Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible Codes Prove Evolution!!!
johndcal
Inactive Junior Member


Message 1 of 23 (36030)
04-01-2003 4:39 PM


In a shocking development, recent Bible code studies reveal evolution is true! A multi-year research program by a conglomerate of Bible colleges and universities was recently published. The research used state-of-the-art super computers and parallel computer configurations. It was the most comprehensive and exhaustive effort to date to extract God's hidden messages -- using the highly popular Bible code method -- from His Word, the Bible. The investigation was lead by Bible Southern Technical Institute (BS Tech), in north Georgia.
All previous Bible code discoveries were confirmed, but many more were also revealed. The most important were that, contrary to popular belief, the Godly-inerrant Bible CONTAINS human error, the end-times are NOT imminent, and, most astonishing, evolution IS TRUE! Christians around the globe are rapidly flocking to new viewpoints reconciling Evangelical Christianity with traditional science, particularly Faith & Reason Ministries, http://www.faithreason.org/
Phrases such as "believe Darwin," "evolution is correct," and "natural selection" are found consistently in Genesis and throughout the Bible. Not only are the words in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and English, but also all known languages and dialects, even Japanese Hip-Hop. "God seems to have flagged even the time of this bombshell. It is truly extraordinary. This is probably the most important event in Christendom since Martin Luther" commented Dr. Mortimer Snerd, ThD, PhD of BS Tech. "Thank God for ministries like Faith & Reason [http://www.faithreason.org/]"
APRIL FOOLS!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2003 4:57 PM johndcal has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 23 (36031)
04-01-2003 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by johndcal
04-01-2003 4:39 PM


Funny joke, but there's an element of truth.
Theoretically, in any non-deterministic string of characters of sufficient length, you should be able to find any finite string of characters you search for. (Similarly, if you chose any string of numbers, you can find that string in the decimal expansions of irrational numbers like pi, if you keep looking.)
So the fact that you can get "bible codes", etc is not really amazing or significant. It would me much more significant if you couldn't find those things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by johndcal, posted 04-01-2003 4:39 PM johndcal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by THEONE, posted 04-14-2003 7:18 AM crashfrog has replied

  
THEONE 
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 23 (36945)
04-14-2003 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
04-01-2003 4:57 PM


quote:
So the fact that you can get "bible codes", etc is not really amazing or significant. It would me much more significant if you couldn't find those things.
If you have free time on your hands get a copy of Torah (five books of Moses, aka Old Testament) writen in Hebrew and do a little experiment. Open up first book, Genesis. Staring at the begining of the book look for the first time hebrew letter "Tav" appears in the text (you can get hebrew alphabet on the internet). That letter "Tav" should appear at the end of first word - "Bereshit" (heb. In the beggining of). From that letter count fifty letters, the fiftieth letter will be letter "Vav", count another fifty letters, the fiftieth will be letter "Resh", one more time count fifty letters and you'll find letter "Heh".
If you put these letters together it will spell out word "Torah". Coincidence? Maybe. Now open second book, Exodus. Do the same thing, first "Tav" in the text and fifty letter sequences. You'll arrive at the same result, word "Torah". Another coincidence? maybe.
Do the same for the rest three books and see for yourself that each of five books will give you same results. All of them containing word "Torah" in same sequence after first letter "Tav".
Now if you have some more time, figure out probablity of this happening by randomness. Keep in mind that complete Torah has 305,408 characters in it. What is the probabily of the same sequence happening at BEGINING of each book with the SAME sequence after EACH letter? There are a lot of very smart people out here, I'm sure you can come up with the answer.
You can be certain that this probability will be SOMETHING like winning a lottery... everyday... for a year! note: I'm just using this to show (people that are not gonna do this)that the probability is very, extreamly low!
In any case, this probability is what scientists call "virtual improbability". In science terms the probabiliy would be nil.
ps. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to use this as a prove of God, just a bizar thing to wonder about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 04-01-2003 4:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by crashfrog, posted 04-15-2003 3:53 AM THEONE has not replied
 Message 5 by John, posted 04-15-2003 7:35 AM THEONE has replied
 Message 16 by Amlodhi, posted 01-13-2004 11:28 AM THEONE has not replied
 Message 20 by Sylas, posted 01-28-2004 5:21 PM THEONE has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 4 of 23 (37046)
04-15-2003 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by THEONE
04-14-2003 7:18 AM


I should point out that I don't know any Hebrew.
Now if you have some more time, figure out probablity of this happening by randomness. Keep in mind that complete Torah has 305,408 characters in it. What is the probabily of the same sequence happening at BEGINING of each book with the SAME sequence after EACH letter? There are a lot of very smart people out here, I'm sure you can come up with the answer.
Firstly, the characters in the Torah are not statistically random (I assume), no more than they would be in a comparable english book. So we don't even have to consider all combinations of letters. Secondly, if the books are thematically related, perhaps it makes sense that they might begin in ways that are similar?
In fact, I understand that the idea that truth could be found in mathematical arrangements of letters (numerology) is a pretty old idea. Might the authors of the Torah have concealed this pattern there for you to find?
In a book written by people I just don't see it as a very big deal. My question to you is, why would you expect it to happen at random?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by THEONE, posted 04-14-2003 7:18 AM THEONE has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 23 (37061)
04-15-2003 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by THEONE
04-14-2003 7:18 AM


quote:
If you have free time on your hands get a copy of Torah (five books of Moses, aka Old Testament) writen in Hebrew and do a little experiment.
You do realize that 'the five Books of Moses', 'the Torah', and 'the OT' aren't all that synonymous?
You also realize that the Hebrew we have isn't the 'original' by a long shot? The oldest we've got is actually the Greek Septuagint. The Masoretic was written/compiled/edited between 6-10AD. Every book but Esther is represented at Qumran by fragments only. Now they are all pretty similar but if you are going to play games with letter order, I'd think that it would be important to have a 'perfect' copy. And we don't. Consider:
13. All known Hebrew Bible texts, ancient and modern, use a system of spelling that is different from the one that was used in the days of Moses. The archaeological evidence shows that Hebrew spelling has gone through three stages.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/codetext.html
quote:
That letter "Tav" should appear at the end of first word - "Bereshit" (heb. In the beggining of).
"b" is an article-- the equivalent of the English "in, with" but Hebrew attaches the articles to the word, which in this case is "reshit."
quote:
From that letter count fifty letters, the fiftieth letter will be letter "Vav", count another fifty letters, the fiftieth will be letter "Resh", one more time count fifty letters and you'll find letter "Heh".
Why 50? The value of 'tav' is 400. Wouldn't it make more sense to count to 400? Perhaps you choose 50 'cause it just works out neatly?
quote:
Coincidence? Maybe.
Yup. You can find similar things in any book of decent size. You just have to play with the numbers.
Famous assinations fortold in Moby Dick! And other cool math tricks as well.
quote:
There are a lot of very smart people out here, I'm sure you can come up with the answer.
A lot of very smart mathematicians say this is crap. You do agree that this rests on statistic, probability and such like, upon which mathematicians are qualified to comment?
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html
quote:
ps. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to use this as a prove of God, just a bizar thing to wonder about.
Yeah, kinda neat but also kinda meaningless.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by THEONE, posted 04-14-2003 7:18 AM THEONE has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by THEONE, posted 04-17-2003 12:35 AM John has replied

  
THEONE 
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 23 (37185)
04-17-2003 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
04-15-2003 7:35 AM


quote:
You also realize that the Hebrew we have isn't the 'original' by a long shot? The oldest we've got is actually the Greek Septuagint.
The oldest you've got, maybe. Greek Septuagint was simply used by Hellenistic Jews to translate Old Testament between years 250 - 150 B.C. for the Greeks, since there was growing interest for the Torah among Pagan Greece. It has nothing to do with Hebrew or original scriptures. The oldest Hebrew known is Ancient Hebrew, which dates back to 3000 B.C. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_intro.html
However, you are right it was not the same. The differnce is that the oldest one is not displaying any vowels. The latter Hewbrew does display some vowels. Actually just one, "Yud" it looks like this - ' . Today's Hebrew shows all vowels, (however they are not nessesary to right anyways).
quote:
Now they are all pretty similar but if you are going to play games with letter order, I'd think that it would be important to have a 'perfect' copy. And we don't.
I can argue about "we don't part" but I wont. Simply because even if we don't the message is so profound that it can be seen in no matter which form of Hebrew alphabet.
quote:
"b" is an article-- the equivalent of the English "in, with" but Hebrew attaches the articles to the word, which in this case is "reshit."
100% correct. Point is - it's written together as one word.( that what it would seem for non Hebrew oriented)
quote:
Why 50? The value of 'tav' is 400. Wouldn't it make more sense to count to 400? Perhaps you choose 50 'cause it just works out neatly?.
Makes sense or not, begining of each book, same sequence, fact. and I didn't choose, it was shown to me.
quote:
A lot of very smart mathematicians say this is crap.
And alot of them saying its not crap. What's your point?
quote:
Yeah, kinda neat but also kinda meaningless.
yep, kind of like your post. (no offense )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 04-15-2003 7:35 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 04-17-2003 2:03 AM THEONE has not replied
 Message 8 by John, posted 04-17-2003 2:46 AM THEONE has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 7 of 23 (37191)
04-17-2003 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by THEONE
04-17-2003 12:35 AM


Do the math
quote:
And alot of them saying its not crap. What's your point?
But if you read the material refered to above (the paper is here http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/StatSci.pdf) there are issues raised with the "decoding". I haven't seen those issues answered. It only takes one who points out just how it is crap.
Also where did you get your "alot". I think you'll find that the number is in the single digits out of 1,000's of statisticians.
If you want to support the "biblical codes" idea then maybe you can find references which do a good job of answering the issues raised in the above paper.
One very large issue is the sensitivity of the supposed "result" on the choics made in picking what to look for. The whole thing only has any validity if strict rules are followed. Apparently they weren't.
You should also note that if the "rules" are used as was done by the WWR paper then "War and Peace" in Hebrew translation gets as good a result. Is it a sacred text too?
On balance it appears that the extraodinary evidence that would be necessary for such an extraordinary claim not only isn't there but in fact there is no evidence at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by THEONE, posted 04-17-2003 12:35 AM THEONE has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 23 (37195)
04-17-2003 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by THEONE
04-17-2003 12:35 AM


quote:
The oldest you've got, maybe.
Me? The septuagint is the oldest you, I or anyone else has, except for fragments here and there. I hate to break it to you.
The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah), the latter, such as it has come down to us, being the text established by the Massoretes in the sixth century A.D. Many textual corruptions, additions, omissions, or transpositions must have crept into the Hebrew text between the third and second centuries B.C. and the sixth and seventh centuries of our era; the manuscripts therefore which the Seventy had at their disposal, may in places have been better than the Massoretic manuscripts.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Septuagint Version
quote:
Greek Septuagint was simply used by Hellenistic Jews to translate Old Testament between years 250 - 150 B.C. for the Greeks since there was growing interest for the Torah among Pagan Greece.
hmmm... you realize that Hebrew was an almost dead language and that the Septuagint wasn't translated for the pagans but for the Jews who could no longer speak their ancient tongue?
same source as the preceeding writes:
Little by little most of them ceased to use and even forgot the Hebrew language in great part, and there was a danger of their forgetting the Law. Consequently it became customary to interpret in Greek the Law which was read in the synagogues, and it was quite natural that, after a time, some men zealous for the Law should have undertaken to compile a Greek Translation of the Pentateuch.
Still more info: Introduction to the Old Testament
Strike two for you.
quote:
It has nothing to do with Hebrew or original scriptures.
I believe you are confused. This statement doesn't really make sense in context.
quote:
The oldest Hebrew known is Ancient Hebrew, which dates back to 3000 B.C. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/5_intro.html
And this matters how? The issue isn't the origin of the language but of a particular set of books written in that language. There are no copies of the OT in Ancient Hebrew.
quote:
Simply because even if we don't the message is so profound that it can be seen in no matter which form of Hebrew alphabet.
I get the impression that you think it was a simple matter of transliterating the text-- substituting one letter for another another. It wasn't. Languages change. Do you think spelling and grammar remained unchanged for a couple of thousand years before the text was standardized? It didn't. Hebrew has gone through several changes of spelling, as pointed out in an earlier post. This is an important consideration if you are going to play letter-order games.
quote:
Makes sense or not, begining of each book, same sequence, fact.
It is equally a fact that you can do the same thing with pretty much any book. That is the problem. Are there codes in all books?
quote:
What's your point?
The point is that is a math trick and most mathematicians know this.
quote:
yep, kind of like your post. (no offense )
No offense? None taken. The quality of your posts is such that I can only laugh at the pretentiousness of statements like this. You've obviously not done much research, or don't know how to research perhaps.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by THEONE, posted 04-17-2003 12:35 AM THEONE has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by THEONE, posted 04-17-2003 9:50 AM John has replied

  
THEONE 
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 23 (37206)
04-17-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by John
04-17-2003 2:46 AM


The Septuagint is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament and consequently is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text (Massorah)
Do you even pay attention to what you write??? It says clearly in your post that Septuagint is "the most ancient TRANSLATION of the Old Testament", yet your previous post states that: You also realize that the Hebrew we have isn't the 'original' by a long shot? The oldest we've got is actually the Greek Septuagint
Please, sort out your "original" language and earliest "translation" language. They can't be the same, can they? I mean, you don't write Bible in Septuagint and then translate it to Septuagint, do you? If yes... case closed.
quote:
hmmm... you realize that Hebrew was an almost dead language and that the Septuagint wasn't translated for the pagans but for the Jews who could no longer speak their ancient tongue?
Hmmm... Perhaps you sould read Josephus Flavius, a first century historian, who actually writes about his own time (and a little bit before that) instead of supplying me with Catholic sites and works by Sir Godfrey Driver (I guess a great scholar on Hebrew language in your opinion). You can start on a right path here http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-pref.htm
After you read it ask me what part of Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law, and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue you don't understand. (note: by "our" law and "constitution of our government" he means the Jewish law and etc., just read the whole link)
As far as Hebrew being extinct language before the translation of the OT into Greek... man... common... do you really belive that a country forgot it's own language while living in it's own country? It's like saying Americans forgot English because of too much Chineese imigrants... I know, I smoke pot sometimes, but what the hell are you smoking?
Anyways, Hebrew never was a dead language (in full meaning if the word), even when Jews used other languages (of countries they lived in after Roman exile) in every period they had some books written in Hebrew (which means it was remembered). After all, how do you think, Israelis in 1948, established their State with Hebrew as their primary language? A Hebrew fairy came by? And don't give me Modern Hebrew and Ancient Hebrew... thing. The diference between the two is mostly SPELLING. (do some research on this and, please, stay out of Cathlic sites this time, you wouldn't want to learn about Christianity from Muslim sites, would you?)
quote:
There are no copies of the OT in Ancient Hebrew
but there are copies in Hebrew, read something about Dead Sea Scrolls. Once you've done Google research, let me know what you found on the NET.
quote:
Strike two for you.
Just when exactly did you become the Judicial System? I mean, I admire your ambition and all but to quote "Sir Godfrey Driver" on ancient hebrew history (taken of an internet site found on google) and automatically assume you are right... hmmmm, no comment...
As far as bible code... I really don't care. My job is to share, not convince. We're all grownups here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John, posted 04-17-2003 2:46 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by John, posted 04-17-2003 11:44 AM THEONE has not replied
 Message 21 by DBlevins, posted 01-28-2004 6:02 PM THEONE has not replied
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 01-29-2004 3:55 AM THEONE has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 23 (37215)
04-17-2003 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by THEONE
04-17-2003 9:50 AM


quote:
Do you even pay attention to what you write???
Certainly. I must pay attention, because you do not.
quote:
Please, sort out your "original" language and earliest "translation" language.
It is you who are confused.
Please show me where I stated that the OT was ORIGINALLY in greek. I stated that the septuagint is the oldest we've got. It is a translation. It is still the oldest we've got. Please pay attention. Hubris and idiocy are poor bedfellows.
quote:
They can't be the same, can they? I mean, you don't write Bible in Septuagint and then translate it to Septuagint, do you?
?????? Write it in 'septuagint'? The 'septuagint' isn't a language. It is the name of a book. The 'septuagint' was written in Greek.
quote:
Hmmm... Perhaps you sould read Josephus Flavius
I am aware of what Josephus has to say. Josephus is A source not an infallible one. Let's look at a few things.
quote:
...who actually writes about his own time (and a little bit before that...
In regard to the septuagint, Josephus is actually writing about events which occured three hundred years previously. This is hardly 'writing about his own time.' Josephus, like pretty much all of the historians of the time, recorded what he had heard. That is, he recorded folk tale and legend, as well as fact. Remember the Alamo? Most people 'remember' it incorrectly. The legend has superseded the fact.
quote:
instead of supplying me with Catholic sites and works by Sir Godfrey Driver
It is improper to cite scholars in the field? Please... you sound like a child.
Josephus' account is based in a tradition that started with what is called the Letter of Aristeas. There are some problems with this letter which you can read about here. The author clearly dispels the legend, though equivocates on why the septuagint was written.
Here is a nice neat account. Read it. I dare you.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Septuagint.htm
quote:
do you really belive that a country forgot it's own language while living in it's own country?
They weren't a country, nor were they living in 'their' country. The Isrealites had been shuffled around as slaves and chased around as outcasts for many hundreds of years.
quote:
It's like saying Americans forgot English because of too much Chineese imigrants.
More like saying the Chinese immigrants forgot Chisese once they moved to the US. You might want to check the stats. The use of a native tongue drops in the second generation.
hmmm... the majority of native american indians have more or less forgot thier tongues and they are living in 'their' country. In WW2, for example, the US used Navajo(?) as a code because there were only 30-something speakers of the language. The time frame is about right as well.
quote:
I know, I smoke pot sometimes, but what the hell are you smoking?
It is perhaps the fact that I don't smoke pot, or anything else, that I am able to think critically about these things. The pot does explain the blatant disregard for fact and the opting for myth instead.
quote:
Anyways, Hebrew never was a dead language
Nope, but damn close.
quote:
in every period they had some books written in Hebrew (which means it was remembered)
Latin is considered a dead language, yet there are books written in it and some people can read them-- proportionally, very very few people. Thus the need for translations from Latin into other languages. The hebrew of the time was in a similar position.
quote:
After all, how do you think, Israelis in 1948, established their State with Hebrew as their primary language? A Hebrew fairy came by?
Actually, it was a guy named Eliezar Ben Yehuda (1858-1922).
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.morim.com/hebrew_us.htm
You may note:
After ceasing to exist as a spoken language about 250 B.C., it was reborn as a modern language in the 19th century, and today it is the principal language of the State of Israel.
How many people do you think read Hebrew when next to no one spoke it?
quote:
The diference between the two is mostly SPELLING.
Depends on how ancient you mean. Modern Hebrew is based on the Hebrew of the Masoretic more or less. But the Masoretic is between 2500 and 1500 years younger than the original OT, depending on the particular book. We don't have COPIES OLDER THAN THE MASORETIC.
quote:
but there are copies in Hebrew, read something about Dead Sea Scrolls. Once you've done Google research, let me know what you found on the NET.
The Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments of the various books of the OT. Frequently very tiny fragments and there are variant versions of the texts represented. I mentioned, in a previous post, that I am aware of this. Perhaps you are not paying attention?
quote:
I mean, I admire your ambition and all but to quote "Sir Godfrey Driver" on ancient hebrew history (taken of an internet site found on google) and automatically assume you are right... hmmmm, no comment...
Actually, I'd bet that I've been researching this longer than you've been out of diapers, or damn near. From what I see, you swallow every myth that comes your way, so maybe you need to do the research now.
quote:
As far as bible code... I really don't care.
LOL.... right.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by THEONE, posted 04-17-2003 9:50 AM THEONE has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 1:44 AM John has not replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 23 (78147)
01-13-2004 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by John
04-17-2003 11:44 AM


Noisy sources
This to John, theone, and others,
That there is probable noise or random error in available translations of Genesis, or the Torah, and yet there is still abundant evidence of the statistically non-random codes, is further confirmation of what the Codes are all about. They are being searched out as a sort of signature of a Person, Jehovah, who has sent a message in the midst of a spiritual war, and wants us to know for sure that they message is from our commander and chief. Or so the hypothesis goes. Now, if this hypothesis is true, and our commander in chief is omnipotent, then He will of course make His message immune to the normal problems humans have sending literature down through history. There may be mistakes and revisions etc, but they cannot alter either the central point, or the signature. And, lo and behold, the codes are still there, after all these years and translations!
And they are there. None of the criticisms are scientifically valid, and there have been dozens of later confirmations and replications. They are controversial, of course. Read Thomas Kuhn, and see his theory of the history of science confirmed in the debate. The underlying hypothesis, orthodox theology, actually predicts a vigorous dedicated but confused dis-information campaign, instituted by demonically inspired agents. These will be known, according to scripture, by their fruits. They will be accusers, lawless, liars, sarcastic, exaggerated, prone to comments like "completely discredited" and "utter nonsense." Interesting to see such a remarkable confirmation of such an implausible prediction. It's hard to imagine any reasonable member of the species Homo sapiens speaking that way about mathmaticians of the caliber of Rips or Witztum, without help from some sort of spiritual mental parasite pulling strings in their brains. If this theory is true, I predict similar howls to this post.
Cheers,
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by John, posted 04-17-2003 11:44 AM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2004 1:55 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 12 of 23 (78150)
01-13-2004 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-13-2004 1:44 AM


My friend. The Bible Codes are bunk.
You can do it in any big book, War and Peace, Huckleberry Fin, etc. Its a bunch of malarky.
Bible Code - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 1:44 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 2:07 AM Yaro has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 23 (78152)
01-13-2004 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Yaro
01-13-2004 1:55 AM


"bunk?"
Yaro,
Poor choice of words. In fact, the critics argue that you cannot find codes in any works at all. What you find are ELS's that are well within the expectations due to chance, and therefore not codes at all, as originally defined. The critics are quite specific about this, and the original code authors quite specific that they find arrays of ELS's that are statistically very improbable.
But your subjective hyperbole limits your ability to see or understand this. Your reply, therefore, must be listed under "wishful thinking." You hope they are bunk, you want them to be bunk, you'll grab at any straw man you can find to rationalize your wish. But, as we must say to all in denial, the truth isn't going to change because you wish it so. And, if you want to buy lies, there will always be
someone out there to enable you. Only by looking carefully at both sides will you get the truth. Witztum's website. The articles there by Gans. Biblecodedigest articles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2004 1:55 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2004 2:19 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6495 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 14 of 23 (78153)
01-13-2004 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Stephen ben Yeshua
01-13-2004 2:07 AM


The ELS Codes were debunked, face it.
Here is the actuall study, tell me when YOU read it and UNDERSTOOD IT. Then tell me whos go both sides of the story.
Remember, the one makeing the claim is the one who needs to show the proof. And as of yet the ELS people have failed to provide any.
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/Chance.pdf
EDIT:
ACK! doed link. Ill scrounge the study back up for you. Check back here. Meanwhile, here is anothor neat page on it:
Dror Bar-Natan: Bible Codes
EDIT AGAIN
hehehe
just thought Id give you a list of links so you can weigh both sides. heheheh
http://www.math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html
Forbidden
THE BIBLE CODE
All of these are from real mathmaticians, recognized by the mathmatics community. They have all pretty much given up on ELS claims.
I dont think they are all satnists, blind, or atheists. I think that just maybe, there is validity, to their claim that ELS is a load of tosh.
But hey, maybe Im just closing my eyes, or being blindly led.
[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-13-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 2:07 AM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Stephen ben Yeshua, posted 01-13-2004 11:21 AM Yaro has replied

  
Stephen ben Yeshua
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 23 (78202)
01-13-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Yaro
01-13-2004 2:19 AM


Code critics
Yaro,
Thanks for the tips. It was good to re-read Simon's report, which gets closest any to being sensible. But, I think that was written 6 years ago, and since then, there have been other studies. Moreover, Simon's main point, that the significant results exist because of "wiggle room" and the existence of subjectivity in making choices, is rationalization, as I understand it.
The underlying hypothesis predicting the Codes is that the Bible is a subjective document, where the subject is God. Jahn and his colleagues at PEAR are dealing with the "Science of the subjective." meaning basically the idea that science can study subjectivity objectively. Psychology has long held the position that this is possible.
The question is, how did the authority who was asked to provide the names of the Rabbis come up with a list of names that produced such implausible results? That the results were improbable rules out "lucky guess." So, either the man was a Seer, with prophetic insights of an ESP sort, or God directed him to God's subjective choice of names. Or, he was in collusion with Witztum et. al. in some sort of scam, as Simon begins his article by suggesting. (Later denied, of course).
But Simon never asks this question, only suggests the answer, and leaves it rattling around in your head while you read the rest of his report. But we are human, aren't we. We would naturally wonder. I think that the Bible elsewhere asserts that "all authority is from God." tells us which answer is most consistent. If the hypothesis that produced the Bible Code prediction is correct, we would predict that authorities asked to "guess" which names of Rabbis would show up in the codes would, by divine guidance, come up with improbably successful codes.
But let's move on, given these insights, as scientists, not rationalizers. Ok, let's repeat the study, this time getting "God approved, prayed for authorities" to come up with lists of whatever, and compare the probability of the resulting codes with lists produced by chance, and by atheists. After all, the hypothesis being tested, that this Person, Jehovah is really out there, and that the self-description of who He is in the Scriptures is a trustworthy report, is being tested by many other sorts of studies. Theomatics, Ivan Panin's Gematria, prayer studies, NDE studies. Let's do the proper scientific thing, and bring to bear all that we are learning from all these efforts. We know prayer changes things. So, let's get prayer into the Bible Code studies, and see whether prayer can get us more consistent results.
So, there's my homework. Your turn.
Stephen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2004 2:19 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Yaro, posted 01-13-2004 12:42 PM Stephen ben Yeshua has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024