As I stumbled across an apologetic video about the proof of god, he describes a Rembrandt where on the painting is the artist signature.
He then goes on to describe the double helix and the pattern of sulfuric bridges that connect the two strands together. The location of these bridges is at 10-5-6-5, and it repeats over and over.
According to the video, 10-5-6-5 corresponds with the letters YHVH of the Hebrew alphabet—the name of god.
With this explanation, God left his signature on every cell of every painting.
If in fact this is not coincidence and you are coded in the name of god, I would think that is because you are god, not a painting of it.
If in fact YHVH is the name of god—I AM, encoded in our DNA, as well as every other animal, it isn’t the signature of the artist, but it is the artist.
Set aside, if you’re a believer looking for evidence this is paydirt. But typical of believers, god is somehow a separate entity—they couldn’t possible be responsible for all this.
If any of this were true, it would more likely illustrate that ancient civilizations were much more advanced than we believe possible, with the Bible encoding those discoveries in mythology, which is typical of mythology.
“And Noah was perfect in his generations”—aka, his dna had not been compromised as “the whole earth had become corrupted”. We are nearing that technology again.

And all people, and animals, and even plants share some chain of DNA or other. We are only individuals on the outside. We are connected through our DNA, siblings all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah, yes, the specious apologetic Christian circus comes to town… Riding on its own ass.
“There’s Noah business like show business….”
LikeLiked by 1 person
For this to work you do have to pick the correct English version of YHVH
LikeLiked by 1 person
According to the video, 10-5-6-5 corresponds with the letters YHVH of the Hebrew alphabet
Does it?
LikeLike
Evidently, if you use the English translation, but god would’ve known that, right?
LikeLike
Didn’t they speak Aramaic back then?
LikeLike
In the OT among the Jews, Aramaic was used by the common people, while Hebrew remained the language of religion and government and of the upper class.
This was interesting when discovering old texts is many still spoke the language
LikeLike
The numbers coincide with that consonant
LikeLike
I see AVHV
LikeLike
But that’s Hebrew, not Aramaic.
Maybe it works in Esperanto 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
does it work in Arabic too? or Sanskrit?
LikeLike
I doubt it. If it did that would be interesting.
LikeLike
So it is still within the my god is right and yours is wrong
LikeLike
I’d like to see the video for myself . Is it on YouTube? Could you post the link?
LikeLike
Sure. I couldn’t find it on YouTube though there are others. You have Facebook?
LikeLike
Yes I’m on fb
LikeLike
I sent the link
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://www.facebook.com/reel/5917639138278889?mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, this is an interesting piece of proselytizing propaganda. But unless god spoke English well before she made the universe in 7 days, err, 6 days and rested on the 7th, implying as anglophone colonists around the world always did, that god-given English is her divine language, it remains nonsense. Tagalog anyone?
LikeLiked by 1 person
They got one part accurate. The seventh day he rested. Still resting I guess.
LikeLike
Actually I said She created the universe in 6 days as the nonexistent god could as well have been a woman. Resting or not it doesn’t matter to me if the subject under discussion doesn’t exist.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah. Human alphabets and human words used to construct gods. Ha.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ron Wyatt, the “Christian archeologist is another good case of the same technique —he always finds what he’s looking for. The ark, the ark of the covenant, chariot wheels in the Red Sea, he finds them all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe the Bible explains the heart as central, stamped with figurative DNA that makes me “me.” And I think God evidences (and disproves) himself according to my desire. I can open my heart and receive him, or seal it up.
LikeLike
You being you is a social convenience gone awry. What identifies you as you is a few facial features and your overall appearance. Christianity defines this as you, but who are you really?
“I looked at my arm, and I realized I could no longer define the boundaries of where I began and where I ended. What were the atoms and molecules of my arm versus the atoms and molecules of the wall? Everything blended together as one,” she says. “I felt that I was as big as the universe”—Jill Bolt Taylor
This is what can happen if you take it a step further.
LikeLike
This anthropomorphic thing of referring to the sacred in male, human-like images is not for me. No scrotum is involved. If the ants evolve much more after we hominids are gone, undoubtedly their image of the sacred will involve a She (Queen)… and no scrotum would be involved. 🙂
LikeLike
Well if that’s the way you want to see it. Maybe yin and yang would be more to your likin’? Both principles are the way of the universe
LikeLike