The Bible Code

[Oscar]

How about this:

Suppose you are asked to construct a genealogy of real people, but there are certain constraints. The number of words in this genealogy must:


·   Be evenly divisible by seven (with no remainders)
·   The number of letters must be divisible by seven
·   The number of vowels and consonants must be divisible by seven
·   The number of words that begin with a vowel must be divisible by seven
·   The number of words that begin with a consonant must be divisible by seven
·   The number of words that occur more than once, must be divisible by seven
·   The number of words that occur in more than one form must be divisible by seven
·   The number of words that occur only in one form must be divisible by seven
·   The number of names in the genealogy must be divisible by seven
·   The number of male names must be divisible by seven
·   And the number of generations in the genealogy must be divisible by seven

How many genealogies and how many algorithms do you think you would have to mine to satisfy the above constraints?

Verne

Verne,

Answer....ONE!

All you have to do is examine the text first....then "discover" the amazing characterists.   


Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Verne,

Answer....ONE!

All you have to do is examine the text first....then "discover" the amazing characterists.   


Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

I understand your point. I am not talking about only texts.
I am also talking about geneaologies. Of course you could try to extract some other measurable information from whatever text you use.
There are eleven distinct variables in the given list.
Choose any genealogical literature you can find, take half the number of variables and show me what you got...or as you put it, "discover".
To make it really convincing, choose one genealogy, and one search algorithm and then prove your case Tom.
By the way, just to save you a bit of time and effort, it has already been done by several very able Jewish and German mathematicians...
Verne

p.s that genealogy of course is found in Matthew 1: 2-17. Ask Stephen about the pure mathematical probability of "discovering" the above facts. You can actually calculate it you know...

[al Hartman]

My aim in starting this thread was not so much to solicit philosophical pronouncements about the validity or accuracy of the Bible code, but rather to promote discusssion among those of us who might be interetesd in Scriptural numerology. It goes without saying that to make any meaningful comments on the subject you should have at least read the book in question. Let's keep it light and airy shall we? I have found that many Christians are not well informed on the subject, nor for that matter even interested so please feel no obligation to offer your two cents if you don't have any
Verne

Verne,

I hope my post is not offensive to you in that I have not read the book in question:  I am not well informed on the subject of Biblical numerology (nor do I feel "obligated" to engage in discussion), but I do find it interesting.  As a slow and laborios reader, I find it necessary to choose my study tasks carefully.  (My purchase of Gene Edwards' A Tale of Three Kings, in order to "qualify" for the discussion, was IMO a complete waste of money and reading time.)  So I'm wondering what about the topic of this thread might make The Bible Code worth my time?  (A "light and airy" discussion is less than compelling.)  Is the topic of this thread the book (as your "It goes without saying" comment would indicate), Biblical numerology, or both?

Tom,

Your posts so far make me wonder just what you think of the topic?  You seem to not find it enthralling...

In Christ,
al

[vernecarty]

Verne,

I hope my post is not offensive to you in that I have not read the book in question: 

Hardly. I was just pointing out that while pontification is often purposeful, it is not necessarily always proper. I would categorise your post on the topic as pontification Al.

I am not well informed on the subject of Biblical numerology (nor do I feel "obligated" to engage in discussion), but I do find it interesting.  As a slow and laborios reader, I find it necessary to choose my study tasks carefully.  (My purchase of Gene Edwards' A Tale of Three Kings, in order to "qualify" for the discussion, was IMO a complete waste of money and reading time.)  So I'm wondering what about the topic of this thread might make The Bible Code worth my time?  (A "light and airy" discussion is less than compelling.)  Is the topic of this thread the book (as your "It goes without saying" comment would indicate), Biblical numerology, or both?

I find this comment puzzling. On the one hand you say you find the topic interesting (the reason most of us post on any given topic), and in the very next sentence you ask me justify your reading the book?!
You are at perfect liberty to do as you see fit without my, or anyone else for that matter, sanction Al.
I am afraid you've lost me on that one...

Verne

[al Hartman]

   ...I was just pointing out that while pontification is often purposeful, it is not necessarily always proper. I would categorise your post on the topic as pontification Al.

That's OK, Verne.  I consider some of your posts on this thread condescending and exclusive, but I don't hold it against you.  I expect you to behave as you consider proper, and hope you will allow me the same latitude.

I would appreciate your saying why you consider my remarks a pontification, and if you find it improper rather than useful, again, why?

In Christ,
al

[vernecarty]

That's OK, Verne.  I consider some of your posts on this thread condescending and exclusive, but I don't hold it against you.  I expect you to behave as you consider proper, and hope you will allow me the same latitude.

I would appreciate your saying why you consider my remarks a pontification, and if you find it improper rather than useful, again, why?

In Christ,
al

I ssuggest you go back and read what you posted Al. If you have thoughts or questions about Michael Drosnin's book, by all means express or pose them. Nobody is interested in being lectured by you about the "dangers" of Biblical numerology.
Based on your comments it is not clear to me that wer are even talking about the same thing. The condescension is in you own presumption in my view Al.
Verne
p.s. Tom's query by the way was quite reasonable in that he sought to confirm that I had verified personally the facts that I had posted. He also offered an alternative viewpoint and explanation of those facts. He did not make vague  statements about the peril of the topic I broached, or that I was somehow seeking esoteric knowledge as you did. I hope that helps.

[Oscar]

Al,

You wrote,

Tom,

Your posts so far make me wonder just what you think of the topic?  You seem to not find it enthralling...

In Christ,
al

While I have only "looked over" the Bible code book, I have read other books on the topic.  One of them is Bullinger's "Number in Scripture".

A few warning lights go off in my mind when this topic arises.  A couple of them are:

1. Gematria is a popular occult practice.  The Kabbalists are big on it, as well as others.  It was practiced in pre-Christian times by the Pythagoreans.  Seems to me that God doesn't need to utilize the occult to communicate his truth.

2. The technique is used by Muslims to "prove" the divine origin of the Koran.

3. When other large documents have been tested they have produced some surprising results.  I once read an analysis of the Gettysburg Address using these random computer searches. It produced some surprising results.  That, however, hardly proves that Lincoln was a prophet of God.

4. When all is said and done, the same question may be asked of Bible code fans that can be asked of mystical knowledge fans.  I have been asking the mystical knowledge fans the same question for years.  "What revelation of God have you received in this way that cannot be found in scripture?"   I am still waiting for anyone to tell me one single thing!

I strongly suspect that the Bible code is of the same value.  But, if someone has any revelation they have received from the utilization of this, or another, purported code that is not accessable through normal hermaneutical methods...fire away.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Thomas Maddux

[vernecarty]

Al,

You wrote,
While I have only "looked over" the Bible code book, I have read other books on the topic.  One of them is Bullinger's "Number in Scripture".

A few warning lights go off in my mind when this topic arises.  A couple of them are:

1. Gematria is a popular occult practice.  The Kabbalists are big on it, as well as others.  It was practiced in pre-Christian times by the Pythagoreans.  Seems to me that God doesn't need to utilize the occult to communicate his truth.

2. The technique is used by Muslims to "prove" the divine origin of the Koran.

3. When other large documents have been tested they have produced some surprising results.  I once read an analysis of the Gettysburg Address using these random computer searches. It produced some surprising results.  That, however, hardly proves that Lincoln was a prophet of God.

4. When all is said and done, the same question may be asked of Bible code fans that can be asked of mystical knowledge fans.  I have been asking the mystical knowledge fans the same question for years.  "What revelation of God have you received in this way that cannot be found in scripture?"   I am still waiting for anyone to tell me one single thing!

I strongly suspect that the Bible code is of the same value.  But, if someone has any revelation they have received from the utilization of this, or another, purported code that is not accessable through normal hermaneutical methods...fire away.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Thomas Maddux

I would remind you Tom, that the reason that there is sin in the world is that Satan wanted to take God's place.
It ought to be evident that all the mystical aberratations that you so correctly cite are nothing more than perversions of God's truth. In and of themselves those arguments do not invalidate the findings of men like Bullinger regarding Scripture.
I do not think it would have been possible for anyone to employ hermeneutical principles to predict the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. That Drosnin did in fact do this a documented fact.
You must also remember that there is real Satanic power behind the practioners of the occult.
There is also real divine power, not all of which we fully comprehend, in the Holy Scriptures.
This kind of discussion is bery, berry good. Keep those insightful sckeptical posts coming...I love 'em!!

Verne

[al Hartman]

Thanks, Tom & Verne.

Verne, is there anything in scripture that suggests that we should, or may, expect to find numeric codes in God's Word?  If so, are we told to seek them,  toward what purpose they appear or who among us should expect to recognize them?

Your statements in response to Tom's post (the numbering is mine):

(1.)   ...the reason that there is sin in the world is that Satan wanted to take God's place.

(2.)      It ought to be evident that all the mystical aberratations that you so correctly cite are nothing more than perversions of God's truth. In and of themselves those arguments do not invalidate the findings of men like Bullinger regarding Scripture.

(3.)      I do not think it would have been possible for anyone to employ hermeneutical principles to predict the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin. That Drosnin did in fact do this a documented fact.

(4.)      You must also remember that there is real Satanic power behind the practioners of the occult.

(5.)      There is also real divine power, not all of which we fully comprehend, in the Holy
Scriptures.

   ...provide nothing by way of actually answering his points.  They make for interesting, even fascinating, argumentation which, IMO is their great potential danger, while providing nothing of substance upon which to form an instructed decision.  e.g., in (1.) & (2.), what you say "ought to be evident" is no more evident than the possibility that numerical mysticism is, in & of itself, is a form of counterfeit religion, one facet of which has been introduced into the thinking of some Bible believers (much as unscriptural doctrines are introduced to draw people away from the true gospel, resulting in such perversions as the JWs, Mormons, etc.).

      Points (3.), (4.) & (5.) are valid observations that themselves could be applied to any number of positions or arguments.  The key is to determine whether there is anything at all within the scope of what we do comprehend in scripture that would lead us to the conclusion that we should look for something more, beyond the language itself to be taught us by the Holy Spirit?

In Christ,
al

[moonflower2]

But who created numbers??

Who created the earth??

Who created the constellations?

[vernecarty]

Thanks, Tom & Verne.

Verne, is there anything in scripture that suggests that we should, or may, expect to find numeric codes in God's Word?  If so, are we told to seek them,  toward what purpose they appear or who among us should expect to recognize them?

Not to the best of my knowledge. We do know though that numbers are important in the Bible because of the frequency of their use as a central theme.

Your statements in response to Tom's post (the numbering is mine):

   ...provide nothing by way of actually answering his points.  They make for interesting, even fascinating,
argumentation which, IMO is their great potential danger,    

At least it makes for interesting conversation don't you think?

while providing nothing of substance upon which to form an instructed decision.  e.g., in (1.) & (2.), what you say "ought to be evident" is no more evident than the possibility that numerical mysticism is, in & of itself, is a form of counterfeit religion, one facet of which has been introduced into the thinking of some Bible believers (much as unscriptural doctrines are introduced to draw people away from the true gospel, resulting in such perversions as the JWs, Mormons, etc.).

I would hardly consider things posted on a BB such as this to be a proper basis for "forming instructed decisions."
I am sorry if that is the main purpose for your reading and participating here Al.
I enjoy occasional banter about non-life changing topics.
I also like scuba diving, playing classical guitar and chess. Discussions about those topics would hardly give you a basis of "substance upon which to form and instructed decision"  
This is BB Al, not a Sunday School!  

Points (3.), (4.) & (5.) are valid observations that themselves could be applied to any number of positions or arguments.  The key is to determine whether there is anything at all within the scope of what we do comprehend in scripture that would lead us to the conclusion that we should look for something more, beyond the language itself to be taught us by the Holy Spirit?

In Christ,
al

Why don't I just leave that determination entirely up to you?  
Verne

[vernecarty]

But who created numbers??

Who created the earth??

Who created the constellations?

You know something Moonflower?
The way some people carry on about some of these subjects, you would think that God Himself was somehow a latecomer to His own universe.
What you say is apparently not as evident as I assumed it to be...
Verne

[sfortescue]

...
I do not think it would have been possible for anyone to employ hermeneutical principles to predict the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin.  That Drosnin did in fact do this a documented fact.  You must also remember that there is real Satanic power behind the practioners of the occult. ...

Verne

What you say seems very creepy to me.  A big part of what the occult involves is deception.  The fact that Drosnin predicted an assasination suggests that his source of information was the perpetrators themselves.  Media efforts to stand behind a hocus-pocus explanation suggests media involvement in a cover-up.

What I consider to be the primary difference between a stage magician and an occult practitioner is that the stage magician does tricks, but the occult practitioner does dirty tricks.  The essence of the occult is moral filthiness.  The hocus-pocus idea is a distraction and cover-up of what the occult really involves.  In fact, when someone immediately starts talking about hocus-pocus upon mention of the occult, it makes me suspicious of that person: as if they are intentionally trying to further a false image of the occult.

It may sound like I'm saying that there is no such thing as the supernatural, but what I'm really saying is that that question is irrelevant to defining what the occult is about.  Deception is deception.  It doesn't matter whether it happens in the physical realm or the spiritual realm.  In essence it's still the same thing: it still amounts to being the ways of the master deceiver, the devil himself.

[al Hartman]

I would hardly consider things posted on a BB such as this to be a proper basis for "forming instructed decisions."
I am sorry if that is the main purpose for your reading and participating here Al.
I enjoy occasional banter about non-life changing topics.
I also like scuba diving, playing classical guitar and chess. Discussions about those topics would hardly give you a basis of "substance upon which to form and instructed decision"  
This is BB Al, not a Sunday School!  

Scriptural references such as "For me to live is Christ..." and "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.  And be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God," and many similar passages do not appear to have part-time application.  It is not impossible-- just difficult-- for me to anticipate some archaeological dig to uncover writings in which any of the apostles discuss only their "interests" apart from their high calling in Christ Jesus...  their hobbies and recreational activities they enjoy without concern of how they will be interpreted by observers.

Maybe I am legalistically bound up in error, but it has taken most of my years since acknowledging Christ to come to a place where my "Sunday School" persona does not differ from my standing-in-a-grocery-line persona.  I am the same al on this board as I am at the church I attend, or at the beach, a museum, or a ballgame, and Christ in me, the hope of glory, is with me wherever I am.

I intended nothing personal toward you, Verne, in posting a cautionary note on this thread, nor in my follow-up posts.  People read this board for all kinds of reasons and we have the opportunity to manifest the King of kings and Lord of Lords in our lives and in our posts.  To me it is both a privilege and a responsibility.  Some surely see it otherwise.  I post to fulfill my responsibility, not to censure others.  If I challenge your position on a topic, it is not an al vs/ Verne situation, but a seeking to explore the truth.

You know perfectly well that when I have had personal concerns, I have delivered them to you privately, and accepted your refusal of some of them.  I will only challenge you publicly when:
1.]  I see no personal issue, and only wish to clarify,
2.]  You have refused my private appeal and have presented a post that I consider potentially dangerous.
In neither case am I seeking to cause division, but enlightenment.  If you truly enjoy debate as you claim, then there should be no reason to belittle the character or the reasoning of one you choose to recognize as an opponent-- simply demonstrate him wrong.

It is not my thought to regard you as an opponent, but as a beloved brother in Christ.  Between the two us is the freedom to reason with one another, appeal to one another, debate.  I am not offended if you consider me unqualified to challenge you.  I am behind you in education, in knowledge, and possibly in intellectual capacity.  But we are both children of the Lord and heirs of both His wisdom and His humility.

I don't suppose that when you play guitar, dive, or compete at chess you leave Christ aside or behind, but that whatever you do in thought and deed you do all to the glory of God.  So, please forgive me if I do not accept that your "light and airy banter" about matters of personal interest are performed with utter lack of concern for how others may interpret them.  I am constrained to believe that you are as responsible in your leisure as you are at your labors.  Please correct me if I have judged you wrongly in this.

In Christ,
al

[vernecarty]

Scriptural references such as "For me to live is Christ..." and "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.  And be not conformed to this world: but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God," and many similar passages do not appear to have part-time application.  It is not impossible-- just difficult-- for me to anticipate some archaeological dig to uncover writings in which any of the apostles discuss only their "interests" apart from their high calling in Christ Jesus...  their hobbies and recreational activities they enjoy without concern of how they will be interpreted by observers.

Maybe I am legalistically bound up in error, but it has taken most of my years since acknowledging Christ to come to a place where my "Sunday School" persona does not differ from my standing-in-a-grocery-line persona.  I am the same al on this board as I am at the church I attend, or at the beach, a museum, or a ballgame, and Christ in me, the hope of glory, is with me wherever I am.

I intended nothing personal toward you, Verne, in posting a cautionary note on this thread, nor in my follow-up posts.  People read this board for all kinds of reasons and we have the opportunity to manifest the King of kings and Lord of Lords in our lives and in our posts.  To me it is both a privilege and a responsibility.  Some surely see it otherwise.  I post to fulfill my responsibility, not to censure others.  If I challenge your position on a topic, it is not an al vs/ Verne situation, but a seeking to explore the truth.

You know perfectly well that when I have had personal concerns, I have delivered them to you privately, and accepted your refusal of some of them.  I will only challenge you publicly when:
1.]  I see no personal issue, and only wish to clarify,
2.]  You have refused my private appeal and have presented a post that I consider potentially dangerous.
In neither case am I seeking to cause division, but enlightenment.  If you truly enjoy debate as you claim, then there should be no reason to belittle the character or the reasoning of one you choose to recognize as an opponent-- simply demonstrate him wrong.

It is not my thought to regard you as an opponent, but as a beloved brother in Christ.  Between the two us is the freedom to reason with one another, appeal to one another, debate.  I am not offended if you consider me unqualified to challenge you.  I am behind you in education, in knowledge, and possibly in intellectual capacity.  But we are both children of the Lord and heirs of both His wisdom and His humility.

I don't suppose that when you play guitar, dive, or compete at chess you leave Christ aside or behind, but that whatever you do in thought and deed you do all to the glory of God.  So, please forgive me if I do not accept that your "light and airy banter" about matters of personal interest are performed with utter lack of concern for how others may interpret them.  I am constrained to believe that you are as responsible in your leisure as you are at your labors.  Please correct me if I have judged you wrongly in this.

In Christ,
al

How far afield from the Bible Code...I would really rather not correct you Al, and just talk about Drosnin's book.
I'm frankly just a bit worried about you my friend...really...
Verne