Essay: Bible Codes
It is my somewhat-informed, more-or-less deeply studied (SIMOLDS) opinion that there very well may be authentication codes crafted into the text of the Pentateuch by its original writer(s), especially by Moses. But, it also is my SIMOLDS opinion that the Pentateuch, does, in fact, naturally contain various unique 'subtextual' patterns which, when first noticed, may have lent themselves to the reputed creation of these 'authentication codes'.
In other words, it is my opinion that, only because texts, as such, have patterns, and then some of these patterns are noticed, that anyone can get the idea in the first place of crafting a text in such a way as to contain 'secret patterns' that its author(s) use to help authenticate proposed and supposed copies.
So, imagine that the most important root text in the cosmos (Genesis) is like the most complex and powerful machine, such that, if every pivotal part were not made to the finest tolerances, then the machine would simply break down when submitted to the vagaries of human opinion. Imagine, further, that the means by which this machine is so well made is by the social, political, and linguistic dynamics of cosmological truth as wielded by human sincerity, and that sincerity passed down, with all due deliberation, by a true patriarch to that whom he identifies as most suited to the task.
If such a text naturally contains subtextual patterns which are unique to, and most compelling of, all those in all of literature, then there need be no authentication codes deliberately crafted into the text in order for such a text to contain authentication codes. Ho hum. All that is needed to authenticate supposed copies of the original is first to determine the original (a process which may include determining the patterns that ought to exist in the original). But, a true copy of an original cannot be determined without directly ascertaining that every word and phrase in the copy is the same as the original. So, an authentication code would not itself serve the purpose of authentication, but would serve only to screen for candidates of authenticity.
With the foregoing in mind, what was the cause for God's having initially called Abra(ha)m? If the plain text of the first twenty-four (24) chapters of Genesis is to be taken at face value, and the Jewish tradition concerning Melchizedek and Abraham believed, then it was Shem who, as the true patriarch, and who then went by the name 'Melchizedek', identified that younger man whom God had already called according to that man's extreme act of defiance against the pagan gods.
Again, by what cause did God call Abra(ha)m? Was it by the cause of an 'eeny-meeny-miney-moe' caprice on God's part? No, I am convinced that caprice had nothing to do with why God sought that man to be the father of God's own nation. But, the cause for the absence in Genesis of that traditional Jewish story may, I think, be even more telling than is the story itself.
By ancient accounts of the Jews, and, by the most simple reading of the genealogies, Shem outlived Abraham by decades. And by the Jewish tradition of renaming/alternate-naming, a practice followed by Saul-who-became-Paul, and by Peter-who-became-Cephas, Shem truly was called 'Melchizedek', as the one man in Abraham's world who had no parents, and whose life continued even after Abraham died.
The practice of oblique methods of accounting certain facts is meant not so much to hide those facts from the nefarious as to compel the most sincere to count the manners in which, and the depths to which, those facts are pertinent. The fact is, that, the more is known in common to an original set of authors and to its original audience, the less of some things are explained or even mentioned in the text. That fact is the ultimate, if otherwise valueless, context for that wholly true root text called 'Genesis'. If the hopefully rare Evangelical Christian reader doubts this point, all he need do is compare the entire explicit story of Abraham to the meager three verses dedicated to him in the 11th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Abraham was practically a pagan, otherwise God would never have consented to so test the man. It was not as if God, in one breath, introduced Himself to him and then asked him to slay his son suddenly during breakfast. God does not demand a kind of loyalty which only Satan could wish for, which is precisely why God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment.
The title of 'Most High God, possessor of heaven and Earth' was a title which Abraham learned from the patriarchal line, likely from Shem himself, though Shem, by name, is never mentioned as having had any contact with Abraham. The literary device is to have the reader focus all attention on this man 'Melchizedek', who appears out of nowhere, is for no explicit reason greatly recognized by Abraham, and then disappears, never to be mentioned again. The phrase in the Lone Ranger serial, "Who was that masked man?", pales-to-invisibility by comparison.
The central initial question is, would Shem ever have had reason to see what 'little Abram' was up to? After that, who, if anyone, oversaw the setting-to-record of Abraham's story? Who could have been more qualified for that latter job than a man who, besides being so righteous as to be the most blessed of Noah, was so biologically functional as to be many hundreds of years old when Abram was first called? Who was that masked brain?
Shem couldn’t save humanity, no matter how much he knew, or how well his brain worked: the entire world had changed, and now people were fortunate to remain strong, if still alive, to the age at which a man formerly got married and had his first child. And, if the old world had been abominable, this present one didn’t look to be shaping up any better: Nations were being made, and each, in turn, was failing the law of righteousness from their inception. Shem was worried, as any mere man would be who understood the world from such a depressingly privileged position. Though he had never known Adam, he had been in mind of Adam’s death, and of God’s first great promise, because he had seen first-hand the grace by which God had preserved the elect, and by the sign in the cloud the remembrance of which God never again would so ‘grace’ the world. So, when he learned that Abram was the best suited for being the father of the next world, he took action. Shem had a hunch, at the very least, of what God would do, and that it would be a new thing, never vainly the old thing twice. So, even if, according to some students of scripture, Shem didn’t know of the patterns that were possible in a text, the whole point of ‘Melchizedek’ was to make a statement about Shiloh, and in such a pivotal, information-dense way, that the only thing that could best it for drama was something of which Shem, at that time, had no foreknowledge: a certain incident in the relationship between a certain father and his son.
That incident centers on the 555th verse.
Introduction to the other keys
When a man is born, he is not yet equal to his father. Even when the man has reached full maturity, and by then ideally is married, he still is not equal. And, even when he has a son of his own, he is merely halfway to being equal to his father. Only when his own son has a son of his own is he equal to his father. Four generations. Two fathers, each of whom has a son-who-has-a-son. According to ancient Jewish culture, what may be the ideal age of the younger of the two? And, what does it mean to be halfway to infinity?
Now that I’ve either confused you, got your attention, or both, here’s an easier question: what is the spiritual significance of Genesis 42:9-11? In other words, if there is a spiritual allegory to be drawn from that passage, then what is it? In the preceding paragraph, it is suggested that, in order for a son to be equal to his father, he must have a son who is equal to him; and, that the only way by which a man, as such, may be equal to his father is to have a son, even as his father has a son.
Now, the only other number that visually codes into ‘930’ the way 144 does is 522. It would be simple, in a way, to demonstrate that claim here; but, if a man is to be equal to his friend, then he must go where his friend goes. And, he must come from where his friend comes from. Where all men but one came from. One good turn deserves another. That’s the key to the other keys. You step, and you find a solid place for your foot. The mountain is high, and the air is thin, and few can be convinced to climb it. There is no Bible code except that which emphasizes the simple, but most significant, message in the plain text. It is a 'hidden message' only to those who will not believe it.
The root of the most powerful infinite fractal does not leave anything except itself the same each time it comes around. A minimum of spirituality is not enough. God does have a message. And, only God is unchanging. The question is, what is the root of the most powerful spiritual 'fractal'? It has always been there. In terms of it, every key is an 'other key'.
Judah and Reuben
Reuben, the eldest son of Jacob, was always well-intentioned (Genesis 37:22, 29-30), but unstable and rash (Genesis 49:4, 42:37). Judah, the fourth son, was stable, if slow to make up his mind for himself (Genesis 37:26-27, 43:8-9). So, it was to Judah that his father gave the primary blessing (Genesis 49:8-9).
It is no meaningless coincidence, then, that Judah, of his own siblings, is pinpointed by the unit of 111 at Genesis 37:26 (the tenth multiple of 111 verses), just as Isaac was most dramatically pinpointed by the fifth multiple (as hinted at in the final two sentences of the Introduction, i.e., Genesis 22:7). Both Judah and Isaac are figures of Christ, each in a different way. Joseph is a third figure of Christ, in still another, and even more powerful, way.
The first multiple of 111 which pinpoints Joseph is Genesis 41:25. In this verse (which is the 11th multiple of 111 verses), Joseph is beginning his answer to Pharaoh to interpret Pharaoh's dream: "The [two] dreams are one: God has shown Pharaoh what He is about to do."
Now, if you'll count thirty (30) verses after 41:25, you'll find the verse that names Joseph to all the Egyptians as the man to whom they must appeal for food. The significance of 30 is well known to those Jews and Christians who study the significances of various numbers. Even Jesus began his ministry at 'about' thirty years of age, and, so, Joseph begins his to the people.
By the time of the 12th multiple (Genesis 44:7), Joseph's brothers have bowed themselves to the ground to Joseph (whom they do not recognize as such since he disguises himself as a rough-talking Egyptian government prime minister), have had a special meal with him, and have been on their way back toward their father Jacob with the grain. Joseph's servant has caught up with them and has flatly accused them of theft. The charge is that they have stolen an empty vessel that was precious to the prime minister for it's powers of divining the future. Now they deny their guilt, saying, furthermore, that if any of them is so guilty, then that one ought to die and that the rest of them will submit to being slaves to the prime minister. But, of course, Joseph has set them up for a fall of which they have been guilty for twenty years, when all their sacks are opened.
The 13th multiple states that, though Joseph's wisdom has caused all the lands of Egypt to be bought up by him for Pharaoh, the lands of the priests were exempt from this purchase because the priests needs were already supported by Pharaoh and didn't need to sell their lands in order to get by.
In a similar manner to the fact that Joseph's Pharaoh did not get the lands of the priests, the 14th multiple (Exodus 1:21) puts God Himself in place of the next (and evil) Pharaoh in respect to the midwives, who would not allow for that evil Pharaoh to have an easy means of oppressing the Hebrews: those midwives were blessed by God in a very tangible way: 'houses' of their own. But, who, in a specific future way, were they protecting? Question: what type did that specific protected person's works fill?
Answer: Christ's type. 30 verses after Exodus 1:21, you'll find the call of Moses at the burning bush. Of course, you could just go to the 40th verse after Exodus 1:21 (and to 14:14). But, that call to Moses establishes the next set of every-111, because the next four units of 111 verses are Exodus 3:4, 10:28, 14:27, and 19:1. Imagine if that third one was the text of something like 14:10, by the verse divisions being rather different from how we do have them.
We are all one man’s sons
If you have read the contexts of verses pinpointed by the unit of 111 verses, then you will know that it does not exclude the verses immediately before and after the verse pinpointed. Otherwise, there is no context by which to understand the verse pinpointed. And, the whole point is context.
Genesis 42:10 is pinpointed by a different key than that of the 111 unit, by “branching off” of 930 without adding another layer as the 111 unit does. So, what we are doing, instead, is following the trunk straight up/straight down: 144 is visually coded as 930, and 930 is visually coded as 1263. You will find that the 1,263rd verse is Genesis 42:10, which I asked about in the second section of this essay. For the want of food, and in face of an accusation of being unfriendly spies, all men will claim, and rightly so, that they are all one man’s sons. And, they really are all one man’s sons. Adam’s. This is the most powerful way in which Joseph is a figure of Christ, in that Christ was not a son of Adam and so he could be a judge of all sons of Adam.
You and All the rest
Do I have to?
What does it mean that a father and his son agree to do something by which others have plotted to kill them?
And, what did God think of a world in which all good land was already inhabited by peoples who had lost their way and who would not listen or consider? In regard to the former world, all the Earth had been reclaimed by God is one great act.
Now, there was not to be a repeat of that world, which is why God scattered everyone who had congregated in Babel and at its great tower. So, what, really, was left to be done when God called Abram? Answer: give the man a reason to keep at his original way because of which he was called.
It was the earliest opportunity to select a man to take Shem's place. Even though Shem was to outlive him by decades, the much younger man was the better one for the current job. Shem, had been preceded by Enoch in terms of perspective, but not even Shem could claim to understand what it was like to live as a native of that present world. Shem had never been so stupid. So, it had to be a father and his son who, in all innocence and determination, began the next stage of the world.
By all this, find it, if you can. Otherwise, it doesn't look like it belongs in all this, or that it could ever amount to anything. It stands out precisely because it doesn't. All the other nations wanted nothing to do with such humble beginnings. And, Egypt itself did so only because Egypt was forced to it by the need to survive: there was no where else for so many people to go to live; only the Nile delta, which they already were so good at keeping; everything else was a bareness which simply could not support them. If you were determined to go out anyway, Godspeed to you. But, if you were determined to stay, then you were not allowed to jeapordize the lives of everyone (including yourself) by simply staying. You had to commit, by a means that would allow you to stay without the fatal risk that had promised to wipe them all out.
For only one people was it an election, and who did not live in the delta. Their land was at the junction of all Earth's trade, and because God, in His wisdom, had selected that land for to be the land of His own nation. In a fallen world only. To wit:
At some point in the rise of ancient Egypt as a center of civilization, the yearly flood of the Nile basin had spread enough disease organisms, such as through septic contamination, through the waist-high crop water, that the foreskins of a small number of laborers became irreparably infected, requiring the removal of the infected portion of their foreskins. In some cases it became apparent that the removal of the infected portions was required to save the sufferers’ lives, and, through laying with their wives, the lives of their wives.
Thus began the method of circumcision used by the Egyptians: free-hand cutting of the skin at both sides just beyond the infection, the infected portion removed, and the originally distant two ends of skin moved together to heal into one.
By decree of the leader of the Egyptians, the state of these first newly-circumcised men was closely monitored, to see whether and how well they healed, how long the healing might take, and any means to help the process. Also, the causes of the disease were sought out, and were thereby found to be the water-born filth of both man and herd-animal (thus were shepherds banned from approaching Egypt with their flocks; Genesis 46:34). And, thus was learned and recorded the details of the success of the operation upon these men. Women either already were spared infection by not being needed to labor in the flood fields, or were soon removed from such laboring due to the difficulty of successfully treating infection of the more complex female anatomy.
The now-healed circumcised Egyptian men returned to work, and were observed not to become further infected, thus foretelling a preventive means of treatment for the disease.
But, more men of Egypt became so infected, and thus were circumcised. And, since not all Egyptian men were yet circumcised, the disease organism grew so strong that even some circumcised men began to become re-infected. Once it became known that the infection was so spreading, and that the infection could be fatal to both a man and his wife, it became a matter of survival that all men of Egypt be circumcised: there was nowhere else that the masses of Egyptians could live so well, if at all; The surrounding lands were far too sparse of growth to support the masses. Once all men of Egypt were circumcised, it was observed that the disease was stopped.
So became the state of circumcision seen by all in those lands as a sign of an easily prosperous, and thus luxurious, way of life. And, it was required that, for any males from other lands to be accorded the freedom to live-and-work in Egypt, those males first had to submit to circumcision lest the disease again be activated.
Some baby boys had become infected at the height of the outbreak, and were successfully treated by circumcision. Thus became to be observed and recorded the lowest uncomplicating limit of circumcising babies due to the acquisition of the coagulation factor in living blood. And, when it was seen that the cut healed quicker and better in babies than in men, thus began the routine circumcision of Egyptian baby boys, at eight days old. But, as routine as it became to circumcise its infant boys, ancient Egypt at least as well routinely delayed circumcising boys until the boys were culturally old enough to have to labor, as had their fathers, in the flood waters of the delta.
Moreover, as necessary as it was for the Egyptian people to have their men circumcised, some of richest men in Egypt could afford not to labor in the flood waters that made the Nile delta such a prosperous place to live. Thus occasioned some of these men opting not to get circumcised.
Now, the land just north-east of Egypt, along the eastern-most side of the Mediterranean, was (and is) the most heavily travelled cross-roads to the Earth’s host of travelers and merchants. That land thus saw the most traffic in terms of amount and variety of disease organisms, both in and out of water. Therefore, the best way for a people to live on that land included permanent exposure of all penile skin to the bacterial ‘desert’ of the open air, thus ensuring that they neither caught nor spread the diseases which begin in, afflict, and are spread by, uncircumcised men in a disease-organism-heavy environment. Those travelling through needed not be circumcised. But, those who remained as functional residents must be circumcised, lest they acquire and spread those diseases to any who live there and/or to any who merely visit.
But, Abra(ha)m, in receiving the sign of God’s geographic covenant with his descendants, was wise and good. So, he invented the kosher method of circumcision, unlike the method the Egyptians were too proud to replace. Abra(ha)m’s method was the shield method, which was neat and quick, which meant it required little or no anesthetic, and healed well and even. The Egyptian method was most primitive by every measure: it not only was ragged and thus healed slowly and was especially bloody and painful, but, given its by-then merely customary target-skin, it unnecessarily removed most of the tactile-sensitive tissue which comprises the inner portion of the foreskin. Thus, unlike the Egyptian method and its origins, the original Jewish method of circumcision was both 'the best possible in every measure including being entirely preventive. In a word, the method of circumcision which Abraham performed was 'kosher' in the ancient sense of the word.
And, now, in the aforementioned thing which a certain father and his son agreed to do (as hinted at in the previous section of this essay), what they agreed to do was anything but preventive as far as they were concerned. What they agreed to do was so deeply traumatic for them that they were immobilized, as if by nails, and even seemed to the onlookers to be babbling the nonsense of men in fever. But, that father and son had counted the cost, and were still willing to go through with it so that they should obtain what those conspiring against them had pretended to agree to share with them. But, what that first, prophetic set of those conspirers did not know was that their future types would fail to keep from the father and son what those future types would not even pretend to offer to the father and son.
144 and 153
The primary complex number is 144. It is twelve squared, in which twelve is the number of full council, and the squaring of which is to spread full council over a surface, as the surface of the Earth.
John 21:11 actually bothers to specify the number of fish in a certain flawlessly made catch. But, why would anyone do so, unless they had a knowledge of numbers beyond the ignorant impression that "numbers are just numbers, and therefore trivial in the extreme". But, even Numbers 23:23 is anything but trivial.
Now, when the number of those fish is added to 144, the result is one of exactly nine numbers which collectively reverse all asymmetric three-digit numbers: 99, 198, 297, 396, 495, 594, 693, 792, 891.
...Which is only the beginning of that topic, because the 153rd verse gives the dimensions of Noah's ark, and the 144th says, And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved at heart.
Adam's life of toil, spelled '930'
To begin with...
...A man's total years of fallen life in the fallen world may be thought of as his 'week' of toil, because, when a man dies, he no longer toils. So, however many years he lived, those are 'one week of years.' 'Six days' of toil.
Adam lived 930 years of toil, or 'one week of 930 years'. So, each of Adam's 'six days' of years was 155 years.
Now, in terms of textual reference of Adam's years of life, Genesis is book one (1), with chapter 5 and verse 5. That, too, is '155'.
This adds to the already demonstrated efficacy of the unit of 111 verses.
Prime numbers are those with the least possible quantity of factors/divisors (respectively themselves, and 1). In that sense, and in many other senses, they are very much predictable, like soldiers of the most exquisite skill carrying out the most demanding of 'marching orders'. But, despite these finely tuned 'marching orders', the prime numbers also are extremely unpredictable: you never know exactly when or where they will turn up...
(((FYI: I believe there is relative utility within any set of algorithms intended to more-or-less predict, or find more-or-less predictive patterns for, the occurrence of the prime numbers: not all such algorithms are equally useful to that intent. In other words, I believe that, given all the various attempts, to date, to predict the primes, there is a general narrowing down of the predictive power of algorithms so intended. But, I believe there logically can never be any sub-set of all algorithms-so-intended that can actually strictly predict the primes. Which means I believe there is no finite maximum of such algorithms that can perfectly predict the primes.)))
...But, there is a reverse side of that coin...
Let me explain.
Twelve, or any multiple of twelve, is always the first in the natural series to have an increase in quantity of factors over any lesser number. This implies that any greater number lesser than the next multiple of twelve never has an excess of that quantity of factors. I call this Quantitative Factoral Initiation (QFI).
So, twelve and its multiples are numbers that 'mother the most children', for which the factors of those numbers are the children. This is reflected by 2 as the root QFI number over 1, and also as reflected by 6 as the highest of the smallest non-primes with a continuous string of factors:
QFI is at every sixth number-divisible-by-two, and that sixth number is always a multiple of 12 (rather than of 6):
2 is divisible by 2 and 1.
4 is divisible by 2 and 1 (into 2+2 and 1+1+1=1).
6 is divisible by 2, 1, and 3 (This is the first progress: Per 3a., above; and, Per that one of these three options is a dynamic prime, specifically, the First Dynamic Prime, per 3b. above).
8 is divisible by 2, 1, and 4 (same quantity of divisors as 6).
10 is divisible by 2, 1, and 5 (same quantity of divisors as 6).
12 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, and 6 (Aha! The first ‘large’ number).
14 is divisible by 2, 1, and 7 (Uh-oh! NOW we’re SINKING!).
16 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, and 8 (no better than for 12).
18 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 6, and 9 (no better than for 12).
20 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 5, and 10 (no better than 12, so the sharks still circle).
22 is divisible by 2, 1, and 11 (My Gosh! Have we forgotten even how to tread water?!).
24 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 8…and 12 (Yeeeaahh! A leap of two-dolphins-more-than 20’s zero dolphins, to give us a ride to shore!).
26 is divisible by 2, 1, and 13 (The dolphins have dumped us amidst a veritable horde of sharks!).
28 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 7, and 14 (no better than for 20, sharks still circle).
30 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 15 (no better than for 24, but at least now we’re back on the dolphins, heading for shore).
32 is divisible by 2, 1, 4, 8 and 16 (no better than for 20, the dolphins have again dumped us off).
34 is divisible by 2, 1, and 17 (no better than for 6! AHH! A shark just brushed our leg!!!).
36 is divisible by 2, 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18 (that’s a jump of +5 more than for 34!).
This reflects the root partnership between 2 and 6. So, beginning with 12, every sixth number-divisible-by-two is a QFI number.
QFI permits an exact 'grid' for the entire natural series, in terms of QFI=6 as multiples of twelve. Compare this to a 'grid' using any other multiple, say, multiples of 5 or 10: such an alternate 'grid' is a more arbitrary, less-interrelated, 'grid', partly because, unlike twelve, 10 lacks a continuous string of factors (1, 2, and 5 for 10; whereas 1, 2, 3, and 4 for 12). Any number with a continuous string of at least four factors is divisible by 12, but not any number with a continuous string of three factors is divisible by 10 or 5.
So, 12 and its multiples, per QFI, are the perfect compliment, or counter-balance, to the Principle of Primes (including, but not limited to, minimal factorization), with 2 being the root-in-common between primes and non-primes, and with 6 being the mediator between 2 and 12.
Now, if my ‘grid’ theory is correct for all this, then the only question is: What is the algorithm that defines that ‘grid’? I think it must involve a ‘dance’ between QFI and the primes.
A NOTE ABOUT THE ROLE OF 2
1a. Any number which is divisible only by ‘itself and 1’ is called ‘prime’ because a number which is ‘divisible only by 1’ is a tautology. I repeat, it’s a tautology. In other words, to say that A=A is no more informative than simply saying ‘A’.
1b. This implies, firstly, that any number which is divisible by 1 also is ‘divisible’ by itself (i.e. resulting in ‘1’, that is, in a single instance of the original number---as if that’s not IMMEDIATELY obvious).
2a. Secondly, it implies that any number divisible by 2 (including 2) is a number a property of which is the ‘Principle of Division’, distinction, dichotomy, basic logic, learning, symmetry, intelligence, etc..
2b. Any number greater than 2 which is divisible by 2 also is divisible by at least one other number, namely, half the original number.
3a. But, per 1a. and 1b., above, numbers which are divisible by 2 also are divisible by 1 (which is tantamount to the original number). This means that, for ‘large’ numbers which are divisible by 2, they are divisible by at least two other numbers: half the original number and 1 (with the original number being simply an alternate expression of that 1).
Therefore, I observe that:
3b. 2 is divisible by 2, and 1, in that it is made of exactly two 1’s. But, 2 is NOT divisible by any other number (i.e., it cannot be otherwise divided into equal units). So, per 1a and 1b, above, 2 is not a ‘dynamic’ prime, but merely is the simple, ‘static’ prime. In other words, 2 has no alterative, unlike all other numbers which are not 1. And, unlike all other primes above 1, 2 is divisible by 2, which serves to further establish the ‘Property of Division’ noted in 2a.
PatternOfPersona 15:58, 10 June 2011 (EDT)