The Genesis Seal

[tsig]

And what does this have to do with anything?

When the pressure from the cognitive dissonance grows to great you have to vent.

 

[MRC_Hans]

My block response to several recent posts is this:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Where I see great beauty, the scientific mind sees only a specimen to be taken apart, forgetting that the healthy body ceases to be healthy once its parts become separated.
Who can put a scientific definition on beauty?

Illusions can be beautiful, but they remain ... illusions.

Hans

 

[Donn]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Where I see great beauty, the scientific mind sees only a specimen to be taken apart, forgetting that the healthy body ceases to be healthy once its parts become separated.
Who can put a scientific definition on beauty?

A frank admission that your whole enterprise is art.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

A frank admission that your whole enterprise is art.

The author of the Genesis Seal had a matchless talent for artistic creativity. From start to finish, that is something I would never deny. My own role has been to write a suitable critique for it, drawing attention to the superb quality of its intricate design. Sixteen very detailed posts, supported by over 40 graphic illustrations (some unnumbered) should speak for themselves. However, I know better than to hope they may not be rejected out of hand.

 

[Pup]

A fair and reasonable suggestion, I admit. There is the immediate question as to which academic discipline to address a paper to; the Genesis Seal impacts in so many areas. Also, since I am proposing something previously unheard of, I doubt that I would be given even a preliminary hearing.

I just did a year's worth of research on a 19th century book. I'm reinterpreting it in a totally new way, with never-before-found evidence that it wasn't fiction passed off fraudulently as fact, but was indeed based partially on actual events. It impacts both history and literature, since knowing the author's real name changes the historical background behind the book.

I showed a sample of my work to a history professor, who was impressed, and recommended it to a university press editor, who was also impressed, and he's reviewing the final manuscript.

The academic community loves new discoveries. You just have to convince them it's the real thing. If you can't, guess what? Maybe it's not.

 

[RobDegraves]

Congrats Pup. As a historian myself I am quite curious about what you have discovered. I love the 19th century.

The academic community loves new discoveries. You just have to convince them it's the real thing. If you can't, guess what? Maybe it's not.

This is absolutely true. You cannot make a career simply from the tried and true... you have to find new information and new ideas. However, the burden of scientific and rigorous proof should never waver.

As far as the Genesis Seal is concerned.

The author of the Genesis Seal had a matchless talent for artistic creativity. From start to finish, that is something I would never deny. My own role has been to write a suitable critique for it, drawing attention to the superb quality of its intricate design. Sixteen very detailed posts, supported by over 40 graphic illustrations (some unnumbered) should speak for themselves. However, I know better than to hope they may not be rejected out of hand.

1. There is no author. You have shown zero evidence that it is intentional rather than just something you imagine is there.

2. It's neither creative nor artistic, except in the loosest sense of the word. It's just the same kind of delusional nonsense you see in the thousands if you look at any of the religious or conspiracy web sites.

3. You have presented no evidence for any of your claims and yet you continue to post in a skeptic's forum. That's just plain stupid.

Get some help before you waste your whole life on this delusion.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

I just did a year's worth of research on a 19th century book. I'm reinterpreting it in a totally new way, with never-before-found evidence that it wasn't fiction passed off fraudulently as fact, but was indeed based partially on actual events. It impacts both history and literature, since knowing the author's real name changes the historical background behind the book.

I showed a sample of my work to a history professor, who was impressed, and recommended it to a university press editor, who was also impressed, and he's reviewing the final manuscript.

The academic community loves new discoveries. You just have to convince them it's the real thing. If you can't, guess what? Maybe it's not.

I tend to describe myself as a 'gifted amateur' because I did not have a specific academic background, even before I retired.

What I did once do was send a sample of my work to the public front-man of a prominent society of Biblical Scholars. He replied that the whole subject is too esoteric to be of interest. I was actually flattered to receive a reply at all. But it just shows that the Genesis Seal tends to evoke concerns that it might somehow be supernatural. I have found the same in this thread.

Before I retired I spent several years working in a back-office for a higher-education establishment, where I got to know speciallists in several subjects relevant to the Genesis Seal. They were all quite insular. New discoveries come in a variety of flavours and most academics are unwilling to entertain something that challenges the familiar paradigm within which they work.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

You have presented no evidence for any of your claims and yet you continue to post in a skeptic's forum. That's just plain stupid.

You should be thanking me. Where would you be without something to be skeptical about.

 

[RobDegraves]

New discoveries come in a variety of flavours and most academics are unwilling to entertain something that challenges the familiar paradigm within which they work.

Doesn't matter. You can either prove it, or you cannot. It doesn't matter in the end what you believe, it's what you can prove that counts.

To be honest, I'm pretty open minded for a historian. However, what you are presenting isn't a challenge, it's an obvious delusion.

I'm a medieval historian. I love alchemical cyphers and esoteric studies. I've studied hermetic beliefs, alchemy and secret societies.

Present any kind of evidence that what you are talking about isn't just silly and delusional and I will be interested.

You should be thanking me. Where would you be without something to be skeptical about.

Where would you be without a delusion to care about?

 

[Sideroxylon]

I tend to describe myself as a 'gifted amateur' because I did not have a specific academic background, even before I retired.

What I did once do was send a sample of my work to the public front-man of a prominent society of Biblical Scholars. He replied that the whole subject is too esoteric to be of interest. I was actually flattered to receive a reply at all. But it just shows that the Genesis Seal tends to evoke concerns that it might somehow be supernatural. I have found the same in this thread. Before I retired I spent several years working in a back-office for a higher-education establishment, where I got to know speciallists in several subjects relevant to the Genesis Seal. They were all quite insular. New discoveries come in a variety of flavours and most academics are unwilling to entertain something that challenges the familiar paradigm within which they work.

Do you really think that is the response you have been given here?

Just to make sure we are in fact on the same page at this point in the discussion, could you please sumarize what you see to be the main problems that have been raised with your claim by JREF posters?

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Present any kind of evidence that what you are talking about isn't just silly and delusional and I will be interested.

I really don't think the Genesis Seal is susceptible to the kind of analysis that you would accept as evidence.

The evidence I have at my disposal is what I have presented in my sixteen contributory posts. From those, you have to choose between two options. Either I am an extraordinarily talented genius, able to see patterns beyond what is humanly reasonable, or an unreasonable number of patterns exist and are waiting to be found in the Genesis Seal. If its alright with you, I'm not awfully keen on the first option.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Kingfisher, you seem to be skipping over and hand waving a lot of posts by Hans, who has gone a few extra yards to provide some quality criticism. I think this would reflect badly on you in the eyes of anyone following this thread now or reading it in the future.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Do you really think that is the response you have been given here?

Just to make sure we are in fact on the same page at this point in the discussion, could you please sumarize what you see to be the main problems that have been raised with your claim by JREF posters?

This will not be a complete list:

1. That I have carefully selected a Hebrew text that meets my hopes and expectations (the sharpshooter hypothesis)
2. That I am only hoping to boost interest in a book, for profit.
3. That I have carefully selected (from an enormous number of possibilities) just those ways of re-formatting my 'chosen' text that exhibit special qualities (a variation on the sharpshooter hypothesis)
4. That I am somehow implying that the author of the Genesis Seal must have had fore-knowledge of his future.

Point 1 implies a kind of cherry-picking. But I don't see how the first 64 letters of any text can be described in that way.

Point 2 is, I can assure everybody, way off beam. I assume this is a standard early response in these circumstances.

Point 3 suffers from the failing that the possibilities for restructuring are meant to start by separating the 28 Hebrew letters of Genesis 1:1 into 4 blocks of 7 letters each (see my first post). To the best of my knowledge, that implies only two possible arrangements: a 7x4 rectangular matrix and an 8x8 square perimeter.

Point 4 is, as I have recently and repeatedly explained, an unnecessary assumption.

 

[Donn]

The author of the Genesis Seal had a matchless talent for artistic creativity. From start to finish, that is something I would never deny.

You are the author. We know this. You know this. You're a new breed of Internet beasty: a Poe Troll.

( Proll? Ptroll? Troe? Trollop? )

My own role has been to write a suitable critique for it, drawing attention to the superb quality of its intricate design.

Prolling at it's finest.

..However, I know better than to hope they may not be rejected out of hand.

I don't think you know what 'out of hand' means.

 

[Donn]

.. From those, you have to choose between two options. Either I am an extraordinarily talented genius, able to see patterns beyond what is humanly reasonable, or an unreasonable number of patterns exist and are waiting to be found in the Genesis Seal.

It's standard Troll to offer false dichotomies. It's sterling Proll to make them merge and diverge the more you read them.

 

[Dancing David]

I really don't think the Genesis Seal is susceptible to the kind of analysis that you would accept as evidence.

The ever fruitful, its not really evidence because your standards are too high argument...

also known as special pleading.

 

[Dancing David]

This will not be a complete list:

1. That I have carefully selected a Hebrew text that meets my hopes and expectations (the sharpshooter hypothesis)
2. That I am only hoping to boost interest in a book, for profit.
3. That I have carefully selected (from an enormous number of possibilities) just those ways of re-formatting my 'chosen' text that exhibit special qualities (a variation on the sharpshooter hypothesis)
4. That I am somehow implying that the author of the Genesis Seal must have had fore-knowledge of his future.

That you have an inconsistent, capricious and error prone method of seeking patterns...

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Kingfisher, you seem to be skipping over and hand waving a lot of posts by Hans, who has gone a few extra yards to provide some quality criticism. I think this would reflect badly on you in the eyes of anyone following this thread now or reading it in the future.

I quite understand, and there is more than one reason.

There have been lots of posters making carefully considered input, Hans more than most. However, I am only one person, and do not have a team of assistants at my shoulder. I have to balance the pressures to answer as many as possible worthwhile comments while sumultaneously preparing new contributory material about the Genesis Seal. The latter motive will, understandably, be seen as side-stepping the criticism. But I consider it a valid motive to put as much of the available material in the public domain as I can. Since I have no hope of presenting the kind of 'scientific' evidence that is normally expected, I have to depend on sheer volume of circumstantial evidence.

At first, I actually found the random 8x8 letter matrix presented by Hans a useful starting point for comparison with the Genesis Seal. Unfortunately, the arguments presented to me, that it equalled the Genesis Seal in its creative possibilities quickly became shambolic. I saw posters making assertions about the random matrix's quantity and quality of content that were simply not borne out by its graphic presentation. Disorder was presented as order without the slightest blush of irony. Comparisons were, in fact, anything but comparisons. There has been no engagement whatsoever with the specific content and quality of the Genesis Seal, only out-of-hand dismissal.

Then there are the arguments that keep repeating ad nauseum. I do often respond to the same arguments several times, especially where I can detect some adaptability based on my earlier responses. But I have to draw the line somewhere.

Unless I see some evidence of direct engagement with specific 'content' of the Genesis Seal that is disputed, then I shall have to continue responding on a fairly ad hoc level. Naturally, I shall also ignore the many posts that insult either me, the Genesis Seal or the intelligence of condiderate posters like yourself and Hans.

 

[dafydd]

I quite understand, and there is more than one reason.

There have been lots of posters making carefully considered input, Hans more than most. However, I am only one person, and do not have a team of assistants at my shoulder. I have to balance the pressures to answer as many as possible worthwhile comments while sumultaneously preparing new contributory material about the Genesis Seal. The latter motive will, understandably, be seen as side-stepping the criticism. But I consider it a valid motive to put as much of the available material in the public domain as I can. Since I have no hope of presenting the kind of 'scientific' evidence that is normally expected, I have to depend on sheer volume of circumstantial evidence.

At first, I actually found the random 8x8 letter matrix presented by Hans a useful starting point for comparison with the Genesis Seal. Unfortunately, the arguments presented to me, that it equalled the Genesis Seal in its creative possibilities quickly became shambolic. I saw posters making assertions about the random matrix's quantity and quality of content that were simply not borne out by its graphic presentation. Disorder was presented as order without the slightest blush of irony. Comparisons were, in fact, anything but comparisons. There has been no engagement whatsoever with the specific content and quality of the Genesis Seal, only out-of-hand dismissal.
Then there are the arguments that keep repeating ad nauseum. I do often respond to the same arguments several times, especially where I can detect some adaptability based on my earlier responses. But I have to draw the line somewhere.

Unless I see some evidence of direct engagement with specific 'content' of the Genesis Seal that is disputed, then I shall have to continue responding on a fairly ad hoc level. Naturally, I shall also ignore the many posts that insult either me, the Genesis Seal or the intelligence of condiderate posters like yourself and Hans.

That's because you made it up. If you had understood Han's posts then you would realize why the Seal is meaningless.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

That's because you made it up.

Made what up, exactly? If you take the trouble to check my source, you will find that the Hebrew text entered in the Genesis Seal really is taken verbatim from Genesis 1:1-2.