Bible Code Digest—
September 2004 Cont.

What Is a Code?
Copyright © 2004 by Moshe Aharon Shak

In many cases, Ed Sherman, founder of the BCD, and I looked at long ELS terms and agreed that one can interpret them in two opposite ways. Were they codes? To begin with, most knowledgeable Bible code researchers agree that it is very difficult to say that one (even very long) term is a code. I agree. On the other hand, I believe that even one simple word could be a code. It all depends on the definition of what is a code. A one word CODE may indicate the subject of a paragraph or underline the connection between two sections of the text, etc.

In my book Bible Codes Breakthrough, I am not dismissing any definition of what is a code. To the contrary, I encourage others to experiment with all types of ways to decode the Bible. On the other hand I outline what I believe to be a minimum standard to apply to terms before one can assume that they form a Divine code. I applied this standard to many complex matrices and described it in the book. Outlined below is a tip of the iceberg view of the same standard that I used in my latest matrix on Mel Gibson. See the article in the May 2004 issue of Bible Codes Digest.

The Verifications Steps
In the Mel Gibson Matrix:

    1. Source: Look in the Torah (or the Bible as indicated in the book), The matrix is in the Bible.
    2. Lowest Skip: Start with the theme term at its lowest skip, Mel Gibson is at its lowest skip in the entire Bible.
    3. Odds: Accept only terms at 20:1 odds (R-value = 1.3) or more, Most terms are at much higher odds against being found in the matrix.
    4. Witnesses: Have plenty of redundant terms. I call them witnesses, Many terms are saying the same thing.
    5. The Story: Let the matrix tell a story, The subject of the story is Mel Gibson. There are many terms relating to the story.
    6. Grammar: Proper verbs, male/female, single/plural. The Hebrew is perfect in most cases. Even if a couple of less than perfect terms were to be deleted, the overall message would still be the same.
    7. Spelling: No spelling mistakes, (See 6 above)
    8. Sentence Structure: (See 6 above)
    9. Surface Text: Include plenty of terms at skip = 1 (surface text) to confirm that the matrix is at the proper place.

Special Features:
Include some special features such as:
    10. Sharing a letter, The main four very long terms share many letters
    11. Intersecting terms, There are intersecting terms and coinciding terms
    12. Mirror image, parallel messages, and special feature, not found—yet
    13. Very high R-values for a few terms, Extremely high R-values terms
    14. Reading the same long term from left to right and right to left and getting two different messages, Within the main long term we find several terms going in opposite directions at the same and multiple skips

Not all the special features that are listed in my book are above. On the other hand there are many special features that can be found in a matrix. One extraordinary feature in the Mel Gibson matrix is the ability to read a term in many ways as outlined in the published article. Due to the fact that the published article was a digest, many other examples of being able to read a term in several ways, giving similar meanings, were not included. For example, the article emphasizes G-d’s name as is commonly used in the Jewish religious press with the letter heh. (See Bible Keys, Rashi, first page at the bottom and throughout his writings). In every single case where that abbreviation was used in the article, the corresponding code can be written with the heh attached to a word. For example, note the blue hehs that were isolated in the published article before (the other examples were submitted to BCD but not shown).

So what can go wrong if we do not apply a standard to define what a code is? Terms will be looked upon as codes! A multi-word long ELS may be a fascinating code or something meaningless. A matrix compacted with numerous long terms may enlighten us with numerous codes or just be a collection of meaningless terms. Unfortunately, even those who believe in the codes and who have spent years working on them falter and make gross mistakes by not paying attention to serious issues such as outlined above.

What’s in a Name?

In the Mel Gibson matrix, the exact name is used as spelled in the press. The resulting matrix is awesome. So, what is in a name? Plenty. One book of many on the subject is What’s in a Name by The Kestl-Lebovits Jewish Heritage a roots Library, Jerusalem 2000. The exact spelling of a specific person is the essence of that person. Moshe Aharon Shak is not Moshe Shak. The matrix developed for Moshe Aharon Shak is by far more complex than the Mel Gibson matrix. It has numerous clusters and features. It took many pages to publish just one cluster on Bach spelled with a chet is not the same Bach that is spelled with a chaf—although both spellings may apply to any new born Bach. If we take a name that can be transliterated into many thousands of ways, and build a simple matrix based upon one version that is not in accordance with the press (or as they are known by), we are asking for trouble!

People who should know better applied statistics to transliterated names without realizing the meaninglessness of the statistics. The calculations were correct. The foundation for the calculations was wrong. Working with main terms that are extremely far from the lowest skip will give similar meaningless results. The above is only a glimpse of potential troubles.

A Code or a BUM Experience?

There is much more to doing the codes than finding terms. We must define what we mean by “code” and outline how we can verify their presence. I believe that my contribution to the subject is just a small step in a long process. On the other hand, the results that I obtained so far indicate that I am going in the right direction—while significant errors committed by well-known researchers emphasize my point.

Ed Sherman and I share a unique experience of looking at long ELS and realizing how difficult it is to interpret them even if they are codes! We did not have to “show” the other one that there are two sides to those different coins (ELSs). It was apparent to both of us. The question of whether they are codes or a BUM experience is a function of the definition of what is a code, and how we handle such unique cases. To answer that question we would need a whole new article.

The question of whether it is a code or not may not be so simple at times. In my writings about my own published codes, I point out the weakness of long ELSs that are difficult to understand by most Israelis, abbreviations, etc. Does that mean that these are not codes? We have no right to prejudge. We are in the infancy of comprehending the codes. Seemingly, I was able to demonstrate the validity of the above by verifying the codes against current and past events on several consecutive occasions. Yet so many are focusing on the unknown factors and ignoring the fundamentals.

Moshe Aharon Shak is a frequent contributor to BCD. If you are interested in reading more articles by Shak, be sure to visit the Directory of Moshe Aharon Shak's Articles for links to his other articles posted on BCD's site.



Copyright © 2018