The Divine signature in the Torah

How about a pointer to this stuff.Claims of this type, if they are not to be dismissed as numerology at best, have a high threshold to meet before they will be considered credible.Given that we are in the science forums, I would have expected that the vetting process would be a little heavier on the evidence side.

This example crosses the border of silly bogs down several feet in the realm of Pathetic. Just pee-poor pathetic. (Pardon my Aramaic).Having found the letters MGLT, someone looks for an interpretation of them, and finds something, anything. If nothing turns up, then we simply don't mention our attempt to anyone.That is the secret of Bible Codes. Put the text into a computer and play around with counting algorithms until something turns up. Then claim God did it on purpose. The result is even lamer than those Nostradamus quatrains.12,111? Really?

In other words, you spotted yourself the 'A' cause you started there, and because you don't really need to find any more vowels you were able to make Amalek out of only three letters.Not so amazing. It's rather pedestrian bible coding. At least other folks manage to find entire phrases. You find 3 or four letters...

An actual discussion of this matter would be about Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg's [WRR] paper and the many papers refuting his paper. I asked you for a pointer to the paper and the attempts to refute it that you labeled ineffective. You answered my post but provided no citation.You have since admitted that you cannot follow the statistics in WRR's paper. So what is there worth discussing with you on this topic? You have no way of knowing which of WRR or their detractors are correct because you are incapable of evaluating the arguments of either. No, they were not predicted in advance. WRR alleges that the codes tell of events that happened after the text was written, but his analysis, conducted in 1994, is of events occurring well in the past.A prediction would occur if a living rabbi learned his death date by reading a Bible code. Never happened. Instead there are supposedly a bunch of dates and a 'proximity' to something suggesting a famous rabbi's name.And all thoroughly debunked shortly after the 1994 paper was published.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well the authorities say that WRR's paper is bullocks and my point is that you have no ability to critique that. So talking with you is pointless. As has been discussed several times, a refutation was published in 1999 in the same journal in which the original article appeared.And calling the debunking 'ridiculous' is not an answer. It is your mere assertion, and we know you are not capable of carrying on a discussion about it.Further, your characterization of the nature of the rebuttal is completely inaccurate. The flaws in WRR's work are well documented. Essentially no one but a few 'true believers' have adopted the position that the codes have any merit.In essence, what we have here is a disagreement among experts with you unable to take any meaningful part in a discussion about who is right.

Finally you provide a pointer. But Theodoric has already done that for you. He also provided a link to the paper, the published rebuttal, and a lot of other critical material.

Comparing yourself to Galileo is worth 40 points on John Baez's famous crackpot index.http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

quote:

---

34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

​

35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

---

What papers?

This idea of yours is wrong and no one familiar with the scientific method would maintain such a position. Peer review does not establish the accuracy of the paper. Peer review means only that there is sufficient analysis for the paper to be of interest to others in the field. You are aware that the paper was rejected by another journal during peer review, right?The true test of a scientific paper is in the testing and replication of results by others in the field. The paper should provide enough data to do that and enough analysis to check the author's work.Otherwise we could say that Pons papers on Cold Fusion established that he was correct about the subject.In this particular case, we have the quoted remarks of one of the peer reviewers who stated explicitly the nature of his review, and his final conclusion that the paper was bunk.Are we to believe that whoever publishes last is correct? Are we to believe that the 1999 peer reviewed paper debunking WRR's paper is of lesser quality than the 1994 paper.Your reasoning is hogwash. There are published, peer reviewed and otherwise critiques of WRR's paper. The correct way to decide who is correct is to analyze the papers and not to simply date them or look at who has gotten in the last word.I understand that the indirect methods you use for evaluating the papers is the only possibility for you since you refuse to even speak to the actual arguments made by either side. Well, sorry, but just because you are doing the best you can does not mean your efforts are good enough.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

[duplicate]Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Except that the rebutting has already been done by a very capable mathematician. There is no longer any name to be made by rebutting Bible codes and outside of discussions like this, very little interest. It's already the case that essentially nobody capable of doing the math believes in this stuff. People believe in God or don't complete independent of this stuff.Again, a proper discussion for those who cannot evaluate the codes first hand starts with discussion of the paper and the rebuttals. Since your guys published last, they have had the last word.But just as we don't declare the lawyer who has the last closing statement the winner, we don't declare the person who published the last article to be the winner either. At some point all arguments, just like this one, must end. Absent an "I yield", we decide based on the presentation.I would welcome a discussion with someone ready to defend the Bible codes on their merits according to the papers you've referenced. But I don't think that's going to happen here. Not with you anyway.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not that your entire rep rests on it, but I did cheer your post.

You are literally advertising your ignorance in your signature.Seriously? You actually believe that the scientific method is to believe whoever last published an article?