The 12 Foundation Stones in New Jerusalem
In Revelation chapter 21, there are 12 gems mentioned to be inlaid for decoration of the New Jerusalem, and ALL of these 12 gems are anisotropic gems...
“The wall of the city was built on foundation stones inlaid with twelve precious stones the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst.” (Revelation 21:19)
Anisotropic vs. Isotropic Gems
In the past century, scientists have discovered that gems can be classified as either anisotropic or isotropic, and only recently they have found that cross-polarized light can be used to identify whether a gem is anisotropic or isotropic. Anisotropic stones produce a colorful array when viewed in crossed-polarized light (similar to “pure” light), reflecting all the colors of the rainbow, whereas isotropic stones lose all of their color and appear black.
Anisotropic Gems in Revelation 21
An intriguing observation regarding Revelation chapter 21 is that all 12 of the gems mentioned for adorning the New Jerusalem are anisotropic gems...
Interestingly, diamond, rubies, and garnets are not mentioned, despite the fact that these groups of gems are very, very common. For instance, the precious stones are generally considered to be diamond, ruby, sapphire, and emerald, with all other gemstones being semi-precious. It turns out that they are isotropic, and when pure light passes through them, there is no beauty at all...
“For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.” (Prov. 8:11) |
What Are the Odds?
Of the 28 stones that are normally regarded as gemstones, only 16 are anisotropic. Considering that anisotropic behavior was discovered only in the last century, and John wrote Revelation almost 2,000 years ago, the odds of randomly selecting 12 stones from this group are approximately 1 in 16,715!In fact, this analysis assumes that all gems have an equal chance of being included, which is not the case, as some are more precious than others. Therefore, the actual probability of naming all 12 anisotropic gems in the book of Revelation is much lower than 1 in 16,715.
Conclusion
It is important to keep in mind that some assumptions are being made, such as the stones being a literal representation of heaven (which I believe they are) and the light in heaven being similar to “pure” light that passes through the gems.
Nevertheless, could it be that God intentionally chose stones that disperse light and produce stunning rainbow effects, while avoiding those that would lose their color, when selecting the foundation stones for the new temple?
“...and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.” (Rev. 4:3)
41 comments
exodus 28...
9 “Take two onyx stones and engrave on them the names of the sons of Israel 10 in the order of their birth—six names on one stone and the remaining six on the other. 11 Engrave the names of the sons of Israel on the two stones the way a gem cutter engraves a seal. Then mount the stones in gold filigree settings 12 and fasten them on the shoulder pieces of the ephod as memorial stones for the sons of Israel.
....17“You shall mount on it four rows of stones; the first row shall be a row of ruby, topaz and emerald; 18and the second row a turquoise, a sapphire and a diamond; 19and the third row a jacinth, an agate and an amethyst; 20and the fourth row a beryl and an onyx and a jasper; they shall be set in gold filigree. 21“The stones shall be according to the names of the sons of Israel: twelve, according to their …
Matthew 19...
28 Jesus answered:
Yes, all of you have become my followers. And so in the future world, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, I promise that you will sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
luke 22...
28 You have stayed with me in all my troubles. 29 So I will give you the right to rule as kings, just as my Father has given me the right to rule as a king. 30 You will eat and drink with me in my kingdom, and you will each sit on a throne to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
Jasper was last in the old testament and became first in Rev 21
This got drops of tears out of my eyes, how amazing and all knowing GOD is. Thank you
Sincerly Anonymous
I quote this, "The Bible records that not only did an object such as Paul's handkerchief have healing power, but that even Peter's shadow could heal people upon whom it fell (Acts 5:15-16). There was nothing extraordinary about the handkerchief or the shadow by themselves, nor did any of the apostles claim any such ability on their own behalf (Acts 3:12)."
And God can use stones too.
But It's very very important to give God (The Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ or Holy Spirit) the credit (the glory), not the stones nor any handkerchief.
Too often people will require a piece of creation for healing. But God can heal (and often does) without the stuff He made. When people use creation, it's fine, but God can easily be put on the backburner, and a created object moves forward as the important aspect. This is the goal of God's enemy…
In Python:
>>> print( (16/28)*(15/27)*(14/26)*(13/25)*(12/24)*(11/23)*(10/22)*(9/21)*(8/20)*(7/19)*(6/18)*(5/17) )
5.982560835165492e-05
Sorry to report, but I checked on Stack Exchange (https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/54011/does-revelation-21-demonstrate-pre-scientific-knowledge-about-precious-stones), and the verdict seems to be that a first century writer could have known the gems all shared a common property, even without knowing about isotropy, polarised light, etc.
I have been bitten before by claims like this, so I wanted to be cautious.
Claims like this, that can actually be confirmed or disconfirmed by secular scientists, are worth taking a lot of care over.
If true, they could rock the secular world and would be worth submitting for peer review; if false, it can save a lot of embarrassment not to make the claim in the first place.
Footnote
Revelation 21:16 - 12,000 stadia is, about 1,400 miles or about 2,200 kilometers"
Its width and length as compared to the USA is like Glasgow MT, to San Antonio TX, to Jacksonville FL, to north of Montreal Canada. Then 1400 to 1500 miles up into the exosphere where spaceships travel. That is a mammoth city.
Yes, the New Jerusalem will be a pyramid (most likely) because Jesus and His throne room is at the top, and he is called the "Chief Capstone". see: https://www.gotquestions.org/capstone-in-the-Bible.html
All things are supposed to point to Him, and the Bride of Christ (the New Jerusalem filled with true followers of Jesus,) will point to Him at the top. (We will not be Borg. LOL.)
These stones may also be repeated throughout the city. Most assume New Jerusalem to be a cube in shape. With the "great and high" wall being only 144 cubits, this creates a problem to explain the fact that the height of the city is equal to it's length and width. Ezekiel 40:5 and 43:13 suggest God's cubit may be slightly longer than the standard 18".
If each cubit is twenty inches, and the city were a pyramid shape, you get exactly 33,000 stories with each story being 240', the same height of the Taj Majal. The top would be the chief cornerstone touching all four sides. Given the description of this city being the "Mountain of God," this is highly likely. That means the same foundation stones could be repeated 33,000 times.
For example, if you are wearing sunglasses, the article calls this "pure light". Wouldn't you consider sunlight to be "pure"? Regardless, IF you were behind a wall of diamonds, AND you were wearing sunglasses, AND the light shining through was already polarized (why? who knows) - then you would not see the light - the diamond wall would appear black. Why would the throne of God emit polarized light? Why not sunlight? Who knows, but if you don't polarize the light, there's no point in grouping these gems thusly.
Also, MOST minerals are anisotropic. The article states 16 of 28. But there are hundreds of minerals, why use "28". Why not 82 of 110? Or 225 of 2…
Also, on your imagery above someone spelled "alamandine". I believe it is "almandine".