On the principle that the last shall be first, I'll start with B.G. = Bhagavad Gita.

If, by the universe, Russell meant our finite Universe, then I would say he has to have been right. On the other hand, if he was talking about an infinite universe (cosmos?) one would have to ask how he could possibly have known.

IMO, infinity is not the same as anything.

God is generally not considered to be an appropriate subject for scientific study, so scientists tend not to include God in their animadversions. Scientists talk of things being infinitely large, small, curved, fast etc. which suggests that there is a place for infinity in scientific thought. Personally, I think that QM opens up a whole new perspective on the scientific study of infinity, but I suspect that is an unpopular thought in scientific circles.

The idea of “hiding” infinity betrays a fanciful use of language which served little purpose other than to maintain a link with TT’s terminology.
There never was nothing.