The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by slac-in-the-box "I AM" is by nature ontological. I believe Jesus was an ontological existentialist

Strewth! If I were you, slac-in-the box, I would start over and investigate things from scratch. Take none of your previous positions for granted because you are very far off the mark, I'm sorry to say. At least you're trying.

I have observed that the majority of words over 3 or 4 syllables seem to have been coined for people who labour under the delusion that they are talking on a higher plane. They usually are in fact, speaking through a lower one - their a**.

I could devote time and energy to a point-by point refutation replete with scriptural references, but I won't, because such are ignored. Go up to someone on a JW literature cart if you want, and ask him was Jesus an ontological existentialist.

The John 8:58 scripture is interesting. Just like John 1:1, that is the form of words on which almost all translations selling to the "Christian" or "Protestants" agree on exactly, so immediately you can smell a rat. Here's why: Both renderings come from the KJV originally, have theological meanings attached to that particular form of words, and are not the best translation. Some better renderings are:

• Moffatt: “I have existed before Abraham was born.”
• Schonfield and An American Translation: “I existed before Abraham was born.”
• Stage (German): “Before Abraham came to be, I was."
• Pfaefflin (German): “Before there was an Abraham, I was already there!”
• Syriac Peshitta, says: “Before Abraham was born, I was.”
• The Brazilian Sacred Bible “Before Abraham existed, I was existing.”

Those renderings don't bear a similarity to Exodus 3:14, so you are not tempted to add them both to get 1+1=3.

But just like Myles Coverdale's 1539 Great Bible said what Henry VIII wanted it to say, and the King James Bible said what King James wanted it to say, these Bibles say what their boss (= the market of English speakers) want them to say. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

EDIT: In my translation history, I left out the Bishop's Bible. That was cobbled together in 1568 to not say what the Geneva Bible said. That wasn't a bad translation for the time - not that I'm a Calvinist.

On a different subject, any thoughts on this?

universe-nearly-twice-as-old-as-previously-believed

My first reaction was that the physics of it seems a bit tenuous, but an authoritative assessment is above my pay grade. But the implications don't bother my faith either way.

This is also oe paper on JWST data that didn't suffer the 'scientific censorship' of being stuck on arxiv.org.

Of course the Slashdot article seems tenuous with a title like "nearly twice as old" which is an over-the-top stretch from a few million to possibly as much as 7 billion. Even at it's wildest stretch, that would be little more than 50% older rather than 200%. Currently at worst LambdaCDM will need some modification and that is precisely what JWST was designed to do.

I have a subscription to arxiv.org and I don't find "censorship" which implies a subjective and arbitrary set of standards to the precise guidelines set forth in actual scientific circles as exemplified by such as Nature and arxiv. Hearsay and speculation are heavily scrutinized and usually disallowed until independent, objective observation results are in. That is by no means the same as prejudice against AngloSaxon words begun with the early French kings, William or the definition of pornography by the "noble" elites concerned that peasants would rape their wives if they saw a drawing of a bare ankle.

If you would actually like to see how scientists argue about such things, you could start here ---

https://www.physicsforums.com/thread.../#post-6858608

(Note and warning: They are not always quite as polite as those of us on LQN)


It is also worthy of note that modifications of theories are expected and sought after in stark contrast to the insistence on the stagnant and literal historicity and validity of Christian Scripture.

Here is an interesting read on that front I recently viewed...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...her-180977804/


In case you don't bother to read that a quick overview is that though Kosher Law is attributed to Moses (circa 1300+BC) as late as 140BC Jewish settlements and cities in Israel left archaeological evidence in their garbage pits they were eating non-kosher foods regularly ~1000 years later and with no recorded evidence of chastisement. Scripture is highly subject to interpretation but resistant to actual modification... obviously. Science is quite the opposite

Originally Posted by business_kid I have observed that the majority of words over 3 or 4 syllables seem to have been coined for people who labour under the delusion that they are talking on a higher plane. They usually are in fact, speaking through a lower one - their a**. I could devote time and energy to a point-by point refutation replete with scriptural references, but I won't, because such are ignored. Go up to someone on a JW literature cart if you want, and ask him was Jesus an ontological existentialist.

You don't have to stick with the JW's either! Ask any orthodox Anglican, Roman Catholic, Methodist or Presbyterian and you'd get a very dusty answer. Actually I'd qualify that: don't ask an English bishop because they really are a bunch of heretics! And I'm saying that as an Anglican myself.

Moffatt: “I have existed before Abraham was born.” Schonfield and An American Translation: “I existed before Abraham was born.” Stage (German): “Before Abraham came to be, I was." Pfaefflin (German): “Before there was an Abraham, I was already there!” Syriac Peshitta, says: “Before Abraham was born, I was.” The Brazilian Sacred Bible “Before Abraham existed, I was existing.” Those renderings don't bear a similarity to Exodus 3:14, so you are not tempted to add them both to get 1+1=3.

But that doesn't mean that the second meaning doesn't exist. Lots of bible passages have second meanings and the older translators were sensitive to that. If modern translators aren't, so much the worse for them! No doubt that's part of the reason why the modern versions fall so flat when read aloud.

Originally Posted by hazel You don't have to stick with the JW's either! Ask any orthodox Anglican, Roman Catholic, Methodist or Presbyterian and you'd get a very dusty answer. Actually I'd qualify that: don't ask an English bishop because they really are a bunch of heretics! And I'm saying that as an Anglican myself.

That prompts me to ask: What makes you think that God is using a (in your words) a bunch of heretics to lead his people in the last days. Verses such as 1 Cor. 1:10 or Matthew 24:45-47 are jumping into my mind. Witnesses view the servant as a class of people as obviously one person can't inform a worldwide 'household.'

Originally Posted by hazel But that doesn't mean that the second meaning doesn't exist. Lots of bible passages have second meanings and the older translators were sensitive to that. If modern translators aren't, so much the worse for them! No doubt that's part of the reason why the modern versions fall so flat when read aloud.

Certainly, more than one meaning can exist for scriptures. The main reason old translations are different is that the translators could only work with what they had. They mainly had Masoretic texts which were quite late, ≅10th century or later. The best texts were discovered or (in the case of Vatican 1209) made available later.

I think the reason many modern versions fall flat when read aloud, however is more base. The English like their Shakespeare and still watch his plays. The similarity between the Bard and the KJV is remarkable. The Bard, however enjoyable he is to listen to, doesn't move people to action. I suspect that Scriptures read aloud in the main don't either. There's too much emphasis on how it sounds, and far too little on what it says. 2 Tim 4:3-5 I didn't quote our NWT which renders the end of verse 3:"...to have their ears tickled." It must be tough trying to keep a spiritual outlook if your peers don't share it.

Thank you enorbet, for verifying my suspicions about that article. It seems I can still smell a rat after years away from all that stuff. It was very kind of you to link me to all those weird and wonderful places, but my interests lie in other directions.

It struck me as the same old same old. The Hubble largely provided the detail for the current iteration of the big bang. That is now being undermined by JWST observations. It's like the Bible said

Originally Posted by Solomon Eccl. 3:11 Everything he has made pretty in its time. Even time indefinite he has put in their heart, that mankind may never find out the work that the [true] God has made from the start to the finish.

Well business_kid while it might have some advantages to just be born with short, quick, straight lines to arrive at Truth in real life the course has obstacles and is subject to gusts of wind so that tacking by a few degrees is needed to actually arrive there. In short, "undermine" is dead wrong. The proper definition is "refine". Changing course by a few degrees to stay on track is by no means the same as abandoning the quest.

It is highly unlikely at this point that Mr. Gupta is poised to "upset the apple cart" and cause Science to suddenly abandon mountains of evidence that have been amassed over roughly 100 years at ever increasing precision and jump to double the age of our Universe on the speculation of one man.

Most importantly, why do you persist on ignoring the fact that Science, instead of sitting on it's laurels, actually sought to invent something like JWST to gather new and more precise data precisely to test the validity of our conclusions?.. fully accepting the possibility that that "the cart" might be jostled enough to lose a few "apples"? Isn't that more honest and noble than insisting no progress has ever taken place for 2000+ years and that you actually knew everything already all along?

Also, isn't such complete complacency and dogged insistence with absolute insular resistance to dissent the earmark of cults?

Yes, scientists did invent the JWST, and rejigging opinions was a very foreseeable possibility. I don't accept your points about religious truth, however.

Much was revealed and recorded in the 1st century. Knowledge subsequently was polluted and even the scriptures lost to ordinary folk until the printing press. It is now being painstakingly being rediscovered, harmonized and occasionally refined. I won't comment on your last paragraph which frankly is beneath you.

Originally Posted by enorbet Of course the Slashdot article seems tenuous with a title like "nearly twice as old" which is an over-the-top stretch from a few million to possibly as much as 7 billion. Even at it's wildest stretch, that would be little more than 50% older rather than 200%. Currently at worst LambdaCDM will need some modification and that is precisely what JWST was designed to do.

Did you read the article from Phys.org? They don't mention seven billion years, but several billion years (I agree that it may be an inappropriate use of the word in this context).

The Phys.org article's title would appear to be a fair summary of the conclusion of the manuscript, given the abstract says (my emphasis):

...It stretches the age of the universe to 26.7 Gyr with 5.8 Gyr at z=10 and 3.5 Gyr at z=20⁠, giving enough time to form massive galaxies. It thus resolves the ‘impossible early galaxy’ problem...

That would represent a near doubling of the age of the universe compared with current estimates.

Edit: Apologies, I've just realised that I've contributed to off-topic discussion. Sorry.

There's a couple of other threads on the subject if you're interested in talking about it: https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/tags/jwst/

Originally Posted by valeoak Did you read the article from Phys.org?

I hadn't until you mentioned it but it is decently written and nearly identical to most serious reports as the subject is currently quite simple. Of course I realize that Gupta used "up to twice as old" as his description of what he sees as "the impossible early galaxy problem."

Originally Posted by valeoak They don't mention seven billion years, but several billion years (I agree that it may be an inappropriate use of the word in this context). The Phys.org article's title would appear to be a fair summary of the conclusion of the manuscript, given the abstract says (my emphasis): That would represent a near doubling of the age of the universe compared with current estimates.

I have a problem with typical lurid click-bait titles and statements in common journalism especially when applied to scientific events and data. Such articles always make overblown leaps to grab the public's eye in a fashion similar to Chicken Little style hyperbole. Real Science needs some rogues like Gupta to combat complacency, but real results come slowly and in small steps not huge leaps.

I'm not one who considers such tangents as Off Topic because it is so utterly common that fundamentalists want to "have their cake and eat it, too". At the very same time they often revile Science and the scientific method but also try to insist scripture is scientifically sound. Some of that is likely because we can see the progress due to Science all around us, but I strongly suspect that is a begrudging respect. Some, even some right here on LQN set themselves up to the convoluted, even contradictory, task of disproving Science by scientific means to elevate Faith. I prefer to bet with the odds.

Originally Posted by valeoak Edit: Apologies, I've just realised that I've contributed to off-topic discussion. Sorry

Actually, that's a real "How-many-Angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin" type point. Is it possible to be OT on General, a forum for 'any other business?' I turned this thread to a slightly scientific note to turn heads away from the depressingly abysmal quality of vaguely on-topic stuff. (post #11687iirc)

EDIT: Apparently some Catholic council of bishops in the middle ages spent 3 days discussing and the nebulous topic I mentioned without coming to a firm conclusion. Hence the (On Topic) reference.

Originally Posted by enorbet Of course I realize that Gupta used "up to twice as old" as his description of what he sees as "the impossible early galaxy problem."

The article says "nearly twice as old" and not "up to twice as old". And it's not his description of the "impossible early galaxy problem", but the age of the universe according to his model based on his hypothesis which modifies the tired light hypothesis and combines it with an expanding universe. If correct, it would be a solution to the problem.

To be clear, Gupta is saying (or at least his model implies) that the universe is (and not maybe up to) 26.7 billion years old, not 13.7 billion years old as is the generally accepted calculation of the age of the universe at present.

Originally Posted by enorbet I have a problem with typical lurid click-bait titles and statements in common journalism especially when applied to scientific events and data. Such articles always make overblown leaps to grab the public's eye in a fashion similar to Chicken Little style hyperbole. Real Science needs some rogues like Gupta to combat complacency, but real results come slowly and in small steps not huge leaps.

Fair enough, but this is not such a click-bait title. And I've no idea if Gupta is a rogue. What will be more interesting is if there is some fundamental flaw in either his hypothesis or his modelling of it.

valeoak, why are you picking nits about word choices here? Are you solely referring to the Phys.org article? FWIW I have read at least a dozen articles and many dozens of posts regarding this paper and few of them are or even can be actually scientific because Gupta has not submitted a complete science paper yet on this subject.

So far it is speculation approaching hypothesis as far as I can tell. I'm only referring to him as "rogue" because he is one of a handful of scientists speculating "against the grain", the weight of mountains of evidence and considerations and research of many thousands of scientists. That's not a guarantee for either side but the "With enough eyes all bugs are shallow" idea does carry some considerable weight. The "impossible galaxies" phrase has been attributed to Erica Nelson who has early access to JWST data and who is part of a team with one of the few actually scientific papers published in Nature (linked later here). The phrase has become commonplace.

So my words reflect more than one article let alone one view. Some imply nothing less than "nearly twice as old" and others "up to twice as old" because some consider other scientist's views on the subject of Age of the Universe and the impact of recent JWST data. Also that data is already being refined. For example Astronomy.com article on the subject was posted in February. In March, Sabine Hosenfelder spent considerable time on the subject and in the less than one month interim already new data as well as studies were in.

The best I've seen on the pertinent subject is here as mentioned above. The discussion link I posted before at Physics Forums is also of considerable weight and interest, but that includes a wide range of expertise and opinion and the main scientific data so far is here.....

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05786-2

If you check it is vastly more simplified and conservative than Gupta's work may be and does not leap to a conclusion of some proposed new exact beginning date because we aren't that far in yet. We need a LOT more data. This is another reason I would refer to Gupta as "rogue" if he, in fact, is responsible for the hard "Nearly" date rather than "Up To".

The bottom line is Science will indeed change it's stance if enough proper evidence supports such a move but "contenders must beat the Champion". Not even tie scores are sufficient. Unlike boxing, "title matches" in Science generally take many months if not years.

Did any of the blind men ever provide a height measurement for that elephant?

I'm actually not being as "snide" as I seem. Like it or not, we are stuck on a planet in an out-of-the-way corner of "what Universe we now know about," and we're all looking through a telescope. With all due respect to Carl Sagan (RIP), "billions and billions™" doesn't do much for me. Likewise a debate(!) about exactly how many "billions" there are supposed to be. We're all pretending(!) that, somewhere, there must be a source of "certainty."

The only thing that we have is "scraps of data" and "much speculation." Fromm the observation of "Doppler shifts," for example, comes the entire theory of "an expanding Universe." With more observations, we now eagerly proclaim that we "know" where it is all expanding from. The list is endless. But it is all breathlessly described as ... "certainty." Whatever happened to "humility" and "curiosity?"