BBC's Horizon on The Bible Code

[Hamish]

Last night the BBC screened an episode of Horizon dealing with the supposed hidden messages found within the Bible. For those who missed it, the programme summanry and related links can be found here:

Horizon - The Bible Code (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/biblecode.shtml)

Along with their famous homeopathy experiment (here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml)) I've found Horizon to be well presented and balanced. By this I do not mean that they necessarily give credence to the phenomena that they investigate but the programme last night did give some insight as to why people believe so strongly in these things.

The programme created a strong case for the codes andthen proceded to knock it down piece by piece. The most convincing counter argument was the sceptic who accepted the challange of Michael Drosnin (author of two books on the code) to find similar messages in Moby Dick. Using similar search routines, references were found to Kennedy (he shall be killed) and Lady Diana (mortal in these jaws of death). The lesson to be learned is that if you search for any pattern at all, you'll find something.

The programme concluded with a test run by two mathematicians at Imperial College, London to try to find pre-determined, specific patterns in the Bible. Their results were in line with statistical chance.

I found this interesting, not because of the subject matter, but because a subtle misunderstanding of statistical analysis could lead serious mathematicians to believe in something fictional.


Did anyone else in the UK catch this programme? Any thoughts?

(Editted to add: Ok, I see from a search that most of this has surfaced before in one form or another so there's probably nothing new here and I should really search the forum before I re-hash old topics. Still, feel free to comment.)

[mummymonkey]

I did see the program last night. I have to say I have been frustrated by the style of Horizon over the last few years. It's gone down the road of obscuring the science with flashy graphics and stupid dumbed-down narrative. The same criticism can be levelled at much of the BBC’s science and natural history output these days.
Most programs take the form of a simplistic detective story with obvious red herrings and about turns. You know the story is about to change direction when the music builds and the narrator says something along the lines of:
"The scientists were sure they had cracked the 70 year old mystery, then, on the other side of the world, a young fossil hunter...."
Last nights offering was along familiar lines, the volt-face in the narrative occurring a good half way through the program when we were introduced to the Australian statistician.
Much better in my opinion to present both arguments at the beginning, and spend the rest of the program examining their respective merits.
Still, the bible code was thoroughly de-bunked by the end and it's hard to see how anybody could believe in such tosh after watching this program.

[Frankie]

I missed the program due to power failure. I shall read the link however to catch up.



On a similar note. Has anybody read, or know of an article in one of the English newspapers written in the last week. About a possible validation of the Bible through evidence corroborating the myths of the 'Super-children of Genesis.' 'Nephilim.' 'Crystal Skulls.' ' Book of Epoch'? If anybody has a link or similar, I would be appreciative.

[Hamish]

Well, now that you mention it....

Yes, Horizon used to be a lot better. It isn't quite as bad as some of the science programmes that the BBC churns out but it is somewhat sensationalist. The problem is that there are very few good weekly science programs on terrestrial TV at the moment. Everyone seems to want to make history programs.

[chillzero]

a guy I work with was talking about this this morning, and he says that they did not manage to knock down the theory, but very much presented it as a believable code. He says that so-called attempts to knock it down used various different methods to search through texts until anything came up that looked like something. However, the Bible code has only one rule, and it is rigidly applied, and still comes up with these results.

He said that Oxford professors sent it out 3 times for further verification from other experts, and no one could come up with a reasonable theory to debunk it.

I didn't see it, so I am only offering a different interpretation of the program, as it was presented to me.

[tim]

I didn't see it, but I did tape it. I'll have a look over the weekend. I was expecting it to be pro-code, but from what's been said I was wrong. I'll look forward to it.

[mummymonkey]

Originally posted by cabby
a guy I work with was talking about this this morning, and he says that they did not manage to knock down the theory, but very much presented it as a believable code. He says that so-called attempts to knock it down used various different methods to search through texts until anything came up that looked like something. However, the Bible code has only one rule, and it is rigidly applied, and still comes up with these results.

He said that Oxford professors sent it out 3 times for further verification from other experts, and no one could come up with a reasonable theory to debunk it.

I didn't see it, so I am only offering a different interpretation of the program, as it was presented to me.
This is why I hate the dumb style they use to present these things. The first half, if seen in isolation was indeed a convincing argument for the bible code. We then had a section of arguments from both sides which was inconclusive. Only in the last 5 minutes did it become clear that the method used was fatally flawed (the original data appears to have been tuned before the program was run) and that when the program was re-run with two sets of newly chosen data the results were exactly as expected, i.e. random.
If you nipped out for a coffee near the end or your concentration wandered to something more interesting (not hard) you would have missed it.
This style is fine for an episode of Charlies Angels, but not for a supposed science program. Bah!

[Rolfe]

This is a bit of a "me too", but I saw the bulk of the programme. For the early part I was screaming "but this is complete nonsense!" at the TV screen, and something in the back of my mind was saying "Moby Dick"....

It was very like the homoeopathy programme in style. The woo-woo presented at first pretty much without criticism and with far too much dramatic music. Then the volte-face (Moby Dick). Still with way too much melodrama (in the technical sense - speaking over music). But at the end still allowing the viewer a tantalising possibility of "who knows - maybe there might be something in it after all?".

Given that I know enough about homoeopathy to realise that that programme significantly understated the sceptic case, I suspect the same might be true of this one. Horizon isn't as good as it used to be, but it could have been a lot worse.

Rolfe.

[max]

Michael Drosnin the author of The Bible Code2 had a double page spread in the Mail on Saturday. He says under the guise of an impartial documentary, the BBC seem to have set out to 'rubbish' the bible code. They held back a lot of the evidence and wanted to hide the truth. He reminds us that the bible code was discovered by Eli Rips a genius in mathematics and the bible used was written in Hebrew not in english as the revised versions are.
The BBC also left out an important interview that Drosnin conducted with the chief scientist at the Israeli Ministry of Defence, who confirmed that he had been shown the prediction that Yitzhak Rabin would be assassinated a year before the event. There is quite a lot of crucial facts left out of the programme and all the best proof that the bible code is real. Drosnin asked the BBC to release all the best parts it left out but they refused. It has also refused to allow him to broadcast on any other TV network. I assume he signed to this effect when the BBC agreed to cover the subject.
In my opinion everybody should be allowed to see the full unedited programme but as usual, these sort of programmes do not give a satisfactory conclusion.

[The Don]

I think that Horizon team like to play with the credulous in the same way a cat plays with a small rodent. Let it run free for a while and then WHAP!!! stop it in its tracks.

The people who make a living from the bible code would, I'm sure, cause all kinds of stink if they felt that the programme wasn't "balanced" in their favour. Maybe sceptics should become more litigous ?

No programme, no matter how good and convincing would ever have an impact on the true believer. All Horizon can hope to do is to sway the person open to reason. By taking an initially positive view of the effect in question, there's no fear that the British desire to support the underdog can cut in.

If they went in all guns blazing, I fear that a sizeable proportion of the audience would align themselves with the Bible Code, simply because they felt protective toward it because it was under attack.

[Hannibal]

Not being terribly up on the Bible Code (I suspect it is bobbins though)...

Does it refer to the Old or New Testament?

Does it take into account the Dead Sea scroll additions/Omissions?

Does it take into account the fact that the bible is composed of gathered writings from various sources NOT a cohesive document with a single author? In other words, some bits were put in and some left out. How can it reveal a specific code if there was no direct collusion between the writers (clue: STAITISTICAL PROBABILITY)

I am not Christian, but it seems tome that the bible is a set of beliefs and rules to help you live "as God intended". Why would a book that is quite explicit in certain things have to conceal a message in such a contrived way? And if the intention was to pass on a message of what is to come why did it only occur to ONE SINGLE MATHMETICIAN that this was the case?

Bollocks - Plain and simple

[neutrino_cannon]

Moby Dick...Moby Dick...

What amazes me is that this, which is hogwash of class A++ quality, has been taken as seriously as it has. It seems to me, it's hardly considered "alternative" or even "out there" (subjective though these observations are), since looking for something in the bible other than brutal, genocidal nonsense in the form of secret codes has been an age-old activity for those with lots of time on their hands. Even the BBC seemed to take it more seriously than they should have, if I read your posts correctly.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Hannibal
Not being terribly up on the Bible Code (I suspect it is bobbins though)...

Does it refer to the Old or New Testament?Old. In fact I think it's just claimed to apply to the first few books, the Torah - the Mosaic ones I think.Does it take into account the Dead Sea scroll additions/Omissions?No, it's just the canonical stuff. Though in Drosnin's first book he manages to crowbar the DSS in there by referring to them as demonstrating the 'letter-perfect accuracy of transmission', or something, of the books in question - which of course is only vaguely true.Does it take into account the fact that the bible is composed of gathered writings from various sources NOT a cohesive document with a single author? In other words, some bits were put in and some left out. How can it reveal a specific code if there was no direct collusion between the writers (clue: STAITISTICAL PROBABILITY)No. Drosnin likes to refer to old legends of the books of the Bible being dictated by God in their entirety, a legend which is entirely not in keeping with either their literary character, or modern Biblical criticism.I am not Christian, but it seems tome that the bible is a set of beliefs and rules to help you live "as God intended". Why would a book that is quite explicit in certain things have to conceal a message in such a contrived way?Drosnin suggests, barmily, that it was intended to remain undiscovered until we were sufficiently advanced to detect such a complex code. Of course, this begs the question, why put the code there at all, then? Why encode events which will have passed before we reach the stage of being able to read the code? And, most importantly, what's the point in a code that can only really be used with any certainty with hindsight? True, he bangs on about the Rabin prophecy, and predicts the end of the world imminently - but I think God or whoever must admit that it's fairly unreasonable to ask people to accept such a prophecy based on only one previously successful prediction (which I'm willing to bet will dissolved when looked at closely), and lots of contradictory evidence. What's the point?Bollocks - Plain and simple Yeah.

[Nucular]

I quite liked the documentary, simply for the fact that it included some fairly good sceptical stuff, including the re-run of the unpublished experiment, and some of my more 'open minded' (read: gullible) family member etc. might have watched it.

It didn't really look very closely at what on the face of it is one of the more compelling aspects of Drosnin's claimed evidence - the prediction of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination. Until this is investigated properly - or it is discovered that Drosnin has made it impossible to do so, which would be a rather large clue in itself - he can continue to bang on about it.

I wonder:

How specific the prediction was ("Something bad will happen to someone in the Israeli government! At some point!"...?)

How accurate in reality it may have been ("Rabin will die of pneumonia!"...?)

Whether he attempted to warn any other famous people of an assassination or other events which never materialised ("Aha, one happened! I knew it!"...?)

What documentary/other evidence he has that these events took place ("I have this signed witness statement from a very high-up Israeli official who chooses to remain anonymous"...?)

And so forth.

I also wondered why McKay, the sceptical statistician the BBC had on board, failed to mention (or the BBC omitted to mention) his astute observation that Rips himself may have been somewhat dishonest with the chronology of the discovery of these codes, and the implication for his preliminary work for the experimental validity of the famous studies (see this page (http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/ripslect/) by Brendan McKay).

So yeah. It could have been better (and, minus the dramatic music and graphics, could have fitted into a ten minute slot probably), but it's still a good thing they made it.

[Summerisle_Lord]

I think the best prediction made is the world "might" end in 2006. If it doesn't Michael Drosnin will claim he warned us in time to prevent it !

When confronting the 'Moby Dick' issue. He made a statement similar to "any fool can find any code in any text if they look long enough for it".

I agree :D

[ReasonedFaith]

If there was a secret "code" imbedded into the Pentateuch, it would have been imbedded in the original Hebrew, not the English translation.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by ReasonedFaith
If there was a secret "code" imbedded into the Pentateuch, it would have been imbedded in the original Hebrew, not the English translation. I believe they were looking at it in hebrew. Whether it is the "original" I suppose is subject to debate. But it was pointed out in one of these shows that since Hebrew lacks vowels it makes it easier to find these word associations. I still laugh at them finding the ancient Hebrew word for "airplane" in one of them. :D

[DarkPrimus]

Originally posted by ReasonedFaith
If there was a secret "code" imbedded into the Pentateuch, it would have been imbedded in the original Hebrew, not the English translation.

There USED to be a website that was the "official' website of the Pentateuch, and had the algorithm implemented so that you could type in any word or combination of words, and see how good and bad they were.

Dispite the website clearly stating that it was infalliable, due to being God's Work, I didn't really buy it, after quotes from Satan's Bible came up as more good than John 3:16.

Oh, and let's not forget "Luke Skywalker" being 99% evil, 1% good, and "Darth Vader" being 1% evil and 99% good. :p


EDIT: I say "used to" because it went down a while ago due to bandwidth, and I haven't been able to find it since.

[uneasy]

Originally posted by mummymonkey

This is why I hate the dumb style they use to present these things. The first half, if seen in isolation was indeed a convincing argument for the bible code. We then had a section of arguments from both sides which was inconclusive. Only in the last 5 minutes did it become clear that the method used was fatally flawed (the original data appears to have been tuned before the program was run) and that when the program was re-run with two sets of newly chosen data the results were exactly as expected, i.e. random.
If you nipped out for a coffee near the end or your concentration wandered to something more interesting (not hard) you would have missed it.
This style is fine for an episode of Charlies Angels, but not for a supposed science program. Bah!
Thanks for a good summary of how I think the news media handles ANY subject. I don't know what it's like where you are (The BBC doesn't seem as bad as USA media), but I see what you describe in many news pieces. In the interest of "balance", kooks from both sides are brought forward. There's a slow reveal crucial information as the news story goes on. Then at the end some crucial point that could have been the subject of the whole news story is suddenly revealed.

Like "...but new legislation being proposed this week in congress might bring an end to situations like these. Will this solve the problem? Only time will tell. Back to you, John."

[thaiboxerken]

I think the Bible Code is more evidence of how stupid believers are and how desperate they are for evidence to support/ justify their stupid beliefs. First, they say that "god" is a matter of faith... Then, they make up stupid evidence like this. It makes me wonder what they really think.. .is it a matter of faith or not? I guess these idiots really don't have as much faith as they state that they do when they have to fabricate evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

The sad thing is.. some people actually believe stories like this.

[Hannibal]

Nucular you star! Thanks for the responses (see Luci, THAT'S how its done - Q&A's are so much easier when you answer them)

Isn't the "sufficiently advanced" theory also the same one put forward by Hancock in regards to the pyramid measurements and the "message" contained within it? Ihave to say that I found that an even biger stretch than the bible code. Hancock crossed a while back between researcher and loon.

[nick]

Originally posted by Summerisle_Lord
I think the best prediction made is the world "might" end in 2006. If it doesn't Michael Drosnin will claim he warned us in time to prevent it !


I would like to get hold of Mr. Drosnin's e-mail address so I can propose to him that I will give him the entire contents of my bank account today, in return for him giving me his entire net wealth on 1st January 2007.

[The Don]

If he were to agree, I foresee only 50% of that transaction coming to pass. I'm sure he would insist that the wprld had come to an end and he was unable to complete the second part of the transaction

[nick]

When the first Bible Code book came out, I wrote a small program to search arbitrary texts for strings. This was on VAX/VMS, so I used the Rdb database system help manual as my document. I found "Kennedy", "Dallas", and "shot" within a few characters of each other, in about ten seconds. My conclusion is that every book in the world prophesied JFK's assassination. Damn, the FBI must have been really sleeping on the job.

[Darat]

Originally posted by uneasy

...snip...

In the interest of "balance", kooks from both sides are brought forward.

...snip...

One of my pet peeves is the obsession of the media to ensure they always present a "balanced view". This is ridiculous PMism!

I expect the media to be unbiased but unfortunately many parts of the media seem to think “unbiased = balanced” :mad:

[ZouPrime]

Isn't hebrew written without vowel? If it's the case, then obviously it will be much easier to find "codes" in the hebrew version than in the english one.

[nick]

Originally posted by ZouPrime
Isn't hebrew written without vowel? If it's the case, then obviously it will be much easier to find "codes" in the hebrew version than in the english one.

Correct; it means that you can find much more impressive-looking words. For example, a seven-letter word like "Kennedy" is not all that easy to find, but "KNND" will turn up hundreds of times more often. (Obviously the relationship between original word length, vowel-less length, and frequency will be different between English and Hebrew, but the same principle applies).

I'd be interested in seeing how many times the Hebrew equivalent of a word such as "disingenuous", or indeed any other pentasyllabic word, turns up. Or are we meant to believe that the authors of the Bible, while able to predict the future, did so only in the literary style of Ernest Hemingway ?

[patnray]

Originally posted by max

The BBC also left out an important interview that Drosnin conducted with the chief scientist at the Israeli Ministry of Defence, who confirmed that he had been shown the prediction that Yitzhak Rabin would be assassinated a year before the event.

Some logic: IF ancient Hebrew texts predicted the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, then the future is pre-ordained and prayer is useless. i.e. God has already planned the future and written those plans down, so prayer can't change anything....

On the other hand, I predict that any Israeli politician who makes unpopular concessions to the Palestinians is likely to be assassinated....

[nick]

Originally posted by patnray

On the other hand, I predict that any Israeli politician who makes unpopular concessions to the Palestinians is likely to be assassinated....

Yes, but that's also pre-ordained... as is, logically, your message. And this one. In fact John Allen Mohammed couldn't help it, it was pre-ordained that the Beltway victims would die. As will he, bwahahahaha.

[tracer]

Was this Bible Code show on BBC the same as the Bible Code show that was on the History Channel a couple of months ago (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27018)?

[nick]

Sounds like it - in particular, the fact that Moby Dick got exactly a 2-minute mention.

[max]

anachronym for you all ..... Bible..=.....Basic Information Before Leaving Earth:D :book: :bgrin:

[Lost Boy]

A point that has not been brought out here so far is that Rips is a mathematician. The Bible 'Code' needs an understanding of statistics. They are very different disciplines, indeed the determinism of a mathematician may make him absolutely unqualified to deal in statistics.

Other readers may be interested to know that the Brendan McKay who appeared in the programme is party to an attempt to make the homeopaths face validation;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?thread=%3C1069704037-29208.5%40forum2.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&find=%3C1069704037-29208.5%40forum2.thdo.bbc.co.uk%3E&board=science.headlines&sort=Te

Please cotact him and the BBC board to support his effort.

[Rolfe]

Oh No, Kumar has turned up there! And as he is posting as "Kumar V", I rest my case that he's "Kayveeh" from homeopathyhome.

These guys on the BBC board are hopeless. They need to go away and do some serious reading before they stick their necks out. Like, don't they know that all the "provings" of "like cures like" are done on ultradilute material, so you can't now separate the concepts?

Get in there and sort them out, Lost Boy. Now. :D

Sorry just blowing off here 'cos I can't be bothered to emulate Kumar and join up on the BBC tonight.

Edited to add: Damn board's closed. They don't like insomniacs or antipodeans, obviously. I don't think I'm going to be able to help myself tomorrow....

Rolfe.

[nick]

Originally posted by Lost Boy
A point that has not been brought out here so far is that Rips is a mathematician. The Bible 'Code' needs an understanding of statistics. They are very different disciplines, indeed the determinism of a mathematician may make him absolutely unqualified to deal in statistics.


And even if he were a statistician, that doesn't mean others will agree with him.

There is a vocal minority of dentists who claim that fluoride harms teeth, and another minority of researchers with PhDs who (still today, I think, certainly a few years ago) claim that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong, either, but it seems there is very little in science that *everybody* who is "qualified" to talk about it, agrees upon.

And then you have Dr. Andrew Wakefield in the UK claiming that the MMR virus causes autism, and "he's a doctor, so he knows, and all the other doctors who say he's wrong are part of the conspiracy" (of course, the other doctors are specialists in virology and immunology and autism, and backed up by statisticians, and Wakefield is a gastro-enterologist, but for the media, he's "A Doctor Who Dares To Speak Out Against The Establishment", not "Someone Who Has Made A Mistake But Doesn't Know How To Back Down" (although it seems he is back-pedalling quite hard these days).

I like "Always get a second opinion; 50% of doctors graduated in the bottom half of their class".