• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Genesis Seal

Kingfisher2926 said:
I am working with the first few words of Genesis. That is a long way from cherry-picking.
Click to expand...

Not the input text, but you are picking from what you discover via your 'seal'.

Speaking of picking, this reminds me of your entire approach:
Have you heard that elephants paint their toenails red so they can hide in cherry trees?
Have you ever seen an elephant in a cherry tree? No? Well, see how well it works!



General call:
Is there some way we can show Kingfisher that his Hebrew (i.e. not using English as we have) seal can yield less suggestive finds? Perhaps modern names, mundane nouns and other contemporary trivia would cause him to think twice.
 
Last edited:
dafydd said:
He could have the Genesis Seal tattooed on his head.
Click to expand...

No, that was Peter's thing. Fox head, flower, old man, Genesis Seal. But ultimately, as Philsy was a latecomer, it would be best to ask Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford, as they were the only original members to last through the whole thing.
 
Donn said:
Not the input text, but you are picking from what you discover via your 'seal'.

Speaking of picking, this reminds me of your entire approach:
Have you heard that elephants paint their toenails red so they can hide in cherry trees?
Have you ever see an elephant in a cherry tree? No? Well, see how well it works!



General call:
Is there some way we can show Kingfisher that his Hebrew (i.e. not using English as we have) seal can yield less suggestive finds? Perhaps modern names, mundane nouns and other contemporary trivia would cause him to think twice.
Click to expand...

He could do the same with any short text from any book. Why can't he see that?
 
jond said:
No, that was Peter's thing. Fox head, flower, old man, Genesis Seal. But ultimately, as Philsy was a latecomer, it would be best to ask Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford, as they were the only original members to last through the whole thing.
Click to expand...

They were university chaps, they wouldn't fall for this nonsense.
 
dafydd said:
They were university chaps, they wouldn't fall for this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Oh, no, they were public school boys. Went pro after school, no college. Charterhouse, specifically. And Peter is a serious woo. Believes women's periods are controlled by the moon.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
In effect, I shall be incommunicado for a while.
Click to expand...

you're already there, so another attempt on your part to lie your way out of an earlier unsupported claim
:rolleyes:

Kingfisher2926 said:
I am working with the first few words of Genesis. That is a long way from cherry-picking.
Click to expand...

its the very definition of cherry picking, we already are aware kingfisher that the reason you haven't done it with the rest of Genesis is because it doesn't work as well. So your confirmation bias is now denying that you are cherry picking, doesn't matter, its not necessary for you to admit something for the rest of us to know its true, by comparison the bible code which works throughout the whole book is far superior. Maybe you need to read this,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)
because its clearly another logical fallacy that you don't understand
;)
 
Last edited:
jond said:
Oh, no, they were public school boys. Went pro after school, no college. Charterhouse, specifically. And Peter is a serious woo. Believes women's periods are controlled by the moon.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Peter is a woo, I met him once during his shaven forehead period.
 
jond said:
Yeah, but still one of my all time favorites. We shared a bassist for a long time.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I took part in the SLL and Young Socialists pageant at the Empire Pool circa 1972. He took part too, that's where I met him. Were you there?
 
dafydd said:
He could do the same with any short text from any book. Why can't he see that?
Click to expand...

I reckon it will show that we have a point, in the very place that he spends most of his time, so he's going to notice that. Might ignore it, but that's later.

If, by sod's law, there is nothing aptly mundane therein.. Er.. Plan B!
 
dafydd said:
Interesting. I took part in the SLL and Young Socialists pageant at the Empire Pool circa 1972. He took part too, that's where I met him. Were you there?
Click to expand...

No, I was just a young lad in the US of A, who had a voracious appetite for the music of the prog scene. It wasn't until the early '90s that I began working with Tony Levin.
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
I am working with the first few words of Genesis. That is a long way from cherry-picking.
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest you were cherry picking, if you care to read what I wrote rather than what you think I wrote. My objection (one of the many objections I have) is that you are arbitrarily using the first 64 characters, which isn't one or two complete verses, but one verse plus a bit of the next verse. Further, you stop partway through a word.

If this Genesis Seal nonsense had any validity other than the Bible code revisited and repackaged in a spiral instead of a grid, why would it be necessary to break off the plaintext in the middle of a verse and the middle of a word? Surely a competent god would make it neat and tidy, at least make the plaintext end with a complete word if not at the end of a sentence.

Your claim is that this stuff was known in the past, and you've been asked several times to substantiate that claim with the name of any historical figure. So far you have refused to do so, stating that you have to explain the method first. Why do we have to read the explanations before you substantiate your claim that this is not new?

I don't find it strange that it might have been known in the past; humans naturally want to make an uncertain future more comfortable by fooling themselves that the future is knowable. Many people have tried gematria and numerology and using ancient texts as plaintexts for ciphers, and many have found lots of postdictions. Predictions are a little thin on the ground, and most are so wide and vague that they can be retrofitted to any happening.

All you are doing is finding patterns ("look, a river! a Y-shape!") and ascribing meaning to them where no meaning exists. There's nothing wrong with doing so, as long as you understand that the patterns are natural artefacts of a huge language being formed by just a few characters.

As an intellectual exercise it might be fun, and with some work on the presentation you could probably get a book out of it. Drosnin might have cornered the market already but if you can show your spiral to be sufficiently different to his grids I imagine a publisher might look favourably at it, the woo market is big.
 
Dinwar said:
You've never been to an art gallery with a pair of scientists. We would have had it mapped out perfectly, except I like middle to late Renaissance paintings and my lady likes Impressionism and Minimalism. So we ended up with TWO maps.

And by method I don't mean "How did you find this?" What I mean is, "How does it work?" There's a major geophysical theory that was inspired by two guys getting so drunk they couldn't keep their beers in the cans long enough to drink them, and chugging the whole time (the Bear Can Experiment, if you're curious). What I mean is, how does it WORK? To be anything but confirmation bias, there has to be some systematic approach to the text, which reveals the meaning. All codes work that way--that's why they can be broken, and why they're comprehensible to the recipient. Without some system, even if you're right you're left with nothing more than random words and the vague feeling that there's something to find here.
Click to expand...

The best I can do is to go over a few of my earlier points.
First, the internal structure of Genesis 1:1 is eye-catching, to say the least. 7 words, 4x7 letters (which is a Perfect Number), 6-letter first word (the previous Perfect number), word breaks after 14, 21 and 28 letters. All of that said to me, "Try looking a bit deeper."
That led to the first square perimeter, which presented the effects shown in post 119.
Then Genesis 1:2 says: 'the earth was without form and void'. So I filled the void with that very text. The results are seen in my posts 1 and 136.
An interesting endorsement is given in Genesis 1:3: And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. Two uses of the word 'light', matched by two emergent copies of light in the G1 Square.
In post 136, I showed that the two copies of light are each crossed by another valid 3-letter word, one of which means 'thick darkness'. Taken as two 3x3 groups, they are 5 letters apart emulating a 3x3x5 box shape, the same relative dimensions as the Ark of the Covenant. What is more, the 4-letter word for 'tablets' occurs in emergent form in the same square (see Figure 3 in post 136).
Despite calls to present the full picture, I have had to leave out quite a bit of content, in an attempt to keep pace with questioning.
Since then, I have presented a second aspect of the Genesis Seal in post 288, showing several alternative references to rivers: one as an image, a second by name and a third matching its description given by Genesis 2:11. These appeared as a result of the (initially speculative) removal of a particular letter that already calls out for special attention. An immediate result was the creation of the word for 'four' overlapping the word for 'a head', where Genesis 2:10 says, And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted and became unto four heads.
Finally, because of the many calls for me to show evidence of the Genesis Seal's past influence, I cited two Jewish myths (see post 289) that can be explained in no better way than by reference to the G2 aspect of the Genesis Seal.
Above all else I have enough very detailed material on the Seal to fill a book of several hundred pages, including almost a hundred illustrations more detailed than some I have posted here. Some correspondents on this thread have asked my to present the whole picture. Now you and they will understand why is not possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom