Reviews - What do customers think about The Original Code in the Bible: Using Science and Mathematics to Reveal God's Fingerprints?
Jury Out Sep 21, 2005
As books on this subject go..not bad. This is a quite difficult subject. As always you have two obvious camps--those so ready to POUNCE on anything with a proton of religion/GOD and tear it to shreads in a nano second--case close, complete nonsense, your full of it, etc. Then the I'll buy it..where do I sign folks. Then me--I belive there are some good points made by the decenters, howerver they can't close this case for me. All that said, I still think this whole controversy misses the point that there is a Higher Power, wheather you call it Ain Sof, God, The eternal One, etc it doesn't matter. What ever IT is- it is the Alpha and Omega. It still amazing me that the general puplic doesn't grasp the spiritual implications of Realitivity...and still thinks in a linear fashion as if the universe marches to the call of a Timex wrist watch. God is the Master Programer--just look at the Genome. It's not too big of a leep to believe that God could have imbedded a hidden message in the Bible. Hebrew after all is a very mathematical language. But I ramble, if you are interested in this subject I do recommend this book as a good starting point.
Proof of Divine Authorship with A New Revelation Mar 31, 2005
I have always believed that the Bible is significantly more than the sum of its parts. Del Washburn's work on the subject of the mathematical design in the Bible, a discovery he calls Theomatics, only serves to reinforce that concept.
The Original Code in the Bible is Mr. Washburn's attempt to communicate to the masses the nature of Theomatics and how its very existence cannot be disproved, only ignored, ridiculed, and mocked. He presents some compelling examples of how the system works and tries to describe the mathematical logic behind the irrefutability of the phenomenon. However in the short space of a book intended for a general audience, a through treatment is impossible. For the in-depth analysis he offers two other books, "Theomatics", and "Theomatics II", the first of which I believe is out of print, the latter is referenced often. While I have read his original work, "Theomatics", I have not yet pursued "Theomatics II". He also offers additional material for those who wish to independently pursue a scientific study of the phenomenon.
There are two aspects of Mr. Washburn's presentation that I find troubling. The first is that he devotes a more time lambasting the naysayers without directly addressing his perception of their objections. I feel his purpose would be better served if he presented the data with concrete examples to support his assertion that this phenomenon is not reproducible in other texts rather than simply state that the skeptic's claims are wrong. Show how the process fails in other works. All experiments need good control models.
The other troubling area is that Mr. Washburn concluded that his research has revealed deeper truths about what God is trying to communicate through the Bible. While this may be true, he seems ready to throw the baby (traditional hermeneutical interpretation) out with the bath water (deeper understanding). Since God is not the author of confusion, and since we did not have the benefit of the computer until very recently, it seems very premature and dangerous to draw these type of conclusions when clearly the plain reading of the text was all that we had prior to this discovery.
I would recommend this book to both the skeptic and any serious student of the Bible as a tool to validate the proposition that the Bible is in fact the Word of God. But consider that the spiritual truths as interpreted by the author are just that, his interpretations.
Is there irrefutable proof? ABSOLUTELY! Dec 30, 2003
Mr. Washburn (the author of the book)has two mathemtical proofs that Theomatics is scientifically correct. He uses the scientific method in his book Theomatics 2 to prove that Theomatics is not a hoax. In fact he has made a scientific document called Theomatics and the Scientific Method that proves through the scientific method,as in Theomatics 2, that Theomatics is not a hoax, BUT, this time THE PROOF IS FAR MORE DETAILED AND EXTENSIVE. The latter is sold only (as far as I know) through his website. The proof is irrefutable! The critics that are bent on bringing Theomatics down are either emotionally upset because they have to restructure their ideological system because they have only relied on the surface text of the Bible, stupid or deceptive. The Fundamentalists fall under the first two categories while educated people fall under the last category. Their minds have been conditioned in the universities to denounce Christianity. Scientists and university professors have a deep rooted hatred for Christianity. Some of them are justified because the bible codes are recent discoveries, they are only familiar with faith Christianity, this form of Christianity leaves no room for logic. While other educated people hate Christianity because the Bible clashes with their emotions, while yet other educated people will not profess Christianity because they are afraid of being exiled from the realm of scholarship. These are the reasons why Theomatics is not received in the world of scholardom. Also, just for your information read up on a person named George M. Lamsa (you can buy his books on this site.com). I think, and many others that have come across his work do also, that he has resurrected very much of first century Christianity. Happy trails to you.
??? Jul 11, 2002
A few problems I see:
1. It needs to be proven that different people would pick the same word groupings and phrase/clause limits that Washburn has done (e.g., on his Web page with examples, he explains which relevant or distinct words he limits his target phrases to, even admitting to omitting words as not essential to the thought). Otherwise, Washburn could be adding or subtracting preceding or following words to achieve the numbers he seeks.
2. The Greek New Testament text is replete with textual variants. No modern Greek New Testament text, or even any book within the text, is based on the reading of a single manuscript. Rather, the text is a patchwork of readings from the thousands of extant manuscripts, and is created by textual critics who have been trained how to determine what is probably the best reading when manuscripts differ. Get a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition (the latest critical text of the Greek New Testament) and you'll see how frequently the manuscripts vary. Sure, it's often only a word or two, or a letter or two, but since Washburn's thesis is dependent upon calculating the values of the letters that are in the text, a change in even single letters will often alter his results. I know he explains in his first THEOMATICS book how he dealt with this, but it doesn't solve the problem. NO ONE can precisely say what the original manuscripts said on a word-by-word basis.
3. It needs to be proven that other pieces of literature do not show this same apparent numerical consistency between related topics. E.g., if one could show that phrases having to do with velociraptors in JURASSIC PARK exhibit a common mathematical relationship (e.g., by assigning numerical values to the letters of the English alphabet to make it correspond to how the Hebrew and Greek alphabets use letters for numbers), that would likely nullify Washburn's hypothesis.
NOWHERE in his books, to my knowledge, does Washburn provide answers to the above -- i.e., show that these objections to or questions about his theory can conclusively be demonstrated to be invalid, and that his theory stands the test of examination and comparison.
The God of Creation is a God of Numbers Jun 27, 2001
The God that sent His Son the Lord Jesus Christ to die for the sins of His people on a cross of shame is indeed the God of the Bible, and the Author of it.
This book is "must reading" for all those who want to know the God of creation better!
I still do not know how theomatics works in the Scriptures, but this book is very clear, it is there, and it will not "go away"...!