Mirrored Triangles in Genesis 1.1.

[Alex]

I don't know the best evidence for that but I can do some research on it and then pick something from that.
Let's see now:

"In the beginning God created the heaven" (H s) = 1998 = (198 = Primes up to number 37 = red Vs(703 = Tri(37))) w. ext...
"and the earth" (H o) = 73

std Vs(1998) = 5179 = Pri(691 = 395 "the heaven" (H s) + 296 "the earth" (H s))
ord Vs(73) = 307+703

FLW of std Vs(1998) + CW of ord Vs(73) = 698 (6698 = Squ(37) + Squ(73))

Integration of std Vs(1998) & ord Vs(703)
No.W = 34 = Pri-o(137 (i. α))
No.L = 125 = Pri-o(7) x Pri-o(7) x Pri-o(7)
No.W + No.L = 159 "universe codes" (E o)
TV = 5764 = TriHepta(44 = Happy(3+7)) = 5400 + 7+7+7 + 7x7x7
FLW = 737 = Palin(83 "In the beginning" (E r)) [73 merged with it's mirror connected to the outer layer]
CW = 104 "the earth and" (E o) [the earth & ordinal connected to the center. "the earth" (296 = 8x 37) is connected to 37.]
FLCW = 841 "the universe" ο συμπαν
2 FLW = 1718 = 1500 + (218 "codes" (E o+s) = Semiprime(73 "of wisdom"))
3 CW = 913 "In the beginning" (H s)
2 FLW + 3 CW = 2631 = 2000 + C.Tri(7+7+7) = Pri-o(23629 = Happy-o(297535 = Teraflake(7+7+7)))
A Teraflake is the next evolution of a Gigaflake in the same way as a Megaflake is the next evolution of a Snowflake.
This kind of geometry is valid and has been tested with verse integrations by me. You get extremely amazing results there.

37 = code number for 777

Integration of std Vs(1209 = FLW of Gen 1:1) & ord Vs(401 = CW of Gen 1:1 )
TV = 3478 = 37x73 + 777
FLW = 557 = 57 "heaven" שמים (o) w. ext...
CW = 520 = (E r) "and" 10 x 52 "earth" (E o)
FLCW = 1077 = 107 "seven hundred seventy seven" (E r) w. ext...
2 FLW = 1568 "God the heaven the earth" (H Fs) = 1500 + 68 "seven hundred seventy and seven" (H r)

Verse# (55 "heaven" (E o) = Tri(3+7) = Hepta(5 = PP-o(37)))
TV = 2837 = Pri(413 = mirror of 314 "seven hundred seventy seven" (E o))
FLW = 113 "universe" (E o)
CW = 407 "and" ואת
FLCW = 520 = 10x 52 "earth" (E o)

Which one of these is best? Well, let me think about that until tomorrow and let me do more research before I give you an answer.

[RAMcGough]

I don't know the best evidence for that but I can do some research on it and then pick something from that.
Let's see now:

"In the beginning God created the heaven" (H s) = 1998 = (198 = Primes up to number 37 = red Vs(703 = Tri(37))) w. ext...
"and the earth" (H o) = 73

std Vs(1998) = 5179 = Pri(691 = 395 "the heaven" (H s) + 296 "the earth" (H s))
ord Vs(73) = 307+703

Hi Alex,

It takes a lot of effort to understand the "connections" you are finding/creating. But let me try:

1) "In the beginning God created the heaven" (H s) = 1998 [True, and easy to understand]

2) 198 = Primes up to number 37 [This only works if you are including 1 as a prime, but if you do that, you break other patterns like 37/73 having mirrored prime indexes of 12/21. Do you take 1 as prime or not? Are you consistent on this point?]

3) = red Vs(703 = Tri(37))) w. ext... [I understand you are "extending" the number 198 to 1998. That looks like a "fudge factor" to me. It lets you make up arbitrary "connections" between random numbers by arbitrarily inserting random numbers. You could have "extended" 198 with another 1 or another 8 or whatever you want. The problem is that the "code" you think you "found" is not actually there. You put it there. It's all in your own mind.]

Please don't take offense (as none is intended) but here is how it seems to me: All your pages and pages of "connections" have the same fundamental flaw. It looks like you are drawing random lines between random stars and claiming your constellations are "really there". They are not. How many people would find the same patterns using your method? I would guess maybe they'd find about 1% overlap. The rest would be totally subjective, idiosyncratic and random. This is a mathematically necessity that follows from the vast ocean of random numbers your methods produce. There's no way any two people could independently come to the same conclusions in the vast majority of "connections".

[bluetriangle]

However, what's remarkable about the pattern I showed is not the number of triangles found, which as you say is well above average but not enough on its own to raise eyebrows, but the mirroring. I didn't see it myself at first, but that was because I hadn't included the two centred triangles found in the verse by the same method. I see you haven't included them either. Including these two triangles gives a total of eleven triangles, in five pairs, mirrored about the centre of the verse, with T7 in the centre.

The pairs are
T2/T2 in words 2 and 6
T4/T4 over words 2,3,4 and 6,5,4
T5/T5 over words 2,3,4,5 and words 6,5,4,3

The above forms a pattern within the pattern, all involving words 2 and 6 and of course suggesting YHVH. Note that the mirroring is perfect, using the same triangle for each pair.

Yes, the mirroring of the letter counts is intriguing. 4 3 5 2 5 3 6 I think this is part of the infinite beauty of the first verse.

Yes, I think it is too. On 6352534 and 4352536, these have interesting factors if you read them as numbers.

6352534 = 314 x 20231 Shaddai/Almighty = 314
4352536 = 386 x 11276 Yeshua/Jesus = 386

The central five letter counts forms a palindrome 3 5 2 5 3 which is striking since the primary structure is based on the palindromic primes 37/73 and mirror symmetry is very important in the geometric derivation of those numbers as the self-intersection of T(10) = 55 and it's reflection.

Yes, and the central 525 is also a palindrome. In fact the three words at the centre of Genesis 1.1, from word positional values, letter sums and word sums, give us Aleph-Tav (401), Alpha-Omega (801), El Shaddai (345), I AM That I AM (543), The Lord of Hosts (525) and The Holy God (446) all in word or letter patterns, symmetrical about the central Aleph-Tav.

This is the Glory of the Lord appearing between the two cherubim, because Genesis 1.1 is a numerical ark, representing the Ark of the Covenant. Where are the two cherubim? They are symbolized by a cornucopia of fractal geometry either side of the centre. The mirrored triangles I showed are the beginning of this phenomenon. Another example is shown below, two Koch anti snowflakes, formed from triangles 496 and 946 by strict application of the Koch anti snowflake process to digital images. There are several more, including Sierpinski triangles.

Fractals are ideal vehicles for representing the cherubim, visually and symbolically, because even the cherubim are created beings and Creation is influenced by fractal geometry.

I get the same feeling from John Elias' book "Proof of God" - he finds a way to express almost every number in terms of hexagon symmetry. The problem is we can write almost any number that way. He starts with the hexagon/star sequences and then adds or removes dots to get the number he wants. For example, 6 = non-centered hexagon, 7 = centered hexagon, 13 = star, 12 = star with central dot removed, etc., etc., etc. Is there any number that can't be expressed this way?

Yes, he goes too far. He's done a lot of good work, but some of his constructions seem manipulated and not the result of natural geometric transformations. It's relatively easy to create snowflakes by adding counters in symmetrical patterns. Any number which is one more than a multiple of 3 could be shown as some kind of antisnowflake and any number one more than a multiple of 6 as a hexagonal snowflake. But the snowflakes and anti snowflakes I display are found by strict application of the Koch snowflake and antisnwflake processes.

I feel the same about the 'codes' he and others have found in pi (with one exception in John's case, which I think is genuine). Quite a few researchers think there are codes in the decimal digits of pi, but it's generated by a fixed formula and can't be encoded. Certain digit sequences within it might have been taken advantage of (which is why I believe John's discovery of 58 (Yehoshua (o)) and 57 (HaMashiach (o)) in the very early digits of pi are genuine. But I see people posting 'findings' of numbers beginning at the 20,000th digit, or the like. Of course they will. The further into the decimal digits we go the more likely something apparently spectacular will be found.

Anyway, good talking.

[bluetriangle]

I don't know the best evidence for that but I can do some research on it and then pick something from that.
Let's see now:

"In the beginning God created the heaven" (H s) = 1998 = (198 = Primes up to number 37 = red Vs(703 = Tri(37))) w. ext...
"and the earth" (H o) = 73

That's some of your best evidence? You've made two mistakes.

1. The sum of G1.1, wds 1-5 is 1998, not 198. You can't just throw away a 9 because it suits you.
2. The sum of primes up to 37 is 197, not 198. 1 is not a prime number.

I call them mistakes, but they aren't mistakes, they are you thinking you can ignore the rules of arithmetic. Your problem is your ego.

Well, I hope you can come up with better by tomorrow.

[Alex]

I always use 1 as the first prime.
And since you joined the debate here Richard, I think you should go get Leo also so that it will be a fair fight for you guys.
I have the blood of Benajmin which is the same blood as the author of the book that tells us about the king who ate grass for 7 years.
You guys are the Tribe of Joseph and you need more than two to beat a Benjamite.
So I will give him 24 hours to come here and join you and then we will see who lacks wisdom here.

[bluetriangle]

I always use 1 as the first prime.

Alex, this is mad hatter territory. The first prime is 2. I understand why you might want it to be 1. I did too. It offends my sense of order that it's 2. But people who understand number theory better than I do had good reasons to make it 2 and I accept their judgment. More importantly, any codes involving prime numbers will use the standard definition of 2 as the first prime for indexing subsequent primes. That was the conclusion I came to when I investigated it 20-odd years ago.

It isn't contest either, of any kind. It is now an investigation of your work. You post a lot and put on acres of numbers (although you're not alone in that). But quantity can never substitute for quality. A short, precise post often has more impact than a long a winding trail of numbers, often leading nowhere.

Listen Alex, I'm on your side here. I know you have a talent with numbers and I genuinely want to see you develop it in a way that glorifies God. But on the whole, and with the honorable exception of your very useful software, you are not doing that. You are wasting your time and energy creating what is essentially a junkyard of randomly-connected numbers and it's a crying shame to see your time and talents wasted in this way, although as ever I applaud any good work you have done. I will add that you are not alone now. There are others now posting who are sailing off course too. it's turning into a flotilla in fact.

[Alex]

I said that I always use 1 as the first prime number.
You can alternatively use 2 as the first prime number also.

And you see much of my work as folly because you don't have the same experience as me.
There are many paths in the codes of the Bible, we can't expect people to have the same wisdom about it.
Wisdom is a product of experience, oversight and the ability to judge what is important or not.
So it will be interesting to see here who has wisdom or not here.

[bluetriangle]

I said that I always use 1 as the first prime number.
You can alternatively use 2 as the first prime number also.

1 is not a prime, because a prime always has two factors, 1 and itself. 1 has only one factor. There's no room for argument here. 1 is not a prime number.

And you see much of my work as folly because you don't have the same experience as me.
There are many paths in the codes of the Bible, we can't expect people to have the same wisdom about it.
Wisdom is a product of experience, oversight and the ability to judge what is important or not.
So it will be interesting to see here who has wisdom or not here.

Yes, there are different codes in the Bible. But there are also many traps for the unwary, rabbit tracks that go nowhere and fool's gold for those who are easily impressed by a little glitter.

I would say you have cleverness. Wisdom takes time and there's an old Kabbalistic saying that a man isn't ready to study Torah until he is 40 years old and has at least three children. A little life experience helps in Torah study and I would say in finding Bible codes.

[Alex]

Wisdom takes time and there's an old Kabbalistic saying that a man isn't ready to study Torah until he is 40 years old and has at least three children. A little life experience helps in Torah study and I would say in finding Bible codes.

I reject Jewish mysticism, in-fact I think it is degrading to the knowledge of this community to even bring it up.
The fact that Leo brought up the Talmud also irritated me.

[bluetriangle]

Wisdom takes time and there's an old Kabbalistic saying that a man isn't ready to study Torah until he is 40 years old and has at least three children. A little life experience helps in Torah study and I would say in finding Bible codes.

I reject Jewish mysticism, in-fact I think it is degrading to the knowledge of this community to even bring it up.
The fact that Leo brought up the Talmud also irritated me.

I'm no fan of the Talmud either. Some of it is horrific and deeply racist.

Kabbalah? I think there is wisdom there, yes. My first vision of three lights in triangular formation differentiated between the lower two lights (yellow) and the upper light (white) and was more like the first three Sephiroth on the Tree of Life than the Trinity. It also depicted triangle 3. My 6+1 day hexagon was gotten from Leonora Leat's The Secret Doctrine of Kabbalah (I was flicking through it in a bookshop when I saw it). Is Kabbalah degrading? If it is true it cannot be degrading, although there are modern strains of Kabbalah and practitioners of qabbalistic magic that do degrade it, yes.

But the code is much more about mathematics and what has been achieved over the last 40 years, exclusively by Christian researchers, is greater than anything I've seen in Kabbalah. Why did it take until 1979 for someone to notice that G1.1 is a triangular number? It's not as if they didn't know what a triangular number was, even as the Torah was being written. No, it was all timed to perfection by God.

I wouldn't recommend Kabbalah, but I would recommend a deep study of the Hebrew alphabet. It is a universe unto itself.