Editing Bible code (section)

====WRR authors====

The WRR authors issued a series of responses regarding the claims of MBBK,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.torahcodes.co.il/debate1.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010309025007/http://www.torahcodes.co.il/debate1.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=2001-03-09 |title=Refutations }}</ref> including the claim that no such tuning did or even could have taken place.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.torahcodes.co.il/havlin.htm |title=No such tuning |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071013123715/http://torahcodes.co.il/havlin.htm |archive-date=October 13, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> An earlier WRR response to a request by MBBK authors presented results from additional experiments that used the specific "alternate" name and date formats which MBBK suggested had been intentionally avoided by WRR.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.torahcodes.co.il/response.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19980701070057/http://www.torahcodes.co.il/response.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=1998-07-01 |title=Response }}</ref> Using MBBK's alternates, the results WRR returned showed equivalent or better support for the existence of the codes, and so challenged the "wiggle room" assertion of MBBK. In the wake of the WRR response, author Bar-Natan issued a formal statement of non-response.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/WNP/NoResponse.txt |title=Non-response |access-date=2010-05-02}}</ref> After a series of exchanges with McKay and Bar-Hillel, WRR author Witztum responded in a new paper<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.torahcodes.co.il/emanuel/eman_hb.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070205210241/http://www.torahcodes.co.il/emanuel/eman_hb.htm|title=New Statistical Evidence for a Genuine Code in Genesis|archive-date=February 5, 2007|website=www.torahcodes.co.il}}</ref> claiming that McKay had used smoke screen tactics in creating several [[straw man]] arguments, and thereby avoided the points made by WRR authors refuting MBBK.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.torahcodes.co.il/dat2_hb.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070209233127/http://www.torahcodes.co.il/dat2_hb.htm|title=Smoke Screen|archive-date=February 9, 2007|website=www.torahcodes.co.il}}</ref> Witztum also claimed that, upon interviewing a key independent expert contracted by McKay for the MBBK paper, some experiments performed for MBBK had validated, rather than refuted, the original WRR findings. Witzum questioned why MBBK had expunged these results. McKay replied to these claims.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/codes/StatSci/app_rep.html |title=Concerning Witztum's response to our article "Codes in War and Peace – a reply to Doron Witztum" |publisher=Cs.anu.edu.au |date=2001-06-15 |access-date=2010-05-02}}</ref>

No publication in a peer reviewed scientific journal has appeared refuting MBBK's paper. In 2006, four new Torah Codes papers were published at the [[IEEE Computer Society]]'s 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR'06).<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/icpr/2006/12OmNApcuab|title=2006 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition |date=August 8, 2006|volume=1|pages=i–iii|via=IEEE Xplore|doi=10.1109/ICPR.2006.10|url-access=subscription}}</ref>