| |
The Cipher of Genesis Using the Qabalistic Code
to Interpret the First Book of the Bible and the Teachings
of Jesus
Compact Bible by
Carlo Suares / Paperback / Aug 2005 / Compact Bible ISBN 1578633354 |
 |
Bible Charcter Codes
Compact Bible by
William Schlegl / Paperback / June 1998 / Compact Bible
ISBN
0570053250
|
 |
The First Six Days Creation, Evolution, the
Bible and the Compact Bibles
Compact Bible by
Franklin Nolle Williams / Paperback / Oct 2001 / Compact Bible ISBN
0759657386
|
| |
The Stones and the Scarlet Thread New Evidence
from the Bibles Number Code, Stonehenge and the Great
Pyramid!
Compact Bible by
Bonnie Gaunt / Paperback / Apr 2001 / Compact Bible ISBN 0932813879 |
| |
The Codes of Hammurabi and Moses With Copious
Comments, Index and Reference Bible
Compact Bible by
W. W. Davies / Paperback / Jan 2004 / Compact Bible ISBN 1591070783 |
 |
How to Unlock the Secret Codes in Bible Prophecy
Compact Bible by
Truong Tien DAT / Hardcover / Mar 2004 / Compact Bible ISBN 1591605962 |
 |
Mysteries of the Universe A Revolutionary
Commentary on UFO?S, Aliens, Angels, Pyramids, Compact Bibles,
Reincarnation, the Antichrist, the End of
Compact Bible by
J C;
C. J C. / Paperback / Dec 2004 / Compact Bible ISBN 1594679592 |
| |
Secrets Of The Jewish Exile The Bible's Codes,
Messiah, And Suffering Servant
Compact Bible by
PRESTON KAVANAGH / Paperback / Feb 2005 / Compact Bible
ISBN
1595710302
|
For viewing of the Hebrew words in the
English pages, and the New Hebrew pages we are using Hebrew
fonts
Download Hebrew Fonts |
Compact Bible
 Doron Witztum's new book
"The Code from Genesis" (in Hebrew) has appeared. For details in
Hebrew, click here.
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
Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Here is a chronicle of the events surrounding the
publication of the Statistical Science paper (for a more
detailed explanation
click here):
- 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 Compact Bible 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, Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible 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
Compact Bible 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].
- 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 Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible by Prof. Diaconis and Prof. Aumann (as laid
down in a letter dated 7 Sept. '90, written Compact Bible by Prof. Aumann
and approved Compact Bible 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.
[The HTML version for the Statistical Science
paper, was made Compact Bible by Ari Haviv whom we would like to thank. To Ari Haviv's
site
click here.]
- In the winter of '88 the book The additional Dimension
(Hamemad Hanosaf), Compact Bible by Doron Witztum, was published. This
book presented many examples, primarily intuitive ones,
illustrating the kinds of subjects covered Compact Bible by the phenomenon
under discussion, and the typical geometrical patterns of the
convergences.
- 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.
- At the beginning of '99, several lists of names and
appellations were compiled Compact Bible by Dr Simcha Emanuel, a
specialist in rabbinical history at Tel-Aviv University. He was
engaged Compact Bible by MBBK (McKay, Bar-Natan, Bar-Hillel & Kalai), opponents of the
Codes' research, and his work was guided Compact Bible 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
"New
Statistical Evidence for a Genuine Code in Genesis".
BS"D Heshvan 29, 5761 (27 Nov. '00).
A Review of the Attempts to Invalidate the Torah
Codes
Hebrew Version
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 Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible by
these opponents, who feel justified Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible 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!
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:
"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 Compact Bible 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 firm (proven) hypothesis;
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:
- We point out many serious logical and statistical flaws
in MBBK's work, each of which devalues their entire work.
- We bring many examples of serious
mathematical-statistical mistakes and deceptions.
- We show how MBBK revealed only some of their
results, and that the way they chose to present those results
seriously skews the true picture which would be drawn
from their own variations. We also explain the fallacy of MBBK's
a posteriori excuses for their partial presentation of
their results.
- We submit their thesis to control experiments.
For example we check how their thesis performs on an admittedly
" cooked" list––the list they themselves "cooked" to succeed in
"War and Peace". This experiment is based on their own
prediction in their paper in Chance: That the results of
their list for "War and Peace" should worsen and/or improve to
the same extent as WRR's list.
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.
- We unfold the "evolution" of their "study of
variations". This evolution went through at least four stages.
The researchers changed the set of variations time after time,
and made a posteriori changes in their
presentation of the results; each new presentation (even of the
same variations) was advantageous to MBBK's goal.
We bring
further experimental evidence of MBBK's "tuning", showing that
there is no connection between their presented results and any
"optimization" Compact Bible by WRR.
In conclusion: MBBK's "Study of Variations" is proven to
be not only flawed and invalidated, but also a product of deception
and suppression of vital data. We strongly recommend reading our
paper against the "Study of Variations". Even someone
unknowledgeable in Hebrew and Torah bibliography and unable to
detect MBBK's deceptions in these fields, will be able to see
through MBBK's methods.
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
Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible 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:
- MBBK deceptively fabricated an "independent experiment" .
They presented a complete failure of the results while hiding an
important fact:
- The necessary conclusion derived from Dr Emanuel's list of
names and appellations is that WRR's success stemmed not
from "cooking" of names and appellations (as MBBK claim) but
from the existence of genuine codes in Genesis.
Let us briefly add:
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.
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
Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible by Prof. Cohen.
But:
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)
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).
(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 Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible by exploitation of the flexibility of the rules or
Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible by Dr Emanuel, the expert
engaged and guided unilaterally Compact Bible 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:
- 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.
(7). Concerning MBBK's claim that WRR directly optimized
the results Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible by a factor of 2 or 3, sometimes Compact Bible by a factor of 10 or 100,
and sometimes Compact Bible by a factor of tens of thousands. For details
click here.
All this starkly contradicts MBBK's report and the impression
created Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible by WRR, but Compact Bible 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:
- This claim is absolutely false. To read our response to this
outrageous claim,
click here.
- 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 Compact Bible 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 Compact Bible 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:
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."
In conclusion:
We have destroyed the main claims of MBBK one
Compact Bible 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:
- Their fairy tales about the huge "wiggle
room" exploited Compact Bible by WRR to produce successes are nonsense and their examples of
"wiggle room" were almost always based on distortions and
deception.
- 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.
- 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.
- Measurements that we made on data collected
Compact Bible by MBBK,
pertaining to the second list of personalities and the "Seventy
Nations" , have proven that the Torah Codes is a true
phenomenon.
|
Cambridge Study Bible up to 50%. Devotional bible, Reference Bible, Compact Bible, Pocket Bible.
