Signature of The Creator. The Torah contains an ancient embedded "Security Code".

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: dashen

No it doesn't.

The code is not pi as the code does not reference a decimal place. And after that? Is there a code after your presumed pi? No? It doesn't say anything? Then what use is this "code"?

Pi? Where does pi fit into this? And what decimal are you talking about?

I'm confused. But, you speak with authority, so, I guess you must be correct... somehow...

a reply to: 3n19m470

You can read about it here.

homepage.virgin.net...

Or watch this video.

That there is a code in the bible doesn't prove it's God-written. A human may have written it in such a away.

Also, the text could have been modified heavily while preserving the code. Here is an example:

bla bla bla Torah
har har har Torah

The word 'Torah' is the same place, while the first line says 'bla bla bla' and the second line says something completely different.

The only code that could be used for content authentication is some form of number computed by the text (for example, crc) which did not exist back then.

a reply to: ParasuvO

The ignorant will always clutch to their ignorance.
this code proves that the text is unmodified since antiquity.
Now if you want me to debate the celestial origins of this book that is a different matter.
For instance when you use equidistant letter spacing the Hebrew words for dozens of types of fruit bearing trees all appear exclusively in the text regarding the Garden of Eden.
the equidistant letter spacing for AIDS for instance only appears when talking about Sodom and Gomorrah.
As I said before the reason I chose this one code out of the countless others is because any illiterate ignoramus can test it in the comfort of their own home

a reply to: masterp

The difference between the godly and the godless is that both perceive this information in a wildly different way.
A godless person will see astoundingly complicated random events, built upon other almost impossible random events, built upon many other almost impossible random events, the statistical probability of which approaching zero which is still in their minds totally appropriate and natural
.
Until you learn anything about statistical probability that is

a reply to: masterp

You obviously don't understand how this code works.
Its like this.
Two Orb Ram Aim Hop.
If you wanted to switch out a word it would have to be a word with the same number of letters without disrupting other code using other letters in the same word.
And that is also assuming the person who would change any of the words knew of this code in the first place which was only discovered in the 20th century

a reply to: dashen

Dashan

You wrote QUOTE "Take a scroll from today or from a thousand years ago and this code will work..
the samaritans are converts from the time of assyria." UNQUOTE

Your jejune comments show that you are unaware of the detailed history of the Samaritan Pentateuch and also that you are uneducated as to the textual 'fluidity' of the MT/Masoretic consonantal text PRIOR to 1000 years ago - especially in the Dead Sea Scrolls, some copies of which can be dated as early as 300 BCE in paleo.

A good idea for you would be to consult the work of Immanuel Tov, a Dead Sea Scroll scholar who has spent his life delineating these textual changes and differences (both major and minor) over time.

The Dead Sea Scroll copies of the Masoretic consonantal text can be dated c. 100 BCE and are DIFFERENT from the Aleppo Codex of the Masoretic Text from the middle ages. The Hebrew consonantal underlay fragments to the LXX Septuaginta of the Torah found at Qumran can be dated as early as 200 BCE and DO NOT MATCH the Masoretic Hebrew consonantal text by about 15 % which means 15 letters out of 100 are DIFFERENT - you do NOT have a single text family that has survived without scribal alteration over the centuries - therefore you cannot have any single code that would work rationally.

The MT became standardized around 1000 CE and has been more or less faithfully copied from a single late MSS - You would have to go back more than 1000 years to see how fluid the text is - the further back in time you go, the more fluid it becomes.

It would be a different story if the Masoretic Text was shown to be the same consonant for consonant in ALL manuscripts of the Torah that we have found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (e.g. at Qumran or Masada etc) - but such is NOT the case.

The Hebrew consonantal underlay to the LXX Septuaginta Greek shows yet a different family of MSS that were used from which to translate (we found large portions of this Vorlag at Qumran) which shows the most embarrassing number of additions, deletions, corrections and other signs of 'fluidity' prior to 400 CE.

You do not have a textual leg to stand on for any 'code' since we are dealing with A PLURALITY OF ANCIENT TEXT FAMILIES for the Torah, and NOT a single unchangeable block of consonants unchanged over time prior to 1000 CE.

Even a single letter of text added or subtracted would throw any purported code off - and what Qumran revealed is that the Torah of the Jews was still 'fluid' until well into the common era.

Later Rebbes did not start counting middle letters until the Middle Ages, and by then the Masoretic Text had taken authority over the older versions of the Torah, e.g. the Hebrew Vorlag underlay to the LXX Septuaginta .

Have you never heard of Origen's Hexapla (c. 230 CE) ?

a reply to: Sigismundus

It seems clear you just decided to disregard the whole posts about the Saducees, karites, samaritans, and other breakaway cults, more than aptly accounts for all alternate versions

a reply to: chr0naut

You wrote QUOTE

Each letter is a pictogram and each letter has its own meaning. Words and names are simply a way of stringing together the concepts conveyed with each letter. A change to the the meaning of a single letter in a single word would 'poison' the rest of the language that used that letter, so it really hasn't happened that frequently.

The LXX, Hexapla & etc are primarily Greek translations and comparison of Greek translations. In the Hexapla, only one column of the six was actually in Hebrew. If there had been many Hebrew variations, there would have been more than a single column dedicated to it. As we don't have their Hebrew sources for these translations, the statement that the source texts are "fluid" is based entirely upon supposition and on Origen's statement that there were discrepancies between the Hebrew text (note, singular) in use at the time and the Septuagint and other Greek translations. We do know that there were several Greek translations that differed from each other. This does not necessarily indicate that there were differences in the Hebrew source texts. We also know from the Qumran texts that the Masorete text is very close to the Hebrew of the time and this is further suggested by its compliance to the LXX.

That Samaritan texts have differences, is entirely beside the point. " UNQUOTE

You raise a number of points which will have to be addressed in separate posts

Suffice it to say that the Dead Sea Scroll texts show a divergence from the Masoretic text which can be quite shocking to those who have not studied it in depth when compared letter for letter - most of the changes in the Torah are considered ''minor" alterations (such as the MT replacing ELOHIM for YHWH) but it is enough to ruin any code...

You surely must know by now that we have found fragments of the Hebrew consonantal underlay to the LXX Greek texts which show that the LXX translators were very accurately translating the Hebrew text that was front of them word for word (not just slipshod translations from the Masoretic). So when the LXX differs from the Masoretic, we can see that they are working from a DIFFERENT vorlage consonantal text underlay - i.e. we can reconstruct the Hebrew from the Greek translations. Ditto for Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. If there was only ONE Hebrew consonantal Vorlage underlay then we would not see so many differences between Aquila, Theodotiion etal. and the MT and LXX as Origen pointed out. Their Hebrew textual consonantal vorlage underlays were different !

Immanuel Tov (and other scholars who have devoted time to the subject) has shown that even the text of the Torah was prone to changes (although less prone to changes than say, the Book of Jeremiah) including differences of letters, words and whole phrases.

Even the Talmud records that the markings surrounding Numbers 10:35–36 were thought to denote that this 85 letter text was not in its proper place iin the Masoretic text.

Did you not know that at Qumran we witness a pluriform of Hebrew text families that diverge from the Masoretic? Even the Great Isaiah scroll (though not itself Torah) 1QIsa shows some glaring differences from its sister copy 1QISb lying right next to it.

I'll compile a few of these differences for you in the Torah (under later postings this week) to show that prior to Jamnia c. 90 CE, the Hebrew text of the Torah was more fluid than you care to admit....

a reply to: dashen

maybe its a fake security code, or a tag to identify it from among the several hypothetical versions that were being considered for dissemination.

im just saying, there are other possibilities that make much less assumptions. assumption #1 being that this proves a supernatural influence was involved at some point.

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: chr0naut

You raise a number of points which will have to be addressed in separate posts

Suffice it to say that the Dead Sea Scroll texts show a divergence from the Masoretic text which can be quite shocking to those who have not studied it in depth when compared letter for letter - most of the changes in the Torah are considered ''minor" alterations (such as the MT replacing ELOHIM for YHWH) but it is enough to ruin any code...

You surely must know by now that we have found fragments of the Hebrew consonantal underlay to the LXX Greek texts which show that the LXX translators were very accurately translating the Hebrew text that was front of them word for word (not just slipshod translations from the Masoretic). So when the LXX differs from the Masoretic, we can see that they are working from a DIFFERENT vorlage consonantal text underlay - i.e. we can reconstruct the Hebrew from the Greek translations. Ditto for Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion. If there was only ONE Hebrew consonantal Vorlage underlay then we would not see so many differences between Aquila, Theodotiion etal. and the MT and LXX as Origen pointed out. Their Hebrew textual consonantal vorlage underlays were different !

Immanuel Tov (and other scholars who have devoted time to the subject) has shown that even the text of the Torah was prone to changes (although less prone to changes than say, the Book of Jeremiah) including differences of letters, words and whole phrases.

Even the Talmud records that the markings surrounding Numbers 10:35–36 were thought to denote that this 85 letter text was not in its proper place iin the Masoretic text.

Did you not know that at Qumran we witness a pluriform of Hebrew text families that diverge from the Masoretic? Even the Great Isaiah scroll (though not itself Torah) 1QIsa shows some glaring differences from its sister copy 1QISb lying right next to it.

I'll compile a few of these differences for you in the Torah (under later postings this week) to show that prior to Jamnia c. 90 CE, the Hebrew text of the Torah was more fluid than you care to admit....

Since the Qumran scrolls were not used in the community but were placed for storage in the caves, they were most likely 'discards' because they didn't make the grade of the 'official' scrolls but could not be destroyed because they were still, in essence, 'the word of God'.

So they MUST have had discrepancies from canon and, as such, assumptions about "text families" they reveal are castles built on air.

I do, however, appreciate your scholarship and await further information (I do not have access to all available texts and am open to having my mind changed).

I am really surprised in some of you.
You guys are ignoring the blatant truth in front of your nose.
there are many ancient versions of the Torah.
All of them were written by breakaway cults that did not adhere to very strict guidelines of scribe Manship .
BUT NONE OF THE OTHER VERSIONS HAVE A CODE SO COMPLICATED IT WOULD TAKE A SUPERCOMPUTER TO DO IT TODAY

Also very ridiculously ignoring the fact that this one code overlaps with countless others.
The 49 letter count is a pattern that repeats throughout the whole book yes
but there are other equidistant letter counts for the same word (Torah)
That overlap and sometimes utilize one letter for many words
.
if you remove or add or replace one letter from here or there it would disrupt the whole thing

originally posted by: dashen
I am really surprised in some of you.
You guys are ignoring the blatant truth in front of your nose.
there are many ancient versions of the Torah.
All of them were written by breakaway cults that did not adhere to very strict guidelines of scribe Manship .
BUT NONE OF THE OTHER VERSIONS HAVE A CODE SO COMPLICATED IT WOULD TAKE A SUPERCOMPUTER TO DO IT TODAY

Also very ridiculously ignoring the fact that this one code overlaps with countless others.
The 49 letter count is a pattern that repeats throughout the whole book yes
but there are other equidistant letter counts for the same word (Torah)
That overlap and sometimes utilize one letter for many words
.
if you remove or add or replace one letter from here or there it would disrupt the whole thing

Why do you think this is so complicated? Why couldn't it have been done by a person? It is a rather simple code. If it is how you describe and If it is even there. I have no way of verifying it afterall.

Encryption is as old as the written word. It could easily be argued that all language is encryption. Governments, even as old as these would have been, were made up from the most educated people. Although it would have taken much consideration to insert this code, it is not so complicated as to require a computer, much less an imaginary deity.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Again but you are not exactly privy to the totality of this code.
the text contains overlapping code upon overlapping code.
There is no other book in the history of mankind that is comparable.
the statistical probability that the text has survived unchanged for so many thousands of years is approaching zero.
And yet here it is.
it is singular in the history of civilization.
It made accurate predictions thousands of years into the future.
and the reason that it is nearly impossible for this code to have been written by Bronze Age scholars is the layering of the code.
It takes a modern computer to even read the code in any reasonable amount of time.
Nearly all these codes were discovered in the 20th century.

The patriline (lineage through the first son) in the Bible expounds on the history and purpose of humankind:

Adam to Jesus: A Story is Told

Surely, it would've been impossible, without some sort of Divine Foresight, to make the names of the Savior's human lineage spell out God's intent with such exactitude. Words, truths in particular, are the scaffold of our universe.

originally posted by: cooperton
The patriline (lineage through the first son) in the Bible expounds on the history and purpose of humankind:

Adam to Jesus: A Story is Told

Surely, it would've been impossible, without some sort of Divine Foresight, to make the names of the Savior's human lineage spell out God's intent with such exactitude. Words, truths in particular, are the scaffold of our universe.

I never understood the Bible tracing Jesus's patrilineal family.
was Joseph the father or not?
also if we were to test Jesus's y-chromosome what would it look like?
A cross perhaps?
Also never understood the fact that since Jesus was born and died a Jew and is quoted in Matthew as saying that he has not come to change the law, why don't the Christians follow Judaism?.

Also very troubling to the church are passages in the Talmud which describe Jesus's life between the ages of 12 and 30 which the Christian Canon conveniently omits .
Such as the fact that Jesus was kicked out of university.
After several misunderstandings with his teacher he descended to Egypt and studied magic and sorcery for many years.
.

originally posted by: dashen

I never understood the Bible tracing Jesus's patrilineal family.
was Joseph the father or not?

"No descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:24-30). Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited still further. Now one had to be not only of the house of David, but apart from Jeconiah.

According to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David's throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David's throne. Neither could he claim the right to David's throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent."

Link

Also never understood the fact that since Jesus was born and died a Jew and is quoted in Matthew as saying that he has not come to change the law, why don't the Christians follow Judaism?.

Many Christians don't adhere to some teachings in Judaism, for example, because they cannot ascertain creation as explained in Genesis. Despite the OT being endorsed by Jesus, such as his references to Adam and Eve, many Christians compromise these beliefs for the deceptive teachings of the the contemporary law (scientific theory). The New Covenant tore the Temple's curtain open, allowing all to see God, rather than just Moses/Other Select Few.

Also very troubling to the church are passages in the Talmud which describe Jesus's life between the ages of 12 and 30 which the Christian Canon conveniently omits .
Such as the fact that Jesus was kicked out of university.
After several misunderstandings with his teacher he descended to Egypt and studied magic and sorcery for many years.

Catholic Canon*. I find it strange that many Gospels, such as those of the Nag Hammadi find, are continually omitted from mainstream Christianity. Misogynists could learn a lot from the Gospel of Phillip, and the complacent lethargy could be expelled through an understanding of Thomas' Gospel.

Regardless, what do you personally think of the story professed through the Adam-Jesus lineage?

a reply to: dashen

My question is this: Why do verses 1- 4 of Deuteronomy not follow the patterns (forward or reverse)? If nothing is to be added or subtracted and the code seems to start with chapter 1 verse 1, then Deuteronomy seems to be out of place.

1 These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the wilderness east of the Jordan—that is, in the Arabah—opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab. 2 (It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.)

3 In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses proclaimed to the Israelites all that the Lord had commanded him concerning them. 4 This was after he had defeated Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, and at Edrei had defeated Og king of Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth.

a reply to: Freenrgy2

My question is why do you think this code has to conform to your expectations of them?
The first several passages of Deuteronomy contain codes that originated there and carry on throughout the rest of the book.
Something that could not have been added later Without changing the whole text, And affecting other codes already present.

a reply to: cooperton

Adam Jesus lineage Sounds nice up until the last one where you have Real stretches of language and sometimes outright misrepresentation of the meanings of the names
Especially twisting them when wanted to fit the narrative.
Plus whatever the name doesn't make sense like Jacob they just use the name Jacob.
But besides the fact if Jesus is not related to Joseph then why mention it