06-09-2008, 03:58 PM
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
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