The Genesis Seal

Kingfisher2926 said:
With respect, I suggest your prior experience and training have predisposed you to that kind of skepticism. For example, the assertion that 'g'matriya and other tricks of the text are mnemonics at best' still does not rule out the possibility that Kabbalah has been influence by an apparently extraordinary introduction to the Torah, which I now call the Genesis Seal. Did you read my post (#289) about the kabbalistic understanding of the Creator being both Vast Face and Small Face, simultaneously?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, yes, I have read it. Not only does it distort, mistranslate and otherwise get things flat-out wrong, it has little to no bearing on the nonsense you're trying to hype. You seem to understand not a thing about Kabbalah. I've been studying it for years and consider myself a novice, but I can spot glaring mistakes when they appear - and I need sunglasses for this one. You know why it's called Kabbalah? Because in order to understand it properly you need a teacher from whom to receive it. It's not a text you can read and "get" just like that; the realm of Kabbalah is the realm of emotions and metaphor, in which words do not mean what you think they mean - certainly not in translation. Don't delude yourself into thinking you actually have any idea what you're talking about in that post.

A major part of my thrust has been that the Genesis Seal could have been seen by unsophisticated people of the past as an extraordinary bequest of divine providence. I still believe its underlying content is a deliberate construct. But even if it were not, it would still be important that history has been influenced by it.
Click to expand...

You have yet to demonstrate in any way that history has been influenced by something that exists only in your mind. There might well be something encoded there - but if it is, you can bet the author of that code wouldn't want just any old yahoo with an internet connection and a keyboard to be able to claim he'd deciphered it. And you've failed to demonstrate why your set of "codes" is any more indicative of anything than the ones I found in your grid 2 above. Why not address the drunkenness? Or the orphan? If the pattern is there, it must be for a reason, as you say.

While the Torah doesn't say everything explicitly, it's quite a different thing to claim there is, for example, geometry encoded within. If such mathematical insights were available to the prophets, why, pray tell, would they record pi as 3 in the book of Kings, when access to more precise knowledge was available? Answer: because science and mathematics are not the fields of knowledge that the Torah comes to address. It's a set of books about relationships, not about theorems. Theorems do not love, hate, bleed, fear, grieve and cherish; people do, regardless of whether they know that a2+b2=c2-2abCOSc.

You know what the significance of all those adjacent occurrences of the letter heh is? It's the sound of the author of the passage laughing at you.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
Sadly, I don't know how to begin to define them. The question is more a matter of quality than quantity.
Click to expand...

That's a very obvious "get out of jail" for you that should be closed. As I understand how science works, criteria for success or failure must be set in advance to avoid wishful thinking or deliberate fudging. You do want to do this properly, don't you?
 
Donn said:
Why bit by bit?

If you have not finished processing your 'data' yet, how can you know that there are important conclusions yet?
(That makes you look like you have decided a priori.)



Also, perhaps you already told this, but what made you suspect this particular code in the first place? Something must have suggested that 8x8 spiral thingy you are using.
Click to expand...

I find myself going over old ground, because I have answered these questions already.
I more or less finished processing the data about two years ago. I have hundreds of illustration ready for presentation in a particular way, with narrative descriptions and explanations to go with them. I was actually doing something else last week, when I suddenly had the idea of opening this dabate. I started with a single, newly prepared, illustration. Then I waited to see what the response might be. Since then, I have been preparing bespoke illustrations and supporting descriptions on the basis of this ongoing discussion.

..what made you suspect this particular code in the first place?
I find it difficult to remember now. I had picked up a Hebrew Bible, something I had never seen before. My interest was peeked, and I started delving into the history of the text, even took a course on The Hebrew Bible, and began to follow the weekly web postings of Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. I hasten to add that my interest in Judaism is mostly as a foundation for Christianity. But I am always willing go outside my comfort zone. Suffice to say that I have much wider interests, which brought be into knowledge of a 20th Century mathematician called Stanislav Ulam, who worked on the Manhattan Project during WWII. I read a story that Stan was once in the audience of a rather boring lecture, so he started to dabble with an expanding square spiral of Natural Numbers (probably a 10x10 square initially). He then highlighted those numbers that happen to be primes, upon which he noticed a kind of pattern starting to emerge. Since then, others have extended this analysis to a vast extent an found that the patterns not only continue, but even seem to become more pronounced.
My interest prompted me to try the same thing with the start of the Hebrew Bible (like starting at 1). At first, I didn't get much joy with an expanding spiral. But then I noticed the striking internal structure of the 28-letter first verse. That prompted my to split the text into consecutive blocks of 7-letters each (and of 4-letters each), and to put them together in a variety of novel ways. The square perimeter seemed to offer the most promise, so ran with that for a while, soon inserting the first 36 letters of Genesis 1:2 into the inner space. That was when I came upon a whole host of valid new words in compact groups that emulate the Ark of the Covenant and the Garden of Eden, and much more. It was actually much later that I started to notice that stages needed to create the G1 Square matches several prominent phrases in the first few verses of Genesis. Later still, I also noticed that the same square depicts words and shapes that emulate key parts of Genesis chapters 2 to 4, then Genesis 10, Genesis 15, much of what happened to the children of Israel at Sinai and, indeed, some of the essence of the Christian Gospels. You will be aware that I have a long way to go to get all of this material onto this thread.
 
so basically you selected a method of arranging the letters based on which gave the best results and you think thats ok


;)
 
This instalment of the Genesis Seal story will begin as a postscript to my post #361. The main reason I did not go the extra yard there was to avoid using the dreaded word ‘Gematria’. So, I shall say up-front that the Genesis Seal employs a variant of kabbalistic Gematria, without the same mystical connotations. In recognition of the difference, I shall use the same word, with a lower-case initial letter ‘g’. For those who may not know, Gematria is based on the Standard Values of individual letters, added together to generate a total for a whole word. Kabbalah attempts to show that words with identical total values must have a sacred or mystical relationship.
What now follows is rather longer than I had intended.

Addendum to Post #361.
The presence of the prefixed 7 alongside the ‘22’ pair at the start of Genesis suggests the ratio 22/7, which is a rough and ready approximation for Pi.
Click to expand...

In that earlier post, I showed that the 7x4 matrix of text and its qatan value equivalent, obtained from Genesis 1:1, combines geometry with arithmetic through a mixture of obvious and novel methods. The most prominent example was the four-letter words for ‘three’ and ‘four’ that come together at right-angles, suggesting a 3:4:5 standard right-angled triangle. This is a mixture of literary information with a graphical characteristic, representing a well-known case of arithmetical geometry; and all wrapped up in a description of Creation. No wonder Freemasons favour the expression Architect of the Universe.
The same 7x4 matrix of qatan values was shown to favour triangular formations in some other ways, along with some spectacularly accurate references to Pi. In fact, one triangular inclusion was shown to generate a value of Pi accurate to six decimal places.
Moving on, Figure 7 now shows the same matrix of qatan letter values, highlighting important additional features that have been present all-along.



But let me start by reviewing one more feature that I did mention in post #361. This is the fact that the bottom row contains the first seven fractional digits of Pi, while the middle column – containing the word for ‘three’ – represents the whole-number part of Pi. Together, this row and column provide the perfect backdrop for two circular artefacts (What else!). Just to the left of the middle column, there is an arc of four ‘1’-digits, and on the right a corresponding arc of the sequence 1-1-4-4. I need to put off an explanation of the latter sequence until later in this post. But, to the right of it, there is a concentric arc of 2211, which is the 66th triangular number. Then, in the extreme left of the matrix there is a corresponding arc of 2444, or four times the 611 gematria of the word ‘Torah’. Clearly, the pair of arcs in the left of the matrix match the pair on the right to make two concentric circles. These are separated by the middle column as a diameter, with the bottom row representing a tangent, thus associating circular images with the value of Pi.
Incidentally, the four numbers to the left of the matrix are the totals of the seven qatan values in each row, and have the following property:
15 x 17 x 22 x 28 = 157080
…which are the decimal digits of Pi/2 to within 1 part in 427,000. Also, the total of 22 demonstrates the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, while the 28 confirms the number of letters of Genesis 1:1.
If it wasn’t for the wayward dimensions of the rectangle that is Figure 7, I might suspect it of being the pattern for the Mercy Seat over the Ark of the Covenant.

Next, I just want to point to some mutually related numbers that represent yet another geometrical form that does not naturally fall out of a rectangular matrix. We can start by combining the four corner digits into the number 2926 (it will soon become clear why this particular order of digits is intended). 2926 happens to be the 76th triangular number, and has a special role in the construction of a truly spectacular hexagram, or Star of David number. This starts from the known property of hexagram numbers, that their pictorial representations always consists of a single, central element surrounded by twelve identical triangles. For example, 181 is a hexagram because 180 = 12x15, and 15 is a triangular number.
Before generating a hexagram number from its triangular components, it is by no means obvious what the prime factors of the result will be, except that they will never include any of the factors of 12. Using 2926 as the triangular building block, the resulting hexagram is 35113, which is the King of kings among all the hexagrams. It is the product of the prime factors: 13, 37 and 73, all of which are themselves hexagram numbers, making 35113 a uniquely spectacular Star-of-stars-of-stars-of-stars. This may be compared with the relatively modest triangular number 2701 (the gematria Grand Total of Genesis 1:1), which is 37x73. More information on this may be found here:

http://www.whatabeginning.com/Misc/Wonders/SA7.htm

There is no doubt that the spectacular number 35113 is favoured in yet another way by our 7x4 matrix. This is the result of the way all the ‘3’-digits and the ‘5’-digits are clustered together, such that there are no fewer than 16 alternative ways to trace a 3-5-1-1-3 path in this matrix, without ever using the same 3 at both beginning and end. Then there are 7 more paths that do use the same 3 twice.

There are many ways I could summarise the above descriptions. I choose to reflect that this miniscule rectangular matrix has offered up a wealth of triangles, circles and star shapes beyond any reasonable expectation. It is hard to credit that this 7x4 matrix could be a direct product of any meaningful sentence that is grammatically and syntactically correct, much less that it has been chosen to head the entire Hebrew Bible.
Before we leave this little matrix, I just want to point to one more notable triangle, consisting of five ‘1’-digits as highlighted in Figure 8(a). This is not a complete triangle, being short of one of its angles, but it has two redeeming attributes. First, every one of its component digits is contributed by a letter aleph (see Table A, repeated at the end of this post). Every one of the other ‘1’-digits is incorporated into the arc in the other half of the matrix. And three of those 1s come from a letter yud.



Another reason why this particular triangle may be present is because it emulates something even more striking in an alternative 4x7 matrix, seen as Figure 8(b). This matrix is based on the same text, but chopped into seven consecutive segments of four letters each. The resulting digits are entered from left-to-right, starting in the top row. It is easy to see that the larger partial triangle in this matrix incorporates all but one of the ‘1’-digits among the 28 values. More important, however, is the 1414 sequence in the middle row, locked into the triangle’s outline. That is because it undoubtedly represents the decimal 1.414…, the square-root of 2 which, in a triangle of this shape, is the ratio of the length of its hypotenuse with either of the other two sides. I shall have reason to re-visit this matrix and triangle in a later post. Note, also, that the middle row of this matrix and the middle column of the other matrix both have a mathematical flavour.

Now, I need to address the only arc shape of the four seen in Figure 7 that I did not justify straight away. That is the one consisting of a 1-1-4-4 sequence. To do so, I shall make use of the same principle as with the two partial triangles in Figure 8. I shall show that the same sequence, in the same configuration also occurs elsewhere in a highly significant setting. This will take us all the way back to the beginning (Post #1) and the G1 Square. Figure 9 shows that square with its 64 letters all converted to their corresponding qatan values.



It can be seen that this view of the Genesis Seal includes exactly three cases of homogeneous, linear triple-digits. The lower, vertical 666 follows directly from the homogeneous, triple-letter vav seen in the alphabetic version. However, the upper 111 and 444 cases both emerge from mixtures of two letters in each case. Nonetheless, these three triples succeed in demonstrating two alternative bi-lateral symmetries of their 8x8 square setting. Clearly, it requires the juxtaposition of the 111 with the 444 to show off the symmetry about the dotted-line axis.
It will also be seen that, among these six digits, I have put octagonal frames around four of them that reproduce the arc-like 1-1-4-4 sequence that was first seen in Figure 7. The key point to note is that the two 1-1-4-4 sequences both participate in much grander structures.
The only other observations I shall make in this post about Figure 9 concern the central 2x2 cluster of values, as follows:
  1. This heart of the square is braced, and embraced by the three linear triples, assisted by the arms of the lower Y-shape in the case of the 666.
  2. Among the letters that contribute these values, the vertical pair spell the emergent: Behold! While the horizontal pair spell the emergent: tablet.
  3. The four central values overlap the expression ‘the spirit of God’, in the source text.
  4. It is possible to extract four consecutive terms of the arithmetical Fibonacci Sequence: 3-5-8-13, by tracing the same four digits cyclically.
This would not be the first time that a commentator has likened the Fibonacci Sequence to the essence of God.

 
Last edited:
If you had not found anything by examining these letters would you:

a) Announce your work as evidence against the importance of the bible.

or

b) Move onto looking elsewhere and not mention it again.
 
Twiler said:
If you had not found anything by examining these letters would you:

a) Announce your work as evidence against the importance of the bible.

or

b) Move onto looking elsewhere and not mention it again.
Click to expand...

he already did b) several times and didn't find anything, so he kept changing the arrangement until he found one that yielded limited success, which hes now arguing is supernatural

hilarious
:D
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
The most prominent example was the four-letter words for ‘three’ and ‘four’ that come together at right-angles, suggesting a 3:4:5 standard right-angled triangle.
Click to expand...

Without the word "five" you wave your hand and march ahead. If five had been there, you would have advertised it. I submit that you are leading the evidence.

This is a mixture of literary information with a graphical characteristic, representing a well-known case of arithmetical geometry; and all wrapped up in a description of Creation. No wonder Freemasons favour the expression Architect of the Universe.
Click to expand...
The evidence is mounting that you are a believer in some strain of God. It appears you have doubts; you desire confirmation. Maybe you should revisit the tyranny of Faith's tolerance for evidence.. Or, better, offload the burdens of the superstitious altogether.

.. post #361. .. Just to the left of the middle column, there is an arc of four ‘1’-digits, and on the right a corresponding arc of the sequence 1-1-4-4.
Click to expand...
They correspond like oil and water. If not for your little lines, there would be no 'arc' at all. Seriously, try again, it's almost Pacman but you need a little work on the mouth.

The rest... tl;dr
 
Last edited:
Kingfisher2926 said:
yy2bggggs,
Much of what you say in Post #432 implies that I have gone all over the barn wall in search of denser than usual patterns. That would be cherry-picking, which is patently not what I have done.
Click to expand...
Not quite. You have implied that, not me. In your response for why you were not committing the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, you yourself brought up the 553x553 grid. You were saying that the target was in a special place on this grid--a specific 8x8 portion.

If you never went over the 553x553 grid, then you do not get to claim that the particular 8x8 portion you point to is more dense.

(ETA: Furthermore, I'm sure there are plenty of transformations that can include the 553x553 form, but they're irrelevant to establish a particular 8x8 form as special if that particular 8x8 cannot extend to a 553x553; thus, it is incoherent to claim that the 8x8 location is a special part of a 553x553 location when not only have you not scanned the 553x553 one, but there is no corresponding 553x553 one).
I agree it would be nice to be able to make comparisons with one or more control groups, but I explained in my previous post why that is not a practical possibility for me.
Click to expand...
That explanation does not fly. You looked at 4 transformations of Genesis, and 0 control groups. You could have spent the resources you used to study 2 of those transformations analyzing a control.

Do you realize that, by only studying the text you surmise as special, you can only possibly confirm--and never refute--your own hypothesis? That by studying only the text you hold to be special, you can only possibly find more "special" things about it? And do you realize that this is actually a weakness of your approach? If Genesis is "ordinary" instead of "special", then you're doomed never to find this out?

What you need is a methodology that sticks your neck out on the chopping block. You need a methodology that can conceivably come up with results you do not like--your current method is incapable of coming up with these results. If your methodology gives any hypothesis an advantage, it needs to be your null hypothesis. Your current methodology is not even giving the null hypothesis playing time.
 
Last edited:
Just to illustrate how much nonsense this is,Using several dice I generated a 20 letter long string of random letters:

ylhgoudnahoritepbnrs

You can get the following from that "word":

God
True
honest
righteous
pray

Is this a divine message?

No it isn't.
 
Donn said:
Thanks for the reply. What do you mean by "not much joy"?
Click to expand...

At first I just didn't recognise everything that was staring me in the face (just inexperience). And what I did recognise didn't make complete sense until I had discovered related stuff in other views of the Seal. That was when the synergy of it started to come together as a coherent whole. You'll see what I mean when I make my next contributory post. I have been drafting it this afternoon, but need to type it up and produce two bespoke illustrations. Should be ready tomorrow.
 
yy2bggggs said:
That explanation does not fly. You looked at 4 transformations of Genesis, and 0 control groups. You could have spent the resources you used to study 2 of those transformations analyzing a control.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that that might take a huge amount of time, I cannot even convince myself that I would make an effective job of it. It would help a lot if I was a member of a team.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
At first I just didn't recognise everything that was staring me in the face (just inexperience). And what I did recognise didn't make complete sense until I had discovered related stuff in other views of the Seal. That was when the synergy of it started to come together as a coherent whole.
Click to expand...
How can you be sure that you're not just data dredging and merely fooling your own intuitions?
 
Nay_Sayer said:
Just to illustrate how much nonsense this is,Using several dice I generated a 20 letter long string of random letters:

ylhgoudnahoritepbnrs

You can get the following from that "word":

God
True
honest
righteous
pray

Is this a divine message?
Click to expand...

I get your point, but your initial 'word' isn't even a proper word. To be comparable to the Genesis Seal you would have to
  1. start with a valid piece of prose,
  2. make sure it can be re-arranged in a special way that reveals the content you intend,
  3. better still, make sure it can be formatted in two or more ways that reveal related content in comparable structural arrangements,
  4. ensure the right way to perform the rearrangements is communicated, and
  5. incorpoate some clues into the same prose that achieve said communication.

After all that, you have to step out of the picture so that no-one knows how it all began, and generate some sense of mystery.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
I get your point, but your initial 'word' isn't even a proper word. To be comparable to the Genesis Seal you would have to
  1. start with a valid piece of prose,
  2. make sure it can be re-arranged in a special way that reveals the content you intend,
  3. better still, make sure it can be formatted in two or more ways that reveal related content in comparable structural arrangements,
  4. ensure the right way to perform the rearrangements is communicated, and
  5. incorpoate some clues into the same prose that achieve said communication.

After all that, you have to step out of the picture so that no-one knows how it all began, and generate some sense of mystery.
Click to expand...
Such a comparison would prove nothing; and your description of it strongly suggests question begging.

I think it would serve you very well to learn logical fallacies and cognitive biases.
 
yy2bggggs said:
Such a comparison would prove nothing; and your description of it strongly suggests question begging.

I think it would serve you very well to learn logical fallacies and cognitive biases.
Click to expand...

This ^^

Very, very much this.


Mistakes of cognition are being made, and they relate very strongly to fallacies of logic. You could see the mistakes you're making, if you knew something of fallacies and biases.

A lot of folks do know these fallacies and biases, and are trying to tell you that your "work" has fallen afoul of several.

If I were undertaking something that would occupy me for years, as you claim this has, I'd want to start out by making sure I was addressing any fallacies or bias. If I don't do that from the off, I risk wasting a great deal of my time on something that will turn out to be meaningless because of the inclusion of these fallacies and this bias I have not bothered to address.

If your work can't withstand such inspection without falling apart, then is it really of any worth? Don't you want to know?
 
I think you're way too emotionally invested in the Genesis Seal, but you're committing the same error over and over. I'm going to attempt to explain this error using something that is completely unrelated.

Let's suppose I have a cold one year, and I eat some Cream of Mushroom soup. I notice, after I eat the Cream of Mushroom soup, that I get better. So I form the belief that Cream of Mushroom soup is good for colds.

The next year, when I catch a cold, I eat some Cream of Mushroom soup. And sure enough, I get better. Let's suppose this goes on for a decade... every year, I catch a cold. Every year, I eat Cream of Mushroom soup. And every year after eating the Cream of Mushroom soup, I get better. I now have a lot of data points; and by now, I'm completely sold on the fact that Cream of Mushroom soup is good for colds.

However, there's a huge problem with my approach. Can you spot it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom