Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mathematics bombshell: God 'confirmed in Bible'
World Net Daily ^ | December 12, 2004

Posted on 12/12/2004 3:07:51 AM PST by The Loan Arranger

For a lot of people, the Bible and mathematics are dry subjects, but not for Edwin Sherman – he believes he's found how the two fit together.

Sherman, founder of the Isaac Newton Bible Code Research Society and a professional mathematician, is convinced that the Hebrew Bible contains coded messages that are evidence of God's authorship of the Bible. His book, "Bible Code Bombshell: Compelling Scientific Evidence that God Authored the Bible," describes numerous examples of encoded phrases and sentences that are both lengthy and relevant to the text where they were found.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: atheist; bible; jehovah; jesuschrist; mathematics; ssdd; truth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 481-486 next last
To: Quix
THE ARTICLE YOU POSTED HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY REFUTED IN A QUALITY SCIENTIFIC WAY.

Why, because you say so, IN BIG CAPITAL LETTERS? Ooookay...

Those seriously interested in the truth will find and read the refutation.

...and they'll also read the refutation of the "refutation" -- a link to which can be found in the very same post. Note that "Quix" fails to address its contents.

Your article is basically . . . hogwash.

Wow, what a masterful, point-by-point rebuttal. Oh, wait, no it's not.

As someone recently said, "Actually, I'm exceedingly underwhelmed by your logic and by your skills."

So far you've exhibited only the ability to a) cut-and-paste large chunks of someone else's analysis, and b) issue childish rejoinders and insults in your own words.

Question: Do you actually have the ability to fully analyze and evaluate the mathematical arguments made by each side in this issue? Or are you just cutting-and-pasting the ones which agree with what you already believe, without personally being able to vouch for their validity?

Your tendency to treat as gospel (no pun intended) the papers on "your" side and to denounce as 100% trash the papers on the opposing side (especially when both sides, as usual, make some good points and have some weaknesses), makes it appear that you're doing the latter instead of the former.

Let's see you make a statistical argument supporting your claims, IN YOUR OWN WORDS and USING YOUR OWN CALCULATIONS, while STATING YOUR PREMISES IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

Barring that, I can only conclude that making my own rebuttals to your "argument by cut-and-paste" will just be a waste of my time, due to your inability to understand what I write, or to respond with anything other than another huge "cut-and-paste" which may or may not actually address what I write.

But for just a taste of rebuttal in my own words, let's take an argument that is made several times at length in your cut-and-pasted material -- that the "codes" found in the Torah are larger or more "intersected" than the ones provided by the critics. This is just... goofy, and proves nothing whatsoever. Drosnin has spent *years* digging for "codes" in order to sell his books. The critics obviously aren't going to spend that much time making counterexamples. Of *course* their examples will be smaller. That's not the point of their demonstrations, nor is the fact that Drosnin has put together a few more complex ones any "proof" that there's anything special to be found skipping letters in the Torah. At most it means that the longer and harder you look, the more you can find.

And the "Torah versus the critics" examples in your cut-and-pasted material DISHONESTLY compares a more *complex* example from the Torah against one of the *simpler* examples from the critics instead of one of the more *complex* and interlaced ones. For example, it ignores a more complicated example such as this one, which "finds" codes in the Hebrew edition of Tolstoy's War and Peace "fortelling" of the Shoemaker-Levy comet impact on Jupiter, IN MUCH MORE DETAIL than Drosnin's "Jupiter code" from the Torah

Quick now, calculate for us, by using Sherman and Jacobi's methods, of the odds against *that* appearing in such a small piece of secular text, including *twelve* intersections... (if you're able)

361 posted on 12/13/2004 2:41:05 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Gordon

Glad I scrolled down.
You beat me to it fair and square.


362 posted on 12/13/2004 2:41:50 PM PST by BlueNgold (Feed the Tree .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I have another thread I started a few minutes ago. I need to check responses. I'll PING you.


363 posted on 12/13/2004 2:42:29 PM PST by concretebob (but what do I know, I'm just an ignorant peasant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: concretebob
Ok, take a look at these and give us a reasonable explanation.

College kids having fun.

364 posted on 12/13/2004 2:43:38 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Quix
I still haven't seen you admit to any lack of thoroughness or lack of study of the topic.

Why should I "admit" to a falsehood?

365 posted on 12/13/2004 2:48:30 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
If God were to put "proof" of his existance in the Bible, then why not give something unequivical such as "The Sun is a Star",

Or the Babel Fish.

The Babel Fish is small, yellow, and simultaneously translates from one spoken language to another.
When inserted into the ear, its nutrition processes convert sound waves into brain waves, neatly crossing the language divide between any species you should happen to meet whilst travelling in space.
Some say that the evolution of the Babel fish could not have been accidental, and hence that it proves the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this:
God says, "I refuse to provide proof of my existence for proof would deny faith and without faith, I am nothing."
"But ahhhh," says man, "the Babel Fish is a dead give away. It proves you exist, therefore you don't, QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that." and vanishes in a puff of logic.

- - The Hitchhiiker's Guide to The Galaxy

366 posted on 12/13/2004 2:52:40 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (All I ask from livin' is to have no chains on me. All I ask from dyin' is to go naturally.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I'm sooooo impressed that you ALWAYS follow your own exhortations!

LOL

/sar

BTW, it's not my habit to get into detailed responses and rebuttles with naysayers on issues I've already made up my mind about.

Have fun with someone else.

I have noticed that you didn't start any quality point by point anything first . . . Fascinating.


367 posted on 12/13/2004 2:58:52 PM PST by Quix (5having a form of godliness but denying its power. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: concretebob

Whheeeeee!


368 posted on 12/13/2004 2:59:28 PM PST by Quix (5having a form of godliness but denying its power. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

BTW, I passed statistics well enough. But it's not exactly my joy. I use SPSS and let it go at that, usually.

Of course given a dissertation collecting more than 1,000 variables . . . . it's not exactly a foreign topic, to me!

LOL.


369 posted on 12/13/2004 3:00:29 PM PST by Quix (5having a form of godliness but denying its power. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Good for you.

You could have fooled me!


370 posted on 12/13/2004 3:01:16 PM PST by Quix (5having a form of godliness but denying its power. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 365 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Which part of the trouncing of McKay et al did you not understand?

I understood it just fine -- and because I understood it, I realized that the attempted "trouncing" did not succeed, and for the most part wasn't even aimed at the actual target.

Have you actually *read* the McKay paper? If so, it's hard to understand why you would post so much material that actually had so little to do with their actual points.

Here's an outline from the paper itself:

This paper scrutinizes almost every aspect of the alleged result. After a brief exposition of WRR's work in Sections 2 and 3, we demonstrate in Section 4 that WRR's method for calculating significance has serious flaws. In Section 5 we question the quality of WRR's data. Most importantly, we show that the data was very far from tightly defined by the rules of their experiment. Rather, there was enormous "wiggle room" available, especially in the choice of names for the famous rabbis. The literature contains a considerable number of variations in names and their spellings, as well as other appellations such as nicknames and acronyms, but WRR used only a fraction of them. WRR also had substantial choice in other aspects of the experiment, including the method of analysis.

It is valid to raise the question of whether this lack of tightness in the design of the experiment is at the heart of the result. In precise terms, we ask two questions:

Was there enough freedom available in the conduct of the experiment that a small significance level could have been obtained merely by exploiting it?

Is there any evidence for that exploitation?

The first question is answered armatively in Section 6, where we employ a small part of the same freedom to construct an alternative data set that appears to produce an equally small significance level using the text of War and Peace instead of the text of Genesis. To answer the second question, in Section 7 we examine a very large number of minor variations on WRR's experiment and nd that the result becomes weaker in the great majority of cases. This appears very unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting that WRR's data suffers from systematic bias. This theory is supported in Section 8, which shows that WRR's data also matches common naive statistical expectations to an extent unlikely to be accidental.

In Sections 9 and 10, we discuss other ELS experiments. We report that the other experiments claimed to have detected "codes" suffer from the same problems as beset the experiment in WRR94. In contrast, all of our own experiments failed to find any trace of a non-chance ELS phenomenon. Finally, in Section 11 we describe what is known about the history of the text of Genesis, and conclude that no "codes" in the original text could have survived the long process of textual transmission from the original edition to what we have today.

The massive cut-and-pastes you've provided address practically *none* of this...

So I must ask you in return: Which part of McKay et al did you not understand?

For that matter, which parts did you actually bother to even *read*?

371 posted on 12/13/2004 3:20:29 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Quix
BTW, it's not my habit to get into detailed responses and rebuttles with naysayers on issues I've already made up my mind about.

Obviously.

372 posted on 12/13/2004 3:21:52 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: Quix

"Drosnin is a quack.

His codes rarely if ever meet current criteria.

His being a quack does not negate authentic professionals."

Drosnin is a journalist. Nothing more, nothing less. He has no codes. He makes no claims for intelligble words that he finds.



373 posted on 12/13/2004 3:45:22 PM PST by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: puppetz

. "....There are numerous reasons why the entire experiment is flawned, not the least of which is that the Bible has gone through numerous revisions, edits, collections of writings,...."


You don't know what you are talking about.

The "bible" in question is The Torah itself. You don't seem to know the difference between the Torah and the new testament ie;King James

The Torah IS UNCHANGED from it's first appearance to this moment. NOT ONE CHARACTER IS DIFFERENT---NOT ONE.


374 posted on 12/13/2004 3:49:44 PM PST by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: concretebob
All I have to do is read the Book of Enoch, and the conversations between Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, to know the Flood is real.

Also, all you have to do is read the Book of Enoch, to know that the Earth is flat, is covered with a solid sky dome, stars are tortured over fires as punishment if they don't rise and set on time, and so on.

Here's a list of "questionable" items from Enoch I made in a prior post:

It's pretty vague... My source renders this as:

And beyond these mountains Is a region the end of the great earth: there the heavens were completed. And I saw a deep abyss, with columns of heavenly fire, and among them I saw columns of fire fall, which were beyond measure alike towards the height and towards the depth. And beyond that abyss I saw a place which had no firmament of the heaven above, and no firmly founded earth beneath it: there was no water upon it, and no birds, but it was a waste and horrible place. I saw there seven stars like great burning mountains, and to me, when I inquired regarding them, The angel said: 'This place is the end of heaven and earth: this has become a prison for the stars and the host of heaven. And the stars which roll over the fire are they which have transgressed the commandment of the Lord in the beginning of their rising, because they did not come forth at their appointed times. And He was wroth with them, and bound them till the time when their guilt should be consummated (even) for ten thousand years.'
Hmm, a hell for stars which didn't rise punctually, where they are tortured with fire... Must be pretty hot to torture a star, since stars are awfully hot normally...

In any case, the "no sky and no earth" passage just seems to indicate that this was beyond the edge of the outer rims of the "Earth", and thus the comment about "This place is the end of heaven and earth" seems less like a promise of universal annihilation than a simple observation about it being past "city limits" (i.e., beyond the edge of the earth and sky).

So in summation, I'm not sure if any of these passages from Enoch represent any real premonitions of modern cosmology. Most seem like pretty typical observations and presumptions for a person of that period (although clearly someone spent a lot of time making careful daily notes over the course of at least a year, and deserves much credit for that).

But there are a number of other passages that make it pretty clear that the author was working from his own human observations and surmises instead of any Special Knowledge From On High...

The first problem is that any complete reading of the book of Enoch makes totally inescapable the conclusion that the author is describing a "flat Earth with a hard bowl-shaped sky dome over it" scenario. Unlike similar passages which can be found in the books actually incorporated into the Bible which can be argued away as possibly metaphorical, in Enoch it's described in way too much careful detail for it to be read as anything other than a literal claim of a flat Earth covered by a sky dome in which the Sun and Moon and stars run their paces. The author even describes exactly how many doors and windows are in the sky dome, and where, to let the Sun/Moon/stars/winds/waters in and out, and which doors the Sun uses on which days of the year, etc. His cosmology is this:

(The above picture is from this web page, which also has a good list of the ways in which Enoch clearly influenced the writers of parts of the Bible.)

Needless to say, I don't think that counts as "statements about astronomy which are strangely accurate".

Other passages that probably seemed like good ideas at the time but which turned out not to be the case:

1. "And they took me to the living waters, and to the fire of the west, which receives every setting of the sun." (Chapter 17). No, the Sun does not set upon a place of fire. The Earth just keeps rotating and the Sun doesn't land anywhere.

2. "I saw the treasuries of all the winds." (Chapter 18). Wind isn't kept in treasuries.

3. "And I saw the corner-stone of the earth." (Ch. 18). The Earth doesn't have a cornerstone. It might if it were flat, but...

4. "I saw the winds of heaven which turn and bring the circumference of the sun and all the stars to their setting." (Ch. 18). Wind doesn't move the Sun and stars around, they appear to move because the Earth rotates.

5. "From thence I went to another place to the west of the ends of the earth." (Ch. 23). The Earth doesn't have "ends", and if you keep going West you only circle the Earth.

6. "And to the east of those beasts I saw the ends of the earth whereon the heaven rests, and the portals of the heaven open. And I saw how the stars of heaven come forth, and I counted the portals out of which they proceed, and wrote down all their outlets, of each individual star by itself, according to their number and their names, their courses and their positions, and their times and their months, as Uriel the holy angel who was with me showed me." (Ch. 33). The sky/heaven does not rest upon the Earth, especially not at the "ends", there are no portals in the sky dome, and the stars do not come out of them in order to rise above the horizon.

7. "And from thence I went towards the north to the ends of the earth, and there I saw a great and glorious device at the ends of the whole earth. And here I saw three portals of heaven open in the heaven: through each of them proceed north winds: when they blow there is cold, hail, frost, snow, dew, and rain. And out of one portal they blow for good: but when they blow through the other two portals, it is with violence and affliction on the earth, and they blow with violence." (Ch. 34). Northern winds do not issue from three holes in the sky dome.

8. "And from thence I went to the east to the ends of the heaven, and saw here the three eastern portals of heaven open and small portals above them. Through each of these small portals pass the stars of heaven and run their course to the west on the path which is shown to them. And as often as I saw I blessed always the Lord of Glory" (Ch. 36). Again, there are no holes in the sky dome and the stars do not come out of them to travel across the sky each night.

9. "And there I saw closed chambers out of which the winds are divided, the chamber of the hail and winds, the chamber of the mist, and of the clouds, and the cloud thereof hovers over the earth from the beginning of the world." (Ch. 41). Wind, hail, clouds, etc. do not originate in warehouses.

10. "And I saw the chambers of the sun and moon, whence they proceed and whither they come again" (Ch. 41). The Sun and Moon do not spend their time in storehouses when they are not visible.

11. "And this is the first law of the luminaries: the luminary the Sun has its rising in the eastern portals of the heaven, and its setting in the western portals of the heaven. And I saw six portals in which the sun rises, and six portals in which the sun sets and the moon rises and sets in these portals, and the leaders of the stars and those whom they lead: six in the east and six in the west, and all following each other in accurately corresponding order: also many windows to the right and left of these portals." (Ch. 72). The Sun, Moon, and stars do not come out of doorways in the sky dome when they rise, nor duck out of doorways when they set.

12. "The chariot on which he [the Sun] ascends, the wind drives, and the sun goes down from the heaven and returns through the north in order to reach the east, and is so guided that he comes to the appropriate portal and 6 shines in the face of the heaven." (Ch. 72). The Sun does not ride a chariot, and does not get blown across the sky. Nor does it travel in a northern path outside the sky dome in order to get from its place of setting back to the place it must rise again in the morning.

13. "And the sun goes forth from that sixth portal in the west, and goes to the east and rises in the fifth portal for thirty mornings, and sets in the west again in the fifth western portal. On that day the day decreases by two parts, and amounts to ten parts and the night to eight parts." (Ch. 72). While the author does an admirable job attempting to describe the manner in which the Sun's path varies with the seasons and so do the lengths of the days, it doesn't do so by switching entry/exit "portals" on given days, nor does the length of the day stay constant for thirty days and then suddenly shift its length, it's a continuous progression.

14. "...and his [the Sun's] light is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards size they are both equal." (Ch. 72). Clearly not divine information. The sun isn't "sevenfold" brighter than the Moon, it's 436,800 times brighter (as viewed from the surface of the Earth -- in absolute terms the disparity is even greater). And the Sun may *look* the same size as the Moon, but in reality it's almost 400 times as large in diameter. Enoch apparently figured they were the same size since they had the same apparent diameter and "must" have been at the same distance (since they both rode on the "sky dome").

15. "And the sun and the stars bring in all the years exactly, so that they do not advance or delay their position by a single day unto eternity; but complete the years with perfect justice in 364 days." (Ch. 74). Well, 365.2422 days, but who's counting? I don't so much mind him missing the fraction, but somehow there's still an entire day missing from the year.

16. "In like manner twelve doors Uriel showed me, open in the circumference of the sun's chariot in the heaven, through which the rays of the sun break forth: and from them is warmth diffused over the earth, when they are opened at their appointed seasons." (Ch. 75). The Sun does not ride in a chariot, but if it did that would certainly be an ingenious way to vary its warmth in Summer versus Winter, instead of the current method of whereby the tilt of the Earth's axis affects the angle at which sunlight strikes a given spot on the Earth...

17. "And I saw chariots in the heaven, running in the world, above those portals in which revolve the stars that never set." (Ch. 75). Last time I checked, the North Star and other northerly stars that don't dip below the horizon don't ride in chariots either, nor do they rest above the three northern portals in the sky dome.

18. "And one [of the "stars that never set"] is larger than all the rest, and it is that that makes its course through the entire world." (Ch. 75). Since the Earth isnt' flat after all, Polaris can not be used to "make courses" for the "entire world", just for most of the northern hemisphere.

19. "And at the ends of the earth I saw twelve portals open to all the quarters (of the heaven), from which the winds go forth and blow over the earth." (Ch. 76). No he didn't.

20. "...and her [the Moon's] chariot in which she rides is driven by the wind, and light is given to her in (definite) measure". (Ch. 73). The Moon's movement is not driven by wind.

I have FAITH, that what is writen in the Bible, is the Word of God, written at the direction of God, for the purpose of letting us know what was happening then, so we would know what to look for.

Feel free.

Do not attempt to disprove with science, that which can only be accepted on faith.

I wouldn't dream of it. I do, however, reserve the right to speak up when people try to use faith to "disprove science". When there's a conflict between a particular person's opinion based on their individual faith, and that which is manifest by examining reality ("creation", if you prefer), I tend to trust the reality-check over the person's "here's what I have faith in".

Ichneumon has been giving singing lessons, and he's wasting his time.

On *that* point I may have to agree with you.

375 posted on 12/13/2004 3:56:55 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

Fair enough.

I withdraw my quack assertion/label.

I still consider him more than a slightly egregious example of an opportunist. And, I think he could have been much better informed and made less grandiose statements.

I don't see that he's greatly advanced the art or science except by popularizing the subject.


376 posted on 12/13/2004 4:20:44 PM PST by Quix (5having a form of godliness but denying its power. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Doesn't seem to be yours, either.


377 posted on 12/13/2004 4:21:23 PM PST by Quix (5having a form of godliness but denying its power. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: concretebob

Hey, the guy who wrote the key figured it out; what makes you think it wasn't made by some guys who knew what the kooks would be looking for?


378 posted on 12/13/2004 4:22:13 PM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Those issues have been addressed.

I don't pretend that my posting of BCD articles is remotely an exhaustive response to McKay. But the responses are available on the BCD site and elsewhere.

I didn't read absolutely every word of McKay. I found it too lacking too early to devote that much time to it.


379 posted on 12/13/2004 4:23:22 PM PST by Quix (5having a form of godliness but denying its power. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I think I understood him quite fully--certainly fully enough.


380 posted on 12/13/2004 4:24:38 PM PST by Quix (5having a form of godliness but denying its power. I TIM 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 481-486 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson