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

a reply to: dashen

Dashan

You wrote QUOTE "I am aware of your fallacious arguments and the Tradition which has been faithfully transmitted for millenia...." UNQUOTE

So basically you have no answer to offer at this juncture. If for example you really do believe in the Mosaic authorship of the Torah and the 'faithful' transmission of the Torah texts from the beginning, then you are still in Kindergarten, theologically speaking, and I can see that we will have to spill even more ink (and dedicate even more time) on this subject if only to shed some rational light on it.

You also wrote in a fatuous reply to: zefiro

QUOTE "...But how do you propose a code was woven in 1000 ce when all the variants only vary by a few dozen letters? " UNQUOTE

'All the variants only vary by a few dozen letters" ?! You mentioned you did not have the texts in front of you so it would not be surprising for you not to know that the variants between the Masoretic consonantal text of the Leningrad Codex (and the Aleppo Codex with which was brought into allignment as the new 'standard' in 1008 CE) differs from other ancient copies of the Torah including the Hebrew textual underlay ('vorlage') to the Septuaginta LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch in more than 3500 places, 1/5 of which would involve a change in the number of letters in a Hebrew word which would throw off any code based on counting consonants.

Need I remind you of the textual mess we see in the Masoretic consonantal text of Deuteronomy 32:43? Here is what the Masoretic text states:

"Rejoice, you nations, with his people,
for he will avenge the blood of his servants;
he will take vengeance on his enemies
and make atonement for his land his people..."

When the LXX. Dead Sea Scrolls and Samaritan Pentateuch retain and preserve the original reading:

"Rejoice O Heavens, together with him
And bow down to him, all ye gods = הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ-לוֹ, כָּל-אֱלֹהִים (16 Consonants not in the MT)
For he will avenge the blood of his servants
And render vengeance upon his enemies
Yea he shall recompense all those who hate him לְשֹׂנְאָ֛יו יְשַׁלֶּם־ (10 Consonants not in the MT)
And will atone for the land of his people."

In a single verse the Masoretic Consonantal layout has been corrupted to the tune of 26 letters missing from the text. And that is just ONE Masoretic textual verse !

How can any letter counting 'code' hope to be woven into such a corrupt text as the Leningrad Codex (which as you can see is far from pristine, but is the sole copy for modern Torah scrolls to derive their consonantal text)?

a reply to: Sigismundus

because again, the samaritans, kaarites and other cults own versions vary over time.
the septugaint is a greek translation.
do you speak english?

a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe neither we are the generation that will read the codes from all the ancient documents, probably something is written for generations to come, we just start something to someone in the future to complete.

originally posted by: Lora73
a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe neither we are the generation that will read the codes from all the ancient documents, probably something is written for generations to come, we just start something to someone in the future to complete.

Perhaps.

In the light of the recent growth of knowledge after millennia of fairly modest progress, and with reference to prophecy that says that in the last days that knowledge would grow in such a way and travel would be worldwide, I wonder if there are many generations left to us?

a reply to: dashen

Dashen

You wrote QUOTE "...because again, the samaritans, kaarites and other cults own versions vary over time.
the septugaint is a greek translation. do you speak english? " UNQUOTE


Yes, yes, I can speak American Englsh and even read & write it too with all the modern American idioms. Shock and Awe !

However, you still have not responded back with what EXACT version of the consonantal Hebrew text that you are using to find your 'Torah codes' - (in fact you seem to be having some difficulty responding properly to me on this thread in general) - now if you are using the 'majority textus receptus' of the Masoretic consonantal text then automatically you are using the Leningrad Codex, which was alligned with corrections to the Aleppo Codex published at Stuttgart in Germany as BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensis).

Just a quick FYI - the Leningrad Codex is currently being re-written and completely re-edited (due to be re-published with all the new textual variants found in the Dead Sea Scroll material sometime in 2020 CE) as Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) - it will be very interesting to see if this revised Torah in the BHQ will produce any 'imbedded Torah code'... or not - so kindly respond as to which version of the Masoretic text you find codes in so we can address your assumptions about the texts in more detail.

If a person is really serious about finding any 'code' buried into the mangled texts of the Torah he would have to decide on what consonantal Hebrew text version of the Torah to be able to build any code upon in the first place - (whether the proto-Masoretic/MT, the Hebrew consonantal underlay to the LXX Greek Septuaginta or the Samaritan Pentateuch (SamPent) or the Hebrew consonantal text underlays (vorlagen) to later Greek translations of the Hebrew in front of them viz. Symmachus, Aquila and Theodotion's Greek exact translations of their own Torot)

Sorry to burst your Code Bubble - but that's the way it works...codes are very exact things if they are to work at all and the Torah is far from exact in its transmission through the millennia

Maybe now would be a good time to offer you a precis of where you have been misled (for whatever reasons) and perhaps some idea of where Modern Scholarship stands on Torah in general. A surprisingly useful introduction for the layman would be for you to read 'The Pentateuch' by Jospeh Blenkinsopp in the Anchor Bible Series, published by the Yale University Press. You can get a broad overview of what the past 250 years has uncovered vis a vis the Torah and how the text was formed in its component stages over time and place.

Here are some of your more egregious errors of fact and Weltanschauung:

in your reply to: soulpowertothendegree

QUOTE 'The code is there. for thousands of years at least. you cannot deny.
the authorship im willing to debate with you...." -

I can certainly debate the Mosaic authorship of the Torah with you at length but I suspect that would be off topic a little bit - needs a thread of its own, most like.

Yet the text of the Hebrew consonants of the Leningrad Codex was not fixed into anything like a final form until 1008 CE - and the liquid form of the Hebrew consonantal text is still evident in places here and there in the Torah judging from the Aleppo Codex (which is a Kairite document) who consulted pluriform texts prior to 960 BCE - however the greater differences can be found the further back in time you go (especially prior to 70 CE).

So 'thousands of years' is a bit of an exaggeration (among so many of your over-statements) and will not quite work if you are counting individual Hebrew consonants - the best you can do is posit a recognisable proto-Masoretic consonantal text existed as a majority text only AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE but not before.

in your replies to: Woodcarver

QUOTE "The code i am presenting is 100% irrefutable, because it is in EVERY Hebrew edition of the bible since at least the dead sea scrolls." -

'Every Hebrew edition of the bible'?!! Yet the Leningrad Codex family of Masoretic consonantal Hebrew does not perfectly line up with the Yemenite Torot (to name only one set of Torot used today) who use plenum spellings of Hebrew consonants rather than defective shorter spellings (trOth v. trth etc.)

QUOTE : "So the fact that a book can survive intact, without missing any letters, for thousands of years, through thousands of copies despite great upheavals, exiles, wars and so on is not miraculous to you? "

There is no evidence that the Torah's consonantal text survived in tact for thousands of years; one can only posit that AFTER the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) the proto-Masoretic Text started to become more dominant than other Consonantal Torot in the wild. The Greek LXX Septuaginta was once thought to be a shoddy translation of the Masoretic consonantal text (c. 250 BCE) but after they found the Hebrew Consonantal textual underlays (vorlagen) among the Dea Sea Scrolls (dated c. 250 BCE) it is clear that the LXX was an exact translation into Greek from Hebrew originals which differed from the later Masoretic text and the Samaritan Pentateuch by as much as 15% if you count letter for letter.

I'll comb through this threat a little later this week for more of your naive and jejune preconceptions about the Torah - that is when I have the time...

originally posted by: Lora73
a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe neither we are the generation that will read the codes from all the ancient documents, probably something is written for generations to come, we just start something to someone in the future to complete.

Yes; its called "call into question everything you think you know" as may be false.

a reply to: Sigismundus

The code works on the modern Ashkenaz masoretic text. ALSO seemingly throughout the Yemenite text.
They differ by .01% after thousands of years of isolation in the way of color and colour

Please refer to the Following link

a reply to: dashen

Dashen

You wote QUOTE : "The code works on the modern Ashkenaz masoretic text. ALSO seemingly throughout the Yemenite text. They differ by .01% after thousands of years of isolation in the way of color and colour...Please refer to the following l;ink..." UNQUOTE

So in fact the Textus Receptus that you are using as a base document to count Torah consonants into 'codes' is the Leningrad Codex (BHL) which was not (originally) a Ben-Asher Masorete Torah consonantal text (e.g. as is the Aleppo Codex which was supported by RamBam) but was brought into allignment with the Aleppo Codex (by the school of the Masorete Shmuel ben Yakkov) via hundreds of erasures and replacements of consonants some time around 1008 CE, according to C.D. Ginsberg and others who have studied both texts for decades in detail.

One could say that the Aleppo Codex (c.900 CE) forms the basis of the vast majority of modern Torah scrolls - the consonantal text written out by Shlomo ben Boyaa (and vowelled by Aharon ben Asher) in Ma’azia (Tiberias) as attested by the inscription placed at the end of the manuscript that was eventually found in a Karaite synagogue in Cairo and later purchased by Karaites.

But this thread is about an alleged Torah 'code' - and to use your example in English, the problem between the letters in the word e.g. 'colour' and 'color' is that by displacing one letter you would be throwing off any purported 'code' - every consonant counts when you are building a code based on letter counts and many Torot in the wild use plenum forms words with "o" or "i" in them rather than the shorter, "defective" forms.

Either way, the code is thrown off by using extra plenum long vowelled consonants (as in the Yemenite Torot) even though this procedure generally does not affect the essentuial meaning of the word or phrase - but we are counting letters not talking about meaning here on this thread and even a single letter could throw off any 'code' completely.

FYI: I glanced at the link you provided this morning -

I have yet to delve deeply into it, but it seems at first blush that the writer of your Attachment has only lightly touched upon the dissemination of Torah texts prior to the Middle Ages - and moreover he seems to be prone to what are known as 'self-serving rabbinnic fantasies' (as opposed to positivistic fact that can be supported by hard evidence) that often cloud his judgement on a number of points. I'll point these out to you under separate cover.

The writer also seems to disagree with the latest scholarship in Torah studies - and especially with the current Editor-in-Chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Professor Emanuel Tov on several counts, e.g. vis a vis Tov's outspoken support of the pluriform Torot in the wild (Hebrew consonantal text underlay 'Vorlage' to the Greek LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch & the Dead Sea scroll exemplars) and their worth for establishing a standardised consonantal text of the Torah, e.g.

QUOTE : "Many scholars including [Emanuel Tov] the present author believe that ALL readings which have been created in the course of the textual transmission ought to be evaluated..." -- Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p. 295 - We Disagree....

"In addition to this we will also depart from academics in the following: we will assume that...the textus receptus that is claimed to be the Masoretic Text is correct.." UNQUOTE

Elsewhere in his writings Emanuel Tov states unequivocally:

"This situation make us increasingly aware that the traditional Masoretic Text of the Leningrad Codex is NOT the Bible but merely one of several text families and/or representatives - albeit a good one..if our analysis is correct then we are faced with many different scriptural texts all of which need to be taken into account in the exegetical and literary study of the Hebrew Scriptures...and although the Samaratim split off from mainstream Judaism some time in the 3rd century BCE, they based their own Torah on a consonantal text that had been used previously in Judaism..."

so (like me) Tov takes these pluriform Torot (including the Dead Sea Scrolls from caves 1-11, the Greek Septuaginta LXX & the Samaritan Pentateuch) very seriously.

www.emanueltov.info...

Certainly the Greek translation of the Vorlage to the LXX Septuaginta was not some random splinter group but was a normative Jewish text for Diaspora Jews who spoke only Greek and could no longer understand paleo-Hebrew and /or Aramaic.

Again, I would strongly suggest you (and any other interested parties on this thread) immediately procure a copy of 'The Pentateuch' in the Anchor Bible Series by Blenkinsopp and also the smallish paperback entitled 'Who Wrote the Bible?' by Elliott Friedman, a student of the hebraist Frank Moore Cross of Harvard. These two books are written for the layman and will open up the modern discussion of the Torah and its convoluted history for those to whom this information may seem new or incomprehensible.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hey Chr0naut -

You wrote QUOTE The earliest use of Pi was in Indian and Chinese manuscripts dated from 500 BC. We have fragments of the Torah from 600 BC. UNQUOTE

I think the oldest fragments of the Torah would b from Caves 1-11 in the Dead Sea Scrolls c. 300 BCE - what texts are you referring to in your BCE 600 date? Most of the Torah came from the time of Ezra (c. 400 BCE) so I would like to know why you posit a 600 BCE date (perhaps an old poem incorporated into the Torah?)

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: chr0naut

Hey Chr0naut -

You wrote QUOTE The earliest use of Pi was in Indian and Chinese manuscripts dated from 500 BC. We have fragments of the Torah from 600 BC. UNQUOTE

I think the oldest fragments of the Torah would b from Caves 1-11 in the Dead Sea Scrolls c. 300 BCE - what texts are you referring to in your BCE 600 date? Most of the Torah came from the time of Ezra (c. 400 BCE) so I would like to know why you posit a 600 BCE date (perhaps an old poem incorporated into the Torah?)

Just a couple of fragmentary scrolls but Ketef Hinnom scrolls dated @ 650 BC.

a reply to: chr0naut

Hey chr0naut -

You wrote : QUOTE "Just a couple of fragmentary scrolls but Ketef Hinnom scrolls dated @ 650 BC." - UNQUOTE

Unfortunately the paleo-Hebrew fragments at Ketef Hinnom (c. 587 BCE) are far too scant to claim to be much more than a quotation of liturgical formulae rather than a quotation from the modern Masoretic text of the Torah... (e.g. Exod. 20:6 'showing chesed to thousands of them that love me and keep my mitzvoth", etc.) - in fact the fragments now seem to be part of what is known as apotropaic ('banish the fear') amulets written in Phoenecian letters (paleoHebrew).

Here is an excerpt from the fragments which do not seem resemble any Torah that I know of (whether the Samaritan Pentateuch, the protoMasoretic or the Hebrew Vorlage consonantal textual underlay to the Greek Septuaginta pr e.g. Theodotion)...unless I am missing something

QUOTE "...the Eternal? [...] blessing more than any [sna]re and more than any Evil for redemption is in him. For YHWHis our restorer [and our] rock... h/hu. May be blessed...by YHW[H the warrior/helper and the rebuker of [E]vil..."

UNQUOTE

Although modern scholarship (e.g. Ulrich, Pitard, F.M. Cross, Davilla, Abegg etal.) is more or less agreed that there is evidence for the antiquity of the Priestly Blessing portion (found in the fragments) - see the liturgical blessing in Numbers 6:24–26 (May YHWH bless you and keep you; may YHWH make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; may YHWH turn his face toward you and give you peace...") - this does not necessarily mean that the whole Masoretic Book of Numbers as a complete recogniseable book already existed at that time (prior to c. 587 BCE) in written form - and any supposition that the scroll fragments can be used as "proof that the Five Books of Moses were in existence during the First Temple period [as described in an article in Ha'aretz] is an over-interpretation of the evidence" (see James R. Davilla, St Mary's College at the University of St. Andrews).

One would prefer longer extant fragments from the period, but we can only deal with what we have !

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: chr0naut

Hey chr0naut -

You wrote : QUOTE "Just a couple of fragmentary scrolls but Ketef Hinnom scrolls dated @ 650 BC." - UNQUOTE

Unfortunately the paleo-Hebrew fragments at Ketef Hinnom (c. 587 BCE) are far too scant to claim to be much more than a quotation of liturgical formulae rather than a quotation from the modern Masoretic text of the Torah... (e.g. Exod. 20:6 'showing chesed to thousands of them that love me and keep my mitzvoth", etc.) - in fact the fragments now seem to be part of what is known as apotropaic ('banish the fear') amulets written in Phoenecian letters (paleoHebrew).

Here is an excerpt from the fragments which do not seem resemble any Torah that I know of (whether the Samaritan Pentateuch, the protoMasoretic or the Hebrew Vorlage consonantal textual underlay to the Greek Septuaginta pr e.g. Theodotion)...unless I am missing something

QUOTE "...the Eternal? [...] blessing more than any [sna]re and more than any Evil for redemption is in him. For YHWHis our restorer [and our] rock... h/hu. May be blessed...by YHW[H the warrior/helper and the rebuker of [E]vil..."

UNQUOTE

Although modern scholarship (e.g. Ulrich, Pitard, F.M. Cross, Davilla, Abegg etal.) is more or less agreed that there is evidence for the antiquity of the Priestly Blessing portion (found in the fragments) - see the liturgical blessing in Numbers 6:24–26 (May YHWH bless you and keep you; may YHWH make his face shine on you and be gracious to you; may YHWH turn his face toward you and give you peace...") - this does not necessarily mean that the whole Masoretic Book of Numbers as a complete recogniseable book already existed at that time (prior to c. 587 BCE) in written form - and any supposition that the scroll fragments can be used as "proof that the Five Books of Moses were in existence during the First Temple period [as described in an article in Ha'aretz] is an over-interpretation of the evidence" (see James R. Davilla, St Mary's College at the University of St. Andrews).

One would prefer longer extant fragments from the period, but we can only deal with what we have !

I agree that the Ketef Hinnom scrolls are far too scant to say definitively what they are or are not.

However, there is some suggestion that KH1 is likely to be Deuteronomy 7:9 (there are other similar verses that it could be too). Similarly KH2 is like Numbers 6: 24-26. Personally, the points of similarity, the proto-hebrew lettering, the scrolls being on silver and its location all add up to a likelihood that this was part of an amulet/s or phalactery containing revered sections of scripture.

But I totally agree that they were hardly complete texts and there are so many missing portions and that no-one can say for sure.

a reply to: dashen

Dashen, to Woodcarver you wrote

QUOTE "So the fact that a book can survive intact, without missing any letters, for thousands of years, through thousands of copies despite great upheavals, exiles, wars and so on is not miraculous to you? can you find another text ever written in the history of mankind that can claim the same. Furthermore, this is one code of countless ones embedded in the text. I chose to highlight this one because it is easy for even the most ignorant person to verify..." UNQUOTE

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the book of the Torah 'surviving intact for thousands of years' when the Dead Sea Scrolls show so many consonantal textual variants from the Leningrad codex which is the sole MSS upon which you use to base your 'Torah codes'...being the so-called Textus Receptus...again I must repeat, Codes are very exact things and any ostensible variations will throw any code into dysfunction. You seem to be looking at the world through rosy coloured glasses with all your Rabbinic fantasies vis a vis the present state of the Torah as compared with the ancient Vorlagen in the wild - all of which are important witnesses to the development of the final text version of the Leningrad Codex (which represents the culmination of 1000 years of scribal emendations)..

It would be outside the scope of this thread to list ALL the textual variants in the Torah - that will be shown in the margins when the Biblia Hebraica Quinta comes out in four years (BHQ) so I will try and list the main ones for you to ponder in the meantime and if you need them I can give you the lesser ones under separate cover ...

In Genesis alone the textual variants include more than 10 places where the Leningrad Codex differs from other received texts e.g. the Hebrew consonantal underlay to the Greek Septuaginta LXX (which had been ratified by the Sanhedrin back in c. 250 BCE if you believe the claims of the Letter of Aristeas about the 70 scribes agreeing on a normative text long prior to the protoMasoretic's emergence.

See e.g. Gen 1:9, Gen 1:14, Gen 3:1, Gen 22:14, Gen 35:23, Gen 41:3, Gen 41:9, Gen 41:16, Gen 41:24 and Gen 42:22.

Some of the larger differences in consonants include Gen 1:9 where the hypothetical original reading supported by modern scholarship (found in the Dead Sea Scrolls 4QGen and the LXX Septuaginta Vorlage) 'Miqveh' (מקווה'gathering') is replaced by 'Maqom' (מָקוֹם 'place')in the proto-Masoretic text representing a difference of 2 letters (וֹם) which would throw off any code at the very beginning of the Torah.

In Genesis 22:14 we have an example of the familiar and common alteration of the orig. YHWH (יהוה) in the Hebrew Vorlage to the Greek Septuaginta LXX and Dead Sea Scrolls (and the SamPent) with Elohim in the MT ('gods' אלוהים) where the original reading shows YHWH (4 consonants) and was replaced by 'Elohim' in plenum in the proto-Masoretic text (consisting of 6 consonants).

Moreover, Genesis chapter 41 is a textual jungle full of scribal errors in the Leningrad codex which would make any code-forger's life impossible.

In Gen 41:7 the Proto Masoretic text omits altogether the phrase 'and blasted by the east wind...' ופוצץ על ידי הרוח המזרחית which is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Hebrew Vorlage textual underlay to the Greek Septuaginta LXX, comprising a total of 21 Hebrew consonants -

See also Gen 41:26b the original reading of 28 consonants

'Apart from Elohim, Pharaoh shall receive no answer' = תשובה אין אֶתפַּרעֹה תקבל מלבד אלוהים as it appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls was 'adjusted' to 33 Hebrew consonants to read: בִּלְעָדָי: אֱלֹהִים, יַעֲנֶה אֶת-שְׁלוֹם פַּרְעֹה 'It is not in me: Elohim will give Pharaoh a more respectful answer =

These are just three quick/handy examples from the book of Genesis alone which show just how fluid the text was prior to the destruction of Jerusalem during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) - there are approximately 100 of these consonantal scribal alterations/ommissions/changes in the Torah which would interrupt any code makers' attempts at encryption. Remember we are dealing with pluriform texts not a single MSS with a single transmission prior to 68CE. . .

If the code maker was using a proto Masoretic or proto-Aleppo/Leningrad Codex Vorlage to work from he would have to fudge the text in a good many places to make any sense at all...and this would only be able to be done/added/worked into the text at a fairly late date (after c. 400 CE) since prior to that there was no single inerrant Torah in existence...

Do you not understand any of this?

originally posted by: Sigismundus

Dashen, to Woodcarver you wrote

"So the fact that a book can survive intact, without missing any letters, for thousands of years, through thousands of copies despite great upheavals, exiles, wars and so on is not miraculous to you? can you find another text ever written in the history of mankind that can claim the same. Furthermore, this is one code of countless ones embedded in the text. I chose to highlight this one because it is easy for even the most ignorant person to verify..."

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the book of the Torah 'surviving intact for thousands of years' when the Dead Sea Scrolls show so many consonantal textual variants from the Leningrad codex which is the sole MSS upon which you use to base your 'Torah codes'...being the so-called Textus Receptus...

Commentarii de Bello Gallico by Julius Caesar written around 50 BC. As an example ...
You know, it is possible to have a first-hand account, of the bloodiest campaign, of the one of the first most famous imperialistic figures in human history. But the account of the coming of the son of God half a century later, there are dozens of apocryphal versions ...

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

this code only applies to the Five Books of Moses.

How about the Zohar ?

a reply to: Sigismundus

Truly fascinating and detailed explanations. I applaud you on your diligence throughout this thread. I believe I can see your point, being that it seems obvious that with so many texts being scribed in ancient times, the scribes of this version of Torah created a code to ensure future accuracy. I am imagining it was Similiar to the Nag Hammadi coming together. The code the OP is excited about is simply an ingenious creation of men, so it only ensures the accuracy of text selected for use at the time of that it was created. Earlier works of the Torah should still be compared since in creating such an embedded code, translation has been lost. Logically, it does not mean that the coded Torah is the most accurately scribed when compared to anything that was written previously...only since its own creation.

I am not religious, but truly appreciate the history of this subject.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Hey CynConcepts -

You wrote QUOTE "Truly fascinating and detailed explanations. I applaud you on your diligence throughout this thread. I believe I can see your point, being that it seems obvious that with so many texts being scribed in ancient times, the scribes of this version of Torah created a code to ensure future accuracy. I am imagining it was Similiar to the Nag Hammadi coming together. The code the OP is excited about is simply an ingenious creation of men, so it only ensures the accuracy of text selected for use at the time of that it was created.

Earlier works of the Torah should still be compared since in creating such an embedded code, translation has been lost. Logically, it does not mean that the coded Torah is the most accurately scribed when compared to anything that was written previously...only since its own creation. I am not religious, but truly appreciate the history of this subject..."

UNQUOTE

Thanks for your input. What makes the whole transmission process more convoluted for the Torah is the fact that the Hebrew aleph-bet (=alphabet) was radically changed during Ezra's Torah reforms (c. 400 BCE) from the Phoenecian 'horned' lettered ('paleoHebrew') Aleph-bet to the more square Aramaic aleph-beth with which we are more familiar to-day so there were even more reasons why so many Torot in the wild show such consonantal divergences when closely compared with each other.

Can you imagine if (hypotheitcally) one day if in the U.S. they passed a law in Congress that Americans beginning January 1st 2016 will have to start using the Russian Cyrilic alphabet rather than the Latin alphabet we are used to communicating with - and all legal documents (and school books !) had to be re-printed accordingly? Can you imagine the mistakes that would be made just in terms of copyists errors?

As useful as the lated vowel-pointed Masoretic text is (c. 1008 CE), one must never forget that c. 250 BCE the Greek LXX Septuaginta recension of the Tanakh (based on a Hebrew Vorlage consonantal text underlay from about 350 BCE) reflected 'normative Judaeism' for the time and was not a production of some 'splinter group' as persons like Dashen erroneously believe (in fact the LXX was approved by the Sanhedrin of 70 scholars as the official text for the Tanakh for Greek speaking Diaspora Jews) so we must always take any of its ancient readings very seriously especially when it differs from the later proto-Masoretic text - the LXX often preserves original (often 'difficult') readings - which modern day Rabbinic Jews are NOT told about - this will not come to light for the general public until the publication of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ) due to appear in mid 2020 CE - about 4 years from now.

Just how many 'hard questions' will arise from the general 'believing' public about this normally-concealed information is anybody's guess...and I can imagine the conservative Rebbes will be pulling their hair out when BHQ hits the streets showing the world that the Tanakh (which includes the Torah) is not so inerrant after all !

a reply to: Sigismundus

I believe the real meat of this discussion lays where the code is more complete.
if this code exists in the breakaway versions of the Torah even in a fragmentary way, and the code is more constant in the masoretic text.
You admit this code is at least a thousand years old.
although you do not admit that the pluralistic nature of the text is because they are written by breakaway cults with no tradition of how to write a proper scroll.
The Samaritans old scrolls differ wildely from one another.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Woodcarver
+4 more
posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 01:49 PM a reply to: dashen

Alright, i see what you are saying now. But you yourself said that equidistant letter sequencing was a known method of sending secret messages. The only thing this proves is that the torah is a contrived piece of literature. If this "watermark" serves any purpose, it is to make sure the text is not changed. There is no message to speak of, only a clear attempt of the author to secure the book as an authority. It does nothing to secure the book or any of it's contents as fact.

As Glend pointed out earlier, the first four verses in deuteronomy do not match up with this watermark. Clearly showing it is a more recent addition.

Now if the code revealed something of consequence, such as a working mathematical formula, or an undeniable prediction, it would be an amazing discovery worth some real speculation. But as it is simply a watermark, which we have several other examples of in history, this is simply a fun fact and worth little more than a footnote, or an ATS thread.



Cute, your analyses of worth, and referencing ats, would be more clever if perhaps you had anything profound to add than opinion.
Your argument for validity is as tired and worn out as an 80 year old concubine. The most ignorant thing I ever hear from the mouth of nonbelievers is this "that doesnt prove anything". What makes such statements ignorant? Because lack of evidence is not evidence of Lack
You see, those who purport evolution, or big bang, often say "it makes sense" yet stand by something that has no facts to back it up, thus the name "big bang theory" or the "theory of evolution" its an idea, nothing more, not a single dust of fact to back it up, yet you stand by anothers proposed fiction, against what you call "religious fiction" as though you are awaiting the world to catch up to Your "truth".

You are trolling woodcarver, if you care to show any findings of your own, by all means share them. If you really were interested in the answers to The Questions you put to Dasher, you would buy a hebrew bible, and study this for yourself,
But like a sheep gone astray, you show your vast ignorance by challenging others to answer your questions, rather than seeking answers yourself.
So long as you ask others to explain things to you instead of looking for yourself, you will be an ignorant child who rants and raves on ATS threads about the validity of arguments or Discussion contained on the very site you yourself are a member of, in order to express your ignorant nature that you thinly veil by putting questions to others in order to raise doubt to a system you have neither the knowledge or ample ambition enough to prove or disprove by your own means.

Dont you have a bridge to hide under or some children crossing to harass? A troll should know better tsk tsk

a reply to: AutisticEvo

The torah actually makes several startling predictions. Including future exiles abd redemptions.

a reply to: Woodcarver



It's a hobby of mine to point out the failed attempts of logic which are all to commonly posted here on these boards. Just because i enjoy it doesn't mean i'm wrong.

Ah, here we are woody,
It may not make you wrong, but there are no facts to make you right either, your defensive stance reversed is a point on the side of religion, as you yourself just claimed something you cannot prove. You claim to be on the side of logic like some Vulcan prophet, or Kryptonian council member. Yet you slipped up

You claim the watermark is just proof that a bunch of "EDUCATED" authors threw this together, to make sure time did not change it. You did say "Educated"
Meaning these were men of knowledge, claiming something they have found is real
Men of Authoritative Understanding, who went through effort to make sure that nothing was changed or manipulated for over a thousand years, men who you might say, know that politics, and methods of control, are ever changing, but decided this written account, would never change with that, which inductive logical reasoning, would lead us to believe that this Torah, was never meant to manipulate, or control people, but served a purely spiritual purpose of beliefs, exempt from lies that others might try to bring in later ages to fool the consciousness of others reason.
"Educated Authors" who knew others of education would read this, perhaps even knew that a nonbeliever like yourself, would to This day, have no evidence in any Record or Museum, or upon his person, to disprove such writings! Hah! Hah!
You see woody, you have outdone yourself by your own Logic.
You claim the religion is fictional, yet you, oh mighty Herald Of Logic, makes presumptions you cannot prove. You cannot outsmart the works of these men, and you certainly cannot deprive this topic of its value for "educative" material.
Hell, you cant even provide an argumentative point that I have not heard a thousand times before, without illogically failing to make it logical, as you stand by your belief that all religion is false with the ignorant faith of a baptist who claims that gibber is "speaking in tongues"
You see how you are no different, than the very charlatans who ride the road seeking carnival healings for cash.

You say you cannot be proven wrong, yet by your own words, you cannot prove this wrong. After all, lets be logical, you have no evidence to support your logic good boy, therefore your argument has no logic, but is based on personal opinion.

P.S. I like to use logic as well, and I enjoy it more than you