[49] Grammatical Proof that the Bible is Written in a Symbolic Code

At last, after 13 years of research we have found something that for most of that time we believed was going to be there. We have found a set of rules that the wording of bible accounts must obey. 

1. A bible account is a stand alone bible story. If the bible is a play then the books of the bible are the acts in the play and the bible stories, the bible accounts, are the scenes in those acts. These bible stories often, but not always, coincide with the chapters of the book. One of Jesus’ parables can be a bible story for example.  

Prospective Rules for a new account:

[1] New location which was not a part of the previous narrative
[2] New time frame which was not a part of the previous narrative
[3] Completely new audience, who were not a part of the previous narrative
[4] New lead character who was not a part of the previous narrative.

2. Every bible account is either literal, symbolic or partly literal and partly symbolic. Every literal bible account has one literal meaning and can also have one or more word symbolic meanings. Every symbolic bible account (such as a parable) has an event symbolic meaning and can also have one or more word symbolic meanings.

3. An event symbolic meaning is the symbolic interpretation of the events that a symbolic account is describing. A word symbolic meaning is the symbolic interpretation of the words that are used to describe the events of a bible account. It is not an interpretation of the events themselves.

4. A Countable Noun is a Greek or Hebrew noun in the original bible text that acts as a noun and not as a possessive adjective. Greek nouns in the genitive preceded by prepositions or by improper prepositions are countable, they are in the genitive not due to a possessive use but due to the genitive case being taken by the preposition. Hebrew absolute nouns preceded by a construct noun are possessive and therefore not countable - for more see codeC8

5. A Successive Designation is a countable noun followed or preceded by one or more successive nouns, or one or more successive words or phrases acting as nouns, all describing the same object in the account. For example ‘Nebuchadnezzar the king’, or ‘John the Baptist’, or ‘Jesus Christ’. The successive nouns can be implied rather than stated. Here is the full definition...

The double or triple or quadruple or quintuple or sextuple designation (which we use to mean two, three, four, five or six successive designations), is the most important prophetic form in the bible. Here is the definition and the effect of this form... 

If a character or item designated by...

1. A noun acting as a noun
2. An adjective acting as a noun (which almost invariably means that it is preceded by 'the' i.e. is definite or is in the construct in Hebrew)
3. A participle, (a verb used as an adjective), which adjective is acting as a noun, (which means that it must be preceded by 'the' i.e. is definite - such as 'the scorched [one]' or is in the construct in Hebrew)
4. A gerund (a verb acting as a noun such as a 'smoker')
5. The implied phrase 'The [one]' where '[one]' is implied and is of course acting as a noun.
6. The word 'tiV' meaning a certain one.
7. The word 'eiV' meaning 'one'.

is referred to by two or more successive such designations, both/all of which are definite or both/all of which are indefinite.

And if all the designations when taken separately in the context of the verse act as nouns and the verse makes sense with each designation standing alone (which means that the designations must all be in the same case in Greek). In the case of parallel account, you can use the information in all the parallel accounts to help make sense of each separate designation.

And if the first one of the successive designations is actually a noun acting as a noun (i.e. is a countable noun).

And if any possessive pronoun in one of the successive designations is also in all other succeeding or preceding designations.

Then we have a successive designation, and there are two or more Word Symbolic meanings to that account. The account possesses two or more Word Symbolic threads/strands/meanings. 

For more - see CodeC6b.

6. The total number of literal and symbolic meanings of any account is the number of threads of that account.

7. Every literal or symbolic bible account which has no successive designations and which has every countable noun appearing an odd number of times in the account, has only one meaning, only one thread. It has no word symbolic meanings.

8. Every literal or symbolic bible account which has no successive designation and which has at least one countable noun which appears an even number of times (having the same meaning each time), in the account has one word symbolic meaning and therefore has two threads.

9. Every literal or symbolic bible account which has a successive designation, has a number of Word symbolic threads equal to the number of designations in the largest successive designation in the account. So if it has a triple successive designation then it has 3 word symbolic threads, and therefore it has 4 threads in all, since every account also has either a literal thread, an event symbolic thread, or a part literal/part event symbolic thread in addition to any word symbolic threads.

10 A countable noun chain is a countable noun qualified by one or more possessive nouns, such as: The tractor of the slave of the king.

Having made the above detailed grammatical definitions, here is the big picture…

Rule 1: The total number of different meanings that a countable noun takes in all the threads of a literal or a symbolic bible account is the largest number, that is less than or equal to the number of threads in the account, which divides the number of times that the noun appears in the account. So if a countable noun appears a prime number of times in an account and if the number of threads of the account is not that prime number, then the noun only takes one meaning in all the threads, it is invariant in every thread. But if the noun appears six times and the account has 3 threads, then the noun takes 3 meanings, a different meaning in each thread. This is how we work out what the greater meanings of the various nouns in bible accounts might be. Only nouns take greater meanings in bible accounts.

Check 1: The total number of countable nouns in a literal or in a symbolic account is divisible by the number of threads in that account. If literal or symbolic account has 3 threads then it has 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, 45, 48, 51, 54, 57, 60 etc nouns in it. If literal or symbolic account has 2 threads then it has an even number of countable nouns in it etc. This is a simple grammatical proof that the bible is inspired. This count is called the CNC (Countable noun count). LCNC is the literal CNC and SCNC is the symbolic CNC.

Check 3: If the literal account has a symbolic sub-account then the SCNC and the SINC of the literal account match the number of threads either in the literal account itself if it has symbolic words embedded in it, or in one of the symbolic subaccounts. If there are no symbolic subacounts then SCNC and SINC can be anything. In other words once there is a symbolic subaccount, then the SCNC and SINC of the whole literal account must match one of its options (either the literal account itself if it has symbolic words, or any symbolic subaccount).

Check 4: Any account with which has a double designation and which does not have any adjective acting as a noun must contain a countable noun which appears a number of times which is a multiple of the number of designations in the largest successive designation in the account. So for example if the largest successive designation in an account is a double designation then either there is a countable noun repeated a multiple of 3 times in that account or there is an adjective acting as a noun in the account. This is because there is no point in having a word symbolic thread in which no noun or word acting as a noun takes a greater meaning. 

Check 5: This one is more complex - Here are the rules:

[1]    From the Repetition Principle and the Successive Designations Principle, we know that every literal or symbolic bible account which does not have a Successive Designation but which does have an even number of incidences of a given noun acting as a noun, must have precisely one word symbolic thread.

[2]    From the Successive Designations Principle, we know that every literal or symbolic bible account which has a Successive Designation has at least two word symbolic threads and therefore certainly has one word symbolic thread.

[3]    From the Designations Principle, we know that any character or item in an account referred to by a given number of non successive differing nouns has these nouns standing for that number of different characters or items in the totality of all the various word symbolic threads of the account (if such exist).

[4]    From the Repetition Principle, we know that a noun acting as a noun which appears n times in an account with m total literal/event symbolic and word symbolic threads, takes a total number of meanings in all the word symbolic and non word symbolic threads equal to the largest factor of n which is less than or equal to m.  

If you put all these 4 together, then for bible accounts with at least one word symbolic thread (which is most of them) and with at least one multiply designated character or item (which also is a large fraction of them) we have two equations for the same thing (so long as none of the multiple designations stand for more than one character or item per symbolic meaning). 

So long as each of the multiple designations only stands for one character or item per meaning then we have two ways of calculating the total number of meanings (which is the total number of characters or items) represented in the word symbolisms by a multiply designated character or item in the account. We can calculate the number of incarnations of a character or item from the number of designations of that character or item. And we can calculate the total number of meanings of all of the designations of a multiply designated character or item from the number of repetitions of each of the designations themselves. 

Since both of these calculations must yield the the same answer we have now established a relationship between the number of different designations of a character or item in an account and the number of recitals of each of these designations in the account. There is of course no reason for such a relationship to exist unless the bible is indeed in a grammatical code. Furthermore by showing that this relationship holds true in all of a reasonable number of bible accounts, then we 'prove' that the bible is in a grammatical code. It is like the apostle Paul said:

5 Not that we of ourselves are adequately qualified to reckon anything as issuing from ourselves, but our being adequately qualified issues from God,
6 who has indeed adequately qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant, not of a written code (grammatoV), but of spirit; for the written code (grammatoV) condemns to death, but the spirit makes alive (2 Corinthians 3).

The Lords' Witnesses are (perhaps) adequately qualified to be ministers of a further new covenant of a written code which condemns an entire world to death an Armageddon. The Greek word for written code is basically 'grammar', which is the code of writing.

So let us examine a whole load of Gospel accounts just to see if these predicted relationships hold true. Checks 1 and 2 are the most powerful since they are simple noun counts and work for every bible accounts. In order to check a bible account to see if it obeys the rules above we need to create a code preserving translation from the original language. All of the accounts below from the Gospels, have been amended directly from the Greek so as to make them code preserving translations. We simply ensure that Greek countable nouns become English countable nouns etc. The reader can check this using a Greek Interlinear Bible and a Greek Lexicon - see recommended books. 

Rules for counting Greek Nouns

Orange text is for successive designations
Blue text is for explanations
Black text for literal countable nouns 
Green text for symbolic countable nouns
Brown text is for possessive nouns (which are not countable)
Red is for word where Mounce and Barclay Neuman Lexicons disagree!
Purple is for Hebrew words which are not proper Greek words

Countable nouns

All nouns are countable except when they are genitives which are not being used as nouns. There are only 4 types of non countable genitive nouns...

[a]  'Noun of noun' Genitive nouns used as possessive adjectives to a noun or to a word used substantively (Son of Joseph)
[b]  Genitive nouns used comparatively which are true possessives in Greek do not count (Greater [meizon] [one] of Jacob)
[c]  Genitive nouns used as characterizers for incomplete adjectives (full [plhrhV] of holy spirit)
[d]  Gentive nouns used as non possessive adjectives to a nouns or to a word used substantively (roll of myrrh)

11 Truly I am saying to you, in [ones] generated of women not has been produced greater [one] of John, the Baptist [i.e. John the Baptist's greater one has not been produced] (Matthew 11).

36 But I have the witness greater [meizw] of John [than the [one] of John, possessive] (John 5).

Something more [pleion] than/of Jonah is here [counts, not a possessive]

Greater [meizon] [one] of Jacob

exw, esw, exwqen, eswqen

These words are used be used substantively when static or when definite and as improper prepositions when motive and indefinite...

40 Unreasonable [ones]! He that made the outside [exwqen] made also the inside [eswqen] [both used substantively], did he not? (Luke 11)

They led him out, outside [exw] of the city [outside is used staticly]
They led him inside [exw] of the courtyard [inside is used motively]

Authority [exousan] of cities
Authority [exousan] of to trample upon serpents [adjectival phrase]
Authority [exousan] of unclean spirits
Need of Witnesses [not a witnesses' need, not possessive, but adjectival, descriptive]

Being filled of holy spirit, of rage, of madness, of fear, [Genitive indirect object]

Incomplete noun characterized adjectives such as worthy of, full of, guilty of etc. take non countable completing genitive nouns...

Produce fruits, [ones] worthy [AcioV] of repentance  
A worker is worthy of his wages
He is guilty of death
He was full [plhrhV] of holy spirit
He is full [plhrhV] of leprosy

Son of Abraham [genetically]
Son of Abraham [by covenant]
Face of God [Metaphorical, he has no human face, but does have a invisible countenance detectable by angels]
Face of Heaven/Sky [Taking face to mean visible countenance. Animals have a visible countenance.]
Stumbling block is metaphorical

Devil and Wilderness and Jews and Enemy, look like nouns but are adjectives.
MoicaliV is a noun meaning 'adulteress' (Mounce), but it is mistranslated as adulterous, an adjective in in Mark 8:38, Matthew 12:39 and Matthew 16:4.

All other types of genitive nouns, such as partitive genitives, genitive direct objects, genitives of prepositions, genitives of improper prepositions etc. are countable. That is the whole of the law of noun counting. But Greek has some irregularities which complicate the application of this law. 

1. A noun that is in the genitive due to being preceded by a proper preposition or an improper preposition (which is not used substantively) is countable, that genitive is not possessive. 

epi, peri, ek, dia, meta, pro, eiV, proV, apo, para, uper, upo

2. Partitive Genitive Nouns count unless preceded by a noun. 'Some [tiV] of the boats' and 'One [eiV] of the boats', 'None of the men', 'The older [ones] of the people',  have boats/people/men in the genitive but count, effectively there is an implied 'ek' meaning 'out of'. The largest [one] of the vegetables would also count 'vegetables' since the genitive is again partitive. 'Another of the disciples' counts in Matthew 8:21. 

The 'remainder of the chickens' or 'the multitude of the fish' have partitive genitives preceded by partitive/quantitive nouns so 'remainder' and 'multitude' count but 'chickens' and 'fish' do not.

The Greek word plhrwma meaning: that which fills up, a filling, a plenitude, enough to fill, takes a genitive for whatever is being filled, but this noun appears to count. So plhrwma kofinwn is translated: ones-filling baskets, not: plenitudes of baskets and plhrwma spuridwn is translated: ones-filling provision baskets.

3. Genitive singular nouns following comparative adjectives are descriptive and so do not count. He is stronger than an ox, in Greek is: He is stronger of an ox. Which is really: He is the ox's stronger. We do say the Paul is Peter's stronger in English. So the genitive is possessive, so it does not count. But plural genitive nouns following comparative or superlative adjectives do count, since these are partitive. The largest [one] of the vegetables, would count 'vegetables', since it is just another way of picking a vegetable. The same would be true for 'the larger of the vegetables'. There is essentially an implied 'ek'. But a debtor greater besides [para] all men (Luke 13:4) with an explicit comparative preposition has the genitive 'men' not counting. There is no implied 'ek', it is not partitive. 

4. Herodian  (Mark 3) is a noun (Mounce agrees). But Cananaean (Matthew 10:4 and Matthew 15:22) is an adjective like Judaean and Galilean, their neighbours! (Mounce is silly here, he has KananaioV as a noun and CananaioV as an adejctive!) Galilean and Judean are adjectives. But we must be careful about ioudaioV meaning jewish and ioudaia meaning Judea. The only disagreement which we have with Mounce is kuklw which he has as an adverb but we have as a dative noun which is plainly its derivation.

5. plhqhoV does not count in the INC since it means 'a multitude' or 'a large number' [of] which is not symbolically interpretable - see Mark 3:8. Likewise the Greek word for number 'ariqmoV' also has no INC count - see John 6:10. Also 'meroV' meaning 'part' is not symbolically interpretable and so has no INC count unless part of a possessive noun chain - see Luke 11:36, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 15:21, Mark 8:10, Luke 15:12. In general quantifying nouns (integral multipliers or fractional multipliers) have no INC not being symbolically interpretable. But noun chains starting with: Multitude, Number or Part, have INCs if their possessive nouns are not already known from separate appearances.

6a. Any word that takes two literal meanings in an account counts twice in the INC. So far we have seen this for: Day (12 hour or 24 hour), Time [cronoV](a time of the day or a number of times), Heaven (the atmosphere or God's home).

6b. 'Son of the man' means son of pre-fall Adam actually. Whereas 'sons of men' means sons of sons of post-fall Adam. True but this distinction goes in the symbolic meaning. So if an account has 'Man' and 'Son' then we do not need to symbolically interpret 'Son of Man' so it would not add to the 1NC count.

7. hyato meaning to attach oneself [to] is from aptw which is one of a number of Greek verbs which take a genitive direct object (rather than the normal accusative one). Another such verb is kratew, meaning to rule. Another is epilambanomai to lay hold upon, to seize upon. Another is antilambano to come to the aid of. aptw only takes the genitive in middle voice which is the Greek voice between active and passive, it is a generalised reflexive voice. geuomai meaning to taste takes an accusative direct object when meant literally and a genitive direct object when meant metaphorically - if only all Greek was this precise! There are others to do with emotion and sharing apparently - katafronhshte. Also mimneskw, (mnhsqhnai) meaning to call to mind, takes a genitive direct object in some circumstances. Arcw meaning to rule over, takes a genitive direct object in certain circumstances. Akouw meaning to hear, takes a genitive direct object in certain circumstances - John 7:40 Having heard of the words. But properly it takes an accusative direct object for what is heard and the genitive for the source of what is heard - Liddell and Scott. In Luke 15:25 we have: Heard [the sound] of a symphony. Here the genitive is a possessive to an implied noun. So the genitive does not count. The verb Tugcanw meaning to hit or to gain, takes a genitive direct object when it means to gain - Luke 20:35. These genitive direct objects are countable, since they are not being used descriptively or possessively.

8. Metaphors and Metonyms...

Metonyms are a way of referring to a whole by one of its key features. Eg: Michigan passed a law. Hollywood has gone for it. Wall Street is down. 

Metaphors are words the symbolise things due to a conceptual similarity. Eg: Lets cross that bridge when we come to it. The axe is lying at the foot of the tree. Christmas has come early. 

Definition: A Metonym is word for a facet or part of a whole which is used as a label for the whole.

Eg: The suits have arrived. He has lost his crown. Put yourself in the other persons shoes.

The point is that executives have suits, kingshave crowns and everyone has shoes.

Defintion: A Metaphor is a word or phrase which describes something isomorphic or similar to the subject which is used as a label for the subject.

Eg: He is a pig. Fetch my slippers petal. We will cross that bridge when we come to it.

The point is that no man is a pig but many have the characteristics of a pig, and no woman is a petal but some have the characteristics of a petal and we are not going to cross any literal bridge, but we are in an analogous situation to someone who is. 

So the phrase: He is betrayed into the hands of sinners is a metonym for he put into the control of sinners, because hands are the means of control for human beings.

But the phrase: Put this into your hearts is a metaphor for accept this emotionally because the heart is the engine of the body and emotion is the engine of the mind. So the heart is a metaphor for emotion.

But 'Heart' is understood metaphorically in Greek to mean 'emotional centre' in normal usage. Since it is used almost esclusively metaphorically in regular Greek, it appears to have become a metonym organically. A noun does not count as being symbolic when the bible uses it in the standard metaphorical way, it counts as being literal. Nouns count symbolically if they take a non standard symbolic meaning. In English we all know that a broken heart does not require a visit to the cardiologist. But 'Stumbling-blocks' although often used metaphorically in everyday Greek, counts metaphorically in scripture. 

There is an old testament scripture which uses the word heart both literally and metaphorically...

14 To this Joab said: Let me not hold myself up this way before you! With that he took 3 shafts in his palm and proceeded to drive them through the heart of Absalom while he was yet alive in the heart of the big tree (2 Samuel 18).

Where heart means centre of something, then it is metaphorical, eg: the heart of the earth.

But Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, the urban incinerator outside Jerusalem, is used as the name for the second death, this is a symbolic use that was not known to the Greeks of the first century until it first appeared in the sermon on the mount... 

22 However, I say to you that everyone who continues wrathful with his brother will be accountable to the court of justice; but whoever addresses his brother with an unspeakable word of contempt will be accountable to the Supreme Court; whereas whoever says, You despicable fool! will be liable to the fiery Gehenna (Matthew 5).

So Gehenna counts symbolically since its symbolic use comes from the holy spirit not from everyday language. But the 'hands of the enemies' a metonym and the 'hearts of men', a metaphor which has become a metonym, counts literally. The arm of God or the hand of the Lord, or the bosom of the father are metonyms applied to non humans who do not have physical arms or hands or bosoms, so a symbolic step is taken, so this is metaphor, a metaphorical metonym in fact. The metonym gives them a metaphorical arm, hand or bosom. So these are symbolic and do not count literally. The 'hand of his enemies' is a metonym since the enemies do have one hand between them.

Way of Peace is a metaphor.
Stumbling block is a metaphor.
Heart the motor for the physical body is a metaphor for the motor of our spirit, which is our emotions. But it is used so commonly like this that it is taken literally.
House of Jacob is a metonym for the ancestral house of Jacob
The word remained in the disciples is a metonym, since the word remains in the memory of the disciples
The disciples remained in the word means they kept his literal word. 

9. carin, the accusative of the noun cariV, meaning grace, beauty, favour, is used as an improper preposition meaning by virtue of, or to the account of, or on account of. So its object in the genitive is countable, but carin is not. 

10. peran an adverb meaning 'the other side' is not the accusative of peraV a noun meaning 'the end, the limit, the boundary' (its accusative is peraV). It is used as an improper preposition with the genitive meaning 'across'' and it is also used substantively meaning 'the other side' - Matthew 8:18, Matthew 14:22. When it is used substantively it is preceded by 'the'. When used as an improper preposition it is not preceded by 'the'. So genitive nouns following a substantive peran are not countable, but genitive nouns following a non substantive peran are countable. In general 'improper prepositions' which are used substantively, take genitive nouns which do not count. Whereas improper prepositions which cannot be used substantively or are not being used substantively are taken as prepositions and so the subsequent nouns that they take in the genitive do count.

Eg: peran tou Iordanou, 'across the Jordan', 'Jordan' counts, but to peran thV qalasshV, 'the other side of the Sea', 'Sea' does not count.

Eg: pantipera an adverb meaning 'opposite' is exclusively used as a non substantive improper preposition with the genitive in the bible so genitives nouns following it are countable. 

10a. exw an adverb meaning 'outside' or 'outer' is used as an adverb (to be outside of something) with a possessive genitive noun or as a substantive (the outside of something). Likewise exwqen an adverb meaning the same thing (but always used substantively, the outside of something). Eg: [the] outside of the man - Mark 7:15, [the] outside of the cup - Luke 11:39. To the outside of the city (Mark 8:23). But in Luke 13:33 'destroyed outside [exw] Jerusalem', 'Jerusalem' does count. So exw works like peran. When it is used substantively then the genitive noun does not count. When it is used as an adverb then the genitive noun does count.

11. MesoV, meaning 'midst', 'middle', is an adjective even though Arch, meaning 'start', 'beginning' is a noun and TeloV, meaning 'end' is a noun. The phrases 'in the midst of' or 'up the midst of' which basically mean 'among' are improper prepositional uses so they take a countable genitive noun. But come to the midst of the house uses 'midst' substantively so 'house' is possessive so would not count. 

12. Flying Genitives such as...

1 Now in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, [epi 'upon' or at the time] of Pontius, Pilate being-governor of Judea (Luke 3).

19 Now [at the time - epi] of Herod having deceased, look! The angel of [the] Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt (Matthew 2).

1 Now [at the time - epi] of Jesus having been born in Bethlehem of Judea in [the] days of Herod, the king, look! Magi from eastern-parts [anatolh] came into Jerusalem (Matthew 2).

5 But [on account - epi] of the delaying [genitive] bridegroom [genitive, due to implied epi used causally], they all nodded and went to sleep (Matthew 25).

73 the oath that he swore to Abraham, the father of us,
74 [the oath] [on account - epi] of the [following] to grant us, having been rescued from the hand of hostile [ones], to be rendering- sacred- service to him fearlessly
75 in loyalty and righteous-acts before him all our days.
76 But you, young-child, you will be called a prophet of the Most High [one]. For you will go in advance in-sight-of/ before [the] Lord to make ready his ways/roads,
77 [on account - epi] of the [following] to grant knowledge of salvation to his people in forgiveness of their sins,
78 Due to [the] intestines of mercy of our God. In which a daybreak [literally: an East] will look upon us out of [the] height,
79 to shine upon the [ones] sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, [on account - epi] of the [following] to direct our feet in the way/road of peace.
80 And the young- child went on growing and getting-strong in spirit, and he continued in the desolate [places] until the day of showing himself to Israel (Luke 1).

In nearly all cases, the flying genitive counts as if the absent implied preposition epi is actually there, so it is countable. If the flying genitive is a stand alone genitive definite article, then it normally means 'on account of the following'.  But not in Matthew Chapter 1 wouldn't you know? Here the sense dictates the absent implied noun - Descendant... 

17 All the descendants, then, from Abraham until David, were 14 descendants, and from David until [the descendant, Josiah] of the deportation of Babylon 14 descendants, and from [apo] [the descendant, Jeconiah] of the deportation of Babylon until the Christ 14 descendants (Matthew 1).

Sometimes the sense of the account before hand fills in the gap, for example...

22 Also, when the days of the purification of them according to the law of Moses were fulfilled, they brought him up into Jerusalem to present [him] to the Lord,
23 just as [kaqwV] it is written in [the] law of [the] Lord: Every male [andreV] opening a womb will be called holy to the Lord,
24 and [they brought him up] [on account  - epi] of the [following] to offer sacrifice according to the [thing] having been said in the law of [the] Lord: A pair of turtledoves or 2 chicks of pigeons [An adverbial phrase] (Luke 2).

These stand alone genitives are not a joker situation where you can count them however you like. The sense of the account tells you whether there is a missing epi or a missing dia or a missing or a missing ek or a missing noun or earlier phrase. For example Luke 3 misses the noun 'Son' 75 times!

Occasionally the word ek meaning 'out of' is omitted...

37 Answering he said to them: You give to them to eat. At this they said to him: Having gone off shall we buy loaves [implied ek] [out] of 200 denarii and give to them to eat?

13. Some Greek and more Hebrew words have two meanings in the natural for example in Greek, the word mastiV means scourge. This can mean a whip or a disease, in the sense of the scourge of a disease. So in the normal everyday language this word has a literal and a symbolic meaning. So even if the word appeared a prime number of times in an account it could still take its two different standard linguistic meanings.

14. A 2 threaded literal account can have a 3 threaded parable in it. If it says the Kingdom of God is like a man a  householder, then the entire like statement has the number of threads of the parable.

15 The word palin meaning 'again' or 'further' or 'furthermore', if referring a second parable to a first parable, links the two parables together into one symbolic account. And likewise it links two successive literal accounts if the thing the happens again in the second account happened in the first account. The word euquV meaning 'immediately' appears also to link two successive literal accounts. The word exhV meaning of subsequence, or next, appears also to link two successive literal accounts. Jesus dismissing the crowds ends an account unless it is joined to the next account by 'immediately' or 'again' or 'next'.

16. The phrase: in that hour, or in that season, or in that day, is a temporal sequence disconnect (however minor), it is a new timeframe, it defines a new parallel temporal thread, which is a new account, unless the context dictates otherwise. Likewise 'then' tote can also be a temporal disconnect.

17. OyiaV the genitive of OyioV, the adjective meaning late, is often used substantively as the noun 'evening'. But since the word is an adjective is does not count, even when used substantively. Adjectives such as ponhroV have related nouns such as ponhria, but OyioV has no such related noun. Oye is an adverb meaning late. 

18. Kuklw, meaning in a circle, or round about, the dative of KuloV, meaning circle, is used as an adverb. But since it is in fact a noun in the dative it counts as a noun in the dative. Many nouns in the dative act as adverbs. He wrote in-haste for example is he wrote hastily. This is the only Greek word where we disagree with Mounce. We say it is a dative noun, he says it is an adverb.

19. Anw, meaning 'top' or 'upper part', is listed in the lexicons as an adverb, we now believe that to be correct. See John 2, the wine of Cana account. 

[[We used to believe, incorrectly, that it counted as a noun when it acts as a noun, although often used as an adverb - can't find its derivation in the lexicons. It might have been created from ana the preposition meaning 'up' and w the old doric for ou the genitive of oV meaning 'which'. The combination would then be 'up of which', or 'upwards of which' or 'the top' or more precisely the 'upper part'. But epanw, meaning 'on top of' or upon or above, is an adverb taking the genitive, which is often used as an improper preposition and counts as such. We see this noun behaviour of anw in John 2:7 (Water into wine).Likewise its opposite, Katw , from Kata and w also counts as a noun meaning 'bottom' or 'lower part' - John 8:6. So we are saying that properly anw is a noun meaning 'top' but it is often used as an adverb meaning above or up or upwards. Anw and Katw are of course indeclinable, but so are Israel, David etc. 

Anw becomes the adverb epanw (above, on top of) when prefixed with epi. This acts as an improper preposition, like 'upon' taking a genitive countable noun. See Luke 4:39 (Peter's mother-in law), Luke 10:19 (the 72 return) and Matthew 21:7 (Palm Sunday). 

In fact anw must be a noun because epanw exists and prepositions do not prefix prepositions. They prefix nouns and verbs. Likewise upokatw is used by Mark 12:36 and Matthew 22:44 and Plato (Liddell & Scott) meaning under the bottom of or beneath or below, so katw must be a noun.]] 

20 In general, the count goes with the 'true grammatical parsing' of a word, not the particular usage, for this is a grammatoV, a grammatical code.

21. Aramic words Talitha Cumi, etc, are not Greek words and so in particular are not Greek nouns and so do not count. However Boanerges although a Hellenization of the Hebrew is a proper noun, a name, and so is a noun in Greek and so does count? 

Messiah and Rabbi and Rabboni and Beelzebub and Talitha and BarJonah and BarTimaeus and BarSabbas and Iscarioth (Iskariwq of Issachar, but not Iscariot - iskariwthV) do not count since they are Aramaic/Hebrew titles and are not proper nouns, they are not Hebrew names of people or places.  'Bar' is the Aramaic for 'Son', whereas 'Ben' is the Hebrew. So BarJonah is an Aramaic-Hebrew cross. BarTimaeus is an Aramaic Latin cross. Beelzebub is a title given to the demon named Satan. But Cephas and John and Jesus and Nathaniel and Daniel do count being proper nouns, names of people or places. Bethzatha and Gabbatha and Manna are titles of a pool and a pavement and a food. They are titles of things, not places so they do not count. Golgotha is a place name, like Bethlehem. Cephas is a regular Hebrew name.

24 The Phrase: 'Let him having ears listen', is used to start or to end parables. Two ears refer to the literal story and the event symbolic meaning. You need to get them both to fully understand what Jesus is really saying. Jesus never said: Let him who has an ear listen. Here are all the 7 incidences.

15 Let him that has ears listen (Matthew 11).
9 Let him that has ears listen (Matthew 13).
43 At that time the righteous ones will shine as brightly as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let him that has ears listen (Matthew 13).
9 So he added the word: Let him that has ears to listen listen (Mark 4)
23 Whoever has ears to listen, let him listen (Mark 4).
8 Some other fell upon the good soil, and, after sprouting, it produced fruit a hundredfold. As he told these things, he proceeded to call out: Let him that has ears to listen, listen (Luke 8).
35 It is suitable neither for soil nor for manure. People throw it outside. Let him that has ears to listen, listen (Luke 14).

25. Comparative speech, figurative speech, figures of speech, can look very literal and be literally applied. For example...

Physician Cure yourself
A worker is worthy of his food - And so therefore are you
A disciple is not greater than his teacher and a slave is not greater than his master
Every kingdom or house or city divided against itself will fall - So if Satan is so divided, then how will his Kingdom stand?

Jesus was a kind of physician. The disciples were spiritual workers. The disciples called Jesus Teacher and Lord, being his slaves. Satan has a kingdom. The point being made here is that applying an analogy literally does not stop it being an analogy. An analogy about doctors, is still an analogy even when being related to a group of doctors! As a more familiar example consider the phrase:

The Cobbler's son is always the worst shod.

This means that the children of someone in any trade are generally lacking in the fruits of that trade. But if one were to recite that above illustration at a shoe manufacturers convention, it would still nonetheless be an illustration, a parable.

Whenever Jesus says: which one of you or who of you, he is talking figuratively.

11 Indeed, which father is there among you who, if the son asks for a fish, will perhaps give to him a serpent instead of a fish?
12 Or if he also asks for an egg, will hand him a scorpion?

An illustration is an implied comparison an implicit comparison, the nouns will be green. A literal comparison or an explicit comparison has the nouns black it is literal comparative speech. So the statement...

6 But whoever stumbles one of these little [ones] the [ones] putting-faith in me, it is better for him that a millstone of-an-ass should be hung around his neck and he should be sunk in the watery-deep of the sea (Matthew 18).

Is a literal comparison which confusingly uses an illustration for a means of physical death. It is basically the statement, it is better for you to die physically than to stumble a spiritually naive person and therefore die spiritually. But a graphic example of a method of physical death is employed. But this is not a parable, there is no implicit comparison to be made.

26. If we have two Greek words which have precisely the same literal meaning such as [danion] Debt/Loan and [ofeilhn] Loan/Debt (Matthew 18:28-32) or [usterhsiV] Need/Want and [usterhma] Want/Need (Mark 12:35-44), then they take the same symbolic meaning and so only one counts for the INC. This is because symbolically interpreting the one gives the symbolic interpretation of the other. Since symbolism is a bijective map. And the noun count adds their recitals. But if you have Father and Mother, then you do not have 'Parents' and if you have night and day12hour you do not have day24hour. The symbolism may not preserve the literal relationship.

The Sign of Jonah, the Prophet has two INC entries, Sign of Jonah and Sign of Prophet. This is because both have to be interpreted, since we have a possessive double designation.

But Joanna, the woman of Chuza, foreman of Herod does not produce a double INC count for Woman of Chuza and Woman of Foreman of Herod unless the account has 3 word symbolic threads.

And book of the genealogy of Jesus, Christ, son of David, son of Abraham, does not produce a double INC possibly because the possessive double designation does not immediately follow the first noun.

'The home of Simon and Andrew' counts as 'The home of Simon and the home of Andrew' in the CNC and the INC. Since we must interpret both noun chains to get its meaning. 

'Righteous and holy male', a double description,  counts as 'righteous male and holy male' (Mark 6:20). Because that is what it is saying. It is in the same form as home of Simon and Andrew. It is a double description which forces each word thread to have two fulfilments, one for righteous male and one for holy male, one for home of Simon and one for home of Andrew. Double descriptions forms with pronouns in cannot be parsed and so are not doube descrptions and so do not double the noun counts. For example...

The village of Mary and of Martha, her sister [this is not a double description due to the pronoun which prevents parsing for the two fulfilments]. (John 11:1).

If we have Son, Prophet, then we have Son of Prophet

Symbolic meaning (a) of Symbolic meaning (b) = Symbolic meaning (a of b) 

But if we have Son, Prophet, Son of God we do not have Prophet of God, since one cannot work out the symbolic meaning of (b) from the symbolic meaning of (a of b). 

In other words we can work out the symbolic meaning of (a of b) from the symbolic meanings of a and b, but not conversely.

27. Two parables in the same literal account form one symbolic sub-account if they both symbolise the same thing in two different ways eg: The leaven hidden in the flour and the mustard seen in the garden (Luke 13) eg: The two children sent to the vineyard and the vineyard cultivators (Matthew 21).

28. 'King Nebuchadnezzar' uses 'King' as an adjective? and 'Nebuchadnezzar the king' uses it as a noun. 'Jesus Christ' is two nouns, since Christ is a noun in Greek - John 1, Matthew 16.

When do accounts start and when do they end?

1. A new time frame or a new location or a new focus will start a new account unless it is overriden by the sense of the account. 

2. Accounts contain whole sentences only. One cannot split a sentence between two accounts.

3. The word 'immediately' [euquV] does not connect or disconnect two successive accounts. It is just a fast time frame. The word 'again' [palin] can join two accounts together since it may well maintain the sense of the previous account.

Further observations on the symbolic code

'Jesus' can mean the remnant even in the literal designation because Jesus was the name for Michael's fleshly body and the remnant are Michael's fleshly body.

'Jerusalem' means God's earthly organisation first, (from the days of Melchizedek, the king of Salem) and means the town in Judea second.

'Woman' can mean a covenant in the literal meaning, presumably since Paul defined it as such in Galatians, even though he explains that woman stands for covenant in a symbolic drama in Genesis. Since in the account of Mary weeping on Jesus' feet Woman appears 5 times but 'hairs' appears twice. So she has symbolic hairs, which must go on a symbolic woman, which Paul has said is a covenant.???!?!

A noun recited only once can represent any person or anything which takes that noun as a literal designation. So Zerah in Matthew 1, recited once, is the brother of Perez and the angel of the same name. And Jesus in Matthew 4, is Jesus and is the remnant who are Jesus' body which really is the thing that had Jesus' name in the first place. And Jerusalem was the name given to Melchizedek's organisation, for he was King of Salem. So Jerusalem, the city, is actually a secondary thing to be given that name. Jerusalem is primarily the name for the earthly organisation of God.

Two parallel accounts one with 2 threads and one with 3 threads, combine to make a 3 threaded concatenated account (wherein the third thread only exists for the 3 threaded subaccount of the concatenated account). So the CNC and the INC are divisible by 3.

Each Parallel account must not count properly (as a stand alone account) in either the CNC or the INC or both. If they count properly then they are not parallel unless CNC = INC in which case they may or may not be parallel. Two literal accounts are parallel if they describe the same event in the same place at the same time. In terms of speech this means the precise same set of words from the same person to the same audience in the same place at the same time. So an account that sets a scene but describes no events and has no speech such as Mark 1:13...

13 And he was in the desolate [place] 40 days, being tempted by [upo] Satan, and he was with [meta] the wild-beasts, and the angels were ministering to him (Mark 1).  

cannot be parallel to anything.

The bible has literal accounts and subaccounts which can have symbolic words or parables within them. It also has Symbolic accounts and subaccounts which can have literal words within them. A literal account has a number of threads determined from the literal nouns and a symbolic account has a number of threads determined from the symbolic nouns. But the symbolic nouns in a literal account do not obey any CNC or INC rules, unless the literal account has a symbolic subaccount. Likewise literal nouns in a symbolic account do not obey any CNC or INC rules unless the symbolic account has a literal subaccount.

Parables are parallel if they describe the same story, they do not need to be said at the same time or in the same place. They can be extracted from their literal contexts and concatenated and treated as one symbolic account.

For the INC, if A and B are two possessive noun chains in the account, then the noun chain  'A of B' does not count towards the INC, since it has already been interpreted once you have interpreted A and B. However if 'Kingdom of God' and 'God' and 'Heaven' are in the account, then 'Kingdom of Heaven' does count towards the INC, because 'kingdom' does not appear in the account. We cannot infer that we have interpreted 'Kingdom', from having interpreted Kingdom of God and God. The noun chain 'Glory of him and of his Father' collapses to 'Glory of Father' as regards the INC, the pronoun is ignored. The noun chains 'House of Simon' and 'House of Simon and of Andrew' are distinct for the INC.

A 2 threaded parable in a 3 threaded literal account behaves like a double designation in a 3 word threaded account. It goes 1-2-1. Likewise a 1 threaded parable in a 3 threaded account goes 1-1-1. Unless the parable can be dropped from the threads that it does not have??