Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Can Anyone debunk this?

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   


These are the words of Bible code researcher Ed Sherman, a professional mathematician for over 30 years and a profound skeptic on the whole subject of Bible codes until he investigated them for himself. Once he began to look at the codes closely, he was astonished at how compelling the supporting evidence was. In an article (reprinted below) for the Digest on how his opinion was changed by his research, he said, "Aren't there occasions when being open minded is foolish? Two years ago I rejected that thought, choosing to take on the scientific challenge of probing the whole matter." "Today I stand dumbfounded, a former skeptic turned reluctant supporter." Hitler and Einstein Codes Were Surprising "What began to change my mind? It was things like the eight codes about Hitler that appear in the Old Testament passage where Moses prophesies that in the latter days a nation will rise up and torture and slaughter Jews on a mass scale." "It was also a very tight cluster of five codes about Einstein that caught my attention." These are codes that were put through his own rigorous scientific evaluation. Obviously, he was as surprised as anyone by the results.




posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by watchtheashes
 


NICE!!!!!!

And no accompying article to explain what it was that brought him to this stunning revelation or any credentials of how much of a "scientist" he was, afterall, he was a mathemetician. Being good a Sudoku does not a bible code expert make.

A priest once told me
- "It can be nice to quote the bible but that does not mean that we get to tear out the pages we do not like."

He has since been arrested for child molestation.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
That whole site with every single article he is the director of. That should be enough. Unless you want me to find some educational records of some sort. That's why he named it the Isaac Newton Bible Code Research Society.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by watchtheashes
That whole site with every single article he is the director of. That should be enough. Unless you want me to find some educational records of some sort. That's why he named it the Isaac Newton Bible Code Research Society.


That should be enough but it is not. I do want you to find some educational records of some sort. Please prove to me why I should take the word of a mathematician that he can make past predictions from sophisticated software on bibles that have been translated improperly and purposely edited in various ways.

Sorry if I need a little more to go on than just, I read a book.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Hey whatever you need. I'll look up his credentials. Any Bible Code book there is out there is probably out-dated. However I do recommend his site, as they take careful steps.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
It is claimed in his bio blurb that that he has an MA in Mathematics from UC in San Diego.

I'm almost a mathematical illiterate, so the proofs and the critiques are both beyond me.

It would certainly be nice if the code was reality, but I'm highly skeptical.

Eric

EDIT: Found some more information

Mr. Sherman received a B.A. in Mathematics with Highest Honors in 1971 from the University of California at San Diego and an M.A. in Mathematics with High Honors in 1973, also from UCSD. He passed three of the four qualifying examinations for a Ph.D. in Mathematics, including the one for probability and statistics, before deciding to pursue a career as a financial management consultant.

Over his career, Ed has served as a consultant to numerous large financial institutions, Fortune 500 companies and government agencies at all levels. He has served as a senior researcher for a major financial institution for three years, as a Principal at one of the three largest CPA firms for seven years and as an independent consultant for 15 years. He has written more than 70 articles in professional and trade publications and delivered numerous speeches to a broad spectrum of audiences. He is frequently called upon as an expert witness in major litigation.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by EricD]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Easily debunked by John Safran

See the lyrics of vanilla Ice in here also predicting septmeber 11 in His song. You can feed what you want into the programe and 'find' predictions.
See how he manages to get the downfall of vanilla ice from the US congressional report.

LOL!!
Please give me a break.


www.liveleak.com...

[edit on 12-6-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Just wait till a strange man in white robes comes down in a UFO. Jesus was not a disciple of anyone but the Son of God. The UFO man will be the Anti-Christ. I don't know why you don't think I'm serious, now that there is news coverage of the star. Jesus would not need press. I'm sorry but I don't even think He would acknowledge a television. Why would the Son of God need a TV to reach everyone?

This man still doesn't explain the real Bible codes. How many times must I say those arguments are far outdated compared to this? This is way beyond their level.



[edit on 6/15/2009 by watchtheashes]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Hi/

Debunking Bible codes?

Debunking Bible CODES~~~

I cant believe,including myself falling for the lies out there!
Our minds are foolish to Gods, WISDOM!
The Bible is a book to reveal,not to CONCEAL!!!

ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by visible_villain
 


I Tend To Agree With You. Regarding The Ancient Texts Of The Bible & Other Texts From The Same Era.

I believe some of these Prophecies were made by non-mortal men.

I remember reading once in one of the bible code books "That Lee Harvey Oswald Was The Lone Assassin Of JFK"! - Now That There Is a Huge LIE/MYTH, as anyone using thier own two eyes & brain properly knows that there were a lot more people involved in that crime than Oswald. This is the same for 9/11 & The 19 Hijackers. That "Official Story" is another huge LIE/MYTH. There are many more lies/myths that have happened throughout History and still are & will happen in the future

I Believe In God, The God that existed LONG before mortal man wrote about him.

He Is Very Similar To The God, In The Hebrew Text. I have mentioned Him in another thread. He is More Powerful, Divine, Loving, Peaceful & Understanding than the God that is described by mortal man.

We have been mislead by the True Divine Meaning/Understanding Of Our Universe.

When man creates a myth either intentionally or by accident/misunderstanding - this leads to a whole lot of other "myths" that we are conditioned to believe in.

This is why the Bible has been changed so many times. It should have never been changed from it's original text & it should have been interpreted properly. This accounts for all the different religions of the world that we have today.

There is Only One God, & he will Come Again & Judge us Accordingly & Individually.

Cheers

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 29-6-2009 by Skyline666]



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Groupies--

The main problem with finding 'codes' in the TaNaK (the so-called Old Testament, aka the post Jamnia Hebrew Bible, from the three Hebreew words (Instruction, Prophets, Writings) aka T[orah], Ne[biim] & K[etuvim] which was not decided upon by Rebbes until around the time of R. Akiba during the 2nd failed revolt of Judaea against Rome in 136-137 CE) that prior to the Council of Javneh (90CE) after the 2nd Herodian Temple was destroyed (AD 70 during the 1st Failed Jewish Revolt Against Rome, CE 66-72) is that:

There existed at LEAST (4) different versions of the Torah and several different versions of other books e.g. Jeremiah or Psalms etc.

l. The Hebrew Vorlage to the Greek OT (i.e. the older un-pointed/unvowelled Hebrew UnderLay of the Greek Septuagint Old Testament aka: the LXX, of which Origen lists 4 main versions (e.g. Aquila, Symmachus, LXX majority & Theodotion etc.) whose confused texts are the basis for Jerome's 5th century Latin Vulgate Roman Catholic version of the OT today) the Heb underlay to dating from from BCE 350.

2. The Samaritan Pentateuch (from around 400BCE) of the 1st 5 books which differ from the LXX and the MT (see #4 below) by sometimes as much as 17% in places if you compare letter by letter.

3. The Dead Sea Scrolls ancient hand copies of Old Testament books from BCE 350 to CE 68) which differ from the current version (# 4 below) by as much as 27% in places if you count letter by letter (all the OT is represented except Esther) and the original older Caves 1-11 also included several dozen extra books not part of modern Jewish Old Testament writing e.g. The Scroll of the Book of the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, and the Words of Henoch, The Wisdom of Yehoshua Ben Sirach (aka Ecclesiasticus) from the year BCE 190, copied in both Greek and late Hebrew

4. The Masoretic Vowels Added (MT) Text from tLeningrad from 960CE, 1000 years younger (later) than the Dead Sea scrolls, which Jews and Protestants call the Old Testament today.

Added to that, prior to c. AD 138 there was no firm agreed -upon number of Sacred Books for the Jews ('scrolls which defiled the hands') in the so-called old testament canon literature which Jews and Protestants read today Masoretic Text of 980CE--the 11 Caves at Qumran (the earliest of the Dead Sea Scrolls) sealed in June 68CE were a timecapsule preserving pre-90 CE Javneh decision of what OT books to inlcude & what versions of each book...Hillel II who ran the council was from Babylon so his proto Masoretic Version won out. But we see 2 copies of the Great Isaiah Scroll (one in Proto- Masoretic version close to the one Jews use today, and the other (Isaiah B) closer to the Vorlage Underlay to the LXX-Greek OT version of BCE 200. In Wadi Muraba'at and other sites around Qumran (all post Javneh from c. 135-138CE during the 2nd Revolt) conformed more to the later MT ---but the MT does NOT confirm to the Time Capsule texts of the Cave 1-11 Dead Sea Scrollsdated fm BCE 350 to CE 68)

Among Caves 1-11 of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have several copies in unpointed (un-vowelled) Hebrew of the Book of Jeremiah which differs line by line from the vowelled Masoretic (MT) version by 38% when compared & 13 chapters missing (these chapters are found ONLY in the MT --in later Heb than Baruch/Jeremiah i.e. BCE 560).

So...before looking for Codes, you have the problem of:

l. What actual books do you include in the OT (do we use Pre or Post Javneh council numbers i.e. pre 90CE or post90CE lists)?

2. What VERSION of each of the later Javneh agreed upon books do you use to establish your code? The SamPent Version (of the Torah)? The MT text of 980CE from the Leningrad Codex? The Dead Sea Scrolls often 2 or 3 versions are copied side by side contradicting themselves by as much as 20% ? The Heb.Underlay to the Greek OT found in Caves 1-11?

Without a Firm Set Single Text Version of the OT, one cannot hope to derive a Single 'comprehensible' Code !!!



posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
Easily debunked by John Safran

See the lyrics of vanilla Ice in here also predicting septmeber 11 in His song. You can feed what you want into the programe and 'find' predictions.
See how he manages to get the downfall of vanilla ice from the US congressional report.


www.liveleak.com...

[edit on 12-6-2009 by zazzafrazz]



Its been debunked as per the question asked by the OP.

See this video.
Dead and buried is the bible code.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchtheashes
Just wait till a strange man in white robes comes down in a UFO. Jesus was not a disciple of anyone but the Son of God. The UFO man will be the Anti-Christ. I don't know why you don't think I'm serious, now that there is news coverage of the star. Jesus would not need press. I'm sorry but I don't even think He would acknowledge a television. Why would the Son of God need a TV to reach everyone?

This man still doesn't explain the real Bible codes. How many times must I say those arguments are far outdated compared to this? This is way beyond their level.



You really are persistent, I will give you that. It has been debunked, over and over and over. The very logic in the OP is flawed as it is. The logic used to delineate any meaning from these "codes" is flawed as well.

Since the bible code has been torn apart before you over and over again, and you insist on believing in them...how about you tell us all just exactly what is it that would convince you that you might be wrong? What would it take to achieve that?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchtheashes
Hey whatever you need. I'll look up his credentials. Any Bible Code book there is out there is probably out-dated. However I do recommend his site, as they take careful steps.



Where are those credentials? Are you having trouble finding them, or do you not really care about who you hear things from as long as they fit your already dead set beliefs?



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


The Torah to be precise. The first five books of the Bible or the Books of Moses that were given directly to Moses from God Himself at Mt. Sinai. He stayed there forty days to do that. All by hand. He didn't have a supercomputer and it's not a parlot trick. That's what you have to get out of your mind frame. If anything Brendan Mckaye's matrices are a parlot trick. If these sentences weren't so complete and grammatically correct I'd think it was a fake too. The odds are beyond a logistical chance in the universe. So that means it's no accident. It's a fair and balanced experiment using the books from the examples you provided as control texts and even a comparison of the best matrix against the codes. I thought you actually looked over the links? I'm just trying to say there's something to this.


I think this Statistical Science article is really all the debunking this thread needs. Saying things like "Brendan McKay's matrices are a parlor trick" don't cut it. In my opinion, any serious discussion will deal with this actual article, in meticulous detail, for the poster to be taken seriously.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchtheashes



Anything translated into english from the bible was mostly guess work and creative editing and more than one version abounds, some in the same language with different interpretations and such


I see your point on the character thing but that still doesn't invalidate the meaning of the translation. If you look into the 1611 King James version opening King James says that while not 100% perfect, the translation is the best as can be attained and is still inspired by God. Therefore the English text will have codes. If you really read into it, the Bible is written in such a specific poetic way. The only English version it has been run on is the King James version. The original 1611 script.




The Word of God is foundational to everything that pertaineth to life and godliness--it is also the standard by which we shall all be judged. Handle it carefully.





As any student of English Bible history knows, the Authorized Version of 1611 was not the first Bible to be translated into English. But even though hundreds of complete Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions have been translated into English since 1611, it is obvious that the Authorized Version is the last English Bible; that is, the last English Bible that God "authorized."


"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." Psalm 12:6




And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible. The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.


The Torah is the gold mine the King James is still encoded.


From this post, I assume you follow the logical necessity that not only the 1611 King James Version is "authorized", but also inspired. In other words, it is not just a translation, but a second inspiration if you will (just to be clear - I do not believe this in an shape or form). The reason I say this is a logical necessity for you is because the Bible Code operates from the assumption that there are actual inspired hidden messages in the original Hebrew Torah. If inspiration (and I am also assuming you adhere to plenary verbal inspiration) is a necessity for any codes to exist, then you must also believe the 1611 King James Version is equally inspired. A mere translation just wouldn't do. You do realize, I hope, that double inspiration is an extremely minority point of view, even among the already small minority who hold the 1611 King James Version as the only inerrant English translation.

Please deal with these points in depth, as it is directly related to the validity of what you claim to find in the biblical codes.

Peace,
Daniel Payne



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchtheashes
God is indeed alive. Alive and well. Has always been and always will be. Such a being cannot be comprehended by perspective within the universe. You would have to be a member of the same "dimension or realm" to even have such a comprehension. Then we get the Bible which is this wonderfully rich book of wisdom learning and prophecy that just so happens to make its own claim of authorship.


Is language not a "perspective within the universe?" I'm always flabbergasted when Christians claim that God is so beyond comprehension, but in the same breath claim that he revealed himself to an ancient Semitic tribe in their own language. Are these not contradictory truth claims?

Peace,
Daniel Payne






top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join