The Genesis Seal

[tsig]

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.

Socks make for warm feet and warm feet make for happy campers so the Genesis Seal is telling us to keep sheep.

 

[tsig]

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.

I'm saying you designed it so it looks ordered to you.

 

[tsig]

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.

She was a fine brachet but she did wind so.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You should know that I could cite many more examples, but I'm not sure anyone else in this thread will be impressed, no matter how much evidence is presented.

As long as your evidence is of the same quality as you have hitherto presented, then no, it will fail to impress.

I don't know what it should be, but finding random patterns that form words, shapes, and numbers, then trawling through tons of old writings for matches, and making your own very liberal interpretations will surely not cut it. I have demonstrated how I could, in about 1½ hour, most of which was spent building the spradsheet, find a realistic narrative in a machine-randomized string. So with your widened scope, I predict you can keep finding allusions to practically anything.

You are beating a horse that has been declared dead, and it won't be moving, no matter how long you continue.

I'm sorry, but you have failed. Repeating your current actions will only heap repeated failures onto the provious ones.

Hans

 

[Dancing David]

The beast with two backs?

Slepnir the eight legged horse?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Slepnir the eight legged horse?

No, this is Soapy the dead horse.

Hans

 

[Kingfisher2926]

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

How can I address criticisms that are based on ignorance of the facts. The Hebrew word rechem may mean ‘womb’ (and the equivalent ‘matrix’), ‘mercy’, ‘compassion’ and, yes, a ‘maiden’ or ‘damsel’. It has this last meaning at Judges 5:30. I am not stretching meanings for my own convenience; I am working within the confines of the biblical Hebrew language. You may challenge my values and beliefs, but we can surely agree on what are facts.

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

The words, yes, but not just the words. Their juxtapositions are equally important, as are numerous striking constructs such as the graphical way the letter vav behaves like water, both as a lake, aligned with a bulrush in G1, and as a river in G2. These things all combine to create what I assert a mediaeval poet would have seen as a stunning visual impact.

The fact that you might 'come up with the entire star wars saga from just seven words' in the same way only shows that it can be done. I am going that one step further and showing that it has been done with the first 64 Hebrew letters of Genesis.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

You are not going to stop are you Kingfisher. You will keep on with this regardless of your critics' protestations.

My immediate aim is to get this information into the public domain.

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.

These discussions forced me to consider testing my hypothesis, but I gave up the idea for two related reasons. First, others have put forward possible examples and drawn conclusions that I feel are just as unjustified as you think mine are. Second (and this has already been put to me), I am too close to the issue to do the job properly.

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.

I have provided case studies in which two or more authors have produced stories that are similar enough to each other and to the content of the Genesis Seal for the Seal to have been their common inspiration. Yet there are differences between those stories that suggest some measure of independent, creative thought, except that the Genesis Seal, as inspiration, can even bridge those differences.

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.

My best guess is that the author of Genesis 1:1-2 was probably savant. He may not have been the original author, but could have modified a pre-existent text to a new purpose. I would also guess that this took place during the Babylonian Exile of the Jews, and that Ezekiel and Ezra should be prime suspects. If I am right, his motive would have been an immediate one, like underpinning a newly contrived history of the Israelites. Any subsequent (mis-)use of his handiwork outside of Judaism would not have been intended, or even expected.

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).

I have seen how easy it is to extract valid words from a random matrix, then to construct a story from those words. In the case of the Genesis Seal, whether or not it is a deliberate construct, I cannot avoid concluding that it does that job in a particularly inviting way.

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.

I am not even sure that the Genesis Seal lends itself to any valid kind of scientific assessment. Regardless, the relationship between the apparent specialness of the Seal and external (including biblical) literature does not depend on that sort of assessment. This calls for a completely different kind of assessment.

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.

If I put this material on view, it is available to be assessed from a wider range of perspectives than it is presently attracting.

 

[Sideroxylon]

My immediate aim is to get this information into the public domain.[...]

Have you thought about submitting it to an accademic journal?

 

[Alice Shortcake]

I can't bear to read any more of this. Kingfisher, you are wasting time and effort on patterns that exist only in your imagination. Please seek help.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Crown of Thorns

1332 ... double beast... oohhh... watch out.

443556... beast multiplied by beast. Even worse than double beast.

ok... the beast jokes have been the most useful part of this thread so far.

I am starting here with the above throw-away post because it reminded me of a line of investigation that I abandoned several years ago.

Over the years, I have informally classified the emergent content of the Genesis Seal into categories of ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ quality. The number 443556 quoted by RobDegraves is something I identified long ago in the G1 Square, but decided it was of only secondary interest. However, I have now reviewed that decision following the above post, and in light of recent discoveries.



Figure 32 shows the G1 Square in its numerical guise. Here, I have highlighted the digits of 443556 (ie 666x666) where they take up a moderately interesting configuration. However, the greater surprise begins with a cluster of letters in the alphabetic view of the same square (Figure 33), displaying bi-lateral symmetry over the same axis as the 443556.



Most of the letters in this cluster have little or no independent literary significance, except for the word y’hiy (let it/there be…) that sits like a crown over the rest of the group. Taking a broader view, it will be found that this group serves mainly as a place-holder, following the Principle of Reserved Locations. It demonstrates a symmetry that will persist through every square view of the Genesis Seal, but so far only seen in the G1 Square. The G2 Square is shown in Figure 34.



The thing to note in this view is the 5-letter palindrome in the square’s horizontal diagonal. This retains the identical symmetry about the same vertical axis as before. An additional significance of this group begins in that four letters read from either end would be pronounced ‘Ahava’. And that is a name found only in the Old Testament book of Ezra, where he writes: And I gathered them to the river that flows to Ahava, and there we abode in tents three days. (Ezra 8:15).
Noting that Ahava is pronounced like the principal Hebrew word for ‘love’, we might ask where this river may be found. Is it in Babylon, where Ezra was leading his flock out of exile? Whether it exists there or not, there is a more ancient template for this river in Figure 34, where the meandering Lamed River terminates in the middle letter of the 5-letter palindrome. What is more, the first four letters at the left of the palindrome also reserve a place for the expression ‘in a tent’ that replaces it in the G4 Square. For this reason, Ezre 8:15 is predicated on Genesis 1:1-2.

The G4 Square, which reproduces much of the same content as G3, is particularly effective in continuing the offset symmetry from G1 and G2. Figure 35 highlights a small Y-shape, composed from four copies of the letter aleph, that again sits over the same vertical axis as the features I highlighted in G1 and G2.



In this illustration, I have reproduced the course of the Lamed River (from G2), to show that the new Y-shape shares its middle component with the terminal component of that river, and with the middle of the palindromic ‘love’ in G2. Also, the persistent axis of symmetry extends above this Y-shape, in the form of the ascending word ariy (a lion), and the reverse spelling: yara (to flow), hence …the river that flows to Ahava. Everything converges onto the same elements, even in several aspects of the Genesis Seal.

So far in this post, I have followed the route dictated by a persistent bi-lateral symmetry (albeit offset from the symmetry of the main Square), which began with the number 443556 (ie 666x666). Now I shall set a course towards an earlier landscape, and return there by an alternative route. But first, notice the horizontal word keter (a crown) in Figure 35 that passes through the stem of the small Y-shape.

Figure 36 shows the same G4 Square in its numerical guise, substituting the appropriate qatan value for each letter (see Table A at the end of this post.).



Notice that the two letters of the stem of the small Y-shape are each the origin of a horizontal 121, the square 11x11. Alternatively, the pivotal middle element of the Y-shape is the origin of two copies of 121, like adjacent sides of a square. The vertical 121 is, of course, derived from the ‘lion’ and the yara (to flow). Suppose, then, that this surfeit of 121s is a hint at the importance of its arithmetical square: 121x121 = 14641. Where might this lead?

Looking at all four numerical squares reveals not a single, linear 14641. And only in the G1 and G2 squares are there any noteworthy, non-linear occurrences of that number. In both squares, there is a 14641 in the far left corner, and another in the bottom corner. The latter case belongs to the triangular foundation of the headline Y-shape in G1, which can be understood as a crucified man. But the G2 Square (Figure 37), includes two additional examples of a 14641 that contribute to a splendid graphical interpretation.



Here, in the G2 Square, there is an 8-element, closed cycle consisting of a 14641 and a 666. What is more, there is an alternative 14641 that breaks out of the cycle, to terminate in the left-hand corner. Seen as an extension to the closed cycle, the total effect is like an exaggerated Hebrew letter samech. Significantly, samech is traditionally symbolic of a thorn. Finally, the horizontal 464 at the point where the 14641 breaks out of the cycle also coincides precisely with the position of the word keter (a crown) that we saw in Figure 35.

I give you the discarded Crown of Thorns, in the G2 Square that marks a transition precipitated by the death of the crucified man.

Having elected to deal with the topic of this post, it has also made up my mind what the next contributory post should be about. A word that links this post with the next is ‘horse’. Have you ever wondered why there are so few references to horses in the Bible? A rare exception is Pharaoh’s chariot army, which chased the Israelites as they fled their bondage in Egypt. Evidently, horses are not meant to have any role in God’s purpose. So, near the end of Moses’ life he anticipates a future when a new generation of Israelites will demand to have a king of their own. Moses lays down certain ground rules for Israelite kings, including a specific injunction not to collect large numbers of horses, and certainly not Egyptian horses. A thousand years later, Ezra copied the role of Moses in leading his own people out of exile, while declining to ask for an escort of horse-soldiers.
My focus on horses is neither random nor frivolous. The Hebrew word for ‘a horse’ is sus, which has two connections with Figure 37, above. That illustration reveals an image of a letter samech, incorporating a 666 sequence. The three-letter word ‘sus’ begins and ends with the letter samech, and it is the only word in biblical Hebrew that confers a qatan digit sequence of 666.
Midway between the times of Moses and Ezra, King Solomon had collected thousands of horses and chariots, many of them Egyptian. And he received 666 talents of gold in tithes in a single year.

 

[Marduk]

The fact that you might 'come up with the entire star wars saga from just seven words' in the same way only shows that it can be done. I am going that one step further and showing that it has been done with the first 64 Hebrew letters of Genesis.

no, it just shows how loose your hold on reality is
you're entitled to have wasted years of your life on this crap
but youre not entitled to waste ours
get yourself to a psychiatrist
you are deluded

 

[Nonpareil]

The words, yes, but not just the words. Their juxtapositions are equally important, as are numerous striking constructs such as the graphical way the letter vav behaves like water, both as a lake, aligned with a bulrush in G1, and as a river in G2. These things all combine to create what I assert a mediaeval poet would have seen as a stunning visual impact.

And you've given no evidence to support that assertion. Beyond the fact that this is nothing but you picking out shapes that you find interesting - not even ones which are really present, either, since you're just picking out random, unconnected letters in several cases - you still haven't given us any reason to think that the Genesis seal has ever been used at any point in history before now.

You're doing it backwards. You have to give us solid evidence that the seal was both known and used before you can claim that it fits so well in literary history. Otherwise you're just speculating. And no, what you have presented so far doesn't count as evidence. Even dismissing every other objection that we have, and assuming that the seal honestly does contain all these things you say it does, you still have to show that medieval authors actually used it.

The fact that you might 'come up with the entire star wars saga from just seven words' in the same way only shows that it can be done. I am going that one step further and showing that it has been done with the first 64 Hebrew letters of Genesis.

Which means that you missed the point of the Star Wars analogy entirely. It's meant to illustrate that, with that many words and as broad an interpretation as you're using, it could fit anything if you look hard enough.

These discussions forced me to consider testing my hypothesis, but I gave up the idea for two related reasons. First, others have put forward possible examples and drawn conclusions that I feel are just as unjustified as you think mine are. Second (and this has already been put to me), I am too close to the issue to do the job properly.

So, in short, you refuse to reconsider your position because you're "too close to the issue"? You refuse to re-evaluate your beliefs because you need to re-evaluate your beliefs?

I have provided case studies in which two or more authors have produced stories that are similar enough to each other

Because they're based on one another.

and to the content of the Genesis Seal

Which is so broadly-interpreted that it could be applied to anything.

for the Seal to have been their common inspiration.

Except that they don't need one.

My best guess is that the author of Genesis 1:1-2 was probably savant. He may not have been the original author, but could have modified a pre-existent text to a new purpose. I would also guess that this took place during the Babylonian Exile of the Jews, and that Ezekiel and Ezra should be prime suspects. If I am right, his motive would have been an immediate one, like underpinning a newly contrived history of the Israelites. Any subsequent (mis-)use of his handiwork outside of Judaism would not have been intended, or even expected.

Honestly, I really don't know what to say to this. This is just getting surreal in its silliness.

I have seen how easy it is to extract valid words from a random matrix, then to construct a story from those words. In the case of the Genesis Seal, whether or not it is a deliberate construct, I cannot avoid concluding that it does that job in a particularly inviting way.

In the same way that every other random matrix does. So, in other words, not in "a particularly inviting way" at all.

I am not even sure that the Genesis Seal lends itself to any valid kind of scientific assessment.

Regardless, the relationship between the apparent specialness of the Seal

There isn't any.

and external (including biblical) literature does not depend on that sort of assessment. This calls for a completely different kind of assessment.

No, it really doesn't.

 

[MRC_Hans]

How can I address criticisms that are based on ignorance of the facts. The Hebrew word rechem may mean ‘womb’ (and the equivalent ‘matrix’), ‘mercy’, ‘compassion’ and, yes, a ‘maiden’ or ‘damsel’. It has this last meaning at Judges 5:30. I am not stretching meanings for my own convenience; I am working within the confines of the biblical Hebrew language. You may challenge my values and beliefs, but we can surely agree on what are facts.

And the fact are that you are very conveniently using a language that few people have much knowledge about and where words seem to have a lot of different meanings.

You seem to believe that this supports your case, but in reality, it does the opposite: It adds a whole extra layer of interpretations, enabling to not only pick what patterns seem to form words, but also which meaning you want to assign to those words.

With a language where most words are short, of equal lenght, and where many words have multiple meanings, it is arguably NOT POSSIBLE to create secret codes, because the inherent ambguities will render them much too uncertain. A code is only useful if its decoding is unequivocal. Of there are many solutions to it, you cannot be sure if which message will expire.

The fact that you might 'come up with the entire star wars saga from just seven words' in the same way only shows that it can be done.

NO, it shows more than that: It shows that the existence of hidden messages is not evidence of intent. We have now shown that hidden messages can be extracted from virtually any input, and you have yourself shown that the interpretations of even the messages you have found are legio.


In consequence, it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that looking for "Genesis Seals" is, at best, a waste of time.

Hans

 

[Kingfisher2926]

Have you thought about submitting it to an accademic journal?

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.

 

[dafydd]

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.

There is a very good reason for that. If you do submit it to an academic journal, please, please post their answer here.

 

[Kingfisher2926]

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?

 

[Nonpareil]

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?

And what does this have to do with anything?

 

[Sideroxylon]

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?

That kind of cop out from answering criticism is formally know as special pleading^WP.

Oh, and here is a scientist and artist taking apart your criticism of science:

 

[tsig]

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?

Wiki:

Beauty (also called prettiness, loveliness or comeliness) is a characteristic of a person, animal, place, object, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning, or satisfaction.[citation needed] Beauty is studied as part of aesthetics, sociology, social psychology, and culture. An "ideal beauty" is an entity which is admired, or possesses features widely attributed to beauty in a particular culture, for perfection.[citation needed] B