[_ Old Earth _] Christ is Truth, and Urim and Thummim is the ocular device that reveals it

[Adam]

I doubt that for you, even seeing is believing...?

I see major gaps of space. Fuller's model does create a full cube. What you have made does not follow his pattern.

 

[Adam]

I think Fuller was on the right course, and intuitively realized that there was something about the tetrahedron that can explain "everything", depending upon what he might have thought that "everything" meant.

Not hardly. Fuller's purpose was in regard to rigid forms being more sturdy with trianglated frameworks rather then square frameworks. It certainly was not an "explanation for everything."

But he did diagram the cube that is subtly described in the scriptures which explains everything about the inordinate repetitious use of numbers like 3, 7, 12, even 5.

Not described in scripture whatsoever. Tetrahedron's acting as a base sturdy structure giving better stability to latticed structures is of architectural importance not expressed at all in scripture.

I believe if you read this book you will learn little more than that Fuller was obsessed by the geometry we are discussing, and, that contrary to your statement above, the cube can be formed easily by these five geometric parts.

Not by 5 tetrahedrons it cannot.

But when i read it, I was reassured that the urim and thummim had concrete science support for the claim the bible makes about this Urim and Thummim.
That both assert they are such oracles is no coincidence.

Why would this book reassure you about anything regarding the Urim and Thummim? The bible makes no claim. It is your claim and your claim alone. There is no coincidence because there is no relation. Fuller certainly does not assert that a cube is an oracle and neither does the bible.

There is no concrete science that evidences the urim and thummim to be in a cube shape to begin with, let alone to be broken up into five peices. That is solely a baseless assumption on your part. Science does not and cannot support it as there is nothing we are able to observe or measure.

The two dimensional Breastplate described in the Old Testament appears again in the New Testament, but this time as the New Jerusalem, covered with the same stones and the same tribal names:



12 It had a massive and high wall with twelve [large] gates, and at the gates [there were stationed] twelve angels, and [on the gates] the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were written:
13 On the east side three gates, on the north side three gates, on the south side three gates, and on the west side three gates.
14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation [stones], and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 And he who spoke to me had a golden measuring reed (rod) to measure the city and its gates and its wall.
16 The city lies in a square, its length being the same as its width. And he measured the city with his reed—12,000 stadia (about 1,500 miles); its length and width and height are the same.

Yes, there is a cube shape here. Nowhere does it describe the cube being broken into 5 specific shapes, however. Neither is the dimensions of this city any indication of the shape of the urim and thummim in any regard.

 

[cupid dave]

Not hardly.

Fuller's purpose was in regard to rigid forms being more sturdy with trianglated frameworks rather then square frameworks. It certainly was not an "explanation for everything."

Wrong again.

If you continue to google and learn more you will soon realize that the present book beingmarketed is different from Fuller's orignial works.

Note that the title you found refers to a posthumus publication.

The original titled works was "Cosmology, the one thing that explains everything."


More study on your part will show you that Fuller followed his 1992 publication, "Cosmography, the one thing that explains everything" with another book on the subject, which he called "Synergetics."
That publication was directed at discerning how his ideas about the subject of Cosmography related to a pattern in the way we think.
This is exactly the same premise of Urim and Thummim to which I drew your attention way back in this thread.


Fuller titled his next book this way: "Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking."

 

[cupid dave]

Not by 5 tetrahedrons it cannot.
.

LOL

Of course not by five tetrahedrons.

Why have you begun erroneously to call these 5 geometric piece tetrahedrons?????
Only the one special central piece, inside, is tetrahedronal.

 

[Adam]

Wrong again.

If you continue to google and learn more you will soon realize that the present book beingmarketed is different from Fuller's orignial works.

Note that the title you found refers to a posthumus publication.

The original titled works was "Cosmology, the one thing that explains everything."

Source? I didn't "find a title." The book I am familar with is not titled "the one thing that explains everything." There is no such attachment. If there were, it is no matter because a posthumous publication still has the same CONTEXT as an original publication.


If you are fond of skewing titles and making assumptions about the context of a book without ever having opened it, I assure you that you cannot change what is inside the book simply by saying "but, this is the original title." Titles of books are half-truths, because they are meant to market.


And I have no idea why you wrote "wrong again" considering you have been unable to show me to be wrong a first time.

More study on your part will show you that Fuller followed his 1992 publication, "Cosmography, the one thing that explains everything" with another book on the subject, which he called "Synergetics."
That publication was directed at discerning how his ideas about the subject of Cosmography related to a pattern in the way we think.
This is exactly the same premise of Urim and Thummim to which I drew your attention way back in this thread.

Yet another appeal to authority that simply does not back your claim. Ignoring the bulk of the book, it approaches a new way of problem solving by finding patterns in group dynamics to solve societal issues and to understand behavior. On the whole, his application to the human condition is a philosophical position, not a hard science and is certainly not, as you imply, any sort of proven neuroscience.

Yet again, I must remind you that Fuller never once adresses the idea of oracles, so making reference to him cannot support your claim. Neither can any well-reasoned person logically deduce that the Urim and Thummim are in this particular arrangement simply because you found an illustration that you don't understand.





It is absolutely certain you did not get beyond this point

 

[Adam]

LOL

Of course not by five tetrahedrons.

Why have you begun erroneously to call these 5 geometric piece tetrahedrons?????
Only the one special central piece, inside, is tetrahedronal.

Your model appears to be 5 tetrahedrons. Perhaps your paper folding skills need to be fine-tuned or you need to become more familar with what it is you are trying to copy. If it were made of the correct shapes you would not have the gaps.

 

[cupid dave]

Your model appears to be 5 tetrahedrons. Perhaps your paper folding skills need to be fine-tuned or you need to become more familar with what it is you are trying to copy. If it were made of the correct shapes you would not have the gaps.

No, they fit nicely together but are easily recognized as different.

They are constructed by simply cutting and folding on piece of copper plate or in card stock, on 8 1/2 X 11 sheet.

The have the exact same size 12 congruent triangular faces which can be engraved of penciled in with what the 12th century kabbalahists called the 12 Simple letters of the Hebrew Aphabet.

These are the "twelve foundation walls" mentioned in Rev 21:16-19.

Each of these three sided pyramids sits upon an equilateral triangle, which are congruent to the four sided tetrahedron that is the "stone" the builders of the pyramid forgot to include in God's temple design.
The twelve faces are different than the seven equalteral congreunt triangular faces inside the Cube.

This shot in looking straight down upon the four outer wall pieces gathered to form a foursided pyramid with equilateral faces just like Ghiza in Egupt.

Four of those equilateral faces are the sides of the pyramid.
As if the sphinx, to the right of the Pyramid formed by the four 1/8th octahedronal pieces, sits the center "stone" or tetrahedron that Fuller believed explained everything.

Which it does.

 

[Adam]

Good luck with that.

 

[cupid dave]

Good luck with that.

Right.

The device described did Fuller no good.
He really did not know how to use it, as his long winded books will convince most readers.
Though his intuition had him designing it, correctly too, and sensing that somehow it was/is the one thing that explains everything (to us).

But he had no clue how that was so, nor how to use the cube he envisioned with this chief tetrahedronal corner stone inside.

But he did realize that the cube and all his references to the tetrahedron was merely a concrete way to model the idea of a thinking that essentially could be analyzed geometrically.

The bottom line is that the Jews were correct to wear the Tefillin on their forehead because the actual Urim and Thummim is inside your head.
And you do use it, to an extent, more or less all time, but unconsciously.
That is why the cube shaped Holy Place had a veil between it and the Holy of Holies.
People are not consciously aware of the process of their own thinking.

The real value of U/T is to teach us how we can program order into our mind so that order will flow out.
Order, sort of the theme of Passover.
It also tells us what we must collect to fill all the required space and holes in our concepts.

This information that the Bible has hidden subtly beneath the surface of the geomentry of the temple (and all these rituasl and stories that can be used to fit onto the triangular faces) is a double check for the support of the concept.

Cube shaped Tefillin, Cube rooms, cube New Jerusalem, cube driedles, Guilford's cube, Fuller's cube, et al are useless geometries to the uninitiated in its application.

 

[Adam]

Dave, you can't assert any of this. You can't even get passed the point of demonstrating that these shapes are IN ANY WAY related to the Urim and Thummim. An Phylacteries aren't going to cut it. Phylacteries were originally cylindrical, not cubed.

The driedel is a Yiddish variation of a German game.


Everything you assert has nothing which evidences it.

 

[cupid dave]

Phylacteries were originally cylindrical, not cubed.

LOL
Source, please.

 

[Adam]

That's amusing, coming from a person who never has a single source for his claims.


Norman Kiell (1967). The psychodynamics of American Jewish life: an anthology. Twayne Publishers. p. 334. http://books.google.com/books?id=eG1CAAAAIAAJ.



Medieval conical phylactery discovered in Cairo geniza

In the third perek of Megilla with the mishna on the 7th to last line of 24b: העושה תפלתו עגולה

"One who makes his tefillin round"


Phylactery of Qumran:

1800s illustration of both conical and cubed phylacteries:

http://books.google.com/books?id=37WLCyXOEFwC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%22round+tefillin%22&source=bl&ots=agykJYcy3I&sig=8jnjLLHHskYAb4P_8hpaw-MV7mk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gk2jULaFMaPgiAKgk4HYAw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22round%20tefillin%22&f=false

 

[cupid dave]

That's amusing, coming from a person who never has a single source for his claims.


Norman Kiell (1967). The psychodynamics of American Jewish life: an anthology. Twayne Publishers. p. 334. http://books.google.com/books?id=eG1CAAAAIAAJ.



Medieval conical phylactery discovered in Cairo geniza

In the third perek of Megilla with the mishna on the 7th to last line of 24b: העושה תפלתו עגולה

"One who makes his tefillin round"


Phylactery of Qumran:

1800s illustration of both conical and cubed phylacteries:

http://books.google.com/books?id=37WLCyXOEFwC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%22round+tefillin%22&source=bl&ots=agykJYcy3I&sig=8jnjLLHHskYAb4P_8hpaw-MV7mk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gk2jULaFMaPgiAKgk4HYAw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22round%20tefillin%22&f=false

LOL

You are merely referring evidence of attempts to re-invent the initially assumed loss of the design for these Cubes, and failed attempts to produce the cube shaped tefillin that had previous been used before the Jews by and large had ceased to wear them after the Babylonian captivity.

Those "guesses" arose during the 2nd century BC, just before Jesus appeared.
Those were merely attempts that in the end failed once others old samples were found, and the Rabbi certified the cube geometry.



Your naive assertion that these were "original" and valid, acceptable is silly since the 2nd century was 1000 years after Moses.
After the Babylonians allowed the Jews back to Israel the desire to start wearing these tefillin reappeared and the rabbi were not exactlty sure what size they ought be, as jesus noted in Matt 23:5:

Mathew 23:5 But all their works they do to be seen of men, they make broad their phylacteries...(Tefillin, cube shaped boxes strapped to their heads and on their arm)...

(Note that Jesus did NOT criticize the geometry of those cubes, but merely the ornate display of them).


But the officially accepted cube shaped geometry was both supported by a few men who still had them from the days of Ezekiel, just at the time Judah was dragged to Babylon.
We KNOW this because the Encyclopedia Judaica reports the fact:

"The rabbi regarded them,(tefillin), as instituted from the earliest times, and in a discussion as to whether the incident of Ezekiel in the Valley of the Dead Bones was a vision or a fact, "Judah ben Bathyra stood up and said, "I am one of their descendants, (these Kohans), and these (holding his tefillin high), are the tefillin which my grandfather handed down to me."
(See Jewish Encyclopedia: Tefillin)


But what we do have that supports everything I have told you so far is the amazing statement of the Rabbi as found in their Midrash Tehillim 31:6 .
It SPECIFICALLY refers to the 16 edges of the very cube I have displayed for you.



Midrash Tehillim 31:6 mentions the sword of G-d has 16 edges.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan mentions this is reminiscent of a 4th dimensional hypercube,…

… or , as in the Urim and Thummim, four edges which account for the four additional edges of the tetrahedron piece inside.


The normal cube has 12 edges, but this cube has a stone inside which is the cheif building stone for Buckminster Fullers Cube and hence requires 4 more edges.

 

[Adam]

Sir, you cannot make statements that Tefillin were originally a cube and then point to an 11th century document that doesn't mention the urim and thummim as your evidence.

Besides, a tesseract is not a cube, just as a cube is not a square and a square is not a line and a line is not a point.


And you certainly cannot say that an 11th century manuscript describing the "sword of God" as a hypercube implies that teffilin were not originally conical shaped and therefore, the Urim and Thummim are five stones in the shapes of a tetrahedron and four octants.

That is madness, Dave.

 

[cupid dave]

Sir, you cannot make statements that Tefillin were originally a cube and then point to an 11th century document that doesn't mention the urim and thummim as your evidence.

Besides, a tesseract is not a cube, just as a cube is not a square and a square is not a line and a line is not a point.


And you certainly cannot say that an 11th century manuscript describing the "sword of God" as a hypercube implies that teffilin were not originally conical shaped and therefore, the Urim and Thummim are five stones in the shapes of a tetrahedron and four octants.

That is madness, Dave.

LOL

It is YOU who can not say that finding a medieval conical tefillin supports the arument that some knowledgeable person, by that late date, had reasons of impeccable certitude to oppose the long approved design of a cube shaped telfillin.
And there is the evidence from the days of Ezekiel, i.e.; an ancient tefillin had been passed down to demonstrate for the rabbi what they looked like around 600BC.


All you have to oppose this hypothesis is negtivity, and ever weaker attempts to discredit this SOLE and ONLY definitive and specific hypothesis on Urim and Thummim.
This merely reveals your bias against the idea out of hand, and a review of this thread will illustrate my charges since your mind was closed even before I offered these pagtes of support.

We see that modern psychologists have developed a cube shaped model of how we Think.
These tefillin imply that the Jews wore them on their heads because in praying to god, they expected intercourse between their minds and the angels with their messages.

We see that Aaron worn them when, once a year, he spoke with God in a cube shaped Most Holy Place.
We see that Buckminister Fuller hypothesized a synergistic Cube with five parts identical to those I have posted, which he intuitively asserted was the "one thing that explains everything," ... which it does, de facto.

It represents the pattern used by the brain to store and to recall the information which comes in from the seven senses.




The Long Awaited Universal
　
At the Universite' Paul Sabatier, Simon and Miche'le Thorpe inform us through work published in Science Magazine about the fascinating cognitive operation in which the mammalian brain groups together objects that share common properties, regardless of their physical differences.

They study the cognitive process at the single neuron level. What emerges, in the form of a technological application of their work, is evidence of a fixed and definitive number of locations or groups.
This seems reasonable, since our brain evolved as a survival mechanism and, as such, is time dependent.
The brain informs, especially about adverse situations, which it must do so quickly.
The name, Universal, of course, had already been chosen 300 years ago.
The intuitive deductions of Emmanuel Kant proposed just such a mental construct in 1776. But, now Kant's hypothesis has empirical teeth and a belly full of practical applications, especially, but not limited to, academics.

 

[Adam]

LOL

It is YOU who can not say that finding medieval conical tefillin supports the arument that some knowledgeable person by that late date had reasons of impeccable certitude to oppose the long approve design of a cube shaped telfillin, and the evidence that is the days of Ezeliel, one had been passed down to demonstrate for the rabbi what they looked like around 600BC.

There is not a description of what they looked like are a claim that they are cubed. You jumped to that conclusion on your own and have failed to make a point.

All you ever weaker attempts to discredit this SOLE and ONLY definitive and specific hypothesis on Urim and Thummim merely reveals your bias against the idea out of hand.

We see that modern psychologists have developed a cube shaped model of how we Think, and that these tefillin imply thatthe Jews wore them ontheir heads because in praying to god, they expected intercourse between their minds and the angels with their messages.

What modern psychologists? Guiliford? Guiliford is not modern and his ideas have been discredited.

We see that Aaron worn them when he once a year spoke with God in a cube shaped Most Holy Place.
We see that Buckminister Fuller hypothesized a synergistic Cube with five parts identical to those I have posted, which he intuitively asserted was the "one thing that explains everything," ... which it does, de facto.

He did not assert any such thing. That is a lie, Dave.

And you modeled your little idols after his model AFTER discovering a picture of them. That doesn't prove that the Urim and Thummim are made of these shapes. Your explanation does not explain anything. It is a wild guess.

It represents the pattern used by the brain to store and to recall the information which comes in from the seven senses.

I'm not even about to get into neuroscience with you at this point.

The Long Awaited Universal
　
At the Universite' Paul Sabatier, Simon and Miche'le Thorpe inform us through work published in Science Magazine about the fascinating cognitive operation in which the mammalian brain groups together objects that share common properties, regardless of their physical differences.

They study the cognitive process at the single neuron level. What emerges, in the form of a technological application of their work, is evidence of a fixed and definitive number of locations or groups.
This seems reasonable, since our brain evolved as a survival mechanism and, as such, is time dependent.
The brain informs, especially about adverse situations, which it must do so quickly.
The name, Universal, of course, had already been chosen 300 years ago.
The intuitive deductions of Emmanuel Kant proposed just such a mental construct in 1776. But, now Kant's hypothesis has empirical teeth and a belly full of practical applications, especially, but not limited to, academics.

This is gobbledygook and has no link to the subject of a cube made up of 5 stones whatsoever.

 

[Adam]

Let's try something....


I've looked back on this thread to find some of your "best evidence" for your claim.

Pop quiz time.


The Urim and Thummim are 5 stones in the shape of a tetrahedron and 4 octants that, when placed together, form a cube because:


a. an ephod is "foursquare"

b. sukkah are cube shaped,

c. lulav etrog sets come with 5 peices

d. Buckminster Fuller has shown how a cube can be divided into 5 shapes.

e.modern phylacteries are cube shaped

f. Judah ben Bathyra once said "my grandfather gave me this tefillin."

g. the "Sword of God" is a hypercube.

h. All of the above answers are non sequitors that do not follow the premise of the question.

 

[cupid dave]

Let's try something....

OK.
I'LL USE CAPITALS TO SEPARATE MY COMMENTS FROM YOURS BELOW.


I've looked back on this thread to find some of your "best evidence" for your claim.

Pop quiz time.


The Urim and Thummim are 5 stones in the shape of a tetrahedron and 4 octants that, when placed together, form a cube because:


a. an ephod is "foursquare"

NO... THE BREASTPLATE IS FOUR SQUARE.

b. sukkah are cube shaped,

NO, THE SUKKAH ARE IDEALLY 7x7, HAVE A LATTICE ROOF THAT CAN BE SEEN THRU, CAN NOT BE HIGHER THAT THE CIELING OF THE MOST HOLY CUBE SHAPED ROOM IN THE TABERNACLE, 2O C.
HENCE, IS RELATED TO THAT GEOMETRY.

c. lulav etrog sets come with 5 peices

THE LULAVG/ETROG ARE SYMBOLIC OF THIS URIM AND THUMMIM AND THERE IS NOT OTHER RATIONAL REASON FOR IT.

d. Buckminster Fuller has shown how a cube can be divided into 5 shapes.

NO.
BUCKMINISTER FULLER, INDEPENDENTLY, DESCRIBED EXACTLY THE SAME GEOMETRIC CUBE. HE WROTE "Cosmography, the one thing that explains everything,"
THAT WOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT THE URIM AND THUMMIM IS ALL ABOUT.


e.modern phylacteries are cube shaped


NO.
THE ANCIENT TEFILLIN WERE ALWAY CUBE SHAPED.
THE TRADITIONAL TEFILLIN HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CUBE SHAPE BOXES.


f. Judah ben Bathyra once said "my grandfather gave me this tefillin."

YEP.
Judah b. Bathyra refers, about 150 C.E.

THIS WAS AT A TIME WHEN THE JEWS WERE RECONSTRUCTING THE TEFILLIN, WHICH THEY HAD CEASED TO WEAR DURING THE BABYLONIAN DIASPORA.

g. the "Sword of God" is a hypercube.

NO.
A HYPERCUBE IS A CUBE INSIDE A CUBE WHICH WOULD ALSO HAVE 16 EDGES.
THE URIM/THUMMIM OF THIS THEORY HAS 12 EDGES AS DOES EVERY ORDINARY CUBE, BUT FOUR MORE EDGES INSIDE ON THE TETRAHEDRON.

h. All of the above answers are non sequitors that do not follow the premise of the question.

There is no "question."

The investigation of the geometry of the tabernacle and all the sacred articles is directed at hypothesizing the geometric form of the unknown Urim and Thummim.

All the above supporting observations, including the implied meaning of a cube on the head, (inferring that men pray mentally to God, who communicates back with some connection to a cube idea), is supported further in that the priest does exactly that inside the cube shaped Most Holy Place [2Ki 6:20].

Then, we have the otherwise impossible foursquare breast plate, (which contains 3 rows of stones, set in four corners), which takes the same geometric position around the U/T (inside the breastplate) as do the twelve tribes around the tabernacle, likewise framimg the cubic oracle called the Most Holy Place.

The 12 stones have the tribal names scribed upon them.
The tribes (as described in Numbers), are collected into three sets in four positions arpund the Levites.

Those four groups of 3 tribes each, like the stones in the breastplate, square off to the E, W, S, and N of the square land allotted to the Levites.
Again, the geometry is reinforced that the twelve tribes are squared, as illustrated in the proposed breastplate, and the hole in the center of the breast plate is analogous to the square land of the priests and the tabernacle.

Both the cube shaped Urim/Thummim and the cube shaped room of the Most Holy Place are reportedly a means by which to divine the will of God, hence they are geometrocally the same shape.


There is more, but this is the general concept of U/T which is the Oscam's Razor to its identity.








For instance, I drew your attention to the horns of the incense altar and the Altar of Holocaust which suggest the open cube, a subtle hint to the geometry of U/T, (postulated upon the premise that this device, all so important inour relationship with God, would be incorporated in Torah so we could find it).

 

[Adam]

You still have not presented one shred of evidence that suggests anything to be true about what you claim regarding the urim and thummim.

 

[cupid dave]

You still have not presented one shred of evidence that suggests anything to be true about what you claim regarding the urim and thummim.

yeah,..
right...