You are not logged in. Please login or register.
AudioGames.net Forum → Off-topic room → a code behind the bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code … nce_method
what do you think about this? do you think that there is a secret code hidden behind the lines of the bible? I think that there is strong evidence for this and this makes sense for me I don't want to offend anyone but I think that the bible seems too simplistic. I am waiting for your oppinions.
Nin, I've read about this before, and to be honest I am not really convinced that there is a secret bible code. This idea has been going around for the past twenty to thirty years, and while it has its supporters I am not one of them.
Even if there were some sort of secret code how the hell it would survive through goodness knows how many translations of the bible over the last two thousand years I don't know.
Just to take one example, the name Jesus is not what he would've actually been called. Last I heard it's believe the original name was yoshoua (which I'm likely horribly miss spelling), a name from the same route as the modern Joshua.
As the two names are very different and only in fact have two letters in comon, how the heck could you create a code?
And that is just a problem with a very basic name of the most important person mentioned in the new testiment of the bible, let alone the rest of the thing.
while stories like the Davinchi code are very good fiction, the basis for them in fact is very small indeed, at least as far as the evidence we know is concerned.
heck, we can't even get the basic historical details write, (the man's name wasn't even Jesus).
that's a good point but I wonder if the original is still stored somewhere... I've heard that the people that tried to identify a code used the Hebrew version which was the language in which the bible was written.
while I'm prone to believing in conspiracy thearies and such, 
dark makes more than enough sence to me.
while it's not conclusively proved, people even new and young scientists around here, believe there are scientific information hidden in many ancient texts. while I can not deny it,(there're evidents, apparently), I have often wondered about exactly what dark wrote about.
Dunno about a code in the Bible... and if so, what secret message it's supposed to have. But I think that while Dark has a point, if the original manuscripts were used, in so far as all the manuscripts we have anyway... then something could just possibly be worked out. And it's true while the actual person's name was not Jesus... we know what his original name was in Hebrew. Jesus is simply the anglicized version of the name Yeshua. And all the different translations used, particularly after the KJV, would most likely not be used to decode any such secret code... more likely the original hebrew and greek would be used where posible. But I'm not entirely sold on the idea... and frankly as a christian, while it's interesting, I don't think it matters all that much... the good news and most important of God's messages is plainly spelled out in the new testament as well as the old.
This claim has been made for many texts, not just the bible. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
I find it interesting that people always want to read some modern idea or event into ancient texts. The problem is these are always "postdictions", a meaning is always imposed on the text based on something that is already known. If people could accurately predict something before it happens, or enlighten us about some idea or form of technology we do not yet possess, then I'll be impressed.
Another thing to considder is that actually the modern bible is a large collection of various ancient texts put together. The old testament for example comes from a lot of hebrew writings and the Jewish Tora, while the new testiment was written mostly in aramaic and translated into Griek, indeed their are gospels and other bits of text from that time in history didn't make it into the Bible.
That is why I find the idea of a code so unllikely, sinse your dealing with such a random collection of things translated into so many random languages,even if the original authors had one in mind there was no way it would survive for 2000 years or jell with all of the other writings that now make up the Bible.
I also don't particularly see why our modern science should be reflected in 2000 year old writings anyway, heck just look at the people who believe in creationism to see that sort of problem. If you know about how science rpogressed you know that it's essentially a set of educated guesses piled ontop of each other and that it's quite likely much will be proved wrng in the future just like the switch from newtonian to einsteinian physics.
to even attempt to tie our scientific guess work to the ideas of another time and culture so distant from what we know today like the bible seems to me rather pointless and quite unlikely to say the least, indeed it seems rather as if your trying to fit a round peg into a square hole with that one.
The bible is more than important enough as a work of philosophy, ethics and religious meditation, just look at the many people who've died over interpretations or translations of it throughout history, you don't need to invent more significance.
If you want a conspiracy, well there is more than enough bad stuff going on in the world that is! documented. \Oil companies owning patants for alternative energy research, the world trade organization specifically increasing the debt of poor countries to line their own pockets, governments engaged in very shady operations in the name of security. There seems no need to invent more bad stuff ontop of all of that :d.
you might be surprised but some of those conspirations really exist. I know from my family's experience but I really don't want to talk about that. let's just say that the world doesn't agree with a really innovating invention. this made me think what else are they hiding from us?
even some of the text in the bible might be translated wrong and this might give us a completely wrong perspective in stead of the one intended. for example in genesis it's written that the world was created in 6 days but what was translated as day from Hebrew originaly meant an undetermined period of time. so if there is a mistake there may be countless others.
|Oh, I would never say we know everything that is going on, although I would rather not guess about what is happening particularly as regards inventions and progress. I do know for example a lot of the alternative energy research into things like neuclear fusion was bought up by major oil companies like shell.
As for the Bible, well what you say about translation is exactly my point and why I find the idea of a biblical code slightly less likely.
yeah.. they were bought and never came to production. they never produced them so we will continue to buy their oil when there could be a free alternative.
I've read about two gospels that are not introduced into the bible. one is the gospel of toma and the other is the gospel of mary which created a huge controverse.
what i was trying to say with the mistaken translation is that today god's word might be wrongly translated.
Actually there are various gospels in the appocrapher which were left out of the Bible, for example the Gospel of Thomas.
Indeed this is one reason why it's a very bad idea to take the bible as literally true.
As someone who believes the Bible to be the authoritative word of god without error, I don't believe the Bible to be wrong... and by that I'm not just talking about the modern book, but the collection of texts from ancient times that made up all of it. The contemporary English Bibles translate the words day from the Hebrew word yom, meaning period of time as Nin said. But this is why as Christians or even people seeking to understand the Bible intelectually should at least have an understanding of theology at some basic level. And what's interesting is... you won't find all creationists believing in a 6000 year old Earth. Many of us believe the world was created by God. But is the six days an actual litteral amount of time? Who knows? All this also keeping in mind that from a biblical position, God is eternal and acts on a different time frame than us. Six days could be four billion years, it could not be. It's impossible to know, unless we're God... and we most certainly aren't.
As to conspiracy theories and the rest.. I find those somewhat interesting as well. Interested to see if anyone here listens to Coast to Coast AM? If noone does, it's a show that features everything like this. Conspiracies, the paranormal, etc. It isn't a Christian-based radio show though there are many christian speakers and topics surrounding Christianity.
Well, I have read quite a lot of interesting comments on this subject, but to be honest I think many people commenting on this subject seem to be misinformed as to what the bible code is and what books are included in it etc. Therefore I will attempt to address as many comments here as I can when and where needed.
First, Dark is correct that there have been many translations of the books of the bible over the past few centuries from language to language , and yes several names have been changed as they have been converted from one language to another. The name Jesus Christ is Greek in origin, and it goes without saying that most bible scholars are aware that the person we know as Jesus was actually named Yeshua in Hebrew. In fact, many of the saints we know today as Jacob, John, Joshua, James, Peter, etc are not the original names of those people assuming they actually lived. They were changed in the process of converting the various books of the bible from one language to another. However interesting that may be to you it actually has no bearing on the bible code, because the people who first discovered or came up with the bible code were working from ancient Hebrew texts, in fact the first five books of the bible, so all of this speculation of multiple translations, the changing of names, and so on doesn't really matter as none of that effects the old Hebrew manuscripts themselves. It would only matter if they were working with a more modern translation of the texts.
I would like to point out that when the bible code was first introduced to the world the person who came up with it was only working with the Torah, the first five books of the bible, so speculations about other new testament gospels etc really is an irrelevant point in debunking the original hypothesis. Now, there have been others who have come along later on and tried to say there were bible codes hidden in the new testament, and in that case yes the point that the other gospels etc might have a bearing on this subject would matter, but only if one is debunking the people who have come out in favor of bible codes in books beyond those supposedly discovered in the Torah. So I think we need to be more specific on which bible code scholar and hypotheses we are discussing here.
Second, Nin wonders if the original is stored somewhere. I since we are discussing the bible I am going to assume he is talking about the original scrolls that made up the bible. Specifically, the old testament.
In answer to that we don't have anything dating back to when they were supposed to have been written. It is believed by biblical scholars that the first few books were written between 500 BC and 600 BC, but there are no in tact scrolls from that time. All we have is remnants, scraps really, and all of the modern translations of the bible were translated from much newer copies of the old testament. As I recall the oldest copy of the old testament we currently have that is in tact was dated around 900 AD so that makes dating and comparison with the originals difficult.
Third, as to what is contained in the bible code there is all kinds of supposed predictions such as the Challenger Explosion, the rise of Hitler and the Nazis, the Kennedy assassination, etc. Basically, all the usual historical events that normally get ascribed to Nostradamus as predicting and now are supposedly contained in the bible once you know the secret to unlocking the bible code. However, as Zakc93 pointed out they are always interpretations based on making the event match up with the text to sound like a prediction. I have yet to hear someone make a quantifiable prediction.
Fourth, Nin pointed out that some of the text in the bible has been translated wrong. On that he is correct. There are many places where one can go through there favorite English translation of the bible and find various errors where the Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic texts were improperly translated into English. This is something well known to bible scholars and not something that is in any doubt.
For example, in some of the King James versions of the bible scholars have noticed that wild ox was translated as unicorn in a couple of places. I want to say in the Psalms. Since there aren't any unicorns, never were such a thing, its obviously a translation error made by the men who translated the Hebrew texts into English for King James I. I am sure they did the best they could, but mistakes were obviously made, nor is that the only example of things that were poorly translated.
In many cases the problem was that English simply didn't have any words analogous to what they were attempting to translate. In Genesis 1 the translators simply used the word God instead of Elohim. the problem for the translators is there is no word in English with the exact meaning of Elohim. The name Elohim can be singular or plural depending on context , and can mean both at the same time. If the translators used the word gods it would sound as though there was more than one god rather than the theological position that God is one being with multiple aspects father, son, and holy spirit. In English we do not have a word to express that unique singular and plural state existing at the same time. So God will have to do.
Finally, as for the inerrancy of the bible I would strongly ask people to reconsider that position as it is irrational to think the bible has no errors. By than I am not just talking about translation errors, but there are some pretty major conflicts even in the original texts that can not be reconciled logically no matter how much Christians might like to believe otherwise.
For example, if you look at the four canonical gospels all of them tell a slightly different story about what happened when Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary Magdalen visited Jesus's tomb after he resurrected. In one story they met one Angel who tells both women that Jesus has risen. In another tale they enter the tomb and encounter two angels who are sitting down who tells them Jesus is not there and has risen.
the problem with this conflict should be obvious. Either there is one angel or two, but they both can't be true. One or the other story has to be in error, or both stories are wrong. However, its not something that can be reconciled because we have two conflicting accounts of the same event. So the people who claim that the bible is inerrant, without errors, really need to come up with a plausible explanation for how two different accounts can both be true, and I am not sure they can.
I might point out that is only one example of where the gospels simply do not agree on various events. The people who believe the bible has no conflicts, is inerrant, are either uninformed of these conflicts or have been duped by their religious teachers into believing a falsehood that can easily be proven false by anyone who is aware of them. Whatever the case while I respect people's right to believe what they want to believe I also think they should take off the religious blinders and realize that as a book its not perfect and is full of mistakes.
The only thing I can really comment on right now due to time is the biblical contradictions... I wasn't raised as a Christian, and there was a point where I didn't think all that much of christianity. I've only been a Christian for three years so I don't know the Bible cover to cover... but one thing I have done is a lot of study. The contradictions thing was a question I had for a long time, and still is something I struggle with... yet I do find that the more I read, the more those contradictions aren't entirely impossible... the argument with two angels versus one is explainable if you know that the accounts in Mark and those in John, though refering to the same event, are covering different aspects of the discovery of the empty tomb. Mark is talking about the very morning of the day when the group of women discovered the empty tomb... and John is writing about a later episode when Mary goes back to the tomb by herself. At least, that's how I understand it... there may be more to it than that, but so far I haven't had a contradiction that can't be explained reasonably, at least to me. I'm not invalidating others' opinions, just expressing my own beliefs and faith as a way of contributing to the discussion. Christian or non-Christian, for those who are interested in analysing the Bible and its proported errors... check out this website.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm#110
Even if it doesn't explain the contradictions satisfactorily to you, it may offer another perspective or at least possibility. If nothing else, I hope it's at least an interesting read.
I tried the whole Christianity thing when I was younger, but aside from all the contradicitons I couldn't reconcile the notion of a loving, merciful god with the one depicted particularly in the Old Testament. He is most assuredly not merciful. In fact I find him to be even more of a petty, inconsistent tyrant than the Greek gods and goddesses were. Then of course the fact that Christianity borrows events from other religions. Even Greek mythology had its flood story. I won't even start on the holidays Christianity stole from Pagan religions. Even the cross was originally a Pagan symbol before it was stolen by Christianity.
Assault, I appreciate the link. It does make various contradictions at least plausible depending on how one interprets the events described. While there is too much for me to read at this time I did read some of the explanations on the page, and I am satisfied that many things probably can be worked out reasonably if one is of a mind to accept the biblical stories as being true.
There in lies the problem though. Obviously a Christian takes it on faith the stories that they read about are true and will work towards explanations that fit their hypothesis, their beliefs, and can explain away things that bother a skeptic. A skeptic on the other hand starts with a position of doubt and therefore is likely to be somewhat biased towards anything said in the bible regardless if there is a reasonable explanation or not.
For example, let's take my comment about the number of angels at the tomb on Sunday morning. Okay, I can accept that Mark's and John's accounts are talking about two separate events happening at two separate times. That would explain away the apparent contradiction that would satisfy a Christian that the accounts are true. However, since a skeptic doesn't believe in angels explaining how two differing accounts could be true still doesn't make the accounts themselves any more true in the mind of the skeptic simply because there isn't any proof for the events being described. Therefore without faith the accounts can't stand alone on their own merits.
My underlying point is that I am satisfied that Christians can come up with explanations that make various contradictions plausible, but as a non-Christian I still don't think any of it is true. I remain unconvinced that any of it happened and need more proof before I could accept it as having happened.
Bryan, well, interesting enough your point about Christianity borrowing from other religions is one of the things that helped me come out of that religious background. I took a few courses on comparative religions in college and it was amazing to find out how many things I believed were Christian were simply borrowed or modified from earlier religions and accepted by faith by Christians who obviously aren't taught what other ancient religions believed, and therefore are ignorant of how much was borrowed from other religions. There really isn't anything novel or new in the bible that hasn't been discussed in some other ancient religion or religious sect before.
One thing that consistently gets overlooked is that the fact the time Jesus lived in was one where everyone was looking for the Messiah. Consequently there were a number of people before and after Jesus who claimed to be the Messiah. Most notably one of them named Simon claimed that he would be put to death and raised again on the third day. That happened about 4 BC meaning that the idea of death and resurrection certainly wasn't a new idea when Jesus came along. It just happens that Christianity was the one religion that survived the test of time, and is the one most people consider to be true regardless of the fact history might have gone a totally different direction had one of these other Messianic religions taken off the way Christianity did.
Completely agreed, Thomas. But that's the very definition of faith... belief in something true that isn't always necessarily provable. I believe as christians our faith is founded on a combination of things... and belief in the truth of the Bible is one of them. My faith is not perfect, and I have questions very often... but I think while there may not be enough archeological and or historical evidence to answer everyone's questions, so far all my beliefs have been in the realm of at least being possible historically and thus, my belief. As I've stated before, I wasn't always a Christian... certainly wasn't raised that way. But I've seen and experienced things that've helped to build my faith and belief in a lot of things that non-believers would have a hard time believing, and I've been able to rationalize a lot of it to my satisfaction. And what I haven't been able to, I can only do two things... do more study and see what the conclusions are from both christian and non-christian angles, and the second one is pray about them. And I also appreciate the openness of this discussion... I enjoy sharing my faith and telling others what I think abut Jesus and how he's changed my life. but far be it from me to be able to force anyone or even attempt to do so to believe what I do.
Exactly Thomas. There was even a flood story in Navajo mythology thanks to Coyote's trickery. I remember wondering about that after getting a book of their folktales as a talking book.
Assault, and that is the very problem with faith. In order to have faith one must have faith in faith and assume something to be true without supporting evidence. Sometimes someone's faith may be justified but in many cases faith is used to maintain a belief in something that can not be true in spite of proof otherwise. That's what really bothers me about faith being used to prop up a belief in something's reality.
For instance, back in post 13 above you pointed out that not all Christians believe in a literal six day creation or that the earth is only 6,000 years old. As I was raised a Christian but not taught to believe those things myself I know that to be true. However, the problem is there is a fairly sizable group of evangelicals, fundamentalists, etc who believe exactly that the earth was created in six days and is only 6,000 years old. Whenever anyone tries to reason with them that their beliefs are in error, can't possibly be true according to the scientific evidence we currently have on the subject, they inevitably fall back on the faith argument. That their faith justifies their position rather than any empirical evidence to the contrary. As a result the concept of faith can be used to justify any position, any idea, no matter how reasonable or far fetched the case might be.
I'm not saying everyone's faith is completely unjustified or absurd, but merely that as a tool for determining truth it is a poor substitute for actual evidence supporting a belief. Many people who rely on faith are not very skeptical of the world around them and that is why there is a gullible segment of the human population that believe in almost anything they hear or see on TV. People believe in Big Foot, the Lock Ness Monster, UFOs, ghosts, psychics, and so on. Weather any of these things have a shred of truth or not I really do not know for certain, but there are people that swear up and down they are true even though their beliefs are based on hear say and roomers.
When I became a skeptic I realized I needed to have what I view to be higher standards than just believe in something I read about or heard about on TV. As the late great Carl Sagan use to say, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." The problem with what a lot of religious people claim don't even have basic evidence supporting their claims let alone extraordinary evidence. Sure the bible can claim angels exist, but until someone can show me one or I can talk to one I don't have any evidence that they exist. I have no way to know if Jesus was crucified, was raised from the dead in three days, since he has never appeared before me and talked to me in person. therefore I personally have no rational reason to accept what I read in the bible as gospel truth. One might as well be claiming they saw leprechauns or elves since they have about the same amount of believability as many things in the bible.
Bryan, as far as flood stories goes they are really a dime a dozen. I think every culture and just about every major religion has a flood story of some kind or another. Of course, floods have been common throughout history, and have often become a part of folklore and myth.
The problem with the biblical flood story, Noah's flood, is that it has some pretty serious problems from a historical point of view.. For one thing the biblical account says it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and covered the entire earth. Well, there isn't any proof of a global flood any time in human history that wiped out all the people, plants, animals, etc therefore the flood, if it ever happened at all, would have been a local event. Making it far less than the mass extinction event claimed by the author of Genesis. Another thing is that the bible says Noah took two of every kind of animal aboard the Ark, but we know that could not be possible. For one thing the bible never mentions various species of animals that would not have been known to the people of central Asia such as Kangaroos, and therefore one has to wonder how they would have come from Australia to Asia to board the Ark in the first place. We certainly know they could not have left the Ark and hopped their way all the way to Australia because kangaroo fossils have never been found anywhere else but Australia. So it is exceedingly unlikely they left the Ark and hopped their way on mass to Australia. Finally, such an event would have left its mark on the DNA record of every species on earth, and of course there is no narrowing of DNA down to a point were only two of each species remained. Therefore the scientific evidence pretty much indicates the biblical story is a myth and nothing more. I am sure Christians will go on believing the story as true, taking it on faith that their bible can't be wrong, but as flood stories goes Noah's flood has very little credibility from a scientific point of view.
I once heard an argument that went something along the lines of because almost every culture has a flood myth, it means a global flood must have happened. The problem is that these myths are so different from each other it doesn't really make sense to compare them with each other. Of course all cultures would have flood myths, floods are a world-wide occurrence and most cultures would have experienced their devastating effects. There are a group of closely-related flood myths that seem to all have been influenced by the one in the epic of gilgamesh, but the great flood of china for example bares no resemblance to these.
tward I completely agree with your point of view. I am a scheptic too. I have to admit that I can't believe in something that I don't have proof of. I think about my self as very open minded though and I am searching for proof. I've used some astral travelling or out of body experience techniques to proof that the soul exists.. I managed to get out of my body but I don't have enough proof, I still believe that my brain did all this.
Bladestorm360, thanks for sharing your conversion story with us. It is interesting although not entirely uncommon. What I mean by that is a lot of new converts claim to have been having real serious problems in their life, they convert to Christianity, and suddenly everything begins changing for the better. There are of course two ways to view those situations, as everything else in life, and the one thing we do agree upon here is that God can't really be run through the logic process. Trying to apply logic to God is a bit like trying to catch smoke with your hands. You can't just hold onto it because there is nothing solid to hold on to.
All the same as a skeptic I do have a hypothesis as to why so many people experience real change after their conversions. It is not that I personally believe in any personal god, but I think that the belief or faith in a personal god allows people to have courage that they might not have, causes a radical change in their thinking, etc that allows them to go above and beyond what they might be able to do without that personal belief. It is beyond dispute that many Christians have done some amazing things such as during the protestant reformation they sang while being burned at the stake for heresy, or have dared to do things like run into a burning building to rescue someone they didn't know. For Christians such acts of courage and fortitude is evidence of the holy spirit, but for a skeptic like me I think that their unquestioning faith, their belief in something greater than themselves, which gives them that courage and fortitude. In short, I believe it is just a change in the person's state of mind that allows them to do things they could not or would not do before more than any supernatural force.
As far as Revelation and the Left Behind series goes I disagree with the interpretation of the end times as portrayed by the Left Behind books. Although I am not a Christian now I use to be when growing up, and my family and I did not agree with the pre-trib rapture doctrine at all. For one thing it didn't make any logical sense then, and as a skeptic even less so now. I found myself laughing at the Left Behind books, because in the first book after the rapture of the church everyone is running around wondering where everyone went like, "where did they go, George?" The ironic thing is after the Left Behind books, movies, and other media about the rapture one would think most people would be at least familiar with the concept and if nearly two billion people disappear, all of them Christian, the conclusion would be obvious. Yet, according to the Left Behind books it is all suppose to be some big mystery which I don't think is at all realistic from a theological or practical point of view.
Besides there is something more than a little disturbing to think that Jesus would come back secretly and rapture away all the Christians leaving everyone else to their own devices. So if the pilots of a commercial jet are both Christian we are to believe Jesus will just rapture them away and let the jet crash killing x number of passengers just because they didn't convert yet? If x number of people in a car are going down the road and the driver is a Christian Jesus will take that person and let everyone else in the car possibly die because the car went off the road hit a telephone poll, go off a bridge, or have a head on collision with another vehicle?
I think you see the point. The pre-trib rapture is absurd, and if Jesus would allow such things to happen I certainly would not consider him worthy of my worship. He would be lower than scum, and not be the all loving, all caring, deity I was raised to worship growing up.
hi.
yep, i know some things about that.
really: jesus's real name is yeshua, and christ is mashiach which means i don't know how to say it in english.
for christians here on the fourum i recomend to read the hebrew new testament, which is in english but have hebrew names and comments about things.
for example: in the letter of romans in the standart new testament they are writing: "to the church of rome."
in the hebrew new testament they are writing: "to the messianic jewish congregation of rome..."
so, for christians here on the fourum i recommending to read the hebrew new testament.
kamochek.
You know bladestorm, christian or no, i really respect you for turning your life around, no matter how you did it. From dealing with drinking problems in my family, i know how it feels to be on the wrong end of someone who won't put the bottle down. I also realize it's hard for them to see the error of there ways, much less quit, so my hat is off to you brother. I'm not a christian, but i do believe that if we want to change our personal lives bad enough, we will figure out a way, whether through religion, rehab, or a little of both.
AudioGames.net Forum → Off-topic room → a code behind the bible
Generated in 0.027 seconds (59% PHP - 41% DB) with 11 queries
