tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post2049241688007267611..comments2023-03-13T06:50:31.743-07:00Comments on Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera: ascii code gematriaHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post-29492061178979890902017-11-24T09:49:18.911-08:002017-11-24T09:49:18.911-08:00I was wrong myself, O is 79.
It is 666. - In Engl...I was wrong myself, O is 79.<br /><br />It is 666. - In English.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post-19521573403988792742015-07-06T01:02:45.479-07:002015-07-06T01:02:45.479-07:00When I said that a result as this can have been in...When I said that a result as this can have been intended, this may sound as balderdash. How could you possibly have made a thing like that?<br /><br />Well, if you give A value 1 and Z value 26, all you need to do is mark up phrases you are interested in in this number system. Then you note the number sum.<br /><br />ABC<br />DEF<br />GHI J 10<br />KLM<br />NOP<br />QRST 20<br />UVW<br />XYZ<br /><br />H 8 - 8<br />O 15 10 13<br />L 12 20 15<br />Y 25 40 20<br />B 2 40 22<br />I 9 40 31<br />B 2 40 33<br />L 12 50 35<br />E 5 50 40 = 90<br /><br />Then one starts adding multiples of nine.<br /><br />Suppose A were to be 11 in the ascii code system, we would only deal with 90+10*9 = 180. And so on. When they reached a number that came close, they tiptoed adding nine each time. And since 666 = 18 * 37 = 9 * 74, this method worked for this phrase.<br /><br />One could make a code in which this phrase was marked this way. But in doing so, one may have miscalculated how the meaning of such a hit would work out.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post-73809213841283771402015-07-06T00:50:07.169-07:002015-07-06T00:50:07.169-07:00Now, the developers of ascii code were probably in...Now, the developers of ascii code were probably into esoterism at some level, and so a result like HOLYBIBLE=666 can have been intended.<br /><br />They can have meant to give an impression like "look, if HOLYBIBLE is 666, 666 can't be bad, and therefore the man who gets that value should be trusted" - or an impression like "look, if HOLYBIBLE says 666 is bad and HOLYBIBLE is 666, then HOLYBIBLE refutes itself".<br /><br />Well, first of all, it is as number value of the name of a man that this is bad. Not as number value of the name of a book, the name of which means books. So, if such meanings were intended, they do not follow.<br /><br />Also, 666 talents of solid gold to the Temple of Solomon were not bad. But when, after Solomon finishes Temple he wants 666 talents of solid gold for himself too ... uh oh!<br /><br />I can give other interpretations to this. The Holy Writ is the Word of Truth as transmitted through the public Revelation. So, this confirms that ascii code is a way of finding the man of perdition.<br /><br />Or, this applies to Holy Bible in English - and English Bible readers have been more preoccupied than other ones with finding man of perdition.<br /><br />Or, this applies to Holy Bible in English - and says something on which language the man of perdition reads the Bible in. This is one aspect which one might consider as exonerating Bergoglio, but not too, much, since he was so close friends with Tony Palmer - an Anglican "Bishop" - who obviously read the Bible in English.<br /><br />It could be a warning against the King James version. For instance where what corresponds to one occurrence of Latin "pascha" is rendered traditionally Easter and all other ones are rendered Feast of Unleavened Bread.<br /><br />This had misled people who include Kent Hovind to speculate in Herod celebrating a spring festival names after Ishtar and that being identic to the Easter of the Catholic Church, also taken over by Lutherans and Anglicans. Well, no, the Easter feast has nothing to do with Ishtar and Herod was celebrating the Jewish Easter, the Feast of Unleavened Bread.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post-62151774626610433442015-07-06T00:35:44.510-07:002015-07-06T00:35:44.510-07:00However, English is the only language in which thi...However, English is the only language in which this is so, that I know of - Latin, German, Swedish and Spanish Bibles do not have this problem.<br /><br />For instance, HOLYBIBLE counting just letters, just majuscules, no spaces, points, hyphens, dashes, underscores and no minuscules, is within range for danger of this number, since it is nine letters. HEILIGEBIBEL is twelve letters, which is beyond this danger zone.<br /><br />In letters of the English alphabet only, the danger zone extends from ten letters (theoretic range 650 - 900, but no word is ten A or ten Z), over nine letters (585 - 810) down to eight letters (520 - 720).<br /><br />In letters of the English alphabet only, seven is below danger zone with a range of 455 - 630. However, accented letters can extend the danger zone downwards. É = 201 = 3 * 67 = C + C + C. And é (if we peek at minuscules for a moment) = 233 = 3 * 65 + 38 [38= 3*13 - 1] = 3 * 78 - 1 = M + N + N.<br /><br />So, the common accented vowel letters can count as around 3 letters - or more, haven't checked whether ú (250) could perhaps be four. In the case of these, as with letters of English alphabet, minuscule value is 32 above majuscule value.<br /><br />An uncommon accented letter, like what you can find in Eastern European languages (where you can combine accent and Ö in Hungarian for getting an O with two accents instead of two dots when Ö is long, or where Polish has an L striken through to represent a thick L, and so on), the majuscule and minuscule are usually next to each other. But the values are higher up than for common accents, they belong to unicode but are not universally accessible in html, and so on.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post-47277652129180826582015-07-05T12:45:13.454-07:002015-07-05T12:45:13.454-07:00Oh, counted wrong on O:
H 72 70 2
O 79 140 11
L 7...Oh, counted wrong on O:<br /><br />H 72 70 2<br />O 79 140 11<br />L 76 210 17<br />Y 89 290 26<br />B 66 350 32<br />I 73 420 35<br />B 66 480 41<br />L 76 550 47<br />E 69 610 56Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post-67136252055143159872015-06-22T10:40:56.870-07:002015-06-22T10:40:56.870-07:00There is more to this.
JORGEMARIOBERGOGLIO
JORGEM...There is more to this.<br /><br />JORGEMARIOBERGOGLIO<br />JORGE<b>MA</b>RIOBER<b>GOG</b>LIO<br />J<b>O</b>RGERI<b>O</b>BERLI<b>O</b> <b>MAGOG</b> <br />JR<b>G</b>ER<b>IBER</b>LI <b>MAGOG</b> & <b>OOO</b> (vav, vav, vav?)<br />JRERLI <b>MAGOG</b> & <b>OOO</b> (vav, vav, vav?) <b>GIBER</b> (man, in Hebrew? I don't know for sure?)<br /><br />J 74 70 4<br />R 82 150 6<br />E 69 210 15<br />R 82 290 17<br />L 76 360 23<br />I 73 430 26 ... no, not the value I was searching.<br /><br />What if we had GEBER?<br /><br />JR<b>GE</b>RI<b>BER</b>LI <b>MAGOG</b> & <b>OOO</b> (vav, vav, vav?)<br />JRRILI <b>MAGOG</b> & <b>OOO</b> (vav, vav, vav?), <b>GEBER</b><br /><br />J 74 70 4<br />R 82 150 6<br />R 82 230 8<br />I 73 300 11<br />L 76 370 17<br />I 73 420 20 no, not the value I was looking for either. <br /><br />What if we take reverse code? A=90, Z=65?<br /><br />ABCDEFGHI J KLM<br />ZYXWVUTSRQPON<br /><br />J 81 80 1<br />R 73 150 4<br />E 86 230 10<br />R 73 300 13<br />L 79 370 22<br />I 82 450 24 / 450+24 = 474.<br />474 in majuscules = 666 in all minuscules (add 32 per minuscule).Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post-48613993582252024712015-06-22T10:27:18.898-07:002015-06-22T10:27:18.898-07:00To prove we are not wrong on sum of BERGOGLIO, let...To prove we are not wrong on sum of BERGOGLIO, let us break it down same way:<br /><br />B 66 60 6<br />E 69 120 15<br />R 82 200 17<br />G 71 270 18 ( !)<br />O 79 340 27<br />G 71 410 28<br />L 76 480 34<br />I 73 550 37 (!)<br />O 79 620 46 / 620+46=666 (=18*37 !)Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post-89219227884006164312015-06-22T10:20:04.635-07:002015-06-22T10:20:04.635-07:00Indeed, BERGOGLIO was 666.
One SuZar or Dr. Epps ...Indeed, BERGOGLIO was 666.<br /><br />One SuZar or Dr. Epps pretends that so is HOLYBIBLE, that is wrong.<br /><br />H 72 70 2<br />O 78 140 10<br />L 76 210 16<br />Y 89 290 25<br />B 66 350 31<br />I 73 420 34<br />B 66 480 40<br />L 76 550 46<br />E 69 610 55 / 610+55=665Hans Georg Lundahlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8604537836229985815.post-49671889133400370932014-05-19T07:40:17.982-07:002014-05-19T07:40:17.982-07:00I want to inform you:
http://www.thewarningsecondc...I want to inform you:<br />http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/the-false-prophet-will-now-take-over-the-seat-in-rome/<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />"The number of his name... count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man... and his number is 666." (Revelation 13:17,18)<br /><br />... first "beast coming up out of the sea"<br /><br />... it will be wounded and healed miraculous<br /><br />... the name of the Beast in <br /><br />ASCII-CODE: <br /><br />ALT 66 = B<br />ALT 69 = E<br />ALT 82 = R<br />ALT 71 = G<br />ALT 79 = O<br />ALT 71 = G<br />ALT 76 = L<br />ALT 73 = I<br />ALT 79 = O<br /><br />66+69+82+71+79+71+76+73+79=666<br /><br />http://www.tcp-ip-info.de/tcp_ip_und_internet/ascii.gif<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com