It's been done already.
The Bible Code is just nonsense - about as meaningful as the claim that the Bible contains explicit "prophesy" that has come true.
2007-05-14 16:47:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I don't believe that the Bible Code is real at all. About the only way that I would even think about believing something like that is if the entire Bible was "de-coded" in exactly the same way.. No change depending on what the "de-coder" is looking for. What I mean by this is if you took every 30th letter and found a code throughout the WHOLE Bible, then I would think it might be real.. Not just saying "oh on page 45, every 30th letter starting with the 112th spells out "hello"...but on page 46 that doesn't work" etc etc..
You can pretty much try to find any word you want in most any large text with a computer and have it "appear" like it's a code. But it's not.
2007-05-14 23:50:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by RotundSwede 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
You dont even need to go that far.
The Bible Code invalidates itself because their have been slight variations in the spelling and order of words in the over three thousand years ago.
Their is no such thing as the "right" Biblical text. While they might have the same message the fact that the words and letters are slightly different negates any possibility of a coded message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masoretic_text
2007-05-14 23:52:27
·
answer #3
·
answered by Gamla Joe 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
They chose Moby Dick as the foil because there are not a lot of numbers in that book. Kindof convenient wouldn't you say?
Hindsight is 20/20. I can tell you the future too, after it has happened.
2007-05-14 23:49:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Only God knows if its legitimate, but as for me, it helped me come back to Christ from a life of sin, so what ever works! Either way, the Bible is the Word of God and nothing is going to change that!
2007-05-15 00:11:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Lin B 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's all bunk my friend. Numerology in general, and bible coders in particular is simply nonsense. One could use the same precepts these folks use to come up with ANY pre-set conclusion they wish.
2007-05-15 00:10:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
statistically significant after the fact
2007-05-15 01:24:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by Patrick the Carpathian, CaFO 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
NO NO NO.
I'm sure if I searched hard enough I could find "the harry potters" code.
2007-05-14 23:49:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sheriff of R&S 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
NOT!!!!
2007-05-14 23:48:04
·
answer #9
·
answered by rico3151 6
·
1⤊
0⤋