End of Days Matrix - Bible Codes - Return of Jesus

[Phoenix]

I saw this special on the History Channel the other night on Bible codes. They say Jesus returns in the fall of 2010.

The codes have a lot of our world's history showing up in these "ELS Matrices." ELS stands for equidistant letter spacing (code).

PhD types in the field on statistics crunch these series formulas and say that the chance of anything happen randomly in the universe is 1:10-to-the-50th-power --- the probability they've calculated for the "End of Days" matrix as 1:7.3-to-the-97th-power a significantly larger number and they say has no chance of being a random event.

I found the whole thing pretty intriguing --- it's not something I'd talk about with everyone (the codes say earth will be struck by a comet in 2012 and destroy earth as we know it).

I figured there were some pretty smart dudes around here and wanted to get any info, thougths, etc. you guys had.

[Ksyrup]

They say Jesus returns in the fall of 2010.
Who? Miramax?

[Marc Vaughan]

I give absolutely no credence to these sort of bible codes I'm afraid - simply put, if you run similar things on most works of literature you'll find similar statements of interest ...

For instance how about Moby Dick predicting assasinations?

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

[KWhit]

Codes?? What do you mean? Since the letters in the bible are a certain distance apart, it means that the earth is going to be struck by a comet in 2012?

And this was on The History Channel?

[kcchief19]

Who? Miramax? The Passion of the Christ 2: The Wrath of Lucifer

[sabotai]

And this was on The History Channel?

The History Channel has been showing more and more questionable things lately. A lot of things I've seen on it lately definately go more into the "sensational" column than the "intellectual" column.

[Ksyrup]

If Jesus is coming in the fall of 2010, who really gives a shit if the earth is going to be hit by a comet 2 years later to destroy "earth as we know it"? Won't that be somewhat different once Jesus shows up at the FSU/Miami game?

[Phoenix]

Codes?? What do you mean? Since the letters in the bible are a certain distance apart, it means that the earth is going to be struck by a comet in 2012?

And this was on The History Channel?

look at these:

http://biblecodes.us/pages/endofdays.pdf

http://www.probe.org/docs/bib-code.html

http://www.historychannel.com/global/listings/listings.jsp?fromDate=20&fromMonth=2&fromYear=105&NetwCode=THC

(8pm and 9pm programs)

[Schmidty]

What is the Matrix?

[gstelmack]

Bah! Take any collection of letters and I'll bet you can find all kinds of words by generating different spacings. Calculate odds all you want, I'm pretty sure they go up when you start finding words by taking letters 19,000 positions apart (as the Moby Dick page starts off explaining).

[flere-imsaho]

Of course, the FOFC code (the exact code only known by Elitists, which works on the postings in the forum) says that Jesus returns to Earth in 2028.


Having said that, the FOFC code also predicted Arizona would win the Super Bowl this year, so it may not be completely accurate....

[Kodos]

WE...





ARE....






DOOMED!

[dawgfan]

Phoenix - may I make a suggestion? If you haven't already done so, pick up a copy of the book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

If Jesus is coming in the fall of 2010, who really gives a shit if the earth is going to be hit by a comet 2 years later to destroy "earth as we know it"? Won't that be somewhat different once Jesus shows up at the FSU/Miami game?
I bet he gets a good seat.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

The History Channel really went to shit some time ago. Too bad really, there's so much fascinating history to cover, you'd think they could make a decent channel of it...

[sabotai]

The History Channel really went to shit some time ago. Too bad really, there's so much fascinating history to cover, you'd think they could make a decent channel of it...

Yeah, I remember when they used to show programs about most anything in history. Now, if they do anything outside of the last 60 or so years (pre-WWII) it's usually because of some outside influence. The only reason they showed something on Alexander the Great awhile ago was because of the movie that came out. Stuff like that.

Got to wonder about the ratings because the stuff they cover now seem to be all over the place. As if for awhile they've been looking for some kind of audience. Not surprised that good, detailed shows on real history wouldn't grab much ratings, unfortunately.

[KWhit]

Well, this thread is the first one discussing the History Channel that I can remember.

And it is in reference to Bible Codes.

Nuff said.

[Fritz]

I was speaking with Jesus on Friday, and he said John was prone to exagerations.

[QuikSand]

This Bible Code stuff really fascinates me.

No, no, not that it's real in any way... give me a fucking break.

But what does interest me is that there do, in fact, seem to be a fair number of mathematically-credentialed people who come forward and say that they did this study or that analysis, and that the odds of this happening are only one in (pick a really huge number) to have happened on its own. However, there are any number of semi-educated hacks out and about (on "the internets" even) who can soundly demonstrat the holes in these analyses with relative ease. Miscues are often on the order of "oh, they forgot that Hebrew doesn't have vowel characters" and the like.

I wonder if this is yet another case of my current pet peeve, "top-down thinking?" The people doing the analysis are a self-selected bunch, and anyone commited enough to doing this kind of research is probably a believer at heart -- he's likely looking for something to support the theory, rather than just looking for whatever comes up. Perhaps this is another appearance of the desired outcome subtly driving the incremental findings?

It's one thing to see nitwits who make TV specials and write crappy bestsellers get taken in by this sort of thing. For established academics to do so is perplexing to me.

[randal7]

anyone commited enough to doing this kind of research is probably a believer at heart -- he's likely looking for something to support the theory
These folks should probably start by actually reading the bible, since Jesus himself said that you can't know the timing of these things in advance.

[Desnudo]

This Bible Code stuff really fascinates me.

No, no, not that it's real in any way... give me a fucking break.

But what does interest me is that there do, in fact, seem to be a fair number of mathematically-credentialed people who come forward and say that they did this study or that analysis, and that the odds of this happening are only one in (pick a really huge number) to have happened on its own. However, there are any number of semi-educated hacks out and about (on "the internets" even) who can soundly demonstrat the holes in these analyses with relative ease. Miscues are often on the order of "oh, they forgot that Hebrew doesn't have vowel characters" and the like.

I wonder if this is yet another case of my current pet peeve, "top-down thinking?" The people doing the analysis are a self-selected bunch, and anyone commited enough to doing this kind of research is probably a believer at heart -- he's likely looking for something to support the theory, rather than just looking for whatever comes up. Perhaps this is another appearance of the desired outcome subtly driving the incremental findings?

It's one thing to see nitwits who make TV specials and write crappy bestsellers get taken in by this sort of thing. For established academics to do so is perplexing to me.

The obvious hole from a semi-educated hick would seem to be that using letter spacing as the basis for proving any theory seems ridiculous.

[Ben E Lou]

These folks should probably start by actually reading the bible, since Jesus himself said that you can't know the timing of these things in advance.Ding. Ding. Ding. We have a WINNAH!

[Raiders Army]

These folks should probably start by actually reading the bible, since Jesus himself said that you can't know the timing of these things in advance.
Uhhh....which version? The one that's been translated so many times that it probably isn't near to the true version?

I'm an unbeliever at heart, so I just say whatever to all this stuff. Wasn't the world supposed to end at 2000? I bet in 2015 leading academians say the world will end in 2025. :rolleyes:

[HomerJSimpson]

Uhhh....which version? The one that's been translated so many times that it probably isn't near to the true version?



How about "copied so many times," because the number of times it is translated really doesn't matter. All good translations go back to the original languages (mostly Greek and Hebrew, with a little Aramiac and Latin thrown in). Not to the autographs, mind, so you can say "copied," but numbers of translation have nothing to do with texual criticism.

[Ben E Lou]

Uhhh....which version? The one that's been translated so many times that it probably isn't near to the true version?That's way, way off. You can choose not to believe it, but to say that the versions that we have today aren't true to the original text shows a lack of having been informed. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, to the fragments of the Pauline letter to Colossae, to various other manuscripts that have been found by archeologists, it has been shown that very, very little has changed in the text through the centuries.

[Blackadar]

That's way, way off. You can choose not to believe it, but to say that the versions that we have today aren't true to the original text shows a lack of having been informed. From the Dead Sea Scrolls, to the fragments of the Pauline letter to Colossae, to various other manuscripts that have been found by archeologists, it has been shown that very, very little has changed in the text through the centuries.

Then why are some passages translated very differently in different versions (King James, New International, etc.)?

[HomerJSimpson]

Then why are some passages translated very differently in different versions (King James, New International, etc.)?


The KJV was done in 1611 (with several revisions). If you haven't noticed, language changes over time (ie. when was the last time you said "verily" or "forsooth"?). So, over time, you must "update" translations to recognize changes in language, vocabulary, grammar, spelling etc.

Further, different translations of the same era into the same language can differ because of transation style and audience. In other words, if I'm translating for a more traditional church reading, I'll probably interpret idioms and colleqoalisms (sp?) and use vocabulary so that it will be easier to understand for the average reading level (about 6th grade I believe). If my audience are educated scholars, then I'll more likey directly translate idioms and such, and use a larger vocabulary base.

There are also different theories of interpretation, but I'll not bore you.

Make sense?

[Ben E Lou]

Then why are some passages translated very differently in different versions (King James, New International, etc.)?Because the King James is translated true to the language of the day, for example. The King James version was authorized in 1611, I think. English has obviously changed a *ton* since then. The various translations from the latter half of the 20th century are all very, very similar to one another, when taken in the context of what they are intended to be. Three examples:

New International Version: designed to be a cross between a "translation" and an "interpretation".
New American Standard: designed to be much more of a "literal" translation
The Message: Designed to be an interpretation, (not a translation at all), in very modern language

Example verse in these three translations: Ephesians 4:17

NIV: So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking

NAS: So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the rest of the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind

The Message: And so I insist--and God backs me up on this--that there be no going along with the crowd, the empty-headed, mindless crowd.

And since you brought it up, back aorund King James' time in 1611 this would have been said as follows:

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind

All of the translations/interpretations have the same meaning within the context that they are written, and all are true to the original text--within the boundaries of the intent of the translation. Notice that the NIV and The Message (interpretations, not direct translations) don't use the word "walk," but rather interpret it (rightly) as meaning how you live your life. The more literal (within the context of the time period of the translation) KJV and NAS use the more direct translation: "walk."

[Ben E Lou]

Cross-post there. Sorry for the repetition, but mine went into more detail. :p

[HomerJSimpson]

Cross-post there. Sorry for the repetition, but mine went into more detail. :p


Actually, I dealt more with audience and just threw out there that there is also differing translation styles and theories. You explain the style and theories. So, together I think we covered it. :D

[Raiders Army]

How about "copied so many times," because the number of times it is translated really doesn't matter. All good translations go back to the original languages (mostly Greek and Hebrew, with a little Aramiac and Latin thrown in). Not to the autographs, mind, so you can say "copied," but numbers of translation have nothing to do with texual criticism.
Copied so many times, translated so many times...tomato, tomAto...

Let me get this straight:

Jesus says something. John runs to his scrolls and writes it down...he writes it down word for word.

Somebody else finds these scrolls, but wants to translate it into English. As we all know, words from one language to another mean directly the same thing.

Furthermore, the text is updated so that someone from 1985 can read it. Although the words change, the meanings are exactly the same.

If you mean to tell me that the original words that Jesus said are the same words that I read in my version of the Bible, then I would say, "Wow. God does work in mysterious ways."

[Ben E Lou]

Somebody else finds these scrolls, but wants to translate it into English. Well, no. It wasn't translated into English until around the 14th or 15th century--and the guys that did it were burned at the stake. They even exhumed the corpse of John Wycliffe (by order of the Pope, I think) and burned his remains (40+ years after his death) at the stake.

[mhass]

Experts have found some bona fide translation errors in the early KJ versions, but none are at all meaningful in the context of either the inspired scrolls or the translated texts. They are errors like omitted "the's" or "each" in the place of "any." You are right to assume that the humans who re-wrote the texts made errors, but the process involved lots of checking and re-ckecking so there are no meaningful errors.

[QuikSand]

Example verse in these three translations: Ephesians 4:17

NIV: So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking

NAS: So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the rest of the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind

The Message: And so I insist--and God backs me up on this--that there be no going along with the crowd, the empty-headed, mindless crowd.

And since you brought it up, back aorund King James' time in 1611 this would have been said as follows:

This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind


Interesting example, Dog.

Without trying to demean anyone (hopefully), I have to note that the "Message" version above sounds a bit like the things that come out of these internet-based pseudo-translators. A bit like a Snoop-bible there.

[HomerJSimpson]

Copied so many times, translated so many times...tomato, tomAto...




No, not at all tomato, tomAto. The two words mean completely different things. It is not at all "two ways of saying the same thing."

[Rizon]

Somewhere, off in the distance, a John Titor screams.

[HomerJSimpson]

Interesting example, Dog.

Without trying to demean anyone (hopefully), I have to note that the "Message" version above sounds a bit like the things that come out of these internet-based pseudo-translators. A bit like a Snoop-bible there.


Honestly, that is what it is going for. Not a scholarly study, but an easier read written toward a younger audience. That is why it is not called a translation, as it goes beyond just translating the text.

[Ben E Lou]

Interesting example, Dog.

Without trying to demean anyone (hopefully), I have to note that the "Message" version above sounds a bit like the things that come out of these internet-based pseudo-translators. A bit like a Snoop-bible there.I agree. I pretty much only use The Message when I want to read a relatively long narrative account--like the book of Acts, for example. It is much easier reading for that sort of thing. I only included it because I figured at some point the question would come up about the "modern language" interpretations that are so radically different from actual translations.

[HomerJSimpson]

If you mean to tell me that the original words that Jesus said are the same words that I read in my version of the Bible, then I would say, "Wow. God does work in mysterious ways."

Well, no in the sense that he spoke modern English before it existed. Then again, when the newspapers quote Bin Laden, do they write out literally what he said in Arabic? No, they translate it so you can understand it. Does that mean it is not his words? No, we recognize a faithfull translation as the words of the person that said them.

Of course, the rest of what you're saying is fine. Without some belief in inspiration or the supernatural, you can call into question that the original authors actually faithfully recorded the words of Jesus. That can be a given debate based on faith. But to say that we don't have pretty close to the original texts because of "the number of translations" (which again has nothing to do with texual criticism), is uninformed at best.

[QuikSand]

I generally agree with what you're saying, Homer... but:

But to say that we don't have pretty close to the original texts because of "the number of translations" (which again has nothing to do with texual criticism), is uninformed at best.

If we're purportedly talking about this sort of character-driven analysis, where we are looking at the precise placement of words and characters in a text in order to seek patterns in their structure -- then I think you'd have to agree that "pretty close to the original texts" doesn't cut the mustard, does it?

[BucDawg40]

Phoenix - may I make a suggestion? If you haven't already done so, pick up a copy of the book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan.

That book should be required reading for every person on the planet, IMO.

[HomerJSimpson]

I generally agree with what you're saying, Homer... but:



If we're purportedly talking about this sort of character-driven analysis, where we are looking at the precise placement of words and characters in a text in order to seek patterns in their structure -- then I think you'd have to agree that "pretty close to the original texts" doesn't cut the mustard, does it?


Sorry, I'm not even discussing the orginal premise of the thread (which I think is silly). :)

Actually, I haven't read anything about where the "numbers" they are discussing comes from, but my guess would be from the scribes making copies of the "original text." (again, not the autograph which would be required to take this number/space thing seriuosly) Scribes would number spaces and letters in a given "page", and then copy letter for letter into those spaces. They would then go back add the numbers together to make sure that both "pages" had the same number of letters (like an early checksum). If they did not have the correct number, the "page" would be destroyed (which was a big deal since the "pages" were not paper like we use but vellum, papyri, etc. and very valuable), the pen would be destroyed (which was just superstition since it wasn't the pen that made the mistake), and then they would start from scratch. So, not knowing where these "numbers" are coming from, that is were I would guess.

[KWhit]

Well, no. It wasn't translated into English until around the 14th or 15th century--and the guys that did it were burned at the stake. They even exhumed the corpse of John Wycliffe (by order of the Pope, I think) and burned his remains (40+ years after his death) at the stake.
Talk about holding a grudge!

Moral of the story: Don't piss off the pope.

[Crapshoot]

Copied so many times, translated so many times...tomato, tomAto...

Let me get this straight:

Jesus says something. John runs to his scrolls and writes it down...he writes it down word for word.

Somebody else finds these scrolls, but wants to translate it into English. As we all know, words from one language to another mean directly the same thing.

Furthermore, the text is updated so that someone from 1985 can read it. Although the words change, the meanings are exactly the same.

If you mean to tell me that the original words that Jesus said are the same words that I read in my version of the Bible, then I would say, "Wow. God does work in mysterious ways."


Bingo. Heck, how do you know which of the original documents are the one's were incorporated and which one's were left out ? I think Dan Brown is a hack taking old ideas, but isnt' it remotely viable that the Bible was a political tool back then, and that decisions on what to keep and what not to keep were made ?

[primelord]

Talk about holding a grudge!

Moral of the story: Don't piss off the pope.
Noted.

[Phoenix]

Jesus' return will be:

personal
visible
universal
glorious

Jesus succeeded where Adam failed.

[SFL Cat]

Then why are some passages translated very differently in different versions (King James, New International, etc.)?

Original Greek and Hebrew passages are translated in updated, modern language so people don't pick their nose and say, "what the hell is all this thine, thee and thou sh*t."

*Edit* I see that others have already mentioned this, so I'll shut up now.

[Breeze]

I saw this show a while back. Interesting, but I only went into it for entertainment. If I remember correctly, they said using the "Code" to predict the future is not practical, because "clues" could be overlooked because they aren't apparent until after the fact.

[Tekneek]

These folks should probably start by actually reading the bible, since Jesus himself said that you can't know the timing of these things in advance.

Jesus reportedly said that. He might have been misquoted or taken out of context.

[Ben E Lou]

Jesus reportedly said that. He might have been misquoted or taken out of context.Not a chance. He said it. :)

[Ben E Lou]

Dola:

Although I understand why you'd think that.

[Tekneek]

Not a chance. He said it. :)

Prove it. :D

[Ben E Lou]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by SkyDog
Not a chance. He said it. ../../%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>


Prove it. ../../%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif






....and with those two comments, Tekneek and SkyDog demonstrate why it would be silly to actually argue over the point...

[KWhit]

If I remember correctly, they said using the "Code" to predict the future is not practical, because "clues" could be overlooked because they aren't apparent until after the fact.
<churchlady>Isn't that convenient.</churchlady>

[Phoenix]

Look how far manking has come in the last few years - how much further can mankind progress. We've maid more progress (technology, science, medicine, etc.) in the last 20 years than the previous 3,000 years.

To a lot of people it looks like were approaching the end.

[Phoenix]

that's --- WE'RE...

a grammar freak

[Desnudo]

Look how far manking has come in the last few years - how much further can mankind progress. We've maid more progress (technology, science, medicine, etc.) in the last 20 years than the previous 3,000 years.

To a lot of people it looks like were approaching the end.

So I shouldn't bother with a life insurance policy then?