Noah=38, Boat=38, Hark=h8+Ark30=38

[Bradwatson Profile]

Noah=38, Boat=38, Hark=h8+Ark30=38
(Simple74 English74 Gematria74 - the key74: A=1…Z=26)

“Hark the herald angels sing”

‘Hark’ is not a word that’s used much today. Most of us equate it with the famous Christmas song and maybe don’t think of it in any other context. Webster’s Dictionary gives us…

hark: 1. to listen attentively, hearken
hark back: 3b. to return to a previous subject or point

Let’s now return to a previous point of famous Bible30 history because ‘hark’ carries with it an encoded message: hark=h8+Ark30=38 (Bible=30, Ark=30). If one turns to Genesis 5:32, 6:18, 7:13, 8:16, 8:18, & 9:18, you’ll find that besides Noah on the Ark, were his wife, and sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth and their wives – 8 humans all together. Therefore, h8+Ark(A1+r18+k11)=38 has a strong gematric connection to this story of Noah38 and thee most famous boat38 in all history! So now that we consider that Noah=38 (N14+o15+a1+h8), boat=38 (b2+o15+a1+t20) and hark=h8+Ark30=38, well, this is beyond ‘coincidence’ – this is apparently by design!

I don’t want anyone to get the false impression that because I refer to the story of Noah and the Ark as “Biblical history”, that means that I believe that Earth is only ~6,000 years old or that there were in fact only eight humans and a few animals on the Earth ~5,500 years ago after a flood covered the entire planet and killed every living animal and human except the ones on that boat. I don’t believe that at all! I’m a scientist and I’m convinced that this universe is13.7 billion-years-old and Earth is 4.6 billion-years-old. I’m also convinced that through physical evidence, there appears to have been a great flood in that part of the world around 5,500 years ago that wiped out a lot of people and animal life in that area. This is first recorded in ancient Sumerian texts as the story of Gilgamesh. ‘The Flood’ certainly didn’t cause the extinction of dinosaurs – that happened about 64 million years before this event. Noah’s family and the animals on the Ark were certainly not the only life on Earth after this catastrophe, although it might have appeared that way to them and their immediate descendents!

The point74 of this essay – as it is with many of my essays – is that there is an underlying alphanumeric code to the English74 language that has a definite connect74 to the Bible. And Noah=38, Boat=38, Hark=h8+Ark30=38 is one of the many proofs of this.

7/14/10 17:16 t 7/20/10 7:40

[Badger Profile]

If you can do that with the original hebrew then I would be impressed.

The fact is you are placing a numerical code to a translation, so any meaning to your code is scrambled. If there is any code there at all. Or are you trying to say when the Hebrew was translated into Latin, the code was maintained and again when the text was then translated again into English the integrity of the code was still preserved?

Personally I don't think so,

If you can support your claim there is a code by showing it in both the Latin and Hebrew texts, then this would be worthy of investigation....

[Harbin Profile]

I'm impressed Brad. If that could be done in the original Sumerian, now THAT would hold water !

[Harbin Profile]

If you can do that with the original hebrew then I would be impressed.

The fact is you are placing a numerical code to a translation, so any meaning to your code is scrambled. If there is any code there at all. Or are you trying to say when the Hebrew was translated into Latin, the code was maintained and again when the text was then translated again into English the integrity of the code was still preserved?

Personally I don't think so,

If you can support your claim there is a code by showing it in both the Latin and Hebrew texts, then this would be worthy of investigation....

You seem to hold the view that Hebrew is the original, "real" language, and though very important, it has been proven that it is not. I think your thinking too much inside the box, badger.

[Elnorel Profile]

I think its is you who is trapped inside the box.
English even OLD english is a new language compared to hebrew, by such a stretch that its laughable. Atleast hebrew has proper ancient roots.
But the Noah's Ark is in fact in original, the Babylonian flood story.
Thus ORIGINAL text is Babylonian and Assyrian which are two dialects of the Akkadian, and both contain a flood account. ... the original Sumerian and later Babylonian and Assyrian flood accounts.

And its not Noah's Ark but in Hebrew: תיבת נח‎ Tevat Noach.

The apparent discrepancy in Gen. v. 29, where it is said that Lamech "called his name Noah, saying, This shall comfort us," is explained by the "Sefer ha-Yashar" (section "Bereshit," p. 5b, Leghorn, 1870), which says that while he was called in general "Noach, (" his father named him "Menahem" (= "the comforter").

Noah obtained his name, which means "rest," only after he had invented implements for tilling the ground, which, owing to the lack of such implements, had yielded only thorns and thistles (comp. Gen. 3..

So you see it all starts in Sumeria. WAAAAAY back. And english is not even on the map, not even its roots.

Thus, connecting some imaginary dots on your part brings you only ridicule.

[Badger Profile]

If you can do that with the original hebrew then I would be impressed.

The fact is you are placing a numerical code to a translation, so any meaning to your code is scrambled. If there is any code there at all. Or are you trying to say when the Hebrew was translated into Latin, the code was maintained and again when the text was then translated again into English the integrity of the code was still preserved?

Personally I don't think so,

If you can support your claim there is a code by showing it in both the Latin and Hebrew texts, then this would be worthy of investigation....

You seem to hold the view that Hebrew is the original, "real" language, and though very important, it has been proven that it is not. I think your thinking too much inside the box, badger.

Are you talking of the epic of Giglamesh? I'm very aware of this and have read a translation of it.

What I am refering to to the OP is that if there is a code and it has survived at least two (now three, thanks for the reminder) translations, then I want to see evidence of it...

[Harbin Profile]

I think its is you who is trapped inside the box.
English even OLD english is a new language compared to hebrew, by such a stretch that its laughable. Atleast hebrew has proper ancient roots.
But the Noah's Ark is in fact in original, the Babylonian flood story.
Thus ORIGINAL text is Babylonian and Assyrian which are two dialects of the Akkadian, and both contain a flood account. ... the original Sumerian and later Babylonian and Assyrian flood accounts.

And its not Noah's Ark but in Hebrew: תיבת נח‎ Tevat Noach.

The apparent discrepancy in Gen. v. 29, where it is said that Lamech "called his name Noah, saying, This shall comfort us," is explained by the "Sefer ha-Yashar" (section "Bereshit," p. 5b, Leghorn, 1870), which says that while he was called in general "Noach, (" his father named him "Menahem" (= "the comforter").

Noah obtained his name, which means "rest," only after he had invented implements for tilling the ground, which, owing to the lack of such implements, had yielded only thorns and thistles (comp. Gen. 3..

So you see it all starts in Sumeria. WAAAAAY back. And english is not even on the map, not even its roots.

Thus, connecting some imaginary dots on your part brings you only ridicule.

What imaginary dots ?
What 'choo talkin' 'bout Willis ?
And thanks for the Hebrew lesson.....

[Bradwatson Profile]

If you can do that with the original Hebrew then I would be impressed. The fact is you are placing a numerical code to a translation, so any meaning to your code is scrambled. If there is any code there at all. Or are you trying to say when the Hebrew was translated into Latin, the code was maintained and again when the text was then translated again into English the integrity of the code was still preserved?... If you can support your claim there is a code by showing it in both the Latin and Hebrew texts, then this would be worthy of investigation....

Badger(6,37),

Is this your first encounter with gematria? It appears so. The entire Bible was originally written using Hebrew gematria and Greek isopsephy (gematria). Did you know this? The Romans used 'Step 1' of gematria - counting the number of letters in a word/name - more than 'Step 2': the gematric sum because Roman numerals were chosen without a logical connect74ion to their order in their alphabet. Do a little research and get back to us.

[Mediasorcerer Profile]

I think its is you who is trapped inside the box.
English even OLD english is a new language compared to hebrew, by such a stretch that its laughable. Atleast hebrew has proper ancient roots.
But the Noah's Ark is in fact in original, the Babylonian flood story.
Thus ORIGINAL text is Babylonian and Assyrian which are two dialects of the Akkadian, and both contain a flood account. ... the original Sumerian and later Babylonian and Assyrian flood accounts.

And its not Noah's Ark but in Hebrew: תיבת נח‎ Tevat Noach.

The apparent discrepancy in Gen. v. 29, where it is said that Lamech "called his name Noah, saying, This shall comfort us," is explained by the "Sefer ha-Yashar" (section "Bereshit," p. 5b, Leghorn, 1870), which says that while he was called in general "Noach, (" his father named him "Menahem" (= "the comforter").

Noah obtained his name, which means "rest," only after he had invented implements for tilling the ground, which, owing to the lack of such implements, had yielded only thorns and thistles (comp. Gen. 3..

So you see it all starts in Sumeria. WAAAAAY back. And english is not even on the map, not even its roots.

Thus, connecting some imaginary dots on your part brings you only ridicule.

im pretty sure english originates with the ary-an,and it goes back to sandscrit,which is probably more ancient than hebrew!!so your postulation dont add up sunny!!

[Bradwatson Profile]

im pretty sure english originates with the ary-an,and it goes back to sandscrit,which is probably more ancient than hebrew!!

Everyone,

We could easily Google 'English origins' for a brief history of how our language evolved(=Eve+loved). But, the key(74) here is how English(74) evolved through gematria(74) and many Bible references. Everybody take another look - a new look - at Genesis 11:1- the story of the Tower of Babel (Ziggurat of Babylon) and let's discuss the ramifications of "one language"!