I posted this elsewhere, but it seemed important enough to warrant its own thread. (Note to skeptics: like my earlier post on the Tower of Babel, keep in mind that, contrary to what CSICOP and institutional science would have you believe, we do not understand everything about the universe. We make "guesstimates" of what we cannot understand. Therefore, strange things like UFO's usually get lumped into "hoax" or "alien" beliefs. Just because neither of these explanations may be correct does not mean the root phenomena is not real. Bible prophecy is one of these phenomena.) I am afraid that the Y2K parallels in Revelation are much too coincidental to be of no significance to what is starting to happen. For example "in one hour is thy judgement come" very aptly describes the rollover effect. The "number of a man" is 666. You will see it every where next year in the form of the upside down 666 in 1999. "let no man buy lest he have the number of the beast in his right hand or forehead" This is already in place, as when we hand our credit card to a merchant (right hand), or recite it from memory over the phone (forehead). "and his kingdom was plunged into darkness." Can this be a reference to the power grid? "Satan will be released from his prison" Could this mean prison doors malfunctioning? "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen" US/world government gone tits up? and many others... This is not strictly a religious issue. Jewish mathematicians discovered an amazing thing in 1993 about the original Hebrew version of the Torah, which is basis of the first 5 books of the Jewish, Islamic and Christian holy scriptures. Equidistant letter sequences found by computer analysis revealed some type of advanced encoding scheme that is far more complicated than what 20th century man or machine is capable of devising. It has been "proven" because the odds of the effect occurring randomly are millions to one, whereas standard statistical proof that something is not due to chance is on the order of 1:1000. Over five years later, it cannot be explained by the best skeptical minds of science. (Note that the Torah code is not to be confused with The Bible Code book, which tries to use the Torah code to predict the future. There does not seem to be anything to that particular theory). Arthur C. Clark and the physicist Paul Davies (no relation to Paul Davis) expressed the opinion many years ago that man's first contact with higher intelligence would be through the discovery of an "artifact". The Torah code seems to be such an artifact. Why are we discovering it now? Daniel 12:4 sheds some light on this: "But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end." This is not meant to panic anyone. Only to stir them into asking the important questions. Also note that I am not a "Christian"; in fact I am a physicist by education and software engineer by profession. Further reading:

Revelation, last chapter of the Bible

-- a (a@a.a), December 30, 1998

Answers

1999 upside down = 666? Maybe 666I (can't make an upside down 1)? What happened in 1666? 666? Come on, I could sit here all day quoting the bible to prove any point.

I'll give you credit for having a vivid imagination.

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), December 30, 1998.

OK Buddy now explain the other coincidences...

-- hmmm (anon@anon.com), December 30, 1998.

I think anon means syncronicities...

-- a (a@a.a), December 30, 1998.

Seems that a@a.a can't get away from his obsession with 666.......

I'll say it once again for the benefit of those that perchance are seeing a.a's "personal interpretation" of the Book of Revelation for the first time........

For almost 1900 years, the Book of Revelation was clearly understood by the church to have been written by the Apostle John around the year 66 AD. It was written as a warning to the people of Israel about the events that would be "soon happening" to them. The entire prophetic writing referred to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem which was fulfilled in the year 70AD when the Roman Emporer completely destroyed the temple.

The language is figurative and poetic and not unlike other apocalyptic type writings.

Only in the last 100 years or so did this spurious, unscholarly and unscriptural way of interpreting this portion of scripture come into fashion.

The Book of Revelation itself says that the all the events it was describing would "soon" happen. They did happen "soon" after the Book was written.

Taking apocalyptic literature that was written in the style and manor of the period, that was meant for the benefit of the people it was written for, and that saw its fulfillment soon after it was written, and transporting it to the twentieth century is bad enough. Add to that misdeed the strange habit of reading current events into it, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Even Gary North does not subscribe to this outrageous modern day revisionist idea of scriptural interpretation. This teaching had virtually no support whatsoever until Hal Lindsey came up with this strange notion around 30 years ago with his book, 'The Late Great Planet Earth'. It has become 'flavor of the month' primarily in extreme fundamentalist denominations and has spawned much paranoia and anxiety. The 'Antichrist' has been named many times over the last few decades and has included people such as Henry Kissinger, Gorbachev, Bill Gates and King Juan Carlos of Spain.

Books such as '88 Reasons for 1988' abound, all having been proven wrong when the events they 'proved' via 'scriptural numerology' etc. all failed to pan out. Flipping 1999 into 666?? is commonplace amongst these people and is by no means unique to a.a

This unfortunate maligning of scripture and its resultant damage path will likely be with us for the foreseeable future. Like all falsehoods, it too will pass.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 30, 1998.

When the number 1999 is written in the Hebrew numbering system rather than the Arabic numbering system, and then turned upside down, does anything of significance appear, other than upside-down Hebrew?

How about the numbering system used by those who originally wrote the New Testament (at least part was in Aramaic (sp?), IIRC), before the Arabic numbering system existed?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 30, 1998.

Thank you a.a for sharing your beliefs.

Thank you Craig, for an articulate response. I plan to staple it to my PC for use in future rebuttals.

From a Recovering Fundamentalist-

-- Lewis (aslanshow@yahoo.com), December 30, 1998.

I can't resist throwing one more mystical log on the fire. Nostradamas specifically named July 1999 for some terrible event:

L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois, Du ciel viendra vn grand Roy d'effrayeur: Resusciter le grand Roy d'Angolmois, Auant apres Mars regner par bon-heur. In the year 1999 and seven months [July] The great King of Terror will come from the sky He will resurrect Ghengis Khan Before and after war rules happily.

I don't particularly subscribe to any prophetic niche. I just thought the timing was interesting. If it had been August, it might have meant the GPS confusion!

-- RD. ->H (drherr@erols.com), December 30, 1998.

a,

>(Note to skeptics: like my earlier post on the Tower of Babel, keep in mind that, contrary to what CSICOP and institutional science would have you believe, we do not understand everything about the universe.

No, CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) and institutional science do not claim that we understand everything about the universe.

From the CSICOP On-line site: "The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal encourages the critical investigation of paranormaland fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public. It also promotes science and scientific inquiry, critical thinking, science education, and the use of reason in examining important issues."

a, if you're "a physicist by education", why did you misrepresent CSICOP?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 30, 1998.

Lewis.....

A recovering fundamentalist.........kinda like the phrase........it fits me quite well too.

I would highly recommend craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 30, 1998.

Let's try that one more time.........drum roll..........

Lewis.....

A recovering fundamentalist.........kinda like the phrase........it fits me quite well too.

I would highly recommend

This site has helped me immensely

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 30, 1998.

I humbly apologize to the syntax police for my hyperlink follies

Lewis.....

A recovering fundamentalist.........kinda like the phrase........it fits me quite well too.

I would highly recommend This site

This site has helped me immensely

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 30, 1998.

I humbly apologize to the syntax police for my hyperlink follies

Lewis.....

A recovering fundamentalist.........kinda like the phrase........it fits me quite well too.

I would highly recommend www.tentmaker.org

This site has helped me immensely

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 30, 1998.

"paranormaland"

No Spam Please,

I like that typo back there.

"Paranormaland"

Kinda like "Yourdon's Asylum"

:)

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), December 30, 1998.

nospam: I'm not saying that CSICOP doesn't provide a valuable service by uncovering fraud, and I'm not a religious nut. What I am saying, is that science has essentially replaced religion in most educated people as the defining authority of what is real.

CSICOP represents the high priests of this new religion. And just like the old priests, they feel threatened when confronted by phenomena that defy conventional explanation. In this way, they throw out a lot of meaningful data. They will not admit that anything in human experience cannot be explained away in terms of physics, chemistry, biology and psychology. That is a very pompous stance for a group that cannot even put a physical definition on something as simple and universal as love.

As evidence of this trend, a survey that was just published in Nature magazine showed that more scientists now do not believe in God than at any time in history:

"Belief in God among scientists has been declining over the years according to a report which says that a latest survey found that among top natural scientists the disbelief is almost total. The survey by Edward Larson of the university of Georgia and Larry Witham reported in the international science journal Nature has found that leading scientists reject God."

-- a (a@a.a), December 30, 1998.

I posted something very similar to this in April 1998 under the thread Y2K Encoded In The Bible? As you can tell from the comments I received then, and some of the comments posted on this thread, few people take this seriously.

However, about the same time I found the Y2K codes, I also found two separate Bible codes showing Clinton's impeachment. This code finding, which I updated after the impeachment vote on December 19, clearly shows that the Bible codes can be used to foretell the future, IF you know what to look for.

Take these comments for what they're worth to you, and spare me the flames.

Bryan

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), December 30, 1998.

Bible specifically say 666 is the number of a man....not a year.

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), December 30, 1998.

Good post and articulate responses. I would suggest that there is a bit too much conviction evidenced in the extensive explanation of the Book of Revelation. It is nigh impossible, though a few have tried, to conclude that exegetically the book has no application or relevance to the end times. Satan's kingdom is the entire earth, according to Paul and Christ. I do not know of any historical event that qualifies as "plunging his kingdom into darkness", up to the present, and it is quite difficult to take that phrase other than literally in the context in which it is given.

-- Mark (gal220@face2face.com), December 30, 1998.

Gee, such i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-i-n-g stuff, guys (hoo-boy). OK, one more time to bring in the new year, lets all say it together now:

Bad computer code does not care.

-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), December 31, 1998.

while I have to disagree with Craig and Lewis on the interpretation of the Book of Revelation (sorry, but there *were* repeated references to it in a prophetic context, historically - though which parts are or are not prophetic can be debated - same as with the Book of Daniel), I'd like to point out that the Torah code was spurious the FIRST TIME it was documented in the 15th century, and it is still spurious today.

In fact the original instance is sometimes studied by cryptographers as the classic case of a spurious code or cypher. It's spurious because it is solely a result of the use of an alphabetic language in a long document...nothing else. ANY long document in an alphabetic language will exhibit this same sort of tendency to generate letter combinations that can be misinterpreted as cyphered words.

Hmm...if I recall correctly I think this is mentioned in THE CODEBREAKERS...can't think of a good open source cryptographic discussion of this..would be nice if someone could suggest one. In any case, those guys who used that computer back in '93 should be ashamed! The 14th century Jewish rabbai who lead the original team did all of the math himself!

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), December 31, 1998.

a,

Scientific methods have been developed over the past few centuries with the aim of (among several ways of writing it) separating phenomena that exist in objective reality from phenomena which do not. Among the elements of the scientific method are careful definition of experimental hypotheses, repeatable testing of hypotheses, controls, error analysis, double-blind testing, publication of experimental descriptions and results sufficient for others to duplicate the experiments, and so on.

>CSICOP represents the high priests of this new religion. And just like the old priests, they feel threatened when confronted by phenomena that defy conventional explanation.

On the contrary, CSICOP frequently finds that those people who claim to have demonstrated paranormal or fringe-science phenomena are too afraid of having those phenomena examined using modern scientific methods to allow researchers to do so. It is not that CSICOP feels threatened by ghosts; it is ghost-claimers who feel threatened when groups such as CSICOP attempt to apply scientific methods to the investigation of claims of the existence of ghosts.

Remember Uri Geller? He'd go all around claiming that he could bend spoons with the force of his mind, and charge lots of money to demonstrate this supposed ability, but could only seem to do so when _not_ under scientific scrutiny. When placed under scientific observation, such as, but not limited to, CSICOP's, that precluded him from using slight-of-hand methods to fake his bent-spoon results, he never bent a single spoon.

(BTW, I once saw Geller appear on the Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, who was an amateur magician. Just before Geller was about to demonstrate his trick, Carson insisted on a change of spoons [in order to keep Geller from using his trick spoon], and ... Geller couldn't bend one that night on national TV. IIRC, Carson never made any particular comment on Geller's difficulty -- he just insisted that Uri use one of Carson's spoons instead of one that Uri had brought with him.)

CSICOP posted an article last April about ten famous hoaxes, Don't Be Fooled: Strange Hoaxes That Endure. It convers the Roswell Incident, Spiritualism, Psychic Networks, Shroud of Turin, Crop Circles, and others.

>They will not admit that anything in human experience cannot be explained away in terms of physics, chemistry, biology and psychology. That is a very pompous stance for a group that cannot even put a physical definition on something as simple and universal as love.

Oh? What is your physical definition of love?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 31, 1998.

(continued)

I have not seen CSICOP claim to have a physical definition of love. Have you? If not, why does that have anything to do with a pompous stance? Are you saying that any group that cannot put a physical definition on love is taking a pompous stance on what it _does_ say?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 31, 1998.

nospam: You're missing my point. Which is: CSICOP cannot explain UFO's, retrokinesis, remote viewing, ESP, Torah codes, and several other SCIENTIFICALLY documented anomalies (documented by Princeton, Harvard, MIT, SRI, USAF, et al.). These phenomena cannot be reproduced 100% of the time, they are spurious, and depend more on the mental setting than the clinical setting. Therefore, according to CSICOP, they do not exist. Now, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and I know BS when I see it. These guys will not let go of their empirical view of the world, just as the Y2K pollyannas will not release their "bump-in-the-road" cognitive dissonance.

Remember, as soon as you "believe" something, your mind closes. Some philosophers, such as Robert Anton Wilson, keep a permanently open mind. This allows them to think of the world using multiple models, like the wave/particle duality model used in quantum physics. In this mode of thinking, events like Roswell can have multiple meanings and realities, depending on the mindset of the conscious observer.

The whole idea of this post was to get people thinking about the synchronicities present in life, especially as we enter this time of "tribulation". I don't think that the 666 in 1999 has any "meaning" apart for its coincidental nature, but that in itself is enough. To understand what I'm saying, think about this:

If you are in a field and a butterfly flies by, you don't think anything of it. But if you were in that field and 1,000,000 butterflies flew by and formed your name in the sky, you would say OH MY GOSH! What is happening? How can this be? But think about it: the one, single butterfly is just as wondrous, just as perfect, and just as unexplained as the millions that were skywriting NO SPAM PLEASE. It is only because of our human nature and our preconceptions, that most of us think otherwise.

-- a (a@a.a), December 31, 1998.

This isn't directly related to Revelation and the Apocalypse, but Zechariah Sitchin, in his up to 6 volume "Earth Chronicles" series, has noted many times, that what the Bible says (in the original copies, not the modern translations) can be corroborated in many cases, by ancient Sumerian texts. Other ancient civilizations are involved here also.

He puts forth, based upon those texts, and a great deal of archealogical findings, as well as ALOT of corroboration with the Bible, that man is the product of genetic engineering by an extra-terrestrial race. Very man-like, except larger, and very long lived.

They arrived around 432000BC, and later created man in their own image by combining their DNA with the DNA of the then-present ape men.

They stayed here up until around 600BC, and formed many civilizations, and participated (and encouraged) in many wars.

Makes for interesting reading, that's for sure.

In his last book, he puts forth that the Bible has alot of coded meanings in it, including clues to how man was created in the first place. I can't say that it's all true, but it certainly has the ring of truth, if you look at it objectively.

Just my 50 cents worth

-- Bill (billclo@hotmail.com), December 31, 1998.

How ironic Craig. We don't believe in y2k, so I will live how ever I want to and I will be ok. We don't believe in hell, so I will live how ever I want to and I will be ok. Knowing the truth is more important then you might think. You better search after it, it's hard to find.

-- sm (g@b.net), December 31, 1998.

Arlin, I have to disagree with entirely about the Bible Codes in the Torah. Like Y2K, there is more to it than meets the eye, but only if you are willing to explore the issue with a semi-open mind.

Agreed, the popular book about the Bible Codes by a Michael Drosnin, I think, is mostly hype, as it talks about predicting the future using the codes. You need to read the book by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover on the subject, entitled, I think, The Bible Codes. Some of the most esteemed mathematicians and statisticians in the world have been unable to shake the thesis that these codes exist, but only in the first five books of the Bible. They are useless for predicting the future, simply because you don't know what to look for in a person or event until it happens. But they certainly are evidence of a higher intelligence, to put it mildly.

For example, famous rabbis or statesmen from history were coded repeatedly with the date of their birth or death appearing nearby in the text, or perhaps crossing the name. The statistical chances of more than an handful of these codes appearing are nil, and there are hundreds of them. If you assume that this is bogus, the way newbies assume y2k is, you are making a mistake.

-- Tom Knepper (thomas_knepper@intuit.com), December 31, 1998.

Bryan posted:

"However, about the same time I found the Y2K codes, I also found two separate Bible codes showing Clinton's impeachment. This code finding, which I updated after the impeachment vote on December 19, clearly shows that the Bible codes can be used to foretell the future, IF you know what to look for. "

OK, Bryan, I give up. Would you tell me what the code says about the stock market in the next year?

-- Buddy (DC) (buddy@bellatlantic.net), December 31, 1998.

Sorry, Buddy, I can't help you with the stock market. Too many variables.

But when the Lewinsky story broke in January, Clinton's resignation or impeachment seemed probable. I actually looked for resignation first, but couldn't find it. Clinton's name only appears twice in the Torah at an ELS under 10,000. So when both occurrences had the word "impeach" crossing them, I thought there was a good probability of that happening. History proved my supposition, and the codes themselves, right. The only argument now is whether they are there by random chance or by design. Each person will have to make up their own mind in that area.

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), December 31, 1998.

Bryan: You might have gotten lucky. My understanding is that attempting to foretell the future from the codes, at least with our present understanding, is futile.

Buddy: Get over it. The codes are real.

-- a (a@a.a), December 31, 1998.

Bryan: You might have gotten lucky. My understanding that attempting to foretell the future from the codes, at least with our present understanding, is futile.

Buddy: Get over it. The codes are real. Just like the words in Revelation are real. The interpretation thereof, is what is delegated to us humans.

-- a (a@a.a), December 31, 1998.

a,

>CSICOP cannot explain UFO's,

When discussing UFOs, I need to be clear on my terms, so first let's get this out of the way: "UFO" stands for Unidentified Flying Object, so any object that is flying and unidentified is, ipso facto, a UFO. So UFOs exist, and you won't find CSICOP quibbling with that.

Some discussions of UFOs are about the determination of the actual nature of a strange phenomenon someone observed. In some cases, there exists enough evidence to determine that the object was a cloud, the planet Venus, an odd alignment of automobile headlights, or a hoax such as a balloon outfitted with lights and flown at night with the specific intent of prompting reports of a "flying saucer". Some of the latter category, hoaxes, have been elaborate and the perpetrators have gone to great effort to create and perpetuate a false impression. CSICOP (among others) has investigated some UFO hoaxes and exposed them as such. In these cases, CSICOP most certainly _did_ explain UFOs. There are some organizations devoted solely to investigations of UFO reports -- one of my friends participates in one -- and they also do explain UFOs in terms of "ordinary" phenomena in the vast majority of the cases they take on.

The whole "Roswell incident" business is a combination of "ordinary" phenomena about which the government would not comment for many years, and hoaxes constructed around the reality.

Most controversial discussions of "UFOs" are really discussions of observations that some people want to interpret as evidence of the existence of vehicles of nonhuman, extraterrestrial origin. Over and over, whenever such evidence has been subjected to scientific inquiry (meaning the application of methods designed to prevent people from fooling themselves or others as to the real nature of things), it has been found to be entirely explainable by "ordinary" terrestrial things.

Keep in mind that there is a great amount of money to be made in the "UFO" business by claiming alien, extraterrestrial origins, but very little to be made by demonstrating "ordinary" terrestrial origins. Compare how many people will buy a book about supposed evidence of alien beings to the number that would buy a book debunking the supposed alien origin of the evidence? Money is enough of a motivator for many people to knowingly participate in UFO hoaxes.

>retrokinesis,

I'm not familiar with retrokinesis.

(As for telekinesis or psychokinesis, AFAIK all attempted demonstrations of such abilities fall apart when subjected to the sort of scientific scrutiny that rules out deception (intentional or not) or misinterpretation.)

>remote viewing, ESP,

My comment on these is parallel to that above for telekinesis and psychokinesis.

Keep in mind that would-be demonstrators of these supposed mental abilities sometimes have very difficult-to-detect methods of deceiving observers or themselves. Also, as with alien beings, people have powerful motivations to want to believe that such supernatural things exists, and this can easily override or bypass our critical evaluation of what we perceive.

>SCIENTIFICALLY documented anomalies (documented by Princeton, Harvard, MIT, SRI, USAF, et al.)

Scientists are human; they are subject to all the influences I've cited above. That's why the scientific method includes _reproducibility_ as a requirement, as well as publication of results so that they can be independently checked by anyone else.

Also, that an anomaly is scientifically documented does not imply that there is a supernatural (or unconventional or non-establishment, if you prefer) cause for the observed anomaly.

>These phenomena cannot be reproduced 100% of the time, they are spurious, and depend more on the mental setting than the clinical setting. Therefore, according to CSICOP, they do not exist.

No, another misrepresentation. CSICOP would say that there was not sufficient scientific evidence.

(And which definition of "spurious" did you intend?)

>Now, I didn't just fall off the turnip truck, and I know BS when I see it. These guys will not let go of their empirical view of the world,

But that's what their statement of purpose says -- they go by the empirical evidence. If you don't like that, don't join (but then don't claim they're something they're not.

>Remember, as soon as you "believe" something, your mind closes. Some philosophers, such as Robert Anton Wilson, keep a permanently open mind.

Does Robert Anton Wilson keep a permanently open mind as to whether he can breathe underwater as a fish does? Would he be willing to be sealed in a container filled with oxygenated water (sufficient for survival of fish) for twenty-four hours with no breathing equipment other than his own respiratory system, and expect to continue living very long? Or has he closed his mind to that possibility?

Does Robert Anton Wilson keep a permanently open mind as to the consequences of his sky-diving 30,000 feet without a parachute or any other apparatus, onto a hard concrete surface?

>This allows them to think of the world using multiple models, like the wave/particle duality model used in quantum physics.

But did you overlook that the wave/particle duality model used in quantum physics _conforms to all scientifically verifiable observations known today_?

Other theories in physics, such as the phlogiston theory, were abandoned after it was shown that they could not be supported by rigorous scientific observations. Do you or any other physicist you know still believe in phlogiston?

>In this mode of thinking, events like Roswell can have multiple meanings and realities, depending on the mindset of the conscious observer.

Okay. One such mindset is the scientific view.

Would you say that in "this mode of thinking", the event of sky-diving 30,000 feet without a parachute or other apparatus, onto a hard concrete surface can have "multiple meanings and realities, depending on the mindset of the conscious observer", in the same sense as you meant those phrases in reference to the Roswell event?

If so, would you contend that any of the meanings or realities that could be assigned to the sky-diving event other than the one culminating with a squished bloody body had any relevance to your everyday life? Would you advocate to your loved ones that they adopt one of those other meanings or realities, and exit the airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute?

If not, why are you arguing with institutional science or CSICOP?

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), December 31, 1998.

a,

You're probably right... I probably did just get lucky with the Clinton code find. But the fact that I found it before it happened shows that if some variables are known or can be predicted, you can search for future events. Like Y2K.

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), January 01, 1999.

I understand that

WWW = 666

in hebrew.

Perhaps we are *all* pawns in a bigger game. :-)

Me

-- Floyd Baker (fbaker@wzrd.com), January 01, 1999.

Bryan: that's an interesting thread, as is this one. Interesting that people posted to it from April through October. And I wonder which presently anonymous Yourdonite is really the skeptic Jeane Randall? I suspect its No Spam :) By the way, that link doesn't work so I assume you were referring to the one you referenced previously: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000473 nospam: Nice job of evading the issues. First of all, you need not explain to me that some UFOs are actually Venus, I think I'm a little beyond that. But its obvious to me that you're not. Read up on Jacque Vallee's Control System theory and Dr. Jack Sarfatti's "information from the future" (backaction) and then come back to the thread. Second, your reference to outdated physical theory is ironic. All theories are inherently wrong and will eventually be replaced by better approximations. You may find it interesting to note that the old Ether Theory, which was shot down in Einstein's day, is now resurfacing in the form of Zero-point Energy, which some day is apparently going to allow us to obtain unlimited amounts of energy from empty space by harnessing quantum vacuum fluctuations. Third, your example of jumping from planes and breathing underwater is totally irreverent to this discussion, and you know it. Fourth, you need to read up on the unexplained phenomena I mentioned before attempting to debunk them. Retrokineis, which is the influencing of an event backward in time, is explained in detail at

Retrokinesis page

This site is developed and maintained by Dr. John Walker, founder of Autodesk, Inc. and co-author of AutoCAD, hardly a crackpot. You also may not be aware that the CIA and other military organizations have an extensive history of using psychics and remote viewers, which is all unclassified information now. You can bet your ass they are now experimenting with more advanced "psi" technology. And finally, I suggest that you adopt a more objective outlook on reality. People are now teleporting photons and electrons, cloning humans, designing conscious quantum computers, experimenting with gravity based interstellar propulsion, and a host of other things that are straight out of yesterday's science fiction. You're missing the really interesting things and in danger of going the way of the flatearthers and earth-centralists, who got left behind "the day the universe changed".

-- a (a@a.a), January 01, 1999.

a,

I was trying to set up a link to my web page with the Y2K findings... don't know why the link doesn't work (from the source, it looks like it should). Here is the site of my Y2K Bible code findings the link should have pointed to:

http://www.aristotle.net/~bhuie/code2r.htm

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), January 01, 1999.

yes I saw it referenced on the other thread. I have to admit its impressive. And very interesting that all the associations appear in Numbers.

-- a (a@a.a), January 01, 1999.

and just curious...how many extra pounds of wheat did you lay down when you saw all that shit pop up?

-- a (a@a.a), January 01, 1999.

a,

What issues did I evade? I responded to your comments about institutional science and CSICOP. I wasn't interested in discussing the rest.

>Read up on Jacque Vallee's Control System theory and Dr. Jack Sarfatti's "information from the future" (backaction) and then come back to the thread.

Why? (Other than this being a convenient way for you to dismiss me.)

>Second, your reference to outdated physical theory is ironic.

Why ironic? I used it to illustrate that to be useful in science, a physical theory has to be consistent with reality.

>You may find it interesting to note that the old Ether Theory, which was shot down in Einstein's day, is now resurfacing in the form of Zero-point Energy,

While there are some parallels, they're hardly the same.

>Third, your example of jumping from planes and breathing underwater is totally irreverent to this discussion, and you know it.

You wrote, "Remember, as soon as you "believe" something, your mind closes. Some philosophers, such as Robert Anton Wilson, keep a permanently open mind."

My examples were chosen to illustrate the inapplicability of those two sentences.

>Fourth, you need to read up on the unexplained phenomena I mentioned before attempting to debunk them.

In this thread I haven't attempting to debunk any phenomena other than some erroneous statements about institutional science and CSICOP.

>You also may not be aware that the CIA and other military organizations have an extensive history of using psychics and remote viewers, which is all unclassified information now.

I've read about that. 1) Their extensive history of use or investigation of psychics and remote viewers has led only to dead-ends. 2) The CIA and military have done a number of other things that led to dead-ends - psychics and remote viewing don't particularly stand out in that respect.

>And finally, I suggest that you adopt a more objective outlook on reality.

_ME_ adopt a more objective outlook on reality?

You mean, accept your theories that are not supported by objective evidence? Or what?

>People are now teleporting photons and electrons,

I challenge this statement. I have recently read about an observation at Caltech (Calte ch physicists achieve first bona fide quantum teleportation) of teleportation of quantum states, but that is not the same as teleportation of photons and electrons. Give us a reference.

>cloning humans, designing conscious quantum computers, experimenting with gravity based interstellar propulsion,

So? In each case, these things are based on theories that are consistent with objective scientific observation.

>and a host of other things that are straight out of yesterday's science fiction.

So you lump ESP and the Roswell incident in with them because they've also been mentioned in science fiction?

>You're missing the really interesting things and in danger of going the way of the flatearthers and earth-centralists, who got left behind "the day the universe changed".

Please take a deep breath and re-read what I've posted earlier in this thread.

Notice that I have consistently argued _in favor_ of using objective scientific observations to determine what is real.

Note that "flatearthers and earth-centralists" were "left behind" because objective scientific observation _did NOT_ support their theories.

-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 01, 1999.

a,

I was already convinced of Y2K before I found the Bible codes, but they did help put me into action mode. We've already gotten quite a bit of supplies together, and we're now in the process of selling our house so we can relocate out of the urban area we live in. There's still a whole lot left to do, though. Hope the main panic is still several months off...

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), January 01, 1999.

Bryan,

The Bible code info on your website is very interesting. I have not read the book as yet, but have a few questions.

1. Any special reason why the arrangement of the Hebrew letters is in a 22-column grid? If the linebreaks are changed to say 20, the rows are shifted by 2, 4, 6, etc. and while many of the collinear character positions will remain collinear (but at a different angle) some will wrap around.
2. What is ELS (no definition on your web page or the Y2k Encoded in the Bible thread)?
3. Are there any other findable words, that don't have to do with the infrastructure or problems?
4. Is there an online link to book excerpts or other work showing the probability of finding words by chance in an arbitrary plaintext letter/word sequence (is Hebrew more likely to have findable words)? I would think this could be easy to check out with a computer program and a dictionary. This goes to Arlin's (and others') objection that it could be a chance finding.
5. Is there any way to sort these found words based on some uniform criterion (such as angle of the slope they define, their starting position, their length, their character spacing, direction of the sequence, etc)? It would be interesting to see a table with the words in the first column and their various attributes in the other columns. Then we could see if there is a good sort basis. Since you have the data, can you check this out and post it?

Question#5 is my main question here.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 02, 1999.

nospam: your dogma, splitting of hairs, strawmen and denial has convinced me that you are one of them. Are they still charging the $200 a year membership fees?

Now, just to clarify my original position from the beginning of this thread, I said "I'm not saying that CSICOP doesn't provide a valuable service by uncovering fraud, and I'm not a religious nut. What I am saying, is that science has essentially replaced religion in most educated people as the defining authority of what is real."

And your comments reinforce this supposition. We will never understand reality through science alone. Organizations like CSICOP refuse to admit that there is currently phenomena that is "paranormal" in nature. Stuff that science gets a big fat "F" at trying to explain. Only when a physical theory has been formulated or an experiment reproduces it 100% of the time is it considered "real". My point is that the universe IS changing, and we will have to modify our belief systems accordingly. However, y2k may postpone the need to do this anytime in the near future.

Look at the Torah code as an example. CSICOP thinks it is bogus. Your buddy James Randi, the high priest of CSICOP, and himself a magician, has a web site that ridicules the codes and provides an online program to find hidden words in Moby Dick. Well, the only dick as far as I'm concerned is Randi himself. Randi has been on record saying "I've never done drugs, drunk alcohol or coffee. I don't want to do anything that would color my perception of reality" What a damn joke. This fool thinks that he is going to have a clearer picture of the world because he doesn't drink coffee????. Give me a break. Studies done in the 60's clearly showed that LSD raised the IQ of participants in the study by an average of 10%. This is a controversial finding, and one that we are not able to further investigate, because people like Randi have decided that "its too dangerous to find out the answer". In other words, it may be an answer that the High Priests disagree with.

In my opinion, the Torah code is a model of life itself. The synchronicities found in everyday occurrences allegorically mimic the patterns and associations found in the code. These types of things are not inherently "provable" by the scientific method, and if that is a problem for you and CSICOP, then get ready to miss the boat.

Think of it like this: Guns are real; Uniforms are real; Policemen are a social fiction. Ink is real; Paper is real; Laws are a social fiction. Does that mean that if I break the law and get shot by a cop, its not real? Of course not. But that does not invalidate the previous statements.

Nospam, I used to walk the halls of the physics department, talking with the professors, sharing that smug feeling that all was well understood and everything behaved the laws we studied so religiously. But its just not so. There is just as much disorder as order in life. That's why you find yourself continually weeding, edging and cutting your lawn. Man sometimes imposes order where there is none in reality.

And I'll leave you with this thought: 65% of hospital personnel that deal with dying patients report "mystical experiences" occurring around the dying patient. When my dad died a few years ago, the week long period around his death, peaking the night before he died, was so full of unexplained occurrences, witnessed by the whole family, it was unbelievable. Sometimes you just have to be there.

-- a (a@a.a), January 02, 1999.

aaa, re your last paragraph above, you are absolutely correct. The time around death is awesome. Wouldn't miss it for anything. Doors opening to other realms. Can be frightening, intense, but if one is strong and holds to God, it can be so powerful as to draw one back to it's unearthly glow again and again. We want to be there, and that's why we are hospice caregivers. Never do get used to it.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 02, 1999.

Jon,

If you are interested in the mathematics and statistical probabilities behind the Bible code, you should certainly read Satinover's book "Cracking the Bible Code." It gives a very good explanation of this aspect of the codes. I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

1. The only significance to the 22-letter matrix for the code finding is that spacing allows for the best visual presentation of the codes. They would still be there regardless of the line length, but they are the easiest to see in this configuration. I have several Bible codes software programs. One of them optimizes the findings in a matrix that allows for the best viewing. That program is how I came up with the line length of 22.

2. ELS = Equidistant Letter Sequencing. It simply means that you identify words by starting at a letter and skipping a consistent number of letters each time until the word is spelled out. For example, "fish" at an ELS of 5 would look like this: FxxxxIxxxxSxxxxH

3. Yes, there are other words in the matrix. Most of them are shorter words that are there due to random chance. There are also some related words that I didn't show in order to keep the graphic from getting too cluttered.

4. My newest codes programs has a statistical probability calculator built into it. One of the things that isn't fully shown on my matrix is that in the 7th chapter of Numbers, where this "millennium bug" code cluster is found, the year "2000" (always at an ELS of 38) is crossed by the Hebrew word for "destruction" (always at an ELS of 4) 12 times. That by itself, without considering the other relevant words in the matrix, would occur by random chance less than 1 time in a million. Since my statistical probability calculator only goes that high, I would bet there's significantly less than 1 in a million chance of that occurring randomly.

5. I'm sure there's a way to do that manually, but in reality, that's what my software that arranges the shape of the code matrix does. It finds the optimal way to structure the codes so that they are obvious from viewing them.

Hope this answers some of your questions, Jon.

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), January 02, 1999.

Bryan, thanks for the info and it brings up more questions.

This same observation could have been made 100 or 200 or any number of years ago, and therefore does not seem to have any obvious significance to the y2k problem. Okay so one of the found words was '2000' but then doubtless other numbers could be found. However all the other words describing problems and the infrastructure would have been given whatever interpretation that would fit the concerns of the day.

The program that computes significance probabilities could be making some unwarranted assumptions. Letter frequency is never uniform nor is word frequency. Significance is clearly related to word length (the shorter words are easier to find), and to a lesser extent on the ELS (the longer ELS more likely due to random chance). I notice most of the words are just 3 or 4 characters and most of the 4-length words need an ELS of 100 or more to be found. If you have an infinite amount of text (or even wrapping around with sufficient finite text), eventually any dictionary word will be found.

To assess the statistical significance, I suggest running the 'word hunt' software on any ordinary text file (preferably Hebrew with its 22-letter alphabet, or if the extra 5 ending forms are distinguished, 27) and look at the list of found words, sorted by word length and ELS as follows:

Word	Length	ELS
Year	3	1
Destruction	5	4
Computer	4	17
Bug	3	18
Terror	4	22
Bank	3	23
Grid	3	23
Millenium	6	23
2000	3	38
Telecommunication	3	38
Death	3	45
Disruptive	4	45
Power	3	46
Plague	3	52
Hunger	3	65
Famine	5	67
Code	4	88
Fail	4	109
Problem	4	112
Disrupt	4	154
Electricity	4	154
USA	4	173
Panic	4	199
Government	5	239

This does not look convincing to me and much less so since you mentioned many of the found words were omitted from the list. If the ELS were all the same, that would be remarkable and noteworthy, but as it is, I am not impressed.

Even if this is just trying to find a sermon in a stone, cryptography makes a good discussion topic, however it's hard to see much use of it in helping to understand or deal with the y2k problem. It reminds me of the work of Stan Tenon (sp?) who once claimed some significance to the fact that he could form all the Hebrew letters from the shadow of a 3-d golden spiral just by holding it at different angle ( www.danwinter.com should have something on this).

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 02, 1999.

Jon,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion; however I must disagree with you. If you find this information of no use or significance, disregard it. Whether these terms are encoded by design or appear by random chance, the bottom line is that Y2K will still occur.

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), January 02, 1999.

Bryan, I agree (and it goes without saying) that each of us are entitled to our opinion, and it does interest me as mentioned, but even disregarding the question of whether the 'found words' are due to random chance or the result of conscious intent on the part of an unspecified entity, the question comes up, "if it is an encoding, what is the point? to give a heads-up to anybody clever enough to decode it before y2k?". Or put more generally, what do you see as being the possible use and/or significance (inquiring minds want to know)? We all already know that y2k is going to occur.

As far as imputing conscious intent to encode keywords (including slang terms such as 'bug') from the result of a search algorithm, can you see how it's necessary to try this algorithm out on other (non- biblical) source text to see if there is anything other than random chance here.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 02, 1999.

Jon,

I believe the point of the Bible codes is that cited by God in Isaiah 46:9-10:

"...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure...' "

God clearly tells us in the Bible (if you choose to believe it) that He is in control of and guiding world events. I believe the codes are His way of documenting and proving that assertion.

I doubt that my code finding on Y2K will cause more than a handful of people to prepare who wouldn't have done so anyway. If it does, good; but I personally believe it (and the other events encoded in the Bible) are there strictly as a witness to verify God's claim shown above.

My software tells me that the word "millennium" should statistically appear .00839 times in the passage represented in my matrix. The odds that it appears there by random chance are calculated to be less that 1 in a million. When you combine this fact with the large number of Y2K-related terms found in such a small amount of text (only 1004 letters), I don't see how you can say that it isn't convincing.

But regardless of those numbers, I've studied and researched the codes enough to now be persuaded of their validity. I personally don't need to do any more analysis to believe that what they reveal is legitimate.

If you do feel that need, Jon, please put forth the effort examine the Bible codes in great detail. But our belief in them in no way affects their validity. God does not depend on man to confirm His will.

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), January 02, 1999.

Scientists, require objective scientific observations to determine what is real. Definable, repeatable.

For others, lifes unreal and very personal experiences are all they need to determine, all is not what it seems. Mysterious, illusions within illusions.

The argument is rather like perfume. For some, scent is defined by understanding the chemical breakdown of an item and the accepted ability to reconstitute an approximation of the original using synthetic elements. For others, it is sniffing a truly fragrant garden rose, feeling inspired and writing a poetic masterpiece.

What is real?

Yes you can study the patterning of the Torah codes and extrapolate many future things. Or you can strive to create your future, by working with the natural patterns all around. Many master teachers on the planet, over millennia, have taught us how to connect with the Divine flow. Maybe they understood something scientists have yet to grasp.

The energy? Contraction v.s. expansion. Finite v.s. infinite.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 03, 1999.

>>I believe the point of the Bible codes is that cited by God in Isaiah 46:9-10:

"...I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure...' " <<

Bryan ,

Certainly, God does know the end from the beginning, and occasionally He affords us a glimpse into things not yet done to confirm His knowledge of them for us. Unfortunately, our nature is to be unsatisfied with that revelation, and to attempt to take the next step, that of divination, which He has expressly forbidden.

>>Scientists, require "objective scientific observations to determine what is real." Definable, repeatable. For others, life's "unreal" and very personal experiences are all they need to determine, "all is not what it seems." Mysterious, illusions within illusions. <<

But Diane, isn't it patently obvious that neither viewpoint, taken alone, is totally sane? The scientist, who will pride himself on his open mind, places limits on his perceptions. The "others," who let slip their grasp on the evidence of their five senses, are self-limiting as well, since they often remove themselves from the gene pool prematurely, as a result of, for example, not "believing in" the oncoming truck. There must be an integration of both the physical and the spiritual. John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Verily, verily, I say to thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Emphasis on the words "born" and "see." Also note that there is no hyphen between "born" and "again."

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 03, 1999.

Bryan, I am not in disagreement with anything you have posted, but instead of quotes from scripture and what the software is telling you, I would rather hear what you think is the usefulness and significance of the extraction of keywords by use of the ELS algorithm.

I did not find any reviews of Cracking the Bible Code but did find more info on Bible Code at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684810794/ref=sim_books/002- 2353062-4672252 . I'm not clear on the difference between the "Bible Code" and the "Torah Code" but they both seem to be seeking hidden meanings in scripture by extracting keywords with the ELS method.

I have put some thought into this because as a professional research programmer with considerable background in the use of statistics for scientific biomedical research, I have always been interested in finding patterns and evaluating their significance. I've also studied a wide range of spiritual matters for some 30 years as well as basic processes in physics and logic.

So when I find a statement in the original post from 'a' that says:

Equidistant letter sequences found by computer analysis revealed some type of advanced encoding scheme that is far more complicated than what 20th century man or machine is capable of devising. It has been "proven" because the odds of the effect occurring randomly are millions to one, whereas standard statistical proof that something is not due to chance is on the order of 1:1000. Over five years later, it cannot be explained by the best skeptical minds of science.

I am motivated to question: what is the purported 'proof', who are these 'best skeptical minds of science' and where are the references? I find no trace of these among the numerous comments in this discussion.

Typical of the comments are these:

from 'a':
the Torah code is not to be confused with The Bible Code book, which tries to use the Torah code to predict the future. There does not seem to be anything to that particular theory.

from Bryan:
However, about the same time I found the Y2K codes, I also found two separate Bible codes showing Clinton's impeachment. This code finding, which I updated after the impeachment vote on December 19, clearly shows that the Bible codes can be used to foretell the future, IF you know what to look for.

From 'a':
The codes are real. Just like the words in Revelation are real. The interpretation thereof, is what is delegated to us humans.

First problem:
'a' says these codes can't be used to predict the future. Bryan says codes can be used to foretell the future.

Second problem:
'a' says codes are real, just like certain published words, but the interpretation is what? You have to realize that a 'code' is an interpretation, derived from words, and therefore subject to difference of opinion and debate.

Now back to the current focus of the discussion.

From Bryan:
My software tells me that the word "millennium" should statistically appear .00839 times in the passage represented in my matrix. The odds that it appears there by random chance are calculated to be less that 1 in a million. When you combine this fact with the large number of Y2K-related terms found in such a small amount of text (only 1004 letters), I don't see how you can say that it isn't convincing.

Problem 1:
If the likelihood of the word 'millenium' is about 8 times in 1000, that is closer to odds of 100 to 1, not 1,000,000 to 1. Something is missing from this picture.

Problem 2:
The 'large number of y2k-related terms...' As is abundantly clear in this forum, just about anything can be related to y2k, so the significance is lost. And Bryan's computer output shows 971 source characters instead of 1004.

 

Now back to my central point about the unconvincing appearance of the found patterns. Notice that I don't rely on what any book or program is telling me (which are subject to false assumptions and interpretive bias).

From a 22-letter alphabet, there are 10,648 3-letter words (22*22*22) and 234,256 (22 to the 4^th power) 4-letter words. These are not all dictionary words of course, but it is an upper-bound estimate.

According to my calculations, ELS can be used to extract (from a 1,004 letter sequence) a maximum of 503,004 possible 3-letter words and 333,670 possible 4-letter words. Here is the reasoning:

Let w=word length, S=source text length, E=maximum number of ELS. Starting from the first character position we want to count the number of w-length ELS combinations skipping 0,1,2,3,4,... characters until the maximum for this starting point (s) which is e= (s-1)\(w- 1). Note the backslash is integer divide. So starting at position 1 there are 1003\2=501 combinations of 3-letter ELS words, skipping from 0 to 500 letters, and 1003\3=334 combinations of 4-letter ELS words, skipping from 0 to 334 letters. Repeat this for position 2, then 3, etc. to give a series of numbers which are added up and doubled to allow for forward and backward directions.

Starting position	# of 3-letter ELS	# of 4-letter ELS
1	501	334
2	501	334
3	500	334
4	500	333
s	(s-1)\2	(s-1)\3
Total, forward	251,502	167,835
Total, fwd+rev	503,004	335,670

This is based on source text length of S=1004

So there are 838,674 possible 3 and 4 letter ELS words in the source text. The fact that a couple dozen short Hebrew words (that can be related to y2k) are found among these (including 10 of the 3- letter and 10 of the 4-letter words) is not intuitively impressive.

So I repeat my opening comment, addressing anyone who is following this:

I would rather hear what you think is the usefulness and significance of the extraction of keywords by use of the ELS algorithm. Is it a wish to support belief of impending cataclysm on scriptural authority using esoteric code extraction schemes, or is there a need for more convincing reasons to prepare than plain common sense along with the already abundant reports of y2k remediation problems?

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 03, 1999.

Yes, Elbow, "isn't it patently obvious that neither viewpoint, taken alone, is totally sane?"

It's called balance. Some refer to it as left-brain and right-brain integration. Others call it "Trinity."

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 03, 1999.

Awwww, Diane, you disappoint me. Think vertically, not horizontally. There's a world of difference between believing it's all in your head (that's balance?) and believing there's a higher power who created the universe and all living.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 03, 1999.

>>I would rather hear what you think is the usefulness and significance of the extraction of keywords by use of the ELS algorithm. <<

Jon,

From my Christian perspective, there does not appear to be much significance to the codes as applied to Y2K for the simple reason that the plain text makes no explicit mention of the "event." Also, there may be (and I think there are) messages encoded into the text on a "higher" plane, but as I commented to Bryan, to expect that one could use these messages to foretell the future runs diametrically counter to God's injunctions in the plain text.

I understand your "upper bound" argument, but you must admit that "3 letter combinations" do not equate to "3 letter words." This alone could seriously alter your statistics, eh?

What if we turn your question around: What is the minimum criteria that would impress you?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 03, 1999.

Jon,

I'm sorry, I forgot to include the Standard Deviation for the "millennium bug" code finding (which is 10.82887) when I quoted the statistical probability of it occurring by chance. The following information, describing how odds of occurrence are calculated by my Bible Codes Plus 99 software, is from the manual:

*****************************************

ABOUT STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Statistical significance means that the presence of a certain occurrence is so unlikely that the chance of it being due to random factors is minimal. Finding a specified word encrypted in the biblical text does not necessarily mean that it has statistical significance. Its presence in the text could also be attributed to purely random factors according to the Probability Theory.

Bible Codes Plus uses Probability Theory to:

a) Find out the odds of finding a specified code in a specified range of text, in all possible equidistant skip intervals, from 1 to 65000, (which we will call Expectations).

b) Compare it to the actual number of found codes, (which we will call Hits).

c) Find out the statistical significance of the difference, (called Standard Deviation), if any, between Expectations and Hits. If the number that represents the Standard Deviation is much larger than 0, the odds against the event being caused by random factors becomes also proportionally larger.

Definitions

The definitions below should make it easier to understand what is meant by "statistical significance":

Statistics Branch of mathematics which deals with the collection, organization and interpretation of numerical data.

Equidistant skip interval This is the distance, not counting spaces, between each of the letters in a sequence of letters that are the components of an encrypted word.

Hits These are the actual number of found occurrences of a code in a specified range of text, from an equidistant skip interval of 1 to the maximum equidistant skip interval of 65,000.

Expectations These are the number of times that a specified code should appear encrypted in a specified range of text. The Expectations are calculated automatically by the program, taking into account: a) the number of times that each particular letter appears in the specified range of the text; and b) the total sum of the letters in that same range of text.

Standard Deviation This is the measure of the variability (dispersion or spread) of any set of numerical values about their arithmetic mean. In plain language, Standard Deviation is the difference between Expectations and Hits. The larger the Standard Deviation, the larger the Odds.

Odds This is the ratio of the probability of an event's occurring to the probability of its not occurring. The higher the Odds, the less the probabilities that the occurrence of the event was caused by random factors.

Statistical Significance This phrase means that the Standard Deviation is too high, (and consequently the Odds), to attribute the results purely to chance.

Formula used by the program: Number of Standard Deviation = (Hits - Expectations)/Square root of Expectations.

An illustration

When we toss a die, (which has six sides), 1,000 times, choosing each time, let's say, the side with the two dots, we should expect to guess rightly, (Expectations) 1 in 6 times, i.e. about 167 times (1000/6 = 166.66). But if our guess turns out to be correct only 42 times, (Hits), then the Standard Deviation is quite large, (about 4), and the odds that the results were not caused randomly are also extremely large, (about 50,000 to 1).

*****************************************

Jon, that's how the program came up with the 1/1,000,000 figure for the word "millennium" in my matrix (which doesn't show every letter in the search area). Also, here is a link to the amazon.com page featuring Satinover's Cracking the Bible Code. If you're really interested in learning about the Bible code instead of arguing about it, order this book and read it.

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), January 03, 1999.

Elbow,

I have to disagree that researching the Bible codes can be equated to divination. If the codes were put there by God, does He not expect us to search them out? Proverbs 25:2 says "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter." To say that God placed the codes in the Bible and then condemns us if we look into them and find future events recorded is illogical and portrays God as our tempter, not our savior.

I believe we must be careful about trying to use the codes to predict the future. There are too many variables in most cases to get a complete and accurate picture. So I think one must wait to totally verify a code until after the historical fact it records has happened (as with my Clinton impeachment code findings). But that doesn't mean future historical events aren't discernible within the codes. The codes are there and have been there since the Torah was written 3,500 years ago. It's just that we now have the tools to identify them.

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), January 03, 1999.

Jon: If you are a statistician, you really need to read the original paper, which passed an unprecedented three peer reviews before it was published. It's entitled

Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis

The math is above me, but it's fascinating nonetheless. It doesn't seem to be on the web any longer, but its reprinted in the back of Drosdin's book, and is probably available from Statistical Science journal.

I will always remember the day I "got it" about the codes. The hair stood up on my neck and I literally thought I was dreaming. It was a similar feeling when I "got it" about y2k. Except that my first thought then was the Tower of Babel.

The qualm I have with Bryan and Drosdin is that I think it is meaningless to try to predict the future with them, just as I think it is meaningless to use ESP technology to conquer the stock market or topple world governments. It just doesn't seem to work that way. Its apparent intent is to make us ask the important questions.

-- a (a@a.a), January 03, 1999.

This is a marvelous thread and it certainly helps us understand what happens when a 'finite' mind contemplates an 'infinite' reality. However, I think Jack said it well.........Bad computer code does not care.

-- c (c@c.c), January 03, 1999.

>>I have to disagree that researching the Bible codes can be equated to divination. If the codes were put there by God, does He not expect us to search them out? Proverbs 25:2 says "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of kings is to search out a matter." <<

Bryan, the smart-aleck response is: Are you a king? :-)

Seriously, though, given that God engineered the codes, how can you be sure *why* He put them there? Aren't you making a large assumption that you know the answer? Do you have a problem with the definition of divination as "attempting to foretell the future"?

If you search for a conjunction of ELS words and find none, does that mean the searched-for event will not happen? Do you conclude that the event will/may happen but not with the anticipated result? How do you determine that a future event will be coded and when there will be no ELS mention of it? Is *every* future event coded? Or is your technique faulty? IOW, if you cannot rely 100% on these predictions, you must re-examine your assumptions and premises.

>>To say that God placed the codes in the Bible and then condemns us if we look into them and find future events recorded is illogical and portrays God as our tempter, not our savior. <<

I have heard similar arguments which appeal to human logic this way. I believe I have pointed out some gaps in that logic. Most importantly, though, when addressing God's motives for His plan for mankind, human logic is woefully inadequate.

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 03, 1999.

Hi Elbow,

>>Bryan, the smart-aleck response is: Are you a king? :-)

Actually, Elbow, I do believe I am a king (according to the Bible):

REVELATION 1:5 From Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and has made us KINGS and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

>>Do you have a problem with the definition of >>divination as "attempting to foretell the future"?

Yes, actually I do have a problem with that definition. According to that viewpoint, we would have to avoid all God-inspired prophecies in the Bible. Otherwise, we would be guilty of trying to use these biblical prophecies to foretell the future. For those of us who believe that Revelation has not been fulfilled yet, we would be forbidden under your definition from reading Revelation in order to understand what will happen in the future. Yet the intro to the book says it is, "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants -- things which must shortly take place" (Rev. 1:1). So clearly God has no problem with His servants knowing what is going to happen in the future.

Divination as it's condemned in the Bible is trying to foretell the future from sources other than God. This was Saul's sin when he had the medium call up the dead Samuel (1 Sam. 28:15; 1 Chr. 10:13). It is condemned as a sin when mediums contact spirits to foretell the future (Lev. 20:27; Deu. 18:11). But God obviously doesn't have a prohibition against knowing the future when He reveals it. Otherwise, why would He have sent His prophets to warn Israel and Judah of the future punishment that was going to fall on them if they didn't obey Him?

>>...if you cannot rely 100% on these predictions, >>you must re-examine your assumptions and premises.

Elbow, I don't rely on my code findings to predict the future. I always present them as nothing more than "being there." If they come to pass, then they were valid; if they do not, then my technique was faulty or flawed. I do not take the position that since I found this encoded, it must happen. I simply present my findings as food for thought.

>>...when addressing God's motives for His plan >>for mankind, human logic is woefully inadequate.

I agree with you 100% there, Elbow.

-- Bryan (bhuie@aristotle.net), January 03, 1999.

Elbow, "Think vertically, not horizontally. There's a world of difference between believing it's all in your head (that's balance?) and believing there's a higher power who created the universe and all living."

Thinking spherically. It's all Divine. The whole creation. The higher power has infinite ways of communicating too.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 04, 1999.

EG, I was using 'words' in the more general sense, as a letter sequence which may or may not be a valid term in the language, and 'dictionary words' as those which are valid terms.

I pointed out that there are over 800,000 3 and 4 letter ELS combinations from a 1004-letter Hebrew text. Add in 5 and 6 letter words and the point is that from a couple hundred plaintext words, one can derive over a million combinations.

I don't know what proportion of the 10,648 3-letter and 234,256 4- letter strings are dictionary words, but suppose it's 1%, then I would expect 5,030 dictionary words among the 503,004 3-letter ELS combinations and 3,337 dictionary words among the 333,670 4-letter combinations. The fact that 20 y2k-relatable dictionary words are found among the estimated 8,000 does not seem remarkable.

This brings up the question "How many 3 and 4 letter dictionary words were found among the 838,674 ELS extractions?" Whether it's 1,000 or 10,000 or so, when you divide the number of y2k-relatable words (20) by that number you get a better measure of significance that is likely to make you wonder if all this is worth the time spent on it.

To answer your last question, what would impress me? Lower skip numbers or perhaps if all these words had the same skip number.

Bryan, you need to give the number of 3 and 4 letter dictionary words found that are not related to y2k for comparison to lend any sort of meaning to the findings. All I see in response to my numerous concerns is a list of definitions that came with the program. The statistical terms are very poorly defined. You say "If you're really interested in learning about the Bible code instead of arguing about it, order this book and read it." I do not consider myself arguing about anything, merely discussing it in an objective way.

And as far as my budgetary decisions, I would point out that for the cost of the book I could have 100 more rolls of toilet paper, and at this point that would give a much better return on investment. I doubt if anyone could care less about the ELS algorithm a year from now.

As for the article:

Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg, Equidistant letter sequences in the Book of Genesis, Statistical Science, vol. 9, no. 3 (1994), pp. 429-438

The only Statistical Science periodical that turns up on a search with www.dogppile.com (my favorite meta-search engine) is an Australian one. I have looked at the math as described in http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/stecom.html (see also http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~tsirel/topu.html ) and am now even more confident this is unworthy of much further attention.

Anyway I don't see why divine messages need a computer and elaborate 'decoding' schemes, which are pure artifice, and little more. Go take a walk in a forest and if your mind is not too cluttered with artificial contrivances you will have a much easier time recognizing divine wisdom. I think this is Diane's point. You don't need computers for this. The devil is in the detail.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 04, 1999.

www.dogpile.com is the meta- search engine to use for submitting a query to multiple search engines (with typo corrected). It's kind of a Labrador Retriever for research.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 04, 1999.

After glancing at 61 responses (I thought by the number of responses there had to be a nuget of fact or interesting comments), I conclude that a@a.a practices voodoo, lives life according to what his/her horoscope says everyday, and the people who attempt to argue with him/her with logic are attempting to contract Tunnel Syndrome by typing worthlessly so they can collect worker's comp. (my own contribution in this thread is simply due to the fact that I have no life outside of Y2K.)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 04, 1999.

Here's the original article:

Original Torah Codes article by Rips

From the Conclusion: "We conclude that the proximity of ELS's with related meanings in the Book of Genesis is not due to chance."

UFO believer: I saw an alien craft.
UFO debunker: No, it was Venus.

Codes believer: This is a message from God.
Codes debunker: No, the code doesn't exist.

Man sees one butterfly: Ho hum.
Man sees million butterflies: JESUS CHRIST! LOOK AT ALL THOSE BUTTEFLIES!

:)

-- a (a@a.a), January 04, 1999.

Chris, the ad hominem and denialist arguments such as your last comment are a good example of the brain droppings that need cleaning up around here. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion and feel the urge to make a contribution, you're better off moving on to one of the toilet threads.

a, thanks for the reference. I notice that proximity between words are measured in a cartesian two-space with a cylindrical topology, and the proximity measure of related word groups is of interest (seeking the more tightly distributed related word clusters). As far as the ELS proximity not appearing random, what the high significance figures are demonstrating is that words with related meaning have more letters in common. It stands to reason that this correlation is due to words with related meaning tending to share sounds (phonemes) and syllables and letters (lexemes), having common etiological roots. This is a simpler explanation of the data, so by Occam's razor principle, it is more likely to be the more accurate one. The calculated significance may also be an artifact of the way the data is being looked at. I'll be looking closer at the info.

Bryan, in addition to the number of found y2k-related words and found y2k-unrelated words, also needed to gauge the significance of the findings is the number of dictionary entries for each sought word length. (how many Hebrew words are there in the dictionary of length 3, 4, etc.)

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 04, 1999.

Jon, did I intrude on your thread? Oh, I'm real sorry, I didn't mean to.

I agree that brain droppings are everywhere on this forum, and because someone attempts to disguise them with scientific jargon doesn't make them facts. To be fair with you, I should tell you that I'm an atheist, and so I view "research" such as the Torah Codes article as fancy voodoo attempting to give credibility to "faith". My own brain droppings shouldn't cause you such discomfort Jon, after all you know better, right? So why be so intolerent of my presence?

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 04, 1999.

Chris, no need for apology. I realize you're doing the best you can to understand a technical discussion. I was just giving you a friendly helpful suggestion that there are better places to post the irrational and absurd. And the thread doesn't belong to any one person, it is a combined effort to increase understanding. You do however, own your words, which are not reflecting very much consciousness.

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 04, 1999.

Very well Jon. I do realize I do not belong on this thread, since what you call consciousness belong only to you. I also do not usually post on religious threads. I slipped up.

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 05, 1999.

Jon: You may need a little deprogramming. Read this (they even handle your Occams Razor argument):

Zen and the art of Debunkery

And this comment by Marcello Truzzi, one of CSICOP's founders, where he exposes his former compeers:

On Pseudo-Skepticism

Chris: here is a place for you to go play: Click here if you are simpleminded

-- a (a@a.a), January 05, 1999.

a, thanks for the reference, but I am far from the mainstream 'science' targeted by this article. I've also read a some of the CSICOP's Journals and noticed a very heavy bias and closed mindedness among many of the articles in it.

However you have to realize there are lots of gullible people who will believe anything if it's connected to the Bible. You definitely don't want to fall in with that group. And the Church does not have a very good record on updating their beliefs in the face of new evidence. When Copernicus came out with the heliocentric model of celestial mechanics in the 16th century that explained observations of other planets and the retrograde motions, the Catholics felt threatened by the loss of their simplistic geocentric model (with the sun rotating around the Earth and no other planets), and branded his new concept as heresy. When Kepler and Galileo came out with the idea of elliptical orbits instead of perfect circles a hundred years later, they were trying to discredit a 2000-year dogma and Galileo had to spend ten years a prisoner in his own house. The church people felt circular motion was more consistent with divine perfection, and they could not believe the earth could spin at 1000 mph and not have everybody fall off. When Newton identified the phenomenon of gravity as the missing puzzle piece in the 17th century, the evidence was incontrovertible and since the model fit the data much better, the church had to abandon their cherished beliefs about the physical world. Doubtless there were ecclesiastical acolytes who resorted to quoting scripture and other propaganda tactics to lend some kind of imprimatur of Biblical authority to their obsolete and naove beliefs.

From the Zen reference:

"Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted, has a profoundly expansive, spiritual impulse at its core. This "Zen" in the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the nature of things with "beginner's mind." When this is done, reality can speak freshly and freely, and can be heard more clearly. Appropriate testing and objective validation can--indeed, *must*-- come later."

And from Joni Mitchell:

"the good slave loves the Good Book; a rebel loves a cause..."

-- Jon (jonmiles@pacbell.net), January 05, 1999.

I was doing some light searching for a dead sea scrolls and revelations and code link. This thing is interesting reading but a lengthy online book! Havent finished it yet, nor found the parts Im looking for. Anyone else found some good dead sea scrolls links? Thanks. -- Diane

http://www.moslem.org/ jesus.htm

The first known report of this comprehensive mathematical coding was presented more than 900 years ago by a Hasidic Jewish rabbi, Judah the Pious. He put forth the theory "that the words and letters of the scripture are not accidental, but their order, and especially their numbers, reflect a mystical harmony." ... The references in this book cover a wide range of documents, including the Torah, the Old Testament, the New Testament the Nag Hammadi Library, the Dead Sea Scrolls, numerous pieces of Apocryphal Christian literature, and the Quran, as well as the views of numerous Christian scholars.

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 05, 1999.

Just a few facts to set things straight.

Catholic scholars did not simply dismiss Galileo's theories because they were threatening to the status quo (although that was certainly the motivation for some, I'm sure). The evidence he offered in their support (tides, sunspots, etc.) in no way proved his case. And there were indeed Catholic scholars, highly placed (e.g. Cardinal Bellarmine), who agreed with Galileo. Galileo was told that he could teach his position as a theory but not as fact (and remember, he hadn't proved it yet). He refused to abide by this and was (mildly) punished. Note, please, that this is the one and only time that the Church has had such a run-in with a scientific theory. But it's bandied about as if it this one incident proves the Catholic Church to be the enemy of all science. Nonsense.

WRT the discussion on the Bible, especially the book of Revelation, please note (as Craig has already pointed out WAYYYY up above) that the text of the book itself says that the events were to "soon take place". The book begins and ends with multiple statements indicating that the "time is near" and things are "coming soon." Futurists, who want to apply the predictions of the book to every current event, literally can't get past the first verses of the book before their theories disintegrate. As Craig said, the book was written to predict the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, an even which was indeed "near" for the original readers of the book.

-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 05, 1999.

Jon,

>>To answer your last question, what would impress me? Lower skip numbers or perhaps if all these words had the same skip number.<<

Start with Genesis, the first book of the Bible. Start with the *first* "T" Hebrew equivalent in the book. Using an ELS of 49, (The heptadic structure of the Bible is indisputable; seven squared is highly significant) will yield TORH (Torah).

This is *repeated* in Exodus.

Go to Numbers. Start with the *first* "H" Hebrew equivalent in the book. Using an ELS of 49 yields HROT (Torah in reverse)

This is *repeated* in Deuteronomy.

What about Leviticus? No TORH there. But starting with the first "Y" Hebrew equivalent, and an ELS of 7 yields YHWH, the Hebrew name of God.

Coincidence?

-- Elbow Grease (Elbow_Grease@AutoShop.com), January 05, 1999.