Has anyone read the BIBLE CODE II?
- Thread starter cooz3
- Start date
I watched the Bible Code on tv not long ago....
...Interesting, but there's a guy here in Australia (University of Sydney I think) that did the same thing to Alice In Wonderland and came up with a heap of 'references' to JFK, and other historical events.
I guess it's the old 1000 monkeys/1000 years thing...enough words will inevitably result on various clumps if you look hard/laterally enough.
Just mho....But, yeah, as I said, definately interesting.
...Interesting, but there's a guy here in Australia (University of Sydney I think) that did the same thing to Alice In Wonderland and came up with a heap of 'references' to JFK, and other historical events.
I guess it's the old 1000 monkeys/1000 years thing...enough words will inevitably result on various clumps if you look hard/laterally enough.
Just mho....But, yeah, as I said, definately interesting.
I'm rather undecided on the matter....
From what I've seen on tv, the bits and pieces that they claim to find that are in close proximity and form long solid lines would hold a lot more credibility than those short ones they "find" that are 4 letters long and spaced out across the diagonal of a whole page.
Is there really a meaningful pattern to 4 letters that are each spaced 515 characters apart?
Using that standard they should be able to find plenty of swear words in a holy book also.
From what I've seen on tv, the bits and pieces that they claim to find that are in close proximity and form long solid lines would hold a lot more credibility than those short ones they "find" that are 4 letters long and spaced out across the diagonal of a whole page.
Is there really a meaningful pattern to 4 letters that are each spaced 515 characters apart?
Using that standard they should be able to find plenty of swear words in a holy book also.
the book actually explains why the tests that set out to refute the code are completely irrelevant...they simply did not mirror the actual process and technique used in decoding the biblical text...
im not defending the validity of the biblical code theory ..so please dont infer that from any statements i make...
if you read the book you will see why these so called "tests" do not refute the validity of the code...
an easy analogy ..as i understand it...would be if a scientist does a scientific analysis using an apple...and comes up witha certain theory...
another scientist comes along and says this theory is false ..I did my own tests and have refuted this theory...oh and by the way i used a banana instead..
but fruit is fruit..
sorry if this is confusing ..the book explains it much better...
interesting subject...
cooz
im not defending the validity of the biblical code theory ..so please dont infer that from any statements i make...
if you read the book you will see why these so called "tests" do not refute the validity of the code...
an easy analogy ..as i understand it...would be if a scientist does a scientific analysis using an apple...and comes up witha certain theory...
another scientist comes along and says this theory is false ..I did my own tests and have refuted this theory...oh and by the way i used a banana instead..
but fruit is fruit..
sorry if this is confusing ..the book explains it much better...
interesting subject...
cooz
Well.....no...
I do understand what you're saying, cooz (or what you're saying the book is saying
), but surely not....
I mean, just because the bible is the bible, and Mary Poppins is Mary Poppins (was that ever a book?...you get the idea!)...They are both pieces of paper with (effectively) random words printed on them.
By saying the bible's words aren't random, is I guess what the whole 'code' is about anyway, so it's a backward explaination.
ie. The explaination uses the 'fact' that the bible is 'special', which if you believed in the first place, then there's every chance you'd believe it does contain some kind of code from God.
I hope that all made some glimmer of sense! :cursin:
I do understand what you're saying, cooz (or what you're saying the book is saying
), but surely not....I mean, just because the bible is the bible, and Mary Poppins is Mary Poppins (was that ever a book?...you get the idea!)...They are both pieces of paper with (effectively) random words printed on them.
By saying the bible's words aren't random, is I guess what the whole 'code' is about anyway, so it's a backward explaination.
ie. The explaination uses the 'fact' that the bible is 'special', which if you believed in the first place, then there's every chance you'd believe it does contain some kind of code from God.
I hope that all made some glimmer of sense! :cursin:
Last edited:
....because it's not like comparing an apple to a banana at all, is it? It's more like comparing an apple to a 'special' apple...
...and to 'prove' the apple is special, they need you to believe it's special in the first place!
Nope...still not makin' any sense to the outside world here I know, but I'm havin' fun with it!
...and to 'prove' the apple is special, they need you to believe it's special in the first place!
Nope...still not makin' any sense to the outside world here I know, but I'm havin' fun with it!
