On June 19, 1997, Tom Anderson made a very interesting point: Specifically, he said, "Oh yeah, and Drosnin certainly does believe in God, whether he claims to or not. There is no way that you can suggest the existence of a predictatory code in a religious document without implying that it was put there by God. To even investigate such a phenomenon is to put faith in the idea that there was a creator who wrote that book." (Ref. post #190)

That Tom is correct is confirmed in Mr. Drosnin's book. Indeed, not only does it appear that Mr. Drosnin believes in God, it is obvious that he believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. On page 100 of his book, beginning with the sentence, "Prophecy, of course, is not unique to the code." he tells the story of Joseph using such phrases--apparently in all sincerity--as "Joseph alone knew that the Pharaoh's dream...

" and "So the bible calls Joseph "decoder of the code." And about midway down page 101, he suddenly refers to Daniel. "There too," he says, "God awes the greatest ruler on earth, the King of Babylon."

No Baptist preacher ever said it better.

It is intellectually dishonest for a true believer, such as Mr. Drosnin, to repeatedly claim to be a skeptic. Of course, it is clear that Mr. Drosnin's purpose is to connect these ancient stories to the codes. But only a true believer would make such an argument. What he spouts is trash.

However, this apparent dishonesty on the part of Mr. Drosnin does not necessarily extend to the codes themselves and the scientific paper by Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg. And Tom's argument that the theory is impossible is unconvincing and unscientific. Tom's argument, as I understand it, is that acceptance of the code reduces to a paradox. Therefore, it must be false.

However, that a scientific theory reduces to a paradox has never been grounds for disbelief in that theory. For example, Albert Einstein seemed to delight in pointing out the paradoxes resulting from Special Relativity. But he never suggested that the paradoxes might be grounds for disbelief in Special Relativity. Quantum Mechanics also has it's share of paradoxes. But nobody in his/her right mind would argue against either on the basis that they result in paradoxes.

Tom, the way I see it is this: Either the math (calculation of the odds in the paper) is correct and based on correct assumptions, or it is not. I understand that the paper stood up to peer review. If it stood up to peer review, it seems likely to me that the calculations are probably correct. If the calculations are correct, the code must exist, regardless of any preconceptions you may or may not have, and regardless of any belief system you may or may not have about predestination and free will.

Cliff Beall

Cliff Beall 7/19/97 1:58am,

Actually, he did. Einstein wanted desperately for someone to develop a better model than his, because he saw that his was imperfect. However, physics has progressed a great deal since the time of Einstein.

The paradoxes in quantum mechanics result from different interpretations of the possible consequences of verified theory. They do not invalidate the entire theory, but rather that specific interpretation (particularly the Copenhagen interpretation).

The idea of God is paradoxical, and these paradoxes certainly result in the fact that God cannot possibly exist. Specifically, there are paradoxes in the idea of predestination and free-will, thus invalidating any truth to the Bible Code.

It is not that a code may not show up, but that the patterns are purely subjective. You can obtain a code in any collection of finite repeating characters to which we assign meaning. Someone provided a link to a page that showed such a code in Moby Dick. In fact, if you just type nonsense, you will pick out some words from it (vnmmosugarvvieur,hweekrl;jjthelgmostwvuknhhclso;dfl... you see, I can pick out the words "sugar", "week", "the", "most", and "so" just from random banging on the keyboard). It is not about whether you can find cryptic messages in a book, it is whether it means anything except to the person interpreting it. For every message that can be found to have meaning, there are thousands that are nonsense. It is like looking at the sky, ignoring all clouds that don't resemble anything, but then picking out the one that looks like George Bush and suggesting a supernatural purpose for it. The very structure of our brains makes this common for people; the neural network is superb at recognising patterns (rather than just information like computers), which is why we are more visual than mathematical. It is in our nature to find patterns in things, even if they don't exist for any purpose, but are purely random. And then, when they are not random, as in a book, recognizable patterns surface even more readily.

Tom

In essence, the agnostics, skeptics, and atheists ignore the profound scientific and philosophical arguments that God does exist. I have read the arguments of atheist made by Satre, Nietzche, Buren, Russell, Camus, etc. I have also read the theist arguments made by Anselm, Aquinas, Lewis, Geisler, McDowell, Jeffrey, etc. Furthermore I have done a socio-historical study of the Old and New testament. I have looked at the archeological evidence and have studied other great religions. In lieu of the evidence, I am convinced that: 1. There is a God. 2. Jesus Christ is God and the son of God.

I must concur with you Cliff, it seems as if Drosnin is being less than truthful about his religious beliefs. I think the reason why he is trying to paint himself as a skeptic is obvious. He beiieves it will lend more credibility to the code. If a fundamentalist Christian had written the book, it would have been dismissed in tall order. I cannot help but think that there is a concious effort on the part of evangelical Christians to do just about anything to offer so called "proof" for the Bible.

As for the code itself, if the calculations are correct, then the code exists. I would have to agree with this statement, but further add that it still does not mean that the Christian God exists. It is quite possible that aliens with advanced technology could have done so. It is still inconceivable to me how an omnipotent God could not have done a better job at designing the universe and the Bible itself. Natural disasters, diseases, and other natural phenomenon occur all the time an cannot be dismissed as man's "sinful nature". These are things that we have no control over.

Also, if this code exists, it would appear to be a contradiction with what God says in the Bible. There is a passasge somewhere (the exact place eludes me at the moment, but I will look it up) that basically says that God does not hide anything. And it is my personal experience as a Christian for 12 years that they are always saying that God or Jesus hides nothing. This is supposed to separate Christianity and the esoteric religions. The nuclear armaggedon prediction that Drosnin mentions would also contradict Bibical passages. Jesus said that only the Father knows the hour. If the Bible code does indeed give the date for the end of the world, we have another contradiction. These are issues that need to be carefully studied. As for myself, the Bible code is still being invesigated by the scientific community an until a consensus is reached, I am not going to "jump the gun" and say "wow, w

Dave, I have read your post several times and find nothing with which I can reasonably disagree. However, I probably ought to point out that I am really no more comfortable with the idea of aliens with advanced technology being responsible for the codes than I am with the idea that it came from God.

But I'm not sure there is much of a difference. I saw the movie, Contact. The interesting thing in this movie is that the scientist is asked some of the hard questions that scientists are so fond of asking the theologian. I thought the subject was handled in a reasonably honest manner, and I liked it very well.

Tom, your statement that the "paradoxes in quantum mechanics result from different interpretations of the possible consequences of verified theory. They do not invalidate the entire theory, but rather that specific interpretation (particularly the Copenhagen interpretation)," seems to imply that the Copenhagen interpretation has been discredited. I was not aware of that, and understand, to the contrary, that the Copenhagen interpretation remains the cornerstone of Quantum Mechanics.

In addition, I really think you ought to read the paper by Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg. That way, you can address what it says, not what it does not say. (Your discourse is beside the point. The paper does not attempt to make the case that you argued against.)

Cliff

Cliff,

Well it really depends upon who you ask. It is certainly clear that many paradoxes exist within the Copenhagen interpretation, and so it is definitely incomplete to say the least. However, some still subscribe to it because it may be useful as a model. Certainly, though, it is not the "cornerstone" of quantum mechanics, it is just a possible consequence. But this has nothing to do with the paradoxes of God... God cannot possibly exist because his definition includes paradoxical elements. And unless he is unquestionably the supreme being, then he is not even a useful model. So just boot it. And, more relevantly, the idea of the Bible Code is also paradoxical in that we can not have free-will and a Bible Code. If the Bible Code actually existed other than in the way I described in my previous post, then we are predestined and do not have free-will. If we do have free-will, then the Bible Code is not a predictive instrument but just people attributing meaning to semi-random patterns.

Tom

After seeing the movie "Contact" and re-reading the book, it is perfectly clear what a scientist will accept as an unambiguous code. I am embarrassed that I, a biologist, did not think of it earlier. Mathematics, the universal language. Not as the medium, but as the message! Can we find the value of the natural logarithm "e" in the Bible Code? The periodic table of the elements? "Pi" to the 100th decimal place? (I understand the ancient Hebrews did know about Pi, but thought it = 3.) I wonder what Carl Sagan would have thought about the Bible Code?

Cliff Beall - 03:15pm Jul 20, 1997 ET (#334 of 387)

Okay, Tom, I am not a scientist, don't understand the math, and hesitate to do it for fear of an error in my understanding of the experiment, but with apologies to Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg, I will attempt to describe the experiment. First, it is about related word PAIRS: a man's name and the year of his death. To do the experiment, first select names of Jewish Sages from an appropriate encyclopedia using a preset criteria (number of lines written about the Sage). Next find the instance of the nearest equidistant occurrence of the Sage's name in Genesis. Wrap the line into a cylinder-like arrangement so that the name can be read vertically. Since Hebrew letters also have numeral values, there will dates all over the place. Find the nearest occurrence of the correct date that corresponds to the name of the sage. Calculate the proximity of that date and the odds of it occurring at that proximity by four statistical methods.

Repeat the experiment using control texts and compare the results from Genesis to those of the control texts. The control texts were four randomizations of the letters, words, verses in Genesis using the Random function in Turbo Pascal and using different seed numbers, a Hebrew translation of Tolstoy's War and Peace, and the Book of Issiah.

None of the control texts indicated proximity significance and yielded odds in the range of 211,777 in 1,000,000 to 946,261 in 1,000,000. But Genesis did indicate proximity significance and yielded odds in the range of 4 in 1,000,000 to 570 in 1,000,000.

I, therefore, repeat: Either the math (calculation of the odds in the paper) is correct and based on correct assumptions, or it is not. If the calculations are correct, the code must exist, regardless of any preconceptions you may or may not have, and regardless of any belief system you may or may not have about predestination and free will (religious or otherwise).

And Dawn, I think that Carl Sagan would take the same position I have taken.

Cliff

Cliff, thanks for trying to explain the experiment. There are some points that you are missing, but instead of describing them I will urge people to read the experiment themselves. Also, Tom's arguments do not even deal with the ELS's experiment, he just deals with Drosnin's interpretations, which are flawed. I wonder if Tom has even read the experiment.

If you want a better book that deals with the ELS experiment read Signature of God by Grant R. Jeffrey. It has a strong Christian bias, but the scholarship is acceptable, and the bias can be easily filtered out.

Dan, I have not read "The Signature of God" by Grant Jeffrey, but I have read "Jesus Codes: Uses and Abuses, A RESPONSE TO YACOV RAMBSEL AND GRANT JEFFREY", By: R.Daniel Mechanic (In consultation with Doron Witztum and Harold Gans), available on the Net. In my opinion, the article by Mr. Mechanic provides more than enough detail to convince me that I probably wouldn't be interested in the Jeffery book. However, if you provide me with Mr Jeffery's credentials, and a reason to change my mind, I will listen.

You might as well know that I am an agnostic with a belief system that consists mainly of: "I don't know."

I am aware that this is not a belief system with which most people would be comfortable. As near as I can tell, most people seem to have some "inner need" to have certainty in their belief system. I must admit that I would prefer it that way myself. I would prefer to know. But I am not about to become a hypocrite in order to become one of the club, any club, and I am not about to adopt your belief system, or any other similar belief system, without good reason. Perhaps you and Tom can blissfully profess to believe the unbelievable and know the unknowable, but I can not.

So why am I interested in the codes? The same reason I am interested in the Bible itself. It is fun to examine the codes as it is fun to examine the Bible. And to discuss the implications of same with the likes of you and Tom is also fun. Long live this messageboard.

Cliff

Cliff,

I don't believe the unbelievable. I too would be agnostic, and I am in most senses. However, I do not need to have knowledge of the entire universe to know that God, as defined in almost every religious text, cannot and therefore does not exist. I think I have provided enough logical proof of that in my previous post. It is not a leap of faith to "believe" that God does not exist. If you can see that He is not necessary (as an agnostic, that is a safe assumption), then it is a simple step to see that He is also not possible.

Myth can always be fun, but shouldn't be taken for more.

Are we talking about the existence of a Bible Code here? Or are we talking about the existence of God. To each of us, God has such different meanings or questions-- Why argue about that??? And yes, other books have had great impact on humanity as Tom suggested, but unfortunately their messeges were not preached profoundly or spread abundantly. (What a concept, The Odyssesy or Dante's Inferno in every home and hotel room...) And the proof of the Bible Code? Does that take belief in God? I think not. And since I may never learn to interpret Hebrew, I only have the book's credibility, my research and message boards like this to decide.

Anybody have any suggestions?

Colleen

Tom, I do not agree that once one admits that God is not necessary, it is a simple step to conclude that He is not possible. I think the question of the existence of God is rather like the question of the possible existence of alien intelligence in the universe. I don't know if it is true or not. Is it necessary? Not as far as I know. Is it possible? I have no reason to believe it isn't. There has been speculation that our concept of God derives from alien visits in ancient times. Is that possible. I suppose so. Is it necessary. I don't think so. What do I believe. I don't know.

Colleen, I assume you were making reference to a "universal" god. If so, I think I agree with you that proof of the Bible Code would not necessarily require belief in God. But I think it would probably indicate involvement of a superior intelligence of some kind (alien or otherwise, universal or otherwise) with the editing of the Torah (combining the various pre-existing oral traditions, along with additional priestly literature) into its final form around 539 BCE. This assumes that the code, as investigated in the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper, stands up. For reasons I have already stated (peer review etc.), I suspect that it may.

Cliff

Dan, I read your comments in response to Tom's arguments, and I must say that I disagree with practically everything you said. Tom's arguments are much better in this area. For one thing, your "standard of authority" argument really rubbed me the wrong way. First, I don't need a "standard of authority" to decide right and wrong. And precisely what do you mean by "standard of authority" anyway? Was Hitler a "standard of authority"? He certainly did have the support of the church.

And what does this have to do with the Bible Code?

Cliff

Right Cliff, I do agree that if I believe in the Code, I must agree that a superior intelligence or God created it. I'm not sure that I believe in the Code after reading Drosnin's book, but I am definitely wanting for more information and further testing on it. My intitial comment on the existence of God and why we are focused on that "whether or not" question, as opposed to "is the Bible Code real" still remains unanswered.

The question of God will be unanswered for many even if the Bible code stands up to 5 billion tests. It's you're own journey man!

I'm interested in commentary on the methodology of testing. Brendan claims that Moby Dick can produce the same results (have you seen his Web page?)

I want to hear more about the Code and how it works and why it does or doesn't work in other similar length texts.

Dan, did I understand you correctly? Did you say that most of humanity is uneducated and gullible, and that we need God to keep them in line? So, even if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him? In order for the species to survive and not annihilate each other?

Colleen: As I understand from an email from Brendon McKay,the Rips paper wasn't challenged because most mathematicians thought it wasn't worth the effort. He (Brendon) believes that he can refute the Rips arguments, and he is preparing a manuscript for publication. When this manuscript is peer reviewed and accepted (if it is), thenwe will really have something to discuss!

Dawn,

Look at the world as a whole, if you can tell me that out of 5.5 billion people, the majority of them are educated and wise, I will stand corrected. Besides, my main point in my argument is that Secular Humanism is dangerous. I was not intending to prove God's existence. Also, all of my arguments come from the atheist, Nietzche, himself. Nietzhe has demonstrated that athiesm is destructive and not a viable belief.

Cliff, Whether or no you think Tom's arguments are more valid does not mean I am wrong. Besides that, as I stated earlier, all of the arguments come from Nietzche. (You know who he is right?)

Well, Dan, I guess I am just not as cultured as you. Actually, I have heard, or seen the name, Nietzsche, somewhere, but that is all. So I looked the gentleman up in the Encyclopedia. As best I could determine from the encyclopedia article, Nietzsche was gentleman with rather noble thoughts. According to the article, he had an early friendship with Wagner, but became interested in the French enlightenment and broke with Wagner, who despised the French and the enlightenment. (Wagner later returned to Germany to create a Wagnerian cult of which anti-Semitism was an important part.) As best I can determine from the article that I have now just finished, you might have reasonably used Wagner as your bogeyman, but Nietzsche doesn't seem to fit.

Cliff

Back to the Bible code. Dawn, I have trouble with the concept that the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper was ignored because most mathematicians thought it wasn't worth the effort. I am sure that many papers on esoteric subjects are so ignored. But it would seem to me the title of the paper, itself, should have been a red flag to any number of scientist looking for some notoriety. Regarding Brendon McKay's claim, I have no doubt that he can refute the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper. The real question is: can he discredit it?

The problem with discrediting the paper as I understand it, will be that, although the math is over my head, I am told that the calculations are actually relatively simple. (It contains no concepts that only three people in the world understand.) Also, given the nature of the paper, I would strongly suspect that referees assigned to it during the peer review would have take extra care with examining the math before passing on it. My guess is that it will not be possible to discredit it. But I don't know. We shall see, perhaps.

Cliff

Cliff Beall 7/21/97 10:41pm,

I think the question of the existence of God is rather like the question of the possible existence of alien intelligence in the universe. I don't know if it is true or not. Is it necessary? Not as far as I know. Is it possible? I have no reason to believe it isn't.

That would be the case if we were only being philosophical and suggesting that such a thing as God (or aliens) might possibly exist. However, people have absolutely defined God (and in the case of abductions/Roswell, aliens as well), so it is simple to point out the obvious errors in those definitions by proving them contradictory. It is also important to understand the source of the ideas... if they originated in actual phenomena that forced such a conclusion, they would have more bearing on reality than if they originate in philosophical discussion or as a consequence of the human condition to provide psychological comfort. The latter can be said of both God and aliens.

Dan Maranan: <quotes on evolution>

Just 'cos it's difficult for us to comprehend doesn't mean it's not true. It is true that Darwinian evolution is naive and immature, however, evolutionary theory has come a long way. It is also true that no one has seen the process of evolution occuring, although there does exist circumstantial evidence that points to that conclusion.

Dan Maranan: <on vertical and horizontal evolution>

Yes, this is where Tom and I have been disagreeing. My comments have been about vertical evolution while Tom's have been about horizontal evolution. For more insights into why there's so many missing links, try reading Genetic Programming by John Koza.

Cliff Beall: <argument against Neitzcshe>

I think what Neitzcshe was proposing was that he, as an individual, could live without God. Society (which is an organism -- Tom would disagree), however, will die without God 'cos, as Dan has stated, most people are ignorant and immature. I disagree with Neitzche's statement, although I would say that this would happen if God were taken away from the primitive peoples of today (ie cultures).

It is not our secularity that makes this possible. Communist USSR was secular; it did not allow this sort of discussion.

Noel

I finally understand that there is no logic into believing God. Understanding God is about faith and spirituality. But I still believe that there is enough evidence out there to support the existence of God. Of course, those who say the evidence does not exist, simply interpret the findings in a different light.

A large number of people responding and arguing with me have not effectively studied history, philosophy, and religion to fully comprehend the ramifications of the existence of God; nor do they understand the validity in stating that there is a God.

Tom, all of the arguments that I have presented come not from my own mind, but from other philosphers, many who are not thiest but athiest/agnostics. I was hoping that you would recognize the origins of my arguments. I was amazed when you called a lot of what I said as "stupid and ignorant." Would you have called them stupid if Kant himself argued with you? (You do know who he is, right?)

Tom, you are an intelligent person (incidently a genius I.Q. is 140+, my score, 147:143-150.) but you lack the knoweldge to effectively debate your side. You completely rationalize the truth and ignore the arguments.

Open your eyes. Logic is not the only means of finding the truth. In fact, logic is extremely limited. (There are a plenty of arguments in support of this view. The majority of them come from Kant, Ayer, T. Huxley {agnostics}, Hume{skeptic}, and Wittgenstein {thiest in denial.) Again, if you do not know who these individuals are, then you should stop arguing and start reading..

You may think that you have effectively argued, but the only people that will support you are the ignorant and the uneducated. If you were to argue in philsophical academic debates, your ignorance would destroy your credibility.

Here are some examples of your ignorance. To say that the Bible is a myth ignores all of the archaelogical data that proves otherwise. (Have you ever heard of Nebuchadnezzar's inscriptions, Sarbut-el-Khadem, the Djebel Maghara inscriptions, Merneptah Stone, or the Cyrus cylinder?.) To say that Hitler learned the superman theory from the Catholic Church and not from Nietzche and Darwin is "the most ridiculous argument I have heard." To ignore the good of religion proves your ignorance and narrow-mindedness. (The U.S. constitution was grounded in Biblical thought) To say that evolution is a fact ignores the claim by Darwin (a thiest) and all scientist that claim it is only a theory.

Finally, how can you say that there is no God if you do not have a good working knoweledge of history and religion? You have not looked at all of the evience. And if you say that you have, be prepared to answer tons of questions, ranging from the archaelogical data given by Albright, to the epistemolgy of Kierkegard and Kant.

Cliff- How could you not be familiar with Nietzche? If you want really good arguments about athiesm, stop reading Tom's and start reading Nietzche's.

Men who are ignorant are a nuissance. Men who are stubborn are a pest, but men who are ignorant and stubborn are a threat to society.

Tom Anderson - 03:40am Jul 25, 1997 ET (#369 of 387)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...continued>

You can ignore it if you want, but it is absolute truth that the Church was well in accordance with the ideas of Martin Luther who suggested that rulers "...must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did... If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs." This is where Hitler got all his inspiration. This probably inspired the medical experiments on Jews as well. Nietzsche's ideas were used as a justification, but not a cause. And they weren't even really his ideas, but a perversion of them.

Ok, here's one: "...an absurd problem came to the surface: 'How COULD God permit that [crucifixion of Jesus Christ]!'... the deranged reason of the little community found quite a frightfully absurd answer: God gave his Son for forgiveness, as a SACRIFICE... The SACRIFICE FOR GUILT, and just in its most repugnant and barbarous form -- the sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty! What horrifying heathenism!" [Friedrich Nietzsche]

Oh yeah, if you admire this guy so much, then why do you continually misspell his name?

"God is a thought who makes crooked all that is straight." [Friedrich Nietzsche]

"God is dead: but considering the state Man is in, there will perhaps be caves, for ages yet, in which his shadow will be shown." [Friedrich Nietzsche]

And if you're sick of Nietzsche by now, try the greatest of all philosophers: God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion. --Homer Simpson (#100, 1994)

Tom

Dan, I was getting geared up for an in depth study of Nietzsche, since it was beginning to appear to me that there might be something here with which I might learn, when it suddenly occurred to me, why bother. Although Nietzsche may have had a fairly significant influence on a few German and French philosophers, in the grand scheme of things, his influence is, and will be continue to be, small.

Anyway, it is a lot more fun to study the relationship of Zoroastrianism and post-exilic apocalyptic Judaism. If it is assumed, as clearly suggested by most Old Testament Bible scholars, that Zoroaster had a direct influence on post-exilic Judaism, as opposed to merely anticipating it, Zoroaster must have had a more profound effect on Christian thought than all the philosophers and religious authors in the last thousand years, put together (even when Nietzsche is included in the group!).

The opportunity for post-exilic Judaism to have been directly influenced by Zoroastrianism seem clear. Furthermore, the parallels are astounding. Consider the following teachings of Zoroaster, commonly referred to as Persian Dualism: a power of good, Ahura Mazda, with his band of six archangels, other angels, and lesser divinities, in constant conflict with a power of evil, Ahriman, with his band of six archfiends, other demons, and lesser fiends. According to Zoroastrianism, the world's history is divided into four 3 thousand year periods. The third period is the one in which Zoroaster appears. In the last period, the last of three sons, Saoshyant, or Savior, is born and, in a final battle, the forces of Ahriman are finally defeated, and forever after, good reigns.

Some interesting parallels are:

The entities, archangels and angels, that came to surround Yahweh in post-exilic times have a remarkable similarity to the consorts of Ahura Mazda.

The figure of Satan, whether an invention of post-exilic Judaism or an direct adaptation from Ahriman, has a remarkable resemblance to Ahriman.

The figure of the Messiah, originally considered to be a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant.

Other points of similarity are, the millennia, the resurrection, the last judgement, the final transformation of earth, paradise on earth or in heaven, hell, and the heavenly book in which human actions are written.

By the way, Tom, I love the Jefferson quote: "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong," but the Hobbes, the Tiger: "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" is even better.

Cliff

Regarding the US Constitution and Religion

As I have said on other occasion, the founding Fathers may not have been "religiou men", but the moral-social concepts making up the US constitution and the democratic constitution in general are rooted in religion:

Montesqieue's (uh, I can never spell that!) concept on division of powers as in the Spirit of the Laws and even the Persian Letters is a big part of it; the concept of Human Rights, as formulated in the Assembly's declarion during the French revolution is a big part of it; the Britons' ancient tradition of customary law is a big part of it.

More....

Dave, you have made your point and have made it abundantly. It is true that there is much about the Bible that is unattractive. My personal opinion is that one of the most unattractive parts of the entire Bible is the racial purity arguments of Ezra. (If you haven't read the last two chapters of Ezra lately, read them again, and I think you will see what I mean.) However, there are other parts of the Bible that are incredibly beautiful. For example, there is the Book of Ruth. Many Old Testament Bible scholars believe that the book of Ruth was written in opposition to the racial purity of Ezra, for it makes the point that the great grandmother of David, himself, was a Mobite woman. It doesn't matter. The Book of Ruth is one of the great love stories of all time, a most noble work.

Of course, there are four books from the pen of Ezra (or perhaps a close disciple of Ezra): I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, and there is only one book by the author of Ruth to counter. But the Book of Ruth is there. Also, it should be noted that the Book of Job contains some of the great poetry ever conceived by man. While you might not approve, I must confess that I often read the Book of the Judges for pleasure. The Song of Deborah in Chapter 5 is most remarkable. I also find much that is attractive in the Gospels, particularly the Gospel of Mark, and, in particular, the parables of Jesus. My favorite parable is the parable of the good Samaritan.

Rossitza, I don't agree that our "moral-social concepts making up the US constitution and the democratic constitution in general are rooted in religion." I think you confuse religion with moral principle. (There is a difference.)

Cliff

Blah, blah, blah, yackity, shmackity! You are so way off course. Please get back on track with this discussion. This is supposed to be about the codes. Quit chasing the rabbits.

Cliff Beall:

My general point was that social rules and laws, including the US constitution, are rooted in "religious parables", if you will. Tell me why is killing bad? Who said it is bad? What is bad?

To give (random) examples of my point that religion = moral concepts (o.k - approximates): God is great and good. Athens is pure and good. Hell is dirty and bad. In fact, so far as Greek Heroic mythology, one of the first religious platforms, is concerned, religion defined and was moral rules. I have no space to expand on it, but I think "Gods and Godesses, Heroines and Heroes" by C. Ruck (I see you appreciate beautifull language - you may like this one) and "Persephony's Quest" as well as a closer look at the Eastern Yoga literature may make my point more acceptable to you. (I only mention those because the subject is large and they make the point much better than I)

However what I sense in general is the unwillingness to let religion interfere with society. This is my impression here in the US. It is considered, hmmmm, almost below the pride (dangerous?) of the whole social institution to admit it has anything to do with religion. I have my thoughts on it, but this is a different issue.

You argue there is a difference between religion and morality, While I may accept a certain compromise between the two concepts, I am all attention as to what do you think the difference is?

But Donna is right, this discussion is entirley esoteric and off the line. Well, as for the Bible Code and its predictions, the "Palestine- Land of Conflict" site I think badly needs it.

Donna,

You are absolutely right. This is the Bible code message board, and the Bible code is supposed to be the main topic. But there are side issues. For example, Tom Anderson says that the Bible code is impossible. As I understand his argument, and with apologies to Tom, it goes something like this: (1) In order for the Bible code to exist in Genesis not by chance, God must have placed them there. (2) However, God does not exist, because an examination of the concept of God reveals a paradox which is impossible. (3) Since God does not exist, the Bible code can not exist.

It is true that a discussion of the components of this argument is not strictly "on the subject," but it bears on the subject, and I think it is appropriate to discuss it on this board.

I would also point out that in the past couple of weeks, I think it is fair to say that I have addressed the Bible code issue considerably more than anyone else. In support of this, I provide the following summary of my posts in which I have discussed, specifically, one or more aspects of the Bible code:

(320 & 321) In this first (two part) post, I argued that Mr Drosnin, contrary to his claims, is, in fact, a true believer, and I think it is intellectually dishonest for a true believer to claim to be a skeptic. (I think the book by Mr. Drosnin is dishonest, and, therefore, trash.) However, I do not think this dishonesty extends to the paper by Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg. And I attacked Tom's paradox argument pointing out the paradoxes in Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

(330) In response to Dave, I discussed my thoughts on the possibility of alien intelligence being responsible for the codes. In response to Tom, I indicated that I was not aware that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics had been discredited and suggested that he read the paper by Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg so that he could address what it says, not what it does not say.

(334) In response to Tom's subsequent post and his apparent unwillingness to read the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper so that he could address what it actually says, I attempted to describe the experiment for him. In response to Dawn, I said that I thought Carl Sagan would take a similar position on the scientific paper as I have.

(336) In response to Dan, I said that I had not read the "The Signature of God" by Grant Jeffrey, a "Christian" version of the "Bible Code," but that I had read a critical review to it by a Mr. Mechanic (and consultants) on the net which convinced me that I probably would not be interested. Also, in this post, I revealed that I am an agnostic, and provided reasons for my belief system.

(343) In response to Tom, I said that I did not agree that once one admits that God is not necessary, it is a simple step to conclude that He is not possible and compared it to belief in alien intelligence in the universe. In response to Colleen, I agreed with her that proof of the Bible Code would not necessarily require belief in God, but that I thought it would probably indicate involvement of a superior intelligence of some kind.

(355) In response to Dawn, and in regards to Brendon McKay's claim to be able to refute the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper, I suggested that the real question is: can he discredit it? and I gave reason why I thought he probably would not be able to discredit the paper.

Donna, if you have anything new to add, please share. I will be happy to comment. If you find fault with anything I have said with regards to the Bible code, please advise, and I will try to defend. If I find my position is untenable, I will abandon the position.

Cliff

Rossitza,

In most cases, the essential difference between moral principle and the teachings of religion is similar to the difference between a car and a Ford: a Ford is a car, but a car in not necessarily a Ford. Consider this sentence:

"If I am going to drive to California, I need a Ford."

Actually, you probably don't really need a Ford, but you do need a car. Having said that, I must note that not all religions teach moral principle. Some teach just the opposite, and most have teachings that have nothing to do with moral principles. Consider the following two statements:

You shall not steal. If you do you shall suffer a penalty.

You shall practice circumcision. If you do not, you shall suffer a penalty.

The first involves a moral principle. (I do not want you to steal from me. I will, therefore, agree not to steal from you--in order to get agreement from you that you will not steal from me.) To enforce this moral principle, we both agree to a penalty as a matter of law.

The second, regarding circumcision, is simply a religious rite that has nothing to do with any moral principle. But it has been imposed in other cultures, as a matter of religion, nevertheless. Thankfully, our constitution and laws do not include any such requirement to participate in such religious rites.

Cliff

Tom Anderson - 06:24pm Jul 27, 1997 ET (#396 of 407)396
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Rossitza Marinina 7/26/97 11:25pm,

Your historical break-down of religious ideas is insightful (or inciteful :) but you are assuming that people get their ideas only from their predecessors without any original thought of their own. You cannot tell me that our founding fathers based their entire ideology on the Greek Stoics... they had plenty of their own opinions. Most of their ideas came from the emerging concept of Deism. They dismissed the biblical God, for the same reasons I have, but still attributed him to the "first cause" (which I disagree with). But either way, they saw that God did not make our laws and that we alone were responsible for the structure of our civilization. Also, you cannot say that because the bible has some moral positions in common with our founding fathers that they used the bible to obtain them. It just so happens that some of those biblical concepts still apply, even though most do not. But it is entirely possible, and most probable, that they came up with those principles on their own simply because they are necessary. "Thou shalt not kill" is just as important now, not because it was said by God (or Moses), but because civilization cannot exist when its citizens routinely kill each other. So I will repeat: our Constitution has no basis in Christianity or on the Bible.

Cliff Beall 7/27/97 12:41am,

I don't think his point was simply to show that it is unattractive, but that it is the work of Man and not the work of God. That is how it applies to the Bible Code discussion. And you, yourself, seem to agree. You show that many different parts were written by different people, and that they liberally used their own opinions, and not that of God. So, the point seems to be that there can be no truth to a Bible Code found in the work of a very ignorantly opinionated set of authors.

There is an AP press release byline David Briggs saying that the Bible Code is a hoax, according to Ronald Hendel, a biblical scholar from SMU (Dallas). In an article he wrote for the "Bible Review" Hendel says the project was flawed from the outset because no one has the original text of the Bible, and all ancient manuscripts of the Bible that are available differ in the number of letters. In a second Bible Review article, Schlomo Sternberg, an Orthodox rabbi who holds the George Putnam Chair in pure and applied mathematics at Harvard states that in any sufficiently long text one could always find hidden messages using equally spaced letters. Sternberg has worked with another mathematician (probably Brendon McKay, who isn't mentioned in the press release) and found 13 predicted assassinations of public figures in "Moby Dick." In English, with vowels! The ancient Hebrew texts don't have any vowels--the reader must fill in for himself. Also I understand that most Hebrew letters also stand for numbers, which can explain why dates are so easily found. Since I assume Herman Melville was not God, I assume God didn't put any codes in Genesis, either. The editor of the journal that published the original paper by Rips et al. (Statistical Science) said the publication's editors remained skeptical, but it was a mystifying mathematical puzzle.

About the only thing we can predict for sure is that Drosnin will get rich!

And Tom, thanks for all those fascinating quotes from Tom Paine. I had always held Thomas Jefferson as my deist ideal, but I may have been idealizing the wrong man.

Tom,

1)I never said that the Founding Fathers personally consulted the Greek Stoics. I only said that the social concepts, such the one of law itself and internaional law (of nations, as conceived by the Greek city states) can be and is traced down to the Stoics. But, you are right that in itself is not a big deal - many applied those concepts before France, or US also. The Stoics by the way were thinkers for the pleasure of it, they were not politicians and had no clue that their abstarct inventions would live such a long life.

You say the Fathers "had plenty of their own opinions." I suspect I must have diminished them somehow in my message- in any case this was not intended. They must have, they adjusted the legal code and also had plenty of political talent - linked to the unique British expertise.

And so what that the Fathers denounced Christianity (and the preceeding religions), the state laws around the world, even if violated right and left, still follow the general religious parables and I would ask which came first they or the law?

Also Wilson's 14 point underlying present law of the Sea and the Space ("free equitable access to the sea") is a word for word copy of the Hugo Grotius preamble in his "Law of the Free Sea" written in the beginning of the 17th c. And Grotius was not a preacher, but a practical man, a lawyer, appointed Attorney General of the Kingdom of Netherlands at age 25. He was also extrmely religious thinker and said that God's law (or naturla law) underlay relations between people and states also. So what that he was relgious, his concepts still aplly in legal practice. (See 2)

2) The US constitution, and legal codes in general -international law for instance- have roots in

A)the relgious law, or "natural law", today called "general law"; and

B)positive law, a agreement by concent -customs, treaties- or in the case of a single state - popular soveregnty. General law, or natural (religious) law did preceed the positive law, and by many centuries. (This distinction was also made by Grotius in early 17th c.)

For the Int. Law example, open the UN Charter and you will see it, I think in Art.39."Sources of Int Law". The Charter was composed by prominent Washington layers upon the end of WWII very much in line with the American (and European) leagal tradition.

3) Civilization is responsible for its own destiny: My, you are getting into the big argument of Free Will. Well the good news for you and for me is that the world is not deterministic so we can never say for sure are we what we think or not. That is a whole different argument however.

Now, I am not a religious phanatic, I am not watching Mother Angelique on Boston Catholic TV. I only think religion palys a certain role - a big role in history. Here in the US this is not a popular view, as I learn.

Regards everyone, Rossitza P.S. Have you read the Amazing Hypothesis by F. Krik?

Tom, you really got me when you said, "I don't think his point was simply to show that it is unattractive, but that it is the work of Man and not the work of God. That is how it applies to the Bible Code discussion. And you, yourself, seem to agree..."

Okay, I have to admit that you wiped me out on that one. Score a point for Tom. I didn't even see it coming, and I admire the class with which it was done. But it doesn't change anything. I have never believed the paper by Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg because I thought God put the code in Genesis when he "dictated" it to Moses. On the contrary, I accept the prevailing opinion by OT scholars that the first four books of the Bible were edited into their final form around 539 BCE. (Deuteromomy had already been "found" in the Temple around 622 BCE as reported in II Kings 22-8.)

However, I continue to maintain a suspicion that the odds calculated for the word pairs in the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper may be correct. If they are correct, it is just a matter of time until they are confirmed to be correct.

Why do I have this suspicion? I have been given to understand that the math used in the calculations is relatively simple, the kind that any competent mathematician will understand. Also, given the nature of the paper, I would strongly suspect that the three referees sequentially assigned to it during the peer review process would have taken special care with examining the math before passing on it. I know that I would were I in that position. The changes that one of the referees requested (mainly a change in the criteria for inclusions of the names to be used in the experiment), as reported by the paper, are the kind of changes that I would expect a careful referee would request. I suppose it is possible that they were all three fooled. But I doubt that.

Dawn, it sound to me like your "experts" are arguing against Drosnin's book, not the paper. If so, I agree with them. If not, they need to publish with peer review.

Cliff

Cliff: I am a biologist who has been both peer reviewer and reviewee. As such, I know that peer review is not absolute truth. Occasionally, peer-reviewed papers are even retracted--but the retractions never get the attention of the original paper. What is needed is for several different groups to try to analyze the same data, and let the rest of us rely on the preponderance of the evidence. I suspect that even in math, there are possibilities that are related to interpretation--especially when trying to apply mathematical analysis to a lanaguage like ancient Hebrew, which has no vowels and in which letters can equal numbers.

Dawn, I understand your point about peer reviews not being infallible. But, I have a strong suspicion that the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper received closer scrutiny than most papers. (Have any of your papers been subjected to three peer reviews?)

Regarding the authors you cited: Ronald Hendel appears to be saying that since ancient texts of the Bible differ, the study must be flawed. But I fail to see this necessity. The experiment was performed on one text only: the so called standard one referred to as "Textus Receptus." Obviously, the experiment applies only to that text, not to the others of which Mr. Hendel refers. So how does that make the study "flawed"? Schlomo Sternberg's study of Moby Dick is as ridiculous as it sounds, and just as extraneous. Tell me something I don't already know.

Neither explain why the math in the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper applied to the "Textus Receptus" text indicates significance when control texts do not indicate significance. That Robert E. Kass remains skeptical is not surprising. He was skeptical from the beginning and published the paper with the disclaimer that "Our referees were baffled...yet when the authors carried out additional analyses and checks the effect persisted." Calling it a mathematical puzzle is an indication that while he remains skeptical, he still hasn't found anything wrong with the paper.

Cliff

I agree. I do believe in evolution, but I can also understand some peoples' disbeliefs 'cos no one has actually witnessed it happening.

Cliff: Well, I have had papers turned down by one journal and accepted by another, so that is two peer reviews that differed. I don't know the history of the Witzmum et al peer review--was it three times by the same 2-3 reviewers or three times by three different sets of reviewers? In any event, it needs to be confirmed or refuted by others, also in peer reviewed journals. With all of the publicity, I think it will be, both of the above!

If only the Textus Receptus contains the codes, and the only thing coded is the names and birth and death dates of Hebrew sages, is this important to anyone but Jews? Jews don't proselytize (bless them) nor do they believe in an afterlife as far as I can tell. Neither do I, but what significance does the information have to them or to the rest of us?

Hey, Dawn! Go away your no good for me -- true science that is. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny went out the way of spontaneous generation of life. Oh yea, sorry, you evolutionists still believe in that one, too, even though Pasteur nailed ya'll to the wall on that. Yes, what a great faith you evolutionists have. You deny the most axiomatic laws of science as well as a vast amount of other evidences against evolution.

Darwin said that the "theory" of evolution will stand or fall based on finding those irrefutable intermidiate links in the fossil record. I think by now he would have changed his mind. No good evolutionist uses the fossil record to argue in favor of it anyway -- it's a trade secret that the links don't exist. What they say now is that evolution happened too fast to have been recorded and yet that it's happening to slowly to ever have been witnessed. Now, what's that tell you?

Concerning recapitulation, the so called yolk sac produces the first blood cells, so called gill slits have been renamed pharyngeal pouches because they develop into eustachian tubes, the thymus, and parathyroid glands, and on and on. It has been soundly refuted by credible scientists.

I suppose you are still in the dark age concerning vestigal organs as well.

Rather than continuing to bash your anti-knowledge, I would prefer to lead you to the truth so you can rightfully call yourself a biologist. Try reading Darwin's Black Box, by Michael J. Behe. You obviously have been brainwashed thus losing critical thinking skills, and this is of concern to all because presuppositions of evolutionary thinking have been a malignancy retarding true scientific discovery.

Dawn, my understanding is that there were three peer reviews performed sequencially with one reviewer per peer review. All were positive in the sense that all reported that the effect reported by the paper appeared to be real. The apparent reason three consecutive peer reviews were performed was because the editor was (and remains) a skeptic. Thus, when the first review came back positive, he sent it to a different referee for a second review. When the second one came back positive, he sent it out to a third referee. When that one also came back positive, he published the paper with the disclaimer. (But, at least, he did publish it.)

Also, my understanding is that the peer review period lasted about 3 years. Among the changes requested by the referees during the review process was a new sample of names. Originally the paper use the names and dates of the 34 most famous Jewish sages in the last 2000 years. After the requested change, it used the names and dates of 20 less famous sages. But, according to the authors--and the referees--the effect persisted. Other changes requested by the referees was additional control texts, including additional randomizations of the Genesis text, the "Book of Issiah" and a Hebrew translation of "War and Peace."

What is it good for? Perhaps nothing. But, along with results from the double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics and other strangeness in nature, it certainly is interesting. (I probably ought to mention that the weird behavior observed in the double slit experiment is actually a characteristic of nature, not quantum mechanics. But it is generally referred to as an experiment in quantum mechanics because it is correctly predicted by quantum theory.)

Cliff

Just to make sure I understand. You're saying that the code exists no matter what theory we propose to explain it just like the double slit behaviour exists no matter what theory we propose to explain it?

Cliff: Please verify your data as to which text the Bible Code is based on. "Textus Receptus" refers to the Greek text of the New Testament, and the way I understand it, the Bible Code is based on Hebrew (Old Testament). Or is there a Greek Bible Code as well? I believe the Old Testament text you might be thinking of is the "Hebrew Massoretic Text" which is often identified with the Textus Receptus as both are theologically conservative, and both the basis for English Bibles before the 1700's.

Noel, yes, that is exactly what I think. But, I must confess that until I saw your question, I had not thought of it in quite that way. Thanks.

Actually, I mentioned the double slit experiment only because, after finishing the previous paragraph, I realized that the post was getting longer than I had intended it to get, and most of what I was saying in it, I had said before. In short, I was becoming bored with my own words, and I felt an impulse to get it over with.

I remembered the weirdness of the double slit experiment and decided to mention it as an interesting side note while wrapping up. But then I remembered that Tom would see it. (I had previously mentioned the paradoxes in quantum mechanics to Tom, and here I was, again, repeating myself.) Then, suddenly, it occurred to me that the weirdness of the experiment was not a result of quantum theory, but rather, it was an innate characteristic of nature. Life was fun again. I wrote it down, read it, and found that I liked it. But until I saw your question, I don't think I really knew why. Thanks again.

Philip, all I can say is that my source is the Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg paper, itself. Please refer to: "A.4 The Text." The authors describe Textus Receptus as "the standard, generally accepted text of Genesis" and mentioned that "One widely available edition is that of the Koren Publishing Company in Jerusalem." (I figured the authors knew what text they used. But if you can show the authors didn't even know the text they were using, it might bring other parts of the paper in question.)

Cliff

Tom Anderson - 10:54am Jul 31, 1997 ET (#414 of 417)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff, quantum mechanics is nature, and vice versa. But God is not, nor is a Bible Code (well, they are, but rather man-made nature). The Code only exists in people's heads.

Tom

Man is very good at abstraction. Quantum mechanics is (so far) one of the pinnacles of this talent. Nature is nature, quantum mechanics is an abstraction -- if it weren't, there'd be no unexplained phenomenon within it or in nature. Nature, the laws of physics, will exist whether or not we have quantum mechanics or, for that matter, whether or not we are around. By saying that quantum mechanics is nature, your saying that the theory is the law.

The Bible Code may or may not exist. It sounds like the statistics is inconclusive. One, therefore, either has faith that it exists or it doesn't exist.

Nature, the laws of physics, will exist whether...

Like I said. Quantum mechanics will exist whether we recognize it or not, whether we exist or not.

Saying "quantum mechanics" is just another way of saying "the laws of physics" is just another way of saying "nature". They are all human terms, and they all describe the same thing. The Bible was once used as descriptive of nature, but it is no longer adequate since the discovery of science. No, the Bible Code does not exist, for the same reason that Santa's sleigh doesn't exist; the being to create it does not exist.

Tom

Quantum mechanics is a theory. Theories do not exist without man. How can the abstraction E=mc2 (which is incomplete, BTW) exist without man? As a theory, it is always changing (E2=m2c4+p2c2, for example), the laws of physics do not (supposedly).

Tom Anderson - 09:27pm Jul 31, 1997 ET (#418 of 425)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

I'm not sure where you are mentally dividing "quantum mechanics" from "physics", for they are one in the same. The "laws" we define are only laws to us. Yes, nature acts in this fashion, so we record the way it works. Nothing is "theory" in the way you describe the word, but rather a logical analysis of observation. It is nature. We describe the way we percieve nature. "E=mc2" is the same as "nature"; both are the combination of basic units of language... one is math, the other is English. The meaning we attribute to these words that we ourselves constructed is derived from the very phenomena they were created to describe. To say that "quantum mechanics" is other than "nature" is nonsense... both are human constructions built on the horizon of perception. The only difference is the way in which these two things describe the same thing; "nature" describes "what" is, while "quantum mechanics" or "physics" describes "how" it is. Neither is dynamic, only in how we assign meaning. And that is as "spiritual" as I get :oP

Tom

What the bible code tells us, if anything, is that math itself is an invention and not an absolute. In other words math itself had to be concieved and yet it could not ever have been nonexistent because everything hinges on it but yet things like this prove that it is really putty in the hands of its maker and that it too is an invention and had to be concieved and created and that conception and creation is way beyond our minds which are warped. But also know that as people become aware of the God factor they'll see other socalled coincidences that will make these look like easy odds. I've seen many myself and can tell you that they exist. But all the coincidences mentioned are the work of who knows? The coincidences themselves do point to the God factor but the fortunetelling aspect is not of the Lord. Its not scriptural. And runs against same. I say that hypocritcally because I do get cur- ious and look at predictions etc which I think are not scriptural but generally it all usally only contains some truth and just confuses people. Nevertheless all the things that scientist hold dear can be taken by the maker and bent around and turned upon the scientists to the point that they'll be dismayed and say it could never happen. These words are truth as I know it. In the middle of eternity can anyone event happen? So therefore when you just read that word you read it for the trillionth time so to speak. There is not anything new. Mike Dillingham