Bible codes?

[August]

I was watching something around the codes on TBN last night. Does anyone here have any opinions on the validity of the hidden codes in the Bible? There seems to be an awful lot of discussion around this lately. It just seems a little far-fetched to me, although mathematical evidence seems to lean towards validity.

Thoughts?

[Mastermind]

I was under the impression that you can get any prediction you want if the text is large enough.

[August]

So was I, but it appears now that even longer messages are appearing. If you search for one-word hidden messages, then you can get results from any larger books. The latest book on this subject however shows sentences, which apparently is mathematically significant. I'm just wary that this is all a ruse to sell books and software.

[bob2010]

i saw something on that several months ago on the history channel. of the examples they gave, my favorite was "Al Gore President Maybe" or something like that.
i definately wouldnt take it too seriously, but it is worth some consideration.

[hermitville101]

The other factor is time. Given enough time with a large text and a fast enough compuer rearanging things in enough ways you can most assuredly find anything.

[bizzt]

A couple of websites to add to the debate
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/Nations/WRR2/
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

Thanks
Tim

[Jac3510]

I think the entire thing is silly, personally. Granted, I've not seen the math, but think of it this way: there are only 27 letters in the English alphabet. Those 27 letters makeup ALL of our words . . . if I gave you a random string:

aslieyncalheippamcielhsyielancnlyheayselncnala

surely you can find a word in that. If I made it long enough, you could get patterns that make words. Now, yes, sentences would be mathematically significant, IF we were dealing with only one language. But, not only do we have English, but thousands upon thousands of other languages. If the Bible were translated into them all, and if Bible codes are true, then it follows that you should find words/sentences in all of them. That might even be amazing, but I don't think I'd expect much else. I mean, you have millions of words/phrases considering the various languages . . . it shouldn't be so hard to find something. Besides that, the "prophecies" are all "after the fact." You can only see what you are looking for.

For instance, suppose as a child I am looking at the clouds. What am I likely to see? Animals? Plants? Friends? These are all possible. But, would it be possible to see a cross section of the cerebral cortex? Absolutely not, because I wouldn't know what the heck I was looking for. It is conceivable, though, that a neurosurgeon could see one.

So, with Bible codes, I think we impose our own patterns upon the text and then are "amazed" that something was written there.

One more thing: let's ask ourselves how this works in translation anyway. Which "version" are you to use? The only way I could put any kind of stock into this idea is if we were finding Hebrew words in Hebrew Script buried in all of this. It just doesn't follow, logically, that you could get translations into other languages. We like to say that "bara" means "to create." But it doesn't. It means "bara," and even that isn't how it is spelled. That is how we would spell it, but that ISN'T how it is spelled. Now, this word, spelled the way it is in the Hebrew, contains a certain idea. That idea is closely related, but not identical, to our word "create." So, it is silly to think that if I put "create" there--English alphabet and all--I should expect to find anything.

Besides all that, I'm very, very, VERY conservative in my approach to biblical studies. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. The only way, in my mind, to accurately "interpret" it is through a literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic. So, these "bible codes" are nothing more, in my mind, than the modern day version of Origen's alegorizations. You can make it say anything you want it to say . . .

*shrug* That's my thoughts on it, anyway.

[hermitville101]

I think the entire thing is silly, personally.

Besides all that, I'm very, very, VERY conservative in my approach to biblical studies. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. The only way, in my mind, to accurately "interpret" it is through a literal-historical-grammatical hermeneutic. So, these "bible codes" are nothing more, in my mind, than the modern day version of Origen's alegorizations. You can make it say anything you want it to say . . .

I am very much in agrement. Be careful with the use of the word "only" but it may be justified in this case.

[Anonymous]

I was under the impression that this had all been proved a hoax or false a little while ago?