Friday, September 21, 2007

Bible Code II, brought to you by the (Pseudo-)History Channel

The History Channel. The name seems to imply that this network should deal in facts and historical analysis. After watching a program called Bible Code II: The Apocalypse and Beyond, I now understand this to be only partially true. It was the most credulous program I have seen in this topic.

I have read some on the Bible code in previous issues of skeptical magazines, so I was not expecting much from this program. However, the information about the show stated that it would have members form both sides of the issue, so I thought I might partake to hear the debate. I thought there would be some sort of back and forth debate, maybe give a fair shake to both sides. Those who feel that the Bible Code is false, and that similar methods can find messages in almost any piece of writing, were given about 4 minutes out of the hour long program. And even then, their points were immediately rebuffed by believers during separate interviews, and that was it.

Of particular interest to me were the comments made by Barry Ruffman, a true believer in the code who feels that it can be used to predict future events. His comments in regards to the origin of the code were laughable. Obviously, if there was a code, the bible would have to be written so that the code could be deciphered, so it couldn't just be stories, and the creator of the code and its message would have to have knowledge of the future events (such as 9/11, World War II, and the "missing" WMDs from Iraq). Ruffman suggests that this knowledge comes from one of three possible sources:

1. God, who has no bounds of time.

2. Some humans in the future who have found a way to transport messages back to the time the bible was written.

3. Aliens, who have "warped" the knowledge to the past. (Warped is Ruffman's term. I guess he thinks it lends scientific credibility.)

He also states that the code reveals the years of World War II. Losing credibility is the fact that he uses one sequence/matrix to find the beginning year, and has to use a different matrix to get the end. Don't you think that if the Bible code was really meant to reveal this information for future generations, it wouldn't take having to crack the code in two ways to get the two date?!

History Channel, please do something to maintain some credibility and stop airing fictional crap such as the Bible Code. Your name attached to this sort of thing lends authenticity to the BS, and gives the proponents of the bible code more ammunition to continue to pedal their nonsense.

1 comment:

Trava said...

Keep up the good work.