Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230

    Trefoils in Genesis 1.1

    What follows is for me the single best piece of evidence that Genesis 1.1 originated from the Mind of God, rather than the fickle efforts of man.

    Below I show how the standard, ordinal and reduced values of Genesis 1.1 (Mas.), as well as the numbers of letters and words, can all be expressed as trefoils. Moreover, the semantically distinct final two words - v'et h'erets/and the earth - produce a set of numbers, each of which is an earlier member of the same trefoil sequence as the number derived from the verse itself. So each of the number pairs can be rendered as trefoils within trefoils. The single exception is the number of words, which can also be rendered as a trefoil (trefoil 7), but with no internal trefoil. Note that the trefoils have been created from both triangles and centred triangles.

    The trefoil (the word means "three-leaved plant") is the anti-snowflake equivalent of the hexagram, being the first iteration of the Koch anti-snowflake from a triangle. See here. The hexagram is the first iteration of a Koch snowflake from a triangle. The trefoil, like the triangle, is an ideal figure to represent the triune God. Four of the five trefoil pairs (seven out of the nine separate trefoils) are triangular trefoils, surely the ultimate representation of triangularity!

    Name:  Trefoils from Genesis jpg.jpg
Views: 42
Size:  67.4 KB

    This is as close to perfection as I have seen and, I believe, devastating evidence that Genesis 1.1 really has been watermarked with the seal of the Christian God.

    All of the trefoils can be derived from G-triangles, which, when added to all the G-triangle geometry already found there, is further evidence of design. It is also a further pointer to the fecundity of G-triangles in generating snowflakes and trefoils. They represent life, which God wishes to nurture.

    One thing to add here is that each of the trefoil pairs are derived from the hexagram/hexagon pair to which the template G-triangles give rise. I'll tabulate it for a later post, but for example, the ordinal values of G 1.1 and its last two words are 298/73, which are ultimately derived from triangle 406 - T28 and a G-triangle. This self intersects to give hexagram 541 (Yisrael) with hexagon 271 inside. This hexagram/hexagon pair is the exact counter of trefoil pair 298/73.
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 08-19-2019 at 02:50 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    The table below shows a selection of G-triangles, a centred triangle and the Star of Davids and trefoil pairs derived from them. The pictures above each column illustrate the figures referred to in the column. You can see exactly how the Star of David and trefoil pair are derived from G-triangles and centred triangles (every centred triangle produces a Star of David and trefoil pair).

    The rhombic trefoils are the anti-snowflake equivalents of hexagrams, formed by the subtraction of units from G-triangles or centred triangles. The triangular trefoils are created from the hexagons inside the stars by subtraction of units.

    Name:  Trefoils from Genesis 3 jpg.jpg
Views: 35
Size:  41.1 KB

    All of the numbers derived from Genesis 1.1 - SV, OV, RV, letters and words, are found in the table, which I trust is evidence enough of deliberate planning, rather than chance, in the writing of the Torah and the construction of the Hebrew language.

    To God be the Glory!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Enschede / Netherlands
    Posts
    2,620
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post

    All of the numbers derived from Genesis 1.1 - SV, OV, RV, letters and words, are found in the table, which I trust is evidence enough of deliberate planning, rather than chance, in the writing of the Torah and the construction of the Hebrew language.

    To God be the Glory!
    Why couldn't it have been done by some intelligent person / intelligent people?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    Why couldn't it have been done by some intelligent person / intelligent people?
    The ancient Greeks were familiar with triangular numbers and possibly centred triangles and related figures. I'm not sure how much the Hebrews knew, but we can assume that they did. However, creating a verse with those properties is a different matter, and depends as much on the structure of the Hebrew language and the spelling of Hebrew words as on the structure of Genesis 1.1. If it was done by man it was done before the birth of Christ. I've seen two fragments of the Dead Sea scrolls, one from just before the Incarnation, the other from just after, which together show that Genesis 1.1 was worded and lettered exactly as in today's Hebrew Bible. They wouldn't have had long to do it, therefore, because the Jews adopted alphabetic numeration around the 1st Century BC. There is also the fact that these are sacred words to Jews and tampering with the text would have been anathema to them. Most of all, though, the spelling of the words used in the text was already fixed by the time it was written, a time when alphabetic numeration was unknown to the writers. In other words anyone wishing to encode geometric patterns within Genesis 1.1 would have a range of formidable obstacles to overcome.

    1. They would have very little room for maneuver in changing wording, word spelling, etc.

    2. They would need a good understanding of figurate numbers, including the properties of centred triangles. I've scoured the internet and I can find very little on centred triangles even today. I discovered these properties on my own.

    3. They would have to have had the authority to tamper with the wording of the Torah, which as far as I am aware, would have been contrary to their religious tradition (to say the very least). It's not something that could be done in secret either. Their efforts would be plain to see in the opening words of scripture, which their own tradition maintained had been scribed by YHVH himself. It was forbidden even to utter his name, except on Yom Kippur by the High Priest. Therefore they would be partaking in a monumental lie, a lie that would be contrary to everything their tradition stood for and believed.

    4. They would have to have had a reason for doing this in secret, a secret that was to remain undiscovered for millennia.

    5. They would likely also have needed the authority to alter the spelling of Hebrew words, something that usually occurs only over long stretches of time.

    6. Statistically, it is very unlikely that under all three of these popular systems of gematria, trefoil pairs would always be produced. They would have had to have hit upon this extraordinary confluence of properties, among many others, then somehow worked it into the text.

    In other words they would have to have been something close to omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, and all in the service of a monumental lie (since they were claiming that the Torah was handed down to Moses from YHVH) that nobody would discover for over two thousand years. Even assuming they could have done it, what would their motive have been? The strongest argument against it to me, though, is that these were the most visible words in scripture, 28 Hebrew characters that just couldn't be tampered with without everyone knowing about it and which were likely fixed long before the Jews even adopted alphabetic numeration.

    No, it seems much more likely to me that God himself encoded these patterns, working through the unconscious minds of the Hebrew Bible's writers, and in fact through everyone who ever spoke that language. That's how all gematria is encoded, I believe. That's the simplest, most satisfying explanation, if you accept the reality of a transcendent realm of infinite knowledge. The code was probably created in a single instant in the mind of God - Bohm's 'implicate order' - before manifesting over time here in the world - Bohm's 'explicate order'. Bear in mind that these encodings exist within a text that is already saturated with codes. The complexity of this problem seems to me to be far beyond the human mind and could only be accomplished over a long period of time, which as I said, they did not have, and against their own strong religious prohibition against textual tampering, or by recourse to something like a supercomputer - ie, the mind of God. They were a very prayerful people and I believe that this is how access to the "divine supercomputer" was achieved.
    Last edited by thebluetriangle; 08-19-2019 at 11:32 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by sylvius View Post
    Genesis 14:14 proves otherwise

    And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan.



    318 being numerical value of the name Eliezer

    Genesis 15:2,
    And Abram said, "O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am going childless, and the steward of my household is Eliezer of Damascus?"

    I was referring only to Genesis 1.1.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    I was referring only to Genesis 1.1.
    That's right. sylvius has a habit of going down rabbit trails.

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    I used a binomial probability calculator to work out how many numbers in the first 3000 are either rhombic trefoils, triangular trefoils and their centred-triangle equivalents.

    There are

    a) 31 rhombic trefoils
    b) 44 triangular trefoils
    c) 19 centred rhombic trefoils, and
    d) 26 centred triangular rhombic trefoils (sorry, can't think of better terminology at present)

    in the first 3000 natural numbers.

    The sum is 120 and since some of the numbers are shared this reduces to 114 (at least, I only calculated up to 1000 or so).

    114/3000 = 0.038, which is the probability of success on a single trial.
    I derived 10 numbers from Genesis 1.1: 2701/703, 298/73, 82/28, 28/7, 7/2.
    Of the ten numbers 9 gave trefoils, so the number of successes was 9.

    Plugging in the numbers gives a probability of success of <0.00000001, or less than 1 in a 100 million. However, it is much less probable even than that, because even 7 out of 10 hits has a probability of success of less than 1 in 100 million. I think we're talking many billions to one against it being chance, based on that calculation. Of course, it's an after-the-fact calculation, and there are many other geometric figures that could have been found. Taking these facts into account would increase the odds considerably. But these trefoils are the simplest of their kinds and they all derive from G-triangles and G-triangle geometry has already been shown to be prominent within Genesis 1.1. These mitigate against it being chance, because the trefoils are part of a larger theme involving basic G-triangle geometry. The triangle itself is the simplest 2D figure and its preeminence within the numbers underlying Genesis 1.1 points to the Christian concept of the Trinity.

    The accumulated geometric evidence points to design, using G-triangle geometry as the principle unifying theme.

    Here's the calculators I used https://www.stattrek.com/online-calc.../binomial.aspx
    https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc...tor.aspx?id=69

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    What follows is for me the single best piece of evidence that Genesis 1.1 originated from the Mind of God, rather than the fickle efforts of man.
    Hey there Bill,

    I'm confused about the large triangular trefoil representing 2701/703.

    It seems the three large triangles representing 2701 must be T(42) = 903 and we need to subtract the overlapping central point for two of the triangles, which means the total number of dots would be 3 x 903 - 2 = 2709 - 2 = 2707.

    But then I zoomed in on your image and noticed that the triangles are not actually sharing any dots at all! But that doesn't make any sense, because then the image represents 2709.

    Am I missing something? Please explain how you got the number 2701 from those three triangles.

    Thanks!

    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Hey there Bill,

    I'm confused about the large triangular trefoil representing 2701/703.

    It seems the three large triangles representing 2701 must be T(42) = 903 and we need to subtract the overlapping central point for two of the triangles, which means the total number of dots would be 3 x 903 - 2 = 2709 - 2 = 2707.

    But then I zoomed in on your image and noticed that the triangles are not actually sharing any dots at all! But that doesn't make any sense, because then the image represents 2709.

    Am I missing something? Please explain how you got the number 2701 from those three triangles.

    Thanks!

    They are centred triangles and 901 is the 25th. The sequence runs:

    1, 4, 10, 19, 31, 46, 64, 85, 109, 136, 166, 199, 235, 274, 316, 361, 409, 460, 514, 571, 631, 694, 760, 829, 901, . . . .

    Centred triangles have slightly different properties from regular triangles. Every member of the sequence will form a hexagram/hexagon pair, for example. They will all form trefoils too. Trefoil 2701 is formed from three conjoined centred triangles of 901 units each. So (901 x 3) - 2 = 2701. 703 is also a trefoil, formed from centred triangle 235.

    By 'trefoil' I mean rhombic trefoils growing from a single unit, which all centred triangles and all G-triangles will form. Triangular trefoils have the same general form, but each leaf is a triangle rather than a rhombus.

    Incidentally, centred triangle 694 self-intersects to form star 925:

    Jesus Christ (s) = 925
    Our Redeemer (s) = 694

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by thebluetriangle View Post
    They are centred triangles and 901 is the 25th. The sequence runs:

    1, 4, 10, 19, 31, 46, 64, 85, 109, 136, 166, 199, 235, 274, 316, 361, 409, 460, 514, 571, 631, 694, 760, 829, 901, . . . .

    Centred triangles have slightly different properties from regular triangles. Every member of the sequence will form a hexagram/hexagon pair, for example. They will all form trefoils too. Trefoil 2701 is formed from three conjoined centred triangles of 901 units each. So (901 x 3) - 2 = 2701. 703 is also a trefoil, formed from centred triangle 235.

    By 'trefoil' I mean rhombic trefoils growing from a single unit, which all centred triangles and all G-triangles will form. Triangular trefoils have the same general form, but each leaf is a triangle rather than a rhombus.

    Incidentally, centred triangle 694 self-intersects to form star 925:

    Jesus Christ (s) = 925
    Our Redeemer (s) = 694
    Ah, thanks. I understand.

    So the patterns in your diagram are based on three different kinds of figurate numbers, namely

    1) Three centered triangles to get (2701/703)
    2) Three romboids to get (298/73)
    3) Three standard triangular numbers to get (82, 28), (28/7), (7)

    So the only real "consistency" seems to be that you found a way to represent these numbers using some kind of threefold symmetry. The fact that you had to use three different methods seems to me to indicate that you are imposing the "design" rather than discovering it. If God really wanted to impress a mathematician, he would use consistent methods, since inconsistency is ANATHEMA to a mathematical mind.

    Inconsistency is the fundamental flaw in all numerology.

    Your methods remind me of the "Game of Four Fours" in which you try to express a number using exactly four fours and basic mathematical symbols, like +,-,/,(), etc.

    Name:  fourfours.PNG
Views: 34
Size:  7.3 KB


    The question is: How many positive integers can be expressed as a threefold symmetric combination of figurate numbers? Or more to the point, how many numbers can't be expressed that way? If the answer is anything like the game of four fours, it seems there would be no significance at all to your results.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •