It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Challenge Match. Argos v TheBorg: The Bible Codes

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:26 PM
The topic for this debate is "The Bible Contains Coded Prophecies".

Argos will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
TheBorg will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

Character limits are nolonger in effect- you may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

Responses should be made within 24 hours, if people are late with their replies, they run the risk of forfeiting their reply and possibly the debate. Limited grace periods may be allowed if I am notified in advance.

This is a challenge match. The winner will recieve two ranking points, the loser will lose 2 ranking points, unless the loser has zero ranking points already.

The Member-Judging System is in effect. The total number of stars awarded to each member by readers (counted at the time of judging) will be counted to determine a winner. This debate will have 1 judge. The judge's decision is worth 5 stars.

We have ways of determining when a member has multiple accounts. Any member who attempts to use multiple accounts to influence the outcome of a debate will be barred from the debate forum in perpetuity and will face additional consequences as well, possibly including a permanent ban from ATS.

posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 11:49 PM
Thank you TheBorg for accepting my debate challenge, and thank you to Vagabond for taking the time to set up and monitor this debate.

I'm sorry but i think there has been some confusion. I will in this debate show that "The Bible Is Encoded".

I wont however argue definitively that the codes can be used as prophecy, that is a whole other debate. Instead i will show one example of a bible code prophecy for the purpose of validating the codes and leave you to make your own minds up about whether they can or should be used as prophecy.

To prove "The Bible Is Encoded" i will explain about:

[1] at least one bible code prophecy that has come true.

[2] some intriguing code matrices about events that have happened in our history.

[3] code clusters where the odds of them not being an encoding is extremely improbable.

[4] two experiments one called the "great rabbis experiment" that was published in the peer reviewed journal called Statistical Science, and the other experiment that was created by Harold Gans an employee of the National Security Agency. Both experiments show that the encoding they found in the Jewish Torah is more than just coincidence/luck.

[5] skeptics opinions and why they just don't hold up against the evidence of encoding we have now in 2007.

I would like to open though by explaining the theory behind this phenomenon. Tradition among the most devout Jewish scholars holds that everything and everyone that ever was or ever will be was recorded in the text of the first five books of the Bible. Thus, as it was passed down letter by letter from God to Moses, then generation by generation to modern times, great care has been taken to preserve it intact. Rabbis encouraged caution in Torah scribes by reminding them that just one letter lost in their work could bring about the end of the world.

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.

The first man to discover an encoding of the bible was a Jewish rabbi H.M.D. Weissmandel, who discovered that if he used equidisant letter sequences [ELS] and skipped 50 letters, and then another 50, and then another 50, the word 'Torah' was spelled out at the beginning of the Book of Genesis. The same skip-sequence again spelled out 'Torah' in the Book of Exodus, Book of Numbers and Book of Deuteronomy.

To finish my opening here is a short extract that explains for the purpose of this debate what bible codes and ELS are.

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.

I would also like it to be noted i am not a religious person, the impact this has on this debate is that the bible was encoded by an intelligence [God, ET's, Time Traveller(s)] for reasons unknown to anyone, for the moment anyway.

Why does this matter? It matters because in my opinion you haven't got to be religious to believe the bible codes are real, there are other possible sources of this encoding. What i am really trying to say is you shouldn't close your mind to the possibility of them being real if you don't believe in God.

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:03 AM
I’d like to thank Argos for this most intriguing of challenges, and The Vagabond for helping to organize the whole shebang. For the record, I had mixed feelings about the Bible Codes when I first heard of their existence. I even went out and purchased a program that let me look for my own ELSs, but I turned up empty with my searches.

In this debate, I plan to show why the concept of a Bible Code is not plausible; that in fact it’s just a series of random letter placements. There will be several points that I will hit throughout this debate. The crux of my argument however will be how random all of these letters are spaced, and that the odds of picking a significant word series out of a huge repository of letters becomes almost assured, when the base set becomes big enough.

So, strap yourselves in, because this is going to be one heck of a bumpy ride!!

To start, I’d like to submit for the audience’s viewing pleasure, a grand experiment to illustrate how it is that “codes” can be found in any document. According to Moby Dick, the Classic book has encoded within its pages, the prophetic fates of several prominent people in world history. Are we to believe that this now constitutes the book Moby Dick as a sacred document, as the Holy Bible has been? If this book is but just the first book they’ve checked for this, then how littered do other books have to be with these “prophetic ELSs”? I find it highly unlikely that a document written with no apparent desire to house secret meanings was actually encoded with said messages intentionally. Should this be the case, then one must call into question who the actual author is.

Now, I would like to take a small sidebar here (thank you Dave and Johnny for making me do this out of habit now: P ). It’s my honest opinion, after having studied this for many years, that there is no such thing as a Bible Code, based on the single piece of evidence posted above. The fact that anything can be found in another text, written MUCH more recently than the books of the Torah, suggests to me anyway that this cannot be some paranormal phenomena. In fact, it’s more suggestive of complete randomness than anything else.

Now, let’s take into consideration the numbers of letters we’re dealing with here. According to this site, there are 304,805 characters in our current Torahs. The shear number of characters here leads one to realize the virtually unlimited possibilities for these to show up in different combinations, to form words and phrases that we humans find to be important. I liken it to looking at clouds, trying to figure out what they look like. It’s left up to the viewer, or in this case the reader, to interpret what it is that they are seeing, based on the data presented. For me, there’s too much room for personal bias for this to be considered a finite science.

My very astute colleague here asks a very pertinent question in his opening post:

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.

It’s my opinion that the reason that God made Moses take such care in scribing the documents down is because he knew how easy it would be for humans to tamper with just a few letters down the line. If we look at different KJV versions available today, we see subtle differences between the current ones and those produced 20 years ago. These changes are due in large part to new interpretations of the Hebrew characters in the Torah, but could be attributed to incorrect scribing as well. I believe God wanted an untampered work for all generations to be able to use to learn from. It is my opinion that this was planned so the document would always be clearly understandable to any that would read it.

To close this opening post, I’d just like to point out my complete desire to be open-minded about new things. I’d love for this to be a real phenomenon that humans just were unknowingly producing without their own knowledge. That would be completely awesome. I guess one way to test it would be to enter this entire post into an ELS program, and see what comes out when we throw a couple algorithms at it. Argos my friend, if you so desire, feel free to try that. It might prove to be interesting, as I haven’t intended anything to be hidden in my post. This could be very enlightening.

Once again, I wish you the best of luck, and thank you for this opportunity to spar. I needed to get my gloves out again.


posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 02:40 PM
As TheBorg has started with a common skeptics opinion on this subject matter, i think i will start my second reply as a response that ties in nicely with my plan to explain the common misconceptions about the bible codes that people have. And the relevance of one code cluster and how improbable that code cluster is.

Skeptics opinions and why they just don't hold up against the evidence of encoding we have now in 2007.
Code clusters where the odds of them not being an encoding is highly improbable.

The main skeptical opinion about the bible codes is that ELS's can be used to find supposed encoding in any large text. As my very astute colleague points out, this has apparently been proven by using the large novel Moby Dick and Tolstoys War and Peace to find simple code clusters using ELS.

Most people in their research of the bible codes end their fascination with the phenomenon once they become aware of this. I know i was one of them at the time, but if you dig a little deeper bible code researchers have answered the skeptics on this matter.

It is true that seemingly relevant code clusters can be found in any large text, but then you have to look at the statistical relevance of that code cluster. Is it likely that it could be a side effect of using ELS like the skeptics have shown is possible. Or is it so unlikely in its appearance that it must be an encoding?

I believe this question has been answered and i will show here why. The most impressive code cluster the skeptics have managed to find since 1994 is a supposed code cluster found about Hanukkah in War and Peace. The paper about this can be found here:

The reason i am so forth coming about this skeptics evidence, is because if you compare the best example the skeptics have supposedly found encoded [Hanukkah cluster, War and Peace], to the best example the bible code researchers have found here now in 2007. [Isaiah 53 cluster, Bible] There is such a large difference in probabilities that it makes the skeptics best example look minuscule in comparison.

Here is a table that shows the difference in statistical probabilities between the skeptics Hanukkah cluster and the bible code researchers Isaiah 53 cluster: [To see table on original site]

As you can clearly see the difference is pretty astounding, and this is the reason why you have to ask the question.

Is the code cluster statistically relevant?

The best example of the skeptics is not. Where as the Isaiah 53 cluster clearly is statistically relevant and nearly proof all by itself that the phenomenon is real.

ELS can be used to find seemingly relevant code in any book but only at a low statistical relevance, that is not what we are finding in many cases when it comes to the bible codes.

TheBorg has pointed out that one possible reason this could seem to be happening is because there are so many characters in the Hebrew written language, but as i have shown above, the skeptics best example is the Hanukkah cluster that was found in a Hebrew translation of War and Peace. So the comparison still stands on a fair level. When a skeptic can find a cluster in any large Hebrew written text that compares in statistical relevance to the Isaiah 53 cluster, then i will have to re-evaluate my stance on this common skeptics opinion. Its been a few years and the skeptics have gone quiet maybe they'll come up with something one day but i do doubt it.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 02:25 AM
Thank you Argos for posting so promptly. I do apologize for my tardiness with responding with this post. My schedule has been messed up the past few days. Hopefully, things will even out here soon. With that in mind, let’s jump right in.

In his last post, my colleague chose to focus on the probability of the ELSs found in the Bible being more likely than those found in Moby Dick or War and Peace. While I must admit that there is something to be said for the statistical probabilities that have been listed, I find them to be misleading when it comes to trying to validate the existence of such a phenomena. They lead me to naturally suspect the ELS method of being just a series of random letters that just so happen to be equidistant from one another. Many examples have been given where hidden messages could be found within “normal conversations” that also have relevance to the conversation from which they come.

As my colleague has suggested, relevance is indeed important in trying to prove the existence of such a thing. But if they appear everywhere, then one can’t really call them a rarity, nor could we say that they are exclusive to the Bible. If they aren’t exclusive to the Bible, and can be found in any text, regardless of which text it is, then can we really say that it’s a special thing? Assuming that such a thing exists, we would have to then assume that God was talking to us humans through every text being written. To me anyway, this seems impractical, and even a little nonsensical. What use would God have for encoding knowledge in texts, so that people can find it only when the technology gets good enough to detect them? For some reason, this doesn’t make much sense to me.

In my next post, I’ll try to gather my thoughts a bit more, and illustrate an actual example of a regular text that has an ELS in it that isn’t in the Bible. Stay tuned.


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:35 AM
I'm sorry TheBorg but i find your statement misleading. How can you say "I must admit that there is something to be said for the statistical probabilities that have been listed" and in the same sentence say you find them misleading? The reason i am sorry is i don't mean to sound touchy but i obviously wasn't very clear in my explanation. So here goes.

It has been shown over and over that codes with high statistical relevance are frequently being found in the bible. The skeptics stopped doing there job after it was found that ELS can be used to find small and simple code clusters with a low statistical relevance in many different texts. So bible code researchers have now done the work for them and created a scientific experiment to see how likely it is to find statistically relevant code in a non biblical text.

For a code to be statistically relevant it needs to be lengthy, basically one ELS leads to another and then another, until a matrix of ELS is formed all with relevant data about one thing. [event, person etc] How big and clustered this matrix is lends to the statistical relevance.

So in this experiment they tested a non biblical text to see what the discovery rate of extended codes would be. Here's a short extract explaining what they did:

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.

In their latest work bible code researchers have used the same experiment for the bible and in all cases the the discovery rates have been higher than the 19.4% percent found in a non biblical text. In one such case the discovery rate was 50%, that's more than double the discovery rate of a non biblical text.

Here is a table showing the various discovery rates they found:

In every single case there are longer and more significant extended code matrices found in the bible than in a non biblical text, this is always brushed aside by skeptics who choose to believe this doesn't matter. I think that attitude is extremely ignorant. A skeptic would have you believe that just because this new ELS process has been discovered and can return seemingly relevant results in any text using a computer, that this means when you discover a code matrix using this process that is statistically compelling it is irrelevant. That is what doesn't make sense to me about their argument.

My colleague points out that if simple code clusters can be found in any text "then can we really say that its a special thing?" And i submit once again that the statistical relevance of code matrices being found in the bible are a special thing and worthy of much more attention. As researchers have shown the frequency and statistical relevance of the code matrices found in the bible are non comparable to that of a non biblical text. I like one bible code researchers own view on this comparison:

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.

However, i do agree though that the large number of ELS's that are continually being found at great length and with massive statistical relevance in the bible are not proof enough by themselves to make such a big claim. There needs to be more specific scientific analysis for this phenomenon to be be regarded as fact simply because it is such a grandiose claim and could potentially be very difficult for large amounts of people to accept.

Other analysis has been done on the bible codes to see if they really can be scientifically proven. One experiment called the great rabbis experiment was submitted to a peer reviewed journal called Statistical Science. The experiment searched for famous rabbis and there dates of birth and death and at odds of 62,500 to 1 evidence of encoding was found.

Read about great rabbi experiment here:

The main criticism of these results is that the specific search terms for use in the experiment could have been 'wiggled' around a bit to gain supposedly more statistically relevant code matrices, but the authors of this test have submitted that they had there search terms selected and validated by an independent non related person in readiness of this variable and its effect on the results. Once again the skeptics fail to recognize this point and decide instead with no proof to accuse the authors and independent non related person of lying.

Another experiment done by an employee of the NSA called Harold Gans who after hearing of the great rabbis experiment decided to test the results himself. He created his own ELS code program and carried out the same experiment using the same search terms [the great rabbis] to look for their places of birth and death this time. And once again the results were conclusive that evidence of encoding was clear.

Again and again it has been shown that the evidence is there that supports the existence of a bible code but because the process of using ELS can be used on any text to find small and simple code clusters people remain ignorant to these facts and unwilling to dig a little deeper to find the truth.

My colleague points out "Assuming that such a thing exists, we would have to then assume that God was talking to us humans through every text being written."

Well i certainly don't think that. Why would i? The bible code legend was born from the fact that God passed Moses the bible character by character on Mount Sinai. 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.

My colleague also says "What use would God have for encoding knowledge in texts, so that people can find it only when the technology gets good enough to detect them?"

Well i would have to answer if the bible is 100% proven to be encoded we still wouldn't know the answer to this question. I would guess that it seems to me we are living in the so called "end times". Whether its destruction or change that is happening, we can all feel and sense this moment approaching. There are endless references to 2012 and revelations and Hopi prophecy etc right now that lead many people to believe this as true. Its just conjecture but maybe the code is there to be discovered now in these times to help mankind with its evolution at this critical moment of our evolution.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 02:53 AM
Argos, thank you for allowing me the extension buddy. And The Vagabond, thanks for making it happen. This weekend has been one of the busiest that I’ve had in a while. It’s getting busier too. I had to do some considerable preparation for this post, which took on the order of about 4 hours, because I needed to gather evidence. What you’re about to see is the end result of that research. Time to cut to the chase…

My colleague, in his last post, expressed a classic response to the criticism of the ELS method of searching for hidden codes, by suggesting that the relevance of the findings bears a special significance that should somehow set it apart from the rest of the codes being found in other texts. I move that we look not at the statistical probabilities of such a thing, but at the question of why, if these are supposed to be so divinely inspired, are they being found in so many other texts at all? If these codes are truly the words of God, then why are other code clusters popping up in texts that they are not intended to be popping up in?

I’m now going to give one very controversial example of what can happen when one does an ELS on any random text. I took Argos’ last post, removed all of the quotes and outside sources, took out all of the punctuation, and then spaced them all apart into a 12-character column. I then began looking for anything that stood out. Starting in the first column, going down vertically, I found the following words: not (3 times), me, meow, fear (or fears), has, is, set, dot, ten, as, ode, bed, sit, ran, ted, it, mote, mole, so, nun, and tit. By this point, I was midway through the second column, and I was beginning to get tired of looking, as this was done manually.

I took a break, and came back in a while to look for some more when the thought struck me that I should reread what Argos said in his last post, to see if there was anything that stuck out at me, and sure enough, there was:

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.

Armed with this bit, and already having started on this post, I went to look at the text again, to see if there was a code cluster anywhere. Lo and behold, I found one. True, it may not be the most amazing cluster available, but I feel that it adequately illustrates the point. What I found was that at the first instance of the word not, on line 69, I found that it was crossed by the word person, and person was immediately followed by the word age, which truncated with the e beside the word person. The word red was also in the vicinity of the cluster.

At this point, I began to think about what the point was to this line of thinking, and realized that I am supposed to be proving that the Bible doesn’t contain any hidden prophetic codes within its texts. My contention has always been that if I can find a code in another text, regardless of its relevance to anything now, that we can say with some level of certainty that the Bible doesn’t contain anything out of the ordinary either, given the numbers of characters in the texts inside.

With over 308,000 characters to go through, finding words shouldn’t be that difficult, regardless of what word it is. Also, how am I to know what significance the simple cluster I’ve found in Argos’ previous post might have on someone later on? It may be nothing, or it may be everything. We won’t know that until an event happens that brings the truth to light. And that, my dear readers, is the major crux of this debate here. None of the supposed code clusters ever found would have mattered at all to people before the events themselves happened. This tells me that the proposed code clusters are not in themselves prophetic, as to be prophetic, they need to be able to warn someone of an impending event. This is not the case with any of these supposed codes, because no one was even aware of this most bizarre of phenomena while the events claimed to be hidden in the texts were going on. For a prophesy to be useful to society, there needs to be a ready way to access it by any that want to see it.

One final point, it is also a fact that the Bible Codes, as they’ve come to be known, are not an exact science. There is a lot of adlibbing when piecing together a code. According to Does the Bible Code Bear the Signature of God? :

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.)

This opens up a whole new level of questions to the Bible Code’s authenticity. How can we trust the codes being generated, when the people generating them are arbitrarily throwing vowels in wherever they see fit? Something about this isn’t right, and I think it detracts from the truth that's actually contained in the rest of the text, without codes.

There is such a thing as looking too deeply for something, and this I think is it.

Good Luck Argos. I look forward to your next post.

posted on Dec, 9 2007 @ 06:10 AM
My colleague has decided he/she is going to bandy around the issue here and ignore all the evidence i have put forward. He/she issues statements implying the statistical relevance of the major bible code finds are irrelevant instead of trying to counter the cold hard facts i have offered.

He/she would like to change the focus of this debate to "why?" they might exist. This would be good to do because the focus of why the bible is encoded is un-answerable at this time and would leave the result of this debate in the hands of people's own belief structure instead of analysis of the facts.

My colleague has also started using words like prophecy, which i did outline quite clearly in my opening statement that is not my intention to get into that here. I am trying to show that they are real not whether they are prophetic or why they might exist.

I have offered one of my own possible theories for the reason of their existence in my last post. And i feel like i'm about to cover old ground here again by trying to evaluate and validate the evidence i have already put forward to answer my opponents questions.

I will explain again just one more time so i am sure i have been clear:

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.

I don't know of a single supposed code matrix that has been put forward by a researcher and acquired from a non biblical text that has been found to be statistically relevant in terms of being able to compare it to bible code finds. Code matrices from the bible are being found that are encoded by random chance once in every hundred, trillion, trillion, trillion. Or at least something like that, have a look at the numbers yourself to see.

My colleague will of course tell you that this is misleading based on his/her own judgment of these known facts and has instead offered forward an example of using ELS from the text of this thread to make his/her point.

I have not once disputed this fact, ELS can be used to find words and sometimes sentences that seem coherent in pretty much any text. Its when you analyze that code matrix that things start to get interesting as i have explained in good detail in my previous posts.

To me anyway this seems like my colleague has chosen to just ignore the facts surrounding this phenomenon. Just like a high percentage of critics, they cant find equally statistically relevant code in non biblical text so they chose instead to just stick to their guns and say ELS can be used to find text in any book and the statistical relevance doesn't matter. This opinion is fine critics are their own persons, entitled to their opinions but isn't ignoring the facts contradictory of being an ATSer? Isn't our motto that we wear in our avatars with pride, deny ignorance? Shouldn't we be looking at this with a fine tooth comb and exploring all the evidence instead of ignoring and jumping to the easy response that when one looks closer holds no ground.

I will humor my opponent now because as stated in my opening post i will reveal one prophetic bible code find that has come true for the purpose of validating the codes. Back in the early 90's Michael Drosnin controversial author of the book Bible Codes 1&2 wrote a letter to the then prime minister of Israel Yitzhak Rabin warning him of a bible code matrix that predicts his assassination. The only time Rabin's name comes up in the codes is clearly encoded with the text assassin will assassinate going right through his name. Rabin did not take much notice even though Drosnin persisted and even went as far as going to Israel personally to warn Rabin. A year later though and Rabin was dead, shot in the back by an assassin supposedly on a mission from God. There are other instances of prophetic code, like shoemaker levy, collision, Jupiter. The dates of the gulf war.

I am explaining this only to show that codes have and can be found before an event and maybe when bible code researchers unlock a bit more of the formula to the encoding we will have more answers and maybe then we'll be able to use the bible codes as a prophetic source. That though is 'if' and 'when' as we are talking about the codes now i will only personally submit to trying to prove their existence.

My colleague would also like to point out that some of the language being used in the codes is a bit flimsy, even for a Hebrew translation.

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. I know for fact you will find it much harder to criticize the integrity of the work of the researchers i have shown the work of in the same way. Most bible code researchers take the spelling, translation and interpretation of the codes as a top priority and are not at all as flimsy with the language as Drosnin.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 02:48 AM
As my colleague has so eloquently pointed out, this debate has taken a small detour toward the why, rather than the if of whether the Bible Codes exist or not. In that spirit, I’d like to try to refocus this debate back onto the main topic at hand.

My colleague uses his/her “facts” of relevance to try to sway opinion into his/her favor, when the fact remains that relevant codes can be found in other texts. 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.

The whole concept of the Bible Codes was that they were the words of God, handed down to Moses, character by character, during the writing of the Torah. How then, can they be the words of God, when equal numbers of relevant “codes” can be found in virtually any text, given the right number of spaces?

The main point here is that for the Bible Codes to be true, they MUST be the direct word of God, and they also MUST be unique to one location. Neither of these is true here. If these “codes” can be found in any text, then how, as I’ve asked before, can this be the directly dictated word of God? Also, if these are the direct word of God, then why are they being found in anything and everything that’s written?

With these thoughts in mind, it is my opinion that the evidence speaks for itself. We have evidence, through the very “codes” that my colleague supports, that they contradict each other. However, when that piece of evidence is brought forward, my colleague discredits the original author of these results, stating the following:

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.

If the results can be so easily skewed, then how can we trust any of the clusters found?

Next, my colleague talks about how very relevant codes are found randomly in the Torah texts. The truth is, by my own colleague’s admission:

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.

Now, does this sound like a random procedure for finding codes? Quite honestly, this method is very regimented, and it should establish a consistent result throughout the data-gathering process. I’m of the opinion that these codes are found by random letter placements that just so happen to match up when they are spaced an equal distance apart. And yes, they can, and are, found in any text written.

The problem with methods such as the predefined ones is that they can be used to find clusters anywhere. This is, as far as I’m concerned, the bane of the entire ELS Bible Code phenomenon. It sets a bad precedent for the rest of the real research being done on Biblical texts, as it diverts attention away from the main focus, and launches the uneducated masses down a rabbit’s hole of heartache, since they don’t know what they are looking for, or how they are supposed to “divine” hidden knowledge from an ages-old text.

My final point is one of Biblical evidence. According to 1 Corinthians, Chapter 14, we see the following:

"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.

Emphasis mine

Now, with all of this in mind, I’m left to wonder if the Bible Code isn’t just another way for someone to divert attention away from where it should be, the texts themselves. The Holy Spirit’s job is to interpret what I read for me, effectively reading between the lines. These purported Bible Codes are supposed to be doing the same things, and that’s confusing. And, as we’ve just discovered, God’s not the author of confusion. The implications of the above quote are quite large against those that support the Bible Codes, as they, in and of themselves, are very complex to work with.

Argos, my fair colleague, I hope you understand that I’d love to believe that something like this exists, but I can’t see any reason why God would allow something as confusing as this to be included in the Bible, let alone personally hand down the texts to Moses. The evidence that you present, while incredibly intriguing, fails to illustrate the very real fact that these clusters are not unique to the Bible. They can be found in any single text anywhere. True, the relevance of the Torah “codes” may be higher than those found in other texts, but there are others found that can be just as interesting. This, to me, means that the Bible Codes are not divinely inspired, and therefore, do not exist. The shear randomness of the letters suggests that almost any code can be found in almost any text, provided they find the right number(s) to search with. So far as I’m concerned, this is just another case of people looking too hard to find something that doesn’t exist.


posted on Dec, 14 2007 @ 07:39 PM
Closing Statement

My colleague has decided not to counter any of the facts i have put forward, instead he/she has again deemed it necessary to ignore these facts and keep on whistling the same tune "that they do not matter". The reasoning behind this is in his/her opinion these facts don't matter because seemingly relevant code can be found in non biblical texts.

I have tried to answer this many times as best i can with evidence i have put forward. ELS is a process that can find seemingly relevant code in any text. This is agreed upon.

The output of seemingly relevant code in a non biblical text (as shown above in my second post, how they compare graph) is 1 in 5 chance that it could be found randomly using the ELS process. So the skeptics have found seemingly relevant code at a chance of 1 in 5. The fact these small code clusters can be found so easily in non biblical texts is not important to my colleague that doesn't matter in his/her opinion.

When you adopt this process to biblical text we are finding codes that could happen by chance 1 in every trillion, trillion times. This is also not important to my colleague, and doesn't matter in his/her opinion.

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.

I believe my argument discounts this above statement because the codes being found in the bible are of high statistical relevance compared to the good examples the skeptics have put forward. Once again though this apparently doesn't matter to my colleague.

My colleague would like you to believe his/her opinion based on your own common sense instead of offering forward good evidence and trying to counter my evidence in his/her argument.

Where as i have offered many instances of well sourced knowledge that has been pretty much ignored by my colleague.

I don't know how i can make it any clearer but to say it does matter. You can't just ignore the statistical relevance of these code matrices we are finding today. You cant ignore the scientific analysis done on the codes that i would of liked to of gone into further in this debate as i expected my colleague to try and counter this scientific evidence instead of ignoring it.

In summary the question "are they real?"

I believe in the course of this debate i have answered this question statistically and scientifically with evidence of code matrices and reports from scientific tests. Evidence has been submitted that they can be used for prophecy like in the Israeli prime ministers case. And if it wasn't such a grandiose claim that is difficult to understand and accept i believe this evidence would be known to all and wouldn't be ignored.

If the evidence that i have put forward is not enough to get your curiosity on this subject racing then maybe no evidence will ever be enough to prove this claim, but in my opinion this evidence says a lot and just ignoring it is not an option for me.

Is ignoring this evidence an option for you knowing what you now know having read this debate? I guess your answer to this question will quite literally be in the stars ;-)

Thanks for the debate TheBorg i await your closing statement with excited anticipation.

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:19 AM
Closing Statement

Throughout the course of this debate, my colleague and I have shown some of the many different arguments that are currently swirling around this very intriguing of ideas. We’ve talked about the statistical relevance of the texts, the likelihood of them being found in other texts, and have even shown several that seem to be relevant. However, my colleague would have you to believe that the Bible’s Codes, namely those found in the Torah, are more important than those found in any other text because they are more relevant.

Quite honestly, I don’t see how my colleague can come to this conclusion. The reasons for this are many. My colleague prefaced everything by stating that the Bible Codes are a very real phenomenon, and that they effectively show God’s “signature”, for lack of a better term. He also states that, for the codes to be true, they had to be handed down by God to Moses while he was up on Mount Sinai. Why now, dear reader, would God allow this, and then also allow very relevant codes to be found in other texts? Wouldn’t this detract from the authenticity factor of the ones in the Bible?

My point throughout all of this has been, and continues to be, that since codes are being found in all texts, that they aren’t unique to just the Bible. This means, as I’ve already stated before, that the relevance doesn’t matter. My colleague would have you believe that I am ignoring these facts to try to divert attention from the points of contention, which is simply not true. What I’m showing through my train of thought is that the codes do not matter if they can be found in any text. What does matter, however, is the fact that they are being found in all texts. This establishes the fact that the “codes” are not codes at all, but just a random series of letters that just happen to spell out words when arranged in a particular pattern. To be fair, on any given day, we can go outside, and I can show you a cloud that looks like the hand of God. Does it mean that it is? No, of course not. All that it means is that we see things that we want to see.

To close this, those that want to believe will of course believe. Like I said in my opening, I too was entranced by this phenomenon. So much so, in fact, that I went and forked out $30 for software to try and find codes of my own. When the realization of the codes being found in other texts, such as Moby Dick came to light, I was dumbfounded for an explanation, as this flew in the face of those that purported this to be the new Holy Grail of knowledge. When the proverbial dust settled, I figured that because they were able to be found everywhere, that I might as well accept the fact that God didn’t divine anything to Moses in a hidden textual format.

The truth is, dear reader, that for something to be divine, it has to show more than uniqueness. It needs to exude holiness. What bothers me is that there are codes found that contradict one another. There’s no way to justify evidence like this without accepting the possibility that they are in fact just random letters being found in equidistant spaces from one another.

I do hope that my dialogue throughout has not been too hard to follow, as I tend to run off onto what I call pig trails. The points on my colleague’s side have been very enlightening, but they fail to validate the Bible Codes as a legitimate source of knowledge, in my humble opinion. Dear reader, I leave the decision in your capable hands, as you ultimately need to make that decision for yourselves. I just hope that you take something productive away from this exchange; something that will help you to make an informed choice later on about what’s true and what’s not.

Argos, my friend, I can’t thank you enough for challenging me to this one. It turned out to be harder to defend than I thought it would be initially. Honestly, I thought that I had a viewpoint, and a series of points all lined out. However, you threw those right out the window in you’re first post. Good work man!! That was incredible. I know that I may not be the most amazing debater around, but this was really fun for me. The Vagabond, know that we all love ya for giving us the chance to do this, and I’d love to do it again, if you'll have me.

Again, thank you all!! You’re the best!!


posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:27 AM
The final count is 9-5 in favor of Argos.

The judge has called it a draw and awards stars to neither side. Here are the judge's comments:

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.

posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:00 AM
If you want a ringside opinion, I have to agree with that statement. Argos was doing his level best to make a case, with very limited information. I had plenty of options; my main problem was trying to find where I could get a hold of the argument best. I got sidetracked a few times, and that drew me into a very defensive position, when I believe that I started and ended pretty strongly on the offensive.

All in all, I found it a much harder to defend position than I originally thought it would be. Grats go to Argos for pulling down more votes. He truly deserves this win.

Argos buddy, well done. I may be 0 for 3, but I think I'm just getting the hang of this whole debate thing. I'll be back, and next time, I'll be stronger. You can count on that!!


posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 03:13 PM
Thank you The Borg for this debate I have really enjoyed myself you were a more than worthy opponent and you had me scratching my head about how i was going to answer more than a few times.

Maybe one day we could have a rematch? This time you can pick the topic and what side you would like to debate for.

I's also like to thank everyone who read this debate and decided to award stars your support for this debate is much appreciated.

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:20 AM

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.

Whenever you're ready, my friend. Just name the date and the time, and we'll jump right in. Keeping me thinking is a good idea. Who knows where we'll end up?!?!


new topics

top topics


log in