The Genesis Seal

[Kingfisher2926]

What does your scientific toolkit tell you? From what I can see, you may as well be mediaeval. Don't slag 'em if your gonna copy 'em.

Your annoyance is based on a misunderstanding. I have the greatest admiration for those mediaeval authors. They were writing in a climate in which they could have felt their very lives might have been at risk if their true intentions and their source had come to light.
I am only copying those great men in the way I analyse the Genesis Seal. You could say that I have shown less imagination that they, by not re-interpreting the Genesis Seal in one or more stories. Instead, I have the option of putting this information clearly, and without equivocation, in the public domain.

 

[Donn]

No, you implied they lacked a scientific toolkit with which to assess the sock-off-blowing drama of the seal's dynamic organization during a continuous meandering sequence. (pant pant).

You thus imply that such a toolkit would have allowed them to retain their socks.The only way for that to happen is to show them how mundane and biased the whole affair is, thus keeping their feet warm.

 

[stokes234]

You're missing an important point here. I am categorically not suggesting that the Genesis Seal foresaw anything in its own future, along the lines of your hypothetical helicopter example.

Also, its simply not true that I am allowing an 'extremely wide range of options' in my selections. Broadly speaking, I have allowed a rather small number of options that the Genesis Seal itself utilises repeatedly, especially in identical locations in the four views.

Even if I were to cave in to the pressure in this thread, in the end it hardly matters whether I am deluding myself about the objective reality of the encrypted content. It is just as important that there is evidence that others in the past trod the same path as myself. The evidence exists almost entirely in a wide range of well-known literature, with just a little in the historical record of what was happening at the same time the literature was being written.

You have provided no evidence at all, you've just done stupid things like join some numbers up to make a pattern that looks very, very slightly like a scrotum, then pointed to a scrotum mention in a story 1500 years later and said that that is how it got there. Have you considered the number of people who actually did get stabbed in the scrotum in the middle ages, and that maybe they were the actual inspiration?

Your logic here is similar to the suggestion that god must exist, because the evidence is all around us, such as sunsets and rainbows. You haven't actually provided any evidence whatsoever that that is how they got there. If you genuinely believe this random pattern was so influential in history, why has nobody ever mentioned it in history?

 

[Donn]

.. took a spear to the groin! Fus Ro baby!

 

[EvilQuest]

Kingfisher. That matrix you posted from top to bottom shows the number sequence "25515666". I'd appreciate it if you didn't quote my personal bank account number just to support your arguments. Oh and whilst we're on the subject, that central square contains the numbers 2 and 4, (as in 6 when added together), and 6 happens to be the exact number of times that my grandmother has had to take her pet labrador (Alan) to the VET. And don't get me started on that bottom section containing 4616: you know damn well that i quote that code to qualify for special deals on my car insurance. And the less i say about 61451292 the better.

You have violated my privacy, sir. A pox on thee.

 

[Nonpareil]

The thing about nuts and bolts is that they come in a limited number of sizes.

Fortunately, all of those sizes are made to fit with all the others, and the size of the nut doesn't have to precisely match the bolt.

Even in biblical times, there were more than five thousand independent spellings of valid Hebrew words.

And how many of those are short, produced using the most common letters of that alphabet, and used regularly in conversation?

The Genesis Seal reveals 100 words altogether (unless I have missed some), all of which have been picked up by one author or another and woven into well-known texts of old.

So? Certain words are commonly-used. These also tend to be the shorter words in the language, and formed using the most common letters of the alphabet.

I know you will appeal to the flexibility of language, and you would be right.

/thread

In answer to this, I appeal to the way in which groups of those words are picked up as groups for use in those texts.

You do realize that you're basically doing the same thing that people do when they say that the Taurus constellation looks like a bull, right?

Out of the many examples I have already presented, I will repeat just one from my Grail Quest post.

This is the combination of bread and wine inconjunction with the image of the chalice version of the Grail, seen here in Figure 27:

And you do realize you don't even have the word for "chalice" or "grail" there, right? And that the word "bread" doesn't appear either unless you pick out the letters you want? You're making this up as you go along, plain and simple.

This is undoubtedly the inspiration for Wolfram von Eschenbach's description of the Grail King's unhealing wound.

Fixed that for you.

Also, its simply not true that I am allowing an 'extremely wide range of options' in my selections.

Yes, you are. You've got huge numbers of letters that you're picking out no matter where they are on the grid. Half the words you say appear on there don't unless you pick out the letters from wherever you see them.

Broadly speaking, I have allowed a rather small number of options

Which include "picking whatever letters you want".

Even if I were to cave in to the pressure in this thread, in the end it hardly matters whether I am deluding myself about the objective reality of the encrypted content.

Yes, it does.

It is just as important that there is evidence that others in the past trod the same path as myself.

Except that there isn't. You have nothing but speculation.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

No, you implied they lacked a scientific toolkit with which to assess the sock-off-blowing drama of the seal's dynamic organization during a continuous meandering sequence. (pant pant).

You thus imply that such a toolkit would have allowed them to retain their socks.The only way for that to happen is to show them how mundane and biased the whole affair is, thus keeping their feet warm.

I am suggesting that the Genesis Seal shows more than a predictable amount to ordered structure, implying that it is deliberately designed with that in mind, for a purpose that we can only guess at. Therefore, our mediaeval forebears were right to be impressed.
Despite the lack of scientific validation for that first assertion, there is a second layer of evidence that our ancestors reached that very conclusion. It can be seen in their literary output as combinations of words, and the juxtaposition of words, like a projected image of specific parts of the Genesis Seal.

 

[Lucian]

To be fair to Kingfisher, when he listed Perceval and Parzifal as "eyewitness accounts," I don't believe that he meant that they were eyewitness accounts of the Grail. Rather, he was saying they are evidence that medieval authors recognized and used the so-called Genesis Seal. Of course, as others have pointed out, this claim is, at best, unfounded.

Like RobDegraves, I am a medievalist, though my area is English literature, so continental romances are not my strong point. However, I can say that Kingfisher's ideas about how textual analysis, literary interpretation and source studies work are faulty--to be generous. You don't take a random passage of one work (cutting it off in the middle of a sentence), rearrange it into some randomly chosen pattern and then look for stuff, yelling, "voila!" when you find the word "sword."

A smattering of shared words (especially when they've been rearranged) in different languages is not enough to say that the one work is a source for the other. It's not even enough to say that they are analogues that may be related in some way. Your word games do not amount to verbal echoes or verbal correspondences.

As for the sources mentioned by Chretien and Wolfram: it's a common literary motif in medieval works for the author or narrator to refer to some mysterious source. Geoffrey of Monmouth, for instance, claimed that his source for his Historia Regum Britanniae was a very ancient book in the British language given to him by Walter the Archdeacon. Geoffrey certainly had his sources, but very few scholars have much faith in the very ancient book. I believe Wolfram's source is also questioned. Certainly, there is no evidence for its existence. His main source is Chretien and his own poetic imagination. With Chretien, it's harder to say what the direct source is, partly because Perceval is such an unholy mess. In general, though, he is thought to have drawn on Celtic sources.

This sort of "literary analysis" reminds me of people who have discovered some sort of secret message or code that "proves" Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare.

 

[dafydd]

Show me where I said that.

This is undoubtedly the inspiration for Wolfram von Eschenbach's description of the Grail King's unhealing wound. Referring to the parts of Figure 28, recall that the young king had received a wound to his scrotum (part c) from a lance-head (part a) impregnated with the venom of a serpent

There you are.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

(snip) Fortunately, all of those sizes are made to fit with all the others, and the size of the nut doesn't have to precisely match the bolt.

Your scattergun response is based on snippets of my post that mostly (and conveniently for you) lack their original context. It is impossible for me to answer them.

 

[dafydd]

Your scattergun response is based on snippets of my post that mostly (and conveniently for you) lack their original context. It is impossible for me to answer them.

It's the perfect response to your Texas Sharpshooter scatter gun method.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

There you are.

What you wrote was this:

You said that the authors of Genesis encoded the story of King Arthur's death, which is absurd.

First, I had already explained that the author(s) of Genesis 1 had no knowledge of their future.

Second, I did not say that the king had died.

Third, the Grail King is not King Arthur. In Wolfram's tale he is known as Anfortas. Both Wolfram and Chretien of Troyes (in his Perceval) recognise Arthur and his court, but only in a secondary role. All encounters involving their Graal, Gral or Grail take place at an altogether different castle that Wolfram calls Muntsalveich, which some commentators equate with the Pyrenean hilltop fortress of Montsegur where the Cathars held out for 9 months against the Albigensian Crusade. Wolfram also invented an order of Grail guardian knights that he called the Templeisen. In the contemporary history, the Cathars and the Knights Templar were friendly neighbours.

 

[dafydd]

What you wrote was this:


First, I had already explained that the author(s) of Genesis 1 had no knowledge of their future.

Second, I did not say that the king had died.

Third, the Grail King is not King Arthur. In Wolfram's tale he is known as Anfortas. Both Wolfram and Chretien of Troyes (in his Perceval) recognise Arthur and his court, but only in a secondary role. All encounters involving their Graal, Gral or Grail take place at an altogether different castle that Wolfram calls Muntsalveich, which some commentators equate with the Pyrenean hilltop fortress of Montsegur where the Cathars held out for 9 months against the Albigensian Crusade. Wolfram also invented an order of Grail guardian knights that he called the Templeisen. In the contemporary history, the Cathars and the Knights Templar were friendly neighbours.

And where does Gandalf come into it?

 

[Kingfisher2926]

To be fair to Kingfisher, when he listed Perceval and Parzifal as "eyewitness accounts," I don't believe that he meant that they were eyewitness accounts of the Grail. Rather, he was saying they are evidence that medieval authors recognized and used the so-called Genesis Seal. Of course, as others have pointed out, this claim is, at best, unfounded.

Like RobDegraves, I am a medievalist, though my area is English literature, so continental romances are not my strong point. However, I can say that Kingfisher's ideas about how textual analysis, literary interpretation and source studies work are faulty--to be generous. You don't take a random passage of one work (cutting it off in the middle of a sentence), rearrange it into some randomly chosen pattern and then look for stuff, yelling, "voila!" when you find the word "sword."

A smattering of shared words (especially when they've been rearranged) in different languages is not enough to say that the one work is a source for the other. It's not even enough to say that they are analogues that may be related in some way. Your word games do not amount to verbal echoes or verbal correspondences.

As for the sources mentioned by Chretien and Wolfram: it's a common literary motif in medieval works for the author or narrator to refer to some mysterious source. Geoffrey of Monmouth, for instance, claimed that his source for his Historia Regum Britanniae was a very ancient book in the British language given to him by Walter the Archdeacon. Geoffrey certainly had his sources, but very few scholars have much faith in the very ancient book. I believe Wolfram's source is also questioned. Certainly, there is no evidence for its existence. His main source is Chretien and his own poetic imagination. With Chretien, it's harder to say what the direct source is, partly because Perceval is such an unholy mess. In general, though, he is thought to have drawn on Celtic sources.

This sort of "literary analysis" reminds me of people who have discovered some sort of secret message or code that "proves" Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare.

Thank you. I can live with your conventional outlook and even agree with you that my approach does not fit the conventional paradigm for literary criticism of that period (may have the wrong vocabulary, but I'm sure you will understand what I mean).

As for the suggested analogy with the works of Shakespeare, I really don't think the two are analogous. In fact, I would have to say that the re-interpretation of the Genesis Seal by Chretien and Wolfram may have no counterpart using something other than the Seal.

Since you highlighted my use of the word for 'sword', I thought it might be helpful if I draw together some loose ends. In my post about the Grail, I showed in Figure 27 (repeated below) that the G2 Square reveals the newly formed word for sword, sharing its middle letter with the newly formed word for 'a womb' (also 'maiden').



However, before the G1 to G2 transformation, the horizontal row in which the sword would appear contained the emergent word for 'a bulrush', which was high in a region that contains every occurrence of the letter vav, symbolic of water in the Genesis Seal. Figure 18 shows how I presented this in relation to the topography of the Nile Delta, as letters on a green background.



Taking into account the way the two views superimpose the maiden over a distinctive formation of water, and the sword over the word 'bulrush', this is all very reminiscent of the Lady of the Lake, with the Sword Excalibur.
What tends to be ignored in these discussions is that I am not presenting isolated cases such as this. I am asking for them all (and there are plenty of them) to be assessed as a complex whole. This does, I fear, require a totally new outlook from conventional literary analysis.

 

[Nonpareil]

I am suggesting that the Genesis Seal shows more than a predictable amount to ordered structure

It doesn't.

Therefore, our mediaeval forebears were right to be impressed.

They weren't.

Despite the lack of scientific validation for that first assertion

- without which the entire thing collapses like a house of cards -

there is a second layer of evidence that our ancestors reached that very conclusion. It can be seen in their literary output as combinations of words, and the juxtaposition of words, like a projected image of specific parts of the Genesis Seal.

No, it can't.

Your scattergun response is based on snippets of my post that mostly (and conveniently for you) lack their original context. It is impossible for me to answer them.

Pffffaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

That is such a pathetic handwave of an excuse I can't even begin to imagine how you typed it with a straight face.

EDIT: If you want to make any progress at all, Kingfisher, I'd encourage you to go through my post and show how my "scattergun approach" - which really just consists of going through your posts and snipping out the parts which are wrong for closer examination - invalidates what I've said. Show how my "taking them out of context" - which I haven't - has changed their meaning. Show how what I've said has no value.

I guarantee you, if you do this and actually make valid points, the rest of the forums will be on your side against me.

 

[Lucian]

Thank you. I can live with your conventional outlook and even agree with you that my approach does not fit the conventional paradigm for literary criticism of that period (may have the wrong vocabulary, but I'm sure you will understand what I mean).

<snip>

When you speak of a "conventional" standard for literary/textual analysis, I take it you mean "rigorous" and "scholarly" and "responsible" as opposed to "imagining connections that no one else can see."

 

[Marduk]

Even if I were to cave in to the pressure in this thread, in the end it hardly matters whether I am deluding myself about the objective reality of the encrypted content..

I think the consensus here is that you do have a real psychiatric problem and that because of it, you don't understand that it is you who are deluded, about all of it, not just the uses you have imagined its been put to in history, but the creation of the seal in your deluded state in the first place and every single thing you've said about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

The delusions are generally fantastic and typically have a supernatural, science-fictional, or religious theme. There is a relative lack of research into GD, in comparison to persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations.

Grandiose delusions are distinct from grandiosity, in that the sufferer does not have insight into his loss of touch with reality.

The natural conclusion to draw is that you have at some time in the past been diagnosed with either bi polar disorder or Schizophrenia and currently are not taking medication for it.

It is just as important that there is evidence that others in the past trod the same path as myself. The evidence exists almost entirely in a wide range of well-known literature, with just a little in the historical record of what was happening at the same time the literature was being written.

you haven't produced any evidence yet
your evidence for the grail stories consists of the following when it was finally drawn out

womb aka maiden

This first one is simply a lie, maiden doesn't appear in the seal, you have decided arbitrarily to derive the word maiden from womb simply because you are aware that one is vital to the plot

sword
spear
bread
wine
bulrush
.

so in reality you are claiming that these six words are responsible for the main theme of several different stories that make up the grail romances, if I told you that I could come up with the entire star wars saga from just seven words, which I had pre selected from a word square of my own making, you would laugh at me. How about if I told you that my discovery would affect the entire world, You would think me mad

that's the point you passed some time ago and one is laughing any more

 

[EvilQuest]

You are not going to stop are you Kingfisher. You will keep on with this regardless of your critics' protestations. You have still not conducted any tests which might invalidate the conclusions you have already drawn, and yet you still expect everyone here to be amazed by your "unique discovery" based on your assertions alone. I look at your Genesis Seal and all i see are interpreted patterns, concocted associations, biased conclusions. Wheels within wheels. All your talk of what historical figures might have done in the past is just your own personal speculation.

If these patterns are actually as you see them then that must suggest that the the author of Genesis designed his writings to elicit this type of interpretation in the future. You would not be so fervent about this if you thought otherwise. You are suggesting design in all of this because if you weren't then as a rational man you would simply accept this as a random convergence of characters. So what's the deal. Was he a savant or was it all just a bizarre coincidence? It can't be supernatural in nature surely since you've already ruled that out. Maybe it's none of the above. Maybe it's just you.

If the original author of Genesis had no design in mind, then there would be no reason whatsoever for you to try to "interpret" these writings as you have, since there would be nothing to interpret. Hans has already shown how easy it is to construct matrices and support pre-determined conclusions based only upon those "patterns" which support those self-same pre-determined conclusions (ignoring the rest).

You will never get acceptance on this topic unless you truly subject your work to proper scientific scrutiny. Only then will people at least accept that you have a genuine argument to make. It would also mean though that you would have to jettison your existing "certainty" and approach the issue with an open mind.

Alas, I do not believe you are capable of doing that. Conclusions are already drawn. And you see your task here only as one of educating the masses. They will get it eventually if you just keep on surely?. Why can't they acknowledge the wondrous discoveries you have made? You accept that you have to be patient with these people but their lack of understanding and acceptance of the truth really does grate on your nerves. If only they could see what you are seeing. Then they'd understand.

 

[The Norseman]

looked more like a mapatasi to me

What has been seen, cannot be unseen.

 

[tsig]

I'm starting to feel like we need a genuine psychiatrist in here, to do whatever the forum post version is of "It's not your fault. It's not your fault. It's not your fault."

...either that or the author of the original book of genesis genuinely did code in a scrotum for use in a story written in a different language, over 1500 years later, by people who most likely did not even speak the original language, let alone spend their time poring over random mathematical patterns in ancient texts for inspiration for their stories.

OK folks take my advice, drop your pants and slide on the ice.