Codes and a U.S. Presidential Election—Part 2

U.S. Presidential Election Cluster
By Moshe Aharon Shak
Copyright © October 2004 by Moshe Aharon (Morris) Shak

The art and science of doing the codes—Part 2

In the first article of this two-part series, I described various terms that on the surface appear to outline the imminent USA election. In particular, one matrix stands out. It starts at Numbers Chapter 24, Verse 1, Letter 48 and ends at Numbers Chapter 29, Verse 15, Letter 7.

While there is no doubt in my mind that this matrix deals with the presidential election that takes place on Tuesday, the terms being just too prominent to think otherwise, there is also no doubt that these codes do not predict the winner of the election. I am sure that many other Bible code researchers would use some of the terms in the matrix to conclude that the Democrat candidate will win. However some researchers can present strong arguments on behalf of the Republican candidate.

Two or More Witnesses

If we were to listen to only one lawyer in a trial, we would probably agree with his conclusions. This is why we need a lawyer for and against, as well as several witnesses. In my writings, I always make a point of having at least two or three witnesses, or confirming codes, for a case. More important is that all of the witnesses for an argument have, for all practical purposes, a similar story.

Looking at the "Art"

So, let us try to be fair and look at the "art" of doing the codes. To begin with, the matrix that was presented did not really produce a "good" name of a supposed winner. I looked for either Democrats or Republicans, but I did not find a "George Bush" or a "John Kerry" in this matrix. In the past, I was able to produce convincing election predictions based upon the name of the winner and/or party. In my mind, the art in the codes says "do not give up," so not finding full names of the candidates or parties, how else can one look for clues? The parties are identified with other clues such as "donkey," "elephant," "GOP" and "DNC." In principal that is an acceptable approach, and it did produce very interesting results.

The results of the searches I made, however, presented in the earlier article, still rely heavily on the art portion of doing the codes. Many issues were not resolved on many levels. Several specific issues must be considered:

    a. Are abbreviations allowed? I believe that they are, but no one has shown convincingly either way whether they are acceptable or not.

    b. Is a very short term acceptable to be snooped to a larger term? I believe that it is acceptable as long as the snooped term is the one with the lowest skip in the area examined. Not every one shares my view. At this point, I have several good examples that I am correct. On the other hand, we need much more than several good examples.

    c. Is a transliteration of an abbreviation acceptable? In my SARS matrix, the transliteration worked well. That is my only experience. On the other hand, is a transliteration here and there comparable? The point can be argued, because there are other letters that are possible to use in a transliteration of an acronym like DNC, as there is no direct equivalent to C in the Hebrew alphabet.

    d. Are Hebrew spellings of elephant and donkey a good way to refer to the American parties? Probably it is correct, but how can I be sure? Furthermore, once again the terms happen to be extremely short.

To accept or reject any of the above would not be scientific, in my opinion. We still do not know enough. That is why I call it "art." This is why in previous articles I dared state "prediction," and now I am referring to the matrix as "educational."

Not Quite "State of the Art"

Other problems with the matrix leave it not quite "the state of the art." First, it does not quite measure up to my published standard of what a matrix should be. In addition, there is a severe problem with the "witnesses."

Witnesses, or redundant terms indicating a specific point, seem to be in conflict with themselves. We have a term that can be read as, "The elephant burned" or "The elephant heaped up." Another example is, "The elephant—pity here" or "The elephant had compassion/mercy."

Other Complications and the Final Analysis

There are other complications. The term, "A president of honor, respect, to revere" is linked strongly to the term "From a king—black ... embarrassed as a president." Now this term can also be translated, "From a king, significance. As president, late." These terms can be seen as forecasting embarrassment for Bush—or praising him. In the final analysis, the interpretation for these two linked terms can be highly subjective.

It is interesting to note that even if one looks very hard at the "Kerry the president" terms with their long extensions, the message from the various terms can be quite confusing. They can be interpreted as not shedding any light, or can be read to indicate one winner (Kerry) or another (Bush).

This can relate again to the art of doing the codes. A person who is not trained in Hebrew, who is not familiar with calculating odds, who does not follow rigorous procedures, can be misled to think that, "Aha, there is a revelation." (Note: For those who care to verify that one term at a time is statistically significant, there are programs that will reliably determine the odds.)

What is interesting about this cluster is that in just a few days from now its terms will no doubt be much easier to understand.

The Science vs. the Art

In all my previous published articles, the science aspect of doing the codes played THE major role. Not everyone may agree with my methods, but they did produce unquestionably good results—with verified conclusions using different methods saying the same things.

In the present USA Election article, art plays a MAJOR role. Once again, scientifically it may be difficult to prove the methods, but I believe that scientifically it is just as difficult to reject them—now. In the long term, the art will become a science and some of the tools used will be rejected, as we learn from experience, while others will be a standard feature.

On the other hand, the tools used above are only a small fraction of what we can do. Only lack of imagination can stop us from reaching new heights.

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.

Enjoy finding your own Bible codes.
Bible code search software is available in our online store.

Subscribe Free!

By signing up to be a member of The Isaac Newton Bible Research Society, you will have access to more than fifteen years of research by our team of Bible code researchers.

Sign up to be a member today.


Copyright © 2018