Mathematics bombshell: God 'confirmed in Bible'

World Net Daily ^ | December 12, 2004

[The Loan Arranger]

For a lot of people, the Bible and mathematics are dry subjects, but not for Edwin Sherman – he believes he's found how the two fit together.

Sherman, founder of the Isaac Newton Bible Code Research Society and a professional mathematician, is convinced that the Hebrew Bible contains coded messages that are evidence of God's authorship of the Bible. His book, "Bible Code Bombshell: Compelling Scientific Evidence that God Authored the Bible," describes numerous examples of encoded phrases and sentences that are both lengthy and relevant to the text where they were found.

[Ichneumon]

The "stars" and the "host of Heaven" referred to are the angels, which have been punished for their transgressions.

I might buy that, were it not for the fact that even in this chapter, Enoch makes a distinction between "stars" and "angels". Furthermore, the entire book of Enoch reads like an astronomy class (at least an ancient one, pre-Copernicus), and in most passages the word "stars" very QUITE clearly refers to literal *stars* -- those twinkling lights in the sky. For one example from literally dozens:

Lord of the whole creation of the world hath subjected the host of heaven. And he has power over night and day in the heaven to cause the light to give light to men -sun, moon, and stars, and all the powers of the heaven which revolve in their circular chariots. And these are the orders of the stars, which set in their places, and in their seasons and festivals and months.

Enoch spends most of its time talking about the behavior of the sun, moon, and stars. Also, when it's clearly speaking of angels doing certain things, it uses the word "angels". Perhaps this is just an artifact of the English translation, but it seems significant that a book which spends a great deal of time talking about the behavior of the actual *stars* wouldn't clearly differentiate when it's talking about stars vs angels.

Furthermore, in the passage you're reading as a poetic term for "angels", there's a clear parallel to the following passage, which is quite clearly about literal *stars*:

As for the twelve portals in the heaven, at the ends of the earth, out of which go forth the sun, moon, and stars, and all the works of heaven in the east and in the west, There are many windows open to the left and right of them, and one window at its (appointed) season produces warmth, corresponding (as these do) to those doors from which the stars come forth according as He has commanded them, and wherein they set corresponding to their number. And I saw chariots in the heaven, running in the world, above those portals in which revolve the stars that never set. And one is larger than all the rest, and it is that that makes its course through the entire world.

Here it's clearly referring to the rising and setting of the *stars* in the sky, and describing the timing of their appearance in the sky as, "the stars come forth according as He has commanded them". Compare with the "prison punishment" passage which, says "And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times."

Yet another reference to the objects in the sky and their "appointed times":

Observe ye everything that takes place in the heaven, how they do not change their orbits, and the luminaries which are in the heaven, how they all rise and set in order each in its season, and transgress not against their appointed order.

Again, a clear reference to the Sun, Moon, and stars -- and language exactly parallel to the "prison" scene. It's hard to miss the striking similarities between these two phrases:

1. "...have transgressed ... their rising ... their appointed times

2. "... rise and set ...and transgress not against their appointed order."

Looks like Enoch is talking about the same phenomenon in both passages.

References to the Host of Heaven always means angels.

Fine, but usage of the term "stars" is not so predetermined, especially in a text which deals primarily with the behavior of the celestial objects of the Sun, Moon, and stars.

But then again, you'd have to believe there is a God, in order to believe there are angels, let alone angels who would deliberately intefere with God's creations.

Did you have some sort of point here which was supposed to be relevant to our discussion?

[papertyger]

Very interesting. Any chance I can get more comprehensive information on that source material?

[Quix]

I'm more than a little surprised that you might consider yourself the only fish in any pond of interest to me.

I actually hadn't thought about the particulars of your dialogue on such issues with A-G.

[Quix]

Actually, I think some scientific principles have been uncovered. But I don't recall for sure. I should check that out.

[Quix]

Or even the first word.

[Quix]

i SUPPOSE that if we are considering "In the beginning . . ." they might have managed "In." But I doubt they'd have gotten "In the" and certainly not "In the beginning, God"

[Quix]

LOL.

Drunken, stoned, narcissistic, borderline, syphlitic monkeys produce the NY SLIMES.

[Quix]

Great and wonderful insisght I much agree with.

[Quix]

Somehow, I think I missed this first time around. Interesting. I still don't know what to make of Cydonia etc. but it is interesting. Your assertions could be accurate as far as I know. At least they are interesting to ponder.

[Quix]

Not that I recall. I think a FREEPER made a Bible Code software program available for downloading. In any case, the software is readily available. Help yourself. Wouldn't surprise me if it could be found. But it would have to be found in a long sentence or in some other ordered complexity to be beyond chance.

[Quix]

GREAT POINT.

[Quix]

Don't know how I missed this one . . . the refutation of the published article has been published on the BCD site as well as others, as I recall. I'm sure you can find the link.

No, I have absolutely no financial reward of any kind to my interest in this topic. Nor am I "wack" ??? whacked ??? and certainly not any more than anyone else on this thread! LOL.

The authentic codes are NOT fraudulent. There is plenty fraudulent in the subject area. BCD and other reputable scholars and sites have no part in anything fraudulent. McKay et al, however, do are in a whole different ball park on that score.

I have a lot of passion about a lot of interests. I'm probably even obsessive about some things in my life, still. The Codes is not one of them.

[Quix]

You asserted that I was the one who threw the first personal insult.

Given that I take insult to others by me very seriously, I reread the thread to this point.

You are wrong.

To this point, there were 34 posts with insults to those who believed in the codes at all. They were all much more pointed and much more attacks on persons, sanity, etc. than anything the other direction.

These insults and attacks on the Code believers personhood etc. began with post 2.

At post 169 I used the words rebellious and hedonistic to characterize unnamed skeptics' motivations for their beliefs in a very generalized rather vague comment. I and any others coming anywhere close to insult spoke of the flawed arguments etc. and virtually never assaulted the sanity, character, personhood etc. of those on the other side.

The opposite has persistently been true of your side on this thread.

I take insult seriously partly because all of us are made in God's image. And because Jim Robinson wants it that way and it's his turf.

But I make a distinction between assaulting an argument or wording or logic vs assaulting personhood, character etc.

The folks on your side--and you--seem to be compulsively driven to harshly assaulting personhood, character, sanity morality etc. and not just occasionally but with virtually every post--at least in my direction--interestingly.

I'm kind of left with the feeling that you folks have an incredible double standard.

And, I'm a bit flumoxed as to what sort of ANYTHING NEGATIVE any of us can say or what words we can use short of laudatory of every word you wrote, which you'd NOT construe as an insult or attack.

Perhaps we could say something like:

--I disagree.
--I don't find your words convincing.
--I don't think you have it right.

And perhaps similar super gentle opposing statements? But I wouldn't be surprised if you'd scream that even such phrasings were insulting.

In any case, after reviewing the thread, I'm rather comfortable with my wording. Your habits of fierce insult and hostile indignation are quite far over whatever line I may have even approached.

And your inults are not at all restricted to the logic, argument, reasoning, points etc. of those of us on our side. Your insults are pointedly personal, even viscious toward personhood, character etc. Very admirable, that.

Cheers.

[puppetz]

They are _not_ refuted in any other way other than to say "we did so find messages!" There is no explanation of how the legit researchers were able to replicate the crackpot results in other books (Moby Dick, War and Peace, even shorter works) plus they were able to find contradictory and spurrious and nonsense phrases throughout the BIble using the same methods the crackpots used, finding phrases like "the code is fake" etc. The only idea of refutation I see it where they draw attention to even more "code messages" they find, as if the sheer number of them proves their point. In fact, this new article breaks no new ground at all except to show more messages they found. In fact, if you read the report by the real scientists, they postulate you could find an almost endless number of messages by moving the intervals around until you get something.

Very plainly, their report spells out: 1, In any huge grouping of text, you can find patterns that seem to spell words. 2. Hebrew is especially pliant in this useless exercise because of the peculiarities of the language (vowel and double use letters) 3. In any case, the crackpots have fudged the results by using every "alternate spelling" they can get by, including ones never used anywhere, plus the words they come up with don't have any particular significance other than what you want to read into them. YOu could cut up todays NYT into words and throw them into the air and gather the ones you can find into a group and get some kind of 'retro-fit' to a past event. After all, a lot of things have happened in the world's history, including many that involve words!

This is a charletan's con game on the credulous and gullible. You are the type of person who paid mediums to talk to dead relatives and paid a nickel to see Piltdown Man. You can find websites just like the one you are spamming about, that push the existance of Bigfoot, Yeti, aliens, Nessy, BatBoy and Elvis (working at a 7-11 in Omaha). Just don't expect anyone with a lick of sense to believe that nonsense.

[Minuteman23]

Thank you Joanie. I knew I could count on you. :-)

You have mail.

[Quix]

I guess you are not very thorough in searching such docs out.

I don't find much validity in any of your paragraphs.

I find your insults inaccurate and unworthy reasonable discourse.

There has been extensive scholarly refutation of all the significant issues the skeptics have put forward--in every forum, case and document. I'm sad you haven't found such quality refutations. I don't know that I'll bother to track the scholarly refutations down for you. I doubt you'd be convinced by anything clearly scholarly and clearly factual anyway.

The skullduggery is, by the way, all on your side of the argument. That, too, has been proven.

Sigh.

[Poohbah]

Note the number 42. 42 months in Jesus' ministry, 42 sojourns in the desert, (Numbers 33), 42 children eaten by the bears when they told Elisha to "go up!" Great stuff!

42 is also the answer to life, the universe, and everything.

[Gamecock]

Bible Codes Explained:

[Poohbah]

The Bible Codes are the product of performing nonrandom permutations on a very large set of consonants. Period. End of discussion.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/bible-code.html

[concretebob]

If all I've done is make you think, I've succeeded.