The Genesis Seal

Besides, I don't see how I can be accused of cherry-picking by accepting the opening words of the world's best-selling book.



You are cherry-picking your references, to make it look like your random strings in the original are somehow significant. Tell you what: Get a random number n (roll a dice or something), take a random book from your shelf, open it at a random page, take the n'th word from that page, ad see if you can find a significant bible reference with it. (You should skip small words like 'at', 'at', 'and', etc.)

Hans
 
shucks. i'm trying to find the "blushing icon" now!

obviously i'll feel quite silly if you were actually referring to someone else entirely. no matter. i'm sure i can deal with with the embarassment. hold your head high...:)


You're the one. It is a pleasure to welcome you to postinghood.
 
The evidence is only empirical up to now. That is why, after much cajoling, I have accepted that a proper test would be necessary for the credibility of the Genesis Seal, or its downfall. If the outcome should go against my hypothesis, I would take my enthusiasm elsewhere.

Have you seen all the proposals and counter-proposals for what would constitute a suitable test, and test data? And do you have any other helpful ideas? I would love to help, but am afraid of introducing the sort of bias that could invalidate the results. Please let me know if you want any data out of the Torah Masoretic text. I can supply data, along with a corresponding scan of pages from a published edition. Right now, though, I've just got to get some sleep. Hope your trip to the Far East went well.

There are many suggestions, because there are many ways to test. However, remember that no test can disprove your idea, as I fear it is unfalsifiable, but we can show that similar results can be obtained with texts that provably have no hidden codes (e.g. computer generated text).

Thank you, yes nice trip (as nice as overseas trips go), I'm here, and busy at work (it's not exactly a holiday trip ;) ).

Hans
 
One minor nitpick--random text will not do. Specifically, if someone were to demonstrate to me that arbitrary biblical text shows significantly more "special patterns" than random text, given some formal definition of "special patterns", then I've yet to be impressed. Natural language is in itself patterned in complex ways; this could easily contribute to unintended patterns. (For this reason, I cringe when hearing about calculated probabilities.) The ideal control for me in this case would be period-equivalent non-biblical Hebrew text.

Excellent point; thats why I put those points out there - to get feedback and have them refined.
 
I think that if you can show it properly and without bias then some people will at least entertain your points. So far people (myself included) cannot get past the point of your apparent predisposition to select and see what you want to see (possibly subconciously). You acknowledged that you could be doing exactly that recently. ie. introducing bias. That approach would never get past these guys. I'm new here but trust me: these people know their stuff. Any hint that you are being deliberate in selection because of some pre-conceived ideas will inevitably result in immediate shut-down of any potentially positive input. You can't just believe that you are being clean in your dealings, you need to be seen to be clean aswell. There is no Catch22. You can't be unqualified if this is, as you claim, something brand new, since if that's true there can be no existing authority on the subject and that would make you the only one qualified to at least some degree to present this. So do it.

EQ
Starting a new day, this is the first new post I have looked at. And it is a breath of fresh air. I am still assimilating the best of the ideas here and, because I have no great experience of control studies, I am looking especially for explicit suggestions. But, of course, I'm doing other things as well, which will undoubtedly be interpreted as ignorance on my part..
 
To start with, you have to design the test properly. It's no good saying you're going to do a test unless you (and we) know how the test is going to be run. Specifically, you will need to address at least the following questions before you start:
  1. How will you choose your "control" texts? Some form of randomization would be ideal, unless there is good reason not to be random. Including texts from other religious traditions and from non-religious sources should also be considered.
  2. How many arrangements of the text should be considered? You have admitted that you tried a number of different arrangements of the beginning of Genesis before you found one that "worked" for you. Are similar multiple "attempts" permissible for other texts?
  3. Similarly, what manipulations of the text are permissible?
  4. What constitutes a "pattern"? You seem to have applied a number of different "patterns" to the first 64 characters of Gen. 1:1-2. To an outside observer, it appears that you have simply looked for arrangements of letters that looked like "significant" words and then manipulated things to make them look like patterns. You need a rule, or set of rules, for what is and is not a pattern.
  5. What constitutes a "significant" word? Is it any identifiable word in the language in which the text is written? One that relates to the content of the text in some way? One that relates to the larger work from which the text is taken?
You will also need to justify your answers to all of these questions in ways that make sense to an impartial, outside observer and do not leave the impression that you're fixing things to come up with the result you want. For instance, the answer to question #1 might be that you would expect texts from other religious traditions to contain divine patterns, so that finding them would not falsify your thesis. In such a case, you might try passages taken from Penthouse Letters or the Dungeon Master's Guide or some other work that you would not consider divinely-inspired.

Finally, you would have to go back to your subject text (the first 64 characters of Gen. 1:1-2 in Hebrew) and subject it to the same arrangements, manipulations, and tests for patterns and significant words that you used on your control texts, and no others.

Only by doing so will you be able to convince any rational observer that there is something special about your chosen text; even then, you may have a hard time, depending on how esoteric your rules for arrangement, manipulation, patterns and significance are.
Jon, this is really useful stuff that I have taken on board. This is something I can work with. Although you do not ask for a response, I shall do so later, just to see what sort of helpful, considered reactions I receive.
 
Dinwar's post #535 is also positive without being specific. And I do intend to spend time in the back room on this work. But I must crave your indulgence (everyone) that I shall also continue posting the very stuff that that disapprove of, if only for a silent few observers (present or future) who may get some pleasure from it.
 
One minor nitpick--random text will not do. Specifically, if someone were to demonstrate to me that arbitrary biblical text shows significantly more "special patterns" than random text, given some formal definition of "special patterns", then I've yet to be impressed. Natural language is in itself patterned in complex ways; this could easily contribute to unintended patterns. (For this reason, I cringe when hearing about calculated probabilities.) The ideal control for me in this case would be period-equivalent non-biblical Hebrew text.

Fair point. I shall do so within the bounds of possibility. My intended approach will be to make use of the view throughout biblical scholarship that different parts of the Torah have been written in alternative styles by entirely different types of authors. I shall choose samples of text contributed by the so-called J (Yahwist), E (Elohist), P (Priestly) and D (Deuteronomist) groups.
 



You are cherry-picking your references, to make it look like your random strings in the original are somehow significant. Tell you what: Get a random number n (roll a dice or something), take a random book from your shelf, open it at a random page, take the n'th word from that page, ad see if you can find a significant bible reference with it. (You should skip small words like 'at', 'at', 'and', etc.)

Hans
Done that. Not sure how to play this, but the word that came up is 'thousands'.
 
MRC_Hans said:
There are many suggestions, because there are many ways to test. However, remember that no test can disprove your idea, as I fear it is unfalsifiable, but we can show that similar results can be obtained with texts that provably have no hidden codes (e.g. computer generated text).
Wasn't sure you expected a reply, but I'm getting paranoid after being accused by others of ignorance. Anyway, just showing that I am listening.

Added: If other texts do show the same degree of apparent, underlying order then I shall take up a new hobby.
 
Last edited:
Done that. Not sure how to play this, but the word that came up is 'thousands'.

Example:
"So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of [every] tribe, twelve thousand armed for war."
Numbers 31:5​
So your random word 'thousands' now links to a verse in the bibble and you can conclude (backwards) that the text you drew the word from has some hidden agenda to do with war.

(I think that's what Hans means.)
 
Last edited:
Jon said:
(*Snip*) To start with, you have to design the test properly. It's no good saying you're going to do a test unless you (and we) know how the test is going to be run. Specifically, you will need to address at least the following questions before you start:
How will you choose your "control" texts? Some form of randomization would be ideal, unless there is good reason not to be random. Including texts from other religious traditions and from non-religious sources should also be considered.
I shall pick texts of 28 letters, so that I can make comparisons with Figures 7 and 8(b) of my post #446. Clearly, I am limiting my comparison to the realm of geometry and mathematics, rather than literary features. I shall choose whole, 28-letter verses from the Masoretic Torah – one each from a J source, an E source, a P source and a D source. I have no competence in religious traditions outside of Judaism and Christianity. However, I could select one text from each of, say, Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls and Defoe’s Moll Flanders
(*Snip*) How many arrangements of the text should be considered? You have admitted that you tried a number of different arrangements of the beginning of Genesis before you found one that "worked" for you. Are similar multiple "attempts" permissible for other texts?
If I stick to 7x4 and 4x7 matrices, shouldn’t they be expected to exhibit a similar amount of order as Genesis 1:1?
(*Snip*) Similarly, what manipulations of the text are permissible?
Matrices, as above, but for ‘text’ read numbers. I shall look for sequences and combinations of digits that have simple mathematical or geometrical significance, or both.
(*Snip*) What constitutes a "pattern"? You seem to have applied a number of different "patterns" to the first 64 characters of Gen. 1:1-2. To an outside observer, it appears that you have simply looked for arrangements of letters that looked like "significant" words and then manipulated things to make them look like patterns. You need a rule, or set of rules, for what is and is not a pattern.
I’d like to limit the task to matrices of digits, if possible. I presume the two examples from Genesis 1:1, mentioned above, reveal enough geometrical ‘order’ to be considered the standard or benchmark to look for.

(*Snip*) What constitutes a "significant" word? Is it any identifiable word in the language in which the text is written? One that relates to the content of the text in some way? One that relates to the larger work from which the text is taken?
If I stick to numbers and shapes, I would be looking for things like large triangular, square, hexagon, hexagram and tetrahedron numbers; things that might have been familiar to authors of the Ancient Near East. I would try to draw attention to geometrically distinctive arrangements of digits that also have a notable arithmetical characteristic. Referring to my Figure 7, I drew attention to a triangular arrangement of the digits 1-1-3-3-5-5 that suggests the ratio 355/113, which gives the decimal digits of Pi to 6 decimal places. I shall calculate column and row totals for each matrix, and look for anything that could be mis-represented as mutual relationships, or perhaps (what is the word?) artifacts that could be interpreted as, say, external references. In other words, I shall be looking for anything that I could (with confirmation bias) put my own interpretation on.


(*Snip*) You will also need to justify your answers to all of these questions in ways that make sense to an impartial, outside observer and do not leave the impression that you're fixing things to come up with the result you want. For instance, the answer to question #1 might be that you would expect texts from other religious traditions to contain divine patterns, so that finding them would not falsify your thesis. In such a case, you might try passages taken from Penthouse Letters or the Dungeon Master's Guide or some other work that you would not consider divinely-inspired.

Finally, you would have to go back to your subject text (the first 64 characters of Gen. 1:1-2 in Hebrew) and subject it to the same arrangements, manipulations, and tests for patterns and significant words that you used on your control texts, and no others.
Given that there is a limit on how 28 digits can be re-organised, I was hoping the two matrix formats would be sufficient. These are the only ones I tried in the case of Genesis 1:1. So, I hope my observations in earlier posts will serve for comparison.
 
Besides, I don't see how I can be accused of cherry-picking by accepting the opening words of the world's best-selling book.

You chose the first 64 letters, even though it cuts off in the middle of a verse.

At least for my example I chose a book where the first sentence is exactly 64 letters.
 
While other matters on this thread take their course, I thought it might be entertaining to share with everyone something else that I find interesting. This is, I’m afraid, a distant cousin of the Genesis Seal, but reveals coincidences of a different kind. As coincidences go, these have an intriguing and rare kind of charm.

The illustration below is a depiction of a small part of the vast Torah Square, which has the 8x8 G3 Square (Genesis Seal) at its centre. The format may be recognisable as that of a MS Excel spreadsheet. The sloping line in the illustration is part of a diagonal of the whole square, and passes through the middle of the G3 zone. In fact, the first four letters of Genesis are each the origin of a half-diagonal, such that this one begins in the Torah’s second letter. Note that the start of the Torah text is at c277:r277, whereas the Cartesian X-Y origin of the Torah Square is, for purposes of reference, at c1:r1.



In this part of the Torah Square, the source text is seen descending in columns, until it reaches the diagonal, where the text then continues to the left. An important example is shown where the text descending in column 298 turns through a right-angle to continue in row 299. Note: Obviously, the text in this square cannot go round and round the same square layer time after time, so it breaks out into the next layer every time it reaches the upper-left half-diagonal.

The letters of the text shown on backgrounds of green-blue-green-red, in that order, constitute the words YHWH Elohim which, in English, is ‘The Lord God’. Yet there is something rather curious about this particular YHWH Elohim. For one thing, this is the first occurrence of that composite name of God, in Genesis 2:4, following 34 verses in which ‘Elohim’ has been used alone and exclusively. As a result, many biblical scholars are of the opinion that Genesis 2:4 is the result of a redaction of texts from two sources, and that this single verse is simultaneously the end of the creation account and the start of a new phase. Scholars sometimes designate parts of this verse as Genesis 2:4(a) and (b).That sums up one important characteristic of the composite name, which is merely background for what now follows.

To understand some curious coincidences, we need to look at the white letter on a blue background, two places further down the diagonal. This is a letter samech, and shares something in common with the composite name of God. For this, too, as well as being embedded in the diagonal is the first occurrence of a samech in the Torah, in a position that has some strange attributes. So, notice that, embedded in the diagonal, adjacent to the samech is an emergent copy of the name YHWH, which even shares one letter with its literal, debut counterpart in the source text. In fact, the vast Torah Square reveals no fewer than 256 emergent copies of YHWH, but only this one sits entirely within a diagonal.

A less obvious relationship between all these coincidental elements depends on the numerical value of the letter samech (60) and the full word values of YHWH (26) and Elohim (86). It is clear that the value of samech is the difference between the values of the two names, as though YHWH has become separated from His omnipotent origin. And that is, indeed, among the concepts espoused by the mystical Kabbalah. But this samech has even more merit than that.

For one thing, this letter is the last of the 22 to make its debut in the Torah, at the noteworthy position of #2210, within Genesis 2:11. This is noteworthy because it is sandwiched between 2209 (= 472) and 2211, which is the 66th triangular number. On top of that, in the Torah text this first samech is within the word ‘compasseth’, as here: The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. So, it is especially significant that all the text from Genesis 1:1 to here in Genesis 2:11 (letter 2208) is exactly sufficient to form the smallest square perimeter that can contain the remainder of the Torah. In which case, the Torah itself may be understood as ‘…the whole land of Havilah where there is gold.

I hasten to add that everything described here would have been well within the ability of a Hebrew scribe of ancient times to contrive deliberately. But it would sure as heck impress later generations.
 
Last edited:
You chose the first 64 letters, even though it cuts off in the middle of a verse.

At least for my example I chose a book where the first sentence is exactly 64 letters.
That's fair enough. But I started with the 28-letter Genesis 1:1, after which the rest sort of describes itself. In my posts #288/289 I did offer a justification for the truncation that is in keeping with the information that subsequently emerges. The truncation is also in keeping with a certain belief of the mystical Kabbalah that is accessible in the public domain.

http://www.workofthechariot.com/TextFiles/Teachings-Faces.html
 
Last edited:
That's fair enough. But I started with the 28-letter Genesis 1:1, after which the rest sort of describes itself. In my posts #288/289 I did offer a justification for the truncation that is in keeping with the information that subsequently emerges. The truncation is also in keeping with a certain belief of the mystical Kabbalah that is accessible in the public domain.

http://www.workofthechariot.com/TextFiles/Teachings-Faces.html

why do you think most of the verses of the bible are different lengths, is it perhaps because your seal is only good for the first passage ?
maybe you should try some more configurations for the others, then when you've done the entire book, try fitting them into a collage that states "sorry for the inconvenience"
;)
 
Kingfisher2926 said:
And I do intend to spend time in the back room on this work. But I must crave your indulgence (everyone) that I shall also continue posting the very stuff that that disapprove of, if only for a silent few observers (present or future) who may get some pleasure from it.
So you admit that we're right--that this idea needs to be tested before accepted--yet you expect people to accept it anyway. :boggled:
 
I can concede that. But I have doubts that I can persuade anyone on this thread to be a part of what they say is required. I can give it a go solo, but as Marduk said, he would not trust my judgement. In the end, that may be my only option. I just wonder, if everyone wants to prove me wrong, why not do so properly with specific examples of confirmation bias, instead of keep saying it must be done.

You say that this phrase if different and that these unexplained coincidences occur in the text.

It is up to you to run the controls to show that it is not just random stuff that you give meaning without reason, you have made the claim that this verse has some sort of merit, yet you have compared it to nothing else, so really you are just asserting that it is different.
 
I think I'd better just go ahead and do that. I've been told it must be done, but that I am not qualified to do so. Catch 22.

then how exactly do you know you have events in your case square?

:)

It doesn't have to be done, but you claim that this square is special, but you haven't investigated others. You don't have to do anything.
 

Back
Top Bottom