The Bible Code

Just because we are Christian - does not mean we should place our minds on hold in blind attempts to defend "faith" issues.

The world, as it turns out, is round after all.

This is a classic example of blind defensive postures masking themselves as "faith" when in fact it is "Faith misplaced".

The ELS theorem is a pure mathematical "proof" and is published in appendix of the book. Nothing has ever been published showing IN THE MATH that the proof (which is a simple randomizing function and proof) is in error.

What HAS been published are statements asking for "more research".

Whether or not you choose to apply the randomizing model to the Bible says NOTHING about the math of the randomizing function. (This just isn't that hard people).

IF you don't like the randomizing function - then you will have to "show the math" for HOW it is in error or where the correction in the randomizer is needed. "Wishing that it was not a randomizing math function" is like "wishing the world was not round".

Mathematics is a "hard science" (as it turns out). Which means that "what you Wish" has nothing to do with the formulas, proofs and peer reviews.

The peer reviews FOR THAT function were done by outright atheists that had no interest whatsoever in having any strange Bible quirks show up in THEIR domain of Mathematics. BUT "Wishing" was not an "option for them". So they had to deal with the formual ITSELF.

Hmmm - they were stuck with math. And this passed 3 levels of peer review.

If you will notice in ALL the responses so far NONE of them shows an error in the formula "PROOF" posted in the book. Indeed the BEST quote we get above is "wishing that MORE research was in place for HOW the randomizing function applies to certain books".

But even that is not a "mathematical treatment of a PROOF".

Having said that - about the Math, I am only willing to go that far. I don't use the function and don't promote the Bible code itself.

However I am consistently dismayed at low-brow attempts to discredit hard science "proofs" with blind religious "wishing" as if "wishing" had anything to do with it.

I am also dismayed at the use of the randomizing function to try to predict the future - using any document (Bible or not). But that does not mean I have to cloud the facts - to bolster a "wish".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Even professional statisticians often make grave conceptual errors when dealing with issues of anterior and posterior probability. It's probably because any application of statistics -- however well grounded in theory -- is tightly bound to human psychology an perception. This allows hidden assumptions and errors to slip in and remain undetected.

Invalid uses of statistics can thus persist in the literature and common culture for a long time.

-Neil

 

This was a bad choice of words. By "often" I meant "more often than one might suppose given the formal nature of the discipline" and not "a lot of the time."

Didn't want to get any statisticians riled-up at me!

-Neil