THE CODE 19 DEBATE

INTRODUCTION

In April 2005, an article entitled "Idiot's Guide to Code 19" was published on the Free-Minds.Org web site. The article tries to address in easy to understand non-technical terms the methodology and data definition issues associated with Code 19. All numerology doesn't stand scrutiny when those issues are brought up. The article can be found in this link:

http://www.free-minds.org/articles/science/ayman19.htm

Edip Yuksel, a long time promoter of Code 19, responded with an article entitled "Intelligent People's Guide to Code 19" and it can be found here:

http://19.org/index.php?id=14,246,0,0,1,0

The following presents the ensuing debate between Edip Yuksel, and Ayman, the author of The Idiot's Guide to Code 19 at both the Free-Minds.Org and 19.org forums.

THE DEBATE ROUND 1

Thank you for your response and for taking time out of your busy schedule to write this essay. I see that my article has had a positive effect on you and this is reflected in some of your translations that are significantly more truthful than Dr. Khalifa's distorted translations. Unfortunately, I can also see why your response is quite lengthy. It often digresses into lengthy nostalgic stories of the history of the discovery of the alleged mathematical miracle. Also, a lot of space in the article is dedicated to personal attacks and extensive and repetitive name calling perhaps thinking that if one repeats something long enough it will stick. Although I appreciate the personal attention that you are giving me (it shows that I am pushing the right buttons), your case would be better served by focusing on the issues.

To focus the discussion on the issues and in order not to waste the reader's time, I will organize my response to your criticism under ten short sections:

1. Mistranslation of the great reading

Edip perhaps you can help me answer this question. Why is it that when it comes to justifying their "miracle" based on the great reading, Code-19 promoters have to insert words that don't exist, twist meanings, and even invent new meanings? I know that you don't like this and you have personally criticized Aidid Safar for inventing meanings. But at least Aidid tried to present some argument (regardless of whether it is sound or not) as to why he departed from the Arabic dictionary meaning. On the other hand, 19ers insult the intelligence of the reader by silently inventing meanings without providing any justification.

Right off the bat, such forced mistranslations do not help your cause:

A new meaning for "marqum" as "numerically structured" is invented without providing any argument as to why the clear Arabic meaning was not used. The meaning has no basis in classical Arabic dictionaries. Here is what the dictionaries say about the word:

Wasit:

مَرْقُومٌ،  ةٌ -  [ر ق م]. (مفع. مِنْ رَقَمَ). 1."ثَوْبٌ مَرْقُومٌ" : مُخَطَّطٌ أَوْ مُطَرَّزٌ. 2."كِتَابٌ مَرْقُومٌ" : كِتَابٌ مَسْطُورٌ بَيِّنُ الكِتَابَةِ. "مَا هُوَ مَرْقُومٌ يَدُومُ".

Lisan Al 3arab:

وكتاب مَرْقُوم أي قد بُيِّنتْ حروفه بعلاماتها من التنقيط

Clearly, Arabic dictionaries say that "marqum" means "written/recorded" or "whose letters are dotted". There is nothing in there about "numerically structured".

This type of silent invention of meanings insults the intelligence of the reader because it doesn’t even attempt to provide a justification and hence assumes that the reader is not intelligent enough to make up their own mind about whether the invented meaning is justified or not. It also assumes that the he or she will not verify the meaning against other translations or classical Arabic dictionaries and discover the distortion.

More mistranslation:

Of course, the reader can guess what Code-19 promoters claim this "phenomenon" is. Why do they always have to work so hard at twisting the meanings, adding words out of the blue and inventing meanings? The answer is always that they are trying hard to make the great reading fit their preconceived "Code 19 miracle".

On a positive note, Edip finally admits that the word "ayat" means "signs" and not "proofs" and hence indirectly admits that this meaning was invented by 19ers to distort 10:1, 12:1, 13:1, 15:1, 26:1-2, 27:1, 28:1-2, 31:1-2. Unfortunately, he fails to grasp the implication of such admission and instead resorts to strange arguments to continue to justify that "ayat" refers to so-called "initials". Here is an example:

Edip gives up the invented meaning of "proofs" only to invent another new meaning of "verses". It is an indisputable fact that the word "verses" in Arabic means "abyat" NOT "ayat". Hence, we hear about "verses of poetry" as "abyat shi3r" NOT "ayat shi3r".

It can also be logically seen that verses and signs are not equivalent. The purpose of a sign/"aya(t)" is to provide GUIDANCE. Half a sentence or a "verse" that is meaningless without what came before it doesn't provide guidance and cannot logically be a sign/"aya(t)". For example, we hear at the end of the story of Moses in 26:10-67: "in this is an "ayat"/sign (singular)". Surely, The God doesn't mean that the "aya(t)" is described in just 26:67. Instead it is what is described in all the story from the beginning that provides guidance and hence is a sign/"aya(t)" (singular) despite encompassing several "verses". In fact, 26:67 is meaningless on its own and hence doesn't provide any guidance. On the other hand we have 2:164 that contains several "aya(t)"/signs despite it being a single so-called "verse".

I agree with Edip that it is dull and redundant to anyone who mistakenly thinks that "ayat/signs" means "verses". The fact is that right at the beginning of Chapter 24, 24:1 points to "ayat/signs" being in this chapter despite the chapter having no initials. Since 24:1 cannot possibly be pointing to anything other than what is coming AFTERWARDS, now Edip will claim that 24:1 is "dull and redundant".

Moreover, his other point about "these" only pointing to the so-called "initials" is completely negated by 2:1-2 where the same type of pointing device comes right after "Alm" and is pointing to the book. Clearly, the Alm is not the book.

Of course, this is the only valid reason in Edip's mind. However, any logical person can see that what he has built is a circular argument. It goes something like this:

The word "ayat" must refer to Code 19 because there is a Code 19 miracle in the great reading and the proof that Code 19 is a miracle is that the word "ayat" refers to Code 19.

2. "Doctors who smoke" syndrome

I apologize in advance to the scientifically literate reader because in this section I have to waste his or her time to state the obvious on the way science works. Unfortunately, the obvious needs to be stated because of comments such as these:

At any rate, Edip goes into another lengthy discussion about how the world is not fair to the few closet 19ers scientists and mathematicians. Firstly, let me say that there may be a few "scientists and mathematicians" here and there that believed in Code 19 much as there are a few doctors who smoke. Yet, no doctor that smokes will ever publish a paper in a peer reviewed scientific journal claiming that "smoking is good for your health". Similarly, no scientist or mathematician will ever publish a paper in any peer reviewed scientific journal endorsing Code 19. This is not because the editors of scientific journals such as Nature are bearded Sunni fanatics or are apathetic to the great reading, but it is because they are apathetic to false science.

Code 19 promoters are free to call Code-19 a "miracle" all they want. However, until it meets the standards of modern scientific research, namely passing peer review in a scientific journal, then they cannot call it a "scientific miracle" or a "mathematical miracle".

The only person who may be close to a scientist that I know of who has wrote anything to promote Code 19 is Dr. Richard Voss. Here is what Edip writes about him:

I am surprised that Edip is not terribly excited over Dr. Voss's study. As I pointed in the article, he achieved better results than even Dr. Khalifa. Of course, as I explained in the article those results are meaningless because they were achieved by trying until finding the best method and only presenting the best method. This is kind of like flipping a coin and only presenting the results were you got heads and then claim that the probability of 6 heads in a row is low therefore it must be a miracle.

Now Edip seems disappointed that Dr. Voss was "more positive than negative". What did he expect "all positive"? Herein is the problem. Edip like most Code-19 promoters has already formed a preconception about Code 19. From that point on anything that comes along can only "fully positively" confirm his preconception. He never even considers the possibility of studying without a preconception.

3. The Code-19 Archeologist

I would like to know, as I am sure many readers, what critical and comparative study did Dr. Khalifa, Edip, or any Code-19 promoter conduct "to infer the accurate version or spelling of original Quranic verses" for words that have no bearing on their counts?

The silence is so deafening that you can hear a pin drop.

Of course 19ers only conduct "critical and comparative study to infer the accurate version or spelling of original Quranic verses... that fixes their counts". As for words that don't factor into their counts, they are not worthy of "critical and comparative study to infer the accurate version or spelling of original Quranic verses".

It is clear that the "Code-19 archeologist" objective is not to uncover the truth about what really happened. It is to fix a count so that it adds up to 19.

4. Evading the Standard Methodology Issue

Instead of addressing the issue, Edip evades it and again hides behind a lengthy nostalgic story recounting of the history of the discovery of the "miracle". He seems to be doing this in the hope that the reader will forget about the inconvenience of the requirement for a "standard methodology" because those two words demolish Code-19.

5. Appealing to "Nusemantics"

Again, instead of addressing the issues, Edip goes on a tangent that has nothing to do with Code-19. He gives a dozen or so instances where the count of words may add up to certain numbers. Of course, none of those counts add up to 19 so even assuming that the different forms of a word were counted objectively, this has nothing to do with proving that there is a Code-19 in the great reading.

6. Disregarding the rules of mathematics

Edip then tries to impress the reader by providing table after table of calculations while implicitly admitting that "just two letters" out of all the so-called initials give some kind of a pattern. However, even for just those two letters he does not provide the most basic info needed to evaluate the results in those tables:

1. An objective measure of the statistical significance of the results.
2. A clearly defined method of how he got the results and how that method was constantly applied.
3. A clear definition of the data set to which the method was applied.
4. A clear explanation of why this particular method was selected.
5. A clearly documented audit trail of BOTH successes and FAILURES. For example:
- Trials where this method did not give a 19-divisible number.
- Other methods that were tried and did not give a 19-divisible number.

Surely, Edip does a fine job of presentation but without the above information then one can make equally impressive presentations about any document. Similarly in his section entitled HOW CAN ONE DISTINGUISH, he didn't provide any of the above info.

To use Edip's words one could say: "I want to share with you, one single detail in the frequency of words in Edip's article. This alone should be sufficient to debunk all criticism regarding the probability. It is the unappreciative people who are hiding the facts. The total frequency of the word Ayman in Edip's article is actually 114 (6x19)!"

Yes folks, this is true. Is it a miracle? Perhaps some 19ers would think so. On the other hand, I would say that it is a sign that Edip was focusing too much on me as opposed to on the issue.

7. Ignoring the difference between "3ida(t)/count" and "3adad/number"

Again, Edip tries to divert the attention of the reader from the clear and consistent Arabic meaning as used in the great reading and instead focuses on me:

Had Edip read carefully 74:31 then he would have seen that not just any "count" is the "fitna/trial/affliction" it is the count of the guardians of hell. When I count anything and I get the result as 19 or 19 divisible, I don't link what I am counting to the count of the guardians of hell in 74:30. On the other hand, 19ers do. That is the difference between obsessive and normal behavior.

There is nothing ambiguous about what I am saying. I am clearly saying that "ADDah (3ida(t))" consistently means "count". If I were "trying to hurl the word "ADDah" into the abyss of ambiguity then I would haphazardly interchange its meaning between "number" and "count" as Edip is doing below:

Talk about ambiguity, notice how the same exact word "ADDah (3ida(t))" is sometimes translated as "number" while other times it is translated as "count". Of course, only the word "count" would perfectly fit in all the above occurrences since there is nothing inherently complete or incomplete about any particular number and hence "completing the number" is nonsense.

Notice once again how the same exact word "ADDah (3ida(t))" is one time translated as "number" while another time it is translated as "count". Once again, only the word "count" would perfectly fit in both of the above occurrences since "circumventing" is tied to the act of counting while "circumventing the number" is nonsense.

Moreover, saying that the number of months is twelve is patently false. If what is meant is the absolute number from the time of creation of the heavens and the earth, then this is in the billions and not twelve. If what is meant is the number of constant periods in a year then that is never twelve either in any calendar. It is 12.3 in the lunar calendar, solar calendars are forced to have inconsistent months, while luni-solar calendars are forced to have years with 13 months. Therefore what is meant is not the number but what we should count. For more information, please see: http://www.free-minds.org/articles/science/timing.htm

A count can be out of possible alternatives as we see below:

A count can be a count out of a larger number. In this case out of the menstruations that a woman gets from the time of divorce:

Here is what Edip says about 33:49:

Clearly, 65:1 is telling us "to be precise with the count" not to be precise with the "number". Also, indeed a woman does have to count three menstruations before the divorce is final. She also indeed does have to loudly or somehow inform her ex-husband of the count because he can't precisely tell if she is having her period or not. Hiding an unborn child is no joking matter.

Again, talking about ambiguity and inconsistency, Edip fluctuates between "count", "number" and "interim" for no apparent reason when "count" would fit perfectly in all occurrences.

Now here is the whole reason for Edip's inconsistency and ambiguity:

I must give Edip credit because at least his above translation is a major improvement over Dr. Khalifa's translation:

KHALIFA:
74:31. We appointed angels to be guardians of Hell, and we assigned their number (19) (1) to disturb the disbelievers, (2) to convince the Christians and Jews (that this is a divine scripture), (3) to strengthen the faith of the faithful, (4) to remove all traces of doubt from the hearts of Christians, Jews, as well as the believers, and (5) to expose those who harbor doubt in their hearts, and the disbelievers; they will say, "What did GOD mean by this allegory?" GOD thus sends astray whomever He wills, and guides whomever He wills. None knows the soldiers of your Lord except He. This is a reminder for the people.

Here are the improvements:

1. Instead of the action "to disturb" which doesn't occur in the sentence, now the translation correctly describes the count of the guardians of hell as the "fitna"/trial/affliction.
2. Now "the number" is not the reason why "the faith of the faithful is strengthened". Instead, the reason why "the faith of the faithful is strengthened" is that they see that "their count is only a trial/punishment for the unappreciative".

Now that Edip largely corrected Dr. Khalifa's mistranslation, he should take the next step and see the clear implication of his correction.

8. Acknowledgement of the inconsistency in Code-19

As I said at the beginning, there are many positive developments in Edip's response. Here he implicitly acknowledges the inconsistencies in Code-19.

Indeed, we should reject inconsistencies in translations. The whole premise of Code-19 is that it is a "precise mathematical miracle". Therefore, inconsistencies destroy that basic premise. It is no longer a "precise mathematical miracle" but is a "miracle in the eye of the beholder". Kind of like the golden calf that the descendents of Israel built. Remember, the calf didn't speak back to them or guide them much like Code-19 doesn't guide anyone.

9. The misunderstanding of 3:7

3:7 can be easily understood in light of 2:26. It also provides the link between 3:7 and 74:31. From 2:26 we can clearly see that "mutashabihat" means allegorical. There is nothing ambiguous about allegories. As for the word "taawil" in 3:7 it doesn't have the simple meaning of "meaning". It means the "original intended meaning/interpretation". Of course descriptions of heaven and hell are allegorical. No one knows for example why The God chose to use such allegories because we can't even imagine what hell and heaven are like. On the other hand, sectarians claim to know the original meaning of the allegory of the "straight path" (a high-wire act over hell) and the meaning of "on it is 19" (an esoteric Code). This despite the fact that NONE knows The God's soldiers except Him in the same way that in 3:7 NONE knows the original meaning except Him.

The parallel between 74:31 and 3:7 and how they are tied by 2:26 is very compelling. If anything people should be very careful about saying that they know the original meaning of the clearly allegorical sequence leading to and including 74:30.

10. The myth of initials

Firstly, I gave meaning for 11 out of the 29 sets based on classical Arabic dictionaries not based on any Hadith. Moreover, all the meanings I gave fit in the context. So this is not just about giving one example.

Here is another example of a word that appears ONLY at the beginning of a chapter and NEVER appears elsewhere. Yet no Code-19 promoter takes this word as initials. For example, Chapter 78 starts with the two letters "3in" and "mim". This word "3m" never occurs in any other place in the great reading and it is written as a connected word exactly like "7m", "alm", "alr", etc. How come no one ever claims that the word "3m" at the beginning of Chapter 78 is actually initials?

We can even see that Chapter 78 can be read as they read the chapters with alleged initials:

3in Mim. They are asking one another about the great news...

Now if we take 3in Mim as a word and not initials:

3M they are asking one another about the great news...

Edip will claim that the above is ungrammatical.

However, seeing in the dictionary that 3m is an abbreviation for "3an matha" (about what), we can reconstruct the sentence grammatically as follows:

About what are they asking one another? About the great news...

The above is the same process that I went through in deciphering the 11 out of 29 words.

I believe that brother Truth actually counted the frequency of 3in and Mim in chapter 78 on another thread and found that they are both individually 19 divisible as well as when added together, which is more than we can say about "7a mim". However, the criterion of whether to consider letters as forming a word or a bunch of separate initials is not whether the count of the letters in the chapters where it occurs is divisible by 19 or not. The criteria are the following:

1. How the letters are written: This should be obvious to anyone who knows Arabic and Edip and Code-19 promoters clearly know this fact but choose to ignore it. In the Arabic alphabet separate initials take on a different form than letters that are connected to form a word. This is indisputable and by itself is complete and sufficient proof that we are looking at words and not initials. Saying that words such as "7m", "alm", and "alr" are initials is simply wishful thinking not supported by what everybody can empirically see with their own eyes. So this is enough and I really don't need to say anything more. However, let me continue so that there isn't even the slightest shadow of a doubt.

2. How the words fit in the context: The whole "initials" theory is like a house of cards. All we needed to prove is that just ONE has meaning and the meaning fits to destroy the entire "initials" theory. Even an average person like me with humble resources was able to easily find that out of the 29 sets, not one but at least 11 have meanings and the meanings fit in the context.

3. How the Arabic language works: As an informal common people language, the Arabic of the great reading is full of abbreviations and slang words. By Classical Arabic standards there are even words that are grammatically incorrect or misspelled in the great reading. Let's take the example I gave from Chapter 78. The word "3m" is a slang abbreviation of "3an matha" (about what). It is abbreviated and rendered in the beginning of Chapter 78 as "3m". By the same token, probably most of the other 18 words that we haven't discovered a meaning for yet are a similar types of abbreviations. The fact is that abbreviations that may seem like initials such as 3m for "3an matha" are normal in Arabic.

THE DEBATE ROUND 2

Edip, it is clear to those who read your article that nostalgic stories about the history of the "precise mathematical (sigh) miracle" have sentimental value to you and hence you spent a lot of space on them. However, as an author you should keep your audience in mind when writing an article. You should not expect the reader to share your fondness for such "crucial" stories. I did you a favor by focusing the discussion on ten issues instead of "crucial" nostalgia and personal attacks. This is evident in that your response to the ten issues was prompt, more to the point, and with less name calling (you can thank me later). In this response, I will also keep to the ten points.

1. Mistranslation of the great reading

Where did I compare your translation to a traditional translation such as that of Yusuf Ali? I never did. I only pointed out the invention of words to make the great reading fit a preconception of Code 19.

Here Edip is building a strawman. I gave the clear dictionary meaning. Classical Arabic dictionaries give the meaning of "marqum" as "recorded/inscribed", "lined" and "dotted" and "raqim" as "record/inscription". All those meanings fit in the context and fit with what we can observe about the great reading. Now Edip might say that a manuscript described as a "written record" is a "superfluous expression" because "record" and "write" can have the same meaning. However, he can't change the simple fact that such expressions are normal in all languages.

I don't think that "rarely" is an accurate description. There are even examples of very early dotting dating to the 4th century and earlier on mundane inscriptions. Please see:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/jramm.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/raqush.html

Moreover, if "dotting" was used on such mundane average everyday documents as business letters early in the 7th century (for example see: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Papyri/PERF558.html )
then we can be certain that it was widely used:

More importantly, as Edip himself pointed out there are early manuscripts of the great reading that are fully dotted.

Yes I agree. However, Edip conveniently forgets to mention that in none of those archeological evidences the dotted Arabic letters are used to denote numerals as he will claim later.

There are examples of very early quranic manuscripts that are fully dotted. So Edip's "mostly" is meaningless because his argument is completely demolished by even one early manuscript that is dotted. Also, the great reading itself tells us that it is dotted as he admits below.

As a translator, Edip should try to put the closest meaning from Classical Arabic dictionaries, which he admits is "dotted" and let the reader reach his own conclusion about why "dotted" is used based on the evidence instead of answering the question with his own wild speculations based on preconceptions. A translator should not be "advertising" a so-called miracle and instead should be closely reporting what is being said.

The answer to Edip's question is because we do have examples of early manuscripts that are fully dotted. Also, as I showed above, even mundane everyday texts such as business letters were fully dotted to reduce ambiguity.

The Hebrew Abjad (Aleph, Bet, Gimmel, Dalet) was used to represent numerals but there is zero evidence that Arabic was used in this manner. Hence, what Edip are saying is nothing more than baseless speculation. In fact, the proper name "Gematria" that he uses is the name for Hebrew Numerology which Jewish Rabbis practiced extensively. They too considered the number 19 sacred. As truly stated in 74:31, the count of 19 has ONLY been a "fitna"/trial/affliction. This is true not just for modern followers of Dr. Khalifa but throughout history. For example, the Babis were obsessed with the number 19 long before Edip was born and so were the Hebrew Rabbis. Even Christians are obsessed with it and they prove through similar Gematria numerology as the one Edip uses that 19 symbolizes their idol Virgin Mary!

Moreover, Edip is demonstrating his ignorance of the fact that the Roman numerals do not use an Alphabetic numeral system like the Hebrew inspired Code-19 system. The Roman numerals use mixed tallies and alphabets. An example of a tally system is: I for one, II for two, and III for three.

The fact is that we never see pre-quranic inscriptions that use Arabic alphabets as numerals. On the other hand, we see plenty of pre-quranic inscriptions that show that pre-quranic Arabs used a type of tally system. Their system was clearly a base-10 system because one can see that while the symbols for 1 to 9 are mostly simple vertical tally lines, the one for ten changes to a curve or a horizontal line with a dot. This is significant in light of the fact that we see a same base-10 system in the great reading where "completing the count" can be clearly seen as counting ten.

The above is pure speculation for which Edip has zero evidence. There are no pre-quranic inscriptions showing dotted letters used as numbers. On the contrary, as Edip admitted earlier and as the evidence I provided shows, we can see mundane pre-quranic inscriptions where dots are used. Moreover, we see that pre-quranic inscriptions use a base-10 tally system for numbers and not a letter-based system like that of Hebrew.

In fact, the Classical Arabic dictionary meanings match with both the archeological evidence and modern Arabic much better than Edip's speculation. As presented earlier, archeological evidence shows that pre-quranic Arabs used base-10 tallies that consisted mostly of inscribed parallel vertical lines or horizontal lines with dots. Thus, the meanings of "marqum" as "recorded/inscribed", "lined" and "dotted" converge and explain how in modern Arabic the word evolved from the three older meanings to have something to do with numbers. On the other hand, Edip's forced meaning doesn't explain how the other meanings relate and is only based on speculation about "dotted".

Edip, firstly the statement "dwellers of the cave and the digits/numbers" is pure nonsense. How can one dwell in the digits/numbers? You are obviously rushing to link 18:9 to your Code 19 without properly thinking about whether things make sense or not.

Moreover, if one reads the sign in 18:9-26, one can clearly see that OTHER PEOPLE at the time of the prophet were discussing the matter and speculating about the story. How did those other people find out about those "companions of the cave"? They must have known about it from a record that tells their story. We also hear in 18:21 that there was some kind of shrine built to commemorate them. As usual for this kind of shrine, in all likelihood it had an inscription talking about the story. So here "raqim" talks about a neatly lined inscription. "The people of the cave and the inscription" makes a lot more sense than "the people of the cave and the numbers", fits in the context and is consistent with the clear Classical Arabic meaning. The only reason why anyone would need to doubt the Classical Arabic dictionary meaning is if something doesn't make sense or doesn't fit in the context.

My objection was to Code-19 promoters using 46:10 as proof of their "precise mathematical miracle". It is another one of their endless circular arguments. 46:10 talks about the "phenomenon" of Code-19 because there is a Code-19 miracle in the great reading and the proof that Code-19 is a miracle is that 46:10 talks about it.

I am not sure what you mean here. The word "ayat"/signs is ALREADY in 46:7. You didn't do us any favors and "add" anything.

OK. I give you credit. This is a better translation than what you previously provided.

Actually, even the Christians discovered a Code 19 in the Bible that justifies taking the Virgin Mary as a sacred idol. The fact is that the Bible that Edip has is as false as the book of Hadiths. Moreover, Edip doesn't tell you how much guidance and extra understanding Jewish Rabbis and Christians got as a result of their "extraordinary evidences". Why doesn't he? Because they got exactly the same guidance and extra understanding that 19ers got as a result of their extraordinary "evidences" (or should we say "claims"): A big extraordinary ZERO.

What splitting hairs? The words "ayat"/signs and "abyat"/verses are two completely different words. Firstly, unlike poetry the great reading is not in "verse" form. This is indisputable. As for "numbered sentences", since you looked as early quranic manuscript you should know very well that those numbers were not part of the original text but were added long after the fact for the purpose of ease of reference. So this is also indisputable.

Yes, the numbers refer to arbitrary "nameless units" of the great reading. You can't say that they refer to "abyat/verses" because the great reading is not poetry. You also can't say that they refer to "numbered sentences" because the numbering is a modern device and many are not even sentences but can be several sentences or can even be meaningless half sentences. This is in line with the fact that the number schema was done purely for ease of reference and took mainly aesthetic reasons into account.

Had Edip "studied a little" of the great reading, he would not have made such clearly false statements. For example, 16:12 talks about the night, the day, the sun, the moon, and the stars as being "AYAT" (plural). Of course all those cosmic phenomena are signs NOT miracles. The problem is that Edip is trying to force the meaning of miracles (in Arabic: "mu3jizat") on the word signs/"ayat". The fact that "mu3jizat" and not "ayat" is the Arabic term that closely means "miracles" is indisputable.

Edip should try to get the correct meaning by considering all the occurrences in the great reading and not just a few of them. He complains about evil trickster me hiding the structure so let's look together at the structure of 10:1:

Alr - pointing device - "ayat" - of the book - description of book

Let's also look at the structure of 2:1-2:

Alm - pointing device - the book - description of the book

Finally, let's look at the structure of 11:1:

Alr - "ayat" of the book - action that affects the description of the book

It is pretty clear from the structure that the main subject in all of the above is the book. Now let's look beyond structure and try to consider the meaning by considering all of the information together. When we look at 10:1 and 11:1, we see that 11:1 actually explains 10:1. In 10:1 we are told about the signs of the book of wisdom/judgment. In 11:1 we are told that the book's signs were made wise/judging and detailed by the Wise/Judicial and Expert. That is how it became the "book of wisdom/judgment" in 10:1. Clearly, when taking this approach of considering all the relevant information, then the word "ayat" in 10:1 cannot be pointing to "alr" but is pointing to the book in our possession.

2. "Doctors who smoke" syndrome

Yes, if it is published in a scientific journal, then I would believe your labeling of Code 19 as "scientific/mathematical" and not as mere "numerology" tricks.

Any distinguished scientific journal, preferably dealing with the subjects of mathematics and statistics. Here are some examples:

Advances in Applied Mathematics
Advances in Mathematics
Annals of Mathematical Logic
Applied Mathematical Modeling
Applied Mathematics and Computation
Applied Mathematics Letters
Applied Numerical Mathematics
Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques (Sister Marie would like this one)
Computers & Mathematics with Applications
Discrete Applied Mathematics
European Journal of Combinatorics
etc...

I am sometimes called upon to referee papers for a few journals in the area of mathematics (not the ones that I listed though). If I get a paper on Code 19 I will ask the same questions about methodology that I asked you here and I am sure most of my peers will. So it is better that you answer here and save yourself a polite rejection letter from the editorial staff.

I provided the specifics. I will be happy to dig out the correspondence address of the journals if you want.