Are There Any Mathematicians That Believe in the Codes? - Printable Version +- Peshitta Forum ( http://peshitta.org/for)+-- Forum: New Testament ( http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)+--- Forum: Aramaic Bible Codes ( http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=21)+--- Thread: Are There Any Mathematicians That Believe in the Codes? ( /showthread.php?tid=1512) |

Are There Any Mathematicians That Believe in the Codes? - gbausc - 02-20-2008
Following is a list of Mathematicians and their views of the codes research of the 3 Mathematicians: Witztum, Rips, and Rosenburg and their famous 1994 article in "The Journal of Statistical Science", in which they claimed to have found coded information on 66 famous Rabbis of medieval times in the Hebrew book of Genesis. Quote:Are There Any Mathematicians That Believe in the Codes? To characterize code advocates as incompetent in Science and Math is simply false. Blessings, Dave Bauscher Re: Are There Any Mathematicians That Believe in the Codes? - ograabe - 06-07-2008
BIBLE CODES DEBUNKED! Statistical Science publishes Bible Codes Refutation The only paper published in a refereed scientific journal that claims to find evidence for the reality of the Bible Codes is the paper Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis, by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg (WRR), Statistical Science, Vol. 9 (1994) 429-438. After review by four senior statisticians chosen by the journal, Statistical Science has published a thorough rebuttal: Vol. 14 (1999) 150-173. The new paper is Solving the Bible Code Puzzle, by Brendan McKay, Dror Bar-Natan, Maya Bar-Hillel, and Gil Kalai. Here is the abstract: A paper of Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg in this journal in 1994 made the extraordinary claim that the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis encodes events which did not occur until millennia after the text was written. In reply, we argue that Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg's case is fatally defective, indeed that their result merely reflects on the choices made in designing their experiment and collecting the data for it. We present extensive evidence in support of that conclusion. We also report on many new experiments of our own, all of which failed to detect the alleged phenomenon. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/StatSci/">http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/StatSci/</a><!-- m --> Re: Are There Any Mathematicians That Believe in the Codes? - gbausc - 06-09-2008
Hello Otto, The same team that peer reviewed the original article and approved it mathematically, approved the second "debunking" article, as you call it. If they debunked it based on the Math, then they debunked themselves for approving the Math in the original article which they now claim to have debunked! Anyhow, I have read the rebuttal and Rips' rebuttal of the rebuttal, along with former NSA cryptologist Harold Gan's study of the cities of Israel codes, and the claimed debunking of that, etc.. I don't find any real mathematical or even scientific grounds in the arguments for invalidating the Bible codes position and claims, only a questioning of the methodology. The opponents claim to have produced similar results (codes) in control texts by tweaking the spelling methods of names searched for, and so claim (imply) that this is what the first team (WRR) did to get the results they did. That is not science; it is mere grandstanding and libel. They cannot prove the charges, which, of course, WRR deny. To call this "debunking" is simply "Bunk". Your brother , Dave Re: Are There Any Mathematicians That Believe in the Codes? - ograabe - 06-09-2008
June 9, 2008 Dear Dave, I am reading the May 1999 Statistical Science article by McKay, Bar-Natan, Bar-Hillel, and Kalai, but I have not finished yet. As far as a "same team" is concerned, the way a Journal works is that two or three willing (sometimes reluctant) reviewers are chosen somewhat at random for "peer" review before publication. This is a rather haphazard process, since many of the best scientists are unwilling to commit to doing very many reviews because of time limitations. One of the most difficult jobs for a journal editor is finding suitable willing reviewers. Unfortunately, some weak papers get published in this process. My impression is that the published article caused such a recurrent stir after its publication that the editor was led to request a new and more thorough "peer" review. Hence, the editor eventually requested a new "review by four senior statisticians chosen by the journal...." Statistical Science has published that rebuttal: Vol. 14 (1999) 150-173 based on that follow-up and probably more meaningful review. Brother Dave, as much as I admire your brilliance and productivity, I fear that your important and impressive translation and commentary work will be summarily rejected by the most important religious leaders and scholars of our time who view Bible-code studies as nonsense. As you know, I think your Bible code "findings" are based on incorrect statistical assumptions and incorrect interpretations of the results. For example, finding "long codes" that you did not imagine or stipulate in advance has absolutely no statistical significance. I am quite certain they are just interesting random observations created by a computer letter sorting program. I think your excellent translation and commentary in your ???The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English??? would be strengthened if you remove page 9 and these comments in the Epilogue: ???I have also written Divine Contact-Discovery of The Original New Testament which documents how I discovered by scientific experiment that The Peshitta New Testament was written by God Himself and that The Greek New Testament is a first century translation of The Aramaic Peshitta New Testament books. There are free articles, excerpts and book links available at aramaicnt.com??? Even if you do continue to believe that your Bible code studies are correct, you would do best not to make claims that many, many people will dismiss as foolish and can be a unnecessary distraction. In fact, the wonderful text of your translation itself along with your excellent commentary is so impressive, it clearly proves Aramaic primacy. I am truly inspired by reading it. I really hope that I have a chance to meet you some day to thank you in person. Thanks for your NT translation. Sincerely, Otto Re: Are There Any Mathematicians That Believe in the Codes? - gbausc - 06-09-2008
Thank you, my Brother Otto, for your kind words. I do hope you are wrong about the effect my claim for codes may have on views of my translation. I tend to believe that most people will judge the translation on its own merits, and will be forgiving of any disagreement about codes, as you have been. Most people are basically kind hearted and reasonable, I believe. I have made little reference to the codes in either translation's introduction. Only the interlinear has the long codes listed in an appendix, for those interested. Most people will take little notice of the appendix. Thanks again. Your words of commendation actually encourage me that the work will find acceptance among the public, in time. People are hungry for timeless truth, which The Peshitta New Testament certainly is. I pray it will bring a great reformation and spiritual awakening from Heaven to the earth. Breek aat hu min Alaha Avoon (You are blessed of God our Father), Dave |