This position is documented in the introduction to the book Tzofen Bereishith ("Genesis Codes").
 The book Tzofen Bereishith ("Genesis Codes") includes a detailed and well documented account of the difficulties facing the scientific publication of the research.
 To see the article, click here.
 This is actually the constant mantra of those who oppose the research, clearly expressed at every opportunity. For example, see Menachem Cohen (5760): The Religious and Scientific Aspects of the Debate on the Codes Hidden in the Torah at Equidistant Letter Sequences, located at: http://cs.anu.edu.au/ ~ bdm / dilugim.
 For example, responding to our refutation of their claims published in the journal CHANCE (vol. 11, no. 4, 1998), Maya Bar-Hillel, Dror Bar-Natan, and Brendan McKay wrote:
"We don't even have a formal position on whether Codes exist."
 Three examples illustrate the point:
A. Professor Maya Bar-Hillel publicly claimed that the WRR results were obtained by fraud before she started to investigate. [This was her loud and public reaction to the presentation of WRR's work at the "Center for the Study of Rationality" at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem by Professor Robert J. (Israel) Aumann in 5752 (1992).]
B. Professor Brendan McKay published a similar objection (online, in April 1996) before examining the subject.
C. Professor Abraham Hasofer wrote an article about his opposition to the research before its publication and before I sent him a preprint of our paper.
Regarding example A, what Professor Robert J. (Israel) Aumann said about the matter is instructive:
"An interesting feature of this research is that, as noted in Paragraph 6, almost everybody involved made up his mind early in the game - sometimes before seeing any evidence at all - and then was unwilling to consider changing it. The research has a high ideological content, and many people are unwilling to abandon ideologies, no matter what the evidence is. When I first presented the results of Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg at the Center for the Study of Rationality at the Hebrew University, Professor Maya Bar-Hillel told me after the presentation, Bob, I won't believe this no matter whatever evidence you bring me. She now says - and no doubt believes - that this was not really meant literally; but I believe that it was, and indeed that it remains true today. Many others hold similar views."
(Taken from Discussion Paper # 365 of the "Center for the Study of Rationality.")
Note the difference between Professor Aumann's depiction of Professor Bar-Hillel's opinion compared to her words in footnote 5.
 We distinguish between elements based on a tradition:
(1) Reliable sources indicate that the Torah hints at things through the Equidistant Letter Sequences.
(2) There are also reliable sources for what these encryptions hint at.
(Read about this in detail here.)
And the subject of our research:
(3) The scientific research of Torah Codes scientifically tests a specific interpretation of elements (1) and (2).
(Read about this in detail here.)
Now, while there is an obligation to accept elements (1) and (2), the interpretation of (3) is not a required belief and there certainly is no obligation to believe that it can be scientifically-mathematically proven.
 Since such position means that it’s not possible for G-d to arrange things so that we will have a current kasher version of the Torah text that includes such codes.