Bible Codes and Bible Numerics for Stephen ben Yeshua

In fact it is worth making the distinction between Drosnin's Bible Codes and the claims by Witzum, Rips, Gans et al.
The latter have at least some semblance of rigour and statistical analysis.Stephen seems to make the distinction only when he wishes to reject crticisms - he seems quite happy to claim Drosnin's "Codes" as evidence at times yet at other times considers Drosnin's work to be a "strawman" - indicating that even he feels that they are worthless and easily dup;icated in other texts.

Your continued references to Bible Code Digest - a pro-Drosnin site - are sufficient.Indeed the Bible Code Digest response to Dave Thomas' "Moby Dick" codes attempts to defend Drosnin by implying that his work used the same methods as Witzum et al.

The fact is that you keep talking about "Bible Codes" and referring people to pro-Drosnin articles. And such behaviour is inconsistent with your dismissals of Drosnin's claims.Surely that is obvious ? Or can't you even see that Bible Code Digest is full of atricles promoting Drosnin-style "codes"

And in the next message he provided a link to Bible Code Digest defending Drosnin. Written by somebody who assumes that Drosnin used the same methods as Witzum et al.Bible Code Digest.com - Moby Dick ArticleIf Stephen really beleives that Drosnin's codes are worthless and have no real relation to Witzum's work then why point to a defence of Drosnin written by someone who (wrongly !) assumes otherwise.Why not just say that the Moby Dick codes are a valid response to Drosnin, whose claims are of no relevance ?

The problem is that you keep referring to the Bible Codes - that is Drosnin.You keep referring to Bible Code Digest - a pro-Drosnin site.You keep referring to an article attacking the Moby Dick "codes" - an answer to Drosnin's challenge, put forward as a refuation of Drosnin.How can these things not be seen as support for Drosnin ?

THe Bible Code Digest website was down yesterday so I was not in a position to adequately check Sterphen's claims about what it sais.In fact Stephen is guilty of a misepresentation he quoted the following Now omitting the ellipses to idnicate that this is only part of a sentence is not good, but the real problem is the next paragraph [italics in original replaced by all-caps]All this in a clearly pro-Dronsin article which only mentions Witztum et al to support the existence of Drosnin-style codes.

In normal English the implication is that the assumption is unsound - and in considered in context it strognly suggests that the author considers this assumption to be false or probably false.As I said it was Drosnin's challenge based on one of Drosnin's codes and the challenge was met.There is no suggestion that Drosnin was lying - only that his "codes" were not significant. If that is what you are objecting to then you re defending Drosnin's "codes" and methodology. If there is any indictmet of Drosnin's character it is that he did not do as he said he would when his challenge was met. And that we know for a fact.Your attitude is certainly not that of a scientist.