25 thoughts on “Bible Code Myth

  1. really…Thank you for making this site!! its about time someone set to work on squashing these insane claims! my husband and my self regualry sit down to watch ancient aliens, no, not for “education” we watch for a great laugh! Ancient Aliens should be part of comedy central’s lign up. But then again,most of the shows that now play on the history chanell are a joke to begin with.

  2. While i like your work and agree with most, i do see that you theorise as well and even though i agree that most of those so called bible codes are just wishfull thinking, one should not flush the baby away with the bathwater, investigate the vessels and the one that fell and broke into 288 pieces ( zohar) there is a structure unop which the torah was written

      • Opinion ,each of the 304803 letters of the torah has its place
        The structure itself is given in the text its measure and sequence of numbers flow from it. But it seems that it wasnt openness that set the task to debunk,and of little use to even start to set it out. Such a code does not follow your rules of a conditioning mind set. Just like numbers do not follow personal ideas , if i say that the sum of all numbers starting in rows of 9 starting with one are in essence no matter how large the number sequence is always identical to the first 9 numbers and each 3 such rows always add up to 3 , 6 and 9.

        No present day scienctific knowledge is either aware of it or can explain it, no matter how long the string of numbers is.

        Nor are they aware of an ancient measure that contains all measures needed, from Pi golden ratio, down to they key to calculate the volume of a globe. Etc etc . All leading to a structure that spells out a number sequence that can then be returned to letters again.

        • This entirely misses the point. I guess you didn’t understand the site or didn’t read it. The point is that the original letters of the Torah cannot be established in the first place. What passes for Bible codes today doesn’t take into account the Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls (where those texts disagree with MT). It also fails to account for matres lectiones (presence or absence).

          The whole enterprise is a failed proposition.

  3. It’s not circular to pint out the obvious: the exact every-letter sequence of the Torah cannot be known. Readers who know Hebrew know that isn’t much of an issue for meaning and translation (matre consonant-vowels vary spelling; archaic grammar; differences in manuscripts, etc.), but it’s lethal to a code.

  4. it tells me you don’t understand how the sequence shifts and is hopelessly insecure (and unobtainable unless we all of sudden become omniscient and can time travel).

    • Lol, so 98% accurate is failed? That the 2% represents the truth? Yours perhaps . One thing it does show, a conditioned mind set which is perhaps reflected in your research. I on the other hand see openess ,the instrument to reach the truth, not having a conditioned mind set, but an ever willingness to let go of it for a bigger one untill it includes everything.

  5. OK, Dr. Heiser, I’ve watched a couple of your videos on YouTube. Four actually, your Unseen Realm Seminar (I didn’t watch the questions and answers).

    I believe it was in Unseen Realms 1 you went off against the dictation theory of Scriptural inspiration (for good reason I think). Then you stated that a better way of looking at verbal inspiration of the Bible would be how we look at the canon of the Bible. As being a product of Providence. OK. Sure.

    So why couldn’t someone suggest that providentially the text of the Bible wound up producing some kind of code? That God, forseeing all the various changes that would happen to the text, would recognize the Lenningrad Codex would be the basic Hebrew text used by Bibles all around the world at a certain point in history (a point not long prior to the computer revolution that would be able to detect such codes), would anticipate the scholarly changes made by Rudolf Kittel and others, and would allow the letters to fall in the right place to produce a code in the form we have it now. In, again, in the age of computers able to detect such code?

    You answering by stating modern man does not have the original Hebrew winds up being a side issue if you think in terms of providence. If Scriptures can be verbally inspired by providence, then it could also be true that a code in a later version of the Hebrew Bible could be inserted by providence. That’s just being logical about what “inspiration by providence” implies.

    By the way, I have no idea if Bible codes are actually valid or not. I have not personally investigated them. But I found your wave-of-the-hand dismissal of the idea to be based on flawed thinking.

    Most people don’t like to be corrected when they are wrong and you are probably not an exception to that. But I do not mean to say this with hostility. I simply am pointing out something I observed and have confidence that the intelligence you demonstrated in your videos will lead you to realize your reason to draw the conclusion you did was actually incorrect.

    Mind you, you still may be right that Bible codes are bunk. But you have not done a single thing to establish they are as of the comments I have seen on this page or what is directly mentioned in the link this page contains. Perhaps your 90 page answer that I chose not to buy somehow addresses this in a way that actually looks at the codes themselves instead of accidentally arguing against the providence you have cited as a means of Biblical inspiration elsewhere. Or perhaps it doesn’t. Either way, FYI.

    With respect.

    • With respect? Withering condescension and passive agressive tones are that?
      I like Heiser’s version better for the same reason you don’t. I prefer it…..and it’s purely opinion.

      • Well, I will admit to a bit of a clumsy attempt to appeal to Heiser’s pride in order to get him to reconsider the issue. But “Withering condescension”–that’s nonsense. I think he made a logical error and tried to get him to reconsider. I don’t feel the idea of a Bible code can be ruled out with a wave of the hand because the Bible texts have changed since the original manuscripts.

        It wasn’t personal, nor “passive-aggressive.” Though I’ve been accused of that a couple of times lately. It seems polite languages is always seen as a form of aggression by some people.

        Could I have written a better comment–yeah. But you misread my intent.

        • “Most people don’t like to be corrected when they are wrong and you are probably not an exception to that. But I do not mean to say this with hostility”

          The above statement was added despite your own admission of not having investigated the issue. If it isn’t passive aggressive it still smacks of Ad Hominem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.