Talk:Michael Drosnin
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]This article makes various accusations about the work of the author, however it does not cite any sources that show where these accusations come from or the basis upon which these accusations are made. Adding citations will help us evaluate these accusations and should make this article NPOV. Thank you for your input, please put any source information on the Talk:Michael Drosnin/facts page. Alex756 04:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
space aliens
[edit]in the first bible code book that drosnin wrote he does claim that extraterrestrials relayed the message of the bible to primitive humans, he also claims to be an athiest
So this apocalypse that Drosnin predicts between 1998 and 2006, did I miss it? --Slashme 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was going to happen but Drosnin's warning allowed us to avert the disaster. That's what he will claim (wait for book #3 to see if I'm right). McKay 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how he could. If the Bible is indeed infallible, then the Bible codes aren't predictions (which could be right or could be wrong) but more future statements of fact (which will happen, no matter what anyone does). The other possibilities are either his math was wrong this time (since he stated he found the 2006 codes over and over again, it would be difficult to make the same exact mistake over and over again) or his entire equation for finding the codes is off (which means he would have to go back and re-do every code he found, including the Rabin assassination). Or am I missing something here? Patken4 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- You aren't missing anything. The real story is that the whole subject is crackpot and applying logic to it is a waste of time. McKay 03:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how he could. If the Bible is indeed infallible, then the Bible codes aren't predictions (which could be right or could be wrong) but more future statements of fact (which will happen, no matter what anyone does). The other possibilities are either his math was wrong this time (since he stated he found the 2006 codes over and over again, it would be difficult to make the same exact mistake over and over again) or his entire equation for finding the codes is off (which means he would have to go back and re-do every code he found, including the Rabin assassination). Or am I missing something here? Patken4 22:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Computer Program
[edit]I deleted the following text: "and that the code can be easily interpreted through the pioneer computer program created by Alexander Rotenberg, with Dr. A. Smirnov and Dr. Alexander Polishuk." No such claim is made in Drosnin's book. In fact Drosnin does not attribute the program to anyone (except maybe to Rips). Later a different Israeli programmer Yochanan Spielberg sued Drosnin in a US court, claiming breach of contract (he says Drosnin promised to advertise the program in the book) and breach of copyright (on the grounds that Drosnin's letter arrays were produced by Spielberg's programs). Spielberg lost on both counts (on the grounds that there is insufficient proof of contact, and letter arrays are not copyrightable). In any case, the point here is that there is no reason whatever to credit Rotenberg, Smirnov and Polishuk. McKay 06:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
What I see here, from both sides of this debate, is pure and un-adulterated fear. The atheists have come to disbelieve in God...and so are afraid that they may actually be wrong. To them, the non- existence of God was somehow "proven" by science long ago; and they want to keep it way by trying to debunk ideas like the Bible Code before all the requisite research has been done that will either prove it, or disprove it. They are, in short, afraid that they will have been wrong in their disbelief all these years.
Those on the other side have a similar fear. They feel the need to believe in something more and deeper. They are also defensive. Now, both sides have based their careers on the other side being wrong. Perhaps Drosnin is a crackpot; but he gave up an awful lot to become one. If the Code is nothing more than chance occurances of random words and Drosnin has come out claiming it is real; he will NEVER be respected as a jounalist, ever again. Would he take that chance, unless he really believed it and there was a decent chance he might be right? If so, he belongs in an institution. If not, I think we need to be patient as research on the codes continues.... And both sides, from McKay; to Rips; to Drosnin himself, have to be much more open-minded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.246.162 (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
BLP issues
[edit]The subject of this entry is unhappy with poor sourcing for things that he claims are completely false. I have too little information to have an opinion about the underlying facts, but just getting started here I can say that the sourcing for much of this entry doesn't stand up to the standards I think are necessary for a biography of a living person.
I just removed this: "also implies that extraterrestrials delivered the message of the Bible encoded with these prophesies,[1] and" because Drosnin flatly denies it and the source is a self-published website of a critic. Given the denial, I think it clear that we must not include this claim unless it can be sourced directly to Drosnin himself saying it somewhere.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
References
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Drosnin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090130052502/http://wopr.com/biblecodes/ to http://www.wopr.com/biblecodes/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
'Predict' v. 'Foretell'
[edit]Having read the article, including the Talk page, it occurred to me that it is a strange use of the word(s) 'predict/prediction' if no-one is actually advised of the 'predicted' events prior to their occurrence. In other words, 'predict/prediction' is being used in a retrospective, conditional sense, dependent on hindsight. Altho the 'SADDAM/SCUD' example comes close, no event actually seems to have been accurately predicted by the Code. Given the need for scientific disprovability, I suggest that the 'predict/prediction' concept is retained for where someone is actually informed of a future event, while the similar but less clinical-sounding 'foretell' concept is applied to where scripture or other written matter appears to refer to future happenings. 'Seems to foretell' would arguably represent an even more scientifically accurate representation of the phenomenon. Richard Comaish (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)