Can Anyone debunk this?

Originally posted by watchtheashes
Yes I am very aware of patterns in noise. This however makes music.

No really.

www.research-systems.com...

I would assume any pattern based language would regardless of meaning.

As long as it was syntactically correct it could be gibberish otherwise and still sound beautiful when translated into notes.

Especially inflected languages like Latin....

Why is Latin an infected language? Its only run on the Torah. That' it. Codes are a whole different field.

How about this then?

FROM AD2004.com

In reading the Bible, many people come across a description of the huge sea at Solomon's Temple, which held 2000 baths of water. They read the description in 1 Kings 7:23-26, and note that this water container was 10 cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and was 30 cubits in circumference, and 5 cubits in height. Skeptics take issue and say that either God didn't know the value for "pi" (3.1415927....) or else it proves that the Bible was written by men, and at the time they had no understanding of the relationship of : pi = circumference of a circle divided by the diameter = 3.1415927... The following is an exact possible solution:

The mistake that people make when reading 1 Kings 7:23, is to assume that the value of 10 cubits is the inside diameter, and 30 cubits is the inside circumference; or they assume that both are the outside parameters.

Let's take a look at the situation where 10 cubits is the outside diameter, and 30 cubits is the inside circumference.

First, what is a cubit? 1 cubit = 18 inches (distance from elbow to fingertip)

calculation of pi = circumference / diameter = (30 x 18) / (10 x 18) - (2 x handbreath in inches)

Since I consider myself an average size man, I measured my own handbreath and it is slightly over 4 inches. I have a good engineering ruler with hundreths of an inch, and my handbreath is ~4.05 inches.

calculation of pi = (30 x 18) / [(10 x 18) - (2 x 4.05)] = 540 / (180 - 8.10) = 3.1413613 = 3.1414

Let's compare our calculated value of 3.1414 to the real value of "pi", which is 3.1415927. Actually, the parameters given in 1 Kings 7:23-26 gives a direct value for "pi" that is within 2 parts in 10,000. I would call that fairly accurate.

Since the outside diameter of the sea is 10 cubits, what is the inside diameter?

inside diameter = circumference / pi = 30 / 3.1415927 = 9.5493 cubits

And, since the inside circumference is 30 cubits, what is the outside circumference?

outside circumference = diameter x pi = 10 x 3.1415927 = 31.4159 cubits.

Mystery Solved, the ancient people did have an understanding of PI. In fact, there is no way other than as done in the scriptures, where someone can give two even measurements of the sea and do it with economy of language (using the figures of 30 and 10 cubits to describe all the measurements of the molten sea).

homepage.virgin.net...

ad2004.com...

Originally posted by watchtheashes
Why is Latin an infected language? Its only run on the Torah. That' it. Codes are a whole different field.

How about this then?

LOL... First off... I said "Inflected language" Not "Infected"

Details... details.... you really need to look at the details.


Secondly, you do realize that any circle that anyone makes is going to have pi in the equation whether or not they are aware of that right? No one came up with it... it was there the whole time, just waiting to be quantified.

That would be like saying the makers of bronze age chariots were aware of pi. When in reality they just wanted to use the wheel.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by HunkaHunka]

Yes indeed that is what I have been trying to say to people for many days now. That pi was there to be quantified and who none other than the Creator would have made it that way?

There is a reason a circle is a circle.

reply to post by watchtheashes


So key points here:

1. Any pattern based language makes music when transposed into tones. My favorite is computer languages.

2. Circles by their very nature have common ratios... of course that one doesn't take a genius, that's like saying every creature has an inside and an outside.

I'm missing anything mystical here. Beautiful yes... mystical not so much.

There is nothing "Mystical" about the existence of God. There is nothing mystical about the Bible codes. I'd more lean towards the word factual.

reply to post by watchtheashes


Nothing mystical about God? According to the Christians there is...

en.wikipedia.org...


But what I was asking was what about wheels and music points to an existence of God?

God is indeed alive. Alive and well. Has always been and always will be. Such a being cannot be comprehended by perspective within the universe. You would have to be a member of the same "dimension or realm" to even have such a comprehension. Then we get the Bible which is this wonderfully rich book of wisdom learning and prophecy that just so happens to make its own claim of authorship.

reply to post by watchtheashes


Yeah, and all these other wonderful texts as well, like the sutras and the bhagavad gita, and the stories of the Cherokee and the those of the Celts, and the Vikings et cetera.

I really enjoy reading all of the different and varied wisdom from all the cultures on earth.

reply to post by watchtheashes


So i guess what your trying to say is god wasn't wrong he just wasn't very good at understanding geometry but just kinda got close enough.That was very confusing since it still didn't equal pi then it was still wrong wasn't it? Maybe he would have been better off using fractions i find that easier myself.

I've yet to see a counterexample by a PHD certified statistician into this sort of research. If anyone can provide one by a professional skeptic with:

A) More than 100 terms.
B) 20-30+ letter long terms including complete non-skip 1 sentences
C) Visual patterns and shapes or mosaic clusters (BTW those crosses are beyond chance)
D) Organization rather than clutter
E) Provides a control text for that same experiment
F) Coherent story telling in the matrix about said subject
G) A list of failed terms that were not found and all skip 1 terms must be added after the skips.
H) The cluster or matrix in a short span of space vs a whole book.

G) is especially important since the INBCRS will happily provide one.



[edit on 5/26/2009 by watchtheashes]

Originally posted by WonkoTheSane
Its funny how people always forget that all versions of the bible- except the original hebrew version- HAVE BEEN CHANGED. King James himself ordered his version re-written. small parts omitted and changed. Those little things can make a big difference.

I think its pretty funny that a lot of more modern "prophets," from Joseph Smith the founder of the Mormons to "The Family" cult, have had "revelations" delivered in what sounds like badly-mangled Elizabethan English. Since God supposedly spoke to the Hebrews in their own tongue, why would he speak to modern man using all the "thous" and "thees" and "thines," when the use of such words was the work of the King James translators rather than the original bible authors?

reply to post by watchtheashes


And you said I was unreasonable asking for only 2 pieces of evidence!?!

Maybe you should rename your thread to, can a Certified person debunk this? Since it is clear that "anybody" is not going to suffice.

Code, is there a coincidence? It is possible, just like when I look at a cloud it coiciendentally could look like a bunny rabbit. All we know for certain is that it is a cloud, in your case: All we know is that there is a code in the bible.

Just because there is something amiss, doesn't mean I am going to jump to the conclusion that a 'god' made the code. Humans are pretty smart when they have to be.

All well, since I am not a certified person my debunk attempts are futile. Why don't you try putting in "Bible Codes" into your matrix, see what that pulls up?

reply to post by adigregorio


The thing is that Moses would have needed a super computer. He wrote it all out by hand as is the testimony.

"Job 37:11 "Also with moisture He loads the thick cloud; He disperses the cloud of His lightning."

Pretty good weather observation for times long ago.

Job 36:29

"Also can any understand the spreadings of the clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?"

So God forms clouds to make shapes sometimes, but why this is so is not understood. Not the formation of clouds their spreading and their stories.

I'm not saying I look at the clouds 24/7 for pictures in them.

Moses and ancient Israel had no knowledge of computers, skip codes, computer software, encryption. To say Moses could have encoded the Torah is the same as saying that A chimpanzee, given a pen and paper could copy The Constitution of the United States or have written the screenplay for PLANET OF THE APES, complete with dialogue, subject lines and camera suggestions like "zoom" and pan-away".

By the way if the Bible code exists, and it is in that very book, then why is it not God? People can't shape God, He Himself says:

Exodus 3:14: "And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you."

Originally posted by watchtheashes
reply to post by adigregorio

 

The thing is that Moses would have needed a super computer. He wrote it all out by hand as is the testimony.

Ahh so a human would have to have a supercomputer in order to make something as 'complex' (if they are truely complex (I doubt it)) as the bible codes?

(FYI Be careful in the response, there are some pretty sharp cookies in humanity)

Did you enter "Bible Codes" into the bible codes? What was the magic cryptic responses that came of it (if any)? Surely the bible would say that it's own codes exist?

reply to post by adigregorio


Here I will show you a few professional examples of such matrices and what they say about it.

It will say who encoded it because all of these codes all say the same thing.


www.biblecodedigest.com...

www.biblecodedigest.com...

www.biblecodedigest.com...

www.biblecodedigest.com...

[edit on 5/27/2009 by watchtheashes]

[edit on 5/27/2009 by watchtheashes]

reply to post by watchtheashes


Which one of these is about: "Bible Codes" in the bible?

IE A Code that says there are codes

Do you even use the bible codes? Or are you just posting what research others have done? (I thought you actually knew how to use the codes.)

Originally posted by watchtheashes
Okay how do I put this again, each character may not be the same in English but not every code will be lost. The 1611 version is the best English translation, and the only one the researchers trust to use. King James edited the format of the tongues not the meaning of the book. Therefore there must still be codes in the book, but on a more limited scale. Is that enough? I used probably in a sense that codes would remain while others would be lost in translation.

You have proven with this post right here that you have no clue what you are talking about. You are repeating something you found that excited you and you believed it. It is not about characters, it is about the fact that king james decided entire chapters should be rewritten or taken out and things like that.


Now let me ask for the 50th time. What is a "correct translation." You do realize that there are not English equivelents for evrey word in hebrew or latin or many languages. That means the translator has to be creative. Tha means that the book you are holding up as proof of god has been rewritten and rewritten and rewritten and now it takes an extremely COMPLEX program to find predictions of the past?????? How do you not see the insanity?

So tell me how you "correctly" translate anything from the bible into English. I need to understand. Then you can explain this program. I have complex programs that make something out of very little too. That is why they have to be so complex.

Content from www.biblecodedigest.com...:

If there is any New Testament text which answers to the Hebrew Old Testament text for carefulness and faithfulness of preservation as well as consistency among its approx. 350 manuscripts, that New Testament text is the Pe#ta-Pe#to. Moreover, Aramaic has the best claim for being the original language of the New Testament. Historical evidence (Josephus) and internal evidence (“to the Jew first”, “beginning at Jerusalem, in Judea,” etc.) are decidedly in favor of an original Aramaic New Testament which was translated into Greek, rather than vice-versa. Scholars have generally agreed that The Pe#ta and Pe#to Bibles are in very close agreement with the Traditional Received Text of the New Testament (and Old Testament, for that matter). No other text type is closer to it than the Majority Greek Text, also known as the Textus Receptus, for most of the New Testament. The Pe#ta is the earliest witness for the Majority text type, which was the foundation of The King James Version of the Bible, first published in 1611. My comparisons of The Pe#ta and The Majority Text in the Gospels show 75% agreement between these two when The Critical Text (the text used by NIV, Living Bible, New American Standard Version and most other modern translations) differs from the Majority. The Old Testament portion is probably a first century translation of the Hebrew Bible by Christian translators, making it the second oldest translation and complete witness to the Hebrew Bible (and the oldest Semitic witness), the Greek Septuagint being the oldest. Mr. Bauscher is a code researcher and pastor in Cambridge, New York. He has also taught high school science and mathematics.