# Thread: The New Bible Code

1. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
I don't accept it because it is irrational. I've explained this a million times and you have never responded.

Meaningless random coincidences, which may seem meaningful, often have small probabilities. Therefore, small probabilities do not help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

You can have a coincidence with low probability that is meaningful.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that is meaningless.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that seems meaningful but is actually meaningless.
You can have a coincidence with low probability that seems meaningless but is actually meaningful.

As you can see, the probability tells us nothing about whether the coincidence is meaningful or not.

Therefore, low probability does not help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

You have never answered this point. I've repeated it a million times, and you have never responded. Please respond.
A code is a code because it is meaningful to someone. It contains a message. Collins Dictionary defines a code thus:

"A code is a system of replacing the words in a message with other words or symbols, so that nobody can understand it unless they know the system."

The word 'understand' implies meaning and any genuine code has meaning to the receiver.
That is NOT a response to my question, which I have repeated a million times in this thread.

As for the dictionary definition of a "code" you quoted - it is irrelevant to our discussion because it does not distinguish between real codes that were actually designed by an intelligent agent vs. pseudo codes that people read into the text but that were not put there intentionally.

Your "codes" look exactly like what I would expect from random chance. That is the point we are debating. It is absurd to say that they were designed merely because you think they are meaningful. I can find codes that are very meaningful but you reject them as real. For example, I found this code that plainly states that numerology is not real. It took me only a few minutes. Imagine what codes I could find if I spent decades looking for them like you have!

All four hits begin with the first word, just like your ark encodings. The message is easy to understand. The probability is just a low as any other encoding you might find.

So why should we reject this code, but not yours?

2. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
204
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
That is NOT a response to my question, which I have repeated a million times in this thread.

My response IS the answer to your question. Each group of encoded statements is meaningful, internally consistent, consistent with the larger message, of profound religious significance, supported by other independent encodings, in a meaningful location. They also have to be decoded by the same method, and statistically improbable.

There are four possibilities:

1. The code is meaningful to the Christian community and beyond but easy to replicate - no code.
2. The code is meaningful to one person and easy to replicate - no code.
3. The code is meaningfulto one person and difficult to replicate - no code.
4. The code is meaningful to the Christian community and beyond and difficult to replicate - possible CODE!

On top of that there were supporting encodings (which I've shown), they interlock with other major encodings (which I've shown), they have appeared within the most important words in scripture (which is obvious), within the most popular version of the Bible (the NIV), based on biblical phrases, phrases which are only found in that version, which is written in the international langauge of choice (English). The timing of the appearance of the code was critical too. And then there was the key which unlocked it and which was literally handed to me.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
As for the dictionary definition of a "code" you quoted - it is irrelevant to our discussion because it does not distinguish between real codes that were actually designed by an intelligent agent vs. pseudo codes that people read into the text but that were not put there intentionally.
I was showing that the code is based on meaning. It has to mean something to the receiver - in this case potentially the entire human race.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Your "codes" look exactly like what I would expect from random chance. That is the point we are debating. It is absurd to say that they were designed merely because you think they are meaningful. I can find codes that are very meaningful but you reject them as real.
I rejected one of them because it didn't pass muster, nowhere near it.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
For example, I found this code that plainly states that numerology is not real. It took me only a few minutes. Imagine what codes I could find if I spent decades looking for them like you have!

Attachment 1434

All four hits begin with the first word, just like your ark encodings. The message is easy to understand. The probability is just a low as any other encoding you might find.

So why should we reject this code, but not yours?
Well, lets see.

Does it proceed from the first words of the NIV? YES.
Was it decoded in the same way? YES
Is each phrase internally consistent? YES, however, one of them is a word, not a phrase. But let's be generous.
Are the phrases/word consistent with each other? NO. One of them is just the statement NUMEROLOGY. The other thee are consistent but not as close in meaning as the ark encodings.
Do the phrases make a meaningful statement? If it weren't for the fact that 'numerology' is just a word I would have given you a yes, but as it is, I have to say NO.
Are they of profound religious significance? NO
Are they biblical phrases? NO
Are they found only in the NIV Bible? NO, simply because they are not found in any bible.
Are they supported by other independent 'codes' (such as ELS codes)? That remains to be seen.
Do they interlock with similar codes in the same location to give larger patterns of meaning? Again, that remains to be seen.
Do they make any kind of pattern, such as the 14-24-34 pattern or the 6-6-6-6 pattern of the Signature of Christ? NO.

So these pseudo-codes do not pass all the tests a genuine equivalent of the ark encodings would have to pass. They scored three 'yes', six 'no' and two unproven.

3. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
My response IS the answer to your question. Each group of encoded statements is meaningful, internally consistent, consistent with the larger message, of profound religious significance, supported by other independent encodings, in a meaningful location. They also have to be decoded by the same method, and statistically improbable.

There are four possibilities:

1. The code is meaningful to the Christian community and beyond but easy to replicate - no code.
2. The code is meaningful to one person and easy to replicate - no code.
3. The code is meaningful to one person and difficult to replicate - no code.
4. The code is meaningful to the Christian community and beyond and difficult to replicate - possible CODE!

On top of that there were supporting encodings (which I've shown), they interlock with other major encodings (which I've shown), they have appeared within the most important words in scripture (which is obvious), within the most popular version of the Bible (the NIV), based on biblical phrases, phrases which are only found in that version, which is written in the international langauge of choice (English). The timing of the appearance of the code was critical too. And then there was the key which unlocked it and which was literally handed to me.
Bill,

That is NOT an answer to my question. You changed "statistically improbable" to "difficult to replicate." There is no necessary connection between the two concepts. It is often very easy to replicate things that are statistically improbable, as should be obvious with my previous example.

Why can't you answer my question? Why do you have to change the words?

Any "code" based on selecting words from an ocean of possibilities based on matching numerical values will have a low probability whether or not it is "meaningful."

Why can you not understand this simple concept?

You need to answer this point. I have been repeating it sense post #7.

Almost any "code" will have small probabilities, whether or not it is meaningful. Therefore, small probabilities cannot help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.

Why can't you understand this point?

Thanks!

4. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Does it proceed from the first words of the NIV? YES.
Was it decoded in the same way? YES
Is each phrase internally consistent? YES, however, one of them is a word, not a phrase. But let's be generous.
Are the phrases/word consistent with each other? NO. One of them is just the statement NUMEROLOGY. The other thee are consistent but not as close in meaning as the ark encodings.
Do the phrases make a meaningful statement? If it weren't for the fact that 'numerology' is just a word I would have given you a yes, but as it is, I have to say NO.
Are they of profound religious significance? NO
Are they biblical phrases? NO
Are they found only in the NIV Bible? NO, simply because they are not found in any bible.
Are they supported by other independent 'codes' (such as ELS codes)? That remains to be seen.
Do they interlock with similar codes in the same location to give larger patterns of meaning? Again, that remains to be seen.
Do they make any kind of pattern, such as the 14-24-34 pattern or the 6-6-6-6 pattern of the Signature of Christ? NO.

So these pseudo-codes do not pass all the tests a genuine equivalent of the ark encodings would have to pass. They scored three 'yes', six 'no' and two unproven.
First, the appearance of the noun "numerology" is included because it defines the central theme of the code. Your rejection makes no sense at all because your codes are nothing but noun phrases. If you found a single noun like "ark" you would have included it, and you know it! Your logic is radically inconsistent and strongly biased.

Is "Second Coming" a biblical phrase? NO!

Is the phrase found in any bible? NO! It is debatable if even the concept is taught in the Bible.

5. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle

On top of that there were supporting encodings (which I've shown), they interlock with other major encodings (which I've shown), they have appeared within the most important words in scripture (which is obvious), within the most popular version of the Bible (the NIV), based on biblical phrases, phrases which are only found in that version, which is written in the international langauge of choice (English). The timing of the appearance of the code was critical too. And then there was the key which unlocked it and which was literally handed to me.
This is simply not true here in the United States. KJV wins by a landslide. Here is a study that proves the KJV is more popular than the NIV.

Here is a nice summary of the study. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gle...n-niv-kjv.html

When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.

The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.

So concludes "The Bible in American Life," a lengthy report by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University?Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Funded by the Lilly Foundation, researchers asked questions on what David Briggs of the ARDA, which first reported the results, calls "two of the most highly respected data sources for American religion"?the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.

The numbers are surprising, given the strong sales of NIV translations in bookstores. The NIV has topped the CBA's bestselling Bible translation list for decades, and continued to sell robustly in 2013.

The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV.

The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.

In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.

Why would God allow so many Americans to be deceived if his "true" codes are only found in the NIV? Why would such a God use secret codes through numerology that are so easily cloaked by human biases?

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle

Does it proceed from the first words of the NIV? YES.
Was it decoded in the same way? YES
Is each phrase internally consistent? YES, however, one of them is a word, not a phrase. But let's be generous.
Are the phrases/word consistent with each other? NO. One of them is just the statement NUMEROLOGY. The other thee are consistent but not as close in meaning as the ark encodings.
Do the phrases make a meaningful statement? If it weren't for the fact that 'numerology' is just a word I would have given you a yes, but as it is, I have to say NO.
Are they of profound religious significance? NO
Are they biblical phrases? NO

Are they found only in the NIV Bible? NO, simply because they are not found in any bible.
Are they supported by other independent 'codes' (such as ELS codes)? That remains to be seen.
Do they interlock with similar codes in the same location to give larger patterns of meaning? Again, that remains to be seen.
Do they make any kind of pattern, such as the 14-24-34 pattern or the 6-6-6-6 pattern of the Signature of Christ? NO.

So these pseudo-codes do not pass all the tests a genuine equivalent of the ark encodings would have to pass. They scored three 'yes', six 'no' and two unproven.

How do you know Richard's codes aren't valid? What if they were really God's codes meant to warn people not to delude themselves with numerology? How would you prove any different?

6. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
204
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Bill,

That is NOT an answer to my question. You changed "statistically improbable" to "difficult to replicate." There is no necessary connection between the two concepts.
What? They are pretty much synonymous in this context. The more improbable they are the more difficult they would be to replicate, all else being equal. Four ark encodings are harder to replicate than one, surely? - and also much more improbable: 1-in-5 million against a mere 1-in-45. Probability here is a measure (perhaps imperfect but still useful) of difficulty in replication. If you have a better method I'm all ears.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
It is often very easy to replicate things that are statistically improbable, as should be obvious with my previous example.
You're bolstering your own opinion here with . . . your own opinion. I showed that your attempt fell far short of being a replicated code. Moreover, you have yet to display any ELS codes or other interlocking codes to support it. It crashes to the ground, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Why can't you answer my question? Why do you have to change the words?
If you thought I was practising some form of subterfuge you'd be wrong. And I did answer it. You just don't like the answer, so you keep on saying I haven't answered it.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Any "code" based on selecting words from an ocean of possibilities based on matching numerical values will have a low probability whether or not it is "meaningful."

Why can you not understand this simple concept?

You need to answer this point. I have been repeating it sense post #7.
And I've been answering it since about post 8. Probability is a minor part of the supporting evidence for the code, but is useful at times. You say that every 'code' has low probability, but some are more improbable than others, so it's good to get a handle on the probablities. As I said before may times, the code is based on meaning (and remember, I'm not talking about personal meaning, but meaning to all Christians) and the more meaningful connections there are, the harder that would be to replicate, simply because there is more information packed in there and therefore random forces would have to have been 'luckier' in throwing it together. Information is real. It has been directly converted into energy. So we are talking about potentially quantifiable information content. In a simple group of encodings like the four ark phrases, there is a fair amount of information content and a very crude estimation of that is the improbability of finding them there together, in other words, how lucky the winds of chance were in throwing it all together. As I said in a previous post, if there is a better method of measuring the information content, or negative entropy, in there, I'd be happy to look at it.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Almost any "code" will have small probabilities, whether or not it is meaningful. Therefore, small probabilities cannot help us discern between CHANCE vs. DESIGN.
Yes they can, to give an idea of how probable something like that would be, but ultimately it is recognised, not proven.
Last edited by thebluetriangle; 04-17-2017 at 11:52 AM.

7. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
204
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
First, the appearance of the noun "numerology" is included because it defines the central theme of the code. Your rejection makes no sense at all because your codes are nothing but noun phrases. If you found a single noun like "ark" you would have included it, and you know it! Your logic is radically inconsistent and strongly biased.
'Ark of the Testimony' is more specific than just 'ark', which might also refer to Noah's ark. So the phrase is better here. It gives more information! Numerology is similarly vague and in fact many people would not class gematria as a form of numerology, a term which can refer to new age birth-number readings, etc. So two (or more) words are most definitely better than one!

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Is "Second Coming" a biblical phrase? NO!

Is the phrase found in any bible? NO! It is debatable if even the concept is taught in the Bible.
I chose my words carefully, Richard. I was specifically referring to the ark encodings. I've already stated that other parts of the code go beyond the NIV Bible. It fact it exists to interpret two Millennial events: 9/11 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II, which, among other things, represented the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. The Second Coming encodings (of which you've seen only a small part) would still tick almost all of those boxes, incidentally, even though they weren't designed for that part of the code.
Last edited by thebluetriangle; 04-17-2017 at 12:37 PM.

8. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
204
Originally Posted by L67
This is simply not true here in the United States. KJV wins by a landslide. Here is a study that proves the KJV is more popular than the NIV.

Here is a nice summary of the study. http://www.christianitytoday.com/gle...n-niv-kjv.html

When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.

The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.

So concludes "The Bible in American Life," a lengthy report by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University?Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Funded by the Lilly Foundation, researchers asked questions on what David Briggs of the ARDA, which first reported the results, calls "two of the most highly respected data sources for American religion"?the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.

The numbers are surprising, given the strong sales of NIV translations in bookstores. The NIV has topped the CBA's bestselling Bible translation list for decades, and continued to sell robustly in 2013.

The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV.

The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.

In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.
I meant to say that the NIV sells more than any other version. In that sense it is the most popular. Here's a website giving the top ten versions in terms of dollar sales and unit sales. The NIV tops both lists. That's interesting information you give though. I have both versions, and personally I prefer the NIV every time, just because it's so readable.

Originally Posted by L67
Why would God allow so many Americans to be deceived if his "true" codes are only found in the NIV? Why would such a God use secret codes through numerology that are so easily cloaked by human biases?
Who's being deceived? The codes are entirely separate from the plain words of the Bible and in fact you can read yoor Bible every day without ever being concerned about codes, if that is your preference. There's nothing wrong with the KJV either. It's served the church well for centuries. I suspect, though, that many people prefer the KJV because they grew up with it and so it's been part of their religious experience. I like worshipping in old gothic or neo-gothic churches, rather than modern ones, for the same reason. But for aiding reading comprehension, the NIV is the one.

As for 'human biases', there isn't a single part of the Bible and religion in general that hasn't been twisted because of human bias, and then used to serve men rather than God. The interpretation of the code isn't immune to that either, and I've gone to great lengths to get this right, as far as I am able. In fact that is probably one reason why I was chosen for this, because I had no theological or denominational biases or even much biblical knowledge. But, because it was encoded by the Holy Spirit working through the unconscious minds of the NIV Bible translators (and in fact the inspiration goes all the way back to the time when the first scribes put pen to parchment) the code itself is very pure information. This is buried treasure, for goodness sake! Or should I say, was buried treasure. It's on display now!

Originally Posted by L67
How do you know Richard's codes aren't valid? What if they were really God's codes meant to warn people not to delude themselves with numerology? How would you prove any different?
You can't encode a bible using numerology to prove that numerology is invalid. It's an absurdity, like saying "This statement is false." (which would mean it was true, and therefore false, and therefore true . . .).

9. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Originally Posted by L67
How do you know Richard's codes aren't valid? What if they were really God's codes meant to warn people not to delude themselves with numerology? How would you prove any different?
You can't encode a bible using numerology to prove that numerology is invalid. It's an absurdity, like saying "This statement is false." (which would mean it was true, and therefore false, and therefore true . . .).
Yes, it is an absurdity. That was my point! I used a classic logical argument to refute your theory. It's called a Reductio ad Absurdum. I used YOUR METHODS to show that they lead to absurdity and so cannot be true or trusted.

10. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Is "Second Coming" a biblical phrase? NO!

Is the phrase found in any bible? NO! It is debatable if even the concept is taught in the Bible.
I chose my words carefully, Richard. I was specifically referring to the ark encodings. I've already stated that other parts of the code go beyond the NIV Bible. It fact it exists to interpret two Millennial events: 9/11 and the funeral of Pope John Paul II, which, among other things, represented the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ. The Second Coming encodings (of which you've seen only a small part) would still tick almost all of those boxes, incidentally, even though they weren't designed for that part of the code.
You would do well to choose your principles as carefully as your words. Your PRINCIPLES are entirely inconsistent. You change them whenever you need to rationalize why one pattern doesn't follow the same principles as some other pattern. They cannot be consistent because your "codes" are not consistent. Your assertion that they are all "interlocking is directly contradicted by the fact that they are not based on any consistent set of principles. In essence, you just make up whatever you want after the fact and the say "God did it." Nothing could be more absurd.

The Bible speaks strongly against people who do not follow consistent principles. It warns about how people delude themselves with ever changing doctrines (principles). For example:

Eph 4:14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming.

I'm pretty sure you are not deliberately using "cunning and craftiness" but your codes strike me as extremely "deceitful scheming" because you have deceived yourself, and cannot state, let alone adhere to, a coherent consistent set of principles that define your "codes".

Now tell me this ... is it a "mere coincidence" that this verse INTEGRATES with my code that shows numerology is false? Look at this!

Haven't had enough? What are the chances that the VERSE NUMBERS would also be found in the grid, starting with the first word? We have the identity:

BOOK OF EPHESIANS FOUR FOURTEEN = 1728 = Word string from word 1 to word 36!!!

What will it take for you to see the truth Bill?

There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may edit your posts
•