightforward answer is that these patterns were foreordained by the mind of God, which indicates God’s direct involvement with this particular translation. This is inductive reasoning. And it is the same type of reasoning used to infer criminal suspects, authorship, historical events, or intentional design in any other area of life.
5) Is it even possible to use a syllogism?
By forcing my argument into deductive form, the most we could ever establish is a conditional claim:
- If such patterns exceed reasonable human capacity,
- Then they imply intentional superintendence
But the move from that conclusion to identifying the God of the Bible as the intentional source is necessarily inductive. Nate’s attempt to force the argument into a deductive syllogism is a misapplication of logic, and in no shape or form steel-mans my position.
6) Special pleading from Nate
In the world of logic, Nate’s presentation would be considered “special pleading” since Nate could never use a syllogism (deductive reasoning) to defend his own King James Only position. He insists I use one, but he could never pull it off for his own pro-KJB arguments.
Special pleading occurs when a standard is imposed on an opposing position while one’s own position is exempted from that same standard. A deductive syllogism cannot establish any particular preserved text including the King James Bible. Thus, requiring a syllogism here would therefore invalidate every KJVO position. Nate’s “logic” is simply illogical.
7) The Romans 6:6 illustration is not representative of my case
Nate discusses “man” being the 6th word of Romans 6:6. Though he is incorrectly using deductive logic again, I agree with Nate’s conclusion: it is not strong evidence for intentional design. The word “man” being the 6th word of Romans 6:6 is not a proof that I have put forth, nor would I ever suggest it to be proof for a perfect Bible. Why isn’t Nate showing the patterns of the highest significance that I’ve set forth if he is trying to steel-man my position? If he were steel manning my case, he would either demonstrate the strongest evidence or some sort of hypothetical claim that exceeds the strongest evidence.
I’m not trying to pick on Nate, just as he is not trying to pick on me. But for the sake of anybody watching, I think it’s important to show how misleading this refutation is, even if the intentions were good.
Instead of using deductive logic, we should be looking at the likelihood of “man” being located in a particular verse, and then observe the likelihood of it being the 6th word of the verse. This will help us understand the event at hand- whether it was a massive coincidence or just an ordinary one that could show up in any large body of text.
The word “man” or “man’s” shows up in 2425 verses of the Bible, which breaks down to roughly ~1 in every 13 verses of the Bible containing the word “man(’s)”.
The odds that Romans 6:6 contains the word man(’s) is an unimpressive 1 in 13. Now let’s further observe the chances of man(’s) being the 6th word of any particular verse.
The word “man” or “man’s” is the 6th word of 140 different verses of the Bible. Here are the surrounding statistics in the KJB:
- Man(’s) is the 1st word of the verse in 7 verses
- man(’s) is the 2nd word of the verse in 66 verses
- man(’s) is the 3rd word of the verse in 261 verses
- man(’s) is the 4th word of the verse in 189 verses
- man(’s) is the 5th word of the verse in 128 verses
- man(’s) is the 6th word of the verse in 140 verses
- man(’s) is the 7th word of the verse in 101 verses
- man(’s) is the 8th word of the verse in 133 verses
- man(’s) is the 9th word of the verse in 103 verses
- man(’s) is the 10th word of the verse in 106 verses
Based on these statistics, it doesn’t seem to be very abnormal for “man” to be the 6th word of Romans 6:6. Out of 2425 verses that mention man(’s), 140 of them have man(’s) as the 6th word, which is about a ~1 in 17 chance.
So we have a ~1 in 13 chance combined with a ~1 in 17 chance. Assuming we scrambled the verses of the Bible along with the word order of each verse, we would have a ~1 in 221 chance that man(’s) is the 6th word of Romans 6:6. This is not very impressive. In fact, we could easily find anomalies that are even more impressive in the Quran or other large books.
Nate did a good thing by showing how 9 other versions also have “man” as the 6th word of Romans 6:6, clearly showing it is not an extraordinary event in the KJB.
If all of the high magnitude patterns I present were to be present in 9 different translations, it would be reasonable to suggest one or more of the following:
- The patterns are likely to happen in any translation
- The patterns are not that special
- God’s hand was not uniquely upon the King James Bible
There are other options of course, such as God inspiring all 9 of those translations. But I hope my point is clear: I would never use Romans 6:6’s “man” as evidence for the perfection of the KJB. Just because other people do, doesn’t mean I would. If you’re steel-manning my position, I’m not understanding the purpose of mentioning this weak numeric claim. Why wouldn’t you bring forth the strongest patterns that I have presented?
The strongest patterns that I present are hardly at all present in other translations, even in older English Bibles that pre-date the KJB, making this Romans 6:6 event a false analogy fallacy if Nate is hoping that viewers associate it with my research, claims, and argument. Again- Nate didn’t attribute this pattern to me, but he did sandwich it between other things that are directly related to my claims and research.
8) Responses to methodological objections
8.1) In response to: Where does the Bible tell us to count these things?
Ross believes it is arbitrary to count how many times a certain word or name (such as Jesus) shows up in the Bible. Ross says there are no scriptural grounds prescribing how to count, therefore suggesting that the practice of word counting contradicts scripture.
This however is an argument from silence, because nowhere in scripture does the Lord condemn such a practice. Thus, Ross asserts a dogma that is not even itself supported by scripture.
But I would take it a step further, and push back on Ross’ claim altogether. The Bible says, “Every word of God is pure…” which is a mathematical claim; “every” word must mean “all”. Imagine if you copied my entire Bible to print for yourself, but at the end of the copying process, you found out the word count was 1000 words greater than mine. That is a major discrepancy, and surely you would feel obliged to resolve such an issue, so that words are not missing from the Bibles that you publish. It’s implicitly commanded that we know every word of God in order to not diminish or add to his word. We are not to add or take away from his words because he has inspired them exactly the way he wants them.
If that were all the scripture we had, surely it would be enough to reason that God has every one of his words in mind, and that God works in patterns of numbers, and that God numbers just about everything that he considers holy. But we have a much greater verse in the holy scriptures that Ross fails to mention: God’s words, according to himself, are purified seven times (Psalm 12:6). Seven is a number- a specific number that God uses all throughout scripture to signify rest and perfection. And it is with sevens that the most extraordinary word counts appear in the King James Bible, perfectly fitting to Psalm 12:6.
And lastly, Ross fails to mention or answer my pill bottle argument, which I have brought up to him in the past. To suggest that these patterns are not intricately prescribed in scripture is a self-defeating argument, since no fulfilled prophecy of scripture was prescribed in such a manner. Jesus didn’t fail to fulfill prophecy because the shape of the cross was not plainly described in the Law, and the exact location of the Messiah’s blood atonement was nowhere specified in the Prophets, neither was it anywhere explicitly stated in the Old Testament that the Messiah would offer his own blood for the sins of the world, claim to be the Son of God, or rise again from the dead after three days in a garden tomb as proof he is that person.
Rather, most messianic prophecies are concealed and spread throughout various times and places that would not seem to be linked to each other or even talking about Christ in their immediate contexts. The most important part of the Bible, the gospel of our salvation, was hid from the world and from God’s own people until the appointed time. Even the angels desired to look into these things.
That’s how God works.
God fulfills prophecy through patterns, not specific detailed instructions as we would find on a Tylenol bottle, or as Ross demands for these patterns.
Here are some of the main verses I defer to:
- Isaiah 28:10-13 – English is acceptable, as its the world language of the end times
- Isaiah 34:16 – God’s book available to the world in the end times
- Proverbs 30:5 – Every word of God is pure
- Psalm 12:6 – God’s words are compared to silver purified 7 times
- Psalm 119:96 – Referring to God’s commandment, there is an end of all perfection
8.2) In response to: “I found scores of videos and other things in my research of non-Christians doing the same thing with their holy books.” (Ross, Ep 4, Timestamp 32:54)
This statement attempts to dismiss the KJB patterns by appealing to their association with non-Christian practices. Basically, the argument is a “guilt by association” fallacy.
- Practice X is done by non-Christians/other religions.
- Therefore, Practice X is antichrist or evil.
If we were to apply this line of reasoning consistently, I think we would be in bad shape:
- Prayer: Muslims, Jews, and various other religious and secular groups practice prayer. Should the lost world’s exercise of prayer be a clear indicator that prayer is evil?
- Good Works / Charity: Nearly every major world religion and secular humanist philosophy champions acts of charity, good works, and generosity. God’s calling in our lives to do good works is not voided because non-Christians are also charitable.
- Apologetics: Defending one’s worldview, theological claims, or scripture against external challenges is a common practice across numerous belief systems. The existence of Islamic apologetics does not make Christian apologetics any less necessary or true.
Imagine all of the other things we could list: reading scripture, worship, evangelism, etc. In each of these cases, the association is irrelevant to the truth or validity of the practice within our faith as Bible believers. The KJB numerical claims are justified in that God, who works in patterns of numbers throughout scripture, says that every word of God is pure- purified seven times (Prov. 30:5-6, Psalm 12:6). In order to refute the numeric patterns of the KJB, which are vastly superior by nature than any other claim I have seen, they must be proven statistically and contextually false; you need to coherently demonstrate their insignificance.
8.3) In response to: Using both Raw and Pure counts
If you’re unfamiliar with the distinction, Raw mentions simply count how many times a word or phrase appears in the text as written, without attempting to filter out “lookalike” occurrences that match the same letters but refer to someone else. (I call these lookalikes “antimentions”.)
For example, in the KJB, there are 983 Raw mentions of “Jesus” (including possessive forms such as Jesus’). If you include the hyphenated, lowercased Bar-jesus in Acts 13:6, that would make 984.
Pure mentions, by contrast, are designed to count only the occurrences that refer to the intended subject. So with the name Jesus, Pure counting excludes the few places where “Jesus” refers to someone other than Christ, namely Acts 7:45, Colossians 4:11, and Hebrews 4:8. When those antimentions are removed, there are 980 Pure mentions of “Jesus” in the King James Bible.
That’s why I use both. Raw and Pure are not competing standards I “switch between” to salvage a point. They are two clearly labeled categories that answer two different questions:
Raw: “How many times does this string of letters appear in the Bible?”
Pure: “How many times does this word refer to the person or subject in view?”
And here’s the key point: each category stands on its own.
- If we set Pure patterns aside entirely and pretend it doesn’t exist, the Raw patterns alone are still extraordinary and strongly suggest intentional design.
- If we set Raw patterns aside entirely and pretend it can’t be used as evidence, the Pure patterns alone are even more striking, because they don’t jumble together multiple persons with the same name. If God truly inspired the patterns, most of us would expect him to make a difference between Jesus Christ and a felloworker of Paul named Jesus.
Nate also claims it’s deceptive to present both Raw and Pure patterns as evidence. I disagree. What would be deceptive is to blur the categories, or to quietly slide between them without telling my audience. But that’s precisely what I do not do; I label them openly and consistently.
In my opinion, it would be deceptive to show a highlight reel of Lionel Messi scoring a few mediocre, mundane goals, but failing to show his most amazing ones, and then using that curated reel to argue that Messi is not that great of a soccer player. Likewise, it’s a bit deceptive to conceal from your audience the strongest patterns and evidence, spotlight only a few, weaker patterns, and then claim the body of research as a whole is insignificant.
8.4) In response to: Are repdigit numbers like 77 or 777 a scriptural form of emphasizing the number “7”? or is it a ‘logical fallacy’ as Nate describes?
Repdigits are clearly seen in the number of the beast, 666.
But it happens with sevens as well. In Ezra 8:35, we read of 77 lambs being offered to the LORD, alongside other symbolically numbered sacrifices: 12 bullocks, 96 rams (12×8), and 12 he-goats. Clearly the 77 lambs are a purposeful repdigit of 7.
Lamech the father of Noah died at 777 years old, becoming the 7th man to die from Seth’s line: 1. Adam / 2. Seth / 3. Enos / 4. Cainan / 5. Mahalaleel / 6. Jared / 7. Lamech
Lamech’s age of death seems to have been a warning and sign from God to everybody on the earth to listen to his prophecy of his son Noah. The antediluvian world was well familiarized with 7 as God’s number. They knew about God’s warning to Cain of sevenfold vengeance- which wasn’t a warning to Cain, but to anybody who thought about slaying Cain.
The proof that everybody knew this is found in Genesis 4:24 when the Lamech of Cain’s line proclaimed that anybody who tried to slay him would be avenged 77 times. The reason he said 77 times is because he killed two men, and the number 77 has two sevens: a seven for each man he killed. But his use of adding a repdigit was one-upped by God when the Lamech of Seth’s line died at 777 years old.
By giving his son the name of Noah, Lamech prophesied to the people that: “This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.” (Genesis 5:29) Notice how he uses the word “us”. Lamech was prophesying to those who were with him, as he was inspired to name Noah, who would grow up to become a preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5).
Sadly, nobody listened to Noah’s preaching, nor did they pay any heed to his father’s prophecy after hearing he died a young man at exactly 777 years old, a statistical anomaly at that time as it was ~150 years earlier than everyone else’s lifespan.
End of Response to Episode 4
Episode 5: If This, Therefore That: How Numerology Undercuts Doctrine? (Inductive Argument)
Do I only promote one particular edition of the KJB?
Not at all. When I say Concord vs PCE, I’m not claiming that there are only 2 valid editions of the King James Bible. I am claiming that the word count of the King James Bible in general has settled into two ultimate forms, and that any printing of a King James Bible from a major publisher (and nearly all printings from minor publishers) will conform to one of these two settled counts.
There are more granular edition distinctions if we get into the details, but in terms of total word-count frameworks, these labels are accurate and useful.
Timestamp 27:54 – At this point Nate again frames my foundation as numerics rather than scripture. Below is a clear comparison between Nate’s strawmanned version of my argument vs my actual argument.
| Peterson’s Argument according to Nate (Strawmanned) | Peterson’s Argument according to Peterson (Actual) |
| 1. The KJB has numerological oddities | 1. In scripture, there is a “book of the LORD” that is available for all the earth to seek out of and read in the end times (Is. 34:16) |
| 2. These oddities seem to fit a discernable pattern | 2. Throughout scripture, God uses numbers in patterned, meaningful contexts |
| 3. These oddities occurring randomly are highly improbable | 3. In scripture, God says every word is pure, and ties his words to purification “seven times” (Prov. 30:5; Psalm 12:6) |
| 4. Because of 2 and 3 these seem to be by design and are “miraculous” (from design inference) | 4. The KJB contains specific anomalies in its word counts where biblically meaningful numbers align with the most important names/subjects of scripture |
| 5. Miraculous implies God’s involvement | 5. The patterns are meaningful, constrained, cumulative, and low-probability, pointing to intentional design |
| 6. The best explanation is that God designed these patterns as hidden verification in the KJB | 6. Because no other plausible explanation makes sense (such as coincidence or manipulation or Satanic deception), the only rational conclusion is that God himself foreordained the King James Bible with word counts that perfectly fit the numbers that he himself emphasizes in the plain reading of scripture |
| 7. Therefore, God has special interest in the KJB specifically | 7. Therefore the KJB is the book of the LORD in its fulness, with internal numeric witness |
| 8. Therefore, the KJB is the unique Word of God to the exclusion of all other books that purport themselves to be the Word of God | 8. Therefore all scripture that agrees with the settled KJB can be understood as God’s pure words throughout time |
Episode 6: Numerology Predicts The Birth & Ministry Of Gail Riplinger: A Plea For Realism & Clear Guidelines
I agree with Ross that this type of numerics is random and leads to confusion. My concern is the comparison itself: these speculative claims are not equivalent to the constrained, scripture-defined patterns documented on kjvcode.com involving biblically meaningful numbers such as 70×7, 153, and 666.
Episode 7: Numerological Proof Texts & The Isaiah Mini-Bible Argument
I have never endorsed the Isaiah mini-Bible argument in my research; this episode does not address my claims.
March 2026: I publish this timeline
If you’ve read through this entire timeline… wow. You deserve a certificate of achievement for diligently seeking out this matter. Thank you for taking the time.
I realize that comments are not enabled on this website, but I want to make it clear that I am open to further discussion. If Bryan Ross or Nate would like to respond to anything written here, I would be happy to post their reply in full.
My email is:
peterson6x@gmail.com
Grace and peace to all who are seeking the truth of God’s word.
Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us,
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Ephesians 3:20–21
God bless.