|
|
E. How do you
know the codes are not just by chance?
1.Can
codes be statistically proven to be significant?
2. Is
it true that "you can find anything, anywhere" with ELS?
3. What
does "minimum skip" mean?
4. How
do you know if a code is significant?
5.What
is the criteria for determining whether a code is significant or not?
6.Does
the text the codes are found in have any relevance to the codes?
7.Can
all the codes found in the Bible be duplicated by any text similar in size?
Question E1:
Can codes be statistically proven to be significant?
There are two groups of people who have been arguing this question
for the last 5 years. Doron Witzum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenburg, 3
Israeli Scientists, had their report about Equidistant Letter Sequences
in the book of Genesis published in Statistical Science (a peer-reviewed
Science Journal) in 1994 (. The report concluded that the pattern of word-pairs found in close proximity
to each other in Genesis was statistically significant, which suggests
Divine Inspiration.
The second group are the
scientists Brendan McKay, Dror Bar-Natan, Maya Bar-Hillel, and Gil Kalai
(referred to as MBBK), who have sought to refute the work of WRR (Witzum,
Rips, and Rosenberg) on the issue. Their refutation to the WRR report
was published in the May 1999 issue of Statistical Science
). The report discusses alleged flaws in the statistics used by WRR in
the 1994 report. The McKay report was a big deal for skeptics of the codes,
because it was the first formal, scientific report that refuted the codes.
Question E2:
Is it true that "You can find anything, anywhere" with ELS?
This is the view held by the skeptics. It is not true. Yes, you can find
any small word, and even some bigger words encoded in books like Moby
Dick and War and Peace, or any large book. However, you cannot
find complex code matrixes as are found all over the place in the Bible.
First, it isn't entirely
true that you can find "anything," "anywhere" with ELS. There is a classic
example. The Hebrew phrase, "God Encoded, God is Truth" is 14 letters.
It is found encoded at an ELS of 1032 in the book of Genesis. Never, is
this phrase found in War and Peace, and never have we heard of anything
near 14 letters being found encoded in Moby Dick. Also, in a randomized
version of the Tanach, we tried searching from -35,000 to 35,000, and the
phrase was not found.
This is the main problem
with the skeptics. When they learn that the term "Torah" (for example)
can be found a thousand times in War and Peace, they assume that you can
find complex code matrixes in those books. A complex code matrix consists
of many thematically related terms that are all found together. There is
not a pattern of complex ELS codes in any book, other than the Bible.
"Minimum Skip," "Minimum ELS," and "Minimum Interval" are all the same
thing for those who don't know. With ELS codes, it is a basic "law" that
the
lower the skip distance (interval), the more significant the code is likely
to be. The lower the skip distance, the less likely the code is there
by chance.
When somebody says that he has found a word encoded at "minimum skip" in
the book of Genesis, that means he found that word encoded at the lowest
interval that it is ever found at in Genesis.
Because short 3-5 letter
words can be found so many times by chance, if a word like that is an essential
part of the code, it MUST be found at an extremely low skip distance. The
longer the word, the higher of a skip distance is allowed. If you find
a short word like "Rabin" at an ELS of over 30,000 that is obviously not
significant, and just there by chance.
The Issue Of
Near-Minimality
Author: Keith
York
The articleThe
Truth About The Bible Codes
contains the following statement concerning criteria for judging whether
a matrix is a valid code array or not. "What criteria distinguish
an array consisting of a random pattern of ELS's occurring by chance from
an array consisting of deliberately encoded ELS's? There is a general
consensus among Bible code experts that significant or valid arrays share
the following characteristics. They consist of two or more related
words that demonstrate the foreknowledge of God, where these words
are both compact and in close proximity to each other in
a two-dimensional array. In addition, near-minimality in skip distance
of an ELS is considered significant." The last sentence of this statement
is the subject now under consideration.
Before considering
near-minimality, we must first distinguish between a two-dimensional Bible
codes array (which is the subject of the above paragraph) and a one-dimensional
Bible codes cluster. AsThe
Truth About The Bible Codes states, "There have been a few cases in which
a word can be found as an ELS more frequently
than expected by chance in a small localized part of the text when that
word is particularly relevant to the passage in question." This is
what I term a one-dimensional cluster. By this I mean that the statistical
effect being measured is not dependent upon any parameters that arise from
a two-dimensional array such as geometrical compactness or proximity within
the array. Rather, the statistical effect comes from the one-dimensional
nature of the surface text. A particular ELS will have a given skip
distance regardless of the line length of an array it may happen to be
in. Also, two ELS's will have a set distance from each other in the
surface
text independent of how close or far apart they are in a two-dimensional
array. By contrast, parameters such as geometrical compactness and
proximity within an array depend upon the line length of an array.
Jeffrey Satinover's Cracking The Bible Code (1997, William Morrow
and Company, Inc.) gives a number of examples of this phenomenon I call
one-dimensional clustering on pp. 33-40, 120-129, and 143-147.
The
Torah Codes And Israel Today (1996, Lev Eliyahu) by Robert Haralick
and Matityahu Glazerson also contain examples of this. That book's
statistical analysis consists of finding the shortest passage in which
every one of a list's related words can be found as ELS's and then looking
at parameters such as shared letters and shared skip distances. Ed
Sherman and Dave Swaney of www.biblecodecritic.com
take the following approach. Given a list of ELS's, designate the
most improbable as the focal code and analyze the probability that each
other ELS of a given skip distance or less would come at least as close
as it does to the focal code in the surface text by chance. As mentioned
above, skip distance and surface text proximity are one-dimensional parameters
in that they are independent of an array's line length. Geometrical
compactness and proximity of ELS's within an array are two-dimensional
parameters in that they are dependent on an array's line length.
What the above paragraph
implies is that there are a number of different classes of Bible
codes, some of which are more suited to one type of analysis and some of
which are more suited to another type of analysis. Code clusters
are simply the term I apply to those Bible codes most suitable to analysis
of one-dimensional parameters, while code arrays are simply the term I
apply to those Bible codes most suitable to analysis of two-dimensional
parameters. Given this fact, the following question is asked of two-dimensional
code arrays: how important is near-minimality of skip distance? Is
it essential that every ELS in an array be near-minimal?
This is what the research team of Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav
Rosenberg (hereafter referred to as WRR), who published "Equidistant Letter
Sequences in the Book of Genesis" in Statistical Science in 1994
claim. Furthermore, most of the examples shown in Jeffrey Satinover's
Cracking
The Bible Code (1997, William Morrow and Company, Inc.) involve ELS's
which are near-minimal in skip distance. However, this view has not
been universally held among codes proponents. A contrasting position
is that it is only essential for the central term (and maybe a few others)
to be near-minimal in skip distance, while other ELS's are required only
to be geometrically compact and in close proximity. That has been
the view often presented at this and other sites, and a view that I myself
once held.
Even if it is essential
that every ELS in an array be near-minimal in skip distance, just what
exactly does "near-minimal" mean? How far does an ELS have to get
from being minimal to cease being "near-minimal"? I have recently
come up with what I believe to be an answer that is at once satisfactory
(in that it accounts for what is observed in numerous arrays), defensible
(in that it is in agreement with what WRR have been proposing and that
the limits do not appear to be arbitrary), and easily stated (the rules
are easily stated, easily understood, easily applied, and unambiguous).
If you remember from
WRR's 1994 paper, they searched for the 10 shortest skip distance occurrences
in Genesis of each ELS in their search list. They did not consider
surface text appearances (those with + 1 skip distance), but only
those whose absolute skip distance was greater than or equal to 2.
The Tanach (the Christian Old Testament) is 15.3 times the length of Genesis,
so it stands to reason that the 153 shortest skip distance occurrences
of any word in the Tanach (not counting surface text appearances) would
be equivalent to the 10 shortest in Genesis.
WRR ignored surface
text appearances in their paper for technical reasons, but there have been
reported arrays by Satinover and others where surface text words were considered
an integral part of the array. Thus when surface text appearances
of a word are part of an array, they should be considered near-minimal.
WRR also elaborated
on another aspect of near-minimality in their 1994 paper. For any
occurrence of an ELS there is a value T, which they designate the domain
of minimality. T is the amount of text (or fraction of Genesis in
their paper) for which no shorter skip distance occurrence of this particular
ELS occurs. The farther the occurrence is from being near-minimal,
the smaller the domain of minimality is likely to be. If an ELS spans
a portion of text which contains a shorter skip distance occurrence of
that same word, then the longer skip distance occurrence does not have
a domain of minimality. (In other words, say 'dog' is your ELS with
d at letter position 100, o at 125, and g at 150. Say that a shorter
skip distance occurrence of 'dog' occurs within this span of text with
d at position 110, o at position 116, and g at position 122. Since
the shorter skip distance occurrence of the word is completely contained
within the portion of text spanned by the longer skip distance occurrence
of the word, it can be said that the longer skip distance ELS of 'dog'
does not have a domain of minimality.) This suggests a third criterion
for an ELS to be considered "near-minimal". If the portion of text
spanned by an ELS occurrence of a word does not also completely contain
a shorter skip distance occurrence of that same word, then it is to be
considered as "near-minimal".
The three-fold test
can be stated like this. If an ELS meets any of the three following
criteria, it is to be considered as "near-minimal" in skip distance: (1)
it is a surface text appearance, i.e. having a +1 skip distance;
OR (2) it is one of the 153 shortest skip distance occurrences (not counting
surface text appearances) of that word in the Tanach; OR (3) the portion
of text spanned by that ELS does not completely contain a shorter skip
distance occurrence of that same word.
For the time being,
the preceding three-fold test will be considered as a prerequisite for
all future publication of arrays submitted to this site.
In other words, before a codes researcher submits an array for publication
at this site, he should check that every ELS in the array meets
one of the three criteria of "near-minimality". If it does not, one
can always submit it to another site for consideration, and potential codes
researchers are encouraged to do so. The exception to this rule will
be if the submitting person is able to provide statistical analysis that
convinces me that the ELS's in his array that are not "near-minimal" are
indeed statistically significant. I realize that this is a major
departure from past practice at this site and that I speak for myself and
not necessarily each and every staff member at this site nor even other
codes proponents whom we respect and whose sites we provide links to.
Though every ELS in an array being near-minimal will not ensure that the
array is indeed statistically significant, this threshold requirement will
serve to "weed out" those arrays which upon detailed analysis would prove
not to be statistically significant.
Can I state dogmatically
that ONLY "near-minimal" ELS's are significant in code arrays? No.
It is clear from published and statistically analyzed results that this
is not the case for code clusters. It may also be the case that "near-minimals"
are only one subclass of arrays, just as arrays and clusters are two broad
classes of codes. However, that only "near-minimals" are valid is
the claim of some of the most prominent codes researchers concerning code
arrays, and it is my belief that this is an aspect of the codes which those
of us who are codes "popularizers" have ignored for too long. I have
increasingly come to the conclusion in recent months that "near-minimality"
is indeed an important aspect of code arrays. I hope to further
demonstrate the rationales behind this conclusion in some soon-to-come
articles and case studies that I will publish here. I thus would
ask the reader to stay receptive to this concept and stay tuned for future
articles. Is "near-minimality" an essential prerequisite for
an ELS to be a valid part of a code array? I do not know. However,
what I do know is this. It may be that there is another subclass
of code arrays that do not use "near-minimals", but this can only be demonstrated
by the use of statistical analyses and/or control text studies. Thus
I challenge other codes proponents at their sites to state their case using
statistical analysis and control studies. Codes proponents such as
Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg and their associates such as Harold Gans rely
heavily upon statistics in their analysis of the codes, but besides the
people at www.biblecodecritic.com
(who examine code clusters rather than arrays), most of the rest of us
have ignored statistics. That should change. Let the debate
begin.
As a final note,
it has to be noted that other prominent codes researchers disagree with
me. While I will use this site to present my perspective on the codes,
I also believe it is only fair to the reader to provide links to selected
sites with other perspectives when I believe they have posted noteworthy
items. Thus the News section will include not only articles presenting
my perspective but also important developments presenting others' perspectives.
In this way, I hope to balance two roles: (1) advocacy of what I believe
to be an accurate view of the nature of the codes, and (2) notification
to the reader of important developments in codes research. While
it may be a fine line to walk, I will try my best to be fair.
Question E4:
How do you know if a code is significant?
This is a common question, and an answer we want to get out to everybody.
The reason, is because 75% of all code findings that people send us are
not significant, and could probably be duplicated by other books. The following
is a simple criteria for determining whether a particular code finding
is significant.
Since statistical analysis is valid but difficult to perform, we offer
the following as simple logic. If someone found 10 words that
are each found only once in the entire Bible, and all 10 of them were found
in the same chapter, and they all described the same event, then obviously
that code is significant. Or, if you find a complex code that cannot be
found in another book similar in size, then that is probably significant
as well. This is further expounded in What
is the criteria for determining whether or not a code is significant?
Question E5:
What is the criteria for determining whether or not a code is significant?
In order to determine if codes are significant, you must use statistical
analysis. However, since statistical analysis is valid but difficult to
perform, we offer the following as simple logic. For example: If someone
found 10 words that are each found only once in the entire Bible, and all
10 of them were found in the same chapter, and they all described the same
event, then obviously that code is significant. There are basically
three main types of significant codes. The first and most common type of
significant code is a complex code matrix, and it must meet 4 simple criteria:
A.
Complex Code Matrix
The reason why we cannot
give specific numbers, is because it depends on what you've found. "How
big can the small area or portion of text be?" It depends on how many words
you find, and the size (number of letters) of the words. You can find many
examples of codes in the Bible that easily meet these four criteria.
A "significant" ELS Code, (one that is probably not there by chance),
is one that meets the following criteria:
1. There must be several encoded words or
phrases that
all specifically and thematically relate to each other.
2. All of those words must be found encoded
in a small area or portion of the text.
3. The code must describe in detail an event
or something about a person or place.
4. The code must reveal a prophetic foreknowledge
of the future.
B.Words
or Phrases Encoded in a Relevant Area of Scripture
A second type of
code that can be considered significant, is one with several words encoded
many times at low or minimal intervals, all in an area of text that talks
about something related to the encoded word. This type of code many times
meets the criteria for the first type of code as well. Minimal interval
means the occurrence of a particular code with the lowest interval (that
particular code never appears with a lower interval). Lower intervals are
always more significant. You must be careful with these codes though. Finding
a few 3-4 letter words crossing a phrase in the surface text of scripture
is not significant. One good way to test it, is to see if you can find
those same words crossing any phrase in the Bible, or if it can be duplicated
by another book.
C.
A Pattern of Words or Phrases Consistently Being Found Together
A
final type of code that can be considered significant, is one with related
words or phrases that all appear encoded within a small area of text at
low or minimal intervals, and all the words have the exact same interval,
or are linked together in some other way. Then this pattern is consistently
found throughout the Bible. There are not many of these types of codes,
but there are a few.
Yes it can, but it does not have to. If you find a code in a certain area
of text that has nothing to do with the theme of the code, that does not
harm the code's significance at all. Most codes are not found in an area
of scripture that is relevant to the theme of the code. However, finding
a code in an area that is relevant can add to the significance of the code.
Always proceed with caution though, because this is a topic that is often
misused. If you find one or two short words encoded across a phrase of
surface text that is related, it means nothing. You've got to find multiple
words encoded that can't be found just anywhere, all found near this area
of surface text. If a lot of, or most of your code is made up of words
in the surface text, than it is not a code at all. Skeptics of the Bible
who try to duplicate the codes found in the Bible will sometimes find a
phrase in Moby Dick about blood or death, and then find a single word like
"Rabin" (who was assassinated) crossing that and calling it a code. If
a good portion of your code consists of words in the surface text, then
it is not a significant code. If all of this seems hard to understand,
just remember: Words and phrases in the surface text ADD to a code,
they do not MAKE the code.
Question E7: Can
all the codes found in the Bible be duplicated by any book similar in size?
Absolutely not. This is obviously the view held by most skeptics. While
encoded words can be found in any large text, you can only find statistically
significant complex code matrices in the Bible.
