Dy
I knew you were missing something, here it is:
“If you think (for who knows what reason) that codes appearing in all variations of chaseros and yeseiros in a way which is a mathematical impossibility”
This is wrong. Given enough variations of chaseiros and yeseiros, that “codes” will be found in some of them is a mathematical certainty. Certainly not a “impossibility”.
“you can still posit that it’s only in this one, which is the one Hashem knew would be here in the computer age.”
You really dont find that strange at all? That chazal’s Torah didnt have codes but only ours does?
“And again, the proponents I’m referring to deny that the codes work elsewhere”
I am looking at codes in moby dick as we speak. That the proponets deny what I see with my eyes right now, says a lot about this quackery
“If the codes which Rips and the other people used are mathematically impossible, you’re going to say that’s meaningless? “
It is not impossible. It is a certainty. It is one thing if we decide beforehand what we are looking for say “Barack Obama” but to go on a fishing hunt through 304,805 letters in the Torah after weve decided what we are looking for. B Obama, Barack Obama, B H Obama, Barack hussein Obama, President Obama, President B obama, (dont forget we dont need vowels in hebrew). The probablity of finding something that we can attach meaning to aproaches 1! a certainty!
(Note: this is a second problem with the codes, not related to the “major problem” identified earlier)