# Thread: The New Bible Code

1. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
230
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Hey there Bill,
Let me repeat: RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

Therefore, small probabilities are not themselves signs of design. This is the primary error of all numerologists who try to justify their collection of cherry-picked results by showing that their particular set of cherry picked results had a "small probability." It wouldn't matter what set of results were picked from the ocean of possibilities. They ALL would have a small probability. So the small probability tells us NOTHING about whether they were designed.

Let me repeat: ANY RANDOM SET OF WORDS generated by your methods will occur with a very small probability. Therefore, the fact that the probability is small tells us nothing about whether or not the set was "put there" by a designer.
There are two scenarios

1. Ignoring the meaningful relationships between words and phrases, and
2. Taking meaningful relationships into account.

I think this key distinction has to be recognised, because without it we will be at cross purposes. The ark of the testimony has great significance to readers of the Bible and therefore, although the numbers 1754,1623, 1169 and 610 are in scenario 1 no more important than any other numbers, in scenario 2 they are very important. They are only related to the furniture within the Most Holy Place in the NIV and this is where we find them, therefore this has to be significant. If we take that significance into account in our probability calculations, we will to some extent be able to quantify it.

In calculating probabilities the question you ask is key. When I found the number 1754 and realised that it was the sv of 'ark of the testimony' I then predicted that atonement cover and cherubim of the glory would also be there. This was an a priori prediction, based on the fact that the two numbers, 1623 and 1169, had no more chance of being there under scenario 1 than any other number. But both were there, which stunned me, because it showed, as it has shown many times since, that I was on the right track and could to some extent predict what values might be present and where they might be found. This is detective work, as much as anything, and a detective shows his expertise by results. What was I predicting here? I wasn't predicting that 'mercy seat' or 'lid' would be there. I was predicting that 'atonement cover' would be there, because I already knew that this is found in the NIV and that the code is self referential. I could narrow it down to one phrase, as I could with cherubim of the glory. Finding altar of incense too was an unexpected bonus. So the question I formulated out of my prediction was "Given that ark of the testimony is present, what are the chances of finding atonement cover and cherubim of the glory there?" This is a legitimate question because it could be reduced to two numbers: 1623 and 1169. Based on nothing more than finding 1754, I could predict that those two other numbers would be there! It was legitimate then to say that the chances of finding them there were about 1 in (45 x 45), or 1 in 2025, which gave the probability of them just being there randomly. None of that is proof, but it was highly suggestive, a neon sign that something non-random was going on. You could ask about the other components of the ark: the moulding, poles and rings. These are of less importance that the cover and cherubim though, which are of great ritual significance within the Most Holy Place. So again I think the calculation stands. We might argue about the exact probability, but surely you can see that something improbable has happened. The winds of chance couldn't have blown meaning into first few words of Genesis. Given enough text you'd find it somewhere, but not in the first few words (probably). Given enough monkeys and typewriters you'll get the complete works of Shakespeare, but there were very few monkeys and typewriters. The NIV, incidentally, is the most popular English version (English being the international language of choice), now outselling even the KJV. If God wanted to put a code somewhere, this would be the language and the version.

One could possibly find three interelated concepts, of similar import, in the NIV wording, starting from word 1, with those four values (1754, 1623, 1169, 610), but given my stipulations, you can intuit that there will be very few. Similarly, you might find three other numbers found in the first 50 words or so with similar properties, and in fact there are others there, but they are part of the code too! Given that I'm stipulating that we start from the beginning, there just aren't that many possibilities. There are a few 'rolls of the dice', and I think that probability calculations therefore have some value, but not a huge number. The law of truly large numbers just doesn't get a look in.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
When I first started playing with numerology back in 1990, I too did it all by hand. I really enjoyed it. It was quite meditative. I would be meditating on the meaning of the text and the beauty of the numbers and found it quite mesmerizing. But then I wanted to be able to do it more efficiently so I began using computers.
I'd call it gematria, not numerology, which has different connotations. I agree though, it is very meditative. I have an inbuilt resistance to using too much technology though. I like to get a feel for it, and using software removes one from the coalface. A miner digging at the coalface will find more fossils than someone blasting it with dynamite.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Yes, I do ask why it is the way it is if it was designed, because the central term "ark of the testimony" is NOT found in the context of Hebrews 9 whereas a different term "ark of the covenant" is found there. Why would an intelligent God design it so that the numbers DO NOT match? That makes no sense to me at all. It directly contradicts the idea that the numbers were put there by design so that we could recognize the design.
As I said, this is a red herring. The principle here is that they are found in the NIV, and ONLY in the NIV, not in Hebrews 9. You can't ask why God hasn't encoded the numbers you think should be encoded, or by the method you would like them to be encoded, or in the places you thik they should be encoded. You're trying to tell God what to do here. And because he hasn't done it the way you think it should be done, you are denying he could have done it. Why not just actually look at what is there? I know it's basically post hoc, or a posteriori reasoning thereafter. But little a priori predictions can be made, as I showed above. This is a scientific problem, in its broadest sense, and showing the code is (probably) real could be seen as an exciting challenge. I just don't have the time or all of the skills necessary to do it. I've done my best, but this needs a team of experts and years of analysis. I understand that advances have been made in incorporating intangibles like meaning into calculations, and that may be the way forward. A reductionist "analysis" will only show what it is designed to show, a meaningless set of numbers in a meaningless world. But take meaning into account and everything changes. Gematria is a reflection of the meanings we ascribe to words; the code is using meaning to communicate with us. As to why I believe the code is real, that will have to wait until I can show you how I was given the Key, and what the Key contains.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
The fact that you "worked out the probabilities" for a tiny set of numbers after the fact means they are meaningless. Probabilities are only significant when the data set is large enough. For example. you could never draw any conclusion by calculating the probability of a single toss of a coin. You would have to toss the coin hundreds of times and note if the frequency is 50/50 or not. Likewise, you cannot draw any meaningful conclusion by calculating the probability that the word strings would match some other phrases. As explained above, any words you find would have similar small probabilities, so the small probabilities tell you nothing about whether or not they were designed.
I agree with you in part, but in fact there are a large number of encoded word strings, the equivalent of coin tosses. I've just shown you a few. Since many or even all are connected by meaning, location, import, NIV spelling, etc, then there is some justification for counting them as one string of coin tosses - although perhaps with a factor of some kind included to account for ambiguity in meaning, etc. That's what I mean when I say the encodings stand or fall together. The exact method is far from being established and an accurate methodology might be an impossibility. Notwithstanding what I said above, because I'd love to try it, I don't think the code is designed to be 'proven'. I think that it is designed to appeal to people who are already convinced by other means, such as personal revelation, of the reality of God and their connection to him. It is the disconnected who have trouble with the code, because they experience cognitive disonnance when they see evidence that their entire worldview is wrong.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Here is the key: If a text is actually CODED then the code must account for the entire text. For example, here is a truly coded text:

Uijt ufyu jt dpefe cz tijgujoh fbdi mfuufs gpsxbse cz pof.

When decoded, it says

This text is coded by shifting each letter forward by one.

Every letter is accounted for. We know with perfect certainty that it was encoded, and how. There is nothing like this in any of the "Bible codes". The kinds of "codes" you are looking for are indistinguishable from what we would expect in a random uncoded text.
That's certainly one kind of code, but again you are trying to tell God what to do! In fact the New Bible Code uses more than one kind of encoding method. There are Equidistant Letter Sequence codes too. These support the gematria codes and because they are independent of them they act as an independent 'witness' to the reality of the code. On witnessing, my most recent pages show that the entire ark, its every component and its contents, are all found in the forst five ferses of Genesis, in both English and Hebrew. This is another form of independent witnessing, since these are two different languages. Can anyone explain why the two numbers representing the Hebrew and English words are consistently found together in the text? I always chose the first instance of the Hebrew word in the Masoretic and its exact NIV translation.

Yes, finding patterns in texts is fraught with dangers, but so is believing you know what kind of code God should have created!

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Integration" with other cherry picked results proves nothing.

This is the problem you need to address. How do you discern between a random text and a coded text? That's the question you must answer. Merely collecting lots of "hits" from an essentially infinite ocean of random numbers proves nothing. That is the root error of all numerology. It is based on the cognitive error of CHERRY PICKING by definition. You begin by trolling through an ocean of numbers looking for "hits" that you can use to make "patterns." Different people almost always "find" (i.e. create) different patterns because the patterns are very idiosyncratic and their meaning is very subjective.
I answer the charge of cherry picking on my site. The small portion of text, its high profile location at the very beginning of the NIV, the fact that all the ark numbers all proceed from word 1, the fact that I always took the NIV spelling, the fact that some of the words and phrases are exclusive to the NIV, the fact that I used exactly the same decoding procedure and that they are the simplest scheme and the most historically attested scheme, the import of the words - all these together answer the charge of cherry picking. Cherries grow in bunches, incidentally, so I'm not sure that's the best analogy. Yes, it's possible that another group of meaningfully-related phrases or similar import could fit there, but I'm still waiting on someone showing it.

Probability analysis is so hard here that I thought a better method of showing the code it real would be to take the first few words of other texts, such as say crime novels, would be a better method, attempting to prove in other words that the code is statistically improbable. I did this with the Signature of Christ (the six numbers found under the atonement cover all relating to jesus Christ) and found that although individual vaues came up quite often (more often than I wanted - it was quite revealing about the code and about my own desire to see it 'proven') there was never any larger pattern. What it taught me was that it is patterns or confluences of encoded numbers that make a code, not individual numbers. My wife's crime novels didn't show any patterning of the numbers, just the numbers I'd found in the NIV Bible, but scattered about the text - and always far less of them.

2. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
230
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

The fact that you "worked out the probabilities" for a tiny set of numbers after the fact means they are meaningless. Probabilities are only significant when the data set is large enough. For example. you could never draw any conclusion by calculating the probability of a single toss of a coin. You would have to toss the coin hundreds of times and note if the frequency is 50/50 or not. Likewise, you cannot draw any meaningful conclusion by calculating the probability that the word strings would match some other phrases. As explained above, any words you find would have similar small probabilities, so the small probabilities tell you nothing about whether or not they were designed.
If there were nothing more than this phenomenon, I wouldn't regard it as a code either, any more than if I tossed a coin four times and got heads each time. But based on it I found similar codes in other parts of the Bible, for example at the beginning and end of each testament and the centre (by verse) of the Bible. That is far more tosses of the coin, far more improbable than finding it once. The entire code is the improbable phenomenon, rather than simply one encoding. It's even possible that the improbabilities are 'borrowed' from other parts, so that they are overall what we would expect by chance - rather like the order created when a snow crystal forms being balanced by the consequent overall slight increase in disorder in the universe as a whole from heat being released - although that's just a speculation on my part. The snowflake analogy is quite accurate in fact because what we are talking about is information, which is more fundamental than energy or matter. (Pure information has been converted into energy and could be seen as negative entropy.) So the code preexisted as pure information then crystalised in the Bible over time, like a snowflake. We can admire the exquisite beauty of the code as we do a snow crystal, knowing that the second law of thermodynamics hasn't been violated. The crystal itself contains more order (lower entropy, more information) than the water, just as the code contains ordered patterns even though the words it is within were written by translators who didn't know enough to have encoded it. I believe the first few verses of Genesis (NIV) are like that snowflake, full of order and structure - holographic in fact - but not necessarily in violation of natural law. There isn't much information in a snow crystal, as the angles, features etc, are all the same, just self-similar at dfferent scales (which we also find with the code). But there is a lot of information crystalised into the code, mainly about one event: the Second Coming.

The probability of related concepts being found in ordered patterns is the critical question. That is what I tried to calculate in my 'back of an envelope' fashion, although I am perfectly aware that it needs a lot of refinement. I assumed there was 100% identification between the ark, the atonement cover and the cherubim, which I know is much too optimistic. But there is some identification between them and so finding them together is suspicious. It's a noticeable pattern, noticeable because it's not what we'd expect if the numbers were thrown in there randomly. It looks like they were carefully placed there.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
"Integration" with other cherry picked results proves nothing.
They were just there, integrated. All I had to do was open the atonement cover and look underneath. There they were: Jesus, Yehoshua, Word, Word, Messiah, Messiah, all in regular patterns of six and twelve words, formed in the simplest fashion, by splitting it into 4 x six-word segments. Don't forget the meaning of six, man's number and the days of creation, which Genesis 1 details! We can look at that phenomenon too and work out the chances of it just happening. I worked out a binomial probability of 1 in 1200, based on 70 words used for Jesus, but this was much too pessimistic, because the words there are going to be at or near the top of any list, since they are less ambiguous than words like 'friend', 'counsellor', etc. And what is the first word we find? Jesus! You have to be willfully blind not to see it is a code and not chance, even if the numbers are difficult to crunch.

3. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
There are two scenarios

1. Ignoring the meaningful relationships between words and phrases, and
2. Taking meaningful relationships into account.

I think this key distinction has to be recognised, because without it we will be at cross purposes. The ark of the testimony has great significance to readers of the Bible and therefore, although the numbers 1754,1623, 1169 and 610 are in scenario 1 no more important than any other numbers, in scenario 2 they are very important. They are only related to the furniture within the Most Holy Place in the NIV and this is where we find them, therefore this has to be significant. If we take that significance into account in our probability calculations, we will to some extent be able to quantify it.
Hey there Bill,

I'm glad we are digging down on this point, because it is of central importance. I don't see how the subjective "meaning" has anything to do with probability. I thought we had agreed that probability tells us nothing in an analysis of post hoc cherry picked data. It gives us no "sign of design" in any way at all because you all patterns - whether meaningful or meaningless - will have low probability. This point really needs to be either understood or refuted:

Small probabilities tell us nothing about "design" because any random pattern will have a small probability.

Also, there are patterns with very obvious meaning and low probability that you reject and ignore or explain away because you don't like them, such as

JESUS = 666 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD

Rationalization is the handmaiden of cherry picking. It is how people maintain their false beliefs when faced with evidence they don't like.

These are the primary cognitive errors that people use to create and maintain false belief systems:

1) Cherry Picking
2) Confirmation Bias
3) Rationalization

These errors should be AVOIDED at all costs, not used as the FOUNDATION for "patterns." This is why gematria is fundamentally unreliable as a test for "design." It is based fundamentally on the cognitive errors of Cherry Picking (Selection Bias) and Confirmation Bias (you accept a result if it "confirms" what you want to believe, and ignore it or explain it away otherwise).

I know about these things because I had deluded myself with the Bible Wheel and gematria for so many years. I've discussed the errors, how they work and how to overcome them in detail in a series of articles:

The last two articles show the most effective technique, which is to compare and contrast competing contradictory claims. The most powerful for me was the discovery of the Catholic Bible Wheel, which has many features as impressive as the Protestant version. What are the chances? That's what convinced me about the Protestant Bible Wheel. It seemed impossible to be the product of chance. But then I saw that I could make a Catholic Bible Wheel that was even better in the sense that it "sealed" the Catholic Bible with the 24 letters from Alpha to Omega, the actual description of Christ (the Living Word) found in the text of "God's Word"! This "broke the spell" and I finally realized - truly saw and understood - that I had deceived myself with post hoc "pattern finding."

The debunking of myself was the fulfillment of my stated intent in the conclusion of my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem in which I use him as an example of the many ways believers delude themselves. After cutting my teeth debunking others, I was finally able to debunk myself.

I'll answer more in another post. It's best to keep each post as small as possible. They become rather unmanageable when they get too big. And they go off in too many directions.

Great chatting!

4. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
In calculating probabilities the question you ask is key. When I found the number 1754 and realised that it was the sv of 'ark of the testimony' I then predicted that atonement cover and cherubim of the glory would also be there. This was an a priori prediction, based on the fact that the two numbers, 1623 and 1169, had no more chance of being there under scenario 1 than any other number. But both were there, which stunned me, because it showed, as it has shown many times since, that I was on the right track and could to some extent predict what values might be present and where they might be found. This is detective work, as much as anything, and a detective shows his expertise by results. What was I predicting here? I wasn't predicting that 'mercy seat' or 'lid' would be there. I was predicting that 'atonement cover' would be there, because I already knew that this is found in the NIV and that the code is self referential.
I totally understand why you would be impressed by finding a confirmation of your "a priori prediction." That explains why it is meaningful to you, but it doesn't help an objective observer who is attempting to judge whether there are any signs of design. The fact that you successfully "predicted" this one pattern means little because you cannot predict anything else. If the text were truly coded, then you should be able to pick any random topic and predict things. Like if I discover a law of nature, I can actually predict what will happen when you toss a ball in the air. Or if I decoded some computer code I could predict what the computer would do. Or if I decoded your SSL wifi signal I could read your emails. That's what "codes" are really all about. They are not post hoc patterns "justified" by a misapplication of statistics. The statistics are used to establish the laws that actually govern the phenomena. Can you show me an example where anyone uses statistics to prove design in a peer reviewed analysis? I know of some, and they are nothing like what you are doing. To prove "design" (or rather, authorship) a statistical analysis of word frequencies help. But you know that doesn't work with your patterns. This is the problem with your appeal to statistics. You are not using them as they are meant to be used, and so your results don't prove anything at all.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
I could narrow it down to one phrase, as I could with cherubim of the glory.
That is a textbook case of the fundamental flaw in post hoc statistical analysis. It's the Sharpshooter's Fallacy. You are drawing the target around the place your random hit happened to fall!

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
Finding altar of incense too was an unexpected bonus.
Yes, a "bonus" because it "confirmed" what you wanted to believe. Your every word reveals the fundamental flaw of your method. It is based on cognitive errors and fallacies, such as cherry picking, confirmation bias, rationalization, the Sharpshooter's Fallacy, etc., etc., etc.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
So the question I formulated out of my prediction was "Given that ark of the testimony is present, what are the chances of finding atonement cover and cherubim of the glory there?" This is a legitimate question because it could be reduced to two numbers: 1623 and 1169. Based on nothing more than finding 1754, I could predict that those two other numbers would be there! It was legitimate then to say that the chances of finding them there were about 1 in (45 x 45), or 1 in 2025, which gave the probability of them just being there randomly. None of that is proof, but it was highly suggestive, a neon sign that something non-random was going on.
I totally understand why you would find that to be a "neon sign". I had many similar experiences. I would see some connection and then think "Wouldn't it be amazing if ..." and go looking and maybe find something or maybe not. I collected these "hits" for many years. Each hit convinced me that I was on to something. But then I realized that there were no real patterns at all. They were all fragmentary. Bits and pieces that would be expected in a large random set. There was no overarching pattern that could be demonstrated with a statistical analysis (which is the true purpose of statistics).

Statistics are not meant to justify what we want to believe.

The best thing you could do would be to try to prove yourself WRONG. That's the only way you could have any real confidence that you are right.

5. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
As I said, this is a red herring. The principle here is that they are found in the NIV, and ONLY in the NIV, not in Hebrews 9. You can't ask why God hasn't encoded the numbers you think should be encoded, or by the method you would like them to be encoded, or in the places you thik they should be encoded. You're trying to tell God what to do here. And because he hasn't done it the way you think it should be done, you are denying he could have done it. Why not just actually look at what is there? I know it's basically post hoc, or a posteriori reasoning thereafter. But little a priori predictions can be made, as I showed above. This is a scientific problem, in its broadest sense, and showing the code is (probably) real could be seen as an exciting challenge. I just don't have the time or all of the skills necessary to do it. I've done my best, but this needs a team of experts and years of analysis. I understand that advances have been made in incorporating intangibles like meaning into calculations, and that may be the way forward. A reductionist "analysis" will only show what it is designed to show, a meaningless set of numbers in a meaningless world. But take meaning into account and everything changes. Gematria is a reflection of the meanings we ascribe to words; the code is using meaning to communicate with us. As to why I believe the code is real, that will have to wait until I can show you how I was given the Key, and what the Key contains.
Your "a priori prediction" that God coded "atonement cover" and "cherubim of the glory" is a statement of what you thought God would do. Then you found it, so now you state unequivocally that you believe it is what God actually did. How then can you tell me NOT to make similar predictions? Why are you free to make predictions and then claim "confirmation" when you find it, but I cannot make predictions and test them? It appears the only standard by which you judge is whether or not the result confirms what you want to believe. No "predictions" are allowed if they don't confirm what you want to believe.

Think about this. I have very good reasons to ask why God would choose to use "ark of the covenant" which DOES NOT FIT with the predicted pattern. Your attack on my prediction is a textbook example of rationalization and special pleading. Predictions are fine ONLY if they confirm what you want to believe. If they don't confirm it, then they are "red herrings" and "trying to tell God what to do." Etc.

6. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
That's certainly one kind of code, but again you are trying to tell God what to do! In fact the New Bible Code uses more than one kind of encoding method. There are Equidistant Letter Sequence codes too.
No, I'm not telling God what to do. I'm telling YOU what a real code looks like. Your results are cherry picked from an ocean of possibilities. The probability of find something "meaningful" is near certainty. You are the one making the claims. It has nothing to do with "God" per se, except that your codes do not look like anything an intelligent God would design because it would be extremely irrational to design codes that are based fundamentally on cognitive errors and are indistinguishable from the ten thousand false patterns from every contrary belief system that litters the history of religious literature.

Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
These support the gematria codes and because they are independent of them they act as an independent 'witness' to the reality of the code. On witnessing, my most recent pages show that the entire ark, its every component and its contents, are all found in the forst five ferses of Genesis, in both English and Hebrew. This is another form of independent witnessing, since these are two different languages. Can anyone explain why the two numbers representing the Hebrew and English words are consistently found together in the text? I always chose the first instance of the Hebrew word in the Masoretic and its exact NIV translation.
Say what? You found a CONSTENT pattern? Please share! I have yet to see any consistent pattern. If you have found it, then you can easily prove it with statistics because that's what statistics was designed to do. To show consistent patterns ... or prove they are not there. I would be utterly stunned if you found a consistent pattern that was statistically significant.

7. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
230
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Hey there Bill,

I'm glad we are digging down on this point, because it is of central importance. I don't see how the subjective "meaning" has anything to do with probability. I thought we had agreed that probability tells us nothing in an analysis of post hoc cherry picked data. It gives us no "sign of design" in any way at all because you all patterns - whether meaningful or meaningless - will have low probability. This point really needs to be either understood or refuted:
Whoa there! You said the data was cherry picked, not me. I chose the example of the ark, cover, cherubim and altar all proceeding from word 1, because it's fairly clear they are not cherry picked. They are not even totally post hoc, because as I said I predicted and found two of them after finding the first. If you mean I cherry picked my best example, I could have chosen many more. I chose that because it is more obvious than the others. There are only 37 possible word strings (from word 1) up to word 37, which is where 'ark of the testimony' stops. How is finding the two items of furniture found in the Most Holy Place, plus the atonement cover and cherubim, within such a small data set cherry picking? There are only 37 numbers, so finding four so meaningfully interelated to each other and to the most important concept in the Old Testament, whilst referring to the version they are found in - the only one, remember, that uses these four titles - is something of a miracle, which is exactly what it is - a frozen miracle.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Small probabilities tell us nothing about "design" because any random pattern will have a small probability.
You seem to be saying that the meaningful relationships I outlined above are totally irrelevant. I say that they are evidence, good evidence, that a higher power encoded them, because chance has no power of discernment. Imagine you are sitting in bar near the centre a large city on a Saturday evening and a young guy walks in you know, looking well dressed. A couple of strangers walk in, but then the brother of the first person walks in, also well dressed. You think "Oh, those two people are from the same family" and already you wonder if they are meeting up for a drink. Half a dozen strangers walk in, but then a male cousin of the first person walks in, well dressed and looking happy. Another three or four strangers walk in and then the best friend of the first guy walks in, also well dressed." Without even noticing if they are sitting together, you guess that they are all meeting up, probably for a stag party. It's Saturday, stag party night (here in Scotland anyway), it's a city centre bar, probably expensive, and most people don't go there unless it's a special occasion. They are well dressed. They are all males, a mixture of friends and family and all young and ready for a party. It's not hard to guess what's going on. By induction you guess that it's a stag party and that it's the first guy who walked in who was having it. It didn't matter that most of the people in the bar were there for other reasons. The clues all came together and you made an inductive leap, probably correct. Could a probability analysis have gotten you there any more quickly? Or at all? A skeptic might say you were cherry picking data, but you're picking up on clues, based on meaning. But you weren't cherry picking data. You were sorting out relevant from irrelevant data.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Also, there are patterns with very obvious meaning and low probability that you reject and ignore or explain away because you don't like them, such as

JESUS = 666 = LUCIFER = MUHAMMAD
Who says I don't like that? I would reject it though, because it's based on A = 9, B = 18, etc. Simplicity is the key.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
These are the primary cognitive errors that people use to create and maintain false belief systems:

1) Cherry Picking
2) Confirmation Bias
3) Rationalization

These errors should be AVOIDED at all costs, not used as the FOUNDATION for "patterns." This is why gematria is fundamentally unreliable as a test for "design." It is based fundamentally on the cognitive errors of Cherry Picking (Selection Bias) and Confirmation Bias (you accept a result if it "confirms" what you want to believe, and ignore it or explain it away otherwise).
You keep stating that, but that proves nothing, because you haven't shown how I was cherry picking in the first place. Remember, it's all in the first 37 words, not a lot of room for cherry picking or wielding the law of truly large numbers. The two main items are the ark and the atonement cover, over the first 37 and 24 words. These multiply to give 888 and visually they form hexagram 37 and its outline, which I think adds to the evidence it's encoded.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
I know about these things because I had deluded myself with the Bible Wheel and gematria for so many years. I've discussed the errors, how they work and how to overcome them in detail in a series of articles:

The last two articles show the most effective technique, which is to compare and contrast competing contradictory claims. The most powerful for me was the discovery of the Catholic Bible Wheel, which has many features as impressive as the Protestant version. What are the chances? That's what convinced me about the Protestant Bible Wheel. It seemed impossible to be the product of chance. But then I saw that I could make a Catholic Bible Wheel that was even better in the sense that it "sealed" the Catholic Bible with the 24 letters from Alpha to Omega, the actual description of Christ (the Living Word) found in the text of "God's Word"! This "broke the spell" and I finally realized - truly saw and understood - that I had deceived myself with post hoc "pattern finding."

The debunking of myself was the fulfillment of my stated intent in the conclusion of my article The Art of Rationalization: A Case Study of Christian Apologist Rich Deem in which I use him as an example of the many ways believers delude themselves. After cutting my teeth debunking others, I was finally able to debunk myself.

I'll answer more in another post. It's best to keep each post as small as possible. They become rather unmanageable when they get too big. And they go off in too many directions.

Great chatting!

I've read most of those articles. One thing I'd like to ask is why you think that because there may also be a Catholic Bible Wheel that invalidates your own one. Why not two? Half the world's christians are Catholics, after all. Does the Biblewheel have to be exclusive? I agree with keeping it as short as possible. Believe me, I am. As for post-hoc pattern finding, there is no other way to find a code that is there. It's like finding your way around a strange house in the dark, with no plan and no idea where the doors and light switches are. I was given a key to help me open the front door though. I'm babysitting tonight, but I'll get to answering the rest of your posts later.

8. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
230
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
I totally understand why you would be impressed by finding a confirmation of your "a priori prediction." That explains why it is meaningful to you, but it doesn't help an objective observer who is attempting to judge whether there are any signs of design. The fact that you successfully "predicted" this one pattern means little because you cannot predict anything else.
This shows that either you aren't following the links I've given or that you aren't taking in the information I've presented. I have found many parts of the code through just this process. In The Bookend Encodings I show that the beginning and end of each testament are encoded with the following

JESUS SECOND COMING
THE SECOND COMING
THE SECOND COMING
THE LORD SECOND COMING

I found the first one over the first 18 words of Genesis and thought that there might be something similar at the other end of the Bible. I was right. Then I thought that the end of each testament might also be encoded and found the middle two. These are encoded over 18-14-14-18 words, giving a nice pattern. The numbers also give rise to a geometric analogy that illustrates an opened book.

Other pages where I predicted and found patterns (it's all of them really) are

The Creation Snowflake
Bisecting the Bible
The Sea
The First Day

In all of these, I found patterns in Genesis and on that basis predicted further patterns elsewhere or alongside them.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
If the text were truly coded, then you should be able to pick any random topic and predict things.
There you go again. You are trying to dictate what the code should be, according to your preconceptions - rather than discovering what it is - then criticising it for not being that. How do you know what the code should be able to do? You've decided your own code was a mirage, after aggresively promoting it for a decade, and now you are trying to prove that everyone else's code has to be one too. But all you have shown is that you are NOT capable of deciding what is a code and what is not. I'm not capable of deciding either, incidentally. I know the code is real for completely different reasons. Maybe it's also related to my use of the word 'code'. It's certainly information encrypted into the text and structure of the NIV, so I believe it can be called a code. But you want it to be like a wifi signal or the enigma code. It is what it is. If you don't like the word 'code', fine, call it something else. The question should be, does it give us any information? It does.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
That is a textbook case of the fundamental flaw in post hoc statistical analysis. It's the Sharpshooter's Fallacy. You are drawing the target around the place your random hit happened to fall!
The four ark encodings are no sharpshooters fallacy. They are all there within the first 37 words - no wild shooting there - and the target is the same place many other encodings are found: the very apex of Scripture! This particular target was already known, not drawn after the fact. If you look at some of the above pages and others you will see that your 'Texas sharpshooter fallacy' assertion is baseless.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Yes, a "bonus" because it "confirmed" what you wanted to believe. Your every word reveals the fundamental flaw of your method. It is based on cognitive errors and fallacies, such as cherry picking, confirmation bias, rationalization, the Sharpshooter's Fallacy, etc., etc., etc.
Ah, you take exception to me telling you what you wanted to believe, but now you are doing the same to me. Lets just stick to the arguments. What you are doing here is throwing out accusation after accusation, without backing it up. I've asked you to show me how the four ark encodings are cherry picked, and I'm waiting on a reply to that. Maybe you're working on it now, so I'll try to be patient.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
I totally understand why you would find that to be a "neon sign". I had many similar experiences. I would see some connection and then think "Wouldn't it be amazing if ..." and go looking and maybe find something or maybe not. I collected these "hits" for many years. Each hit convinced me that I was on to something. But then I realized that there were no real patterns at all. They were all fragmentary. Bits and pieces that would be expected in a large random set. There was no overarching pattern that could be demonstrated with a statistical analysis (which is the true purpose of statistics).
There are patterns that run through the New Bible Code. It promotes, with alarming consistency, that the Second Coming is happening now. It is declared from the beginning to the end of the NIV Bible, and everywhere in between.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Statistics are not meant to justify what we want to believe.
No, but they can in small doses be useful. I said at the start that I gave up attempting serious probability analysis because the two sides of the Torah codes debate couldn't agree and they were using very advanced tachniques. I eventually concluded that only the human mind, aided by revelation, can decide whether the code is a face in the clouds, or the finger of God pointing through them. That doesn't stop me trying, but I restrict it to very limited cases and I don't make a big deal of it. Here's one analysis I did, on the Creation Snowflake. I'd appreciate your comments.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
The best thing you could do would be to try to prove yourself WRONG. That's the only way you could have any real confidence that you are right.
No it's not. I was given the key to the code, which showed me how it works, and much revelation besides. I'll write about it later, then readers will see how I was led to find the code. That shouldn't convince anyone reading it that the code is real. But at least it will show you why I am utterly convinced it is.

I actually have tried to prove myself wrong. After I found the Signature of Christ, I got out some of my wife's crime novels and looked for the same kind of patterned confluence of numbers. I found nothing but numbers scattered throughout the text. there were more of them than I was comfortable with, but as you say it taught me something about myself and more importantly about the code. It is the larger patterns formed that make it a code, not isolated values. Interestingly, the nearest I found to a pattern (but it wasn't much) was in a work of literature. I can't remember what it wss now, but it was a famous classic novel, perhaps by Dickens or Hardy. It gave me a suspicion that higher quality, more inspired works might actually have the beginnings of a code in them. The Bible is the most inspired, most influential, most loved book ever written of course, and I believe that the psychic energy devoted to it by everyone involved was somehow connected to its creation. In fact everyone who has ever read the Bible or spoken the English language has had a part in it. We created the code, all of us. Or more accurately the Holy Spirit created it through us.

9. Senior Member
Join Date
Dec 2008
Posts
230
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Your "a priori prediction" that God coded "atonement cover" and "cherubim of the glory" is a statement of what you thought God would do. Then you found it, so now you state unequivocally that you believe it is what God actually did. How then can you tell me NOT to make similar predictions? Why are you free to make predictions and then claim "confirmation" when you find it, but I cannot make predictions and test them? It appears the only standard by which you judge is whether or not the result confirms what you want to believe. No "predictions" are allowed if they don't confirm what you want to believe.
I believe God encoded the NIV Bible, yes. In fact a beautiful little ELS code says exactly that: GOD CREATED CODE. This ends, I trust you noticed, on the last letter of the 24th word, where 'Atonement Cover' ends. These confluences of independently derived encodings are the kind of larger pattern that constitute a real code.

I have no objection to you making your own predictions and testing them. But you made a complete list of everything mentioned in Hebrews 9 and looked for it in the first few words of Genesis, apparently thinking that because three of the items were mentioned in Hebrews 9 that was somehow significant. What was significant was that the four items are only worded that way in the NIV. The fact that three of them are in those verses was irrelevant. Some of the Hebrews items were found in the Holy Place, not the Most Holy Place, but you added them all in, so it was inconsistent. If it turned out not to be statistically improbable I imagine you would have seen it as evidence that the code was a mirage, and went on to perform similar analyses to 'prove' it. But all you would have proven was that you didn't understand how the code worked. The four encodings were based on what was in the Most Holy Place and used the first (or only) formal title used in the NIV every time - the hallmark of consistency. In another page I show how the first mention of every item associated with the ark is encoded in Hebrew (Masoretic) and English (NIV). Again, it is very consistent.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Think about this. I have very good reasons to ask why God would choose to use "ark of the covenant" which DOES NOT FIT with the predicted pattern.
It does not fit with YOUR predicted pattern. I wouldn't have predicted it.

As for your 'very good reasons', I'm confused about what you're saying here. God used ark of the testimony, not ark of the covenant.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough
Your attack on my prediction is a textbook example of rationalization and special pleading. Predictions are fine ONLY if they confirm what you want to believe. If they don't confirm it, then they are "red herrings" and "trying to tell God what to do." Etc.
That works for you too. How do you know you are not unconsciously choosing methods you know are irrelevant, so you can rationalise your new worldview? And demolish another code of course.

10. Originally Posted by thebluetriangle
This shows that either you aren't following the links I've given or that you aren't taking in the information I've presented. I have found many parts of the code through just this process. In The Bookend Encodings I show that the beginning and end of each testament are encoded with the following

JESUS SECOND COMING
THE SECOND COMING
THE SECOND COMING
THE LORD SECOND COMING

I found the first one over the first 18 words of Genesis and thought that there might be something similar at the other end of the Bible. I was right. Then I thought that the end of each testament might also be encoded and found the middle two. These are encoded over 18-14-14-18 words, giving a nice pattern. The numbers also give rise to a geometric analogy that illustrates an opened book.
Hey there Bill,

I see these patterns involve the definite article. Did God change his mind? Didn't you say that NOT using the definite article was part of His Divine Design in the other pattern? I'm sure I must have missed something. I cannot imagine an intelligent God using such inconsistent methods, and I'm sure you wouldn't be using such inconsistent methods. So please explain what I missed.

Thanks!

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

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