Last modified on April 9, 2017, at 07:02

Talk:Essay:Calming the Storm

Return to "Essay:Calming the Storm" page.

Fascinating comparison. Should we add the CBP translation as well? --TeacherEd 11:13, 20 November 2010 (EST)

Please do add the CBP translation!--Andy Schlafly 12:41, 20 November 2010 (EST)
I think it is silly to have all columns sortable. May I change this? --JulesBongo 17:53, 20 November 2010 (EST)
You're right. Please do fix that. Also, edits are welcome to fill out the tables and suggest improvements -- I'll be doing more of that later today as needed.--Andy Schlafly 18:02, 20 November 2010 (EST)

Probably one of the dumbests things in the CBP

Andy, you wrote: " But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above,"

No, but εἶπεν appears in all Greek versions of Mark 4:39 - as well as in the version used by you! Are you not able to spot an irregular verb? Your complaint is like saying that the verb "to be" is not used in the sentence "the cat is black"!

Any pupil learns the principal forms of verbs like λέγω early on - this shows that you are lacking the most basic knowledge of Greek! --AugustO 05:30, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Clarifying Mark 4:39

The verse contains the words:

εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο.
  • εἶπεν is a conjugate form of λέγω, in fact, it is 3rd person singular aorist active indicative. The obvious translation is "He said", or "He commanded". But perhaps he spoke to himself?
  • No, he didn't he addressed the sea (θάλασσα) directly, indicated by τῇ θαλάσσῃ, the dative of this feminine noun. But perhaps it was a silent exchange?
  • No, it wasn't: Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο is a command, imperative versions of the words Σιώπα ("silence") and φιμόω ("to muzzle"). This is direct speech: Σιώπα means "Silence!" and "πεφίμωσο" means "Be muzzled!"

Putting this all together we get:

He commanded the sea: "Silence! Be quite!

Therefore, the whole essay is nonsense, based on a rookie mistake.

--AugustO 06:08, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Modern physicians -- the insights of quantum mechanics -- suggest that the calming was achieved by observation, not by word or deed.

Physicians????? --AugustO 09:04, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

The real meaning of the Greek "ἐπιτιμάω" is closer to "judge" than to affirmatively rebuke.

I couldn't find any source confirming this "insight". ἐπιτιμάω has quite opposite meanings (honor and rebuke) - like "to sanction" in English. But "to judge" is none of them. In fact, ἐπιτιμάω is done by a judge after his judgement... --AugustO 09:24, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Andy, it's your essay, correct your mistakes, please

As this is your essay, I won't touch it. But if you don't want it to be deleted, you should at least correct the most egregious errors. Ignoring critique is an all to common habit around here, and won't help to improve articles!

text problems
Jesus's Calming the Storm is described in three Gospels: beginning at Matthew 8:23, Mark 4:39, and Luke 8:24.
The issue is how Jesus actually calmed the storm: by word, by deed, or by observation? Whose issue is this? Was the question ever risen before?
Modern physicians -- the insights of quantum mechanics -- suggest that the calming was achieved by observation, not by word or deed. You certainly intend to say "physics". But how does it suggest this? That's nonsense.
Is "rebuked" the correct translation of the Greek term "ἐπιτιμάω", which appears in all three verses above and in connection with other miracles, such as Jesus's lifting of the fever in Luke 4:39? Yes, it is, it's one of the main meanings of ἐπιτιμάω, and ἐπιτιμάω is consistently understood that way in the Gospels
The real meaning of the Greek "ἐπιτιμάω" is closer to "judge" than to affirmatively rebuke. There is no evidence that ἐπιτιμάω means "to judge" - "to judge" judge is not even a meaning of ἐπιτιμάω, and far less the real meaning.
The term can even be used in a positive manner, as in "honor" or "raise the price of." So what? It is akin to "to sanction"
The English term "rebuke" carries the primary connotation of a verbal communication, while in the Greek ἐπιτιμάω has the primary connotation of a non-verbal judgment. That is wrong: the primary connotation of ἐπιτιμάω is "to warn", usually verbally!
In the Mark verse above, traditional translations insert the word "said" as though Jesus caused the calming by verbally ordering the sea to be still. Traditional translations don't have to insert the word "said" in Mark's verse, as it is already there: εἶπεν means he said or he commanded
But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above, Nonsense. The present of the first person does not appear, but the indicative of the third person of this verb! That is a rookie mistake!
, and where it does appear in Greek versions its real meaning is to "lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep." no, that is wrong - this is not its real but its original meaning: Homer may have used it this way. The typical use during the time the Gospels were written down, was "to say" or "to command".
It only has a connotation of speaking when used in a context of verbal communication (as in putting one word with another), which is not the case here. As it is followed by direct speech, the context of verbal communication is given

Anyone with a little Greek reading this essay will spot your basic mistakes, anyone with an interest in physics will be befuddled by your invocation of quantum mechanics.

--AugustO 14:08, 21 June 2015 (EDT)

Andy, please delete this essay!

I get the impression that it is nearly impossible for you to admit to a serious error - perhaps you think that doing so would debase the CBP even further. But I do not think that this could be worse than keeping up this monument of your ignorance. --AugustO 01:55, 22 June 2015 (EDT)

in the silent sense [it] can mean "he meant" or "he judged."

Andy, you are hilarious. εἶπεν is definitely not used in a "silent sense": see #Clarifying Mark 4:39 above. And still you claim:

But "λέγω" -- the Greek term used for said in some versions -- does not appear in the Greek above

This sentence shows that you would fail Greek 101.

--AugustO (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2016 (EST)

It only took....

....eight months, dozens of posts, and hundreds of words, but at last, it is done. Thank you?

But I'm curious: how can you claim that «the real meaning of "λέγω" is to "lay", to "cause to lie down," or to "put to sleep"»? That was the meaning a couple of hundred years earlier! But not in Koine Greek: No other verb (besides "to be") is used more often in the New Testament, and as far as I can see, it is always used as "to say" (see Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Need_to_discuss_further_on_the_talk_page). --AugustO (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2016 (EDT)

Modern physicians suggest that the calming was achieved by observation, not by word or deed.

  • Are these physicians part-time physicists?
  • Andy, if there are physicists who suggest such a thing, could you name some?
  • Or is this an abstract:"modern physics suggests"? Could you give some details?

--AugustO (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2016 (EDT)

it only took a year! --AugustO (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2017 (EDT)

Statement on Translations

Andy, it the Lord's Prayer the prayer which Jesus Christ taught us - or isn't it, as we don't use the Aramaic version? God's words are God's words. --AugustO (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

August, the Lord's Prayer was part of Jesus's teaching. Yes, that was in Greek. But the spontaneous, emotional statements by Jesus were in the language of his youth - Aramaic. Again, this is basic. It's fine for you to ask about it, but your childish, uninformed style (like your heading above) is getting tiresome.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 11:06, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
Spontaneous, emotional statements? Given John 18:4, I have troubles to imagine those...
What I would call uninformed is your view of quantum mechanics: the storm was already observed - the pupils didn't exclaim "we wonder whether there is a storm hidden over there, we cannot see anything". You cannot un-observe an event - so when Jesus saw the storm, there was no question whether it was or was not. --AugustO (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
In John 18:4, Jesus is speaking to officials and Roman soldiers. Greek was the lingua franca for that, obviously.
It's OK for you to make uninformed comments. But your childish, uninformed style gets tiresome. If you don't want to have an intellectual discussion without constantly resorting to childish putdowns, then maybe Conservapedia is not for you.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
  • Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - it's about the first half of John 18:4 "Ἰησοῦς οὖν εἰδὼς πάντα τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἐπ’ αὐτὸν"
  • Yes, taking part in these conversations can be frustrating from time and time - this results in a certain testiness on my side. But I think it is important to have these discussions as they are concerning Rev 22:18-20.
  • Just declaring that something is basic doesn't make it so: the question which of Jesus's words were Aramaic, which Greek, which even Latin isn't simple at all.
  • Whether Jesus addressed the sea in Aramaic or Greek is not important: Mark could rely on the best possible information - probably by the Apostle Peter (he wasn't a modern romance novelist who asked himself "what could my protagonist have said here?") Then, he gave us the Greek version of this information.

--AugustO (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

As to your first point, there is no reason to expect that any of your citation would be in Aramaic instead of Greek, and you don't explain otherwise. As to your second point, discussion is important and that is what it is essential that intelligent discussion not be censored through the use of childish putdowns, which is the effect such a style can have.
As to your third point, Jesus spoke in Aramaic when uttering an emotional, spontaneous remark to others who spoke Aramaic. This is basic and is not disputed. There are numerous instances in the Gospels.
As to your fourth point, Mark did use Aramaic in those situations. See, e.g., "Talitha kuom" in Mark 5:41. He did not use Aramaic in the encounter with the sea, and hence Mark was probably not quoting Jesus. Of course, there are additional reasons to conclude that Mark was not quoting Jesus as well.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
  • John 18:4 indicates that Jesus has generally no need for spontaneous statements.
  • Jesus spoke Aramaic. The not so basic question is to which extant did He use the Greek language? Take the discussion with His pupils on the boat which is given in Greek in Luke, Mark, and Matthew. Did it not happen? There are small varieties between these versions, but nevertheless those are His words, given to us in Greek.
  • What you describe as "childish putdowns" isn't censorship, it's a nuisance at best. Abuse of blocking power is censorship - have you seen the last block of User:SamHB?
  • yes, Mark 5:41 does use a short Aramaic phrase - while the same episode in Luke 8:54 only uses the Greek phrase. Both is marked as direct speech. So, at best, the use of Aramaic is not consistent over the Gospels.
  • Frankly, there are no additional reasons to conclude that Mark was not quoting Jesus - as I wrote elsewhere:
  1. Mark 4:39, Matthew 8:26, and Luke 8:24 use the verb ἐπιτιμάω to state that Jesus rebuked the sea. This may or may not be done verbally.
  2. Luke 8:25 uses the verb ἐπιτάσσω which indicates a spoken order.
  3. Mark 4:39 uses the verb λέγω, indicating that Jesus spoke to the sea.

Nothing in these verses contradicts the idea that Jesus gave a verbal command. The idea that Jesus gave a silent command or just made an observation isn't consistent with the second and the third point. There is no compelling reason to believe that Jesus stayed silent.

--AugustO (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2017 (EDT)

"John 18:4 indicates that Jesus has generally no need for spontaneous statements." - your claim is silly at best. Jesus spoke spontaneously at times like anyone else. He spoke Aramaic casually and spontaneously, Greek while teaching, and probably Hebrew too. You're simply incorrect in continuing to claim that "ἐπιτάσσω" means "a spoken order." I gave you the citation that explains otherwise. You are incorrect about λέγω also, as this citation explains: [1].--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
  • (LOL, then counting to ten....) You write: "You're simply incorrect in continuing to claim that "ἐπιτάσσω" means "a spoken order." I gave you the citation that explains otherwise." You did nothing of this sort! Your citation was "ἐπιτιμάω" refers to the judgment itself, not speech." ἐπιτιμάω is not the same as ἐπιτάσσω. You have displayed your ignorance of grammar a couple of times, but you should at least be able to read the Greek alphabet and parse words!
  • Moreover, Mark Luke, and Matthew use the verb ὑπακούω to describe the reaction of the sea: this implies a spoken command, too!
  • I'm afraid that you are incorrect about λέγω - it does not even work grammatically in this context!
  • Most amusing, your source on λέγω contradicts you: Do you remember that you at first didn't recognize that εἶπον was the aorist of λέγω? Well, as your source shows: For the meaning "say, speak", forms derived from other roots are more commonly used (suppletion): the future ἐρέω (eréō) and perfect εἴρηκᾰ (eírēka) from εἴρω (eírō), and the aorist εἶπον (eîpon).
  • So, used in sense of "to lay down", Mark would have written ἔλεξεν, not εἶπον! But perhaps those words look the same to you.
--AugustO (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
August, you're not fooling anyone with your childish style. Seas don't have ears, and they cannot hear. No spoken command is implied. λέγω substantively means to "put in order, arrange, gather." [2]
It is a waste of time discussing these issues with you if you won't be substantive in your comments. I'm going to move on to other substantive work if you don't improve the substantive quality of your comments, and address essential points.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2017 (EDT)
1 Your own source on λέγω contradicts you: Do you remember that you at first didn't recognize that εἶπον was the aorist of λέγω? Well, as your source (Usage Notes) shows: For the meaning "say, speak", forms derived from other roots are more commonly used (suppletion): the future ἐρέω (eréō) and perfect εἴρηκᾰ (eírēka) from εἴρω (eírō), and the aorist εἶπον (eîpon). So, used in sense of "to lay down", Mark would have written ἔλεξεν, not εἶπον!
2 When the verb λέγω was used in Homer's time in the sense of "lay down", it was used transitively, i.e., you would read καὶ εἶπεν τὴν θάλασσαν. But we read καὶ εἶπεν τῇ θαλάσσῃ - the dative. So, the insight doesn't work grammatically.
--AugustO (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
Appeal to grammatical perfection is a factor to consider, but Mark was not a grammarian. Other factors, which you insist on ignoring, are more important than working backwards from grammar. Mark's vocabulary and use of Greek grammar were limited, more so than any other Gospel. Mark was likely an uneducated (even homeschooled) young child who tagged along with his mother as she occasionally followed Jesus's ministry, so grammar arguments are not dispositive with respect to his writing.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
As to your grammatical point, as the entry says, εἶπεν is the 3rd Person Singular Indicative Active Aorist of λέγω, which in the silent sense can mean "he meant" or "he judged." So even if your view were correct, εἶπεν would still be a correct for saying "he meant" or "he judged" in this context.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

" εἶπεν would still be a correct for saying "he meant" or "he judged" in this context." No. Why not? Because of τῇ θαλάσσῃ. That is a dative object, answering the question "to whom or to what?". "He meant" or "he judged" would need an accusative object, answering the question "whom or what?". Answering the latter question - instead of a real object - is the snippet of direct speech. The additional dative object works only for "he said". Mark may have used a simple language, but he didn't make such grammatical errors - AFAIK the worst thing he is accused of is using the middle voice where the passive voice would have been more appropriate. --AugustO (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

Appreciate the intellectually serious response, which I will look into further. But grammar is not -- and should not be -- the only factor to consider. Jesus was doing something extraordinary, and it is likely Mark did not have grammatically perfect options familiar to him. What is grammatical for "He said, 'Be still'" should be equally valid for "He judged, 'Be still'" or "He meant, 'Be still." I have not seen you distinguish among the three possibilities, which presumably would all use the same grammar.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
What is grammatical for "He said, 'Be still'" should be equally valid for "He judged, 'Be still'" or "He meant, 'Be still." Why? You know that it is impossible to translate from one language to another one-to-one. A translation depends on the context - if there is only an accusative present, you may look at another meaning than when there are an accusative and a dative object. Take, e.g., the English
  1. She gets me. (accusative)
  2. She gets me a present (dative + accusative)
The meaning of "to get" varies, to translate this in another language (e.g., German), I have to use different words:
  1. Sie versteht mich
  2. Sie besorgt mir ein Geschenk.
Mark did not have grammatically perfect options familiar to him. Mark was very capable to render surprising situations into a simple language which is easy to understand. He had options to describe a silent Jesus in the presence of the sea, just looking at it (see e.g., Mark 14:61).
--AugustO (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
You fail to address the central point: What is grammatical for "He said, 'Be still'" should be equally valid for "He judged, 'Be still'" or "He meant, 'Be still."--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
And you fail to include "to the sea" in your "translation". To elaborate further:
  • καὶ εἶπεν τὴν θάλασσαν could be translated as "He judged the sea", it cannot be translated as "He said the sea"
  • καὶ εἶπεν Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο could be "He judged Silence, be still" or "He said Silence, be still. But we have
  • καὶ εἶπεν τ θαλάσσ Σιώπα, πεφίμωσο We cannot say "He judged to the sea Silence, be still", it works only as "He said to the sea Silence, be still
Dictionaries give us various translations which works in the appropriate contexts. To quote you: "that's basic"
--AugustO (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
The limitation is in modern English, and nothing in the Greek requires a verbal order. The "sea" is merely the indirect object of the verb, which can work as easily with a non-verbal order as a verbal one. "He judged the sea" is awkward in English, and "He ordered the sea" would be the way to say that today, without quotation marks for the non-verbal judgment. Most judicial orders are non-verbal.
The bottom line is that nothing in the Greek at Mark 4:39 requires a verbal order, which would be silly anyway because the sea obviously cannot hear. People who resist accepting the Bible can be the most adamant in insisting on an absurd translation.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2017 (EDT)
  • "the sea obviously cannot hear" neither can a fig-tree (Mark 11:14) nor a mountain (Mark 11:23).
  • "people who resist accepting the Bible can be the most adamant in insisting on an absurd translation." Like Martin Luther: "Und er stand auf und bedrohte den Wind und sprach zu dem Meer: Schweig und verstumme!"
  • "He ordered the sea" To do what? To be still, to be silent. When was the last time you ordered something silently?

--AugustO (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

August, your comments illustrate why translation of the Bible cannot be delegated to skeptics. God orders things in nature all the time, dating back to creation. Some deny this reality. But take a look at animal migration and there is no other plausible way to explain it. Yes, Jesus ordered the sea to be silent. And it was. That's the proper translation of the text. It was a silent order and nothing in the Greek suggests otherwise.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2017 (EDT)

So, Martin Luther did not only resist accepting the Bible, but was a skeptic? That's absurd. BTW: just repeating your statement "It was a silent order and nothing in the Greek suggests otherwise" without giving any source which does not blow up in your face after a little bit of closer scrutiny does not make it true. --AugustO (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Do you consult the work of people who lived in the 1500s for advice about physics today? No, of course not. We should use the expanse in knowledge since then. That includes a greater understanding of Greek, a greater understanding of physics, and a realization of the commonality between the three synoptic Gospels. I repeat: nothing in the Greek grammar or otherwise of Mark's version requires a spoken order by Jesus. The passages in Matthew and Luke omit one. Modern physics teaches that it was observation that quelled the chaos, not spoken words. Common sense points out that seas don't hear. Based on all this and more, case closed.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Andy, are you claiming that you have a greater understanding of Greek than Martin Luther? Please, show me one modern expert of the Greek language who is working on the expansion of our knowledge of Greek who shares your insight! There is no one! All current edge translations agree: in Mark, Jesus spoke to the sea. If you can bring such an expert, that should close the case. But I assume that you are unwilling to talk to Greek scholars as that would expose your degree of knowledge... --AugustO (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Yes, we do have a greater understanding of physics than Martin Luther did. I'm sorry to disappoint you. We also have greater access to resources about Greek than Martin Luther did. And the body of knowledge about ancient Greek today is far better than in Luther's time.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
I'm very interested: which of the body of knowledge about ancient Greek today do you use that is far better than in Luther's time? --AugustO (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

AugustO: summary of my position

Neither Mark, Luke, nor Matthew state explicitly that Jesus staid silent. Luke's and Matthew's record would work with a silent or a spoken command, though in Luke 8:25 the pupils say that the sea "listened" to Jesus. Mark states that Jesus said to the sea "Silence, be still".

Would it have been seen as odd that Jesus talked to the sea - as the sea doesn't have ears? I don't think so: not only did Jesus address other objects without ears verbally (e.g., a fig-tree), Herodotus's report on Xerxes was wildly known: there you had a self-proclaimed god-king who addressed the sea in vain, while Jesus spoke to it and was obeyed. I think that is a powerful contrast which certainly did not went unobserved.

In my opinion it would have been more surprising for the early Christians if there had not been a verbal command: therefore I think that such an absence of a command would have been mentioned. But that is just my opinion and I do not insist on the conclusion.

There is nothing in the texts of Mark, Luke or Matthew which makes Andrew Schlafly's insight compelling: the texts work with a verbal command or (not so well) without - but it takes so much more effort, fantasy, and invention to harmonize these passages with a silent, just observing Jesus.

And to what end? Essay:Rebuttal to the "Calming the Storm" essay shows that the physics which Andrew Schlafly tries to crowbar into this section does not work out.

--AugustO (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

An attempt at "peace"

This essay is an essay, not a regular article. We already have a counter essay to this essay. Why don't we just keep it at that? Or, AugustO, I think I agree with you on this issue, but why not make your own counter essay? Is this not an acceptable solution? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

That sounds sensible. But unfortunately, we have Best Conservapedia insights about the Bible, where this is not longer treated as an essay, but as the source for a "Conservapedia insight". When Andrew Schlafly created this list of insights in March 2017, the discussion flamed up again.
If this was marked as Andrew Schlafly's personal insight, I would not have a great problem: see Conservapedia:Community Portal#Conservapedia's insights

--AugustO (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Can't we move "Best Conservapedia insights about the Bible" to an essay article? Or why not word it something like "Andrew Schlafly and certain editors of Conservapedia"? --1990'sguy (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
Our articles on best conservative/worst liberal media forms are listed as essays, even though they don't really resemble essays. I assume this is because their content is disputable. Therefore, since this content is under dispute, it would make some sense to just push Best Conservapedia insights about the Bible into essay space. Maybe it's the lazy solution, but it seems reasonable to me, and would not be anything unusual, since as I said, a number of other disputable lists are called essays. --David B (TALK) 17:05, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Regarding ""Best Conservapedia insights about the Bible": I just made it into an essay. See: Essay: Best Conservapedia insights about the Bible Conservative (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

Well done! --AugustO (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2017 (EDT)

That didn't last long: --AugustO (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

Invoking quantum mechanics is just wrong.

The essay contains two references to modern physics, the second one suggesting that James Strong's lack of schooling in the subject made his insights less powerful than they could have been. The reference to physics is the "wave function collapse" of quantum mechanics, and the suggestion that the state of material objects can change by the act of observing them. While the notion that making an observation can have an effect does appear in quantum mechanics (and is perhaps the greatest mystery of the Copenhagen interpretation) its application in this case is completely wrong.

The "observation fixes things" idea comes from the facts that

  • Prior to any observation, a system has a wave function.
  • Various operators on wave functions (e.g. position, momentum) have eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
  • A theorem about Hermitian operators on Hilbert spaces shows that, whatever the function is, the measurement of the sum of the squares of the differences between the measurement of the operator and the various eigenvalues is zero.
  • It follows that any measurement of an operator will necessarily yield an eigenvalue. We just don't know in advance which eigenvalue it is.

In the fanciful thought experiment known as "Schrödinger's cat", the two eigenvalues are "alive" and "dead". Prior to observation, the wave function is an unknown superposition of the two corresponding eigenfunctions. But any observation of the "alive or dead?" operator must yield exactly one of those possibilities, nothing in between.

The point of "wave function collapse" is that any subsequent observation of that operator will yield the same result. Somehow the first observation forced the wave function into that eigenfunction. How and why this happens is a great mystery.

The observation of some system can never change its state. The previous state must have been completely unknown and never-before observed. Looking at something will never change it from red to blue. It can only change our knowledge from "we have no idea" to blue. Observation can never move things around.

In the case of the "stormy or calm" operator, the other people in the boat had already made an observation that it was stormy, and reported it to Jesus. No subsequent observation, invoking quantum mechanics, could have changed that.

SamHB (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

"Observation can never move things around." - that's not true. Action at a distance exists, though people (often relativists) persist in denying it.
Jesus calmed the storm by observing it with faith. His disciples observed it without faith. There is a difference.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
*LOL* Andy, you are seven days late! --AugustO (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
I stand by my statement that observation can't move things around. What you say about action at a distance does not relate to observation.
"Action at a distance" has historically been used to describe different phenomena. In Newton's day, before the notion of "fields" (gravitational or electric) it meant "applying a force to something without touching it". That is, in his case, gravity. People of his day (including Newton himself) found it mysterious and baffling that the Sun could exert a force on the Earth without touching it. This bafflement was the source of his "I feign no hypothesis" comment.
In the modern era, it refers to the equally baffling (for our time) phenomenon more properly called "quantum entanglement". No educated scientist, relativist or not, denies this phenomenon. That is, no scientist educated in quantum mechanical trickery. (By the way, I'm never sure what you mean by "relativist". Someone who embraces moral relativism? Someone who accepts the utterly overwhelming evidence for Einsteinian relativity? You often mingle these notions.)
To repeat, you can't calm a storm by observing it, any more than you can kill a cat that way. You can cause a cat's previously unknown wave function to collapse into the "cat is dead" state by opening the box and looking, but the act of opening the box isn't what did it.
You bring Jesus' faith into it. Perhaps you are saying that Jesus could perform miracles (obviously) and cause His observation to do something—calm the storm—that mortals armed with nothing but quantum mechanics can't do. I can't argue with that. But it was outside of quantum mechanics.
SamHB (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
Are you familiar with the Double-slit experiment? Observation does change the result.
It changes it from "Totally unknown because it has never been observed in any manner whatsoever" to "It went through the slit on the right". But it never changes from "It went through the slit on the left" to "It went through the slit on the right". (Actually, that's an oversimplification. The usual way the experiment is described is "It must have gone through both slits simultaneously, paradoxical though that must be, because the whole set of photons created the diffraction pattern that indicates that they went through both slits. So, at the time that the photon was passing the barrier, it must have "seen" both slits, so it couldn't have "gone through" just one of them.) By the way, the CP article on the double slit experiment makes no mention of wave-function collapse. It should be fixed.
But let's cut to the chase. August and Sam, do you think Jesus actually spoke to the sea verbally? If you don't, then why are you objecting so much? Thou protest too much, as Shakespeare said in Hamlet.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
I'm not an expert in Greek; I have to defer to you and August on that. My KJV, in Matthew 8:26, uses the word "rebuke". But it's not important what Jesus was doing—speaking aloud, merely thinking, or whatever. Whatever He did, quantum-mechanical wave-function collapse could not have been involved. Of course, since a miracle was presumably involved, it is not necessary to use quantum mechanics.
The reason I object so much is that the proper use of science is extremely important to me. SamHB (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

The success of any endeavor, among other things, is dependent on its its original design and the preparation that occurs before implementation.

The four most important pieces of preparation for Bible translation are a thorough understanding of Greek/Hebrew; an understanding of the principles/methodology of Bible exegesis; a solid understanding of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture; and finally, a solid understanding of theology. Of course, this is a tall order and requires years of preparation and the CBP's participants didn't have this level of knowledge. TerryH and AugustO have the highest level of knowledge when it comes to Greek, but in terms of their overall knowledge when it comes to translating the Bible when compared to prominent Bible translators, they really don't compare as they did not focus their vocational training on being pastors, Christian educators, Bible translators, etc.

The CBP is not being widely used by the public. For example, Acts 1-9 (Translated) has less than 10,000 page views. The CBP hasn't received an endorsement from a single prominent conservative, conservative group, Christian or Christian group. However, it did receive public criticism from the American conservative Joseph Farah and Creation Ministries International.[3][4]

The public views the CBP as an endeavor to inject contemporary American conservative political ideology into the ancient book of the Bible through the efforts of people who do not have an intense amount of training/preparation. And they don't agree with the project's perceived aim or its methodology.

The Bible did shape Western civilization/American conservatism and it is now having a positive impact on cultures which are experiencing a high growth of Christianity. However, the CBP should be scrapped. If it is not scrapped, at the very least it should be renamed the Conservapedia Bible Project. In addition, it should get rid of the idea of endeavoring to inject a list of predetermined words into the text and instead put a greater focus on determining the Biblical authors' original intent/meaning and translating this into contemporary language. In addition, a list of Bible translation resources should be compiled along with an action plan of study by the projects participants. Conservative (talk)

Everything that is done or undone on this website affects the credibility of all of the other parts of the website. JDano (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2017 (EDT)
JDano, do you like the CBP? Do you commonly use the CBP in your personal Bible studies?
Any additional thoughts from other Conservapedia editors?
Appreciate the above comments. This debate about who should translate the Bible, and which principles should guide that effort, has raged for centuries. So I don't expect we'll all agree here either.
But it would be imprudent to leave the task of translation to academia, which has been taken over by pro-aborts, socialists, the homosexual agenda, globalists, and environmentalists. Also, the "expert" translators ignore science and insist on things like having Jesus speaking verbally to a sea, because they found the same Greek word in another context being used for a verbal remark. Churches have agendas too, and they cling to a few passages in the Bible that are universally recognized to be fraudulent. The best of the public has an important role, and plays an essential safeguard, against "elites" controlling the Bible.
What principles should guide the effort? Not just a linguistic approach, but one that recognizes the underlying conservative values, one that is informed by science and the law (e.g., the problem of laws against blasphemy), and one that doesn't rely on fallacies like translating the same Greek word into the same English word in very different contexts. Don't add quotations to something Jesus probably did not say, for example. Don't be afraid to use the modern terms of "gambling", "illegal alien," or "liberal claptrap," which the academic translators would never allow to be used. Then our churches could start growing again.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2017 (EDT)

A few points in response:

1. A Christian website pointed out that the CBP mistranslated one of the most widely quoted Bible verses. Namely, this verse: "“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16).

It turns out that the Christian website was correct and so I asked TerryH to fix the error which he did as can be seen HERE.

There have been other cases of CBP editors making avoidable mistakes. For example, User: Winterstorm89 wrote on in October 25, 2016: "I looked at one chapter and saw some awful mistakes, including referring to the Holy Spirit as "the force of God."[5] Now this is a serious theological error. The Holy Spirit is not merely a force, but is a person within the trinity.

The proof is in the pudding. And I have seen indications that the CBP is a poor translation.

2. If the CBP editors have produced a translation that is better than the rest of the translations, why is there still a lack of a single prominent conservative, conservative group, Christian or Christian group endorsing the CBP?

3. If the CBP editors have produced a translation that is better than the rest of the translations, why is its viewership so small? I pointed out above that Acts 1-9 (Translated) has less than 10,000 page views.

Conservapedians have produced some excellent encyclopedia articles with high page view counts. The CBP appears to be lacking in both quality and popularity.

4. Religious conservatives best fit the profile of people likely to become Conservapedia editors. I believe the CBP is putting an unnecessary brake on some people choosing to be Conservapedia editors.

5. I still believe that it is time to pull the plug on the CBP. I see no evidence that things are going to change in terms of the design of the project (including quality control measures), the naming of the project or the type of editors who are editing it. Conservative (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2017 (EDT)