The Divine signature in the Torah

it's a fact that you can derive "codes" by this method, yes.it's also a fact that it's trivial to do with any text.for instance, here is a fun demonstration that the bible says "moby dick" has similar codes, but that the codes found in "moby dick" say the bible doesn't have codes.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

as a side note, i saw dr. mckay present a thoroughly amusing lecture on this topic, in 1999, at the (30th?) southeastern international conference on combinatorics, graph theory, and computing.so, yeah, old news.

so, i'm not a mathematician either. but my father is. his erdos number is 2 (i've personally met paul erdos, when i was very young, before he died), and i have pretty close ties to many 2's and 3's and i think a few 1's, big shots in the mathematical community.i've also had pleasure of hearing brendan mckay, the anti-code source linked repeatedly in this thread, speak publicly on the topic at an international mathematics conference attended by many prominent mainstream mathematicians. suffice to say, he represents an authority in the field. michael drosnin does not.though eliyahu rips does seem to be a Ph.D. mathematician, i don't think that is the case for his co-authors (witzum and rotenberg), and his work was largely discredited by, well, brendan mckay. and there hasn't been much other work on the subject, because that was that. this is not the sort of topic that mathematicians usually concern themselves with, even the applied/crypto sorts of mathematicians. at the conference i saw dr. mckay give his lecture, it was scheduled as a "fun aside", and a public lecture (the bible codes were a hot topic then), and trust me when i say, the audience found it all very funny. the smackdown was pretty thorough.i suggest you read his site, and then his papers, if you want more on the topic. because you're looking to the wrong authorities.