Posts by Disillusioned JW

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

Corrections: In my prior post where I said "... from the BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order" I meant to says "... from the 607 BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order". Where I said "Since are views on this matter ..." I should have said "Since our views on this matter ...".

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

In an earlier post I said to scholar "... which pages of the Insight book are you using for the data of the reigns of the Hebrew Monarachy which add up years from 539 (or 537) B.C.E. to get 607 BCE?" But when I woke up this morning it occurred to me one can't add up the reigns of the Hebrew Monarchy from 539 BCE to the year in which the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem. That is because there was no Hebrew monarchy in Judah during that time period.

In the list of chronology, on pages 464 - 466 of Insight Volume 1, of the combined 12-tribe kingdom and of the separate kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the WT probably calculated those dates from the the year 607 BCE, which in turn they likely calculated by going back 68 years from the pivotal year of 539 BCE (or by going back 70 years from the year 537 BCE, which in turn was calculated by going forward 2 years from the year 539 BCE). In listing the dates from 1117 BCE forward in time to 607 BCE they likely give the impression to many readers that the 607 BCE date was determined by starting with the 1117 date. But, what the WT most likely actually did was to calculate the 1117 BCE date (and the dates between 1117 BCE and 607 BCE) from the BCE date then displaying the list of dates in the reverse order. Likewise that is probably the reason their year for the creation of Adam (stated as 4026 B.C.E. on page 459 of the Volume 1 of Insight) is 26 years earlier than the date calculated by Ussher, rather than 20 years closer to the date calculated by Ussher (his date was 4000 BC.

scholar I notice you said the following. "The issue at hand is that our Chronology is Bible-based whereas your Chronology is based on secular and pagan sources which contradict the Bible history it is that simple. ... Always be careful of science as it is a human construct prone to error." That confirms what I thought about your approach. You consider the Bible to be far more reliable than science. In contrast, I consider science to be far more reliable than religion and the Bible.

My observation is that religion is vastly more prone to error than science is prone to error. The WT and its JW religion are extremely prone error. That is partly demonstrated by their numerous doctrinal changes throughout their history.

Since are views on this matter are the opposite of each other and since our views on this matter are strongly entrenched, it is probably not worthwhile for me to continue to debate this matter (and other matters in which your religion is in conflict with science) with you.

Have a nice day.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

scholar, I disagree with the following comment you made to me. "What you are saying is nonsense. How can you be definite that a definite or precise date such as 607 BCE is wrong when you cannot offer up any other precise alternative?" [Update: Note that on this topic page Jeffro made an excellent rebuttal to you about your argument to me about the dates.] I offered to you an alternative (namely that of biblical scholars) which is precise to within one year and which differs from your date by 20 to 21 years, yet you reject it. Even if every biblical scholar came to agree precisely the year of 578 BCE, (even down to the exact day of that year and even to the exact hour of the day) you would still not accept it as correct. Is that right? So the issue is not really about the minor degree of imprecision of saying "587/586 BCE". Right? The issue really is about you not accepting any date derived from nonbiblical sources which disagrees with dates derived from the WT's (and your) interpretation of the Bible. Right? Yet even the WT's date of 607 B.C.E. relies upon the date of 539 BCE calculated by non-JW biblical scholars from nonbiblical ancient records (since the Bible does not provide any astronomical signs by which people can correlate the year of a biblical king's reign with our modern day calendar). Right?

I think I read that you have said that religion should not be judged by science, but that science should be judged by religion. But for me religion (including the Bible) should be judged by modern science instead of modern science being judged by
religion (including the Bible). Modern science is my standard and it has been since my childhood.That is largely because modern science uses the scientific method and that method is an excellent way of testing claims, and has an excellent track record. In contrast, a great many of the claims of religion (including of the Bible) are not testable, thus explaining why there as so many conflicting biblical interpretations by Christians (and so many denominations and sects of Christians) and so many thousands (or perhaps even millions) of different religions. In contrast within a given field/branch of science there is a consensus on multiple topics and over time the number of topics in which there is consensus grows (one of which is life on Earth has evolved).

For most of my life I thought that modern science backed enough of the claims of the Bible in order for me to accept that the Bible is entirely correct, even in those areas where it disagrees with modern science. But, when I was about 45 years old I learned that certain major findings of modern science (ones which I concluded are definitely true) strongly disagree with some major claims of the Bible. As a result at about age 50 I stopped believing in the Bible as being Jehovah/Yahweh God's word and I stopped believing in God. Believing that the supernatural exists (something which the Bible makes extensive claims of) was often times hard to believe anyway (even while a child) since I never discovered any definite proof of anything supernatural (and since I never ever experienced anything supernatural or anyone supernatural).

scholar, if the If the WT has proven the 607 BCE date as you claim, why is it unacceptable by all non-JW scholars of biblical history? Why hasn't the WT managed to persuade a significant number of them? To the biblical scholars and to myself the WT has not proved the 607 BCE as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

On page 2 of this topic thread Splash lists pages in the Insight volumes about the Babylonian kings. Moments ago I started reading the one about Belsshazzar and I find myself fascinated about what it says. I am astonished that it (on page 283) demonstrates there are archaeological records which are consistent with, and even collaborate, some statements in the book called Daniel. Prior to today I had little interest in reading the Insight volumes (or the Aid to Bible Understanding), even though I obtained the Insight volumes in first year they were published (1988) and even though that prior to that I tried to order the Aid book from the WT (but it had gone out of print by then). In the year 2006 I finally found and purchased a used copy (in very good condition) of the complete Aid book (1971 Edition), thus replacing the 1969 Edition I had since childhood.

I notice that Insight Volume 2 page 457 says that Nabonidus "... ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.)." It thus explicitly agrees with with what Splash calculated as the first year of the rule of Nabonidus, and thus at point in the chronology the WT agrees with the secular chronology. But when we come to Evil-Merodach the Insight book (Volume 1 page 773) explicitly says that Evil-Merodach began his rule in 581 B.C.E. whereas Splash calculates 563 B.C.E instead, a difference of 18 years (but not 20 years). Thus it appears that some of the difference in the WT's dates from the secular dates is somewhere in between the reigns of Nabonidus and Evil-Merodach. Likewise
Insight Vol 2 p.480 gives a date differing by 18 years form that calculated by Splash, the Insight book says "Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years (624-582 B.C.E.) ... " and thus claiming Nebuchadnezzarbegan to rule in the year 624 B.C.E. instead of Splash's calculated date of 606 B.C.E. Does perhaps the WT think that
Neriglissar ruled for about 18 years more than 4 years? Apparently not, since on page three of this topic thread Vanderhoven7 says "Neriglissar ... reigned four years Babylon the Great Has Fallen - God's Kingdom Rules p.184". I do see that the Babylon Great book (as published in the 1999 Edition of the Watchtower Library does say that which Vanderhoven7 quoted it as saying. Does then the WT think there is an unknown king missing from the extant Babylonian records of their kings?

Splash says "Minus Neriglissar (4 years) = 561 BCE - Insight Vol 1 p.453" however I don't see Insight Vol 1 p.453 as saying that Neriglissar ruled for a total of 4 years. Instead in my copy of the Insight book (which is the "First Printing") I instead see the following. "For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Murduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year. Notice it does not claim "up to his fourth year", but it does say Awil-Murduk is Evil-Merodach for in the prior sentence it says "... Awil-Murduk (Evil-Merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28) ...".

On page 6 of this topic thread scholar says the following (which I think is interesting).

"By constructing a scheme of Chronology based on the backward computation of the reigns of the N B Period you get 586/587 for the Fall of Jerusalem base dom material in the Insight volumes. I get that!.

However, if using the same methodology by means of counting back using the regnal data- reigns of the Hebrew Monarchy as published in that same volume then you get 607 BCE. Do you get it?"

scholar which pages of the Insight book are you using for the data of the reigns of the Hebrew Monarachy which add up years from 539 (or 537) B.C.E. to get 607 BCE? Are you referring t the chart which is on pages 404-406 of Insight Volume 1? That chart is counting up (forward in time) from what the Insight book says happened in 1117 BCE. I don't see it counting backward in time from the well established date of 539 B.C.E. Therefore please provide us with more information so I and others can see what you are using to support your claim.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

I think way to much about religious matters. I need to spend much more of my time thinking about things which will benefit me (including in practical ways), such as intensely studying the stock market (including how various factors influence the prices of stocks) to greatly improve my results in stock market trading and hopefully become wealthy.

My being raised from infancy in the WT's JW religion over time eventually developed a strong interest in me in religion, which in some respects is very disadvantageous to me. I somehow need to stop studying the Bible, to stop writing (including debating and arguing) about religion on this website, to stop reading religious posts on this web site (but most of this web site is about religion, and much of the rest is about politics and unproven conspiracy theories), and to stop being interested in the subject of religion. However, I have become hooked on those matters (despite me now being an atheist and nonreligious) and it is thus very hard for me to completely cease doing those things. I spend several hours per week (with most of that time on my days off from work) thinking about religion, including spending hours per week on this site making posts about religion.

Perhaps the only way I can stop thinking about religion is so much would be if I somehow managed to stop caring about what other people think about religion. But, it is highly doubtful I could achieve that since I strongly want human society to become atheistic naturalists and to be nonreligious.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

scholar even if modern biblical scholars (and I) are indefinite as to whether the destruction happened in 587 BCE or 586 BCE they (and I) are definite that it did not happen in 607 BCE. They are in agreement that it definitely did not happen any time before 587 BCE and that it definitely did not happen any time after 586 BCE.

Your argument is flawed where you say the following. "How can a calculated precise date of 607 BCE be wrong when you cannot agree as to whether it is 587 or 586 BCE for the Fall of Jerusalem? How can it be that a definite date-607 BCE be falsified by an indefinite date-586 or 587 BCE?" 607 BCE is not a definite year for the destruction, in the sense of it being proven as a correct date by a consensus of biblical scholars. It is only 'definite' in the sense of it being one specific year and in the sense that the WT and many JWs teach it is correct, but those people are not biblical scholars. The governing body of the WT and the other writers of the WT's literature (except maybe for rare exceptions of the Writing Committee) and nearly all of the other JWs did not get a university degree in biblical studies, nor an studies of any middle eastern ancient history, nor in ancient middle eastern languages. Extant archaeological artifacts in no way indicate that the destruction happened in 607 BCE or even in some year within the range of 607 BCE plus or minus 10 years. In contrast biblical scholars have demonstrated a precision of their date to within 1 single year, without having to resort to claims made in biblical prophecies (such as a prophecy in the book of Jeremiah). Instead, the biblical scholars made use of extant historical records which said that it happened during a specific year of a specific king's reign, however the years for the start of a king's reign don't start in the same month as the years of our Gregorian calendar years start in. For a hypothetical example, one year of the reign of a king might have started in March 15, 587 BCE and ended in March 14, 586 BCE (like a fiscal year of a modern day corporation; for example one whose 10th year of operation was from May 2010 through April 2011, instead of from January 1, 2010 - December 31, 2010). As a result when one reads an ancient document that says an event happened in a specific year of the king (such as perhaps the 19th year of the king), which doesn't also mention the month (or give a clue as to the month), that means that according to our calendar it might have been in the year 587 BCE or the year 586 BCE, in this hypothetical example, according to our Gregorian calendar, but definitely not 607 BCE. That is because in this hypothetical example the 19th year of the king overlapped with parts of two years of our modern day Gregorian calendar.

Consider the following as another example. Someone might say that something happened in either in 400 CE or 401 CE, and definitely not in some other year (such as the year 350 CE). Someone else might say it happened in 350 CE instead. Just because someone might be uncertain as to whether it happened in 400 CE instead of in 401 CE, that doesn't mean they are wrong in being certain it didn't happen in some year which was neither than 400 CE nor 401 CE. It does not mean the one who say it happened in 350 CE is correct.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

The WT believes in a form of Second Adventism but Second Adventism is incorrect, for there is no Christ in heaven; Jesus if he ever existed is dead, not alive in heaven. As a result the WT gives an extremely incorrect portrayal of where people are in the stream of time.

There will be no battle of Armageddon in the biblical sense; no bowls of wrath will be poured out (nor have been poured out) from God in heaven upon the Earth. Christ will not go to war against human armies and human governments, nor against individual humans (such as those whom the WT claims are a part of Babylon the Great). Christ did not kick Satan the Devil out of heaven in 1914 (or at any other time), since Satan the Devil does not exist as an actual being (but only 'exists' in the sense of an incorrect imaginary idea of many humans).

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

scholar I notice you wrote "... WT Chronology is based not on Barbour but Charles Russell and his associates ...". By including "not on Barbour" in your words you made it look like you were claiming that Barbour was not one of Russell associates. But the WT's Proclaimers book admits that for a period time that Barbour was one of Russell's associates and that Russell got his chronology of 'prophetic' dates from Barbour. Interestingly the same WT web page I mentioned (in my prior post) of chapter 5 of the Proclaimers book says the following. "Because their present understanding of Bible truths and their activities can be traced back to the 1870’s and the work of C. T. Russell and his associates, and from there to the Bible and early Christianity." That gives me the impression that you got your wording of "... Charles Russell and his associates ..." from the Proclaimers book. So why not accept that Barbour for a period time was an associate of Russell (since the Proclaimers book admits he was) and that Russell and the WT (in its early years) got their "prophetic" date chronology from Barbour? Granted the WT (under Rutherford) later abandoned a number of Barbour's dates and replaced some them with other dates (such as replacing 1874 with 1914 and replacing 1878 with 1918). But the WT's 1914 date is one which they got from Barbour. Also their 607 BCE date is a very slight revision of the Barbour's 606 BC date. Furthermore, the WT retains the 2,520 year number which Russell got from Barbour.

Regarding the chronology which the WT had while Russell was alive the WT's online edition of the Proclaimers book says the following.

'Concerning the chronology he often presented, Russell stated: “When we say ‘our’ chronology we merely mean the one we use, the Bible chronology, which belongs to all of God’s people who approve it. As a matter of fact it was used in practically the form we present it long before our day, just as various prophecies we use were used to a different purpose by Adventists, and just as various doctrines we hold and which seem so new and fresh and different were held in some form long ago: for instance—Election, Free Grace, Restitution, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification, Resurrection.” '

Update: I now notice that while I was composing this post you (scholar) posted a post (4 minutes before I posted this post) in which you admit that Russell was indebted to Barbour and that Barbour's chronology influenced the chronology which Russell and the WT later adopted. That is good.

However the WT is very wrong in saying that Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah fell in 607 BCE, Whereas secular chronology is correct in saying it fell in 587 BCE. Furthermore the WT is wrong is saying became king over the Earth invisibly in heaven in 1914. The WT needs to ditch their second adventist derived chronology pertaining to 607 BCE, 1914, and 1918, as well as the idea of Christ's invisible presence as king. Those ideas are rubbish - not the secular date of 587 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem.

scholar you comment of "... such Bible Chronology enables faithful people to locate themselves in the stream of time by means of being able to understand Prophecy" is incorrect in regards to 607 BCE and 1914 CE. There is no personal God, not even Jehovah God. Jehovah God as described and defined in the Bible definitely does not exist.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

Disillusioned JW

scholar, some the WT's publications say that Russell admitted to getting his chronology and some other ideas, including that pertaining to so-called prophetic dates, (at least some of it) from Second Adventists (including from Barbour). Before the Watch Tower magazine came into existence, Russell and Barbour published of a book written by Barbour called Three Worlds, and the Harvest of This World (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_H._Barbour ). It mentioned 606 BC, 1874 (or 1873), 1878, 1914, and other daters. I read a much of it online. The above mentioned Wikipedia article says the following.

'Though it bore the names of both Barbour and Russell as publishers, the book was written entirely by Barbour, a former Millerite, who used some of preacher William Miller's teachings as its basis.[2][3] Barbour’s writings were highly influential in the development of Russell’s later teachings, which led to the formation of the Bible Student movement and later, Jehovah’s Witnesses. Its computations of the length of the "times of the Gentiles" mentioned at Luke 21:24, calculated as 2,520 years from 606 BC[4] used an interpretation that is still adhered to by Jehovah's Witnesses.[2]

It used the year-day system of interpreting prophecies, presented the idea of a 360-day "prophetic year" and a historicist interpretation of the book of Revelation. It drew on the millenarian studies of 19th-century writers in formulating a system that demonstrated remarkable biblical-mathematical "correspondencies" and modified Bishop James Ussher's chronological calculation to declare that 6,000 years of human history had ended in the autumn of 1873 and that a "morning of joy" was about to begin for humankind.[2] '

Also in 1877 Barbour published Russell's pamphlet called Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return. That pamphlet book/booklet was Russell's first publication. A PDF of that pamphlet can be read online at https://archive.org/details/TheObjectAndMannerOfOurLordsReturn . See also https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/150248/scanned-pdf-russells-1st-book-object-manner-our-lords-return . The opening post at that web page says the following. "The Object and Manner of Our Lord's Return was C. T. Russell's first book (or booklet) and has 64 pages. I think this definitively lays to rest the claim sometimes made that it was first published in 1872 (and thus before the 1874 prediction) as it's clearly labelled 1877 and in the text refers to N.H. Barbour, whom Russell did not meet until 1876."

A different post at https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/150248/scanned-pdf-russells-1st-book-object-manner-our-lords-return says the following. "As can be plainly seen in the PDF, Object and Manner gives an 1877 publication date and references Barbour, whom Russell had never heard of in 1873. Having Russell active in publishing before he met Barbour makes him appear more independent. However, he got most of his ideas from Barbour and Object and Manner dates from after he met Barbour."

https://archive.org/details/1875-1880HeraldOfTheMorningAssortedIssues has PDFs of some issues of Herald Of The Morning. A description at that web page says the following.

'1874-1880 Herald of the Morning (assorted issues). Contains scans of several issues of Herald of the Morning magazine, edited by Nelson H. Barbour and co-edited by Charles Taze Russell for about two and a half years. In the summer of 1876, Russell accepted Barbour's understanding of biblical chronology, believing that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874. Russell and Barbour broke fellowship in 1879 and Russell went on to start Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence in 1879. Russell retained the basics of Barbour's chronology until his death. In 1880, however, Barbour rejected the idea that Christ had returned invisibly in 1874, opting for a future return of Christ. The magazine started by Russell is now called The Watchtower and is now circulated by Jehovah's Witnesses.

The WT at https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/Jehovahs-Witnesses-Proclaimers-of-Gods-Kingdom/You-Are-My-Witnesses-Says-Jehovah/Proclaiming-the-Lords-Return-1870-1914/ has an apparently revised edition of one chapter of their Proclaimers book. It admits the following.

'Russell referred quite openly to the assistance in Bible study he had received from others. Not only did he acknowledge his indebtedness to Second Adventist Jonas Wendell but he also spoke with affection about two other individuals who had aided him in Bible study. Russell said of these two men: “The study of the Word of God with these dear brethren led, step by step, into greener pastures.” One, George W. Stetson, was an earnest student of the Bible and pastor of the Advent Christian Church in Edinboro, Pennsylvania.

The other, George Storrs, was publisher of the magazine Bible Examiner, in Brooklyn, New York.

... One morning in January 1876, 23-year-old Russell received a copy of a religious periodical called Herald of the Morning. From the picture on the cover, he could see that it was identified with Adventism. The editor, Nelson H. Barbour, of Rochester, New York, believed that the object of Christ’s return was not to destroy the families of the earth but to bless them and that his coming would be not in the flesh but as a spirit. ... Curiously, though, Barbour believed from Biblical time-prophecies that Christ was already present (invisibly) and that the harvest work of gathering “the wheat” (true Christians making up the Kingdom class) was already due.—Matt., chap. 13.

Russell had shied away from Biblical time prophecies. Now, however, he wondered: “Could it be that the time prophecies which I had so long despised, because of their misuse by Adventists, were really meant to indicate when the Lord would be invisibly present to set up his Kingdom?” With his insatiable thirst for Scriptural truth, Russell had to learn more. So he arranged to meet with Barbour in Philadelphia. This meeting confirmed their agreement on a number of Bible teachings and provided an opportunity for them to exchange views. “When we first met,” Russell later stated, “he had much to learn from me on the fulness of restitution based upon the sufficiency of the ransom given for all, as I had much to learn from him concerning time.” Barbour succeeded in convincing Russell that Christ’s invisible presence had begun in 1874. * '

141

My Prediction Regarding New Space Telescope That Will See Back to 100 Million Years From the Big Bang

by Sea Breeze in

a new space telescope launched a few days age that will supposedly be able to see to within 100 million years of the big bang.

wow... only 100 million years from the big bang.

that is pretty early given the 12 billion year age of the universe assigned by scholars who adhere to naturalism.

Disillusioned JW

Yesterday I found the science article located at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230222115828.htm which is called "James Webb spots super old, massive galaxies that shouldn't exist". The article is dated February 22, 2023 (the same day I found it.) A summary of it says the following. "A team of international researchers have identified six candidate galaxies that existed roughly 500 to 700 million years after the Big Bang and are about as big as the modern Milky Way Galaxy -- a feat that scientists didn't think was possible." The article says in part the following.

'Each of the candidate galaxies may have existed at the dawn of the universe roughly 500 to 700 million years after the Big Bang, or more than 13 billion years ago. They’re also gigantic, containing almost as many stars as the modern-day Milky Way Galaxy.

“It’s bananas,” said Erica Nelson, co-author of the new research and assistant professor of astrophysics at the University of Colorado Boulder. “You just don’t expect the early universe to be able to organize itself that quickly. These galaxies should not have had time to form.”

Nelson and her colleagues, including first author Ivo Labbé of the Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, published their results Feb. 22 in the journal Nature.

The latest finds aren’t the earliest galaxies observed by James Webb, which launched in December 2021 and is the most powerful telescope ever sent into space. Last year, another team of scientists spotted four galaxies that likely coalesced from gas around 350 million years after the Big Bang. Those objects, however, were downright shrimpy compared to the new galaxies, containing many times less mass from stars.

... These primordial galaxies, however, probably didn’t have much in common with our own.

“The Milky Way forms about one to two new star every year,” Nelson said. “Some of these galaxies would have to be forming hundreds of new stars a year for the entire history of the universe.”

Nelson and her colleagues want to use James Webb to collect a lot more information about these mysterious objects, but they’ve seen enough already to pique their curiosity. For a start, calculations suggest there shouldn’t have been enough normal matter—the kind that makes up planets and human bodies—at that time to form so many stars so quickly.

“If even one of these galaxies is real, it will push against the limits of our understanding of cosmology,” Nelson said.'

To me this evidence supports the idea that the universe is much older than what the Big Bang theory says and even that universe (in some form) has always existed, and thus supports the idea that no deity created the universe, and thus it supports scientific naturalism. Regarding the idea that the universe possibly had no beginning see the science article called "What if the universe had no beginning? ". It says in part the following.

'Perhaps our universe has always existed — and a new theory of quantum gravity reveals how that could work.

"Reality has so many things that most people would associate with sci-fi or even fantasy," said Bruno Bento, a physicist who studies the nature of time at the University of Liverpool in the U.K.

In his work, he employed a new theory of quantum gravity, called causal set theory, in which space and time are broken down into discrete chunks of space-time. At some level, there's a fundamental unit of space-time, according to this theory.

Bento and his collaborators used this causal-set approach to explore the beginning of the universe. They found that it's possible that the universe had no beginning — that it has always existed into the infinite past and only recently evolved into what we call the Big Bang.

... General relativity, on the other hand, is the most powerful and complete description of gravity ever devised.

But for all its strengths, general relativity is incomplete. In at least two specific places in the universe, the math of general relativity simply breaks down, failing to produce reliable results: in the centers of black holes and at the beginning of the universe. These regions are called "singularities," which are spots in space-time where our current laws of physics crumble, and they are mathematical warning signs that the theory of general relativity is tripping over itself. Within both of these singularities, gravity becomes incredibly strong at very tiny length scales.

As such, to solve the mysteries of the singularities, physicists need a microscopic description of strong gravity, also called a quantum theory of gravity.

... causal set theory, reimagines space-time as a series of discrete chunks, or space-time "atoms." This theory would place strict limits on how close events can be in space and time, since they can't be any closer than the size of the "atom."

... "A huge part of the causal set philosophy is that the passage of time is something physical, that it should not be attributed to some emergent sort of illusion or to something that happens inside our brains that makes us think time passes; this passing is, in itself, a manifestation of the physical theory," Bento said. "So, in causal set theory, a causal set will grow one 'atom' at a time and get bigger and bigger."

The causal set approach neatly removes the problem of the Big Bang singularity because, in the theory, singularities can't exist. It's impossible for matter to compress down to infinitely tiny points — they can get no smaller than the size of a space-time atom.

... In our work instead, there would be no Big Bang as a beginning, as the causal set would be infinite to the past, and so there's always something before."

Their work implies that the universe may have had no beginning — that it has simply always existed. What we perceive as the Big Bang may have been just a particular moment in the evolution of this always-existing causal set, not a true beginning.'