In This Month's Issue:

Briefing Short news items of interest to Bible code followers.

Correspondence Feedback from our members and readers.

Do Longer Codes Express Viewpoints? Bible codes seem to be expressed from varying points of view. We decided to evaluate the ELSs that we have discovered so far to see if we could see patterns. This article presents the first results.

Not One Jot or Tittle Bible codes pioneer Kevin Acres has written an article, "Data Patterns of the Torah," presenting compelling evidence that the total number of letters in the Torah are exactly what they were in the original texts. Here we review his article and present a PDF of the full draft article.


Terrorism Bible Codes Validated by 911 Report

According to the final report of the 911 commission, the terrorist leadership’s main motivation for attacking the U.S. was American support for Israel. The Los Angeles Times reported the story in its July 23 issue. This official statement confirms the subtext of the Ezekiel 37 cluster, which is centered in the "dry bones” prophecy concerning the miraculous reconstitution of the nation of Israel. We discovered this cluster only days after the attacks. Since then it has grown into one of the most significant clusters of Bible codes ever discovered.

History Channel Bible Code Shows to Repeat

Originally scheduled to air back in June, two programs on Bible codes will be rebroadcast by the History Channel Saturday evening, August 14, beginning at 9 p.m. (EDT). The earlier airdates were preempted by programming centered on former president Ronald Reagan. Both programs, "The Bible Code: Predicting Armageddon" and "Bible Code II: Apocalypse and Beyond," are available on videotape here.


I was drawn to the Bible Code Digest web site (and have told others about it) because I got the sense that you guys were pretty even-handed and approached the entire concept of codes from a scientific viewpoint, rather than as a religious group out to prove an agenda. As a piece of good-intentioned advice, it surprises me that you guys would celebrate a code as genuine without any indication that the final clause of the code should be considered suspect because it appears in one version of text and not another. Thus, while you might be able to hail the "gushing from above, Yeshua is my mighty name” part as genuine, you should indicate on your web site that the "and the clouds rejoiced” part is suspect and cannot be considered genuine because it does not appear in both versions of the text. If it does not appear in both, it is more questionable whether it is divinely intended to be part of the code, or is simply appearing at the end of it as a matter of chance.

At least notifying your readers that a discrepancy exists that affects that portion of the code is what, I think, a scientific and unbiased web site would do.

I would add, too, that since many of the super-long codes you've reported pass through this section as well, it is possible that these are not meant to be single super-long codes after all. It is possible that they are multiple codes, sharing the same skip. This could be one explanation for why some of them appear with bad grammar, bad syntax, or seem to be speaking about or on multiple events or topics. Unless the super-long codes are verified as appearing intact in both versions of the text, we cannot begin to know for sure. Either way, I think this is a vital piece of information your readers would like to know, so that they can make up their own minds about the super-long codes for themselves. Since most of us do not have multiple software programs, I think it would be extremely worthwhile for the Digest to do this kind of homework for us.

Dean M. Solomon
New York, New York

We appreciate Mr. Solomon bringing this to the attention of our readers. We say as part of the answer to question six in our Twenty Questions posting, "Copying errors in manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible can create unintended ELSs and eliminate intended ELSs." This applies to all ELSs we present. No code has airtight certainty. On the other hand, we don’t see why the last part of the “gushing” code cannot be genuine, as Mr. Solomon claims. Who is to say that the version in which the full code was found is not the genuine article?

Jem Belcher, Melbourne, Australia seems to be confused in his claim in the July, 2004 issue of Bible Code Digest that OUR LORD arose on Saturday instead of Sunday. Most readers are aware that the Jewish day was from sunset to sunset. Dusk is AFTER sunset. Therefore, it was the day AFTER Saturday the Sabbath. Also, the women would not have been allowed to walk very far on Saturday, by Hebrew Law, but did not break the law by waiting until dusk.

Denny Smith
Vancouver, Washington

I found Jem Belchers message on the resurrection of Christ being on the Sabbath, or at least being before the first day of the week, encouraging. (Remember, Matthew was a Jew and Jewish days begin at sundown.) I have never been able to believe the Friday crucifixion, Sunday resurrection story as being accurate. The verse that confirms its impossibility is also in Matthew when referring to Jesus and Jonah: "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

There is no way to get three days and three nights with a Friday Crucifixion, Sunday resurrection. Jesus would not lie. The best reading that made sense in the whole of Scripture was something I read by Herbert Armstrong. He believed in a Wednesday crucifixion and Saturday (Sabbath) resurrection, which fulfills the sign of Jonah. It also fits the resurrection story of Matthew, which clearly says that the Marys arrived before the first day of the week and Jesus had already risen.
I believe the days are not what is most important, what matters is that you believe in your heart that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and raised from the dead, the central theme being the resurrection. For without the resurrection "we are of all people most to be pitied” (1 Corinthians 15:19).

But the common "Christian” view of the Friday crucifixion, Sunday resurrection contradicts Matthew 12:40's sign of Jonah. Could so many be so wrong for so long on such a matter?

Michael Kaminski
San Antonio, Texas

On this issue, Hard Sayings of the Bible states (p. 381), "Any part of a day could be counted as if it were a full day, much as in the USA a child is deductible for income-tax purposes at the full year rate even if he or she was born at 11 p.m. on December 31." There was a period of intense darkness from the sixth hour until the ninth hour (Mt. 27:45), when Jesus died. If that darkness continued for a while after His death, and then the short remainder of the normal day appeared, that would be the first night and day. The second night and day would be the normal one from sundown Friday through sundown Saturday. The third night and day would be from sundown Saturday through dawn on Sunday. That’s three nights and three days, terse though some of them were.

According to Jesus Himself, in His day "the third day from today is the day after tomorrow." Here is a text that proves this:

    Luke 13:32 He replied, "Go tell that fox, 'I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal.'" (NIV)

In other words the third day from today is the day after tomorrow. Another passage to consider quotes the two disciples who spoke with a fellow traveler (who later turned out to be Jesus) on the road to Emmaus Sunday evening:

    Luke 24:20-21 "About Jesus of Nazareth," they replied. "He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed Him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified Him; but we had hoped that He was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place."

Also, keep in mind that the late Herbert Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, was regarded by respected orthodox Christian theologians as a heretic. His son, Garner Ted Armstrong, later led members of the cult away from his father’s teachings and into mainstream Christianity.

Revision Noted

When we first posted the July issue on our site, there was one sentence in our editorial comments following a letter from Moshe Shak that read, "Also, it is not only the Vatican that charges Jews with responsibility for killing Jesus." About a week later, we revised this sentence to read, "Also, in the past it is not only the Vatican that charged Jews with responsibility for killing Jesus." In 1965 Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council, whose initiatives culminated in the Nostra Aetate Decree, repudiating the Catholic teaching that Jews were collectively responsible for Jesus' death.



Copyright © 2018