Most helpful critical review
16 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Like a ride on a hobby-horse
on February 6, 2011
The topic is a serious one and there is some detailed and peer-reviewed science to back up code claims. For instance, in my opinion, R. Edwin Sherman's book, Bible Code Bombshell (also available on Amazon), presents a more scientifically persuasive argument with a great deal less melodrama. On the other hand, I came away from reading Bible Code III with the feeling that the author was his own worst enemy -- and for a variety of reasons: first of all, his repetitive claims that the code is real are diminished by his equally repetitive assertions that he does not believe in God. This seems disingenuous to say the least, as well as illogical. If the code is real, then who else encrypted the Bible 3000 years ago, if not God? Are we to conclude that it was someone from Planet X, perhaps? His secularism is his right, of course, but does he not realize that if even he is not persuaded by the existence of a divinely-inspired code, he has little chance of persuading others of its significance? He emphasizes that he does, however, believe in the code itself and its statistically-incalculable accuracy for prophetic warnings, but it is as if he sees the code as existing solely in a vacuum. That simply weakens the argument. Secondly, Drosnin presents his evidence with little detail of the science involved in decoding the messages, and too little reference to the statistical probabilities of the codes existing by chance. We are presented with a number of illustrations of Biblical text in Hebrew with the apparent messages picked out for us -- but as they are in Biblical Hebrew, there aren't many of us who can assess the accuracy of the information. As such, the author seems to expects us to take his findings pretty much on faith -- ironic, that. Third, Drosnin portrays himself, secularist though he is, as the proverbial "voice crying in the wilderness." He says he possesses the information that can save us all from nuclear annihilation. He can change the destiny of the world, if only those in power would heed his warnings and rely on the code. Oh dear. Need I say more about that problem? No, I thought not. That leads us to the fourth issue, which is that his warnings are clothed in a definite political wrapping. That is unfortunate, as it only alienates those who are not of a liberal political bent. Had the arguments been more dispassionate, showed more of the science and probabilities involved in breaking the code, and been less of a personal and political hobby horse, I feel the author would have had a much better chance of convincing his audience.