Bible Codes Prove Evolution!!!

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

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.

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

Yaro,Found your remarks puzzling. I mean, are you supposing that the codes just are, were not placed there by God or somebody?But Satinover's book, and the subsequent use of the codes implied that they were there to deal with wartime communication. Made sense to Gans, a intelligence worker, code breaker. Jehovah supposedly put them there to validate the Bible, as a message from Him telling us how to overcome evil with good. That's how they got used, in minimizing the damage from the Scud attacks.Now, I have found no critic who does not agree that statistically very improbable ELS's were found in Genesis by WRR. The contention is, they were found there because the authority asked to pick the names happened to pick names that generated a rare event. The implication is, they, he, might have done a bunch of trials with different spellings, found some that worked, and used them to get the statistically strange results. But the more sensible implication is, since the codes are God-based, and the work of the scholar was God-based, we have God given evidence of His involvement in the writing of Genesis. Random searching over different spellings would not necessarily be God based, and so might well produce arrays that give no Codes.As noted in the biblecodedigest website, on Moby Dick, God, if indeed it is He producing the scriptures and the codes, voices His disapproval of the main critic.But Jehovah tells us, (if, indeed, it is He writing) that He responds to some requests, when they are in His interest. Certain things He doesn't care about until we ask for them. Then, they attract Him because He loves some of those asking, and wants to give them what they ask for. Unless, He says, the request is purely selfish. There are lots of rules for valid prayer in Scripture.So, praying "aright" for the spellings He used in generating the Codes, so we can get busy keeping the commandments in the Scripture, would probably be a "good" prayer, and would demonstrate that codes can be consistently found if one prays aright.But, your homework was to read Satinover, or the Moby Dick site on Biblecodedigest, or Gans' rebuttal to the critics on Witztum's site. Let me know when you've done that.Stephen