• 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

I have been off the air for almost two days because I lost my Internet connection. I still don't know why, or why it came back on again.
My first task when the opportunity arose was to upload my post #1091. Having done that, I am going back through posts that arrived during my Dark Age. Those that merit attention will receive a proper reply.

Don't just reply but engage. Your reputation is evidently shot around here but you could rebuild it with an attempt at honest and humble dialogue. This should not be viewed as an exercise at selling the idea but rather an opportunity to critically examine it yourself through the eyes of others.
 
One detail I might have missed: nothing in your first three steps suggests any way to determine which corner of the grid to start the inward spiral, nor which direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) to go from that corner.

Changing those choices produces reflected and/or rotated versions of the Seal. This doesn't matter for some of the meanings you've read into it, but it does for others. For example, in six of the eight possibilities, the Y shape you describe in step 5 does not resemble a Hebrew character, nor a woman's womb, as the Y shape ends up on its side or upside down. Many of the other pictorial meanings (rivers flowing in certain compass directions, shapes of testicles and so forth) also depend on that orientation.

Did you choose the orientation (starting corner and direction of the inward spiral) before or after you started ascribing meanings to features?

Respectfully,
Myriad
These are all fair questions to ask, but the answer will take more than a couple of sentences. In fact, it took me longer than I care to remember to put everything together the way you see in my illustrations.

At the start, I inserted the Hebrew text of Gen 1:1-2 into a square of horizontal rows and vertical columns. I also started in the top right, and inserted the top row from right-to-left, the way Hebrew is normally written. The most prominent feature was a linear group of three letters vav, with two more so that they seemed to hug the central 2x2 cluster. Not particularly impressive.
Next, I noticed two emergent copies of the word for 'light'. So, I thought: "Let there be light," and there was light. Then I noticed that the two lights (3 letter each) both had valid 3-letter words crossing through them, like pairs of diagonals in 3x3 square clusters. One of the other diagonals was a word for 'thick darkness', which impressed me somewhat; and the two copies of light have the word 'darkness' bracketed between them. This darkness exists in the source text as 'darkness was upon the face of the deep'.
In those days, my knowledge of Hebrew was quite shaky, so progress was slow. However, as soon as I recognised the two 3x3 squares, five letters apart as a 3x3x5 box, I quickly noticed the emergent 4-letter word for 'tablets' mostly within the box. This immediately gave the impression of the Ark of the Covenant. And, of course, the orientation of the square made no difference to that conclusion.

When I noticed that all nine copies of the letter vav are confined to one triangular half of the square, that was another Eureka moment that led to another tranche of discoveries. It led to me rotating the original square a quarter turn to the right, which felt right in terms of a potential water metaphor. But that also resulted in one copy of 'light' and an emergent copy of 'gold' intersecting in the Eastern corner, where the word for 'In the beginning' is found. So, there was an immediate, and unexpected bonus of a 'golden sunrise' .

As you can see, the meanings that may be ascribed to various features can be affected by orientation, but by no means all of them. I'm certainly not over-excited by the fact that the word for 'womb' in the G2 Square occupies a 'V' shape. At least, not in relation to questionable fiction such as Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code. However, I would be ecstatic if it turned out that his inspiration had come ultimately from some historical figure's knowledge of the Genesis Seal. This word for 'a womb' or, equally valid 'damsel' would be just as meaningful for some purposes in any orientation. By the way, did you remember that there is an additional 4-letter 'the womb' in the G3 Square? These letters are in corner positions of a 3x3 group, precisely where the G1 Square has 'for a root', and an emergent linear 'fruit'.

The shapes of testicles etc are not always dependent on orientation, as will be understood by anyone who has read the Karma Sutra.
 
I am saying you have no consistency in the way you find these patterns of significant words, that is an error of analysis. Some of you patterns have one shape, some have another, in some you have letters in others you have numbers.

To me it seems you are just looking for any type of patterns, hardly what one would expect of a designed code.

Let me ask this, if this was encryption, what would the key look like? What way would someone sending the message and receiving the message have for determining which patterns were the ones containing information? This is the way that most coded messages work.

And if you meant to show intent or non-random meaning that would really help, other wise it seems to be pareidolia.

Other wise it looks like you are playing Boggle

At last, I can feel sure that you are after a proper, considered response.

First, I think it would be a mistake to think of the Genesis Seal as a specific encrypted message offering new information. I suggest a better description is a kind of check-sum, presenting metadata that may be helpful in relation to the rest of the Bible. This is a surprisingly modern concept to have been invented in Old Testament times, but probably the only one that fits the evidence. The Genesis Seal is most useful in identifying later parts of the OT that are consistent with the apparent purpose of the check-sum.

Despite your misgivings about inconsistent patterns, there is a surprising degree of consistency in the Genesis Seal, though there are certain one-off features such as the Lamed River in G2. In particular, I can point to several specific 3x3 zones that have an evident, coherent function not just in one square aspect of the Genesis Seal but in two or three of the four aspects. And even the Lamed River has multiple biblical meanings in relation to other features, especially when two or more views are superimposed.

It seems to me that the inventive ways in which information is presented in the Genesis Seal demonstrates a very good use of a restricted 2-dimensioal space.

I must stress that the above purpose(s) are the only ones that can be considered legitimate. The mis-use of the Genesis Seal in extra-biblical settings would be regrettable, except that it offers a helpful new window on human history.
 
Don't just reply but engage. Your reputation is evidently shot around here but you could rebuild it with an attempt at honest and humble dialogue. This should not be viewed as an exercise at selling the idea but rather an opportunity to critically examine it yourself through the eyes of others.
If it was possible it should be both. There would be nothing to discuss and analyse if I do not first post the information.
 
If it was possible it should be both. There would be nothing to discuss and analyse if I do not first post the information.

Perhaps if you were to get someone to see any merit in your claim. Why do you believe this has this not happened yet?

Really, I think you need to address the root criticisms that your patterns are contrived and to be expected in the manipulation of any such text. The rest of the history stuff is a sideshow.
 
Last edited:
What part of the sky does not show a Y shape? If your hypothesis were true, you wouldn't have to pull in stars from other constellations to make it work.

Hence the accusations of making the data fit your wishes, rather than the other way around.
 
What part of the sky does not show a Y shape? If your hypothesis were true, you wouldn't have to pull in stars from other constellations to make it work.

Hence the accusations of making the data fit your wishes, rather than the other way around.
You are doing what others often do in this thread. You take an isolated observation out of context, where it may easily be dismissed.
This is not just any Y-shape, but one that consists of five fairly bright stars of near-equal visible magnitude. What is more, the G1 view of the Genesis Seal exhibits the topography of three adjacent, major constellations. This is not 'pulling in stars from other constellations', it is showing that the Genesis Seal is an analogue of a distinctive part of the heavens, and how the Greek civilisation of c.400BC could have been inspired in their creation of an elaborate mythology.

I would mention some other memorable features that I described in the same post. But that would risk them, too, being taken out of context. If you want to demonstrate to someone how a chimpanzee can peel a banana, you don't just present them with two severed hands.
 
You are doing what others often do in this thread. You take an isolated observation out of context, where it may easily be dismissed.
This is not just any Y-shape, but one that consists of five fairly bright stars of near-equal visible magnitude. What is more, the G1 view of the Genesis Seal exhibits the topography of three adjacent, major constellations. This is not 'pulling in stars from other constellations', it is showing that the Genesis Seal is an analogue of a distinctive part of the heavens, and how the Greek civilisation of c.400BC could have been inspired in their creation of an elaborate mythology.

I would mention some other memorable features that I described in the same post. But that would risk them, too, being taken out of context. If you want to demonstrate to someone how a chimpanzee can peel a banana, you don't just present them with two severed hands.


No. Look, you claim that the mythology and the constellations were shaped by someone who had access to the seal. If this were the case, why on earth would they not just define the Y-shaped asterism as the constellation Pegasus? Wouldn't that make far more sense than defining the square-shaped asterism as the constellation, and requiring someone to have to pull stars from various constellations to make it fit with your "archetype"?

This is why few people accept your evidence as valid. It is far too dependent on apologetics, rather than being as obvious as you claim.
 
Perhaps if you were to get someone to see any merit in your claim. Why do you believe this has this not happened yet?

Really, I think you need to address the root criticisms that your patterns are contrived and to be expected in the manipulation of any such text. The rest of the history stuff is a sideshow.

The reason no-one has admitted to seeing any merit in my hypothesis is entirely down to the nature of the audience. Everyone who disagrees with me is used to demanding proof up-front, for everything. No matter that progress in human knowledge often begins with an acceptance that something just exists, but still requires an explanation. History is littered with baffling observations for which the explanation came later, sometimes much later.

The history stuff is actually quite important, and can be addressed without proof that the Genesis Seal is a deliberately designed cryptic entity.
 
At last, I can feel sure that you are after a proper, considered response.

First, I think it would be a mistake to think of the Genesis Seal as a specific encrypted message offering new information. I suggest a better description is a kind of check-sum, presenting metadata that may be helpful in relation to the rest of the Bible. This is a surprisingly modern concept to have been invented in Old Testament times, but probably the only one that fits the evidence. The Genesis Seal is most useful in identifying later parts of the OT that are consistent with the apparent purpose of the check-sum.

Despite your misgivings about inconsistent patterns, there is a surprising degree of consistency in the Genesis Seal, though there are certain one-off features such as the Lamed River in G2. In particular, I can point to several specific 3x3 zones that have an evident, coherent function not just in one square aspect of the Genesis Seal but in two or three of the four aspects. And even the Lamed River has multiple biblical meanings in relation to other features, especially when two or more views are superimposed.

It seems to me that the inventive ways in which information is presented in the Genesis Seal demonstrates a very good use of a restricted 2-dimensioal space.

I must stress that the above purpose(s) are the only ones that can be considered legitimate. The mis-use of the Genesis Seal in extra-biblical settings would be regrettable, except that it offers a helpful new window on human history.
I don't think you actually know how an LLC and MD5 check sum actually works, and you just threw that out there.

You also did not actually address my points.
 
No. Look, you claim that the mythology and the constellations were shaped by someone who had access to the seal. If this were the case, why on earth would they not just define the Y-shaped asterism as the constellation Pegasus? Wouldn't that make far more sense than defining the square-shaped asterism as the constellation, and requiring someone to have to pull stars from various constellations to make it fit with your "archetype"?

This is why few people accept your evidence as valid. It is far too dependent on apologetics, rather than being as obvious as you claim.
The angular distance between the Great Square of Pegasus and Cassiopeia is quite large. I can see the sense of the ancients dividing the sky up as they did. In the extreme, it might be possible to link star patterns into just half a dozen meaningful constellations. But that would make for a rather dull mythology.

My main point is that the shapes I have drawn attention to in the Genesis Seal have more than just shape on their side. They also include thematic numerical relationships and literary references. These are the attributes that the ancients would have found astonishing enough to inspire a mythology that is elaborate enough to match the elaborate incentive.
 
Last edited:
The angular distance between the Great Square of Pegasus and Cassiopeia is quite large. I can see the sense of the ancients dividing the sky up as they did. In the extreme, it might be possible to link star patterns into just half a dozen meaningful constellations. But that would make for a rather dull mythology.

My main point is that the shapes I have drawn attention to in the Genesis Seal have more than just shape on their side. They also include thematic numerical relationships and literary references. These are the attributes that the ancients would have found astonishing enough to inspire a mythology that is elaborate enough to match the elaborate .


Apologetics.

Why not just define the constellation to match the seal?
 
I don't think you actually know how an LLC and MD5 check sum actually works, and you just threw that out there.

You also did not actually address my points.

Nobody really needs to know how an LLC and MD5 check sum works to see how the Genesis Seal might serve in error-checking capacity. It shows, for example, images of the principal furniture of the Tabernacle built by Moses. Therefore the narrative descriptions of the Tabernacle are valid components of the later biblical history.

I believe the following paragraphs did address your points:

Kingfisher2926 said:
Despite your misgivings about inconsistent patterns, there is a surprising degree of consistency in the Genesis Seal, though there are certain one-off features such as the Lamed River in G2. In particular, I can point to several specific 3x3 zones that have an evident, coherent function not just in one square aspect of the Genesis Seal but in two or three of the four aspects. And even the Lamed River has multiple biblical meanings in relation to other features, especially when two or more views are superimposed.

It seems to me that the inventive ways in which information is presented in the Genesis Seal demonstrates a very good use of a restricted 2-dimensioal space.

Its just that you are dismissing clear evidence of coherent structure without having to stipulate any particular examples.
 
The reason no-one has admitted to seeing any merit in my hypothesis is entirely down to the nature of the audience. Everyone who disagrees with me is used to demanding proof up-front, for everything. No matter that progress in human knowledge often begins with an acceptance that something just exists, but still requires an explanation. History is littered with baffling observations for which the explanation came later, sometimes much later.

The history stuff is actually quite important, and can be addressed without proof that the Genesis Seal is a deliberately designed cryptic entity.

Mate, this looks like just more special pleading. This is a sceptics forum so yes, you have to supply evidence for your claim. The standard of evidence would be no less if you were to attempt to take your claim before accademic review. If you cannot convince people here that you might be onto something then I cannot see how you justify it to yourself.

The history stuff so far been pure speculation and a red herring. You have to show that the patterns really exist. You have to show you are not just doing the same old crank pattern finding stuff like the Bible code, ET Corn Gods or the like.
 
The shapes of testicles etc are not always dependent on orientation, as will be understood by anyone who has read the Karma Sutra.

Wrong, the testicles are the organs inside the testicular sack, they don't change shape according to orientation, also I'd challenge you to find anyone who has read Karma Sutra rather than just looked at the pictures, but funny, I'm starting to like you, keep it up
:D
The reason no-one has admitted to seeing any merit in my hypothesis is entirely down to the nature of the audience. .

really that would be true if it was just one sceptic, a group of sceptics however are self correcting, I would have thought that the ignorance and arrogance of the presentation played a much larger part
;)
 
Last edited:
Wrong, the testicles are the organs inside the testicular sack, they don't change shape according to orientation, also I'd challenge you to find anyone who has read Karma Sutra rather than just looked at the pictures, but funny, I'm starting to like you, keep it up
:D


really that would be true if it was just one sceptic, a group of sceptics however are self correcting, I would have thought that the ignorance and arrogance of the presentation played a much larger part
;)

What position do you take on the Kama Sutra?
 
Its just that you are dismissing clear evidence of coherent structure without having to stipulate any particular examples.

It's because you have yet to present any evidence of coherent structure past what you made up from random shapes.

That and your silly historical claims don't really do much more than amuse so far.
 
Marduk said:
really that would be true if it was just one sceptic, a group of sceptics however are self correcting, I would have thought that the ignorance and arrogance of the presentation played a much larger part

Don't get me wrong, but closing ranks against cranks must become a habit. If my appearance of ignorance and arrogance are the only things responsible for the rejection, then I am guilty of doing the Genesis Seal a gross disservice.

In all seriousness, do you really believe that the Genesis Seal would inevitably fail any valid test, or do you simply expect test data as a down-payment on giving it the time of day?
 

Back
Top Bottom