Re: The Genesis Square

From: David Bradford <>
Date: Tue Jun 07 2005 - 19:08:15 EDT

I thought I was being asked to assist with a difficulty. But it seems the
stumbling block is that the Genesis Square does not fit with your present

Your latest response does no more than question my semantics. What does it
matter whether I describe the Square as showing the 'shape of a crucifix' or
the shape of the crucified man? My words do not alter the image which shows
the positions of the nails. If my literary skills are not up to the job,
that is my responsibility, not the one who placed these images in the Hebrew
text. I have simply tried to draw attention to the fact that five identical
letters, which in Hebrew tradition represent a tentpeg (spike), are arranged
in a way that depicts the historically later crucifixion of Christ. I am
sure, if you were willing, you could have made the necessary allowance for
my possibly sloppy language.

But I have not only drawn attention to five strategically placed letters. In
my response to Don Nield, from which you quote, I am also trying to have the
whole package of visual artefacts considered together. The image of the
crucifixion in the Square does not stand alone, but is surrounded by several
other astounding images and linguistic references. Were this not so, the
Square would never have been published. One artefact on its own would be
unconvincing. But how do you respond to the package of 8+ 'coincidences'?
The single quotes are significant, as I don't want my use of the word
coincidence to become a hostage to fortune. The question is, how many
'coincidences' should we tolerate before conceding to deliberate design?

Incidentally, I have now added a second page to my website which is accessed
from the end of the first page. I know I am setting myself up as a target,
since this second page is concerned with numerical aspects of the G1 Genesis
Square. I submit that they are just as robust as the first view, and they
are different to anything you have seen before. They are also, to some
extent, essential to subsequent pages, so I could not avoid running the


----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <>
To: "'David Bradford'" <>; "'ASA Message Board'"
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: The Genesis Square

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [] On
> > Behalf Of David Bradford
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 3:44 PM
> > To: ASA Message Board
> > Subject: Re: The Genesis Square
> >
> > Glenn
> > It may help to think in terms of the man with arms outstretched, rather
> > than
> > the inert wooden beams. If that does not resolve it for you, consider
> > 'river that flows to Ahava (ie love)' (Ezra 8:15), where Ezra's party
> > encamped for three days. Or try the cluster of four letters nestled in
> > angle between the upper V shape. These letters include the word 'tent'
> > a
> > dwelling, described in my supporting text. The positions of the letters
> > vav
> > (symbolic of a tentpeg) that form the upper V are supporting the refuge
> > that
> > Christ is, the home He purchased for us through His crucifixion and
> > resurrection.
> What would resolve it is an admission that you over stated your case. You
> said:
> > But you have chosen to refer only to one aspect of
> > one
> > component - the fact that five occurrences of a particular letter have
> > assembled themselves into the shape of a crucifix.
> That is not the same as saying you have 5 letters which assemble
> into the shape of a man with outstretched arms.
Received on Tue Jun 7 19:10:30 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 07 2005 - 19:10:31 EDT