I can't judge the translation from the Hebrew, but this translation from the Greek seems rather odd.

En archei èn ho Logos is literally In the beginning was the Word. There is no "already" in the original.

The full sentence is: En archei èn ho Logos, kai ho Logos èn proos ton Theon, kai Theos èn ho Logos. Which, in a word-by-word translation, yields: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word.

Note that this is a somewhat contrived sentence, with God having an article the first time, but not the second time. As if the sentence had some function beyond telling a story.

And this was written down, at the very latest, in the days of the emperor Constantine.

I had a pretty good idea of where you were going right from when you said this.
Right. What does an independant confirmation have to do with anything? From what I've gathered, you haven't listened to a single thing that any one of us posters has mentioned to you. You continue to promote this coincidence as fact, even after we've shown that these patterns can show up in any book. Isn't this one step above trolling.

Wait, so you're saying that 'e' is encoded in Greek, and pi is encoded in Hebrew? And you're trying to get us to find pi in english, even though it was encoded in Hebrew? Why isn't 'e' encoded in Hebrew as well? Don't you think that these encoding people would use some sort of consistency in the language for the very least?

Well, who encoded these things then? Someone who spoke Hebrew thought it'd be nifty to encode pi the first sentence of the bible using your theomatics numbering system. Then along came someone else who spoke Greek, and did the same thing, with the exact same numbering system. This should mean two things. First of all, both would have had to know the numbering system, and apply them to their own alphabets. Secondly, there should be evidence that this numbering system was passed down, and existed when these texts were written.

Finally, I have to ask. What's the motive in doing this? Why the need to encode these numbers?

__________________
Obedience brings victory
Victory is life
That is the order of things

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that if this "code" was, in fact, "planted", then the encoders are very lucky that humankind generally settled on using Base 10 as our primary notation for mathematical calculations. Especially considering we had a number of options still available at the time these codes were allegedly planted. And, likewise, if the encoders were from a non-human civilization, we're certainly lucky they chose to use Base 10, otherwise we might have missed this remarkable message altogether.

If we choose octal, for example, our english code would need to be shifted thusly...

A=1, B=2, C=3, D=4, E=5, F=6, G=7,
H=10, I=20, J=30, K=40, L=50, M=60, N=70,
O=100, P=200, Q=300, R=400, S=500, T=600, U=700,
V=1000, W=2000, X=3000, Y=4000, Z=5000

Under these circumstances, the same formula, applied to the same sentence will not produce equivalent results if a different base is used. In english, the fragment "IS BAD" works-out to ~24 using the decimal code. Using octal, it works-out to ~53₈. And, obviously, 53₈ = 43₁₀ ≠ 24₁₀.

I don't really have the patience or the inclination to attempt a Base 8 calculation using the two biblical sentences in their original languages, but the above example should suffice. And, the point remains, what if humankind had instead settled on Base 12 (which is really nice for multiplication and division and was once relatively widely used) or any other system?

I suppose the answer to that question is that another startling coincidence would be found using another "inspired" formula.


--ISF

Wait, so you're saying that 'e' is encoded in Greek, and pi is encoded in Hebrew? And you're trying to get us to find pi in english, even though it was encoded in Hebrew? Why isn't 'e' encoded in Hebrew as well? Don't you think that these encoding people would use some sort of consistency in the language for the very least?

I've pretty much stayed out of this thread, but I will point out one thing. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek alphabets all have an internal numbering system. In other words, they used letters for numbers rather than having a seperate numerical system as we do. As such the numerical system that is linked to the words is set in these languages, you just can't just decide to maniplulate it into other bases, etc. It's also why I don't think that it really can be done using English, we don't have a numerical system in our alphabet, so adding one becomes a convolution from the start. As to the findings, they are interesting, but nothing more as far as I can see, I think that there are far more interesting patterns in the Bible such as comparing Moses raising the snake in the desert to the crucifiction, and Psalms 22 to the crucifiction.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Finally, I have to ask. What's the motive in doing this? Why the need to encode these numbers?

I suspect that they simply wanted to mess with future reader's heads.

How do you encode an irrational number in a finite text?

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Personally I think that if God, or ET were encoding such things into the text to show that a greater intelligence was behind the words, then the values wouldn't have been approximately right, they would have been perfect to the number of decimal places the sentance allowed. So unless it's going to be shown that we have pi wrong....

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I did not assert that God encoded pi in the first line of Genesis. But if He did, one should remember that even God cannot do the impossible (or so I think). If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which gives a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.

However, I don't want to discuss religious issues any more than strictly necessary.

As for the base 10 and the numerical system; these were of course already in use when the encoding took place. (Anyway, we have 10 fingers, so it wouldn't take much imagination to predict that base 10 would be used.)

On behalf of those who comment on my posts without first reading them, I will reiterate here that the English version of the code was only used as an example, to give people a feel of how difficult it would be to encode pi without them having to use Hebrew as well.

I did not assert that God encoded pi in the first line of Genesis.

I never said you diid.

But if He did, one should remember that even God cannot do the impossible (or so I think).

That's interesting, I thought he was supposed to be omnipotent?

If there should be no grammatical sentence in Hebrew which give a better approach to pi than the sentence which was actually used, then whoever wrote it down used the best available possibility.

But since assuming that it was done by God and that he did it deliberately, then he would have created the alphabet/numerical system used and thus made sure that the language carried the ability to produce the numbers exactly.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

... with the system invented afterwards to get this result. Other systems are possible, and there is no reason to use this system at all except because you get this result.
What if you, e.g. extended the system I gave with the last sentence of Much Ado About Nothing? Take a longer text, where the number of words comes first (e.g. a text of 314159 words), and the number of letters is stick to the back of that (2653589). Voila, a much larger precision of Pi, with an equally possible method. Why is your method the correct one?
And your quoted sentence starts with an "if", but it is a pretty big one.

As I have shown (as did others), even with your method, finding "significant results" in first lines is easy. Check back my Shakespeare post and explain to me why this is a coincidence (mulitplying the first line of Hamlet with the first line of Macbeth gives me almost exactly 1), and finding e and pi isn't.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Easy

Here it is in ASCII:

73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 6F 66 6F 6E 65

Given a string of symbols (such as English letters, or Chinese characters, or ...), find a coding scheme which 'produces' {insert the object of your favour here}?

But only the first {x} digits, of course.

Or, if you're more ambitious, show that the number of such coding schemes is >{insert a very large number here}.

That's rational, though. And why did you put in one of the spaces and leave out the others?

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

I didn't know you would be reading this thread!

Sorry, here it is, fixed up:
73 71 75 61 72 65 20 72 6F 6F 74 20 6F 66 20 74 77 6F

That's not a transliteration (word for word), it is a translation, as is the version I posted above.

This is my point. You have two languages (well, three since they're being translated into English) which function differently, and you are saying a particular sentence is the same. It doesn't work like that. They may have a similar meaning, but that does not make them the same.

Much better!

__________________
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

Tolls (post 45):

Anything which can be expressed in Greek can be xpressed in English, and vice versa. It may be more complicated to do so in one language than in the other, and one may occasionally have to coin a new word, or leave a word untranslated, surrounding it with parentheses, but it can always be done.

(For example, some languages may not have a word for computer, so one would use the word "computer" as it stands, when translating from the English. And "logos" may sometimes be translated as "reason" instead of "word".)

Here, however, a sentence was "translated" in such a way as to change what it expresses. The word "already" was interposed, which does not correspond to any word (or shade of meaning) within the original, untranslated sentence.

Nereid (post 42):

I concede that this would very probably be possible, but it would be irrelevant if the scheme for using letters as numerals was already in existence before the text in question was written.

This is quite certain to be the case for the Gospel of St. John, because it cannot have been written before the time of the emperor Tiberius, but somewhat less certain for Genesis, which might have been written as early as the time of the pharao Ramses II. But it is mostly thought that it was written during the reign of king David, and may even been written later, in the days of king Nebucadnezar.

Greek letters were used as numerals in Classical Greece, and Hebrew letters were probably used as numerals as soon as there was need for calculations; that is: as soon as the Israelites had settled in Israel, and had built the paraphernalia of a civilized society.

PhantomWolf (post 39):

In principle God could have caused the Israelites and the Greeks to have adopted a certain system for using letters as numerals, but no lesser being could probably have done the same, so your alternative does not allow for the two texts to have been written by normal humans.

And that is what I primarily want to say: Look, there is something very weird here, and it should be discussed worldwide, because our history has evidently not been free from outside influences. Whether by God, or by aliens, or by something else altogether: it can no longer be truthfully said that humans have played out their own history all by themselves.

But the link I gave earlier (which supports your position) says that the Hebrew numerical system only exists since the 2nd century BC, so clearly later than the writing of Genesis.
Furthermore, the complicated calculations you do on those sentences are not documented anywhere.
Evidently? Truthfully? Aren't you jumping to conclusions a bit? It has been shown to you that you can find numerical coincidences in many sentences, even using the same system you gave. It has not been shown in any way that the result you get is unique and unexplainable, and you seem to ignore evidence to the contrary.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse