The Secret Code in the Bible's First Word - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

The Secret Code in the Bible's First Word ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/xpIOoiBGYXI/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [The Secret Code in the Bible's First Word](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpIOoiBGYXI) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [hebrew-linguistics, bible-codes, aleph-tav, biblical-scholarship, pseudo-scholarship] > author: Dan McClellan, Dan Beecher (ASR renders McClellan as "Mlelen" in the raw transcript; corrected from known Data Over Dogma hosting credits) > source: Data Over Dogma (YouTube/podcast) > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpIOoiBGYXI > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: The Secret Code in the Bible's First Word (Debunked) >  ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - Data Over Dogma podcast/Patreon (patreon.com/dataoverdogma — link as stated by hosts, not independently verified) - "Et Sepher" / "Aleph Tav Scriptures" — a self-published English Bible edition built around the aleph-tav claim - Strong's Concordance and Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew lexicon — cited by the hosts as outdated/misused sources ## 📝 Summary - Two hosts of a religious-studies podcast (a biblical scholar and a comedian co-host) debunk a family of viral "Bible code" claims that read secret Christian theology into individual Hebrew letters. - The claims examined: (1) the first word of Genesis, *bereshit*, spelled out as a crucifixion narrative; (2) the divine name YHWH read as "behold the hand, behold the nail"; (3) a fabricated DNA "bond sequence" that supposedly spells the divine name; (4) the untranslated Hebrew direct-object marker *et* (אֶת, spelled aleph-tav) treated as a hidden "Alpha and Omega" reference to Jesus, which has spawned an actual published Bible edition. - It matters because these claims circulate widely on social media and underpin real commercial products (a mistranslated Bible edition sold to non-Hebrew readers), presented as scholarship rather than theology-driven wordplay. - Stakeholders: lay Christian audiences encountering these claims on social media; the "Hebrew roots" and messianic movements that promote them; academic Hebrew Bible scholarship, whose actual philological findings get overridden by the pop claims. - Bottom line: none of the letter-meaning claims survive contact with how the Hebrew alphabet actually works (it's acrophonic — letters index sounds, not the meanings of the pictographs they evolved from), and the "hidden Jesus" pattern can be reproduced with equal ease in English, which is itself evidence the method proves nothing. ## 📖 Main Content The hosts build their case in five layers, moving from the "cool trick" version of the argument down to the mechanics of why it fails. **The Hebrew alphabet's real history.** Hebrew script (like other Semitic scripts) is described as *acrophonic*: each letter shape ultimately derives from an older ideographic/pictographic sign (an early form closer to Egyptian hieroglyphs) that represented a whole word — for example, the letter *bet* came from a symbol for "house." But once a script becomes acrophonic, the letter stops carrying that word's *meaning* and instead just marks the *sound* that word started with. *Bet* is just the "b" sound; it no longer means "house" in any functional sense when you're reading Hebrew text. This is the load-bearing linguistic fact the whole episode hangs on. **Claim 1 — *bereshit* as a crucifixion code.** The first word of Genesis is broken into its six Hebrew letters (bet-resh-alef-shin-yod-tav) and each is assigned a meaning — house, head/son, god/strength, destroy, hand, cross — then reassembled into something like "God was destroyed by his own hand on the cross." The hosts note this requires (a) treating each letter as if it still carried its pre-acrophonic pictographic meaning, which it doesn't, (b) meanings for *shin* ("destroy") and *tav* ("cross"/covenant) that are simply wrong even under the pictographic reading, and (c) reordering the letters into whatever sequence produces the desired sentence, since Hebrew word order isn't "a suggestion." **Claim 2 — the Tetragrammaton as "behold the hand, behold the nail."** YHWH is broken into yod (claimed: hand), hey (claimed: behold), vav (claimed: nail), hey (behold). Yod as "hand/forearm" is roughly defensible from the old pictograph. Hey is disputed — the hosts argue it derives from an interjection ("hoy"/"hey," like a shout to get attention), not "behold." Vav derives from a word for a hook (used to hang a curtain, as in Exodus), not a nail — a stretch that only works if you "squint pretty hard." The phrase is then freely reordered to read as a crucifixion allusion. **Claim 3 — the DNA "divine name" hoax.** A viral claim holds that DNA contains a specific hydrogen-bond-like structure at positions "10-5-6-5," which map to the numeric positions of yod-hey-vav-hey in the Hebrew alphabet (10th, 5th, 6th, 5th letters), supposedly encoding God's name at the molecular level. The hosts are blunt: there's no such bond, no such sequence, and no scientist result behind it — it's invented outright, not merely stretched. **Claim 4 — aleph-tav (*et*) as "the Alpha and Omega."** In Hebrew, *et* (spelled aleph-tav) is a grammatical particle marking a definite direct object (roughly analogous to how case endings work in Latin), or in a different vocalization, a preposition meaning "with." It isn't translated into English because English doesn't need it — word order does that job. Because aleph and tav are literally the first and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, some readers treat every untranslated *et* as a buried reference to "Alpha and Omega," i.e., Jesus (Revelation 22:13). This has produced a real, purchasable Bible edition — described in the episode as the "Et Sepher"/"Aleph Tav Scriptures" — assembled by people without Hebrew training, who also mis-transliterate the divine name (e.g., as "Yahuah"), mis-transliterate "Jesus" as "Yahusha" instead of the Hebrew *Yeshua* or Greek-derived *Iesous*, and place the glottal-stop apostrophe in the wrong position relative to the vowel — errors the hosts treat as evidence the editors don't read Hebrew at all. **The concordance problem.** A recurring diagnostic the hosts offer: any argument that leans on Strong's Concordance as its lexical authority is a red flag. Strong's isn't a dictionary of Hebrew meaning — it's a cross-reference tool tied to how one specific translation (typically the KJV) rendered a word, useful for finding where a word occurs, not for determining what it means in context, verb stem, or syntax. **The satirical rebuttal.** Co-host Dan Beecher demonstrates the method's emptiness by inventing an equivalent "code" for the English alphabet (with an AI tool's help), assigning spiritual meanings to letter shapes (A = "ascent," B = "breath," etc.) and "decoding" the word *Bible* into a devotional-sounding phrase, and *dogma* into a negative one — by design, showing the technique can be steered to any conclusion the encoder wants. He then applies the hosts' own *bereshit* letter-meanings in a different order to spell out something crude and irreverent, proving the method has no internal constraint that would rule that reading out. **Why it's appealing anyway.** The hosts close by noting the emotional pull: these codes feel like secret, gatekept knowledge (explicitly compared to *The Da Vinci Code* and the 1990s "Bible Code" phenomenon, where computer text-mining was used to "find" predictions like the Kennedy assassination), and they let believers feel their faith is externally confirmed — which is a much more comfortable feeling than being told the pattern was invented after the fact. ## 🗒️ Notes - Acrophony is the hinge fact: a letter's *shape origin* ≠ its *current meaning*. Confusing the two is the single move that makes every "letter code" claim possible. - The crucifixion-code claims require selectively reviving old pictographic meanings for some letters while inventing meanings for others (*shin* ≠ "destroy," *tav* ≠ "cross") and then freely reordering the result — three independent points of failure, not one. - The aleph-tav claim is the most consequential because it's not just a social-media talking point; it has produced an actual sold Bible edition (the hosts' name for it renders as "Et Sepher"/"Aleph Tav Scriptures" in the transcript) marketed to readers who by definition can't check the Hebrew themselves. - Diagnostic heuristic offered in-episode: "if your argument retreats to Strong's, you definitely don't know Hebrew" — a citation-quality signal, not just a stylistic complaint, since Strong's reflects one historical translation's gloss, not lexical or syntactic meaning. - The DNA claim is categorically different from the letter-mysticism claims — it isn't a stretched reading of something real, it's a fabricated scientific-sounding factoid with no underlying data. - The English-alphabet parody is the strongest single piece of argumentation in the episode: it's a working demonstration (not just an assertion) that the method is unfalsifiable — it can be tuned to produce a positive message from "Bible" and a negative one from "dogma" using the same "logic." - Framing note: the hosts repeatedly attribute the claims' appeal to a desire for insider/secret knowledge and confirmation of pre-existing belief, rather than to any evidentiary strength in the claims themselves. ## 📚 References - Data Over Dogma — the podcast/channel this episode is from - "Et Sepher" / "Aleph Tav Scriptures" Bible edition — referenced as the commercial product built on the aleph-tav claim (no independent link available from the transcript) - Strong's Concordance — referenced as a commonly misused source in these arguments - Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon — referenced as the (also outdated) lexicon the "Et Sepher" preface leans on - The 1990s "Bible Code" phenomenon (Michael Drosnin et al.) — invoked by the hosts as a structurally similar pattern-mining claim (equidistant letter sequencing), not a source they cite directly by name/URL ## 🗣️ Paraphrase Hebrew writing didn't start as a sound-based alphabet — it started as a set of pictures, each standing for a whole word, and it slowly turned into a system where each letter just marks a beginning sound instead. That transition is the whole story: once a letter is just standing in for a sound, it stops carrying the meaning of the picture it used to be. A popular class of internet claims ignores that transition entirely, treating every Hebrew letter as if it still means "house" or "hand" the way it did thousands of years earlier, and then stacking those meanings up to spell out crucifixion imagery in the very first word of the Bible, in God's own name, and even in human DNA. The hosts walk through why each version fails on its own terms — wrong word order, invented letter meanings, or in the DNA case, an outright fabricated scientific detail — before turning to the version with real-world consequences: a whole Bible translation built around treating an ordinary Hebrew grammar particle as a secret reference to Jesus. The most effective rebuttal in the episode isn't a citation — it's a demonstration. One host builds an equivalent letter-meaning system for English and shows he can make it "spell out" whatever message he wants, positive or negative, from any word he chooses, including reusing the other host's own Hebrew letter-meanings to spell out something absurd. If a method can prove anything, it hasn't actually proven the thing it was used for. The hosts frame the underlying appeal honestly: these codes feel like access to hidden, gatekept knowledge, and they let people feel their beliefs are being externally confirmed — which is a much more satisfying story than "someone made this up to fit a conclusion they already held." ## 📰 Newsletter Ever notice how the internet loves a "hidden code in the Bible" story? This episode of Data Over Dogma takes a scalpel to a few of the most popular ones — including a claim so persistent it's spawned an actual (mistranslated) Bible edition — and the demolition job doubles as a genuinely useful mini-lesson in how alphabets work. The best bit: one host builds an equivalent "code" for English using AI and proves he can make it say anything he wants, in either direction. It's a fun, low-lift watch if you want a concrete example of pattern-matching gone wrong — and a good one to keep in your back pocket next time someone shares a "Hebrew letters secretly spell Jesus" post. *(Note: this source is about biblical Hebrew, not WordPress — no plugin, learning-resource, or community items apply here; skipping the WordPress-specific portion of this section rather than manufacturing a connection that isn't in the source.)* ## ✅ Action Items This source is a religious-studies/linguistics debunking episode with no WordPress, DevRel, OSPO, or WPCC content — the subteam categories below don't apply. Listed for structural completeness only. #### DevRel - Not applicable to this source. #### OSPO - Not applicable to this source. #### Community - Not applicable to this source. #### WordPress - Not applicable to this source. #### The WPCC - Not applicable to this source. ### FAIR - Not applicable to this source. ## 🧪 Hypotheses - H1: Audiences shown a working parody of a "letter-code" method (as with the English-alphabet demonstration) update their skepticism more than audiences given only a direct linguistic correction. - H2: Sources that cite Strong's Concordance as their primary lexical authority correlate with a measurably higher rate of basic Hebrew grammar errors elsewhere in the same source. - H3: Belief in letter/gematria-style Bible codes correlates with lower trust in institutional/academic biblical scholarship generally, rather than being an isolated belief. - H4: Self-published "corrective" Bible editions built on a single reinterpreted particle (like aleph-tav) show internal transliteration inconsistencies (e.g., inconsistent glottal-stop placement) that track the editors' lack of formal training. - H5: Short-form social video formats amplify Bible-code claims disproportionately relative to their evidentiary strength, compared to long-form or academic formats. ### 📊 Methodology - H1: Randomized A/B video study — one group sees only the direct linguistic correction, the other sees the correction plus the English-alphabet parody demonstration; measure pre/post belief change via survey. - H2: Content analysis of a sample of popular "Bible code" sources, coding citation type (concordance vs. lexicon vs. grammar) against independently rated linguistic-error rate. - H3: Cross-sectional survey correlating belief in letter-code claims with an institutional-trust-in-scholarship scale. - H4: Textual/transliteration audit of available "Aleph Tav"-style Bible editions, checking consistency of glottal-stop and vowel transliteration against standard Hebrew grammar references. - H5: Platform data analysis comparing claim virality/engagement metrics across short-form vs. long-form content controlling for topic. ### ❓ Questions - How much of this claim family traces to a small number of original sources versus independent reinvention? - Do the people producing these claims believe they're doing linguistics, or do they understand it as devotional wordplay dressed as linguistics? - What would a good-faith, falsifiable version of "letter symbolism in Hebrew" even look like, if one exists? - How do "Hebrew roots" and messianic movements that promote these claims relate institutionally to mainstream evangelical or academic biblical circles? ### 🔮 Future Research - A systematic catalog of Hebrew "letter code" claims in circulation, cross-referenced against actual paleo-Hebrew/proto-Sinaitic pictograph scholarship, to separate "wrong about the pictograph" from "pictograph meaning is irrelevant post-acrophony" errors. - Reception research on why debunking videos in this genre do or don't change minds among audiences already invested in the claims. - A comparative study of how the "Bible Code" (equidistant letter sequencing) phenomenon of the 1990s and today's letter-meaning codes function rhetorically, despite using different mechanics. ### 💡 Implications - Practice: biblical-studies educators have a reusable teaching device here — the "build your own code in a language you already know" demonstration is a portable way to teach falsifiability. - Policy/commerce: self-published "corrected" Bible translations built on disputed grammar readings raise a genuine consumer-literacy issue, since buyers can't independently verify Hebrew claims. - Security/trust: this is a low-stakes but clear case study in how citation-quality signals (e.g., "does the source cite Strong's as its main authority") can serve as a fast heuristic for source reliability in a specialized field. - Education: reinforces that alphabet history (pictograph → acrophonic) is a high-leverage single fact that, once understood, defuses an entire genre of pseudo-linguistic claims at once. ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment - Reading level estimate: this is an informal, conversational transcript full of asides, interruptions, and disfluencies; qualitatively it reads at roughly a Flesch-Kincaid grade 6–8 level for the banter, rising to grade 9–11 in the linguistics-explanation stretches (denser clause structure, technical vocabulary like "acrophonic," "definite direct object marker," "declension"). No exact score was computed against the full transcript; this is a qualitative estimate based on sentence length and vocabulary density. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: none — audio/video podcast format with no on-screen diagrams described in the transcript. - Improve: a simple letter-by-letter diagram (paleo-Hebrew pictograph → modern letter → sound value) would make the acrophony argument dramatically easier to follow. #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: the native format — conversational back-and-forth, spoken pronunciation examples (e.g., contrasting "Yahweh" vs. "Yahwa" vs. "Yahusha"). - Improve: a brief spoken pronunciation glossary at the top would help listeners track terms as they're introduced. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: strong — analogies to Latin case endings, repeated definitions of terms like "acrophonic" and "concordance vs. lexicon." - Improve: a short recap of key terms partway through would help listeners who joined mid-episode. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: the "build your own code" segment functions as a hands-on demonstration listeners could replicate themselves. - Improve: an explicit "try this yourself with any word" prompt would turn the parody into a reusable exercise. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: strong — the episode is structured as a sequence of falsifiable claims, each addressed with a specific counter-mechanism. - Improve: a simple table mapping each claim → its specific logical flaw would sharpen the argument's structure. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: the two-host dialogue format itself models a form of peer discussion and mutual fact-checking. - Improve: explicit listener discussion prompts (e.g., "next time you see a letter-code post, ask...") would extend the social-learning angle. #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: minimal — no built-in reflection prompts. - Improve: a short "test yourself" exercise (apply the acrophony test to a claim not covered in the episode) would suit self-paced review. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: not applicable — no ecological or sustainability content in this source. - Improve: not applicable. ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: not assessable from a transcript alone (no video/page markup available). - Improve: standard practice — ensure YouTube auto-captions are corrected against a human transcript, since ASR clearly mangled proper nouns here (e.g., "Mlelen" for a host's surname). #### Keyboard navigation - Present: not applicable to audio/video content itself. - Improve: not applicable. #### Contrast and readability - Present: not applicable — no visual UI in this source. - Improve: not applicable. #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: not applicable. - Improve: not applicable. #### Media and captions - Present: a transcript exists (the basis of this note), which supports caption/transcript accessibility. - Improve: publish a corrected transcript, since the raw ASR transcript contains clear proper-noun errors that would mislead a screen-reader or search-indexing user. #### Forms and interactions - Present: not applicable — no interactive elements in this source. - Improve: not applicable. #### Standards reference - WCAG 2.2 AA gap identified: 1.2.2 (Captions, prerecorded) is nominally met by the existence of a transcript, but caption *accuracy* for proper nouns (host names, technical terms) needs a correction pass before it fully serves that criterion's intent. ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: the episode explicitly engages with multiple religious communities that hold the critiqued views (mainstream evangelical, "Hebrew roots," messianic Jewish-adjacent movements), rather than treating them as a monolith. - Improve: could note more explicitly that mainstream Jewish scholarship on Hebrew grammar is the discipline being appealed to as the corrective, not just "academic" scholarship generically. #### Inclusive language - Present: mostly casual, secular framing; technical Hebrew terms are defined when introduced. - Improve: a couple of jokes rely on innuendo (double entendre around letter shapes) that, while mild, aren't necessary to the linguistic argument and could be trimmed for broader audience comfort. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: informal structure with frequent tangents (fires, dental work, banter) may reduce predictability for some listeners. - Improve: a structured summary or chapter markers would help listeners who benefit from predictable pacing. #### Representation - Present: two hosts (a practicing biblical-studies scholar and a comedian) represent a mix of expert and lay-comedic voices. - Improve: not otherwise assessable from audio alone. #### Psychological safety - Present: the hosts are respectful toward the *people* who hold these beliefs, consistently framing them as "well-meaning" rather than mocking believers themselves, while still critiquing the claims sharply. - Improve: an explicit content note ("we're critiquing a claim, not the sincerity of anyone's faith") near the top could preempt defensive reactions from affected listeners. ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Inductive/comparative: the acrophony argument is strong because it's a general, independently verifiable fact about how alphabets evolve (attested across Semitic scripts), not an ad hoc rebuttal invented for this claim. - Demonstrative/experimental: the English-alphabet parody is the strongest argument in the episode — it doesn't just assert the method is arbitrary, it reproduces the method live and shows it can be steered to opposite conclusions, which is a direct falsifiability test. - Source-critical: the Strong's-vs-lexicon distinction is a sound, generalizable literacy heuristic (concordance = translation cross-reference tool; lexicon = actual meaning/usage reference), not specific to this argument. #### Fallacies - Cherry-picking / Texas sharpshooter: letter meanings are selected and reordered until a desired sentence emerges (explicit in the *bereshit* and Tetragrammaton examples), while word order and majority letter-meanings are freely discarded. - Equivocation: treating a letter's current phonetic function as if it still carries its historical pictographic meaning conflates two different linguistic facts under one symbol. - Unfalsifiable methodology: because letters can be reordered and glossed flexibly, the method can't in principle fail to find a desired message — the parody segment demonstrates this directly. Fix: require the method to predict something *before* the target conclusion is known, or discard it. - Appeal to hidden/esoteric knowledge: the claims' appeal is partly framed by the hosts as resting on "you'll only know this if you read the original language," which functions rhetorically to insulate the claim from lay scrutiny rather than to support it. - Argument from authority (inverted): "consult Strong's" is offered by proponents as if it were an appeal to scholarly authority, when the hosts argue it's actually a marker of *lacking* access to current lexical scholarship. #### Tone of voice - Predominantly informal, comedic, and digressive (jokes about fireworks, dental work, innuendo) interleaved with focused technical explanation; the critique itself is delivered with more exasperation ("holy crap, this is bad") than hostility toward believers. ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: not a strong fit — the episode isn't responding to an accusation against the hosts, so classic DARVO denial isn't really in play here. - Attack: the closest analog is the hosts' critique that concordance-only citation signals the *proponents'* lack of expertise — but this is a substantive methodological critique, not a personal attack, so it doesn't fit the DARVO "attack the accuser" pattern either. - Reverse victim/offender: also not really present in the episode itself; the closest adjacent pattern is one the hosts describe in the *claims' own rhetoric* — the implicit framing that only readers of the original language can access the "true" meaning, which can function to recast informed correction as gatekeeping by outsiders. This is a hidden-knowledge appeal, not a true DARVO reversal, and the hosts name it as such rather than enacting it. - Overall: DARVO is not a strong analytical lens for this source; the more applicable rhetorical concept is appeal to esoteric/gatekept knowledge combined with confirmation bias, both of which the hosts explicitly name in their closing remarks. ## 🎯 Conclusion The claims examined all trade on the same error — reading a letter's obsolete pictographic origin as if it were still its active meaning — compounded by selective letter interpretation, free reordering, and in one case outright fabrication (the DNA claim). The episode's most persuasive move isn't a citation, it's a demonstration: building an equally "valid" code in English and showing it can be tuned to say anything. Practically, a reader encountering a "Hebrew letters secretly spell X" claim has a fast, reusable check available: ask whether the letters are being read for their current phonetic value or their ancient pictographic one, and whether the same method could be shown to produce the opposite conclusion just as easily — if so, it isn't evidence of anything except the ingenuity of the person building the code. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — The Secret Code in the Bible's First Word (Debunked) > Density: 2–5 Literature atoms (H3), 0–3 Permanent candidates (H4). > Defaults: 3 Literature, 1 Permanent. Resonance filter: if you can't > articulate in one line why a claim matters, drop it. > > Konik claim-header rules: present tense, declarative, ≤10 words when > possible, searchable, unique, mirrors annotation focus if present. > > Atomicity: one declarative sentence per atom. "and"/"also" → split. > > Tag pool: #bmf · #addendum · #xref · #articleseed · #storystem · #share · #aphorisms ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### Acrophonic letters lose their pictograph's original meaning > [!quote] > the character just indexes or represents the sound that used to start the word **Context & use**: - Mid-episode, in the recap explaining how Hebrew script evolved from ideographic to acrophonic writing - This is the load-bearing fact that defeats every letter-meaning "Bible code" claim in the episode at once **Tags**: #xref #aphorisms  #### Aleph-tav is Hebrew's untranslated direct-object marker, not a Christ code > [!quote] > because you don't translate the direct object marker, it's secret. It's hidden. **Context & use**: - Explaining why *et* (spelled aleph-tav) never appears in English Bible translations - This is the claim with real-world consequences — it underlies a published, mistranslated Bible edition **Tags**: #xref  #### DNA "divine-name bond sequence" claim is fabricated, not stretched > [!quote] > There's no such thing in DNA and there is no sequence of 10565. **Context & use**: - Contrasted explicitly against the letter-meaning claims, which are misreadings of something real - Useful as a category marker: distinguishes "bad interpretation of real data" from "invented data" **Tags**: #xref  ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### Unfalsifiable-symbol test **Claim** (one sentence, my voice): A symbolic-decoding method is worthless as evidence if it can be shown, using the same rules, to produce the opposite conclusion. **Evidence pointer**: [[#Acrophonic letters lose their pictograph's original meaning]] — demonstrated concretely by the episode's English-alphabet parody, which "decodes" one word positively and another negatively by design. **Scope & conditions**: - Holds when: a decoding method allows free reordering, selective letter/symbol inclusion, or post-hoc meaning assignment. - Breaks when: the method specifies its mapping and ordering rules *before* seeing the target word, and those rules are applied consistently across a large, pre-registered sample. **Links** (≥1 with annotation): - [[Confirmation bias]] — because extends (the test is a practical corollary of confirmation-bias awareness) - [[Gematria and numerology claims]] — because applies-in (same failure mode appears in numeric Bible-code claims, not just letter-meaning ones)  ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Check whether the "Bible Code" (Drosnin, equidistant letter sequencing) phenomenon and this letter-meaning genre have ever been compared directly in the scholarly literature — #xref - [F2] Worth a compare-and-contrast note against other unfalsifiable-symbol systems (e.g., popular numerology, some gematria practices) using the same "unfalsifiable-symbol test" lens — #articleseed ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Draft the "unfalsifiable-symbol test" as a standalone permanent note with 2–3 additional examples beyond this episode — writing/vault #things --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] [music] [00:02] Hey everybody, I'm Dan Mlelen and I'm [00:04] Dan Beecher and this is Data Over Dogma, [00:07] where we increase public access to the [00:09] academic study of the Bible and religion [00:11] and we combat the spread of [00:12] misinformation about the same and we try [00:15] to speak around our dental trays without [00:16] tripping over our words, which I'm [00:18] [laughter] struggling with today. I [00:19] don't know if it's as evident to y'all [00:21] as it is to me, but uh anyway, how are [00:25] things, Dan? I mean, your S's are a [00:28] little bit splashier than they had than [00:30] they were in previous times, but it's [00:31] >> a little more spit coming out the top of [00:33] the the tray as no. Okay. [00:36] >> Yeah. No one No one here that is [00:38] listening to viewing this is going to uh [00:41] to get any spittle on them. We're all [00:43] safe, [laughter] so it's fine. Things [00:45] are good. Uh it, you know, I didn't The [00:48] world's on fire. Uh there's smoke. [00:52] >> What do we got? dozen fires burning [00:54] right now in in our state. [00:56] >> Well, this is what happens when you uh [00:58] have no moisture at all all through a [01:02] winter time. And [01:03] >> this is why they pray for moisture in [01:04] those in in [laughter] all the Mormon [01:06] churches. [01:07] >> Dan, they say they use that word on [01:10] purpose. [01:10] >> Yes. [laughter] [01:11] Yeah. No, but uh it's it's incredibly [01:14] hot and it's also very windy right now. [01:16] And uh we have a lot of leaders in our [01:18] state saying, "Hey, please don't set off [01:21] a bunch of fireworks on the 4th of July [01:23] or [01:24] >> on July 27th." And guess what's going to [01:26] happen? Everybody's going to say, "You [01:28] can't tell me what to do." And a bunch [01:30] of people are going to have their houses [01:31] burned down. So, [01:32] >> yeah. Yep. It's a It's a holiday [01:35] tradition here in uh here. [01:37] >> Lose some fingers, burn down a house or [01:39] two. Uh but you know that's freedom, [01:42] baby. [01:43] >> That's freedom. Uh we got a whole we got [01:45] to do a show here. Uh and today's [01:47] episode is fun because we're talking [01:50] about it's it's a watch watch your [01:52] language and you watch your language, [01:54] Dan. [01:55] >> And you watch your phraseology. [01:57] [laughter] [01:58] >> Um but yeah, today we're going to be [02:00] talking about magic letters and uh and [02:04] the ways in which ancient Hebrew [02:08] >> Yeah. had had very special properties. [02:11] >> All right. I I thought we were going to [02:12] be talking about pink clovers and and [02:14] green [02:15] >> mushrooms. And I don't even I don't even [02:17] know all of shapes. What is it? [02:20] >> It's pink hearts, yellow star, orange [02:22] stars, [02:23] >> blue diamonds, [02:25] >> purple diamond phips. [02:27] >> Blue diamond phillips is is the [02:29] [laughter] name of the guy. Uh let's [02:31] let's just dive in now, please. Uh with [02:34] watch your language. [02:36] [music] [02:38] Okay. So, for watch your language, uh we [02:41] have done we have talked I'm going to [02:43] sort of bring us back up to speed [02:44] because on older episodes, [02:47] >> yeah, [02:47] >> we have talked about the Hebrew uh [02:51] alphabet. [02:52] >> Yeah. [02:52] >> And the way in which it evolved from [02:56] probably [02:57] Egyptian hieroglyphic sort of imagery [03:01] and and uh you know the way that that [03:04] happened. [03:05] >> Mhm. And then we're gonna And then uh we [03:08] also on another episode talked about uh [03:11] we talked about this this big uh magic [03:15] meaning that each of the letters in [03:18] ancient Hebrew has because someone just [03:21] made it up. Uh where you know we we the [03:25] first word of the Bible beet [03:28] >> uh it it has special meaning. Everything [03:31] has special meaning. [03:32] >> Yeah. [03:32] >> Because [03:33] >> Jesus is there in the very first word. [03:35] Yes, exactly. [03:35] >> Just like just like Jesus is in all the [03:37] names of Genesis 5 and and Jesus is is [03:41] everywhere you look as long as you don't [03:43] know what you're talking about [03:45] >> or or as long as you make something up [03:47] make up a code. So the the code that [03:49] they made up uh [03:51] >> they took all the letters in beerit bait [03:54] r alf shin yod tav and then they turned [03:58] it into bait means house and r means [04:01] head or son and alf means god or [04:04] strength and shin means destroy and yod [04:07] means hand and tav means cross and so it [04:12] means that uh Jesus was crucified god [04:15] was crucified by his own hand or God was [04:18] destroyed by his own hand on the cross [04:20] or something like [sighs and gasps] [04:22] that. [04:22] >> Yes. And this this this still gets [04:25] shared every single day on social media. [04:27] I can find the the person who spread [04:29] this [04:30] >> having their videos shared. [04:32] >> So maybe you should talk a little bit [04:33] about uh the ancient [04:37] >> just let let's also do a quick recap of [04:40] ancient of of the alphabet and [04:43] >> where they're coming up with this. a [04:45] quick last time on uh we'll we'll um go [04:49] you cannot skip the recap this time. [04:51] Well, I guess you could, but anyway. Um, [04:54] so Hebrew has what's called an [04:56] acrophonic script. Now, and and what [04:59] that means is is beginning sound, and it [05:03] comes from idographic script or script [05:07] where the characters actually [05:10] communicated or indexed entire ideas and [05:13] concepts and words and things like that. [05:15] Now, it came from that script. It does [05:17] not preserve the features of that [05:19] script. Once it get becomes an [05:21] acrophonic script then the character [05:24] just indexes or represents the sound [05:28] that used to start the word [05:31] >> okay [05:31] >> that the character represented. So for [05:33] instance, bite that means b in Hebrew [05:38] that's all b. Now it came from a [05:41] character that meant bite uh which meant [05:46] house. [05:47] >> Okay, [05:48] >> but it does not contain it does not [05:50] index the entire concept of house. Now, [05:53] the problem with uh with folks who argue [05:55] that, you know, the Christian gospel is [05:57] in the first word of the Bible is that [05:59] they're not actually basing their [06:01] understanding on the characters these [06:03] things actually came from. [06:05] >> Because like shin does not mean to [06:07] destroy and tav does not mean covenant, [06:10] >> okay? [06:11] >> Or or the cross like a crucifix or [06:14] anything like that. They had very [06:16] different meanings. And so the the folks [06:19] who who argue that one, they're totally [06:21] misunderstanding how Hebrew works. [06:23] Nobody wrote the word bares sheets and [06:26] meant, guess what? I hid all this extra [06:29] stuff in there, right? [06:30] >> And you will only know about this if you [06:33] speak the language it was written in. [06:36] >> So that way only the people who read the [06:38] text will actually know what is going [06:41] on. Uh [laughter] [06:44] it's it's pretty silly, but uh and and [06:46] there's another one. You've uh you've [06:47] seen the one with the tetetrogrammaton, [06:49] the divine name, yode vave. Right. [06:51] >> Right. Well, there there are a few there [06:53] are actually a couple that [06:55] >> Oh, you found a few different. [06:56] >> Yeah. Well, because there's the one [06:57] there's the one that we have talked [06:59] about where it's like uh one means [07:02] breathe in or it's like [laughter] like [07:04] like there's the breathe in and breathe [07:06] out like yah and way somehow like mean [07:10] breathe in. That's the sound of natural [07:12] breathing. [07:13] >> Yeah. Yeah. Uh if you've never heard [07:15] somebody naturally breathe. [07:17] >> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. That it doesn't [07:19] work at all. But this one was an [07:21] interesting one which was uh the divine [07:23] name broken into its letter symbols. Yod [07:28] is meant to mean hand, [07:30] >> right? [07:30] >> Uh hey, there's two Hayes in it. So hey [07:33] is behold. Mhm. [07:35] >> Uh, and I believe it's because, and you [07:37] know, I saw a thing where it's like they [07:39] took the not the actual um Hebrew [07:43] letters, but like old pictographic [07:45] versions of those letters, right? [07:47] >> And uh and Yod looks like a an arm with [07:50] a hand on it. [07:51] >> Well, it's it's kind of um so Yod is is [07:54] like the the lower arm, the forearm, and [07:57] the hand. And and there's it kind of [07:59] looks like the claw or something like [08:01] that in some of the the early [08:03] depictions, but [08:04] >> Sure. [08:05] >> Yeah. It's it's the hand. Wait, did you [08:07] say yod or hay? [08:08] >> Yod. Yod is that. And then hey is like a [08:11] dude [08:12] with arms up. Yeah. [08:13] >> A dude with his arms up. [08:15] >> Yeah. And sometimes it looks kind of [08:16] like uh the genie from the bottle [08:18] because the bottom is just like a [08:19] squiggle. [08:20] >> Okay. [laughter] [08:21] >> And uh [08:22] >> but it looks more like surrender than [08:24] behold, but they interpret that as [08:26] behold. H [gasps] which is not what it [08:28] comes from. It came from ho or hoy or [08:32] something like that which was [08:34] >> basically hey. It's an interjection. [08:36] >> It's just somebody getting somebody's [08:39] attention uh or somebody ah um [08:43] >> uh you know just exclaiming. So um so [08:46] that's where where it comes from. [08:48] >> Okay. [08:49] >> Behold meaning look see is is not really [08:53] what's going on there. [08:54] >> Right. And then vav they say is a nail. [08:58] Uh [sighs] [09:00] which is also not quite right. Vav is uh [09:03] it's based on a word that refers to a [09:06] hook. Specifically a hook that might [09:09] hold up a curtain. [09:10] >> Okay. [09:11] >> That's where we see it used in in [09:13] Exodus. And uh and you you really have [09:16] to squint at it pretty hard to get it to [09:20] get fuzzy enough that you can say nail. [09:23] [laughter] Well, so they they did say so [09:27] so what they said was yod yod v hand [09:31] behold nail behold which then they flip [09:34] it around and say look at behold the [09:36] hand behold the nail. [09:37] >> Yeah. [09:38] >> But I mean that you're stretching in so [09:42] many ways on that. [09:43] >> Yeah. Yeah. And and you're like but and [09:44] word order that's just a suggestion. We [09:46] can actually put these in any order we [09:49] want. Right. Um, which is which is [09:52] silly. But yeah, and and that again is [09:54] like it's the crucifixion, the divine [09:57] name, is it? [09:57] >> And and this is as silly as saying that [10:01] our DNA has the divine name inscribed [10:03] upon it. [10:04] >> Well, there's that, too. Talk about [10:06] that. [laughter] Walk us through. [10:07] >> Oh gosh. There's um there is a a claim [10:12] that I think originates the idea is that [10:16] um [10:18] there was a a scientist there like an [10:21] Israeli scientist discovered that there [10:23] are these uh what did he call them? He [10:26] called them something something bonds [10:30] um [10:32] wasn't nucleotides uh because that act [10:35] that's actually accurate. It was [10:37] definitely it was definitely entirely [10:40] false. But but basically it was like if [10:42] you if you um take apart DNA there are [10:47] these [10:48] uh gaps or sequences where you get uh [10:53] 10565 [10:56] and they call them I would have to look [10:59] it up but they but they call them it's [11:01] not a hydrogen bond. It's some kind of [11:03] bond but anyway it's something that [11:04] doesn't actually exist. There's no such [11:06] thing in DNA and there is no sequence of [11:09] 10565. But if there were, [11:13] >> they would say the 10th letter of the [11:15] Hebrew alphabet is yod, the fifth letter [11:18] is hey, the sixth letter is vav, the [11:21] fifth letter is hey. And so provided you [11:24] just arbitrarily say we're going to [11:27] >> start and stop here, [11:30] >> you would get yod vi. Uh, and [11:32] >> amazing. [11:33] >> And and it's all entirely false. [11:36] It's [clears throat] entirely made up. [11:38] >> But uh yeah, so so anyway, there there [11:40] are a lot of attempts on the part of [11:43] otherwise I'm being charitable and [11:45] saying well-meaning Christians [11:48] >> uh to try to read [11:51] features of the gospel, particularly [11:53] features of the Christian gospel into [11:56] ancient Hebrew [11:57] >> because it makes it sexier. [11:59] >> Yeah. It it it's not I get the impulse [12:03] like Yes. you you want you you know [12:06] you've got this New Testament thing [12:09] >> and you want the the other part the part [12:13] that came before to point to that [12:15] because then it confirms your beliefs [12:16] and that's that feels good. [12:18] >> Yeah. [12:19] >> To feel like your beliefs are being [12:20] confirmed [12:22] >> but then you make up a bunch of stuff [12:23] about Alfav and uh and things go. [12:27] >> So I think we do have to get into the [12:29] >> Alfav. [12:30] Yeah. Well, obviously we've got to get [12:32] into Alfav. Uh, [laughter] [12:35] so Alf and Tav are the first and the [12:37] last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. So [12:39] you already know where this is going. [12:42] You already know [12:43] >> letters. That's that that's your alpha [12:45] and omega right there, baby. First and [12:47] last. Yeah. Yeah. [12:49] >> So, so alfab is um there are two [12:52] different words in he there are actually [12:54] a few different words but the two main [12:55] ones that occur the most that are [12:57] spelled olith and tav are are one what's [13:00] called a definite direct object marker [13:02] which is a syntactical particle that is [13:05] not translated into English. You [13:08] basically put that before the direct [13:10] object of a verb. You don't have to, but [13:13] you can if you need to clarify because [13:16] in in Hebrew, you know, in in English, [13:18] we use word order to determine, you [13:20] know, what's the subject, what's the [13:22] object, and things like that, right? [13:24] >> In case-based languages, you would use [13:26] cases. So, you would um you would [13:29] decline a Latin word differently if it [13:31] is in the nominative verse verse the [13:34] accusative, right? [13:35] >> In in Hebrew, Hebrew used to have cases. [13:38] There are some vest vestages of the case [13:41] system, but in order to indicate the [13:43] direct object, you you have at and that [13:46] goes right before the word. And then at [13:49] can also be a a preposition that means [13:52] with. [13:53] >> Okay. [snorts] [13:53] >> However, [13:54] >> so et is spelled alfav. [13:57] >> is spelled alfav. Um and so because you [14:02] don't translate the direct object [14:04] marker, [14:06] it's secret. It's hidden. [14:08] >> It's a word. Okay. So, what you're [14:10] saying is if you're looking at it in the [14:13] Hebrew and you're looking at it in the [14:15] English, there's this one word that [14:18] doesn't get translated. It's just hiding [14:20] in the Hebrew and it's not in the [14:23] English translations. And therefore, [14:24] something's being hidden from us. [14:26] >> Yes. And what is it? It's the first and [14:29] the last, the alpha and the omega. It is [14:34] Jesus Christ. And so, [14:36] >> yeah. So, so Jesus is is sprinkled as as [14:40] this olive tav uh formation throughout [14:44] the Bible. [14:45] >> Yeah. And and a heavy sprinkling like [14:48] they didn't open up the the uh the side [14:51] with all the little holes. They opened [14:52] up the side that had the spoon on it and [14:54] [laughter] just dunked. Um and [14:57] >> yeah, because there's a lot of direct [14:59] objects. [15:00] >> Well, yeah, but you have two of them [15:02] just in the very first verse of the [15:04] Bible. So, so Genesis 1:1. [15:11] And so you've got two ets there and and [15:13] there's this there's this edition of the [15:15] Bible. I'm not going to call it a [15:17] translation because it's really just [15:19] stealing another translation and editing [15:22] it. [15:22] >> Uhhuh. [15:23] >> But it uh it's called the Etsur [15:26] Bible. And it was put together by people [15:29] who did not know Hebrew. [laughter] [15:32] But what they did there the there two [15:35] main things is one they want to have the [15:38] Hebrew alphantav [15:40] there where there's a where there's a [15:43] direct object marker so that you can see [15:46] >> where the alpha and the omega is cuz you [15:50] got to read it in Hebrew. Um, and and so [15:54] if you go look at Genesis 1:1, uh, they [15:57] they do that in the beginning, Elohim. [16:00] They also want to transliterate all of [16:02] the names exactly as they imagined they [16:05] were pronounced in Hebrew. Okay? And [16:07] this is another thing they get horribly [16:10] wrong. The tetetrogrammaton, they [16:12] transliterate as Yahwa. Yeah, I've seen [16:16] I've seen videos of people saying Yahoo, [16:19] which just sounds like uh it it sounds [16:21] like [16:22] >> what's her name? Al Puccini from [16:24] [laughter] from that one from Sent of a [16:26] Woman. [16:26] >> Sent of a Woman. Yeah, [16:27] >> Yahwa. [16:29] >> Yeah, [laughter] [16:30] >> I thought you were going to say she's [16:32] got a great ass. Um [laughter] but I [16:35] don't think that's you can't get there [16:37] from the the tetetrogrammaton, but um [16:40] and then they also they don't translate [16:42] spirit. They they transliterate Ruak and [16:45] then uh and then Jesus is not uh Yeshua. [16:49] Uh and it's certainly not Yus. They're [16:51] they're obviously not transliterating [16:53] Greek. They're reverting back to [16:55] Yahusha. That's what they think uh [16:58] Jesus's name was was pronounced as. And [17:00] by the way, um try to tell me the [17:03] etmology of Yahwh. [17:05] >> [clears throat] [17:05] >> because if you think it was pronounced [17:06] Yahweh, you just don't know Hebrew and [17:09] obviously cannot even begin to pretend [17:12] you know the etmology. Anyway, that's [17:14] neither here nor there. Um, but this is [17:16] a uh there are movements that that like [17:20] doing this Hebrew roots movement. [17:22] There's some some messianic Jewish [17:25] things that do this. But if you if you [17:27] get a copy of the ETH Bible, it's going [17:30] to talk in the preface about why they're [17:32] doing these things. Well, not so much [17:34] why. Um, but they're going to talk about [17:38] the fact that they're doing these [17:39] things, [17:40] >> right? [17:40] >> Uh, but they they go to like Brown [17:43] Driver and Briggs. Uh, Brown Driver [17:46] Briggs tells us that this word uh and [17:49] then they'll they'll transliterate and [17:50] then they'll then they'll give you the [17:52] Strongs number. [17:53] >> What is the official position of the [17:55] Data Over Dogma podcast on Appeals to [17:57] Strongs, Dan? Uh, [17:59] >> I don't know if it is our official [18:00] position, but I'm I'm um [18:02] >> I think you're allowed to make certain [18:04] certain official positions can't come [18:05] from me. So, [laughter] I'm going to I'm [18:07] going to def defer to you on this, but [18:09] Strongs Strongs is bad. Okay. [laughter] [18:13] >> Yeah. Basically, if you if your argument [18:16] uh retreats to Strongs, you definitely [18:18] don't know Hebrew. And the preface [18:20] retreats repeatedly to Strongs. Uh, [18:22] Strongs tells us that Kodesh H6944 [18:26] is from H6942 [18:28] Kadash and means a sacred place or [18:31] thing. Um, [18:34] again, if you're appealing to Strongs, [18:36] that means you don't have access to a [18:38] resource that was published [18:41] this century, [18:42] >> right? [18:42] >> Um, and so it means that you do not have [18:45] formal training and you do not know [18:47] Hebrew. And [18:48] >> well, and I should be clear. I I made a [18:50] joke about it being bad. It's not that [18:51] it's bad, it's that it's out of date and [18:53] that it's and that that there is better [18:55] work. [18:56] >> Well, yeah. And and the main thing is [18:57] that it's when you said Strongs is bad. [19:00] My understanding and hopefully everybody [19:02] else's understanding is that what it [19:03] what he means is appealing to Strongs is [19:06] bad, right? [19:07] >> Because it's a concordance and a [19:09] concordance has a specific utility. And [19:12] if you know how to use a concordance, [19:15] Strongs is perfectly fine. It's not a [19:18] lexicon and it's not actually telling [19:20] you what these words mean. [19:21] Overwhelmingly strong dictionary. It's [19:24] just telling you how the King James [19:26] version or some other translation [19:28] translated this word, [19:29] >> right? [19:30] >> And it's giving you a gloss based on a [19:33] specific translation. It's not telling [19:35] you, hey, by the way, if it occurs with [19:38] this preposition [19:40] or if it occurs with this as the subject [19:43] or if it occurs with this as the object, [19:46] then it means this. It's not really [19:48] giving you a clear idea of what's if [19:51] you're looking at a verb. Uh, if it's in [19:53] the heat pile, what does that mean? And [19:55] how is it different if it's in the [19:57] hifil? Um, and you know, the people who [19:59] are responsible for the at supper Bible, [20:02] I don't think know what those words [20:03] mean, but um, but yeah, [20:05] >> they're in good company. I also don't [20:07] know what those words mean, but that's [20:08] [laughter] okay. [20:09] >> And they also they also uh, and one of [20:11] the other indications, they don't have [20:12] the first clue what they're talking [20:13] about is in all their transliterations, [20:16] they include like an apostrophe to [20:18] represent the alf, which is a glottle [20:20] stop, but they put the apostrophe after [20:25] the vowel. [20:26] >> Okay? And if you know anything about [20:28] Hebrew, the glottle stop precedes the [20:31] vowel. You're supposed to put the [20:33] apostrophe before the vowel in [20:35] transliteration. You don't even know how [20:37] to transliterate accurately. Like, holy [20:40] crap, this is bad. Uh, but you will find [20:44] people on on social media uh trying to, [20:47] you know, it'll be in their Tik Tok [20:48] shop. Get your get your Etser Bible in [20:51] the Tik Tok [laughter] shop. Um, if you [20:53] if you [clears throat] don't know [20:54] anything about Hebrew and you want your [20:56] knowledge to get further away from the [20:59] Hebrew, get yourself an separate Bible. [21:01] Uh, but but you know, it's based on this [21:03] idea that et is uh is some kind of magic [21:07] word because it doesn't get translated [21:09] and and that's it's hiding the the alpha [21:12] and the omega and the in your very first [21:14] word of your Bible. [21:15] >> Yeah. Yeah. [21:16] >> And it's a problem. I can see why that [21:20] again I get why this feels compelling. I [21:23] get why this feels cool cuz it's feels [21:26] like secret knowledge. It feels it's Da [21:28] Vinci Code stuff, right? like this is [21:30] what we're dealing with is someone who [21:32] is is is an idea, you know, there's the [21:35] there was the Bible code that was that [21:37] came out a while back where [21:38] >> they just had a computer sort of look at [21:42] >> all of the words in the Bible and then [21:44] cross reference them in a way that I [21:46] think we can make and and then you know [21:48] if you if you look at at it just just [21:51] the right way then it's it says [21:53] Kennedy's it predicts Kennedy's [21:55] assassination and [21:57] >> Nostradamus or something like it's just [22:00] it feels cool. Like that's kind of neat. [22:03] It's just um they made it up. [22:06] >> Yeah. It's there there are a lot of [22:08] people out there who recognize that that [22:10] there are a lot of systems of power that [22:12] that try to gatekeep all kinds of [22:15] knowledge and and it would be nice to [22:18] feel like you're not I'm not a part of [22:19] your system. Um I know better. And and [22:23] these are these are the little uh [22:26] saccharine ways to try to uh to get [22:29] people to feel like uh they know better. [22:32] >> Well, Dan, as as a fun experiment, [22:35] uh I decided with the help of uh a [22:40] friend of mine [22:42] >> named Chad GPT, [laughter] I uh I [22:46] >> Chad Gupta. [clears throat] [22:48] >> Yeah, something like that. Uh I I I [22:51] developed my own alphabetical [22:54] uh deciphering tool. [22:56] >> Okay. [22:56] >> And now I know how English actually [22:58] works. [23:00] >> Uh because I now know what each of the [23:03] letters of English actually means. [23:06] >> Oh, really? [23:07] >> And I have the ability now to discern [23:10] what they mean. So for instance, [23:11] >> because English the English alphabet is [23:13] based on the [clears throat] Semitic [23:15] alphabet. [23:15] >> Exactly. So yeah, [23:16] >> but I but I I I have a basically I it I [23:21] just associated a bunch of uh words with [23:25] letters with the letters based on a [23:27] spiritual understanding and how they [23:30] looked because obviously how they look [23:32] is important. So you know A is for [23:35] ascent because it looks kind of like a [23:37] mountain or a ladder pointing upward and [23:40] >> I can dig it. I can see that. [23:42] >> Yeah. B is uh B is breath. It's it's [23:46] like lungs. It's like this double sort [23:48] of humped thing is like lungs. [23:50] >> I I have a there could be other double [23:53] humped things that are [23:55] >> B is for butt. That's that's [laughter] [23:57] the other possible. [23:58] >> That's actually not the thing I was [23:59] thinking. [23:59] >> Oh, okay. Well, or boobs or whatever [24:01] whatever whatever your pervy brain has [24:03] decided on. [24:04] >> Well, yeah. If you just have you just [24:06] outed me as as a boob man. [24:08] >> I guess so. I guess so. Uh I do I do [24:11] like that what it came up with. Uh I so [24:15] the word Bible is breath plus [24:18] incarnation plus breath plus plus plus [24:21] law plus extension [24:24] >> which means the breath made flesh [24:27] breathed again and again into law [24:30] extended outward extended the law to us. [24:34] >> So that's really amazing. [24:35] >> Yeah. [24:35] >> Uh and now I can [24:37] >> that that kind of thing can't be faked [24:39] like that's not that's not a [24:40] coincidence. [24:41] >> No. Uh also if you look at the word data [24:45] uh that's a door the door ascends a [24:48] tree. So door a is ascent t is tree. [24:53] >> Uh so data is you know the door of [24:56] ascension leads to the tree of higher [24:59] ascension. [25:00] >> So data data sends us up. What's amazing [25:03] about this uh and then I and then I did [25:05] dogma but I wanted it it it did dogma [25:08] but I wanted it to be a negative uh idea [25:10] of dogma. Yeah. [25:11] >> So that was uh then then you can say [25:13] that like dogma is bad. The uh [25:18] you know any like the the the door of [25:22] gathered mystery is against ascension [25:25] sort of thing. [25:26] >> Um but what that pointed out to me is [25:31] >> right [25:31] >> right. Exactly. [laughter] [25:33] >> I can play this game with their stuff [25:36] too. Yeah. So I can take bait is house [25:40] and rish is head or leader or person and [25:42] olive is strength or god or authority [25:45] and shin is destroy and blah blah blah [25:47] and I can make that mean a house you [25:51] know ruled by the head of power where [25:53] destruction is worked by hand under the [25:56] sign of sacred authority or you know uh [26:00] or you know beer sheets is a house [26:03] controlled by leaders who claim divine [26:06] authority. [26:07] consume [26:08] uh and mark their own violence as a [26:12] covenant. [26:13] >> Yeah. Or or you could just say does a [26:15] bearish sheet in the woods. [laughter] [26:18] >> Affirmative. [26:20] >> Okay. [26:21] >> All right. [laughter] [26:23] How did I not see it coming? That's what [26:25] I want to know. [26:27] >> The whole time, Dan, this not [26:29] >> It's been hanging. [26:30] >> Can't be a coincidence. You think this [26:33] is a coincidence? like the lowhanging [26:35] fruit in Eden. I did not see it. Uh [26:38] >> somebody's got to pick that fruit. [26:40] >> You partok of it and now [laughter] [26:43] >> and now we're all [26:43] >> And now we are all damned. That is the [26:45] the uh original sin. [laughter] [26:49] >> All right. Well, there you have it. [26:52] That's uh don't you know if you like fun [26:55] codes, go out and make some, but just [26:57] don't claim that they're real because [26:59] people will believe you and then there [27:01] then you have a whole it just turns into [27:03] a whole thing. [27:04] >> Yeah. And and when you wink and say this [27:07] is for entertainment purposes only on [27:09] your video, just mean it. [27:11] >> Just Yeah. [27:11] >> Just mean it. [27:12] >> Yeah. It's not You're not um trying to [27:15] get away with some plausible [27:16] deniability. Just mean it. Have fun with [27:19] it if you want, but [27:20] >> Yeah. but actually cop to it being [27:22] nonsense. [27:23] >> Yeah. Yeah. [27:24] >> All right. Well, uh, this nonsense is [27:26] over, so I'm glad of that. If you would [27:29] like to become a part of keeping this [27:31] nonsense going, we would sure appreciate [27:33] it if you'd become one of our patrons. [27:35] Head over to patreon.com/data [27:38] overdogma. You can give us a little bit [27:41] of your coin. And uh and if you choose [27:44] to be at one of the levels where you get [27:46] a reward, there are cool things. You can [27:48] get act early and ad free access to [27:51] every episode. Uh comes out a day before [27:54] everybody else hears it. That's a lot of [27:56] fun. Or you for a little bit more, you [27:59] can get weekly bonus content every week. [28:03] Uh the afterparty, you can ask us [28:06] questions, we will answer them. [28:09] >> Sometimes we repeat them. Sometimes we [28:11] repeat that. Uh there's a little bit of [28:14] a it's not a perfect system, but uh we [28:18] try real real hard. [28:20] >> Yeah, we have we have yet to answer a [28:22] single question two different ways, [28:23] though. As far as [laughter] I know, [28:24] >> as far as we know, we uh [28:26] >> Yeah, we've been consistent. [28:28] >> We're stubbornly consistent about [28:30] things. Uh thanks so much to Roger Gouty [28:32] for editing. Thanks to Sam for being our [28:35] right-hand dude, and we will talk to you [28:37] all next time. [music] [28:38] >> Bye, everybody.  📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/The Secret Code in the Bible's First Word.md|The Secret Code in the Bible's First Word by YouTube]] ## Highlights - comes from idographic script or script where the characters actually communicated or indexed entire ideas and ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ky02p487rtds2rg56pddd6cf)) - Note: Premise of the "secret code" claim: Hebrew letters as ideographic symbols encoding whole ideas. - Tags: atom/literature/h1 - Hebrew alphabet is yod, the fifth letter is hey, the sixth letter is vav, the fifth letter is hey. And so provided you ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ky02pfqhn0qf0fraxd6f1bhq)) - Note: The letter-by-letter method being critiqued (yod-hey-vav-hey) — how the numerology argument is built. - Tags: atom/literature/h3 - don't translate the direct object marker, it's secret. It's hidden. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ky02p9s5hm7z4e6113bydstx)) - Note: The debunk hinge: the "hidden" element is just the untranslated grammatical direct-object marker (et). - Tags: atom/literature/h2