Colors proof of Divine origin of Bible?

To echo some of what you said. As an aside, my first ‘real job’ was in 4-color prepress where I often did color separation and scanning.
The fourth color in 4-color printing is indeed black (represented as K on CMYK for ‘key’). Additionally, the ‘C’ in CMYK is cyan. While cyan is a blue it isn’t what one would normally pick up in a paint store when instructed to get blue paint. My first question would be how well does the person making this claim understand color and are they simply saying cyan == any point in the blue spectrum (same with yellow/yellow and magenta/red). Edited by Trae, : removed a redundant and confusing section of a sentence: "calling it ‘blue’ could easily lead to which while cyan is a blue"

Let’s look at what is being glossed over by the author. 4-color is simply a more practical attempt to get 3-color (CMY) subtractive color to work. K or black is introduced to compensate issues in printing (impurities in CMY inks, muddy colors, inability to produce consistent colors, issues with ink concentrations, bleeding, etc.).So why doesn’t the person argue this is divine evidence of subtractive color theory? Do they not understand 4-color printing well enough to know that 4-color and subtractive color are fundamentally similar? Perhaps they realize that that scientists (especially physicists), artists, and even more laypeople are far more likely to understand subtractive color than 4-color printing? It seems odd to me that what is presented as a scientific discovery is instead being presented in an area (trade-skill) that most scientists may be unfamiliar with. Seems a bit of a smoke screen.What happens if we replace 4-color with subtractive color, do the claims still hold up? It seems to me that RGB and CMY values have to relate to each other, and cannot be simply isolated random colors that fit somewhere in the frequency we might give a similar name. It isn’t some red, any other blue, and some random yellow. Also, RGB and CMY values must stand both in relation to as well as independently. Some physicist can correct me, but as I see it the following has to be correct: R+G+B = White light, C+M = B, M+Y = R, etcetera. I don’t know to what extent, if any, you can fiddle with the various ratios, but some ratios I would think must hold. Lastly, if CMY is correct why is RGB being glossed over?

Note: I don’t know that the blogger’s isn’t misrepresenting Shore’s claims. I also don’t know that Shore claims that the numbers derived actually map to the RGB and CMY(K) colors. The blogger claimed this and as the OP linked to the blog, that’s what I’ll argue against here: that the numbers given are the same frequencies for RBG/CMY. The color terms are not as flexible as the blogger or most people seem to believe. By the blogger claiming they correspond to 4-color printing and to RGB, the blogger has limited the range considerably in where these colors can be located in the spectrum. ‘Blue’ is certainly a large umbrella, but ‘primary blue’ is a much smaller territory within ‘blue’ by any reasonable standard.

quote:

---

From the blog: The Bible mentions five colors in Hebrew: red (adom), Yellow (tzahov), green (yerakon), blue (tchelet) and magenta (argaman). One curious observation is immediately apparent, in that this list not only includes the primary colors - red, yellow and blue but it also includes the only two other colors green and magenta that are necessary to produce the complete color palate for four color printing.

---

Green is not a pigment used to produce 4-color printing.The above excerpt cannot be correct. If the ‘blue’ is ‘primary blue’ then ‘blue’ cannot also be the same blue used in printing which is ‘cyan’. That is if Tchelet refers to a specific hue it cannot refer to two different hues of blue. Tchelet cannot refer specifically to ‘primary blue’ by frequency and have that frequency also refer to the subtractive hue of cyan. I’m reaching a bit here because my experience is ink and not light, but as cyan is derived in the same means as magenta, cyan also wouldn’t be a frequency as they’re subtractive colors.When the blogger invokes RGB and CMYK then he’s invoking relationships which also must be correct. Some versions of Red, Green, Blue, Yellow, and so on are not enough, the frequencies claimed must maintain the relationships needed to create colors. The frequency given for Red and for Blue must yield a ‘magenta’, for Red, Green, and Blue a ‘yellow’ and not an ‘orange’ color and so on.R + G = Y
R + B = M
G + B = C
Likewise the reverse:
Y + M = R
Y + C = G
M + C = BIf tchelet (blue) is ‘primary blue’ then combining it with the frequencies for adom (red) and yerakon (green), should yield ‘white’ light.
If the green (yerakon) corresponds to the green in RGB (as seems to be the claim) then it cannot be mint green, teal, turquoise, or even DeForest Kelly Green.All these add up to restrict where the frequencies of each color can be valid. It can’t just be a red, it has to be in a certain range, etc. If I understood the physics of light I might go so far as to say, when you say they correspond to RGB values Edited by Trae, : ... those values are actually specific frequencies. But I don't know that's a fact.

Do I have either the wrong values or the wrong chart? When I look up the values I get:Red (443) -- This not only isn’t red but is in the purplish blue spectrum.
Yellow (520) -- This isn’t in the yellow spectrum, but is right up next to the green spectrum (yellow green spectrum). It is close to the Green in RGB.
Magenta (546) -- In addition to it not being magenta, can I point out that this is actually more yellow than the number given for yellow?
Green (565) -- This is also more yellow then the value given for yellow (lower frequencies are cooler).
Blue (650) -- This is actually what I’d call true red, apple red, maybe even fire truck red.Am I wrong or do these magic numbers not hit a single color correctly?

Ah. That’ll teach me to assume that the graphics included in a blog are the correct ones. Thanks!

This also touches on that if the word values didn’t fall in terahertz there would be the chance that they’d fall in nanometers, and if not in nanometers, in HSB values, if not HSB, then RGB, if not RGB, Pantone, if not Pantone, Toyo, etc. If the colors used in the Bible didn’t fall in line, then some other set of words. Maybe sky equals blue, or Sun yellow, or blood red.If one looked hard enough I’d bet one might even find a set of words in Psalms that would form the Mangnificat (of course there being many versions just helps make this even easier).

Thanks for the link. So this works only you toss out two of the six days out at start? I also don’t see the justification for linking day one to the formation of galaxies. Imagine the coincidence if Shore goes onto writing a book on Ecclesiastes! Perhaps Ecclesiastes has the same value as Baruch, or Schorr, or Shore, or grandpa, or grandson, or Cantor, or builder.... [/sarcasm]

I figured it out today what about the magenta as green had been gnawing at me. Green and magenta have a relationship, they’re each other’s complementary color. I’m not saying it makes either his data or conclusions correct, it doesn’t. Now in an argument only supported by woo, one could suggest that if you stare at a good solid green long enough, then at a white surface, the white will appear tinted . . . to magenta. Edited by Trae, : No reason given.