In TII , pp172181, the author introduces a study of the topic Wrath and Anger in the text of The Revelation of Jesus Christ. This is his central example in chapter 8, which is a full elaboration on the use of the scientific method in Theomatics research. The author finds 16 unique references to this topic in the text, and observes that the factor 190 produces hits in 15 of these references. He finds that taking the shortest hit from each reference, while not allowing duplicate phrases among these shortest hits, produces a Word Length Average (WLA) of 2.60. Though this metric is quite unusual in that the author uses it only in this particular theomatic study, he claims that this is a statistically impressive event and challenges the skeptic to produce similar features with 190 in a random gemmatria (letternumber assignment). An initial observation concerns reference Rev 16:19, which the author counts as two reference hits. It contains words for both Wrath and Anger, which happen to be juxtaposed in this reference. The author forms two distinct 3word hits by taking a word on either side of the two reference words and counts these as distinct references when it is in fact the same reference for each hit. A second observation concerns an error (perhaps typographical) wherein the author claims that the word ORGHS appears in Rev 9:15. The verse is: "ELUQHSAN OI TESSARES AGGELOI OI HTOIMASMENOI EIS THN WRAN KAI HMERAN KAI MHNA KAI ENIAUTON INA APOKTEINWSIN TO TRITON TWN ANQRWPWN." Perhaps the author meant Rev 19:15. Based on these two observations there are only 14 references to this subject and 12 contain a theomatic hit. Results from the NestleAland 26th edition are as follows.
The phrase sum (S) is given, the cluster radius (R), the number of words (W), and the Phrase. The WLA of the shortest hit from each reference, not counting any phrase as a hit more than once, is 2.5. Certainly, the reason for deviating from his standard criterion, the final pvalue derived from the hits and clustering, appears to be that the standard metrics are insignificant in this context: the joint probability of the hits and clustering is 0.02629 with an O statistic of 1.00. This is primarily due to poor clustering (5:7:6). We would expect this type of joint pvalue in every random gemmatria. It should then come as no surprise that the author selects an unusual metric for this topic. Further, it is not merely coincidental that two of the subject words happen to be a multiple of the factor chosen, giving this factor a distinct advantage. Consequently, there are no other factors producing an equivalent result in the standard gemmatria. As it is most difficult to pinpoint the actual significance of this metric it is necessary to construct a few random mappings to fully respond to this scenario. Therefore we do. We randomize the letter number mapping 10,000 times, test every factor at least 95% the size of 190 (any factor larger than 180), and note all instances with at least 12 distinct reference hits and a WLA_{R} of 2.5 or less. There are 118 gemmatria among the 10,000 that meet this criteria, or an average of 1 in 85 trials. The first 25 gemmatria from the NA are given below as typical.
The top row gives benchmark results from the author's proposed Theomatic factor 190. The number of the successful random gemmatria is in the left column, followed by the trial that the gemmatria was constructed, the gemmatria arrangement itself, the factor (F), the number of distinct reference hits (R) and the WLA for the shortest hit from each reference (WLA_{R}). The actual hits are provided for reference, as well as the phrase pool. This result is certainly nothing that would arouse our interest. Approximately 1 gemmatria in one hundred satisfies the author's challenge. This is only a fraction of the number of gemmatria one would expect to have to explore to get results comparable to the maximum order statistic in a random environment. It appears that the entire topic can safely be ignored from a statistical point of view. No Theomatic significance is apparent.
