Posted on 01/07/2003 11:22:26 PM PST by Quix
[QX: BOLD COLOR EMPHASES ADDED]
The fascinating phenomenon of the Torah Codes has gained widespread attention since Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg published "Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis" in the respected journal, 'Statistical Science'. In the past few years, much has been written about this discovery. Unfortunately, most of what has been presented to the public has been misleading, incorrect, or falsely promoting a certain agenda.
This website has been established by friends and supporters of Doron Witztum's research into the hidden codes in Genesis in order to provide a forum for him to answer some of the questions and criticisms which have arisen over the past three years. There are a great number of misconceptions which have been perpetuated about this research, and the general public is unaware as to what is fact or what is fiction.
Doron is currently working on a new book which will comprehensively examine and explain the phenomenon of Torah Codes, and is unable to personally answer all of the queries he has received. However, he has agreed to use this site to publically answer some of the more interesting questions and criticisms that he has seen, and we also hope to provide new examples of this research in the future.
Any questions or suggestions that we receive that are appropriate for a wide audience will be presented to Doron Witztum as well. Please remember that unless otherwise indicated, all material presented on this website is copyrighted by
Doron Witztum
P.O. Box 16409
Jerusalem, Israel
Research
modified December 16, 2000
The Refutation of the Attempts to Invalidate the Torah Codes
modified April 10, 2002
What's New
modified April 10, 2002
A Brief History of Codes Research
1. According to traditional Jewish sources the Torah in general, and the Book of Genesis in specific, contain a wealth of information in cryptic form. This information is encoded in a number of different ways. One of the ways mentioned is in the form of ELS's (Equidistant Letters Sequences). Several examples of this are given. Further documentation on this subject is in preparation.
2. About sixty years ago Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl began to investigate ELS's. This research produced astonishing results, some of which were collected, posthumously, in the book Torat Chemed.
3. In '83 the mathematician Prof. Eliyahu Rips began to conduct quantitative research into the subject: He primarily investigated the occurrence of words as ELS's clustering at an appropriate place in the text. An impressive example of his work appeared in the periodical, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, Vol. 151, Part I ('88), p 165.
4. Here is a chronicle of the events surrounding the publication of the Statistical Science paper (for a more detailed explanation click HERE: http://www.torahcodes.co.il/response.htm ):
- In the spring of '85 Doron Witztum and Eliyahu Rips discovered the phenomenon of convergences between pairs of conceptually related words in the Book of Genesis. Shortly thereafter they defined a methodology for evaluating the significance of these convergences. The necessary software was prepared by Yoav Rosenberg.
- Later that summer WRR (Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and Yoav Rosenberg) decided to investigate convergences between the names and appellations of famous rabbinical personalities and their dates of birth and death.
To this end a list of personalities was prepared, using the Encyclopedia of Great Men in Israel as the basis. The list was to include only the most famous individuals, i.e. those whose entries consisted of at least three columns of text, and for whom dates of birth and/or death were cited. A list of names and appellations was prepared before the experiment began, by Prof. Shlomo Havlin, then head of the Dept. of Bibliography and Librarianship at Bar Ilan University, following professional guidelines. The rules of orthography and the form of the Hebrew date were also established a priori by the linguist Yaakov Orbach, o.b.m.
- Measurements of the convergences indicated that there is a very strong tendency for the names of the personalities to converge with their associated dates. WRR published their results in a preprint describing their research, in the autumn of '86.
- In response to the paper, Prof. Diaconis proposed that a new list of famous personalities be prepared, to be investigated using the exact same program.
- To compile the new list WRR took those personalities whose entries in the Encyclopedia were between 1.5 and 3 columns of text, and for whom a date of birth and/or death were cited. The dates were written in exactly the same format as was previously established. This time, too, the list of names and appellations was prepared a priori by Prof. Havlin, using the same professional criteria. [Later, in the autumn of '96 Prof. Havlin issued a document describing the professional guidelines he used in compiling both the first and the second list of names and appellations. To read this document click HERE: http://www.torahcodes.co.il/havlin.htm.
- Measurements were made using the same program as in the first experiment. The results were very successful. A paper describing the two experiments was published (as a preprint) in the winter of '88.
- A shortened version of this paper was submitted for publication in PNAS by the mathematician Prof. Robert J. Aumann. Negotiations were conducted regarding publication. In the course of these negotiations Prof. Diaconis first proposed, in a letter dated 3 Aug. '88, that a new test be used, involving a large number of random permutations. Eventually the details of the test, the number of permutations and the requisite level of significance, were agreed upon by Prof. Diaconis and Prof. Aumann (as laid down in a letter dated 7 Sept. '90, written by Prof. Aumann and approved by Prof. Diaconis two days later).
- Prof. Aumann delivered a copy of the agreement to WRR, who had taken no part in the negotiations. At Prof. Aumann's recommendation a new paper was composed, even before the experiment was run. This version described the new test, leaving out the results, which did not yet exist. This paper was sent to Prof. Diaconis and to several other well known statisticians. They approved the test as it was described in the paper, and they stipulated (each one independently) the level of significance that should be required.
- The experiment was run in the winter of '91. The results were very significant:
p = 0.000016, well beyond the proposed cutoffs. The results were then incorporated into the paper. The paper was finally published in the journal Statistical Science, Vol. 9 ('94) No. 3, 429-438. To read this paper click HERE: http://www.torahcodes.co.il/wrr1/wrr1.htm.
[The HTML version for the Statistical Science paper, was made by Ari Haviv whom we would like to thank. To Ari Haviv's site {LINK BROKEN}]
5. In the winter of '88 the book The additional Dimension (Hamemad Hanosaf), by Doron Witztum, was published. This book presented many examples, primarily intuitive ones, illustrating the kinds of subjects covered by the phenomenon under discussion, and the typical geometrical patterns of the convergences.
6. Following publication of the paper in Statistical Science Prof. Rips was invited to give a guest lecture to the Israeli National Academy of Sciences on the subject of: "ELS's in the Book of Genesis: the Statistical Significance of the Phenomenon" (March '96).
Since WRR's experiment on the second list, other experiments involving different lists have been conducted, including several designed to replicate the original second list experiment. A number of these have been published as preprints, including one published in BDD, Journal of Torah and Scholarship [No. 7 (summer '98), Bar-Ilan University Press, Ramat-Gan]. Some of these papers can be found at this site. To read them click HERE: http://www.torahcodes.co.il/research.htm here.
8. At the beginning of '99, several lists of names and appellations were compiled by Dr Simcha Emanuel, a specialist in rabbinical history at Tel-Aviv University. He was engaged by MBBK (McKay, Bar-Natan, Bar-Hillel & Kalai), opponents of the Codes' research, and his work was guided by them without WRR's knowledge.
One of the lists was intended to "mimic" WRR's second list. Emanuel's new list contains names and appellations of the personalities included in WRR's second list which he collected without seeing Prof. Havlin's original names and appellations for it.
We repeated WRR's original experiment exactly, with one single change: Instead of Havlin's names and appellations, we used Emanuel's.
The experiment succeeded with considerable significance. You can read about it in our paper HERE: "New Statistical Evidence for a Genuine Code in Genesis".
BS"D Heshvan 29, 5761 (27 Nov. '00).
Introduction:
The battle being waged against the phenomenon of Torah Codes is emotionally highly-charged and loaded with preconceptions. Some of the critics involved are scientists who seek to negate the research, not on the basis of objective observations and evidence, but driven by a belligerent worldview. Given these conditions, their pseudo-scientific approach can hardly qualify as a yardstick for establishing truth. We are fiercely attacked and even vilified by these opponents, who feel justified by their philosophy to mislead and distort. Any means seems to justify their goal: to deny the existence of the Torah Codes.
This is the hallmark of the criticism in the works of professors Brendan McKay, Maya Bar-Hillel, Dror Bar-Natan and Gil Kalai (MBBK). In their joint Statistical Science paper, they criticize the work of Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg (WRR) which proved the existence of Torah Codes and was published in the same journal five years earlier. Since MBBK think that WRR's thesis proves the divinity of the Torah, they are forced by their antagonistic philosophy to attribute the success to deceit. Their starting point is not the question of whether there was deceit, but only how the assumed deceit could have been perpetrated.
A similar bias is found even with certain religious scientists. Their a priori antagonism to the idea of a divinely-place code in the Torah provokes an a posteriori criticism designed to justify that antagonism. As a classic example, Professor Avraham HaSofer wrote the reasons for his opposition to the codes even before having a copy of the pre-print describing our research [EMPHASIS ADDED, QX]!
The purpose of this survery is to review in short the claims of our critics, along with our refutations of these claims. In this survey, we also refer the reader to relevant articles which refute specific claims more comprehensively.
We think, that the elementary mistakes and the deliberate deceptions exposed in MBBK's work (as shown in this survey) are a direct result of their strong opposition to the implications of the Torah Codes. This is typical of a critique whose conclusions are already decided even before any examination is done.
[Note: To better understand the background to the controversy, read: HERE: "A Brief History of Codes Research". ]
MBBK's Paper in Statistical Science:
MBBK's article in Statistical Science is a paper that encompasses the main criticisms against the Codes. It is considered to be the main critique of the Codes research, and is the only one published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Let's concentrate on it.
The central message in MBBK's paper is the accusation that WRR cheated by "cooking" their data (actually, they wrap this accusation in softer language). The main statistical work presented in MBBK's paper is the "study of variations", aimed at proving the "cooking" accusation.
A. MBBK claim: The "study of variations" proves that WRR "cooked" their data.
In their "Study of Variations" MBBK made many variations of WRR's experiment, changing parameters, functions, and the like. MBBK claim that the variations "almost always" make the result worse than the original. They assert that this suggests that "optimization" (i.e. "cooking") of parameters and functions took place in WRR's experiment.
But MBBK know full well that no such "optimization" was available since WRR were constrained to using the same parameters and functions as in their previous experiment. Therefore MBBK instead claim that there was an "optimization" of the data. For this purpose, they invented the following hypothesis:
"…the apparent tuning of one experimental parameter may in fact be a side-effect of the active tuning of another parameter or parameters."
That is: that " optimization" of the data (mainly the names and appellations) also causes the result to worsen when variations to the parameters and functions are applied, and the effect is similar to the effect of "optimization" of the parameters and functions.
Relying upon their hypothesis, MBBK assert that the results obtained for the "Study of Variations" proves that WRR "cooked" their data.
The refutation:
In order to have scientific meaning, MBBK's "Study of Variations" must be based both on:
A. A firm (proven) hypothesis; B. An unbiased set of independent variations.
Failure of (A) will render their study worthless.
Failure of (B) will nullify not only the study itself, but also cast serious doubts on the integrity and honesty of the testers.
Even assuming for argument's sake that MBBK's work has scientific significance, the absence of an objective closed set of variations gives the study's results two possible interpretations:
(1). Proof that "tuning" was involved in assembling WRR's data.
(2). Proof that "tuning" was involved in assembling MBBK's variations.
In our comprehensive research paper "MBBK's Study of Variations", we demonstrate that there was indeed a grave failure of (B) [and maybe also of (A)] , and that the results of MBBK's "study of variations" indicate not (1) but (2) . Our paper does not deal with details of bibliography and Jewish history. It only analyzes MBBK's work logically and mathematically-statistically, describes several control experiments and presents many experimental results. Its main subjects are as follows:
----------------------------
But their prediction fails. The results destroy their thesis: Applying the variations to their list in "War and Peace" worsens the results only in less than half of the variations!
Thus the control experiments indicate that MBBK's results in the "study of variations" are due to their "tuning" of its variations.
-------------------
All this alone makes MBBK's study worthless. Removing the elegant wrappers from their other assertions against WRR brings out the same bad smell as the "Study of Variations". For example:
B. MBBK claim: Using a new list prepared by independent expert, we made an experiment which "mimics" WRR's, and it failed!
MBBK engaged and guided Dr Simcha Emanuel, a specialist in rabbinical history at Tel-Aviv University, to compile several lists of names and appellations without WRR's knowledge. One of the lists was intended to "mimic" WRR's second list.
MBBK claim that Dr Emanuel's new list failed in the permutation test and that this proves that WRR's result was achieved through " cooking" of the data. MBBK consider the experiment on this list to be the most telling of "perhaps the most important class of experiments" .
The refutation:
In our paper "New Statistical Evidence for a Genuine Code in Genesis", we thoroughly examine the lists publicized by MBBK, information received through our conversations with Dr Emanuel, and excerpts where MBBK quote their expert. It becomes clear that their experiment was indeed important and instructive. We draw the following significant conclusions:
Emanuel's new list contains names and appellations of the personalities included in WRR's second list, which he collected without seeing Prof. Havlin's original names and appellations for it. We repeated WRR's original experiment exactly, with one single change: Instead of Havlin's names and appellations, we used Emanuel's. The experiment succeeded with considerable significance. For the details given in our paper click HERE:http://www.torahcodes.co.il/emanuel/eman_hb.htm. C. MBBK claim: WRR had sufficient "wiggle room" in choosing data to "cook" a successful list. MBBK assert that "the rules and constraints laid down by the first list left sufficient room for maneuver in the second list to "cook" a second list no less successful than the first list." This claim is based on another preliminary claim: C1. MBBK claim: We did "the same thing" in War and Peace. MBBK assert that they exploited the flexibility available in the selection of appellations to "cook" a list which succeeded in War and Peace. This supposedly proves that the "wiggle room" in the selection of appellations was "more than enough" to produce an artificially strong result for WRR's second list. Actually, they prepared two lists. Bar-Natan and McKay publicized their first list (BM1) on the Internet in Sept. '97. Following our sharp criticism, they altered it and created a second list (BM2) which is presented in the final version of their article "ELSs in Tolstoy's War and Peace " on the Internet, and in their paper in Stat. Sc.
The refutation: Their claim that they did "the same thing" as us in " War and Peace" is nonsense. Because few of their readers have enough knowledge in Hebrew or rabbinical bibliography they create a smokescreen to fool them. Let's clear away the smoke: (1). MBBK claim that list BM1 is not much different than Havlin's list ("83 appellations were left unchanged, 20 were removed, and 29 were added") and that their appellations were bibliographically correct and certified by Prof. Cohen. But: b. We have explained how their work is based on absurd mistakes in Hebrew and rabbinical bibliography, and on deliberate deception.
To see our article "A Refutation Refuted, or: How the List of Famous Rabbis Failed in War and Peace", click ( Part 1 , Part 2 ). c. Concerning Cohen and their method of comparison ("the same thing") see later sections (3) and (4).
a. MBBK's numbers are deceiving. They say that only 29 out of 112 (83+29) appellations in their list are new, that is 25%. But the correct figure is 42%. This is also the percentage of the "appellation-date" pairs in their sample: They erased 48 of 124 of the original pairs, and added 55 new pairs. For details Of Science and Parody: A Complete Refutation of MBBK's Central Claim in the appendix to chap. 2. (in preparation)
(2). After our pointed criticisms Bar-Natan and McKay moved to list BM2. They claim that this involved only a "small number of changes" and that " hardly any of the small number of changes" was due to our criticism on BM1.
But:
a. This list is significantly different than BM1 (23 out of 131 pairs are erased, and 31 new pairs are added).
b. Contrary to their claim, 11 changes to appellations are in direct response to our criticism, to avoid the most obvious mistakes. This was a serious blow to the significance of their results and forced them to fix up their list by making the rest of the changes.
c. Because changes of appellations did not allow strong enough results for BM2 through manipulation of appellations alone, they allowed themselves to exploit "flexibility" in domains where WRR certainly used none and contrary to their claim that their list came to decide the following question:
"Was the flexibility available in the selection of appellations at the time the lists were prepared sufficient that biased selection could produce a strong result?"For details click here.
(3). Even MBBK realized that the changes they made in Havlin's list were worthless without the confirmation of an expert in rabbinical bibliography. Therefore they rely on Prof. Menachem Cohen.
But:
a. Prof. Cohen is not an expert in rabbinical bibliography. Professor Cohen is an expert on the Bible, and not on rabbinical bibliography, the relevant field. Nevertheless, MBBK present him as an expert in this field, and this is how he is presented in their article in Chance: "Menachem Cohen, a colleague of Havlin's from the Faculty of Jewish Studies at Bar-Ilan University".
The following parable may clarify the point. Suppose a statement of opinion of a chemist is used to invalidate a work in the physics of elementary particles. The chemist is presented as "an expert", "a colleague" of the physicist who did the work, since he belongs to the same Faculty of Natural Science! No doubt this is a misleading way of presentation.
The same thing is done by MBBK in our case. Professor Cohen is expert in the accuracy of Biblical texts, but not in rabbinical bibliography which is a completely different field. Since the subject here is outside his field, how can his opinion be presented as "an expert opinion"?
In conclusion BBM have no "expert opinion" to rely on. In contrast, Professor Havlin has an international reputation in rabbinical bibliography and has authored hundreds of publications in the field.
b. Besides Cohen not being an expert, he seems to have never thoroughly investigated BM1 at all: The most startling example is that he finds that BM1 "was prepared according to the same criteria as presented by Prof. Havlin" . This finding contradicts MBBK's own assertion that they deviated from these criteria and ignores their report of some of these deviations.
c. Because of our criticism, MBBK "cooked" list BM2 which is considerably different than BM1 (see section (2)). BM2 was publicized in the final version of their article "ELSs in Tolstoy's 'War and Peace'" on the Internet and in their Stat. Sc. Paper.
But BM2 has no professional confirmation, even from Cohen. For details click here.
d. Note that in Galileo MBB write that Cohen participated in preparing BM1. This is a gross deception. For details click here.
(4). MBBK claim that they did "the same thing" as WRR. What does this mean? They write that they worked within the framework of rules (that is the linguistic rules and Havlin's rules) or broke them "to the same extent" as WRR. They rely on Cohen who wrote that their list indeed complied with Havlin's rules.
But:
a. The requested letter from Cohen suffered a "small error": Even though MBBK admit that they broke Havlin's rules (and give examples) Cohen generously testifies that their list "was prepared according to the same criteria as presented by Prof. Havlin"!
b. Perhaps this is why they leave out this problematic sentence whenever they quote Cohen (in Chance and Stat. Sc.). c. The actual technique used to ensure that BM1 and BM2 were "the same" as Havlin's original list lacks any scientific merit, and enables deliberate deceit. For details click here.
d. They could not receive a confirmation from Cohen that they "broke the rules to the same extent…" since such a confirmation requires quantitative and detailed examination, which Cohen never did.
e. Havlin wrote to Cohen in Jan 2000 informing him that MBBK were using his letter in a misleading way. He asked Cohen to either make clear that he never did the required quantitative and detailed examination, or, alternatively publicize his findings. But Cohen has never bothered to reply. For details click here.
In conclusion: MBBK have no professional confirmation for their central claim that they did "the same thing".
(5). We have experts' opinions which confirm Havlin's rules and list, disqualifies MBBK's list and rejects the assertions of Cohen and MBBK. For details click here.
We refer the reader to our article "Of Science and Parody: A Complete Refutation of MBBK's Central Claim" which factually and logically destroys their claim that they did "the same", without discussing rabbinical bibliography or linguistic issues.
(6). Early in the controversy we suggested (and repeated it in our response in Galileo and elsewhere) a simple scientific test to check MBBK's claim that WRR's success was solely created by exploitation of the flexibility of the rules or by breaking them. The suggestion was to jointly appoint an independent expert to prepare a new list of names and appellations for the rabbis of the second list (L2), using the same rules, i.e., the linguistic and Havlin's rules. If this new list succeeded, it would prove that the original success was neither due to "flexibility" of the rules nor to "deviations" from them.
a. But MBBK have not picked up the gauntlet.
In Sept. 2000 we offered a million dollar bet that such a list would perform better in Genesis than in War and Peace. This suggestion was the headline of a full article in the weekend (Sukkoth) supplement of the most popular paper in Israel (Yedioth Acharonoth). The same article quoted Prof. Bar Hillel's response: "Why should anyone want to do that foolish experiment?" (Emphasis ours).
b. Now it became obvious why they never agreed. We wrote before (in our refutation of MBBK's second claim) that the names and appellations for L2 prepared by Dr Emanuel, the expert engaged and guided unilaterally by MBBK, performed successfully in Genesis. We may add here that his names and appellations fail in War and Peace. Because MBBK probably realized that an independently prepared list would do even better, they chose:
(7). Concerning MBBK's claim that WRR directly optimized the results by exploiting "beneficial" choices pertaining to the dates: In our article "Concerning the Choices of Dates for WRR's Rabbis Samples" we show that careful examination of all the choices indicates WRR's perfect integrity. Alternative choices, based on MBBK's suggestions, would have yielded better results – sometimes by a factor of 2 or 3, sometimes by a factor of 10 or 100, and sometimes by a factor of tens of thousands. [A LINK WAS STATED BUT NOT REALLY THERE]
- To not answer our challenge.
- To forge another list in his name. For details click here.
- To conceal the true significance of Dr Emanuel's data. For details click here.
All this starkly contradicts MBBK's report and the impression created by their article.
D. MBBK claim: There are serious flaws in the measuring method.
MBBK therefore assert that the statistical results derived are therefore without value.
The refutation: a. We are of the opinion that the results do indeed reflect true statistical significance.
b. Note that this methodology (using the permutation test) was proposed not by WRR, but by Prof. Diaconis. The details of the test were written down and submitted to several well-known statisticians (including Diaconis) for approval before the experiment was conducted. For details click here.
c. Nevertheless, in response to MBBK's criticisms a new test was run on the second list (L2) in a manner that addresses their concerns. The results merely improved. For details click here.
E. MBBK Claim: WRR broke their agreement with Prof. Diaconis concerning the permutation test.
MBBK claim that WRR used a permutation test that differed from that agreed upon with Prof. Diaconis, and this was done behind his back.
The refutation:
a. This claim is absolutely false. To read our response to this outrageous claim, click here.
b. When we published our response, MBBK refused to admit their mistake. Instead McKay and Kalai publicized an article on the Internet where they unsuccessfully attempted to conceal the fact that they had been caught red-handed. Their article is replete with untruths and suppression of facts. To read our response click here.
F.
MBBK claim: WRR's further experiments suffer from the same "problems".
This claim is written in the introduction to their paper and in chap. 9 there.
The refutation: (1). WRR conducted an experiment known as "The Nations Sample". MBBK misleadingly describe it in section 9 of their paper with the subheading "The 70 Nations Experiment". Here too they claim that the WRR's results are due to an exploitation of "wiggle room" which existed in the data. In addition they describe (in sec. 10, pg. 165 example #3) a similar experiment conducted by BMS (Bar-Natan, McKay and Sternberg) on War and peace. Their experiment includes an alternative list to that of WRR for the "Seventy Nations". BMS claim that their list was compiled according to the same guidelines and constraints as WRR's, and succeeded even better.
But:
a. We refer the reader to our two-part paper "The Nations Sample" ( Part 1,
Part 2 ). One will find a complete response to all their assertions and see that they are nonsense. b. They " demonstrate" the "wiggle room" in the choice of data in a very distorted way, while concealing the results of much simpler choices (see section A of our paper). c. Their list for the "Seventy Nations" is based on deception. (See section B of our paper). d. We used BMS's data to make some experiments of our own. A statistical test which uses the list of data prepared by BMS, shows that the true results for their text are exactly as expected to occur randomly, whereas in Genesis there is a real success with high significance! (See section B of our paper).
Until this day they have given no reply for this.
(2). About eight months before the printing of MBBK's paper in Stat. Sc, we gave a lecture at the "Center for Rationality and Interactive Decision Theory" in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in MBBK's presence. This lecture included two new studies (which have also been publicized on the Internet), both conducted to avoid all of MBBK's past objections about selection of data. Both studies yielded highly significant results. Despite this, no reader of MBBK's paper would have any idea that these two studies exist because they are totally ignored. Almost two years later we have still heard nothing from them. These two studies are described in:
In conclusion:
- "Personalities of Genesis and Their Dates of Birth".
- "A Replication of: The Second Sample of Famous Rabbinical Personalities".
After reading these two papers one will understand why MBBK prefers to ignore them, and also realize the worth of their statement (pg. 152):
"Nothing we have chosen to omit tells a story contrary to the story here."
We have destroyed the main claims of MBBK one by one. We have also shown that they have utilized illicit methods involving lies and deception. We have shown that their criticism lacks any basis:
- a. Their fairy tales about the huge "wiggle room" exploited by WRR to produce successes are nonsense and their examples of "wiggle room" were almost always based on distortions and deception.
- b. We have even shown that in many cases their own alternatives yield even better results, thus providing more evidence that the original experiment of WRR was done honestly.
- c. Their "study of variations", MBBK's statistical " proof" that WRR "cooked" the list of names and appellations, is nothing but deceit and "cooking" of variations.
- d. Measurements that we made on data collected by MBBK, pertaining to the second list of personalities and the "Seventy Nations" , have proven that the Torah Codes is a true phenomenon.
Although Doron Witztum cannot personally reply to all mail, comments or questions are welcome at: comments@torahcodes.co.il.
All material here authored by Doron Witztum was originally produced by him in Hebrew.
We have attempted to provide an accurate and readable English translation.
all material presented on this website is copyrighted by
Doron Witztum
P.O. Box 16409
Jerusalem, Israel
It appears to me that those not dealing with this and the rest of the available documents forthrightly and thoroughly are probably not very serious in knowing the truth, much less discussing the truth honestly.
No comment by me seems necessary.
Am happy for constructive discussion.
I can understand if folks wish to avoid being bullied.
But my primary goal is to facilitate better availability hereon of a library of material that I believe will later prove to be fruitful for a number of purposes.
And, I havd sufficient feedback privately to warrant the bother.
However, if you have constructive suggestions, by all means, share them!
Would you just give the very short version of what all this is supposed to mean?
Others will rant and rail and you may not find it quite fitting to your expectations but here goes an effort to comply with your request.
An old Rabbi a hundred-200 or more years ago did some experiments on cards, as I recall, deleting all the spaces in the books of Moses or maybe the whole OT. And then skipping X letters--say every 50th or whatever--and seeing if any messages could be found in the resulting string of every 50th letters from the continuous string of Hebrew that the OT text had been reduced to without spaces.
There is a tradition that God dictated the books to Moses letter by letter. And even scientists now assert that particularly Genesis but all the books of Moses have a more rigid structure than the rest of the OT.
Anyway--in recent times, some Israeli scientists computerized the process and began finding very interesting codes. At least one atheist Jewish scientist became a believer because of the research.
Along comes Drosnin and publishes his BIBLE CODES best seller.
Trouble is, with the software readily available, Drosnin and others did and do a lot of schlocky research. It turns out the Jesus is a short enough Hebrew term to be easily found in about any longish Hebrew text. Further that up to about 7 or 8 letters things are really no different than one could typically get by chance. 10 letters and beyond statistical significance starts to kick in. And it rises geometrically beyond that. Well, now some Codes are up to 61 letters--with astronomical statistical significance.
Predictably, a group of atheist scientists had a fit. Someone went around and got a lot of them to sign a document which they then published that the Codes were all unscientific hogwash.
Their attack is the unscientific hogwash as has been redundantly proven. At least one person didn't even read the thing he was criticizing with such hostility. Sort of reminds me of some other people I know of.
Anyway--finally a research study was negotiated between the proponents and skeptics of the Codes. It was ran and the Codes again came out startlingly significant--more so than even anticipated by the proponents.
Well, the opponents got squirrelly again. Threw all kinds of dust in the air. Pulled yet more shenanigans and are still claiming all kinds of nonsense. Some of their documents even prove within them the falseness of their claims. It is as though they really don't expect the public to read beyond the headlines and sadly, most don't.
A recent exciting thing has been the discovery of an awesome Jesus Mosaic in the Aramaic New Testament. Mosaic's are really hard for even the scholars to wrap their minds around. And they are somewhat difficult to analyze statistically though some innovative methods have been applied to amazing effect.
The mosaics are easy to see in the grids--the matrices produced by the specific skip lengths. But doing a hard nosed statistical analysis had been a bit of a challenge initially. In essence, as I understand it, it's the placement of lots of--as it were--little tiles with key terms and phrases on them within a rather condensed matrix, relatively. In and of themselves, one little collection of terms or phrases wouldn't be significant--but when you get a whole collection in a compact space all saying the same thing and often all related to the surface text involved, CLEARLY SOMETHING INTERESTING *IS* GOING ON.
There's also an interesting thing about little crosses where short terms make a perfect cross. Some of these would also occur by chance with the short terms. Maybe even 5-7 in a matrix. But when you get more than 30 or 40--then something else is operating. All the more interesting when it occurs with regard to a surface text predicting Christ's sacrifice etc.
There's a big cry about the codes are useless because they can't be used to predict. And certainly the code scholars are playing down if not outright declaring it impossible to use them as predictions. And, true, given certain research protocols, hypotheses etc. for certain statistics, it can be argued that prediction is out of the picture.
But I don't think God is all that bothered by scientific method research protocals. They may be useful for lots of investigations but they aren't at all the beginning nor the end of defining reality.
The WASHINGTON SNIPER code discovered some factors in that situation that might have been helpful if they'd been publicized and shared with the officials in time. Later published news reports confirmed the accuracy of the findings.
And, there's a confirmed link in the codes between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I think that code might be useful to Christian congresspersons wavering about supporting the war on Iraq.
But most codes are like a lot of surface text Biblical prophecies. They are cryptic and mysterious. We don't make sense of them until after the event. Sometimes cryptic terms are more enlightening when we know more about the culture and indioms extant.
For example, one of the Sadam H codes speaks something about his "shoulder" failing or some such. What on earth could that mean. But it turns out that shoulder is part of an idiom for power in that region and it seems clear from the code that his power/authority will fall down.
Personally, I think God had a blast with the Codes. The Scripture talks about it being God's pleasure to hide a thing. And many people feel God saying to Daniel that some of the things told Daniel would be sealed up in the book until the end. Many believe that the Bible Codes is the unsealing of at least some of those things.
But I know God loves to show His foolishness is wiser than man's greatest wisdom. I think the Codes are another example of that.
I think the codes like other authentic Holy Spirit prophetic voices will become more and more precise and accurate as God pours out more of His Spirit while allowing satan to give the end times his best shot as well. The Bible speaks of the light getting lighter and the dark getting darker.
I think the codes are an example of God's majesty, awesomeness--God's power and existence beyond time etc. And, as often otherwise, God gives enough info in the codes to point in some general directions and some tantalizing specifics. But doesn't give a very detailed road map beforehand. After the fact, lots of pieces of the puzzle are clearer as they are with surface text Biblical prophecies. And it's kind of fun to see God playing Scrabble with mankind. He seems to have fun at it, we may as well.
And, some of the Codes like Scripture are saying wake up world. Get ready to meet your Maker. Adjust your priorities. All that can be shaken will be shaken. Only those walking hand in hand with God will have any security at all. Eventually, only they will have any sanity at all.
So, I see the codes as exciting, fun, intriguing, mysterious, complex--a lot of things. But certainly interesting. I wouldn't want to build my total theology on them by any means. but they persistently lift Christ up; glorify God; affirm standard surface Scriptural truths etc.
Their lifting Christ up--parituclarly in the Old Testament--is one of the loudest statements that they are authentic.
Of course, some can't bear the thought of that.
Anyway--enough rambling for now. I hope that's useful to you.
Blessings,
Well, math is one of my hobbies, mainly number theory and prime number research. I have also been working on text analysis programs (from a literature perspective with other things thrown in for my own fun, like inverted text and such) which allows me to analyze works by authors in a broader context (Ex: Conan Doyles works, comparing short stories and finding the frequency of words, what words are common to the stories, which ones are unique and how often they are used, etc and so - written in PERL).
I am currently studying the works of Hannah More and searching for one word - boredom, which has been credited to Dickens as a first appearance. Someone mentioned More had it in one of her works which would pre-date him by 40 years, so etymology dictionaries would have to change (nothing major, but it is fun). She was a writer of mainly christian works in England, most of written in late 1700's-early 1800's.
Her Bio can be found Here and my page, heavily under construction, can be found here (I have the plates from her 7 vols, 1830, scanned in and the contents of a few volumes listed so far).
I find the Bible Code stuff of interest, though I was not overly happy with the book. I would be more interested in doing my own research with that and other methods.
PS - my base calculation, which I need to slight adjust (ie tweak my program a tad) shows 12,876 different words in the KJV bible. I would like to do a more indepth analysis of the hebrew for Genesis on letter frequency, etc, and how it compares to the other books of the torah. I just like to tinker (I know some has been done already by others, by I prefer to do my own work and not prejudice myself with info gleaned from others)
I collect works from the 1800's, I use to have many more. One of the things I noticed in the science, and general writing of religion, was that things were written to glorify god and science was a revelation to man of the beauty of God's works. Just like biology where we can break down man into cells, dna, and so forth I think the written workd can be broken down to better understand the person who wrote it.
Take stephen king as an example - his ideas, structure, etc all come from somewhere. He may not fully understand his own structure (much like you don't have to understand how your brain works to use it) but analyzing his works using details from many angles can bring to light a lot of details.
In the Conan Doyle exmaple I compared two novels, listed the words, and am doing historical research on the vocabulary of the time along with historical contexts. Less obvious patterns can develop in works which were not placed there by intent but by the environment, the subconcious (sp) and so forth. It does not mean, in those cases, something of a 'spiritual' or 'mystical' origin - but it can offer deeper insights.
One of the things I hope to play with is to take a work, analyze it, save that data to a file and create a rules file. I will let the computer then use those rules, the same words, the same amount of occurences, etc and let it re-write the work. Of course, it will not make sense 99% of the time - but as I tweak the rules (like 'the' cannot appear next to itself) I hope to at least get some interesting results to examine.
Literature can be exmained on many levels. The base level is just read it and enjoy. Then there is understanding the historical context (in Hannah More's time the french revolution was a huge influence), then understanding the author, add to that a frame of known words and grammar at the time, and then finally an analysis on a deeper level with the not so obvious.
I don't pretend to be making/doing anything of great value - but I like to have fun and try new approaches to things. I get paid to be a computer geek, I get fun from being a hobbyist :)
YEA! A KIND SOUL! PRAISE GOD!
Along that line, you need a brief post called "bible codes for dummies" (package it in a YELLOW or ORANGE cover!)
SOUNDS LIKE an excellent idea . . . not sure I'm the best one to do it . . . will pass it to the Digest folk and see what their response is. I'm also not sure how one does a "BRIEF POST" that would do the trick. That's almost like a "brief post" outlining the Old Testament; or the Blood line from Genesis to Revelation . . . or comparing the theory of relativity to the Prophets in the Old and New Testament . . . or some silly such in a Reader's Digest 3 paragraphs. Would take a better man than I.
I did run out a narrative that I THOUGHT was a fair summary in mostly layman's language. Did that prove to be of little help? See post . . . #6. I'll paste it in below.
FOR SURE!
HERE'S THE EARLIER POST. I was going to try and redo it in a blue background and yellow font but I can't seem to get yellow or gold to work on FR.
Others will rant and rail and you may not find it quite fitting to your expectations but here goes an effort to comply with your request.
An old Rabbi a hundred-200 or more years ago did some experiments on cards, as I recall, deleting all the spaces in the books of Moses or maybe the whole OT. And then skipping X letters--say every 50th or whatever--and seeing if any messages could be found in the resulting string of every 50th letters from the continuous string of Hebrew that the OT text had been reduced to without spaces.
There is a tradition that God dictated the books to Moses letter by letter. And even scientists now assert that particularly Genesis but all the books of Moses have a more rigid structure than the rest of the OT.
Anyway--in recent times, some Israeli scientists computerized the process and began finding very interesting codes. At least one atheist Jewish scientist became a believer because of the research.
Along comes Drosnin and publishes his BIBLE CODES best seller.
Trouble is, with the software readily available, Drosnin and others did and do a lot of schlocky research. It turns out the Jesus is a short enough Hebrew term to be easily found in about any longish Hebrew text. Further that up to about 7 or 8 letters things are really no different than one could typically get by chance. 10 letters and beyond statistical significance starts to kick in. And it rises geometrically beyond that. Well, now some Codes are up to 61 letters--with astronomical statistical significance.
Predictably, a group of atheist scientists had a fit. Someone went around and got a lot of them to sign a document which they then published that the Codes were all unscientific hogwash.
Their attack is the unscientific hogwash as has been redundantly proven. At least one person didn't even read the thing he was criticizing with such hostility. Sort of reminds me of some other people I know of.
Anyway--finally a research study was negotiated between the proponents and skeptics of the Codes. It was ran and the Codes again came out startlingly significant--more so than even anticipated by the proponents.
Well, the opponents got squirrelly again. Threw all kinds of dust in the air. Pulled yet more shenanigans and are still claiming all kinds of nonsense. Some of their documents even prove within them the falseness of their claims. It is as though they really don't expect the public to read beyond the headlines and sadly, most don't.
A recent exciting thing has been the discovery of an awesome Jesus Mosaic in the Aramaic New Testament. Mosaic's are really hard for even the scholars to wrap their minds around. And they are somewhat difficult to analyze statistically though some innovative methods have been applied to amazing effect.
The mosaics are easy to see in the grids--the matrices produced by the specific skip lengths. But doing a hard nosed statistical analysis had been a bit of a challenge initially. In essence, as I understand it, it's the placement of lots of--as it were--little tiles with key terms and phrases on them within a rather condensed matrix, relatively. In and of themselves, one little collection of terms or phrases wouldn't be significant--but when you get a whole collection in a compact space all saying the same thing and often all related to the surface text involved, CLEARLY SOMETHING INTERESTING *IS* GOING ON.
There's also an interesting thing about little crosses where short terms make a perfect cross. Some of these would also occur by chance with the short terms. Maybe even 5-7 in a matrix. But when you get more than 30 or 40--then something else is operating. All the more interesting when it occurs with regard to a surface text predicting Christ's sacrifice etc.
There's a big cry about the codes are useless because they can't be used to predict. And certainly the code scholars are playing down if not outright declaring it impossible to use them as predictions. And, true, given certain research protocols, hypotheses etc. for certain statistics, it can be argued that prediction is out of the picture.
But I don't think God is all that bothered by scientific method research protocals. They may be useful for lots of investigations but they aren't at all the beginning nor the end of defining reality.
The WASHINGTON SNIPER code discovered some factors in that situation that might have been helpful if they'd been publicized and shared with the officials in time. Later published news reports confirmed the accuracy of the findings.
And, there's a confirmed link in the codes between Iraq and Al Qaeda. I think that code might be useful to Christian congresspersons wavering about supporting the war on Iraq.
But most codes are like a lot of surface text Biblical prophecies. They are cryptic and mysterious. We don't make sense of them until after the event. Sometimes cryptic terms are more enlightening when we know more about the culture and indioms extant.
For example, one of the Sadam H codes speaks something about his "shoulder" failing or some such. What on earth could that mean. But it turns out that shoulder is part of an idiom for power in that region and it seems clear from the code that his power/authority will fall down.
Personally, I think God had a blast with the Codes. The Scripture talks about it being God's pleasure to hide a thing. And many people feel God saying to Daniel that some of the things told Daniel would be sealed up in the book until the end. Many believe that the Bible Codes is the unsealing of at least some of those things.
But I know God loves to show His foolishness is wiser than man's greatest wisdom. I think the Codes are another example of that.
I think the codes like other authentic Holy Spirit prophetic voices will become more and more precise and accurate as God pours out more of His Spirit while allowing satan to give the end times his best shot as well. The Bible speaks of the light getting lighter and the dark getting darker.
I think the codes are an example of God's majesty, awesomeness--God's power and existence beyond time etc. And, as often otherwise, God gives enough info in the codes to point in some general directions and some tantalizing specifics. But doesn't give a very detailed road map beforehand. After the fact, lots of pieces of the puzzle are clearer as they are with surface text Biblical prophecies. And it's kind of fun to see God playing Scrabble with mankind. He seems to have fun at it, we may as well.
And, some of the Codes like Scripture are saying wake up world. Get ready to meet your Maker. Adjust your priorities. All that can be shaken will be shaken. Only those walking hand in hand with God will have any security at all. Eventually, only they will have any sanity at all.
So, I see the codes as exciting, fun, intriguing, mysterious, complex--a lot of things. But certainly interesting. I wouldn't want to build my total theology on them by any means. but they persistently lift Christ up; glorify God; affirm standard surface Scriptural truths etc.
Their lifting Christ up--parituclarly in the Old Testament--is one of the loudest statements that they are authentic.
Of course, some can't bear the thought of that.
Anyway--enough rambling for now. I hope that's useful to you.
Blessings,
The real question (initially) for me is this: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the 2nd Person of the Trinity?
in the beginning god created heaven and earth was without form void darkness upon face of deep spirit moved waters said let there be light saw that it good divided from called day he night evening morning were first a firmament midst divide made which under above so second gathered together unto one place dry land appear gathering seas bring forth grass herb yielding seed fruit tree after his kind whose is itself brought third lights to them for signs seasons days years give two great greater rule lesser stars also set over fourth abundantly moving creature hath life fowl may fly open whales every living moveth their winged blessed saying fruitful multiply fill fifth cattle creeping thing beast creepeth us make man our image likeness have dominion fish sea air all own him male female replenish subdue behold
Not real exciting of course. BTW the book of Revelation has 1290 words (at least as counted by V.1.1 of my program). My next steps in the program are, as I think I mentioned elsewhere, to convert all words to a set binary number (which is working already) and then perform manipulations on the text and rewrite it. Doing the inverse of a word which equals, say 0110101, would change each occurence of that word into 1001010 (which the program would look up in binary index to match).
I take the words and convert them as they appear in the text, so the first word would be 0000...I may also rewrite that to put all the words in alpha order and then assign numbers.
Once it is done I can do some interesting things (and it should be done by monday) - I can do and/or/not or, more interestingly, I can take two books and intermingle the numbers, replace with words, and get an all new book.
Of course, this is not what I consider 'scientific' research, more of a simple interest (I am fond of wondering, hmmm what if....)
The final version will be able to be used by anyone on any text, or sets of texts, and be programmable. Example of the code you would type is:
Open: book.txt
Get: all words in order
put: file bookindex.txt
Get: word 'Jesus'
Find: 5th word before jesus
Find: 2nd word after Jesus
Put: file Wordfind.txt
Count: All words
Count: sum total each word
Put: word, sum file indexcount.txt
End: Print "Done."
It would of course be more powerful, allowing you to progam in depth by treating the text as a data base. You would save the code in a file and run it. It would simplfy things you wanted to do - like getting every 5th word, or getting the count of the space between occurences of words (how many words seperate all the occurences of 'the', etc).
At any rate it should allow anyone to cut through the red tape of complex programming so they only have to learn a few things and use their imagination.
PS Here is the whole KJV version index from the start (one word per line) and Here is the book of Revelation in same format alone. The number at the very end is the unique count of words (ie how many different words were found) - you may want to right click and save as the link is direct to a text file.
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.