New Study Undermines Skeptics' Main Objection to Codes

As our investigation of code phenomena has expanded and deepened, every one of the stock opinions of most code skeptics, as well as those of most code proponents, has been contradicted by new evidence. It shouldn't be surprising that reality can stubbornly disagree with preconceptions, yet it is often true.

To advance above this primitive state, we must bravely confront and listen to the realities of hard data—impartially gathered and analyzed.

The articles in this issue support various findings that are upsetting to both code critics and proponents. Here are some of those findings:

Longer ELSs in grammatically reasonable Hebrew can be found in books other than the Bible.

The rate at which such longer ELSs appear in non-Biblical texts is dramatically less than in the Bible. Consequently, there is strong support for the claim that real Bible codes do exist in abundance.

The primary claim of code critics that "codes can be found in any book" is a primitive assertion that greatly over-simplifies and distorts the real situation. Much more relevant would be the question, "Is the discovery rate of longer ELSs in the Bible decidedly greater than that from a control text?"

Any long ELS in the Bible could be a coincidence, or it could be partly intentional and partly coincidence. The longer it is, the less likely it is to be coincidental. For example, an ELS from our Ezekiel 37 cluster that is 25 to 31 letters long is about 70% likely to be intentional. If it is 39 to 45 letters-long, it is about 95.5% likely to be intentional; if 45 to 59 letters-long, 99%; and if 60 or more letters-long, it is 99.8% likely to be intentional.

To date there is no reliable way of objectively distinguishing among these alternatives, although subjective reviews may indicate that a particular ELS is unusually "appropriate" or "descriptively accurate."

Because of the many uncertainties inherent in the message of any single ELS, Bible codes cannot reliably be used to make predictions or to attempt to support doctrinal positions or opinions. Furthermore, even if we could be certain a code is real, we do not know for certain who is speaking, and the source could be an untruthful one.

It is only natural to ask why a superior intelligence would intentionally encode messages underneath a sacred text when those messages are unreliable. A plausible answer is that the intelligence sought to provide implicit evidence within the text of its authenticity as its composition, while at the same time discouraging human attempts to derive new truths or predictions from encoded messages. This suggests an intent to emphasize the importance of the content of the literal text (as opposed to the content of any encoded messages).

Perhaps the only real purpose of codes is analogous to that of the embedded strip in new $20 bills. It adds nothing but proof that the bill is the real thing. Alternatively, encoded material could merely be a by-product of a super-human intelligence for which the mere task of producing a literal text without such supplemental content would be too mundane.

The great rallying cry of the Bible code skeptics has always been, "You can find codes like this is any book." When they were talking about Hanukah's examples, these skeptics were dead right. But what about such an assertion regarding the extensive clusters presented on our web site? And what about clusters of intermediate complexity? Where should the line be drawn?

With our Isaiah 53 cluster vs. Hanukah cluster in War and Peace study we compared the extensive cluster about the last days of Christ with the Hanukah codes in War and Peace to show that while it may be possible to find codes like the ones presented by Drosnin in his two books, the skeptic's counter-example does nothing to call into question the reality of many of the codes in clusters like those in Isaiah 53 (as well as Ezekiel 37).

While Drosnin did much to introduce the public to Bible codes, he simultaneously did code researchers a great disservice by giving skeptics an entire book of trivial examples that skeptics could easily discredit.

Although code research has come a long way since his first book in 1997, there has been a lingering question mark over the whole phenomenon because of skeptical opinions that continue to appear on the internet even though they are long out of date.

So while code research has moved on dramatically, it is also fighting a rear guard action against these old, outdated statements from critics of the codes. It is a rare week when we don't get at least one e-mail asking us about the codes in Moby Dick or War and Peace.

Most likely, code skeptics would take exception to our comparison of the Hanukah cluster from War and Peace with the Ezekiel 37 cluster. It is not a fair comparison, they would say, because we searched for many more ELSs in Ezekiel 37 than they did in War and Peace. And they are right. However, our purpose in making such a comparison was to show that the Hanukah cluster is no longer a relevant counter-example.

There has been a great need for a level playing field on which some kind of head-to-head comparison would be made of Bible codes with those "discovered" in an admittedly ordinary book.

A natural way to do this would be to conduct an experiment in which a Hebrew expert would be handed a sizeable collection of pre-defined initial ELSs, equally drawn from the Hebrew Bible and from War & Peace (or some other control text). The Hebrew expert would then search for extended ELSs around each initial ELS. The two collections of extended ELSs would be compared and analyzed. For the past six months the BCD research team has been conducting such a study—the Islamic Nations ELS Extension Experiment. We present the preliminary findings here.

Using the Hebrew spellings of a group of Islamic nations, we located ELSs of them in a 78,064-letter portion of War and Peace that is provided with Codefinder software. We also found them in the 78,083-letter book of Ezekiel using the same software. (Actually, in order to have enough letters to match the size of the War and Peace text, we had to use part of Jeremiah as well as the beginning of Hosea. So the text actually runs from Jeremiah 51:52 through Ezekiel to Hosea 1:9.)

The nations we searched for as ELSs appear in The Following Table, along with their Hebrew spellings:

This is about as "scientific" as those pulp flying saucer magazines. This list of countries' names mixes the authentic Hebrew (and usually Biblical) names of some (such as Yemen, in Hebrew Tay'mon as in Ezek 25:13, Habak 3:3) with straight transliterations in Hebrew letters of the modern ENGLISH names of other countries (e.g. Somalia, Sudan) - not even transliterations of the names in another European language much less the ancient names of those places.

A most important fact about these so-called codes is their methods, which require a computer. These are not "messages" gotten by surprised, they were words chosen by the operators and a computer program was made to look for these chosen words over and over again in the Bible text, using different starting places, different intervals, different directions, over and over again until either a pattern was found or it was established that it didn't exist anywhere. Using that method you could find almost anything - the shorter the word or the more common the occurrence of the letters in the Biblical text, the more likely it would be found.

"the bible codes people are charlatans"

Someone else thought so too, BUT he investigated it and then:

I must first confess that I was a thorough skeptic on this bible code matter at first. Because I'm a philosopher, I managed to work out a philosophical refutation, instead of a mathematical one concerning probability, to convince myself that this bible code matter is merely a hoax. Yet a few days back, I realized that my original argument contains a fatal flaw, and now I have become a believer myself. I've written this email because I believe that the following philosophical argument is significant to both skeptic and believer. I want to talk about the statistical mathematics used by both the Bible code believer and the skeptic. Mathematicians are so engrossed with numbers that they fail to see that man is capable of judging qualities too, instead of merely calculating quantities. I want to show that, contrary to common belief, the Bible-code matter cannot be refuted using the statistical method alone. Why? Imagine this scenario: that Moby Dick is able to generate 10 true trivial predictions, and the Bible is only able to generate five true predictions, yet of the utmost importance. Probability wise, there is no reason to believe that the bible is better at prediction than Moby Dick. Yet that is only because you have chosen to define the accuracy of the prediction in terms of "true facts," instead of "true and important facts." If you also take the importance of the predictions into account, i.e., considering their quality instead of merely their quantity, the Bible will now be five times more accurate than Moby Dick. Of course the skeptic may question what do I mean by the quality of a prediction. Well, I must confess that I cannot answer this, just as I cannot answer why is a certain piece of music more beautiful than the sound of the traffic, though there is surely a difference. In other words, numbers alone tell us very little about the accuracy of the Bible code, for it all depends on our definition on what God would want to tell us, for surely if a wise God wants to inspire the believer, He would tell him only the important and famous facts, not merely any fact. Thus although I'm not saying that the Bible code must certainly be real, I'm indeed saying that the believer is not being irrational to believe in its truth, for he always has the right to choose to believe what kind of facts would God choose to tell him in order to inspire him. Common sense may not be as weak as the mathematician would like to believe. The only decisive way for a skeptic to refute a believer is not to indulge in mathematical calculation, but rather to provide actual examples of important facts from other books, both in quality and quantity, to match the facts being currently generated by the Bible code believer. Yet they do not seem interested in this most and only decisive way to refute the believer.

Sim Yongkiat

So why don't YOU do the same thing and seek it out for yourself before you make a complete fool of yourself...... OOOOOOOOOPPPPSSSS!!! TOO LATE!!!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.