In This Month's Issue:

Briefing Short news items of interest to Bible code followers.

Correspondence Feedback from our readers.

Striking Evidence of Intentional Encoding in the Aramaic New Testament Researcher Rev. Glenn David Bauscher has discovered another trove of mosaics in the Peshitta, a collection of 29 divine name mosaics that provides conclusive statistical evidence that placement of the names could not be a random occurrence.


October Publication Expected for Shak Book

Code researcher Moshe Shak's first book, Bible Codes Breakthrough, is set for publication in October, according to the author. The book will present several lengthy terms in matrices the author has discovered, and will also give new researchers helpful hints on how to research meaningful codes and clusters. He will be talking about his new book on Mystery Ink, a Canadian TV show on the Global network sometime in October. Shak, a resident of Montreal, is a regular contributor to Bible Code Digest. A former resident of Israel, he is fluent in Hebrew. A more complete description of the book is now posted at

History Channel Airing Special on Bible Codes

Bible codes take center stage on the History Channel Sunday, September 7, at 9 p.m. EDT, with the program The Bible Code: Predicting Armageddon. Check local listings for air times in your time zone. Both sides of the codes controversy will be represented, with Professors Eliyahu Rips and Robert Haralick, and code pioneer Roy Reinhold among others representing the pro side, and Dr. Brendan McKay taking the opposing view.

Refereed Journals Article Stirs Debate

A recent paper by respected physicist Frank J. Tipler challenges the long-held institution of using referees to evaluate papers submitted for publication by academic journals, and has the scientific publishing world buzzing. Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy? was published in the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID) journal for January-June, 2003. The Tulane University professor writes, for example, "Today, Einstein's papers would be sent to some total nonentity at Podunk U., who, being completely incapable of understanding important new ideas, would reject the papers for publication. 'Peer' review is very unlikely to be peer review for the Einsteins of the world."

All Currencies Gladly Accepted

Support for our research comes entirely from the donations of people like you, people who enjoy learning about the latest Bible code discoveries.

We hope you will consider a contribution today.

Click here to make a donation. You'll receive a receipt for your tax-deductible donation by return e-mail.


I must first confess that I was a thorough skeptic on this Bible code matter at first. Because I'm a philosopher, I managed to work out a philosophical refutation, instead of a mathematical one concerning probability, to convince myself that this Bible code matter is merely a hoax. Yet a few days back, I realized that my original argument contains a fatal flaw, and now I have become a believer myself. I've written this email because I believe that the following philosophical argument is significant to both skeptic and believer.

I want to talk about the statistical mathematics used by both the Bible code believer and the skeptic. Mathematicians are so engrossed with numbers that they fail to see that man is capable of judging qualities too, instead of merely calculating quantities. I want to show that, contrary to common belief, the Bible code matter cannot be refuted using the statistical method alone. Why?

Imagine this scenario: that Moby Dick is able to generate 10 true trivial predictions, and the Bible is only able to generate five true predictions, yet of the utmost importance. Probability wise, there is no reason to believe that the bible is better at prediction than Moby Dick. Yet that is only because you have chosen to define the accuracy of the prediction in terms of "true facts," instead of "true and important facts." If you also take the importance of the predictions into account, i.e., considering their quality instead of merely their quantity, the Bible will now be five times more accurate than Moby Dick. Of course the skeptic may question what do I mean by the quality of a prediction. Well, I must confess that I cannot answer this, just as I cannot answer why is a certain piece of music more beautiful than the sound of the traffic, though there is surely a difference.

In other words, numbers alone tell us very little about the accuracy of the Bible code, for it all depends on our definition on what God would want to tell us, for surely if a wise God wants to inspire the believer, He would tell him only the important and famous facts, not merely any fact. Thus although I'm not saying that the Bible code must certainly be real, I'm indeed saying that the believer is not being irrational to believe in its truth, for he always has the right to choose to believe what kind of facts would God choose to tell him in order to inspire him. Common sense may not be as weak as the mathematician would like to believe. The only decisive way for a skeptic to refute a believer is not to indulge in mathematical calculation, but rather to provide actual examples of important facts from other books, both in quality and quantity, to match the facts being currently generated by the Bible code believer. Yet they do not seem interested in this most and only decisive way to refute the believer.

Sim Yongkiat



Copyright © 2017