The Bible Code?

So, I’m watching this show on History Channel about the supposed Bible Code. Alledges the show, using some deciphering consisting of making grids of like every 10th letter, for example, or something like that, all kinds of hidden phrases appear. Such phrases that appear together are “Kennedy, Assassinated, Dallas” and uncountable similiar combinations. They claim the odds of this happening in such a pattern to the extent that it does are astronomical. Naturally, I’m sceptical. So does anyone know anyhting about this supposed Bible Code? I’d love to hear something about this.

Captain Myrrh

Here ya go.

It’s a crock.

Dex links to this at the end of his column, but I wanted to single it out because it makes the point so nicely.

Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick!

Very good guys… I had my statistical reservations, but I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt until I had something against. So, thanks!

The biggest downer is that the “code” is only able those startlingly accurate “predictions” about a week after the events have actually happened.

Using the Dextrin code, I predict that Al Gore will lose the 2000 election (but not by much).

Do it in any long string and you can make words. In fact recall, that the basic way the Bible coders do this is take every 10th letter, then they drop out letters to make words. (Or ! :rolleyes: ) Then they s-t-r-e-t-c-h those words into what meaning they can. Let’s try:

So, I’m watching this show on History Channel about the supposed Bible Code. Alledges the show, using some deciphering consisting of making grids of like every 10th letter, for example, or something like that, all kinds of hidden phrases appear. Such phrases that appear ** together are "Kennedy, Assassinated**, Dallas" and uncountable similiar combinations. They claim the odds of this happening in such a pattern to the ** extent that** it does are astronomical. Naturally, I’m sceptical. So does anyone know anyhting about this supposed Bible Code? I’d love to hear something about this.

Captain Myrrh

siwcusdtiinmreiitfasrrduothnaetaayaytsdhiiy

I cus in it. Duo that. Yay. Hi.

Through your post (including your misspellings which would be corrected in different versions of scripture by the way) God is predicting that HST, who is famous for cursing in the in the White House, will drop two bombs. God is glad about it – Oh, and God says Hi.

Thanks for the message Captain

As if “God speaking to us” in the Bible isn’t already ambiguous, contradictory and unintelligible enough, now we’re to accept that he did it IN CODE, no less.

He really wanted to get his point across, see. So instead of just communicating directly to each and every person in their own language simultaneously and forever, he picks the method of mysteriously whispering ambiguous and contradictory tales to a certain select few males, thousands of years ago, IN CODE, and hoping they transcribe it correctly without alterations, mis-translations, mistakes or omissions. Then after seeing how much they and countless others through the ages have screwed it up, he doesn’t bother correcting it, even thousands of years later.

The odds are astronomical, all right.

Here’s a recent thread on almost the same topic, including much discussion on methodology and meanings.

Why give any claim the “benefit of the doubt?” If some stranger comes to you with a sure fire money making scheme he is willing to share with you for a nominal investment does he get the “benefit of the doubt?”

Make 'em prove it.

CaptainMyrrh writes:

> So, I’m watching this show on History Channel about the supposed Bible Code.

There are a lot of shows on the History Channel that are about pseudo-scientific nonsense.

There was a Horizon programme on the BBC about it last year. It spent the first half hour building it up. Then the second half hour slamming it to rubble. The History Channel one may have been similar, or even the same programme.

Why give any claim the "benefit of the doubt?"

I’ll try to translate this one. “I had my statistical reservations” meaning he probably knew the odds were like 1 in a trillion. BUT not impossible if only by coincidence.

“I wanted to give them…” Same as above…coincidence might explain some freakish lucky guess. Plus, it was a History Channel cite. So they deserve at least some tiny bit of respect.

“…until I had something against.” Now he can tell whoever claims fact and source he can tell 'em to fuck off without a doubt. No longer needs to give them the benefit of a doubt.

Well Cap’n I hope I didn’t overstep my bounds on this post. David no offense intended. I really kinda agree w/ you on this particular instance but it’s always good to back your ass on these things. :smiley:

No offense taken since there was no offensive statement that I could see. I watch the History Channel and find their programs interesting and also that many of them are loaded with exaggerations, simplifications to the point of being wrong, with some BS mixed in from time to time. I think being skeptical of claims is covering your ass.

An example of History Channel simplifications that are wrong and exaggeration all in one statement I point to the program on the P-51 which was described as the “plane that won WWII.”

Sorta takes your breath away.

And they must have had the phrase “The plane that won the war.” on a tape loop because not all that long before the B-17 was so described on the same channel.

Well, it would come in handy for when they wanted to describe the Hurricane, the Spitfire, the B-24, the B-29…

Or the artillery spotters L-1 through L-6.

(You have to scroll down to the Liason category to see the pictures)