bible code??

[tim_from_pa]

(jamesrage;38053)
The bible code is some crack pot conspiracy made up but nut jobs,just like the Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot JFK,Bush Orchestrated 9-11,planes didn't fly into buildings on 9-11,area 51 and other wacko conspiracies.
Well, I agree some conspiracy theories are from crackpots, but there are some conspiracies that go on in the background that you don't have to be a nut to believe and is straight forward.One of my favorites, if I may digress a bit, is the new proposed flight 93 memorial here in Pa. The red maple trees are laid out to represent an Islamic crescent. And furthermore, the thing points toward Mecca in the Northeast. The middle east lays the same direction as Europe toward the Northeast. It was under 2º error in its direction. That's the direction Muslims turn to pray if they were in Pa here. All kinds of people, including a geospacial professor denied this (at least initially) but I know they are just covering that up (I'll give him more credit that he knows about the direction and is not that stupid. I think he was just denying it). Clearly, the professor is full of hot air, and if he can't get his directions right, then why would one be a nut conspiracy theorist if what the site (below) says about it is true?http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/

 

[DrBubbaLove]

(tim_from_pa;38167)
Well, I agree some conspiracy theories are from crackpots, but there are some conspiracies that go on in the background that you don't have to be a nut to believe and is straight forward.One of my favorites, if I may digress a bit, is the new proposed flight 93 memorial here in Pa. The red maple trees are laid out to represent an Islamic crescent. And furthermore, the thing points toward Mecca in the Northeast. The middle east lays the same direction as Europe toward the Northeast. It was under 2º error in its direction. That's the direction Muslims turn to pray if they were in Pa here. All kinds of people, including a geospacial professor denied this (at least initially) but I know they are just covering that up (I'll give him more credit that he knows about the direction and is not that stupid. I think he was just denying it). Clearly, the professor is full of hot air, and if he can't get his directions right, then why would one be a nut conspiracy theorist if what the site (below) says about it is true?http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/
have not read the whole book and do not really care to, but just an observation. Plus or minus two degrees from nearly the opposite side of the world is a considerable error. One would hate to try and navigate to Mecca on such a line if life depended on it (and my understanding is that for them it does). Also it is not like engineers and construction workers today are incapable of precisely centering/marking a plumb line if that indeed was the intent. My understanding is also that Muslims have precise calculations for the proper bearing from where ever one happens to be in the world. Perhaps these details do not form the foundation of the case however.

 

[tim_from_pa]

Well, I guess 2º is relative. What you said is exactly what they said---- it's not exact, in spite of the crescent, the "tower of voices" acting as an Islamic sundial, and the other features he (Alex Rawls) pointed out as well. Therefore, that was the escape hatch for the designers. 2º is considered exact enough in that I doubt if one can tell such a subtle shift in the body that small amount. If they'd build a mosque next door and everyone was facing toward Mecca, it would look close enough to the layout of the structure's direction. I guarantee that no Muslim can align his or her body that precisely.As for the absolute error of 2º, it would be its greatest 1/4 of the way around the world, about 138 miles error. This is not great considering the total circumference of the world. My stance on this is even if it was coincidence, it is close enough to take notice, almost as if the design is meant to taunt and should be changed completely. I guarantee you that if the design was shaped more like a cross or star of David, even if it was not nearly as precise as this proposed structure, there would be outcries especially by the liberal news media. Probably within 10º would be close enough for them to "prove" their point. Sorry, 2º is not enough off for me to disregard it. And Alex Rawls even explains that same error through his book and site as if that was intentional.

 

[haanne]

I certainly believe in a deeper truth just not an encrypted code.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

We are assuming the shortest great circle route, yes? In that case a +-2 degree error represents a wedge of the globe that is 1/45 of the total, so 45 such wedges make up the earth or one wedge is about 2.22% of the total global. Considering 70% of the globe is water and we make a gross assumption of even distribution of land (not overly gross as the 93 memorial is in a large land mass) then roughly about 1,280,000 square miles of locations on land fall within both halves of the wedge formed by +-2 degree error around the great circle that represents the shortest distance to Mecca from any location on the globe. In this case, much less than half of those locations would on the proper side (smaller wedge on side with shortest distance to Mecca) to be faced but even there we are talking about a lot of potential locations covered by the error. So in that sense facing a direction in which one is only certain to within +-2 degrees could be considered 'facing' many different locations on earth.So if one is intending to face Mecca via a shortest great circle, it is a simple calculation and one that is calculable to a much greater extent than +-2 degrees of error. So if one intends to create a structure facing that direction it would simple matter to center it much more precisely than +- or two degrees. That was my point.Having said all that and now reading some of what that guy wrote, I think he is claiming not a +-2 degree error but within +-.2 (or .02 depending on source) degrees, which is aconsiderably smaller error and even I would have to question such a detail as not being incidental.And I also see that the site plan was redesigned over two years ago at least partially due to complaints about the appearances of honoring the terrorist/Islam in the original design. The memorial has not been built yet. So while I am uncertain about all the claims, it appears nothing came of this, and perhaps at least in part because of this man's crusade, but I notice that many others eventually became involved as well (Sean Hannity for one).My undertanding is that the plan still includes honoring all victims and includes the total number of passengers on the jet. If that is true, I could understand the friends and relatives of the real victims here being very upset about that. I did not know anyone on that jet and it upsets me. No doubt there are some liberals and weak kneed conservatives bowing to them on the park planning commission of the memorial if they intend to include the terrorist in the "memorial". That is ridiculous, but apparently where many in the PC liberal crowd have taken us as a country. Perhaps there is something to this man's claims afterall.

 

[tim_from_pa]

We are assuming the shortest great circle route, yes?
Yes. To me, the only true direction from point A to point B on this Earth is a great circle as when one walks "straight ahead" to the destination the tendency would be to walk such that your body is an extension of the radius of the earth. This is the same direction as if a star was directly overhead the destination point, as one would only need to follow the star to get there and would be the shortest and only true direction. This is always a great circle arc.As for the 2º error, I see that you read where he explains that, but even then with 2º I would still consider that close enough without his explanation.I deliberately designed my house to be solar to face the 4 cardinal points. If I showed you a Google map of my house, you'd agree that it faces N-S-E-W. However, in reality, they could only achieve it to about 1.25º accuracy, but this is hardly noticeable.Now, for the $100,000 question to anybody. If my township decided to tax structures that face N-S-E-W, do you think I could claim that there was no evidence I designed it this way just because of a 1.25º error? Not by a long shot, I would not depend on them being convinced of that. Well, the 2º error of this memorial is not much different. I'm not going to haggle with 2º or under. Fact is, if a Muslin would face Mecca to pray there, one would not notice a markedly different orientation between them and the memorial.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

In talking about a plan, the plan is either to center the memorial on 55.19 or 55.17 or whatever one determines the correct bearing to be or it is not. The discussion from the theorist view about error then becomes not how precisely can the memorial be built to the specs, but what is the actual bearing on which the plan shows the arc centered. Again I think he actually claimed the plan has it centered within .2 or .02 of the Muslims bearing to Mecca for that area. To me that is much more understandable case than saying the plan can be seen as having the line within +-2 degrees. The claim is based on a real drawing and in that drawing a line can be drawn. The question then becomes only what two points on the drawing one uses and what is the bearing of the resulting line. A two degree error on that scale is indeed large.I think the error also was mentioned in discussing how some looked at the plan and came up with different numbers and so he was saying it was rather pointless to be talking of a difference from the "calculate" number and the actual "bearing" to Mecca of .2 or .02 degrees. And I agree with that assessment. The difference between +-2 and .2 in a drawing makes the assertion that it is intentional much more believable to me at least.The resulting structure may or may be exactly true to the plan and I would submit it would be harder to build a four sided structure true to all four cardinal points than to have one based on a single line. Especially when the structure in question is not a solid form and the desired direction could be indicated by simple placement of two objects along a single line. When we were first discussing this and before reading more I thought the Memorial was already built.

 

[Mikey]

(Letsgofishing;38036)
Matthew 24:43-44 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.of course if the bible code was from God that verse would say something to thsi effect" because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him. unless of course you live in the year 2008 and have a computer which can do complicated math equations. The you would know exactly when I'm going to come. Wait I'll save you the trouble its 2012. thats right, its in the bible code. I repeat you will not know what day or hour I'm going to come, except through the bible code, that would be the exemption,"the bible code makes Jesus a liar, pure and simple.
True dat.

 

[Jerusalem Junkie]

(tim_from_pa;37890)
You must have a pretty cool supervisor..... I wish mine was that way (about bible stuff)! It would make for a better work environment.Actually, in all fairness, my supervisor is very good, and "one of the guys" and we get along well. He admittedly is not a Christian, but he heard me speak already and knows I am knowledgeable. I don't do that often and don't shove it in his face. I just do my job, and he knows it. We are close.
Yeah it is pretty cool. It helps hes a pastor at a local church so he helps me out with questions I might have.

 

[For Life]

I read Michael Drosnin's book Bible Code and I found it very interesting. He uses statistics to back up his claims. I personally think the Bible is much more powerful than most people give credit for. Some sort of Bible Code exists. Whether we will ever be able to use it remains to be seen. Probably understanding the plain text would be a good start.