Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Scientists inscribe entire Bible on head of a pin
Bruicy Kibbutz:
israel should write notices to flee homes before bombing campains will begin "__________" in arabic drop a bunch all over :D
serbian army:
Jews are so smart :)
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: q_q_ on January 02, 2008, 11:18:18 PM ---
--- Quote from: New Yorker on December 24, 2007, 07:26:03 PM ---
While we are on the subject of scientists and the bible, what are the board member's opinion of the Bible Code? Real? or are you Skeptical? The jury is out on that for me.
--- End quote ---
Aish had a good analysis of it.
According to the original researchers(RIPS, Witzum,..), they say Drosnin`s stuff is nonsense.. i.e. where you look for anything. So that rules out predicting the future. You can do that with any book.
But the original scientific paper, which got published in a peer reviewed statistics journal, is prob legit. They had a bunch of names of rabbis, and i think dates of birth, and they found occurrences more than was statistically expected.
The argument against it is that they cooked the data i.e. they had a list of names, one did not occur, so they amended the spelling, i.e. they fudged the data. The pro codes group e.g. Witzum, have suggested an independent neutral party agreed by the anti code group. But the anti code group have not responded. There is alot online about this. e.g. on Witzum`s website. And Harold Gans had a primer on it.
The anti code group are using very deceptive tactics, by largely attacking Drosnin`s book (Which was more of a popular non scientific thing).. And pretending that this refutes the whole thing. And the pro code group have actually Proven, that the anti code group fudged their data.
The scientific world has reacted very unscientifically towards the pro code researchers. As Harold Gans mentions. They actually had a vote/signed petition, against any bible code research!!! And not because of any issue they had with how the research was done
--- End quote ---
Wow I had no idea, I thought they were just debunked and that was it. It's interesting that there is legitimacy at all to the pro-code side, and I'm amazed that the anti-coders tried to 'ban' bible code research. Sounds like desperation tactics. Do you have any cites for where they proved the anticoders fudged their own data ? I would really like to see this.
I once had a rabbi who said basically, Torah codes are not what we need to see the Torah is true so I don't mess around with that, we have the real stuff in our tradition. But if someone wants to find something like that it's like a "desert for the main course." I think he largely said that because the jury is still out on the legitimacy of it. I had assumed it was all bunk, but I didn't look into it too much, maybe I'm wrong.
spiritus_persona:
That is simply an amazing use of science! Well done! O0
q_q_:
www.torahcodes.co.il (witzum's site) seems to be all in hebrew only now.. But you can see the site from a few years ago or whenever.
just put www.torahcodes.co.il (witzum's site) into www.archive.org
e.g.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010202131800/http://www.torahcodes.co.il/
He talks about the deception many times.
There is this primer by Gans..
http://www.aish.com/seminars/discovery/Codes/Primer/primer1.htm
One I just found that seems to be against it, and I hadn't encountered this before. It's news to me.. A team with pro and anti codes people on it.
http://www.math.toronto.edu/~drorbn/Codes/Gans/
This team includes Eliyahu Rips.. and it says the test failed.. I notice Professor Aumann is on that team as well. I am not sure what Rips or Witzum - or Aumann- say about that one..
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version