Re: virus: Bible code

Chitren Nursinghdass (
Thu, 05 Jun 1997 14:08:39 +0000

>Also, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong here) that Hebrew doesn't use
>vowels in the same way as English. I'm wondering if this means that words
>are inflected differently? That there might be more meanings-per-word than
>in English?

Why more, it just depends on the time spent using the language, with time
probably add more meaning by analogy to the same word.

>The frequency of positive IDs on "encoded words" would depend on how many
>letters in the alphabet, how much pronunciation/meaning depends on spelling
>or context, what proportion of possible letter combinations yield a valid
>word... as an English speaker (or if you do the combination-maths on English
>words/letters) you may get a misleading impression of how impressive a
>positive "hit" would be for the Bible Code program.
>PLUS the article shows a chunk of the grid layout of characters and a number
>of highlighted lines, diagonal, vertical and horizontal. Remember here that
>a shallow diagonal could correspond to every 3000th character, and you get
>an impression of just how much searching the computer's doing to find its

Wait : put out numbers in a square grid, read in columns and in fact you're
reading at equal intervals (calculating with addtion of the same number).

It's just in the interpretation. The latter is time-coded with consciousness.
Don't you see it ?

It must be that several outcomes for each event is coded there, but an a
posteriori conscious search will provide for easier spotting of semantics
in the seemingly haphazard laying out of letter/numbers.

They said it themselves, Rips, etc . "EQUI-DISTANT LETTER SEQUENCES".

Then if you put them in squares, obviously you'll have columns. It's just
a calculation of sorts.

Wait till they put the letters on solids or use the trh end-to-end.

Another problem comes from the name-dictionary method : maybe somebody
who is not at the forefront of politics now will be later. Hence, searching
today, his name would not be in the dictionary and there would be no "match".
The same search later would reveal a name seemingly "retrofitted".

It's just we're not looking where we should and how we should.

And there must be several answers to each event. Beacuse we do ACT on
our surroundings as well.

I think there must be meta-rules (always GO META) which can enable someone
who knows to lessen the uncertainty concerning the outcomes, singling out
the most probable one.

Sounds like quantum physics to me. Anyone ? How consciouness affects the
surroundings via quantum-level links ? Penrose ?

>Plus, in the text of the (pro-)Bible Code article that I read, it was noted
>that the current version of the Torah wasn't fixed until 1000AD. So, the
>"prophecies" weren't encoded into the book until 2000-3000 years after work
>first began on it.

Well if it's really self-similar, a FRACTAL, then no matter what type of
assembly or disassembly, you'll still find the whole from the parts, provided
your science enables you to find the tool (thanks Benoit).

>The search technique has been selected and developed to pick up more and
>more combinations, and the tests have never been of negative or garbage
>references, and other texts run through the system have been tested with THE
>SAME SEARCH STRINGS, which is a mistake, because you aren't looking for
>potentially loads of other patterns that MIGHT exist in your other texts.
>It's an imposed meaning thing.

Yep it is, but unless you go meta and keep an open meme-set...
you don't expand your memeset !

Self-reference everywhere.