I don't see any similarity to what I presented.
Lol.
I took the basic logic of what you pushed, showed you a much more complicated and elaborate version, and you laugh back at it.
Here is my point since I have to be explicit because you continuously show yourself to be dense:
Your little 'code' is entirely coincidental and has no real basis is truth like you think it does. The proof that it can be totally coincidental is that we can take other texts and make MUCH more complicated word codes - so complex that you really need a computer to pull them off in order to process things in a timely manner - and reveal these "magical" messages.
This was done to Moby Dick (which was a response to a challenge to the person who first applied computer technology to the Jewish Bible); if you read the link you can find a huge variety of messages 'hidden' within this specific book; However, no one is going to come forth and pretend like Moby Dick is a blessed book worthy of our religious praise, and that it is a text either written by or inspired by God.
If we can apply the same method to other texts to tease out these 'messages', then this method, which is claimed to reveal the uniquess of a religious text through an example you provide, is not very convincing. Ultimately that is not to say that the text is not true, it simply says the method that you use provides no proof that the text is true.
So when you parade such weak logic around and ask the rhetorical question: "Is it a coincidence?", you appear as a fool because it indeed is a coincidence since these messages can easily be shown to occur through chance.
Fucking shit man, you make all religious people look bad and devoid of any logic...