The Genesis Seal

[Kingfisher2926]

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

Such as?

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Such as?

Apophenia

 

[Sideroxylon]

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.

Kingfisher, I understand your problems with having to deal with a bombardment of questions but from what I have observed you are not constructively engaging anyone. You are not responding in ways that show you understand the criticism being leveled against you. This would explain them coming back to you ad nauseum as you put it. Might I suggest that with the patience, know-how and willingness shown, Hans is your man here. Build up an honest rapport with him.

I love this place because there are a lot of really bright people who are very experienced in criticaly examining these types of claims but you are dismissing them all too readily. This is not to mention the many lurkers, some of whom you might expect to delurk and back you if you really were onto something. I think you need to take a good hard look at what you are doing here before casting blame so easilly.

 

[dafydd]

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.

That is not the point, You can find many words and patterns in any chunk of text.

 

[Lucian]

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.

I still don't understand the point of reformatting the text at all. I still see no evidence that the author of that passage ever intended it to be reformatted.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Apophenia

I was, of course, asking Dancing David to provide one or more specific examples of my error-prone method of seeking patterns. However, I found the Wiki definition of Apophenia interesting and worthy of my future attention. It also showed me where skeptics go to hone their impressive skills.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I was, of course, asking Dancing David to provide one or more specific examples of my error-prone method of seeking patterns. However, I found the Wiki definition of Apophenia interesting and worthy of my future attention. It also showed me where skeptics go to hone their impressive skills.

How did you arrive at the assumption I got that term from wikipedia?

Google yeilds various results, Infact I hilited, Seems you're the one going to wikipedia.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

I still don't understand the point of reformatting the text at all. I still see no evidence that the author of that passage ever intended it to be reformatted.

I understand your doubt, because I have plastered the rationale in all sorts of places. But there are some important clues in the first few verses of Genesis Chapter 1. Here are some of the key pointers:

1. The Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 has word-breaks after 14, 21 and 28 letters, along with four other places of course. Such multiples of 7 only extend the unnaturally ubiquitous presence of 7s in the biblical creation account. I saw this as nothing more than an invitation to doodle.
2. Breaking that text into four blocks of 7 consecutive letters each, I saw two ways to adapt them, one of which is the perimeter of a 8x8 square.
3. When I placed the text in that way, it obviously created a frame with only space within. The next verse says: And the earth was without form and void..., so I sought a way to enter that very text into the void. I think the format I chose, as a converging spiral, is as intuitive as any possibility.
4. Once that was done, the resulting 8x8 square revealed two emergent copies of the word for 'light', in an interesting relationship. Here, 'emergent' means in a linear configuration, but made from letters that are not adjacent in the source text. It struck me that the two copies of light might reflect the text of the third verse, which begins: And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light.
5. Another obvious characteristic of this G1 Square was the way in which all nine copies of the letter vav happen to be crowded into one triangular half of the square. Additionally, five of them take up the form of a symmetrical Y-shape that is also placed over a diagonal of the square as an axis of bi-lateral symmetry.
6. When the text of Genesis 1:2 in entered, it becomes truncated, so that the expression the spirit of God becomes separated from the face of the waters. In a sort of leap in the dark, I surmised that something symbolic of 'the spirit of God' might also have to be excluded from the square. The single letter ayin commended itself in several ways, so it was migrated to the outside of the square. The resulting G2 Square revealed in inordinately large amount of new content.

I think this list is as long as it needs to be to show the rationale I was following. But it is important to recognise that the clues given by the explicit text of Genesis Chapter 1 quickly gave way to a more direct way to endorse the methodology.

While many posters in this list insist they do not accept that, in this respect, the Genesis Seal is different from any other Hebrew text, I am certain that it is totally different from anything one should expect. I can only point to the extraordinary volume of emergent content revealed in my posts #: 1, 119, 136, 288, 289, 361, 446, 492, 554, 654, 697, 755, 827, 867, 937 and 1011. And I am not yet finished describing ways in which the Genesis Seal has asserted its special nature on peoples of the past.

 

[Pup]

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

Same here. High school education.

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.

People are saying you're seeing patterns that aren't significant. You do realize that there are crackpots out there, who do this same kind of thing all the time, as sort of a hobby/obsession? Search this forum for "corn gods" for just one example.

You have to set yourself apart from all those crackpots, and show that what you have is the real thing. So far, you haven't done so. What you're doing looks just like what they're doing.

The crackpots of the underground railroad are what I had to deal with. They're not as bad, but when the field is loaded with "grandpa said" and quilts and secret tunnels, academics tend to roll their eyes, until you start showing period letters and articles, period court cases with testimony that corroborates the letters and articles, the right slave names on period estate inventories, the right owners' names on the right deeds, etc. Then academics have to sit up and take notice.

I'm sure there are similar kinds of evidence in the ancient code field, that RobDegraves and folks like him can easily recognize as distinguishing yet another delusion from the real thing.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Originally Posted by Kingfisher2926
I was, of course, asking Dancing David to provide one or more specific examples of my error-prone method of seeking patterns. However, I found the Wiki definition of Apophenia interesting and worthy of my future attention. It also showed me where skeptics go to hone their impressive skills.

How did you arrive at the assumption I got that term from wikipedia?

Google yeilds various results, Infact I hilited, Seems you're the one going to wikipedia.

I didn't mean to imply that, though I don't know what difference it makes. I had not heard the word Apophenia before, so I chose Wikipedia as a readily available source of a definition. Wiki has also been quoted at me a few times.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Same here. High school education.



People are saying you're seeing patterns that aren't significant. You do realize that there are crackpots out there, who do this same kind of thing all the time, as sort of a hobby/obsession? Search this forum for "corn gods" for just one example.

You have to set yourself apart from all those crackpots, and show that what you have is the real thing. So far, you haven't done so. What you're doing looks just like what they're doing.

The crackpots of the underground railroad are what I had to deal with. They're not as bad, but when the field is loaded with "grandpa said" and quilts and secret tunnels, academics tend to roll their eyes, until you start showing period letters and articles, period court cases with testimony that corroborates the letters and articles, the right slave names on period estate inventories, the right owners' names on the right deeds, etc. Then academics have to sit up and take notice.

I'm sure there are similar kinds of evidence in the ancient code field, that RobDegraves and folks like him can easily recognize as distinguishing yet another delusion from the real thing.

I really am aware of the advantage of having citable, documentary evidence. But, conspiracy theories apart, I'm dealing with a matter that could have cost people their lives up to two or three centuries ago. I'm having to contend with a complete dearth of documentary evidence, because those who had the knowledge didn't dare show their heads above the parapet.
The only evidence I have for the Seal's past influence is a range of cryptic literature, and enigmatic historical events, that have led experts into many a blind alley. When I treat the Genesis Seal as a new primary source, I have found that it works like a skeleton key that opens many doors that were previously locked tight.

 

[RobDegraves]

The crackpots of the underground railroad are what I had to deal with. They're not as bad, but when the field is loaded with "grandpa said" and quilts and secret tunnels, academics tend to roll their eyes, until you start showing period letters and articles, period court cases with testimony that corroborates the letters and articles, the right slave names on period estate inventories, the right owners' names on the right deeds, etc.

Darn... that sounds fun actually.

I'm sure there are similar kinds of evidence in the ancient code field, that RobDegraves and folks like him can easily recognize as distinguishing yet another delusion from the real thing.

Yes there are, I can be very specific if you want, but I have yet to see any of that for the Genesis Seal.



OK...

I'm having to contend with a complete dearth of documentary evidence, because those who had the knowledge didn't dare show their heads above the parapet.

So... pretty well like every alchemist in the middle ages?

We have evidence for that... but nothing for your seal.

The only evidence I have for the Seal's past influence is a range of cryptic literature, and enigmatic historical events, that have led experts into many a blind alley.

What literature?
What historical events?
What blind alley?

When I treat the Genesis Seal as a new primary source, I have found that it works like a skeleton key that opens many doors that were previously locked tight.

It is not a primary text in any way whatsoever.

So far it's just a grid you made up to find words based on the genesis account.

1. You are not using original texts for the genesis account. Ergo, any pattern you find are modern ones.

2. You are not using ancient languages as your basis, nor have you shown any in depth knowledge of ancient Hebrew, culture or even medieval variations on language.. ergo only modern patterns are possible.

All you are doing is pretending that you know something about a subject you know nearly nothing about.

Read a book.

Get help.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Originally Posted by Kingfisher2926
I was, of course, asking Dancing David to provide one or more specific examples of my error-prone method of seeking patterns. However, I found the Wiki definition of Apophenia interesting and worthy of my future attention. It also showed me where skeptics go to hone their impressive skills.


I didn't mean to imply that, though I don't know what difference it makes. I had not heard the word Apophenia before, so I chose Wikipedia as a readily available source of a definition. Wiki has also been quoted at me a few times.

Again perhaps I'm just reading it wrong, But it just seems like an unnecessary snipe.

 

[Lucian]

I understand your doubt, because I have plastered the rationale in all sorts of places. But there are some important clues in the first few verses of Genesis Chapter 1. Here are some of the key pointers:

1. The Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 has word-breaks after 14, 21 and 28 letters, along with four other places of course. Such multiples of 7 only extend the unnaturally ubiquitous presence of 7s in the biblical creation account. I saw this as nothing more than an invitation to doodle.
2. Breaking that text into four blocks of 7 consecutive letters each, I saw two ways to adapt them, one of which is the perimeter of a 8x8 square.
3. When I placed the text in that way, it obviously created a frame with only space within. The next verse says: And the earth was without form and void..., so I sought a way to enter that very text into the void. I think the format I chose, as a converging spiral, is as intuitive as any possibility.
4. Once that was done, the resulting 8x8 square revealed two emergent copies of the word for 'light', in an interesting relationship. Here, 'emergent' means in a linear configuration, but made from letters that are not adjacent in the source text. It struck me that the two copies of light might reflect the text of the third verse, which begins: And God said, "Let there be light", and there was light.
5. Another obvious characteristic of this G1 Square was the way in which all nine copies of the letter vav happen to be crowded into one triangular half of the square. Additionally, five of them take up the form of a symmetrical Y-shape that is also placed over a diagonal of the square as an axis of bi-lateral symmetry.
6. When the text of Genesis 1:2 in entered, it becomes truncated, so that the expression the spirit of God becomes separated from the face of the waters. In a sort of leap in the dark, I surmised that something symbolic of 'the spirit of God' might also have to be excluded from the square. The single letter ayin commended itself in several ways, so it was migrated to the outside of the square. The resulting G2 Square revealed in inordinately large amount of new content.

I think this list is as long as it needs to be to show the rationale I was following. But it is important to recognise that the clues given by the explicit text of Genesis Chapter 1 quickly gave way to a more direct way to endorse the methodology.

While many posters in this list insist they do not accept that, in this respect, the Genesis Seal is different from any other Hebrew text, I am certain that it is totally different from anything one should expect. I can only point to the extraordinary volume of emergent content revealed in my posts #: 1, 119, 136, 288, 289, 361, 446, 492, 554, 654, 697, 755, 827, 867, 937 and 1011. And I am not yet finished describing ways in which the Genesis Seal has asserted its special nature on peoples of the past.

Yeah, sorry, this explanation really doesn't help. Let's look at point 1:

The Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1 has word-breaks after 14, 21 and 28 letters, along with four other places of course. Such multiples of 7 only extend the unnaturally ubiquitous presence of 7s in the biblical creation account. I saw this as nothing more than an invitation to doodle.

So 7 and multiples thereof are important. Considering the content of Genesis 1, I can accept that. And you see multiples of seven in Genesis 1:1 with "word breaks after 14, 21 and 28 letters, along with four other places of course." Even if it were all sevens, I'd be inclined to say, "Huh, what a weird coincidence," but it's not all sevens. I don't really understand what's significant about it at all.

This reminds me of something that bothered me about your original post when you noted that five occurrences of the letter vav "assembled into an unlikely ‘Y’ configuration, precisely on the grid’s vertical axis of bi-lateral symmetry." That would have been a more impressive coincidence if there were only five occurrences of the letter vav in the grid, but there are actually nine. In addition, the arms of the Y aren't made up exclusively of the letter vav. It seems clear that you are seeing significant patterns where none exist.

 

[Dancing David]

I was, of course, asking Dancing David to provide one or more specific examples of my error-prone method of seeking patterns. However, I found the Wiki definition of Apophenia interesting and worthy of my future attention. It also showed me where skeptics go to hone their impressive skills.

You have some that are squidgy lines, some that are split and some that are circles, so what consistency is there in these patterns.

 

[Lucian]

By the way, as far as I know, there is no evidence that Chretien de Troyes or Wolfram von Eschenbach were in any way adept at Hebrew.

 

[Marduk]

which source text have you used ?
yes i know Genesis, but from which version of the bible

 

[RobDegraves]

Chretien de Troyes or Wolfram von Eschenbach were in any way adept at Hebrew.

For Chretien de Troyes, Gaelic would have been more likely than Hebrew.

Even that is dubious.

 

[Lucian]

For Chretien de Troyes, Gaelic would have been more likely than Hebrew.

Even that is dubious.

Exactly. He seems to have encountered Celtic stories that filtered into France through Brittany, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was proficient in a Celtic language. And the idea that he was fiddling around with the Hebrew opening of Genesis rearranged into a grid....

 

[dafydd]

Exactly. He seems to have encountered Celtic stories that filtered into France through Brittany, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was proficient in a Celtic language. And the idea that he was fiddling around with the Hebrew opening of Genesis rearranged into a grid....

....is pure babble from the sickbed.