It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are the Bible Codes real?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Well, I finally got around to finishin' that page. What they say seems to make out that Drosnin has lost his inital vision in Bible Codes and has yet turned into a fake. Both statements by tha people at Bible Code Digest suggest that Drosnin has now lost sight of tha true mission of Bible Codes, and has now turned to mentionin' codes without givin' any proof, other than tha name of a book. They also suggest none of his new codes are longer than 6 skips, which makes them very likely to appear by chance. They also say he has stopped usin' mainly ELS's and started usin' literal text to explain what he wants said. Readin' this really disappoints me becuz I thought that Drosnin wuld be tha man who's work wuld be great readin', but Bible Code II seems to completely ignore everything that he tried to do in tha beginnin'. Anyways, I'm still interested in Bible Code (tha 1st book), and maybe I'll find another author about Bible Codes to read, becuz Drosnin seems to have become a conspiracist, which I can't say anything bad about, bein' that I am kind of one myself, but he has stopped tryin' to find tha significance and instead use them to prove his own theories. I am very dissappointed to hear all this, but I'm sure there are other uncompromised authors that produce these codes without a vendetta. If u find any that are unbiased and that are findin' ELS's that can't just appear by chance, then go ahead and provide a link. I will try to find a .PDF of Drosnin's first book, as that will be much cheaper than buyin' tha book. So, any help will be appreciated.




posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I know what you mean, Michael Drosnin started me off on my bible code adventures along time ago when i read his first book.

His views have adapted over time in a non scientific way, i believe he's just in it for the money now, although there is no way to tell whether he's right or not, he just doesn't go about it in a scientific way.

I would still advise reading his books though just take what you read with a pinch of salt. To obtain his books just have a look on e-bay or amazon you can get them pretty cheap, im not aware anywhere to get the books online in pdf format.

As for scientifically reputable studies about the bible codes a book called bible code bomb shell is suppose to be one of the best, have just ordered it my self.

www.amazon.com...=pd_sxp_f_r/104-2317919-6483908?ie=UTF8

Also if you have a look at this link below and scroll down there is a list of all books about the bible codes might be worth having a look.

www.amazon.com...=pd_lpo_ase/104-2317919-6483908?ie=UTF8

Im in the process of learning how to use bible code software at the moment so i can do my own research its a lot harder than you might think. I started off with a free download of the software but this was very frustrating and difficult with no technical support so i would advise buying software if your serious about this.

My reccomendation would be CodeFinder Millenium edition it expensive but the tutorials and technical support along with its actual capability make it the best.

ad2004.com...

Anyway i wish you luck, keep me updated as to how your going i will do the same and try and get the message out there that there is every chance these codes are real. I get so fed up because people read predictions that dont come true and read skeptics research from 5 years ago that has been debunked and assume they are not real i just ask that you try and explain to them where bible codes are at now then let them make there own decision.

Argos



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Come on ATS isn't the motto of this site to DENY IGNORANCE yet most posters here are very ignorant when it comes to the bible codes.

Nearly everyone who has posted on my bible code threads have been very short sited in there responses, they come with evidence that is out dated and has been debunked, or an un-intelligent remark. Im really very dissapointed at the lack of thought and research some of you have done when posting about the bible codes.

Paperchaser is a good example on the other hand, of some one who is willing to do the background research, and have a proper knowledge base before he comments, and then makes his opinion in his post.

All i ask is that those of you who really deny ignorance, and are interested, look through this thread. All the modern day evidence you could need is on here to make a good comment, and i can pretty much guarantee what you thought you knew about bible codes will probably be changed.

Look forward to hearing from you ATS come on surprise me.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:01 AM
link   
If the bible codes are indeed true... does this mean that there actually is a God? Or just some very clever/clairvoyant people got together and constructed this complex series of hidden codes?.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Hello Argos

I'm not sure if you're right to be disappointed by people's responses or not. You're obviously a firm believer in this sort of thing (and I have no wish to disrespect your belief), but from my perspective, these 'messages' sound like statistical noise which can be generated by any sufficiently long piece of text.

The 'Criticisms' in the Wikipedia link below on bible code I think are fair:

en.wikipedia.org...

Pretty sure there was a Horizon documentary on the subject too, which was fairly well-balanced.


To put it another way, it all comes down to mutually incompatible world-views - you're never going to convince a committed athiest and I'm never going to disprove the existence of God to you.

As long as religious types don't use their beliefs as an excuse to start blowing up people who don't susbcribe to their point of view then vive la difference is what I say.


TD



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParaNana
If the bible codes are indeed true... does this mean that there actually is a God? Or just some very clever/clairvoyant people got together and constructed this complex series of hidden codes?.


If the bible codes are real, then the only logical statement you can make, is that there must of been a force intelligent enough to have done so.

It could of been God or it could of been an intelligent force pretending to be a God we just don't know yet.

As im non-religious i tend to believe the latter of the above sentence, whether that intelligent force is time travellers from the future, who have come back and done this to help us through, or aliens, or something i cant begin to comprehend.

Imo if the bible code is encoded, then it wasn't humans who lived 3000 years ago, it would of taken one hell of a clairvoyant to predict and get right everything the bible codes has turned up. And it would of taken a super genius the likes of which we cant comprehend to encode those messages into the literal text of the torah, there's just know way.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Thanks for your well written approach to my rant but i would just like to explain my self.

Originally posted by TaupeDragon

Hello Argos

I'm not sure if you're right to be disappointed by people's responses or not. You're obviously a firm believer in this sort of thing (and I have no wish to disrespect your belief),

Im not actually a firm believer im open to any criticisms about bible codes and if some one came up with a good bit of evidence that they are not real then i would listen and change my opinion based on the evidence.

My problem is posters on my bible code threads have posted de-bunked evidence or a comment or view that is just not backed up by any real background research and on top of that they nonsense the bible codes with this information.

Im here to try and stop this i want people to know the truth and stop being so ignorant about it i would have full respect for anyones comments if they made there comments based on sound fact and information.


but from my perspective, these 'messages' sound like statistical noise which can be generated by any sufficiently long piece of text.

Thats a fair perspective but there is lots of over whelming evidence out there that says otherwise. Bible code researchers have always said you can find code sequences in any text with ELS, no one has ever disputed this, what researchers do dispute is, the odds of the codes found in the bible compared to the odds of codes found in any other text are literally astronomically different.

The 'Criticisms' in the Wikipedia link below on bible code I think are fair:

en.wikipedia.org...

I'll have a look at get back on what wikipedia says.

Pretty sure there was a Horizon documentary on the subject too, which was fairly well-balanced.

I've seen the documentaries and i agree with them entirely froma scientific point of view they prove neither here nor there. They are a good background source for knowledge on the bible codes.

To put it another way, it all comes down to mutually incompatible world-views - you're never going to convince a committed athiest and I'm never going to disprove the existence of God to you.

Im non religious and i know what you mean, but im not here to force people to change there views i just want people to have a look at the evidence and make there own opinion as most people dont know anything about the bible codes im here to increases that knowledge and get people talking again as i believe if they are real then this could be massive for mankind.

As long as religious types don't use their beliefs as an excuse to start blowing up people who don't susbcribe to their point of view then vive la difference is what I say.


Agreed!

TD

Argos


[edit on 3-9-2006 by Argos]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Hello Argos

Here's the Australian National University webpage on the issue:

cs.anu.edu.au...

It addresses the 'birth and death' dates issues of the rabbis that was mentioned earlier on in this thread.

What I find interesting isn't so much whether or not this is true, but the ingrained 'need to believe' that seems to exist in all humans at a subconcious level - even pretty much agnostics (leaning to athiest) such as myself.

TD



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:07 AM
link   
I have to say im not impressed with Wikipedia, they have a criticisms section, but no answers to the criticisms. There isn't one criticisation in wikipedia that bible code researchers couldnt give a good counter balance argument for. I think Wikipedia is being very biased in this matter, they even write themselves that evidence for bible codes has never been able to be refuted!!!



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
If you don't like Wikipedia, just wait until you read the ANU webpage.


TD



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Hello Argos

Here's the Australian National University webpage on the issue:

cs.anu.edu.au...

It addresses the 'birth and death' dates issues of the rabbis that was mentioned earlier on in this thread.

What I find interesting isn't so much whether or not this is true, but the ingrained 'need to believe' that seems to exist in all humans at a subconcious level - even pretty much agnostics (leaning to athiest) such as myself.

TD

Thanks again but i have already read it another unbiased research was done afterwards to eliminate this factor of the rips and witzum rabbi experiment. The new experiment used the same list of rabbi's and used the codes to find there place of birth or death instead, the experiment was a success and the statistics of this happening by chance was even greater than the first experiment!!

I'll try and find for you.

Thanks for the information i appreciate that someone is finally doing a bit of there own research for once.

[edit on 3-9-2006 by Argos]

Edit: Just to explain a bit more clearly the new experiment took away the factor of the need for the experiment to be true my memories are a bit vague but as i said i will try and find it.


[edit on 3-9-2006 by Argos]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Ok here we go watch the first 3 minutes of this documentary it can explain beta than me about the rabbi experiments.

video.google.co.uk...

The need to believe is one thing but the paper was reviewed by three independent mathematical researchers, and the notion that war and peace can hold upto the bible codes is rubbish the way the e and u website claims. I will provide evidence to back my claim on this up unlike them.

www.biblecodedigest.com...

Any way TD i pose a challenge to you if your willing to accept goto page 2 on this thread 3rd post up i have posted links for bacground research read that post and visit the links then let me know what you think. I'll still appreciate your comments anyway even if you dont have the time or dont want too.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Hey Argos

I'm about to go out the door on a daytrip, but will get back to you either this evening or tomorrow morning. All the best.

TD



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Hey Argos - I read the post - it's the 1 in 6000000etc number, right?

I've always subscribed the 'lies, damn lies and statistics' school of thought. Simply put, unless you have very firm grounding of the methodology and can follow the logic each step of the way, you are risking accepting dubious conclusions.

My problem is I'm not a statistician - I can follow simple stuff, but have no idea if it's a valid claim or not. It's just as bad in medicine and dentistry - you end up having to get statisticians to design your experiment for you in hope you get a result that is valid. They start saying things like 'power' and 'internal validity', and eventually, your nose starts to bleed.


The ANU paper on either 'War and Peace' or 'Moby Dick' (can't remember) was published in peer-reviewed journal and would have had to list the methodology fairly carefully. I think the big criticism of the 'pro' camp would be that methodology isn't clear, or the results aren't repeatable.

Just my take on things. Like I said, the basic problem is statistical ignorance on my part. There must be a statistician out there on this site - maybe he'd be the guy (or gal, although for some reason I can't imagine a femal statistician) to put a challenge to.

Cheers

TD



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Hey TD

You read the wrong post, if your still up for it im just gonna post the links below for you or anybody else.

The links provide a brief catalogue of information about the bible codes, have a look so you have a good background knowledge and then maybe you can help me get the bottom of all this.

Would be happy to mate- well to start off have you read michael drosnins books? they are some good background reading for an introduction.

Now for some more background reading read this introduction to the bible codes:

www.biblecodedigest.com...

Then i would advise watching these documentaries about the bible code:

video.google.co.uk...

video.google.co.uk...

After the documentaries i would read the FAQ at digest site it just helps fill in the blank spots:

www.biblecodedigest.com...

Now as long as your head hasn't overloaded you should have a very good basic knowledge about bible codes. What do you think? Have any questions? If your still interested there is more i can show you but for now any way peace.

Just to add i agree with the statistics problem but used properly by someone impartial then they can give true results. The skeptics are also trying there hardest to find code clusters in texts other than the torah difference is they haven't been succesfull in a significant way even once...yet anyways.

Anyway if you want, review the links and get back to me.

Argos.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Sorry for not postin' sooner, but I don't have tha ability to purchase anything,yet alone anything online. I found tha Drosnin book, Bible Code, on my P2P, but it was in Spanish and I only speak English, for tha time bein'. Anyways, I'm still interested in this, but lately, I have been continuin' on my quest for tha truth behind UFOs. I will still try and do this, but tha intensity I have to find tha truth behind UFOs meets no equal to anything other than my belief in God and Jesus Christ. I hope to get Drosnin's first book soon and maybe delve further into this.

I agree that it's hard to let sum1 else do tha math for u, but then again, they do those things so we don't have to do tha math. If sum1 can prove this wrong , other than their obvious claim that it can be done in any book, then I wuld like to see it. I, myself, am not a skeptic, but I will admit defeat, when proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt. I believe there may be sumthin' to this, and I think people are afraid to admit what this culd mean. If this is true, then that means that there has to be a God or a higher power wit tha knowledge to do this. I think that's tha biggest problem. I believe in God, but to those that don't, it wuld mean that they wuld to have admit no control over their own life, and they don't want that. They wanna keep their simple minds and to say that it's all coincidence and everything happens randomly. There is no way we were randomly created by a stroke of luck. If just tha slightest thing happened different, then earth wuld not have existed, or at best, it wuld be a dead planet. I think that instead of makin' accusations, I think u shuld look into tha things yourself and see what u find. There's no point in takin' a side in any arguement without first lookin' at tha possibilites. Then, once u find irrefutable evidence that sumthin' does or does not exist, then it's fair to side wit tha argument. I am not completely pro-Bible Codes, but I am takin' tha time to see what culd be and what might be. I agree wit not lettin' people do tha thinkin' for u, becuz if we did that, then nobody wuld believe in UFOs, becuz tha government strongly denies it, but there's so much evidence that says they are wrong. I think u shuld approach this not set on debunkin' or provin' it, becuz then u are hinderin' your work by havin' a pre-bias for or against it. But instead approach wit a mind open to tha possiblity, and then once u find evidence that it culd not exist in anyway, then I say to provide that evidence to open other people's mind to that possibility. I hate when people make claims, but are refusin' to back them up. Well, that's just my two cents, but I believe it's tha best perspective to have when searchin' for any truth.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Sorry, I was just testin' out my new sig. But, I guess this thread is dead.

[edit on 9/11/2006 by PaperChaser]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join