<tears open bag of Purina Troll Chow™>Heeeeere trolley trolley trolley! Come and get it.
I won’t even address the astinishingly fragile “logic” points in the OP and my fellow dopers have kindly turned into Swiss cheese. Faith isn’t a matter of logic. If you arrived at your believe in God through what you see as logic then faith has no meaning. A “god of the gaps” is a fragile god indeed.
“Fra-gee-lay…must be Italian.”
So you’re wrong. The text says what it says. Anyone reading this exchange is free to decide for themselves. I would challenge you to find any support in Judaism for this Psalm being a Messianic prophecy.
I linked to a lexicon which was most Christian friendly, and it quite obviously does not support your contention that chaciyd is supposed to refer to God. I can only hope that one of resident Hebrew experts can offer some more assistance here.
Daniel 10:16 for one. More importantly, nothing in the OT says he WILL be God and the Jewish expectation has never been that the Annointed will be anything other than a human king.
Well then, the OT Messiah has no more of that light than anyone else and the quality of chaciyd can be applied to anyone.
Not on you, but I know something about the Bible and I know a spurious extropolation when I see one.
I’m not telling you how to interpret things for yourself, but you cited this Psalm as an attempt to convince the rest of us that the death and resurrection of the Messiah was prophecied in the OT. Psalm 16 does not say anything about the Messiah. That’s not an opinion, it’s just a statement of fact. It doesn’t say it’s talking about the Annointed. It’s never been read that way by the people who wrote it. You’re basing your conclusion solely on a selective (and erroneous) of a single word and extropolating from that, Even your specious extropolation depends on a mistaken understanding of who the Annointed is in the OT and in Jewish expectation.
You obviously have the right to interpret it that way if you wish, just like you have the right to interpret it as being about Xenu if you wish, but don’t cite it as a proof and expect it to be convincing to anyone else.
Yeah. About half, actually…
Given the nature of the post, I would expect to discover that the OP was simply a bit naive regarding religious debate, particularly as it is carried out on the sands of this arena.
Nevertheless, publicly accusing posters of trolling is expressly forbidden and you will not do it again.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
RE Diogenes on what Messiah is & isn’t supposed to do…
of course, we’ve been around this before, but none of the regather the exiles, restore the nation, rebuild the Temple, general resurrection of the dead prophecies in Isaiah, Ezekiel or Jeremiah actually use the title “Messiah” for the one who will accomplish this- it’s either YHWH, David/the Branch of David, “The King of Righteousness”. “Messiah” is only said to be “cut off” 483 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile, after which the city would be destroyed & the Temple descrated & made desolate- Daniel 9:24-27. Fits JC pretty well, tho I will concede it also could be applied to the destruction of the Priesthood (who were “anointed”/“machiach”'s).
I wonder if any of the board’s Jewish contingency would comment on Jesus as a potential messiah for his generation. And to really hijack things- what is the status of those Lubavitchers who still hope for the messianic revelation of Rabbi Schneerson?
Josephus wasn’t born until 37 AD. Tacitus wasn’t born until 55 AD and Suetonius 77AD. All were at least one generation (and given the time period, closer to two) from being contemporary to the historical Christ.
I can write a great history of the Bay of Pigs fiasco, but I didn’t live through it and I’d have to have source material. We have no idea if any of these historians used source material or if they were more akin to reporting “ancient gossip.” Moreover, years of transcription may make the copies of their writings we have less than completely true to the original.
(Source material for the ancient historian…ick! You work with what you’ve got, but you admit what you got ain’t much and you don’t try to prove anything with it unless you have lots of agreement - in this case it isn’t there. Its a problem through the Middle Ages for most topics - and for some topics its still a problem today.)
(Disclaimer, I think it highly likely, though unprovable, that there was a historical Christ. I don’t believe in the divinity of such a person any more than I believe the crackpot on the streetcorner is the second coming. Extraordinary claims bear an extraordinary burden of proof. Faith works, but I don’t have it.)
I’ve appreciated the exchange. I agree that when presenting a popular theory it’s a good idea to note that it’s one among several, but because of the nature of this forum it seems okay to just offer an opinion or theory as fact and let it be challenged by any who choose to do so. When several theories exist without definative proof of any one theory, then choose what you prefer. In some matters the evidence is heavily against you {not just popular opinion, evidence} and not acknowledging this is just stubborn denial.
I am somewhat aware of different interpertations. Please provide one solid example to support your proposed interpertation.
I don’t think the door is open for any way they please Wouldn’t that render scholarly evidence useless and give people free reign to just make shit up?
But there is scholastic evidence that has considerable weight, is there not? You may ascribe meaning to a word that most scholars reject but that doesn’t make you a visionary. If there is evidence that scholars disagree on this issue then please provide a credible cite.
You are now clutching at straws: he makes no mention of the difference between the information of the volume with and without that of the central infinitessimal because it is irrelevant - it makes only an infinitessimal difference even if that information precisely at that point is “destroyed” (and I still don’t understand why you think this in the first place.) Read pages 114-116 of The Universe In A Nutshell. He discusses the information content of the black hole from both positions (information destroyed/ not destroyed) while still keeping a singularity at the centre throughout. Now why would he do that if information escape precluded a singularity?
I did not say so: I said that information need not be destroyed even at the central point, but that even if it did, the information content of the black hole would be affected only infinitessimally (ie. not). The prescence of mass nearby warps spacetime, even such that it is infinitely curved (indeed, rotating black holes might even produce a “naked” singularity without an event horizon hiding it - the subject of Hawking’s other bet.)
I am sure he can see the logical consequences of his own speculations perfectly well, especially one of such enormous magnitude. If information escape from a black hole had the logical consequence of spacetime not being infinitely curved at the centre, you honestly think he wouldn’t, you know, say so?
Done.
Sentient, I’ve taken our discussion to the linked thread. (Although by peers, I meant your fellow scientists. I understood that you’re a cosmologist.)
I’ve resolved not to debate more than one person at a time on a single issue, so as to avoid repetition and because I have found keeping up with multiple posters on a single issue to be more daunting than my capabilities will allow. I’m a fifty-year-old man now, and I’m going to start relaxing a bit. So, since you’ve taken the baton…
Actually, I did. Right there in what you quoted from me. It’s in bold. It is the rest of the Strongs lexicography that Dio’s source truncated.
Yes, it would, and they do. In fact, that’s what scholars do too — make shit up. Admittedly, they know more about their shit than most people, and the shit they make up is more thoughtfully constructed. Usually. But in the end (and having actually lived with a Hebrew scholar who was on the commission that translated the NIV, I know this for a fact), what they do is apply their own interpretation to the same words and phrases that everyone else can see.
Now, I can understand if you’re concerned about someone translating the word in question as “Crape Myrtle” or “Burger King”. But if a word has eighteen definitions and connotations (just as English words do — see the word “love”, for example, or "force — then it behooves a careful reader to choose which meaning he believes is most appropriate to the context.
That’s why all interpretations are tendentious. The Christian scholar will almost surely be biased toward “Holy One”, while the Judaic scholar might likely be biased toward one of the other definitions. That’s the nature of the thing. People are entitled to disagree when multiple selections are available.
I won’t go there for two reasons: (1) it is more than obvious that scholars disagree on this issue because there are at least three statistically significant worldviews that have expressed their disagreement on a daily basis for more than a thousand years — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; and (2) the term “credible” is too nebulous, such that if you are predisposed to a particular point of view, then you might likely dismiss whatever cite is given as not credible.
No, Lib, acoustics is my only area I could claim authority, and I’m no longer in academia anyway. I have only an amateur understandingof black hole cosmology, but enough to see that experts simply do not make the logical inference you do. If it was more than a simple semantic quibble, I’m sure they’d be shouting it from the rooftops.
Actually, I’d prefer the Debate to remain here (or I’ll create another thread specifically for it) and that thread to attract only factual answers by those with more expertise on the subject than us. I seek only to excise this recurrent boil in which you keep saying that Hawking’s concession means that singularities don’t exist - better to get it over with here, I suggest.
(Incidentally, there may be some quantum mechanical or string-theoretical reason why literal singularities don’t exist. But Hawking’s concession regarding information preservation is not it.)
But it behooves a true scholar to choose the definition that the original author intended, not the definition he(the scholar) feels is the most appropriate. It might make more sense to you personally to interpret a word thus, but if most research says that the author meant it to mean so, then to interpret it as anything but so is intelligently dishonest, wouldn’t you say?
Sorry about that misunderstanding. But again, cosmologists are not logicians. Very little of their work is analytic; most of it is empirical or inspirational. That has not always been the case, however. Einstein was a great logician, and even presented his two theories in the form of formal logical proofs. But that was back when a substantial portion of the education of scientists was in the philosophy of science. These days, specialization and the sheer amount of knowledge unfortunately often precludes a firm grounding in underlying theory. It is therefore not so incredible that searching for a modus tollens has not been at the forefront of modern cosmology.
Hmm… Okay. Should I reprint the proof here? It might run askew of rules against cross-posting.
Ah, so it’s you now. Well, which is the true scholar — the one puts sugar on his porridge or the one who doesn’t? And which of the Christian scholars do you believe have been pretenders? William of Ockham? Rene Descartes? Thomas Aquinas? Alvin Plantinga?
Sentient, perhaps you could request that your thread be moved here. How’s that?
Yes, it’s me now.
I wasn’t commenting on which scholars were pretenders, I was commenting on how a true scholar should interpret works as opposed to how you said works should be interpreted.
Actually, I think you confused me with someone else. I said that Christian scholars might be more biased toward “Holy One” while Judaic scholars might be more biased toward some other interpretation. Is that something with which you disagree?
They still have the cognitive faculties to identify the logical consequences of their hypotheses or results, especially those of such monumental import as the one you are making. You honestly tell me that you think Hawking might have overlooked the glaringly simple argument you set forth? That, even as he wrote a book which discussed information loss/preservation, the use of the word “singularity” throughout was an oversight?
Again, I’d prefer to solicit only factual answers there, which we can discuss here, so I suggest that we two stay out of that thread for a couple of days.
I’ll quote you here so no rules are broken.
Exactly the same amount of information is coming out? Even that infinitessimal part at the centre point where spacetime is infinitely curved? If this is the crux of the debate, it is but a pedantic quibble, so if that is what is necessary for this ‘proof’ to emerge stillborn, I’ll say that the infinitessimal loss means that it is not exactly the same.
However, I much prefer to attack the ‘proof’ from the posistion of considering it a simple non sequitur, and say that the information content of the black hole is unaffected by the existence of the singularity.
This gets us no further: you’re simply taking another of his paragraphs and applying to it the semantical meaning you want it to have which he would never intend. I suggest you are misrepresenting Hawking in the premises: that is the flaw in the tableau, and that is why this news that information preservation precludes singularities has not found its way to even the lowliest bulletin in any theoretical physics department when, clearly, it would warrant the front pages of international science publications.
He says that information preservation means that there is no gateway for an extended object (like “you”: “If you jump into a black hole…). That implies nothing about whether some infinitessimal part of the black hole (or you) could engender such a ‘gateway’ (not that I particularly like your ‘other universe’ Venn-diagram games either, but I’ll let them pass for now).
What must I do to stop you popping up whenever anyone, even Hawking himself, uses the word “singularity” and arguing that information preservation proves their nonexistence?