COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

This phenomenon is called pareidolia.  Learn about it here: http://cdn4.libsyn.com/sgu5x5/SGU5x52008-09-24.mp3?nvb=20090103064416&nva=20090104065416&t=0094f6719f72fc0e682e9

Comment by Guy on 1/03/09 at 2:57 am

That’s a great link to a short audio file (radio? podcast?) explaining the human propensity to form patterns out of data, even when those patterns might not really be meaningful. 

Seeing Jesus in the pita is as meaningless as recognizing The Archer in the sky.

Thanks, Guy.

Comment by The Web Guy on 1/03/09 at 4:30 am

I think this particular artifact is a phony. While pareidolia is a real phenomenon when applied to sensual input (not so much ‘data’) and particularly with regard to facial recognition, I have been trying unsuccessfully to find an antonym for pareidolia, which would be the human propensity to refuse to form patterns out of data even when those patterns really are meaningful, as with many (if not necessarily all) of the famous Bible Codes. I enjoy discussing those so I welcome comments on the actual merits of the phenomenon as opposed to oneupmanship on the backgrounds, reputations and credentials of the major figures in the debate.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 1/03/09 at 8:50 pm

The Bible Code is not an example of strict pareidolia.  It is, however, an example of finding patterns in a post-hoc fashion.  The Bible Code turns the scientific method on its head by taking the Bible and counting the “hits” (meaningful “codes”) and dismissing the “misses” (random gibberish letter combinations).  The scientific method, on the other hand, forces one to test the hypothesis (in this case, that the Bible has prophetic “codes,” while secular literature does not).  Since it has been proven that Tolstoy’s War and Peace contains more or less the same number of “codes” as the Bible, the hypothesis appears to be false.

Comment by Guy on 1/03/09 at 9:15 pm

The Bible Code (so-called) is a hoax foisted on the uneducated and gullible by many groups for their own purposes.

Most notorious for this disservice (in the Jewish community) is Aish HaTorah, whose mission is to remove Jewish young people from the evil clutches of the Enlightenment and return them to the mental ghetto. Logic and rational thought are the enemies of the Bible Code.

These groups misuse the prestige of and respect for the scientific method (actually what they employ is scientistic reasoning) to ‘prove’ their nonsense.

Michael Shermer explains here

Faith is faith.  Science is science.  Let it be.

Another good explanation—from a professor of Hebrew at my Alma Mater—is here.

Comment by The Web Guy on 1/03/09 at 9:30 pm

Hello guys!

I think this particular artifact is a phony. While pareidolia is a real phenomenon when applied to sensual input (not so much ‘data’) and particularly with regard to facial recognition, I have been trying unsuccessfully to find an antonym for pareidolia, which would be the human propensity to refuse to form patterns out of data even when those patterns really are meaningful, as with many (if not necessarily all) of the famous Bible Codes..

    Thanks and regards!

Comment by ZOJIRUSHI Bread Maker on 9/18/09 at 5:52 am

Thnks for unearthing this particular thread, even though you are a spam artist. I intended to respond to the above (but after Rosh HaShana, good year to all).

Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/18/09 at 6:04 am

Pareidolia doesn’t really have an antonym.  Its an imperfection in of how our brains interprets reality.  Finding an antonym to the word “pareidolia” is like finding an antonym to the word “deja vu.” The best antonym for “pareidolia” I can think of is “inquiry,” the process of finding information about a particular subject.  Inquiry has debunked the Bible Codes and forms of pareidolia like the one above.

Comment by Guy on 9/18/09 at 1:03 pm

Just shutting my computer down for the holiday, so I will postpone the discussion till next week. Till then, just so we don’t get caught up in semantic ping-pong, try to focus on the simple definition I put up for an antonym to pareidolia, which was “the human propensity to refuse to form patterns out of data even when those patterns really are meaningful”. Let’s play it straight and not get involved with the issue of taking sides on what and whom we wish to believe (emotional distortion). Let’s take this as a generic discussion in which for arguments’ sake there really are such meaningful patters and there are people who really do refuse to recognize them. This is such a common psychological phenomenon that it needs no elaboration. We can call it denial, sophistry, corruption or intellectual laziness but those are a little too broad for such an elevated discussion as we are having

I obviously do not consider the Bible Codes debunked at all and in reference to my initial note stating “I enjoy discussing those so I welcome comments on the actual merits of the phenomenon as opposed to oneupmanship on the backgrounds, reputations and credentials of the major figures in the debate” I just remembered why this discussion did not proceed. The Web Guy posted a link to a thirty page paper, and I had no desire to post linmks to forty and fifty page papers on the topic or to deconstruct them in 600 word blog posts that nobody wants to read. I want to know what you think and tell you what I think. And the attempt to overawe with authority is just tiresome. Do I know as much as this guy or that guy? Maybe not, but they can be wrong-headed for their own reasons. The blog is loaded with holocaust-deniers, antisemites, and evangelists, many of them quite intelligent, credentialed, well spoken and wrong. Their papers are full of facts and footnotes and all that, byt they lie by all manner of rhetorical fallacies. The weakness of Web’s paper is in the interpretation of the data and in fact in abandoning the scientific method to do it.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/18/09 at 5:50 pm

Ben,

I don’t blame you for not wanting to read 30 page papers on the subject of Bible Codes, but would you at least watch the 7 minute YouTube the Web Guy posted above? Here’s the link again:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish/item/the_bible_code_hoax_or_holiness/

Perhaps you will agree with Orthodox Jewish mathematician from Cal Tech when he says that the Bible Codes are bunk, but that the Bible itself is holy.

Comment by Guy on 9/19/09 at 3:16 am

I didn’t say I didn’t read it. I did read it but did not agree that he had debunked the codes, for reasons we can discuss if you actually do want to discuss it instead of putting up shadows for me to box. From what I can tell (prove me wrong), you do not comprehend the issues and are content to let your big brother (Jeffrey H. Tigay, Michael Shermer, Barry Simon) do the talking.

It so happens that I had seen the Michael Shermer video, as well as longer ones by Barry Simon, as well as hearing Barry Simon in a live lecture mostly spent in discrediting the mathematicians, statisticians and cryptologists who study Bible Codes and say that are not bunk. Most of them started their investigation as skeptical as Shermer and Simon but became convinced against their training and inclinations. I can’t get into Simon’s mind but it is understandable that this topic is emotionally loaded for some people, and Simon is wrong for reasons we can discuss. Let’s talk about the actual controversy rather than link to dueling mathematicians.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/21/09 at 2:03 am

Perhaps you disagree with the Orthodox Jewish mathematician when he says that the Bible Codes are bunk.  This is your right.

Do you accept, however, the findings of studies that show that codes can be found in Tolstoy using the same method Bible Code believers use in finding Bible Codes?

Comment by Guy on 9/21/09 at 2:22 am

This is not about my right to agree or disagree. My position is based on factual evidence, and aligns with mathematicians of a stature at least equal to Simon’s.

Parenthetically, I want to note my disagreement with the use of the word ‘codes’, as implying an encoding process. That might be true, but it is an interpretation of the findings. I would prefer to read it a ‘pattern’ or ‘sequence’ (ELS or other) in the data-gathering phase of the investigation. But I will continue to use the word with that caveat.

In that light, ‘codes’ can be found in any text such as Tolstoy or Melville. What is in dispute is the methodology of finding them as well as assigning significance to the relationships of the codes to each other and to their context.

‘Codes’ exist. They are in your face and available to for all to see. A core argument of critics is not that codes don’t exist, but that they are insignificant if the researcher cheated, or ‘cooked’ the data to find them. Codes found in Tolstoy etc. are found precisely and by design by such cheating, and those findings are used to accuse legitimate researchers of cheating as well. Codes research is indeed vulnerable to such manipulation and abuse, which however does not invalidate well-designed studies.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/21/09 at 3:20 am

I don’t understand.  If codes can be found in Tolstoy using the exact same methodology as those that Bible Code believers use to find codes in the Bible, doesn’t that call the methodology into question? Doesn’t it mean that either both Tolstoy and the Bible are equally valuable or equally worthless?

Let me be clear: I am not challenging the divine authorship of the Bible.  The claim that there are codes in the Bible is independent to the claim that the Bible is divinely authored or that the miracles in the Bible are historically accurate or that the Bible is a unique piece of literature.  All I am suggesting is that since the methodology has been proven to work on Tolstoy as well as the Bible, then the Bible is not unique in this respect.

Comment by Guy on 9/21/09 at 3:35 am

Sorry, the Jewish holiday season is not the best time to begin a serious interaction. I am spending very little time at a computer for now. Just so you know, I immediately wrote a long detailed response to your comment; that wasn’t hard. I decided not to post it it because unfortunately the field of discussion has become polluted. In other words this is no longer an honest disagreement; there is serious lying or denial going on. There are mutual accusations of lying and cheating. All of the players are advanced in technical terms for the demonstrated findings to be hocus-pocus to the layman. The question is who one trusts.

One way to decide is to see who benefits and who loses from honesty. As I said, the codes are in-your-face. The dispute is all about interpretation of significance. An example: Assuming that my name is ‘Ben’ and yours is ‘Guy’, let’s say that we are each approached by two strangers. In both cases one says, “Hey Ben, good to see you!” The other says, “Hey guy, good to see you!” The one talking to me is more significantly accurate.

About this issue I can say is that the codes were found serendipitously, although there is a traditional basis indicating they are there. If they could be proven insignificant exist nothing would change for proponents from the day before it became an issue. On the other hand if their significance is admitted, then opponents would have to admit to the existence of something they insist is impossible. Science requires an open mind.

So that - if one believes that the Bible is divinely authored, then one can open-minded about codes. Critics would have it that the proponents find codes through a corrupt process because of an irrational need to anchor their faith. The reverse is true. No faith is invested in codes; they are what they are. One can take them or leave them depending on the quality and quantity of the evidence. One had faith yesterday before codes and thus will have faith tomorrow should half the codes and techniques or all of them be debunked. Most proponents including myself were doubtful before taking the time to understand the field.

On the other hand - if one has an emotional investment in atheism or secularism or even pure blind faith; or against spirituality or metaphysics, then it is impossible to credit meanigful codes in the Bible, and the lowest standard of conjecture is permissable to explain away even the best evidence. It is not impossible to construct patterns and find patterns given enough raw material and processing power, but the specific content and associations would not be humanly impossible to an astronomical degree, meaning greater the number of all humans who ever lived by many degrees of magnitude and so forth.

Codes are like scientific terrorism. We can demonstrate thousands of compelling codes. If all but one are refuted, the proponents’ point is made. If even one is admitted, the opponents’ point is lost. That is the reason for all the anxiety and hostility.

To answer your question directly, the findings in Tolstoy or Melville do not use the same methodology and do not produce the quality or quantity of results as the Bible. First of all, the differences in the Hebrew and English languages make it impossible to compare the significance of results in a quantitative way. This is not trivial as the whole field of inquiry is experimental and speculative, and calculations for significance are held to a much higher standard than in most scientific research.

To avoid spurious findings, the researchers have not only used Hebrew translations of Melville etc., but ‘perturbated’ Bibles, or text files of identical size and content but with either sentences or words or letters mixed up, and not found the Bible code effect. After all the whole point of codes research is that coded information is theoretically unrelated to straight textual content. Basically, we should be able to find any damn thing in any damn text, or at least tests of equal size and complexity. But it doesn’t work that way. The opponents demonstrations are all trivial, vague and anecdotal.

In fact, the demonstration by Barry Simon in the video (that he describes as one of his ‘favorite’ ones) uses the discredited ‘Drosnin’ technique of simply searching adjacent text for evocative words. If you look at real examples of Bible codes, that is the lowest form of association, and if they bother with it, it is only a cherry on top of a meaningful finding. What may be more significant is the topic or theme or other meta-association of a passage.

Ah well, a long answer after all.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 9/27/09 at 12:10 pm

Jesus seems to be showing up in everything now - pita bread, cheese sandwhiches. I swear if my halogan oven was working I’d make a nice cake and he’d show up in that too.

Comment by Jennifer on 11/25/09 at 12:54 pm

Hi.
I found your Web Site by Google
And I wish you the best you can get,
the peace of God through Jesus Christ.

Welcome to visit my Site.
Allan Svensson, Sweden
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/INDEX.HTM

Most Christians have not yet begun to prepare
for Jesus’ coming. They can speak and write
about Jesus’ coming, and about the signs of the
time, yet they do not make any preparation to
meet Jesus. How can we make a preparation?
In the first hand God’s people must get the
knowledge of the Assembly of God.  The
truth of the Assembly of God has never been
peached in the churches.

People have a sort of love and fellowship that
does not endure the light of God’s word. When
we mention something about churches and
denominations, and compare with what the Bible
teaches about the Assembly of God, then a
remarkable phenomenon appears. Many Christians
become afraid and nervous and point out that we
shall love the assembly and not judge and criticize.
But what is it that they apprehend as criticism?
It is God’s word!

Just these Christians who have prayed for revival
during many years, they are the worst opponents
against revival. They do not endure the light of
God’s word. They do not want to hear the truth of
the Assembly of God. They think that the
Pentecostal churches and other free churches
are Assemblies of God.

They believe that the Assembly of God is constituted
of church systems and many religious organizations.
Can you anywhere in the Bible find any hint that the
Assembly of God is an organized movement or any
church system?

In the time of the apostles any church did not exist, and
therefore the word “church” does not occur in the Bible. 
Everywhere in your English Bible where you see the word
“church” it is a grave translation error. Also Matt. 16:18.
It ought to be “assembly”.

In the reality, the word “church” occurs not at all in the Bible.
I have five Bible translations in Swedish, (the oldest from
1703). Nowhere in these Bibles does the word “church”
(kyrka) occur. I have also a reference book where the New
Testament is translated word by word from Greek to Swedish.
Everywhere they translate the Greek word “ekklesia” to
församling (assembly).

Perhaps you want to raise the objection, there are many
bible translations in English which all have the word “church”.
This is a very stupid argument. A translation error does not
become better of repeating. A lie is a lie no matter how many
time it be repeated.

In Col. 1:18 (KJV) we can read: “And he (Christ) is the head
of the body, the church ...” And in Eph. 5:23-24, “For the
husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of
the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the
church is subject unto Christ…”

This is a lie! The church is not subjected unto Christ. The
head of the Church is the pope, the black pope, and the devil.
The Bible translators do not make a difference between God’s
true people and Satan’s Church. From the Church’s deeds we
shall know the Church. Matt. 7:15-20. By their fruit we shall
recognize the false priesthood. The Catholic Church has
persecuted, tortured and murdered many millions of Christians.
This is a well-known fact. How could a good tree bear such
an evil fruit?

Why did the Bible translators use the same word “church” also
for God’s people, the Body of Christ? Why did not they see the
difference between the murderer and the victims for the
murderer? The first Christians were no church. Calling the
first Christians “the first church” is a grave insult against these
Christians. The Church is a mass murderer. The devil is the
real church father.

If we use the same name “church” on the murderer as on the
victims for the murderer, how then can we know what that
means when someone says “church”?

Right since the great falling away took place a very long
time ago and the first churches came into existence,
2 Thess. 2:3, God’s people have lived in slavery under
Satan’s churches and denominations. The churches have
all the time served the devil, but pretend to be God’s
servants and representatives. The churches have never
been any God’s assemblies or God’s temples. They have
already from their beginning been harlot beings. They
are born through religious fornication. People have
mixed God’s word with doctrines of evil spirits, and so
new churches appear.

Jesus cannot come today because God’s people are not ready
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/TODAY.HTM

Evil spirits in the churches
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/SPIRITS.HTM

Why did the Pentecostal Revival take an end?
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/CRISIS.HTM#end

What does hinder the Antichrist to appear?
What is the Restrainer?
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/MESSAGE.HTM#Antichrist

The restoration of the Assembly of God
after the great falling away
http://www.algonet.se/~allan-sv/PREPARE.HTM#restoration

Comment by Allan Svensson on 2/20/10 at 6:28 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

Blog Archive

• By Month
• Categories

• By Month
• Categories