It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But just exactly what (you may be asking if you are new to this subject) are Bible Codes? They are equidistant letter sequences, or ELSs, that appear in the ancient Hebrew text of the book we know as the Bible.
It was the advent of the personal computer, like the one you are sitting at now, along with the development of software to find these hidden ELSs, that caused the explosion of interest in Bible Codes.
What does a typical ELS look like? Well, suppose we start with the sentence, "All of our avenues are wide." To locate an ELS in a sentence like this, we eliminate the spaces and look for words that could be formed from letters that are equally spaced within the string of letters that form the sentence.
If we start with the second letter (L) and then eliminate, or skip, three letters to pick up the next letter of the code (O), and so forth, we will find the word, LOVE within the string. Like this:
a L l o f O u r a V e n u E s a r e w i d e.
LOVE is an equidistant letter sequence (ELS). Such codes can have a skip of any length and can either be forward or backward.
This legend has persisted in many a brilliant mind, Isaac Newton probably being the most prominent. And the reason is why has God taken such care in passing each character to Moses individually and one by one? Why could the world end if the text is altered? Many thought it could mean there was a code from God in the bible.
In a scientific paper we presented a few years ago, we submitted a series of 50 letter strings around original search terms (the names of Islamic countries) to our Hebrew experts, without them knowing that any were from a non-Biblical text. The discovery rate from the non-Biblical text (a translation of Tolstoy’s War and Peace into Hebrew) was 19.4%, demonstrating that extended codes can be found in a non-encoded text — at a certain rate.
Code skeptics obscure the real issue by making statements that implicitly assume that all ELSs are comparable in terms of their probability of random occurrence. They would have people believe that a three-letter-long ELS of a Hebrew word is no more likely to be due to chance than a 200-letter-long ELS consisting of eight sentences in good Hebrew that are highly coherent in their content. Yet, it is obvious that the latter would naturally be far more rare than the former. The first is like a dandelion, the second like an extensive, well-tended botanical garden. The first is an everyday accident, the second is the result of a great amount of planning, planting and maintenance. The first is like anyone who first picks up a golf club to try playing the game, the second, like Tiger Woods.
I don't think that what I'm writing at the moment is filtered down from God as an encoding to the human race. I do however believe that God may have done this in the case of the bible though.
3. The Hebrew used for code research is "unvocalized," it does not use vowel pointings, but Drosnin uses the letters aleph, ayin, waw, and yod as semi-vowels where convenient. These semi-vowels can be used to approximate a number of vowels (yod might represent IH, EE, EYE, EH, EI, for example). Thus, exact spelling is not essential-"sounds similar" is close enough. If none of these semi-vowels occur, the word is simply read without vowels. (For example, President Clinton's name is spelled Q L Y N T W N. "President" is N S Y A which means "leader" or "ruler" and is in fact the Hebrew word for "president" today, though it could also be seen as "Nazi." "Hitler" is found as H Y T L R, and "Nazi" as N A DZ Y. "Shakespeare" occurs as Sh Q S P Y R, "Macbeth" as M Q B T, and "Hamlet" as HMLT. Note the cavalier attitude toward vowels.)
How can we trust the codes being generated, when the people generating them are arbitrarily throwing vowels in wherever they see fit?
I would like to point out that the source he is using to back up his information is based on a report of the codes proposed by Drosnin author of the Bible Code books. [not people throwing in vowels arbitrarily just one mans work on this subject matter] While Drosnin has flown the flag high in terms of bringing the codes to a world market he is not a top standard code researcher and has been found guilty more than once of manipulating data to suit his own [publishing] needs. My point is he is not the right person to be criticizing, his work is a million miles away from other researchers evidence which i have put forward in this debate.
ELS is a process, this process can be used to manufacture output from any text, if the output is statistically relevant then it will be researched and maybe at some point published as a code.
"31": For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
"32": And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
"33": For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
Are they as relevant as the ones found in the Torah? Maybe, and maybe not. But I challenge you, dear reader, to answer this one question: Does it really matter? The relevance of any given code matters not when they can be found in any text.
At the end of the day, I agreed with TheBorg mostly, but then I went in agreeing with TheBorg. I feel the points on his side of the argument that he brought up are valid and basically air-tight. The problem is that he didn't counter much of what Argos brought forward, and continued to push unsupported assertions that Argos had countered.
Argos did a good job of getting away from the "fringe" aspect of his position by freely admitting fraud where it has occurred and the repeatability of the process in other works. He managed not to sacrifice his whole argument with that moderate tack though. His points on the relevance, number, statistical significance, etc of bible codes versus codes in other works, since they were not countered much, felt pretty strong.
Ultimately, I just can't give it to Argos, because he did conceede an awful lot and his argument didn't win me over, but I cannot find for TheBorg either, because TheBorg's position actually lost ground in my mind as the debate progressed.
Originally posted by Argos
Maybe one day we could have a rematch? This time you can pick the topic and what side you would like to debate for.