It is important to understand that there has never been any suggestion of a
substantive change, such as a different letter which could change the
meaning of a word, much less a sentence or paragraph - and the almost
identical letter-for-letter text of the Torah according to Ashkenazic,
Sephardic and Yemenite tradition, despite the last 1900 years of exile, is
strong evidence that the Jewish people has kept the text quite well.
Nonetheless, it cannot be argued that the text is identical with that
maintained in the First Temple, when the Talmud itself says otherwise.
The division of chapters, verses and even words is irrelevant to the study
of the "Codes" done by the researchers, but the issue of spelling is a
serious one. Though Gilad offered the possibility that the addition or
subtraction of several letters might not make a difference in the study,
the researchers showed how the removal of only a few letters drastically
reduced the significance of their results - so this would be a tough
argument to make.
Gilad then says in regards to the "Codes:"
>the data (Torah) on which these methods are applied, is flawed in the
>lettering AS IT IS STATED IN THE TALMUD ITSELF and quoted above. Therefore,
>any analyses of flawed data can produce only flawed results regardless of
>its sceintific authonticity.
>
>I think that there can only be two serious explanations for those findings:
>a mathematical error, or G-d. G-d gave us the Torah in a format which is
>different in the lettering, and therefore the only conclusion which I can
>draw is that we have here a mathematical error.
The problem with this argument is that it's not unlike saying that an
electron cannot possibly be both a particle and a wave. It's all well and
good as a philosophical discussion, but the observed evidence says
otherwise. A series of statisticians went over the results, suggesting test
after test for verification, before the final paper was accepted by
Statistical Science magazine. Since then, it has been seen by countless
statisticians worldwide - and no one has managed to punch a hole in the
straightforward analysis that was done.
The most serious effort to disprove this phenomenon apparently came from
Harold Ganz, a mathematician & program with the Dept. of Defense. The end
result of his effort to duplicate the research and demonstrate its flaws is
that he now lectures on "Codes" around the country.
This forces us to analyze whether the data was actually flawed. The
argument by Gilad is that "G-d did it" isn't a rational explanation for
human error, and therefore the Torah which we have today constitutes
"flawed data."
But in actuality, "G-d did it" isn't the alternative. Rather, the question
is whether "G-d knew it would happen," and the answer, according to Jewish
philosophy, would seem to be a definite yes. We are told that G-d created
time as well as matter, and is therefore Himself outside and above time.
The problem of determinism and fate vs. free will is an ancient one, best
reserved for a separate thread - but the end result is that the same G-d
who gave us the Torah on Mt. Sinai knew what it would look like 3300 years
later.
Whatever the minor letter differences might be, the data, the Torah we have
today, cannot be described as "flawed." Despite full awareness of the
Talmudic statement that we cannot be certain about the presence of certain
vav and yud characters in the text, Maimonides still considered the belief
that "the Torah which we have today is that which was given to Moshe on Mt.
Sinai" one of the fundamentals of Judaism (number eight, to be precise). It's
fundamentally [sic] the same document. As for the actual text, clearly the
Torah which we have today must be the one G-d _intended_ for us to have,
_today_. Rabbi Yaakov Weinberg of the Ner Israel Rabbinical College,
Baltimore, was asked why the phenomenon appeared in our particular text, and
his answer was that this was logically what we should expect: that G-d would
know both when the necessary computers would become available, and also what
the Torah would need to look like at that time.
The philosophy behind all this is relatively complicated, but the
scientifically observed results are not: they are truly quite striking. We
can argue about how to _explain_ the reality, but dismissing it isn't one
of our options.
Yaakov Menken