Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[No One]

No One wrote, On 1/6/2008 1:23 PM:

You don't seem to mind that the data hasn't been collected for
*billions* of years though.

Why should I mind when we didn't have instrumentation needed to
make the measurements until fairly recently.

Do you have anything substantial to say or are you just arguing
for the sake of arguing?

 

[No One]

One scientist was quoted in Astronomy magazine (May 1987) as saying
that in the future, the scientists will probably consider today's
ideas the same way we do now of ancient Egypt's cosmology.

Out of context quote on your part, no doubt. It's not like the cosmic
microwave background radiation is going to go away.

 

[Tom]

Except that we test our beliefs with measurements and experiments that
in some cases are accurate to over 10 significant figures (e.g., the
value of the fine structure constant, gyromagnetic ratio, etc.). It's
kind of hard to argue with 10 significant figures when the alternative
is some touchy-feelly subjective experience.

Ah, but if those results are not what we expect, we don't believe them
anyway. We say the result is an "artifact" or is due, perhaps, to some
"methodological problem". And the funny part is that we're often right
about that. It really *is* an "artifact" or a "methodlogical problem".
Sometimes it takes getting lots and lots of the very same unexpected result
from lots and lots of different people, along with some pretty fancy
explaining, in order to convince us to believe our own numbers. And
sometimes even that's not enough. Sometimes we have to wait until all the
old guys die off before we can accept something significantly different than
we believed before.

People are people; the ancient ones aren't really much different than the
modern ones.

 

[Tom]

Yes, they have.

The records of carbon dating, the chemical remnants of past events.

That data existed for all that time, but it was only *collected* very
recently. We have not been collecting that data for thousands of years.
We've only figured out how to do carbon-dating, for example, in 1949. And,
of course, carbon-dating only allows us to estimate the ages of
carboniferous material only up to a maximum of about 60,000 years ago. It
seems to me that 60,000 is a bit less than billions.

You have the word of someone that was written just a few hundred years
ago.

Your sources are even younger.

However, it would be irrational to decide whether something is true based
only on how long ago the data was collected.

 

[donald]

That data existed for all that time, but it was only *collected* very
recently. We have not been collecting that data for thousands of years.
We've only figured out how to do carbon-dating, for example, in 1949. And,
of course, carbon-dating only allows us to estimate the ages of
carboniferous material only up to a maximum of about 60,000 years ago. It
seems to me that 60,000 is a bit less than billions.




Your sources are even younger.

However, it would be irrational to decide whether something is true based
only on how long ago the data was collected.

No comment about the Gnostic bibles ??

donald

 

[vernon O]

Ah, but if those results are not what we expect, we don't believe them
anyway. We say the result is an "artifact" or is due, perhaps, to some
"methodological problem". And the funny part is that we're often right
about that. It really *is* an "artifact" or a "methodlogical problem".
Sometimes it takes getting lots and lots of the very same unexpected
result from lots and lots of different people, along with some pretty
fancy explaining, in order to convince us to believe our own numbers. And
sometimes even that's not enough. Sometimes we have to wait until all the
old guys die off before we can accept something significantly different
than we believed before.

People are people; the ancient ones aren't really much different than the
modern ones.

Unless one believes in reverse entropy or laws of nature, such as
thermodynamics or probabilities, they were smarter.

 

[No One]

Ah, but if those results are not what we expect, we don't believe
them anyway. We say the result is an "artifact" or is due, perhaps,
to some "methodological problem".

For an electron, g = 2.0023193043617(15)

See <http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-5838.pdf>:

"Thus the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron is successfully
predicted by QED to eleven significant figures!"

QED was developed in the 1940s and the theory has not changed since,
athough we did learn how to explain both the electromagnetic force and
the weak interaction in a single theory.

Our ability to calculate quantities like g has improved, however (it
is a question of computing enough terms in a series, with each harder
to compute than the last, but we can estimate the accuracy for a given
number of terms).

It's hard to explain away an 11 significant figure agreement with
experiment when you didn't know the results in advance at the time the
theory was formulated.

<pontification snipped>

 

[No One]

That data existed for all that time, but it was only *collected* very
recently. We have not been collecting that data for thousands of years.
We've only figured out how to do carbon-dating, for example, in 1949. And,
of course, carbon-dating only allows us to estimate the ages of
carboniferous material only up to a maximum of about 60,000 years ago. It
seems to me that 60,000 is a bit less than billions.

The microwave background radiation (which we can measure) was formed
immediately after the Big Bang and is essentially its afterglow.
It is literally billions of years old.

 

[Scruffy McScruffovitch]

In News [email protected],, Robert Baer at
[email protected], typed this:

What is it with all this barfy language?
The answer to "Is The King James Version The Only Perfect
Translation Of The Bible?" is:
There is *NO* "perfect translation" of *ANY* text from one language
to another; it is not possible.

And since the original Aramaic and Greek documents no longer exist, it's not
possible to compare them for accuracy.

 

[Tom]

Unless one believes in reverse entropy or laws of nature, such as
thermodynamics or probabilities, they were smarter.

Some of them, anyway. As Newton said, "If I have seen further, it is
because I stood on the shoulders of giants."

 

[No One]

Unless one believes in reverse entropy or laws of nature, such as
thermodynamics or probabilities, they were smarter.

Vernon O, it seems does not understand thermodynamics (the only
uncertainty is in guessing what he meant to say).

 

[Tom]

For an electron, g = 2.0023193043617(15)

See <http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-5838.pdf>:

"Thus the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron is successfully
predicted by QED to eleven significant figures!"

And the figure is believed because it was expected. If some other figure
had materialized in someone's experiment, who would have believed it?

QED was developed in the 1940s and the theory has not changed since,

Newton's "laws of motion" were developed some 300 years ago and, for 200 of
those years, that theory remained unchanged, too. Before that Aristotle's
ideas about matter stood unchallenged from more than a thousand years. It
seems that theories are standing unchanged for less and less time these
days.

It's hard to explain away an 11 significant figure agreement with
experiment when you didn't know the results in advance at the time the
theory was formulated.

One needn't "explain away" what meets one's expectations. It's already been
explained. It's always easier to reinforce a belief than to change it.

<pontification snipped>

Well, *my* pontification was snipped by you. *Your* pontification was
snipped by me. So we're even.

 

[Tom]

No comment about the Gnostic bibles ??

Not as such. Which bibles are the Gnostic bibles? I'm aware of a whole
bunch of Gnostic texts which are sometimes called "scriptures", but the only
"Gnostic Bible" I could find was a collection of Gnostic texts by Barnstone
and Meyer. Are there others?

 

[Tom]

The microwave background radiation (which we can measure) was formed
immediately after the Big Bang and is essentially its afterglow.
It is literally billions of years old.

Again, this data may have been around for billions of years, but it has only
recently been *collected* by human beings. We haven't been collecting it
for very long. Given another hundred years or so of collecting, I think the
picture we'll have of what it's telling us will be quite different than the
one we have now.

 

[No One]

And the figure is believed because it was expected. If some other figure
had materialized in someone's experiment, who would have believed it?

It would have been an important enough result that lots of people would
check it and we'd find out in fairly short order whether the measurement
was correct. Oh, and BTW, in 1964, a violation of CP invariance was
discovered, which had been thought up until that time to have no
exceptions. The theory (of the weak interaction) changed as a result.
So your "who would have believed it" has been proven false.

Newton's "laws of motion" were developed some 300 years ago and, for 200 of
those years, that theory remained unchanged, too. Before that Aristotle's
ideas about matter stood unchallenged from more than a thousand years. It
seems that theories are standing unchanged for less and less time these
days.

Try not to snip mid sentence. Here's what you actually replied to (so
the meaning was quite different than what you pretended it to be):

:: QED was developed in the 1940s and the theory has not changed since,
:: athough we did learn how to explain both the electromagnetic force and
:: the weak interaction in a single theory.

One needn't "explain away" what meets one's expectations. It's already been
explained. It's always easier to reinforce a belief than to change it.

.... which is why people get Nobel prizes for discovering things that
changed longly held beliefs? Get real.

Well, *my* pontification was snipped by you. *Your* pontification was
snipped by me. So we're even.

Idiot.

 

[No One]

Again, this data may have been around for billions of years, but it has only
recently been *collected* by human beings. We haven't been collecting it
for very long. Given another hundred years or so of collecting, I think the
picture we'll have of what it's telling us will be quite different than the
one we have now.

Sigh - we'll obtain more precise measurements of very tiny changes of
the intensity and temperature with direction (in the sky). We don't
exactly "collect it". We measure it. Electromagnetic radiation does
not stop and get put into bottles.

But the fact is that it is billions of years old, so that blows your(?)
60,000 years limit (in a non sequitur) out of the water.

 

[Dionisio]

The research is ongoing. Heh.

Question: Why?

Would it be too ironic to mention that a certain highly-advanced civilization in what we
now call Central America knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the world will end in a
few years?


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

"How many seconds are there in a year? If I tell you there are 3.1536 x 10^7, you won't
even try to remember it. On the other hand, who could forget that, to within half a
percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury?"
-- Tom Duff, Bell Labs

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[vernon O]

Some of them, anyway. As Newton said, "If I have seen further, it is
because I stood on the shoulders of giants."

Hey, great.
I haven't seen that quote in ages.
Super.

 

[vernon O]

Don't tell anyone, (No one) but, an electron has zero mass except as defined
by its relation to energy.
It doesn't rotate around a nucleous or travel as in electrical current.

That is unless one uses 1980s tech.

 

[vernon O]

Again, this data may have been around for billions of years, but it has
only recently been *collected* by human beings. We haven't been
collecting it for very long. Given another hundred years or so of
collecting, I think the picture we'll have of what it's telling us will be
quite different than the one we have now.

Also, no credible scientist believes in the big bang theory any more.

he he he he he he he