Encryptions within the Original 1611 King James Version of the Bible

[RC Christian]

You have misunderstood what the bilateral cipher is. It works in the same way as series of 0’s and 1’s can represent letters in a computer. Anything can play the role of 0’s and 1’s, but in Bacon’s example (he was very into codes, also in his published works) the 0’s are letters in one font, while the 1’s are letters in a slightly different font. I have not found him using this code in Shakespeare’s works.

Hello Facterd!

I actually have studied the bilateral cipher and understand it; I was actually trying to make a pun in my post...but apparently not a very effective one. Sorry.

In the essay by Peter Dawkins you have linked to, he claims that Bacon used three different kinds of gematria; the Simple cipher, the Reverse cipher and what is commonly called the Kay cipher. I feel sure that Bacon used all these three kinds of gematria, with a very definite purpose, but while his use of the Simple cipher is proven by counting and 3-4-5 triangles in the sonnets, I have not found a corresponding 'course' where he is teaching his use of the Reverse cipher or the Kay cipher.

When I nonetheless think that he used all three kinds, it is because he is using them in a very specific manner. As Richard has demonstrated (for instance here: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...glish-Gematria) gematria like the Simple cipher gives the same sum for an awful lot of words or names. Bacon was of course aware of this, and the point of the Reverse cipher and the Kay cipher is that they should be applied simultaneously with the Simple cipher. Here are two examples illustrating how unlikely it is that randomly chosen words or phrases share all the three kinds of gematria.

The Simple cipher, Reverse cipher and Kay cipher for 'Shakespeare is 103, 172 and 259.

Attachment 97

On the website http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names we find statistics for the frequency of names in USA in 1990. The name 'Shakespeare' was one of the 20 000 most popular family names in USA in 1990. I have calculated the Simple cipher, Reverse cipher and Kay cipher for all these 20 000 names. It turns out that 112 of the 20 000 names have the Simple cipher 103. Of these 112 names, only 'Shakespeare' and 'Longnecker' also have the Reverse cipher 172. And of these two names only Shakespeare has the reverse cipher 259. This means that 'Shakespeare' is the only name among the 20 000 names which has Simple cipher 103, reverse cipher 172 and Kay cipher 259.



If we look at the total number of words used in Shakespeare’s works, we find that 1 654 of the 884 429 words Shakespeare used (according to http://www.opensourceshakespeare.com ) have Simple cipher 103. Out of these, 48 words also have Reverse cipher 172. Only 29 of these 48 words also have the same Kay cipher as 'Shakespeare'. This implies that the probability that a word picked at random from Shakespeare’s works has the same ciphers as 'Shakespeare' is 29/884 429 = 1/30 498.

Wow...good job for testing the hypothesis out. You sound like a man on a mission!

The Simple cipher, Reverse cipher and Kay cipher for 'William Shakespeare is 177, 273 and 411.

I have some further information on the above that you will find interesting, but we are not at that step yet.

Page 136 from the First Folio is filled with this kind of cipher matches, coupled with counting of words and numbers, and 3-4-5 triangles. Bacon has not managed to also make the page readable (Shakespeare scholars think the page consists of a lot of jokes that they don’t understand, coupled with a frequency of misspellings not found elsewhere in the FF).

I'm aware of this fact and can confirm it. Glad you posted that.

I have not found a similar consistent use of all the three ciphers in the Sonnets (except for one particular sonnet), but I don’t think it is by coincidence that the phrase 'will making addition' found in sonnet 136 (that number again) has the same ciphers as 'William Shakespeare'. Sonnet 136 is one of the two 'will'-sonnets where Shakespeare is using the word 'will' 18 times playing with his forename, and which ends with the statement 'my name is Will'. In the long version of my manuscript I show that the real point of these two sonnets is to point out I LL = I 100 at the end of 'Will'.

Still trying to find the time to read the long version, but we have some time off coming up so hopefully things will sync.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's a challenge to anyone who feels up to the task:


Attempt any "bilateral" (as in, Francis Bacon's Bilateral Cipher...pun) comparison of letter, word, sentence, verse, chapter, book, or page count that would satisfy the following scenario (and I'm sure Richard could state this better than I'm about to):

Choose any two variables, (A, B), where A and B equal the set of letters, words, sentences, verses, chapters, books, or pages of the 1611 King James Bible, such that, when counting forward from the beginning (Title Page or Genesis 1) and counting backward from the end of the Bible, you arrive at (inclusively) the same page, from both counts.

Note, this challenge does not allow for A=B, since 50% of all letter, word, verse, and chapter counts would obviously place us on the same page. However, I find it most beautiful to realize that the center verse states:

Psalm 103:1 "Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is with in me, bless his holy name"



Hint: There's only one solution to the challenge

OK - is this what you mean?

Find n such that Page n from beginning = Chapter n from the end (inclusive)

There is obviously only one solution because there can be only one intersection of two linear monotonic sequences. You claim it is Psalm 46. That's fine. What would it be if you started counting from the first page of Genesis 1?

[RC Christian]

OK - is this what you mean?

Find n such that Page n from beginning = Chapter n from the end (inclusive)

There is obviously only one solution because there can be only one intersection of two linear monotonic sequences. You claim it is Psalm 46. That's fine. What would it be if you started counting from the first page of Genesis 1?

Thank you for the 'clean up job' on my rambling...although, I did allow for other variables in either direction of counting. But I think you're missing the essence of my point. You wouldn't find anything...there is not a Page n from Genesis 1 that will equal a Chapter n from the beginning (or vice versa)...I've checked those scenarios also.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Thank you for the 'clean up job' on my rambling...although, I did allow for other variables in either direction of counting. But I think you're missing the essence of my point. You wouldn't find anything...there is not a Page n from Genesis 1 that will equal a Chapter n from the beginning (or vice versa)...I've checked those scenarios also.

Are you sure about that? Every page is in a chapter (define chapter 0 as all pages prior to Gen 1). So there are two numbers associated with each page. A page number p (from the beginning) and a chapter number c (from the end). The page number begins at p = 1 and the chapter number begins at c = 1190 (if we include chapter 0).

So as we look at the two numbers for each page, we see that the page number constantly increases (+1 for each page) and the c number constantly decreases or stays the same (since a chapter often spans multiple pages). These are called monotonic sequences. There must be a time when they cross through each other. At the beginning, we have p < c. Then somewhere in the midst of the book we have p > c. So the question is simply this: Is there always a time when p = c? The answer is "yes" except in one relatively rare case. In every case, p will increase until p = c (and we are done) or p = c - 1 and then on the next page c changes to c -1 and p changes to c so the two sequences will "pass through" each other without "touching." But that seems like a rather rare occurrence. So there are probably plenty of solutions to your condition for different starting points and different editions of the Bible.

[Facterd]

Not because he wouldn't see it himself, since he saw future generations recognizing the glory of his other works.

I think it was futile because the patterns are far too obscure to be believed by the kind of people he would have been hoping to reach, namely, the intelligent and skeptical Philosophers and Scientists. From the quote you gave, it appears he hated obscurity and exulted in shining light on it. Why would he induldge in such an obscure activity as coding things on top of things that everyone can see are mere concoincidecnes? That would confuse people, not make for more clarity. I simply do not see the motivation. What is the essence of the message that could only be communicated through all these hidden patterns? And why didn't he encode something that was incontrovertibly real? For example, a complete sentence like "I made this code to show that I invented William Shakespeare?"

My main reply is that what looks like obscurity from the outside might not be obscure when seen from the inside. I am sure there are those who would call your work on the Biblewheel both obscure and incomprehensible, especially if they don't take the time to look into it. As I like to remind you, you are talking about something you have not investigated.

My impression, after working with this for some time, is indeed that this is made by a man who dislikes obscurity (not secrecy), and a man who is surprisingly scientifically minded (given that this was done around 1600), with an almost unending need for giving extra evidence for even the most insignificant points in his puzzles. He reminds me most of all of a mathematician painstakingly making sure that there are no holes in his argument (and I am a mathematician). At the same time he is extremly playful and humorous. I think I can guarantee that something like "I made this code to show that I invented William Shakespeare?" will never show up in any of his puzzles.

Bacon hated the obscure philosophy of his time. And (I think) he hated obscurity in the sense of being dim or indistinct. But he was not an enemy of secrecy. In his "New Atlantis", where he seems to be describing an ideal society, we can read:

"And this we also do: we have consultations, which of the inventions and experiences which we have discovered shall be published, and which not: and take all an oath of secrecy, for the concealing of those which we think fit to keep secret: though some of those we do reveal sometimes to the state, and some not."

In the essay "Of Simulation and Dissimulation" he writes

"Therefore set it down, that an habit of secrecy, is both political and moral."

and ends the essay with

"The best composition and temperature, is to have openness in fame and opinion; secrecy in habit; dissimulation in seasonable use; and a power to feign, if there be no remedy."

Facterd

[RC Christian]

Are you sure about that? Every page is in a chapter (define chapter 0 as all pages prior to Gen 1). So there are two numbers associated with each page. A page number p (from the beginning) and a chapter number c (from the end). The page number begins at p = 1 and the chapter number begins at c = 1190 (if we include chapter 0).

So as we look at the two numbers for each page, we see that the page number constantly increases (+1 for each page) and the c number constantly decreases or stays the same (since a chapter often spans multiple pages). These are called monotonic sequences. There must be a time when they cross through each other. At the beginning, we have p < c. Then somewhere in the midst of the book we have p > c. So the question is simply this: Is there always a time when p = c? The answer is "yes" except in one relatively rare case. In every case, p will increase until p = c (and we are done) or p = c - 1 and then on the next page c changes to c -1 and p changes to c so the two sequences will "pass through" each other without "touching." But that seems like a rather rare occurrence. So there are probably plenty of solutions to your condition for different starting points and different editions of the Bible.

My challenge was counting books as individual units, chapters as individual units, verses as individual units, or words as individual units...obviously, we know what the conclusion would be from the stated facts that I've already posted, regarding the counts.

The point is not that the scenario I presented can only have one intersection; the point is there doesn't have to be any intersection of the two counts. Had there not been exactly 78 pages of 'fluff' (and I meant that in no disrespectful way) added after the Title Page and before Genesis, there would not be an intersection at all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

My challenge was counting books as individual units, chapters as individual units, verses as individual units, or words as individual units...obviously, we know what the conclusion would be from the stated facts that I've already posted, regarding the counts.

The point is not that the scenario I presented can only have one intersection; the point is there doesn't have to be any intersection of the two counts. Had there not been exactly 78 pages of 'fluff' (and I meant that in no disrespectful way) added after the Title Page and before Genesis, there would not be an intersection at all.

You are correct that there would not have been an intersection at p = c = 666, but there almost certainly would have been an intersection somewhere else where p = c = 643 or whatever. I thought you were asking about the general case.

[RC Christian]

Well, that seems pretty speculative. He gloried in bringing light to Philosophy, and spent the rest of his time secretly encoding hidden messages for other folks? To what end? What is the message that he encoded?


Richard,

I can understand the need for secrecy in those dark days when Europe was governed by a vile Church and the people were subject to many superstitions. But why today? I know that Mormon's buy up and hide as much of the documentation about Joseph Smith as possible to coverup his lies, and Scientology keeps their upper levels secret cuz anyone sane person who reads them would immediately see that L. Ron Hubbard was a raving loon going on about spaceships that looked "exactly like a DC-7" and the space alien Xenu who trapped souls with atom bombs in volcanoes.

I've never seen a legitimate reason for keeping religious or spiritual or historical secrets. And as you know, this boy don't abide no "secrets" cuz he don't like no people holdin' back on 'im. Why thay keepin secrets? There's something rotten in Denmark, it seems to me (to quote Francis Bacon!).

Don't get me wrong bro. I'm just telling you how I see it. I could be wrong, and I will continue to meditate upon everything you are sharing with me. The last thing I want is to have a closed mind. But I can't turn off my skepticism, and I really don't think I should!

I actually just now saw this post...missed it somehow earlier. In regards to the secrets, I do have one 'authentic' answer for you... although it may not be a good enough reason to you, but it is the reason for many. I don't really know what type of background knowledge you have on the Brotherhoods, so I don't really know where to start, but I'll assume you know some basic information from the internet and so forth, because I remember you telling me you had never spoken in any length with a Freemason or Rosicrucian. I'm sure you're aware of the legendary oaths that an initiate takes at different degree levels. Have you ever heard any of these oaths? They're called 'blood' oaths, and for a good reason.

This is the Entered Apprentice Oath, the 'initial' oath...that of the 1st Degree (this is all in the public domain and easily Googled):

""I do most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, without the least equivocation, mental reservation, or self evasion of mind in me whatever; binding myself under no less penalty than to have my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in the rough sands of the sea at low watermark, where the tide ebbs and flows twice in twenty-four hours; so help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same."

And then, you are revealed some allegorical and symbolic knowledge...and at the next full moon, one can go on through the 2nd Degree initiation...and the 'blood' oaths continue.

By the time, and if, someone is fortunate enough to attain unto the 33rd Degree, they have taken, well let's just say a lot of oaths...binding oaths. One can only become a 33rd Degree Freemason by invitation of 3 other 33rd Degree Freemasons. It's an honorary degree. The final veil of the symbols and allegories that one has learned up unto that point is finally removed. Now, not to speculate on what that something is, and if one can follow all the pointers leading up to it, it's not a big 'leap in faith' to conclude what the great mystery is (and I'm not talking about Shake-speare or anything else we've discussed). But, back to the point...when one in the Brotherhood finally learns the 'grand secret(s)' they've taken a list of 'binding' death oaths the length of your arm. Even if they wanted to tell everyone what they now know, under binding oaths, they can not. And guess what, all those that have lead them to that point, have taken the same oaths. This is one of the 'main' reasons, beyond loyalty to the Brotherhood, that prevents the disclosure of trusted knowledge.

I hope that shed some slight Light on the whole secrecy issue. It's not the only reason, but it is one of the important ones. Bear in mind that every living or dead 33rd Degree Freemason has taken the same oaths, with only slight modifications for 400 years...just as the Rosicrucians have.

[Facterd]

Here is a question for you, RC Christian: What is your impression (or documentet information) about the connection between esoteric societies and the Egyptian Sun God, Ra?

Facterd

[RC Christian]

Here is a question for you, RC Christian: What is your impression (or documentet information) about the connection between esoteric societies and the Egyptian Sun God, Ra?

Facterd

Hello Facterd,

That's an excellent question to bring up, and if you will allow me, I need to leave now for a Thanksgiving lunch (it's 11:30am, my time), but I'll address that this afternoon. Hope all is having a great day.