Mathematical claims of 'Bible Codes'...is there any truth in the maths?

[CoxRox]

I eagerly bought Michael Drosnin's book 'The Bible Code' back in the 90s and promptly dumped it when I discovered that these 'codes' were naturally occuring sequences that you can find in any book. Well, in searching the net for links to help me with the claim of mathematical platonism, I came across this article: ''Mathematics bombshell: God 'confirmed in Bible' ''

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...E_ID=41892

I was rather bemused as I thought the codes stuff was old debunked codswallop. This Edwin Sherman guy being a mathematician, got me interested. Has anyone checked his claims out? I've found this website which I'll check out.
http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/6

Any mathematicians amoung us who know about mathematical probability etc, your opinions would be most appreciated.

[DD_8630]

It is codswallop indeed. Mathematicians with expertise in statistical analysis calculate that, given a random block of text, there is a 50:50 chance that a 'Bible code' will yield something meaningful. To demonstrate this, the death of Princess Diana was found in Moby Dick.

Go figure.

PS: First post, woo!

[lukec]

Welcome, and agreed. It's a bit silly, I'm sure you could find a code in the bible that says "Don't believe anything written here!"

[CoxRox]

DD_8630, welcome and thanks for your reply. You and Luke have both mentioned something that is not in dispute: that any text will produce words or phrases using the methods employed by the Bible coders. When the codes first 'appeared' in the 90s they were proven to be just coincidence, indeed these codes appeared in other books like the Koran, Moby Dick etc. This Ed Sherman guy is interesting, in that the codes he has found are so unlikely to appear by chance that the mathematical probabilities suggest they are deliberately planted there. I've found two critics and I've emailed them as the 'debunking' stuff I'm finding seems to be dated back to the Drosnin codes and there doesn't seem to be any up to date critiques regarding Ed Sherman's claims. The two critics are Randy Ingermanson who has a Phd in physics.

http://www.ingermanson.com/codes/art/debunkers.php

I emailed him yesterday to ask him about Ed Sherman. This is my email and his reply this morning:

''Hi Catherine: >Have you come across this site:>http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/6>and a mathematician called Ed Sherman? They seem to be saying that>since the controversy surrounding the initial codes via Drosnin,>Rips etc, it does seem there are 'real' codes. I would appreciate>your opinion on this. Many thanks.''

I spent many hours talking with Ed years ago. I never changed his mind and he never changed mine. -- Randy IngermansonPublisher, Advanced Fiction Writing E-zinehttp://www.AdvancedFictionWriting.com/blog
I was a bit disappointed he didn't go into detail.

The other critic is Brendan McKay professor of Computer Science
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html

I emailed him also and am awaiting his reply. It's interesting stuff.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I spent many hours talking with Ed years ago. I never changed his mind and he never changed mine. -- Randy IngermansonPublisher, Advanced Fiction Writing E-zinehttp://www.AdvancedFictionWriting.com/blog
I was a bit disappointed he didn't go into detail.

I think what one needs to bear in mind is that there an awful lot of gullible people out there, people who WANT to believe things like this, that there is an overall design/a guiding intelligence to our universe and as such people like Drosnin & Sherman stand to make a huge amount of money out of books on the subject. Indeed I suspect many of these people, these writers probably don't believe the crap they write and are well aware they are leading others astray ... if I am right, that they are not only being disingenuous but plain lying, I wonder how they can live with what they do? Maybe they drink Horlicks?

Kyu

[DD_8630]

DD_8630, welcome and thanks for your reply.

Cheers .

You and Luke have both mentioned something that is not in dispute: that any text will produce words or phrases using the methods employed by the Bible coders. When the codes first 'appeared' in the 90s they were proven to be just coincidence, indeed these codes appeared in other books like the Koran, Moby Dick etc. This Ed Sherman guy is interesting, in that the codes he has found are so unlikely to appear by chance that the mathematical probabilities suggest they are deliberately planted there.

Are you saying that Ed's Bible codes are extraordinary compared to those found in other texts?

I've found two critics and I've emailed them as the 'debunking' stuff I'm finding seems to be dated back to the Drosnin codes and there doesn't seem to be any up to date critiques regarding Ed Sherman's claims.

If Ed's claims aren't updated, why would the critique need to be ?

The two critics are Randy Ingermanson who has a Phd in physics.

http://www.ingermanson.com/codes/art/debunkers.php

I emailed him yesterday to ask him about Ed Sherman. This is my email and his reply this morning:

''Hi Catherine:
>Have you come across this site:
>http://www.biblecodedigest.com/page.php/6
>and a mathematician called Ed Sherman? They seem to be saying that
>since the controversy surrounding the initial codes via Drosnin,
>Rips etc, it does seem there are 'real' codes. I would appreciate
>your opinion on this. Many thanks.''

Wait, I thought Ingerman is a critic of Bible codes. Is he in fact a proponent?

[CoxRox]

I spent many hours talking with Ed years ago. I never changed his mind and he never changed mine. -- Randy IngermansonPublisher, Advanced Fiction Writing E-zinehttp://www.AdvancedFictionWriting.com/blog
I was a bit disappointed he didn't go into detail.

I think what one needs to bear in mind is that there an awful lot of gullible people out there, people who WANT to believe things like this, that there is an overall design/a guiding intelligence to our universe and as such people like Drosnin & Sherman stand to make a huge amount of money out of books on the subject. Indeed I suspect many of these people, these writers probably don't believe the crap they write and are well aware they are leading others astray ... if I am right, that they are not only being disingenuous but plain lying, I wonder how they can live with what they do? Maybe they drink Horlicks?

Kyu

Your suspicions may well be true although from what I've read of the people involved (on both sides) their intentions are sincere if not wrong. It is claimed that Sherman started out with the intention of disproving the codes. Anyway, I'll continue checking these claims. They'll maybe come to nothing again.

---

Are you saying that Ed's Bible codes are extraordinary compared to those found in other texts?

Well, that is what he is seeming to claim. If you check out the link I provided it does go into it in more detail.

I've found two critics and I've emailed them as the 'debunking' stuff I'm finding seems to be dated back to the Drosnin codes and there doesn't seem to be any up to date critiques regarding Ed Sherman's claims.

If Ed's claims aren't updated, why would the critique need to be ?

The critiques I seem to be finding are based on the initial Drosnin, Rips codes that were seemingly disproved back in the late 90s. I'll let you know if I find any reviews of Sherman's codes.

Wait, I thought Ingerman is a critic of Bible codes. Is he in fact a proponent?

No, he is a critic. He has spoken to Sherman and knows about Sherman's codes but he didn't go into detail in his reply to me, to say why he thought Sherman was wrong, just like Drosnin.

DD, (is it ok to shorten your name?) Hope you can see my comments in bold.

[DD_8630]

No, he is a critic. He has spoken to Sherman and knows about Sherman's codes but he didn't go into detail in his reply to me, to say why he thought Sherman was wrong, just like Drosnin.

Ah. Perhaps he considered the same fundamental fallacy was being committed by both Drosnin and Sherman?

DD, (is it ok to shorten your name?) Hope you can see my comments in bold.

It is, and I can :p.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Your suspicions may well be true although from what I've read of the people involved (on both sides) their intentions are sincere if not wrong. It is claimed that Sherman started out with the intention of disproving the codes. Anyway, I'll continue checking these claims. They'll maybe come to nothing again.

The science/math community has pretty much rejected this kind of thing and it is now their (the claimants) problem to literally prove what they "believe". Meanwhile (taking the cynical POV) they continue write articles & books and give interviews etc., these books continue to sell to people who want to believe this stuff, such interviews continue to be of interest to the same, they (the claimants) continue to make money off both and (as I said earlier) I'm inclined to think they are, at best being disingenuous.

Though I wasn't a believer, before I realised I was an atheist, I took the stance that any claim I couldn't personally disprove had potential merit and treated these kind of claims in that fashion and I think that is the kind of stance you're adopting. It was that kind of stance that led me to adopt an almost Pascal's Wager type stance, shoving my personal scepticism aside and take my children to church every other Sunday for a few years ... now think I was wrong (very wrong).

I think you think you're being open-minded in taking the stance you are but, no insult intended, I think you are being just as gullible as I was.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

The guy says "basically it cannot happen by chance"...erm...yes it can. A random letter generator will (on occasion) produce the entire works of Shakespeare perfectly word for word. Just because it is unlikely doesn't mean it won't happen. To say something is beyond the realms of chance is to ignore everything we know about chance.

I also fail to see how this proves God wrote the Bible. Why would God hide messages in the first place? This is like the people who claim that generic similarities are proof of a designer, making the designer extremely deceptive (given what we know about evolution).