Torah Writers Knew Heliocentric System

[AndreasGS]

Hello. My name is Andreas. I am from Germany and I came here to discuss my research.

The Discovery of the Torakosmos

In Hebrew all letters are also a number, so that one can obtain the value of a word by adding these numbers.

Originally I wanted to analyze the distributions of such values in the Hebrew biblical book of Genesis and found therefore a computer-based graphical method to display them. That method should provide round eye-shaped views through using a polar coordinate system and so I named the method “Hitomi” which is Japanese for the pupil of the eye.

The Hitomi-method worked because I quickly realized that by this method certain numbers form real pictures: Planetary positions and cycles, star constellations, astronomical and geometric connections, and mystical symbols.

Among these things I found the depiction of a heliocentric system, in which the heavenly bodies Jupiter, Saturn and Sun are positioned like they were at the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction on September 30th in the year 7 BC. In addition there is also a picture of the Big Dipper as it stood on that day at 20:30 o'clock over Bethlehem.

I am new to this forum and am very unsure whether I should write more. Do you think this research is just a variant of some "bible-code nonsense" or are you interested to learn more?

all the best,

Andreas

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I'd like to read more too.

It is, however, something of a misconception that the ancients never considered a heliocentric solar system - the Greeks (such as contemporaries of Pythagoras) were obsessed with the motion of the celestial spheres and debates raged about what was at the centre of the solar system - in fact they only settled on Earth being the centre because the mathematics of calculating the motion of everything else was "neater" and easier if we assumed Earth was stationary! Even then a lot of theories abounded about how Earth could move and the centre of the solar system was just to the left of Earth and so on and so forth, the biggest stumbling blocks for the Greeks was they didn't know the size of the sun (if they did, their maths would tell them that it HAD to be at the centre), which they thought was about four times the size of the Earth, and they thought orbits were perfectly round (they're not, they're ellipses). Either of those facts would have forced the Greeks into a heliocentric model and "damn the maths"

[Abramelin]

Here is more: http://www.torakosmos.de/

[AndreasGS]

Yes, the Greeks. Thanks for the details. It is "commonly known" that the first scholar who used the heliocentric model was Copernicus who lived 1473 to 1543 AD. This is not really true. Around 270 BC the Greek scholar Aristarchus of Samos held the view that the Earth was a globe and revolved around the Sun. Unfortunately his writings about the heliocentric system are lost, and his theory is only known through Archimedes and other contemporaries of him. Later, around 150 BC, Seleucos of Seleucia, also known as Seleucos of Babylon, defended Aristarchus' view.

But I always thought a heliocentric system is easier to calculate? In the geocentric model some extra math must be added to account for retrograde motion "loops". in the heliocentric system everything motion is "plain". Am I right?

Now to the discovery:

Basically I arrange all words of the Genesis into a wheel and mark every word that has the searched value with a dot. Here is an example picture that is formed by the value 231:

Apparently the picture formed from the key number 231 seemed like a compass to me. But with a compass one can make circles, and so I did: Starting from the angular point of the pretended compass I drew circles through the other dots in that picture and also one through its center. I immediately realized that these circles (red) should be planetary orbits, and the angular point of the compass should be the Sun. Well, the orbits do not relate to each other like in reality, but they do relate in the measure of the golden ratio. This is remarkable though.

By assuming that the dot in the center of the picture should be the Earth we can count that the two outermost orbits must be those of Jupiter and Saturn. And obviously there these two planets are in a conjunction when spotted from Earth.

I grabbed some astronomical data and found out that this depicted conjunction was the one on September 30. in the year 7 BC. And this picture clearly shows knowledge or at least the theory of the heliocentric solar system, that must have been familiar to the creators of the Hitomi-pictures.

Now another one of the pictures shows the Big Dipper as it stood on the mentioned day at 20:30 o'clock over Bethlehem just above the horizon directly in the north. This is exactly the time that is given by the astronomical data for the mentioned conjunction.

Ok, that is it so far.

best regards

Andreas

Edited July 4, 2012 by AndreasGS

[Abramelin]

Hello Andreas,

When you mentioned that conjunction in 7 BC, I remembered something:

Possible birthdate of Jesus, according to appearance of a very bright triple conjunction of the royal star Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of Pisces (land in the west) in May until December of that year since 854 years, with a retrogradation and stationing in November 12, 7 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_BC

And although I found the link to your site, I haven't read it all, so you may have mentioned it there.

.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Abramelin

[AndreasGS]

Hello Abramelin,

personally I do not believe in a physical star of Bethlehem, but the accurate data for the three conjunctions in 7 BC is there: http://www.torakosmos.de/jsc.php

all the best,

Andreas

[Abramelin]

Hello Abramelin,

personally I do not believe in a physical star of Bethlehem, but the accurate data for the three conjunctions in 7 BC is there: http://www.torakosmos.de/jsc.php

all the best,

Andreas

Well, I don't either, but it seemed like an interesting coincidence to me.

Btw, my compliments for your website (AND for your discovery).

[AndreasGS]

Thanks.

Well, I don't either, but it seemed like an interesting coincidence to me.

While I do not believe the star, I do believe that the date and the picture has to do with Jesus or (rather?) a "Christ Concept" very much.

Or perhaps the retrograde motion of Jupiter was the reason for the biblical star to change its direction (as its written there that it changed direction)? Well, Saturn is to faint to enhance Jupiter to a star of Bethlehem, and further the two planets met, but did not appear as one.

[Paracelse]

I'm not familiiar at all with the heliocentirc system nor who discovered it. FIrst off welcome to UM Andrea;

Doing research for an entirely different topic (the origins of the knight Templar) I read the Abacus and the Cross the life of Gerbert D*Aurillac who became known as Sylvester II the pope of the millenium. From early age Gerbert went to study in Spain in Maurish schools. There are lots of informations in this book about the Arabs' discovery but more so how those discoveries were done using greek early math. Since it wasn't the subject of my research I just glanced through it real quick but perhaps you could find more evidence for what you are looking for

this book

[AndreasGS]

Dear Paracelse,

thank you for your kind greeting and suggestion. It would be good if you tell me more. But I think recommending a book that one has not read by himself is complicated.

all the best,

Andreas

[Paracelse]

Dear Paracelse,

thank you for your kind greeting and suggestion. It would be good if you tell me more. But I think recommending a book that one has not read by himself is complicated.

all the best,

Andreas

I ve read the book but I skipped all the mathematical part about the astrobal something I'm really not interested into. I only wanted to know of the whereabouts of Gerbert d'Aurillac while he was studying in Spain with the Arabs. This is when I found the work he brought back to Reims and Metz (where he was teaching until he became pope) was used by Copernicus. I do read books but pay only attention to want I'm searching

[AndreasGS]

So maybe the heliocentric system published by Copernicus was influenced or already 'discovered' by that pope?

If those "Hitomi"-pictures were in the Torah from the start, I guess the church knew about them. Or not? Maybe if you needed to hide something very important from your foe, why not under his own pillow, where he would never expect it?

[Abramelin]

I ve read the book but I skipped all the mathematical part about the astrobal something I'm really not interested into. I only wanted to know of the whereabouts of Gerbert d'Aurillac while he was studying in Spain with the Arabs. This is when I found the work he brought back to Reims and Metz (where he was teaching until he became pope) was used by Copernicus. I do read books but pay only attention to want I'm searching

I think youi meant to write "astrolabe", an apparatus to determine the position of sun, moon, planets and stars relative to the earth, and using those measurements for calculating one's position on earth.

It has nothing to do with heliocentric.

.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Abramelin

[questionmark]

I'm not familiiar at all with the heliocentirc system nor who discovered it. FIrst off welcome to UM Andrea;

Doing research for an entirely different topic (the origins of the knight Templar) I read the Abacus and the Cross the life of Gerbert D*Aurillac who became known as Sylvester II the pope of the millenium. From early age Gerbert went to study in Spain in Maurish schools. There are lots of informations in this book about the Arabs' discovery but more so how those discoveries were done using greek early math. Since it wasn't the subject of my research I just glanced through it real quick but perhaps you could find more evidence for what you are looking for

this book

Heliocenticity was generally accepted between Aristarchus of Samus (somewhere in the 3d cntury BC) and Ptolemy (1st century AD), who reintroduced the terra centric system, mostly because it fit better with his favorite superstition: Astrology.

[AndreasGS]

As far I know the Torah is believed to be written around 500 BC. Parts of it, e.g. the Genesis may be even older.

If the Hitomi substance existed from the start, the so-called “Documentary Hypothesis” that says that the old Testament viz. the Torah in our case was just a patchwork of many texts by many authors, must be reviewed. At least there must have been some over all compiling and controlling authority who arranged it all together, while – and this is important - knowing about the secrets!

I do not think that the Torah contains any fortune telling astrology and neither does it support any. However, the Torah surely contains an astro­logically inspired symbolism. We need to rethink what is meant when the Bible tells us that astrology is not good.

[questionmark]

As far I know the Torah is believed to be written around 500 BC. Parts of it, e.g. the Genesis may be even older.

If the Hitomi substance existed from the start, the so-called “Documentary Hypothesis” that says that the old Testament viz. the Torah in our case was just a patchwork of many texts by many authors, must be reviewed. At least there must have been some over all compiling and controlling authority who arranged it all together, while – and this is important - knowing about the secrets!

I do not think that the Torah contains any fortune telling astrology and neither does it support any. However, the Torah surely contains an astro­logically inspired symbolism. We need to rethink what is meant when the Bible tells us that astrology is not good.

The last editing of the Torah happened around 100 BC and from what we know there was some major editing going on.

[AndreasGS]

The last editing of the Torah happened around 100 BC and from what we know there was some major editing going on.

This is again another thesis. Can you give me some clue? I took my information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah ... where now it is interestingly mentioned that the Torah might have been written in AD, as far I understood it right. Then there was maybe never an oral tradition? And the references to Jesus (and the conjunction in 7 BC) which I alluded here have been developed/inserted afterwards? Is this is a much more feasible explanation?

ps: I know that there are slight differences between the Leningrad Codex and the modern version, e.g. Koren that I use.

Edited July 4, 2012 by AndreasGS

[questionmark]

This is again another thesis. Can you give me some clue? I took my information from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah ... where now it is interestingly mentioned that the Torah might have been written in AD, as far I understood it right. Then there was maybe never an oral tradition? And the references to Jesus which I alluded here have been developed/inserted afterwards? Is this is a much more feasible explanation?

I don't know what Wikipedia contains as I don't find it very reliable, but any scholar will tell you that the Torah only became static after the diaspora caused by the Romans. The changeable texts was found in the Talmud after that.

The Pentateuch could be a little older than the rest, but given that the oldest version we have is the Samaritan Pentateuch (~500 BC) and that this one differs greatly from the "official" Pentateuch version of the Torah we can safely assume that there was a editing-rewriting of the holy texts after that.

Given that there is hardly any archeological evidence of Jewish activity before the 6th century we can safely assume that the "official" version (that the Samaritans took over the old and edited their version) as wishful thinking. It is most probably the other way around (see Finkelstein).

[AndreasGS]

The Pentateuch could be a little older than the rest

What rest? Seems like you mix up the Torah with the Talmud? The Torah is the Pentateuch ... however I am not talking about the Talmud.

[questionmark]

What rest? Seems like you mix up the Torah with the Talmud? The Torah is the Pentateuch ... however I am not talking about the Talmud.

No, I am not mixing them up, the Torah cannot be all the same age as it contains historic events that can be traced historically (not many but they exist), mostly with history concerning the time after the Babylonian bondage. Before that it is pretty nebulous and there where it wants to make "history" pretty inaccurate.

The Talmud started to exist in written form around 200 CE, the last entries date from 500 CE.

[AndreasGS]

Do you believe my pictures thingy? Can you see an explanation how it has found its way into the Torah (respectively the Genesis) and when?

Edited July 4, 2012 by AndreasGS

[questionmark]

Do you believe my pictures thingy? Can you see an explanation how it has found its way into the Torah (respectively the Genesis) and when?

There is very little I "believe", I prefer to go by evidence.

Now, it would be wrong to assume that the authors/editors of the Torah were just Bible thumpers and world end prophets. That is an image we have gotten from the present version of the priesthood (both Christian and Jewish). Among the high priests there were several very erudite people and even some we could call scientists.

I doubt that any of them would have had any remorse to change any part of the Torah they found factually wrong, especially not in the period when the Torah was still being created, that is before the 1st Christian century. For a Jew the only thing that was unchangeable in the book was the ten commandments as they were dictated by the Lord, the rest could be discussed about.

[AndreasGS]

Ok, those discussions flow into the Talmud? I also think that the high priests were a kind of scientist.

Is my heliocentric conjunction picture backed up with enough evidence for you?

[questionmark]

Ok, those discussions flow into the Talmud? I also think that the high priests were a kind of scientist.

Is my heliocentric conjunction picture backed up with enough evidence for you?

As soon as you bring anything that shows when that part was included in the Genesis, and that this was before Aristarchus it would be good enough for me to admit to their authorship, if not I will keep on assuming that at some time after 300 BC some high priest read Aristarchus and made corresponding changes to the scripture. But yes, whoever wrote that must have known what he was writing, regardless of the source.

[Paracelse]

So maybe the heliocentric system published by Copernicus was influenced or already 'discovered' by that pope?

If those "Hitomi"-pictures were in the Torah from the start, I guess the church knew about them. Or not? Maybe if you needed to hide something very important from your foe, why not under his own pillow, where he would never expect it?

Actually it would have been re-discovered by the Arabic teachers of that pope... sorry if I didn't make myself clear.