• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bible code theory

Once the internet archive is back up, I'll see if I can find the old bible code predictions about y2k. Needless to say, much of it didn't happen. I remember the phrase "power grid" in there, as if God uses modern English idioms, calqued into ancient Hebrew.
 
Not so fast--

I'm coming in a bit late here--i just joined the forum--but from what I've just read, no one here seems to understand the "Bible Code" phenomenon or what makes it interesting.

The History Channel presentations were, as one might expect from TV, rather sketchy and sensational. They seemed to be based largely on Michael Drosnin's books, which were both dreadful, sensationalized, and misrepresented the phenomenon and the research.

There has been, to date, only one worthwhile book published in English on the codes, and that is "Cracking the Bible Code" by Jeffrey Satinover.

Four things make it worth reading:

(1) the author says, up front and throughout, that the jury is still very much out on this phenomenon. Whether or not something significant is happening at all remains unproven, let alone its significance. He is no
True Believer and no enthusiast; his aim is to explain the nature of the research, though he does so from a sympathetic point of view, and let the reader judge for himself.

(2) The book is a fairly long and difficult read, because the codes are not the simple word-search crossword puzzles as presented on TV or in the thin and oversimplified bestsellers. The phenomenon is much more complex and subtle than anything presented in popular culture. Satinover goes into cryptography and its history, higher mathematics, obviously Jewish tradition and esoteric teachings, and even into quantum theory and astrophysics in order to explain the research, the theory behind it, and the nature of the phenomenon itself. The popular presentations have been about as accurate and trustworthy as trying to describe and understand an internal combustion engine from a five-year-old's drawing of it.

(3) Satinover proves, from the research itself, that the code phenomenon--if it exists, which is not certain--cannot be used to predict anything, ever, by its very nature. The researchers found that bit of sensationalistic "reporting" especially offensive.

(4) you will find that the "Moby Dick", etc., demonstrations did not and do not fairly duplicate the phenomenon and are in fact based on a misunderstanding of how it works. If that were not true--if the phenomenon were truly as simple and random as has been alleged--it's hard to see how the original experiments could have ever made it into a respected, well-established, and strictly peer-reviewed scientific journal.

I don't know; I'm as skeptical of allegations of supernatural phenomena as anyone here, believe me. But this isn't precisely that, or at least not yet. At this point, it's just--interesting.

I absolutely guarantee that reading this book will challenge you in several ways. It isn't easy to understand the plain meaning of it in many places, for starters; if you know nothing of higher math or modern physics, you will have learned much by the time you finish it. It may also challenge your definitions and understanding of certainty, truth, and the nature of reality itself--or you may just laugh at the presentation and dismiss every aspect of it a priori on principle, without ever taking it seriously, as many have already done.

In any case, I can also guarantee that you won't be bored.
 
Last edited:
cnorman18 said:
<a lot of irrelevant stuff snipped>

(1) the author says, up front and throughout, that the jury is still very much out on this phenomenon. Whether or not something significant is happening at all remains unproven, let alone its significance. He is no
True Believer and no enthusiast; his aim is to explain the nature of the research, though he does so from a sympathetic point of view, and let the reader judge for himself.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that whether anything at all, significant or otherwise, is happening has yet to be proven. But I bet the author glossed over that.

(2) The book is a fairly long and difficult read, because the codes are not the simple word-search crossword puzzles as presented on TV or in the thin and oversimplified bestsellers. The phenomenon is much more complex and subtle than anything presented in popular culture. Satinover goes into cryptography and its history, higher mathematics, obviously Jewish tradition and esoteric teachings, and even into quantum theory and astrophysics in order to explain the research, the theory behind it, and the nature of the phenomenon itself. The popular presentations have been about as accurate and trustworthy as trying to describe and understand an internal combustion engine from a five-year-old's drawing of it.
Click to expand...

Quantum Theory? Great, I know that. So, where's the math? You mean there isn't any math in this book. That's odd, as all quantum theory work must be backed up by math. Or is he simply using the "Quantum theory is weird, and most people don't understand it well, so I can claim it means whatever I want it to" that most quacks using the term do?

(3) Satinover proves, from the research itself, that the code phenomenon--if it exists, which is not certain--cannot be used to predict anything, ever, by its very nature. The researchers found that bit of sensationalistic "reporting" especially offensive.
Click to expand...

So, even if it exists, it doesn't exist? Cause if it existed; if, indeed, information was encoded in the bible relating to events yet to happen; then that information would be able to be decoded for us to know it was there. By pure chance, some of it would be decoded before the events being related happened, and that would be prediction. So if it can't predict, then either the information must not be able to be decoded (in which case we wouldn't know about the code), or isn't encoded there in the first place.

(4) you will find that the "Moby Dick", etc., demonstrations did not and do not fairly duplicate the phenomenon and are in fact based on a misunderstanding of how it works. If that were not true--if the phenomenon were truly as simple and random as has been alleged--it's hard to see how the original experiments could have ever made it into a respected, well-established, and strictly peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Click to expand...

It's only hard to see for you, as you lack understanding of what a "respected, well-established, and strictly peer-reviewed scientific journal" is. No "bible code" has never been published in such a journal.

If the Moby Dick demonstrations were faulty, then, please, tell us exactly how they were so. Any faulty experiment can be exposed. It's been published how they ran the experiments, and no person has actually pointed out the flaws, though many people clinging to the false hope of the 'bible code' have claimed it was flawed.

"The Jury" is not out on this phenomenon. It has been shown to be indistinguishable from random chance.
 
The one thing that most Aussies notice about NZ is the relative lack of brick houses.

I guess New Zealanders (being stuck in the brick age) value bricks too highly to build mere houses with them.
 
gtc said:
The one thing that most Aussies notice about NZ is the relative lack of brick houses.

I guess New Zealanders (being stuck in the brick age) value bricks too highly to build mere houses with them.
Click to expand...

Come to Dunedin then. ;)
 
I agree with cnorman18 that most people here don't "get" the Bible code stuff - obviously it would not have been published in a statistics journal if it was as simple as reproducing the Rabbis experiment in Moby Dick! One certainly cannot find the exact Rabbis list in Moby Dick - where by "find" we mean counting as statistically significant those cases where the codes are close by the distance measure used in the original experiment (about which there are only very minor quibbles).


The key issue with the codes is that one has to show that there was enough leniency/ambiguity in the Rabbis' list that it could be manipulated so as to find the codes with statistical significance, despite the authors' claims to the contrary (they claimed the list was drawn up in advance of the search and was never manipulated). Then one has to show that there was enough flexibility that a similar list could have been found in Moby Dick, War and Peace etc.


Showing this took a lot of work (by some smart guys whose time would have been better spent on other things). You can read about it here: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html


I read Satinover's book, and found it to be essentially empty verbal trash in the main. Much like paper's of his I've looked at.
 
Godmark2

"Not to mention that whether anything at all, significant or otherwise, is happening has yet to be proven. But I bet the author glossed over that."

I took out the book to check, and while the author writes from a sympathetic viewpoint--he clearly believes
that the phenomenon exists--he also writes at length on the many criticisms and objections to the research, and states over and over that the question remains open. Satinover is an advocate, of course--otherwise, why would he write the book--but he is also fair and accurate.

"Quantum Theory? Great, I know that. So, where's the math? You mean there isn't any math in this book. That's odd, as all quantum theory work must be backed up by math. Or is he simply using the "Quantum theory is weird, and most people don't understand it well, so I can claim it means whatever I want it to" that most quacks using the term do?"

I mentioned "higher mathematics" in my initial post.

"So, even if it exists, it doesn't exist? Cause if it existed; if, indeed, information was encoded in the bible relating to events yet to happen; then that information would be able to be decoded for us to know it was there. By pure chance, some of it would be decoded before the events being related happened, and that would be prediction. So if it can't predict, then either the information must not be able to be decoded (in which case we wouldn't know about the code), or isn't encoded there in the first place."

As I said, the nature of the phenomenon is more complex than has been presented in the popular press. I can't post an entire chapter here. If you really want to see why the codes prohibit predictions, you're just going to have to read the book. Sorry.

"It's only hard to see for you, as you lack understanding of what a "respected, well-established, and strictly peer-reviewed scientific journal" is. No "bible code" has never been published in such a journal."

Statistical Science, Volume 9, Number 3, August 1994.

"If the Moby Dick demonstrations were faulty, then, please, tell us exactly how they were so. Any faulty experiment can be exposed. It's been published how they ran the experiments, and no person has actually pointed out the flaws, though many people clinging to the false hope of the 'bible code' have claimed it was flawed."

Again, I'll decline to type in an entire chapter here. A number of critical studies and objections are addressed in the book, fairly and in detail.

"The Jury" is not out on this phenomenon. It has been shown to be indistinguishable from random chance."

If you wish to dismiss the research a priori, without examining the evidence, that is your privilege, of course. But don't tell yourself you're being "rational". The word that applies is "prejudiced", as in "pre-judged".
 
Irony said:
...who are idiots.
Click to expand...

Come on!


Wikipedia:

Eliyahu Rips

(born 1948) - is an Israeli-Latvian mathematician known for his research in geometric group theory. He achieved public notoriety as a result of coauthoring a paper on the Bible codes.

Rips grew up in Latvia (then part of Soviet Union). He was the first high school student from Latvia to participate in the International Mathematical Olympiad. On 13 April 1969, Rips (who was a 20-year old graduate student at the University of Latvia at that time) attempted self-immolation in a protest against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. After that, he was incarcerated by the Soviet government but, under pressure from Western mathematicians, was allowed to emigrate to Israel in 1972.

After recovering from his wounds and finishing his Ph.D., Rips joined the Department of Mathematics at Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Rips received the Erdős prize from the Israel Mathematical Society in 1979 and was a sectional speaker at the International Congress of Mathematicians in 1994.

Rips' (mostly unpublished) work on group actions on -trees has been widely influential. The Rips machine, in the hands of Rips and his student Zlil Sela, has proven to be effective in obtaining classification results such as a solution to the isomorphism problem for hyperbolic groups.

In 1994, Rips, together with Doron Witztum and Yoav Rosenberg, published an article in the journal Statistical Science which claimed that they have discovered encoded messages in the Hebrew text of the book of Genesis, a part of Bible. In 1997, their claim was then described in a popular book The Bible Code by journalist Michael Drosnin. Since then, Bible codes have been a subject of controversy and a refutation has been published by mathematician Brendan McKay and others
Click to expand...

Bold added by me.

Do you have better achievements than that?
 
karmicserenade said:
What do all of you think of the Bible code?
Click to expand...


Here's a blisteringly simple test: Just point to a sufficiently detailed prediction before it comes true.

Humans are pattern recognizers. We think we're engaged in logical thouht but much of the time, we're just matching patterns. Our brains like patterns so much that we tend to see then even when they're not there. This has been proven experimentally in all sorts of ways.

So, if the predictions are in there, it should be no problem to find one before it happens. If the predictions can only be found after the fact, though, you'll have to explain how that differs from the natural human desire to see order where none exists.
 
Tez

"I agree with cnorman18 that most people here don't "get" the Bible code stuff - obviously it would not have been published in a statistics journal if it was as simple as reproducing the Rabbis experiment in Moby Dick! One certainly cannot find the exact Rabbis list in Moby Dick - where by "find" we mean counting as statistically significant those cases where the codes are close by the distance measure used in the original experiment (about which there are only very minor quibbles).


"The key issue with the codes is that one has to show that there was enough leniency/ambiguity in the Rabbis' list that it could be manipulated so as to find the codes with statistical significance, despite the authors' claims to the contrary (they claimed the list was drawn up in advance of the search and was never manipulated). Then one has to show that there was enough flexibility that a similar list could have been found in Moby Dick, War and Peace etc.

"Showing this took a lot of work (by some smart guys whose time would have been better spent on other things). You can read about it here:

[website deleted; I do not yet have 15 posts and the editor won't allow me to repost it.]

"I read Satinover's book, and found it to be essentially empty verbal trash in the main. Much like paper's of his I've looked at."

Statistical Science required the authors to repeat their experiment using a data set specified by THEM. Hard to see how that could be manipulated. McKay's criticisms have been answered at length by Rips, Witztum and their associates, but those answers were not to be found on the link you presented. I haven't been posting long enough to post a link myself (as noted above), but a little judicious Googling will make both sides of this debate easy to find.

Do you have any more detailed criticisms of Satinover's book? "Mostly verbal trash" isn't a particularly cogent analysis. I thought it was rather well written and informative.

Really, I always thought that skeptics prided themselves on examining evidence objectively and rationally before coming to conclusions. I have seen reports of alien abductions considered with less hostility and outright prejudice than is being directed at this debate. I find that remarkable.

I think we can all agree that determining one's conclusions beforehand and then setting out to prove them by manipulating data and methods is not authentic science. The original experiments of the researchers was not conducted in this manner; though that accusation is repeatedly made, evidence for it is absent (other than the fact that the research has produced results that critics reject a priori). Efforts to "debunk" the codes has, however, used those precise methods, and admittedly so.

As I said in my initial post, as far as I am concerned, the debate is still ongoing. Those who insist that there is no further debate necessary rather remind me of "Global Warming" advocates who say the same thing. That assertion rests more on an ideological wish to cut off discussions rather than any genuine interest in finding out the truth.
 
cnorman18 said:
I absolutely guarantee that reading this book will challenge you in several ways.
Click to expand...


Can you absolutely guarantee that the book will reveal detailed and specific prophecies before they happen?

Chemists can reveal specific and detailed prophecies about my mixture of sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid. Astronomers can predict exactly where Juperter will be two hundred and nineteen days from now. Heck, I'm a lawyer and I can give you a pretty accurate prediction about how a judge will view your lawsuit.

Without predictive ability, everything else is just handwaiving.
 
The whole thing just seems contrived to me, and I am not a blind skeptic, at all. I felt that the searching for key words, was a flawed thing at best, you can essentially find dooming words in any text if you look hard enough, and the fact that the bible is a translation made by a person from a text which again was written by a person, well that seems like an obvious clue....

If there is truth in the whole thing, then we are all saved!! Haha. No offense to those that believe in this sort of thing, truthfully if you guys knew half of the things I think are true you would probably laugh me out of this forum ;) but I will never speak of those things here! I am entitled to my secrets mwhahahaaa
 
--

Loss Leader: With all due respect, you aren't listening. The Codes, if they exist, cannot be used for prediction. That is not their significance, if they have any.

KarmicSerenade: the mere presence of encoded words is insignificant. Such can be found in any text whatever. The peculiarity of the Torah Codes (properly so called--I know of no claims for the rest of the Bible) is that they appear to show the presence of RELATED encoded words, at their SHORTEST intervals, appearing in the same PLACE; and that rather long lists of such words, chosen in advance--in the initial experiment, the names of various rabbis and their birth and death dates (IIRC)--seem to repeat this phenomenon at a rate exceeding that predicted by chance, and by a very wide margin. Whether or not the thing is, in fact, a matter of chance is the subject of the scientific debate. Since it's easier to simply accuse the researchers of deliberately rigging the results, that is the tack taken by most of their critics to date.

Don't worry--I believe some goofy things, too. The Torah Codes just aren't among them--at least, not yet.
 
Cnorman-
I won't add my voice to the chorus of people pointing out why the bible code is crap, period, in all its incarnations, but I will point this out: You can place the tags
and [ /quote] (without the space) before and after some text
to offset it like this
Click to expand...
It makes posts much more readable.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom