Introduction: The Bible Code

Introduction Plaintext  (Partial):  

Introduction Plaintext, JPEGFig. 1                                       The Translators to King James I

The Bible Code, Row 17, The Bible Code, JPEGFig. 2                                         (March 14, 2013)

Plaintext, Introduction:  The Translators, “To the Reader”:

   The paragraph below is the final paragraph of  “The Translators:  To the Reader”.  Especially noteworthy is that this paragraph is the 17th. paragraph.  Encryptions in this selection beg the questions:  1.  Did Edward de Vere, 17th. Earle of Oxenforde, die as historically and consistently reported, or was he spared by James I so that  he could be part of the group of scholars and writers appointed by James to translate the Bible into English for the first time, an effort beginning in 1604 and completed in 1611. We know both Edward de Vere and Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earle of Southampton, were alive in 1604.  However, Edward reportedly died in 1604.  The translation was performed by 47 scholars, all but one being members of the Church of England.  2.  Were both Edward de Vere and Henry (Henrie) Wriothesley co-encoders of much of the 1611 King James Bible, and are there ciphertext examples in the translated  plaintexts strongly suggesting this?;  3.  Many of the letter-string encryptions contain ‘present tense’ (grammatical) content which is clearly reflected  in many of the formed clusters.  Present tense or not, does this mean Edward de Vere was alive, not only up to 1608, but  as late as 1616 when the William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon was reported as having died?

   However, the ‘elephant in the living room’ is this:  It has long been suspected William Shakespeare had a hand, albeit anonymously, in the translation of the 1611 King James Bible (by scholars citing the words “shake” and “speare” in Psalm 46, both occurring in the plaintext, 46 words from the beginning and end of the psalm, respectively).  We know productions of Shakespeare increased after James’ ascension to the throne of England, as he was a great lover of plays.  Common sense says that one of the most (if not the most) celebrated writer of this period was Shakespeare.  And yet, history is totally silent as to whether or not he ever met King James.  No personal correspondence or accounts by others exist in the historical record.  Shakespeare is “suspected” to have taken part in some of the writing, but all suspicion of this has taken place long after the deaths of every person alive at the time.  The anonymity is not merely puzzling, but remains an immense unanswered question.  History has recorded the names and positions of all 47 scholars on the various translation committees.  William Shakespeare is not one of them.  Why wouldn’t King James I appoint Shakespeare to take part in some of the writing, if not just for his (alleged):  linguistic abilities, erudition, eloquence, as well as his stunning elocution, and ability to provide breath-taking poetry?  In short, why the anonymity?  Perhaps because “Shakespeare” did not exist, except as a front-man for another (or others with a master poet at the helm).  Henry Wriothesley and James I became friends immediately after James released Henry from the Tower of London in 1603, just weeks after Edward de Vere’s alleged death.

   It is understandable why many writers wrote under various pseudonyms, but why, in the case of the Bible translation, would Shakespeare have done so?  One would surmise Shakespeare himself would have requested to help with James’ enormous project.  There is no evidence Shakespeare wrote with a pen name.  What is it, then, that makes so many suspect internal evidence in certain passages  point to Shakespeare?  If their suspicions are correct, then those who bring up the issue are saying Shakespeare’s contributions were anonymous; yet give no theories as to why this would be so.  In the face of the anonymity argument, their point of view does not hold water.  However, that this anonymity is occurring, I believe, is indeed the case.

   Both Vere and Henrie, E.O. are letter-strings in this plaintext.

Intro. To the Reader, last paragraph, plaintext JPEGFig. 3

Intro. VERE, truth hid, JPEGFig. 4

Intro., HENRIE,EO, We, JPEGFig. 5

Intro. Paragraph 7, JPEGFig. 6

Intro. VERE, Greeke Old Testament, JPEGFig. 7                                       (March 15, 2013)

Paragraph 16:

Intro. 1611, VERE writ in The Bible, JPEGFig. 8  

Paragraph 16:

Intro. HENRY, JPEGFig. 9

Paragraph 16:

Intro. HENRIE, JPEGFig. 10

Codes:

Intro. CODE words, Paragraph 16 JPEGFig. 11                       (March 16, 2013)

Intro. God code set, Paragraph 16 JPEG #1Fig. 12              (March 17, 2013)

SET“:  Before 900 C.E.:  (in senses denoting a group) Middle English sette  < Old French  < Latin secta“.

Intro. Code, the Word of God, JPEG

Fig. 13

Intro. Code word, JPEG

Fig. 14

 

                 

 

III.XVIII.MMXIII

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: