[_ Old Earth _] The Bible Talks About the Expansion of the Universe

[lordkalvan]

In your worldview then - how did something (the universe) come from nothing? Was it created by a Creator who exists outside of nature as presented in God's word? Why is there something instead of nothing?

First of all, a singularity isn't 'nothing'.

Secondly, I think I told you this before, but you were persistently unhappy with my answer or else failed to understand it: I don't know. I do not regard ignorance as a sufficient reason to shoehorn supernatural deities into the resulting gap in knowledge and understanding, however.

 

[William Whitehead]

Folks,

Thanks for the responses. An interesting dialogue has started up.

I have looked into the question of how the old commentators interpreted the words, stretched out. Unfortunately they didn't pay much attention to those words. Instead, Biblical scholars over the centuries have focused upon God's glory overshadowing the creation like a cloak (most interpret the word tent as a cloak).

So, is it my intention to retrofit or reinterpret this passage for a modern audience? You bet ya. And the audience that I focus on is an evangelical Christian one. I hope to help believers see modern science as the examination of how God created the universe. And the best way to get evangelical Christians to take a serious look at today's scientific ideas is to use the Bible as a bridge. Evangelicals want to hear a message from the Bible first, then show me the science. And so looking at passages like this in a new way is the best way to bring modern concepts to an audience that has been resisting them.

By the way, the interpretation of this passage came from Dr. Hugh Ross, a physicist and author of the book; Why the Universe is the Way it is.

Peace,
Pastor Bill

 

[zeke]

You still miss the point and fail to explain how my point is moot. Let me try again. Prior to the emergence of scientific ideas about an expanding Universe, what was this concept of 'stretching out' interpreted as suggesting about the Universe?

One more time my friend - the concept of God 'stretching out' the universe has been a concept for 3000 years. It is a concept that is in agreement with 'majority science' today. Does that bother you a little? How that concept was viewed "prior to the emergence of scientific ideas" (whatever that means) remians a moot point.

And I never said that the Bible 'needs to be validated scientifically', but, as Pizzaguy pointed out, this doesn't stop people trying to do so.

Pizzaguy said, "I am NOT saying that the Bible is WRONG about science". Do you agree with Pizzaguy?

ETA And you still haven't answered my original two questions.

But I did answer your questions - you just didn't like the answers.

 

[zeke]

First of all, a singularity isn't 'nothing'.

If the expanding universe began as a singularity where did this singularity come from? Can something (the universe) really come from nothing - in your mind?

Secondly, I think I told you this before, but you were persistently unhappy with my answer or else failed to understand it: I don't know. I do not regard ignorance as a sufficient reason to shoehorn supernatural deities into the resulting gap in knowledge and understanding, however.

Oh, I wasn't "consistently unhappy" at all - I was, however disappointed in the shallowness of your philosophical response regarding the 'weightier matters'. And there is no "gap in knowledge". God's word is clear on the creation of the universe via the mind of God. Your reliance on scientism is telling and it borders on a religious belief. Do you regard your ignorance as bliss? Remember - science is not the only avenue we have for understanding the world and reality.

Scientism: Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. (Copyright© 1995 – 2012 Public Broadcasting Service)​

 

[lordkalvan]

Folks,

Thanks for the responses. An interesting dialogue has started up.

I have looked into the question of how the old commentators interpreted the words, stretched out. Unfortunately they didn't pay much attention to those words. Instead, Biblical scholars over the centuries have focused upon God's glory overshadowing the creation like a cloak (most interpret the word tent as a cloak).

So, is it my intention to retrofit or reinterpret this passage for a modern audience? You bet ya. And the audience that I focus on is an evangelical Christian one. I hope to help believers see modern science as the examination of how God created the universe. And the best way to get evangelical Christians to take a serious look at today's scientific ideas is to use the Bible as a bridge. Evangelicals want to hear a message from the Bible first, then show me the science. And so looking at passages like this in a new way is the best way to bring modern concepts to an audience that has been resisting them.

By the way, the interpretation of this passage came from Dr. Hugh Ross, a physicist and author of the book; Why the Universe is the Way it is.

Peace,
Pastor Bill

Good points all, and I think your approach is a useful one to take. I wish you every success with it.

 

[lordkalvan]

One more time my friend - the concept of God 'stretching out' the universe has been a concept for 3000 years.

But a concept that means what and was interpreted to mean what, which is the point I am trying to get to? As Pastor Bill has noted, there appears to be no cosmology prior to the BBT that offers an interpretation of an expanding Universe based on this idea of 'stretching out.'

It is a concept that is in agreement with 'majority science' today.

So what interpretation was offered prior to the emergence of BB cosmology. I am unimpressed with claims of biblical insight into cosmology when there is no evidence that such insight existed before the scientific undersstanding of an expanding Universe developed.

Does that bother you a little?

On the contrary, I would be quite impressed if you could show that this interpretation is soundly based and was expounded prior to the emergence of current understanding about an expanding Universe. This is what I mean by retrofitting.

How that concept was viewed "prior to the emergence of scientific ideas" (whatever that means) remians a moot point.

Well, as you have offered nothing to suggest that the concept was viewed in any particular way at all, I would suggest that my question remains valid.

said, "I am NOT saying that the Bible is WRONG about science". Do you agree with

Depends what you're talking about. Do you have any examples in mind?

But I did answer your questions - you just didn't like the answers.

Really? So where are the requested citations for your assertion concerning scientific opinion about the Universe prior to Einstein and BBT and where are your references about biblically-derived cosmologies prior to this? Perhaps you can link to the relevant post?

 

[lordkalvan]

If the expanding universe began as a singularity where did this singularity come from?

I don't know.

Can something (the universe) really come from nothing - in your mind?

Define nothing and show how a singularity amounts to this definition.

Oh, I wasn't "consistently unhappy" at all - I was, however disappointed in the shallowness of your philosophical response regarding the 'weightier matters'.

Then you'll just have to be satisfied with 'I don't know.'

And there is no "gap in knowledge". God's word is clear on the creation of the universe via the mind of God.

You are entitled to believe this as are others to disagree with it.

Your reliance on scientism is telling and it borders on a religious belief.

Of what? That I prefer the weight of evidence to your assertions to the contrary?

Do you regard your ignorance as bliss?

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them ignorant.

Remember - science is not the only avenue we have for understanding the world and reality

Well, it seems the best avenue for exploring explanations for the natural world. I await your offering an alternative methodology that provides as effective an explanation.

Scientism: Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. (Copyright© 1995 – 2012 Public Broadcasting Service)​

Well, let's see a better rendering methodology, then.

 

[Sparkey]

Prior to the telescope the total number of stars that could be seen by the naked eye were about 4,000 (even from every point on earth). Ancient studies of "cosmology" and attempts to deal with the nature and origins of the universe were very limited. lordkalvan's point isn't moot at all but I'm more impressed with the bible saying that the number of stars is uncountably vast and the comparision of their numbers to the grains of sand.

 

[zeke]

But a concept that means what and was interpreted to mean what, which is the point I am trying to get to? As Pastor Bill has noted, there appears to be no cosmology prior to the BBT that offers an interpretation of an expanding Universe based on this idea of 'stretching out.'

You again miss the point but the point remains - the Bible has presented the concept of an expanding universe for over three millennia and science has just recently caught up with the Bible. This same fact can be seen in the now outdated scientific concept that the universe is eternal.

Until recently 'majority science' presented an "eternal universe" but the "big bang" cosmological model changed that and now science has caught up with with God's word. The Bible has taught the universe had a beginning for over 3000 years. How did those men who wrote the Bible so long ago know the universe came into existence "in the beginning"? Because God, who 'created in the beginning' revealed that truth to His creation.

Universe with a Beginning

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your estimate of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story; it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

That was 1959. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science said that our universe had a beginning. I can't overestimate the import of that scientific "discovery." Evolution, cave men, these are all trivial problems compared to the fact that we now understand that we had a beginning. Exactly as the Bible had claimed for three millennia. ~ Gerald Schroeder, Orthodox Jewish physicist ( PhD--nuclear physics/earth and planetary sciences)​

 

[zeke]

On the contrary, I would be quite impressed if you could show that this interpretation is soundly based and was expounded prior to the emergence of current understanding about an expanding Universe. This is what I mean by retrofitting.

Your point remains a moot point but the fact remains - the Bible has presented the concept of an expanding universe for over three millennia and science has just recently caught up with the Bible.

 

[zeke]

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them ignorant.

It certainly doesn't and I never made that claim - did I? You made the following statement...

I do not regard ignorance as a sufficient reason to shoehorn supernatural deities into the resulting gap in knowledge and understanding, however.

To which I asked you - is your ignorance bliss? To which you have never given your answer. I would really like to know how you reconcile the notion that something came from nothing with sound logic. Surely you have some philosophical methodology that satisfies your mind - to some rudimentary degree. What would that philosophical methodology be?

Well, it seems the best avenue for exploring explanations for the natural world. I await your offering an alternative methodology that provides as effective an explanation.

I have no problem with the explanation found in the word of God. I prefer it over your religion of Scientism that leaves you in self-admitted ignorance. Remember, the Bible has taught an expanding universe that had a beginning for over 3000 years. You scientism is a late-comer to this biblical truth.

 

[lordkalvan]

You again miss the point but the point remains - the Bible has presented the concept of an expanding universe for over three millennia and science has just recently caught up with the Bible.

You have yet to establish that the interpretation you wish to apply to this phrase is supported by anything other than post hoc assertion.

This same fact can be seen in the now outdated scientific concept that the universe is eternal.

How can the fact of an expanding Universe be seen in the idea of an eternal Universe? I don't know what you mean.

Until recently 'majority science' presented an "eternal universe" but the "big bang" cosmological model changed that and now science has caught up with with God's word.

Again, you have not yet established that the interpretation you wish to apply to the Bible is supported by anything other than post hoc assertion.

The Bible has taught the universe had a beginning for over 3000 years.

As far as I am aware, the Bible makes no reference at all to the Universe as such. And even if it did, so what? Egyptian, Greek and other religious origins stories make reference to 'beginnings', so how does this make the Bible any more 'foreseeing' than these tales?

How did those men who wrote the Bible so long ago know the universe came into existence "in the beginning"? Because God, who 'created in the beginning' revealed that truth to His creation.

Because, like other ancient cultures, they interpreted the natural world as something, like themselves, as having a beginning? They didn't 'know' anything, they simply applied individual experience to the general.

Universe with a Beginning

In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your estimate of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story; it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

That was 1959. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning. Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science said that our universe had a beginning. I can't overestimate the import of that scientific "discovery." Evolution, cave men, these are all trivial problems compared to the fact that we now understand that we had a beginning. Exactly as the Bible had claimed for three millennia. ~ Gerald Schroeder, Orthodox Jewish physicist ( PhD--nuclear physics/earth and planetary sciences)​

Thanks, but can you provide a citation for this, please?

 

[lordkalvan]

Your point remains a moot point but the fact remains - the Bible has presented the concept of an expanding universe for over three millennia and science has just recently caught up with the Bible.

Again, you have yet to establish this by anything other than post hoc assertion. As I pointed out previously, 'stretch out' does not absolutely equate to 'expand' in the sense you wish to use it here. If I stretch out my arms, I do not expand them in the sense that the Universe is now seen as expanding under BB cosmology.

 

[Free]

Again, you have yet to establish this by anything other than post hoc assertion. As I pointed out previously, 'stretch out' does not absolutely equate to 'expand' in the sense you wish to use it here. If I stretch out my arms, I do not expand them in the sense that the Universe is now seen as expanding under BB cosmology.

Agreed.


Zeke, you must present proof that "the concept of God 'stretching out' the universe has been a concept for 3000 years" refers to an expanding universe. Until you do so, it is only your opinion based on you reading into the biblical text a meaning which may not have been intended by the author.

 

[zeke]

Zeke, you must present proof that "the concept of God 'stretching out' the universe has been a concept for 3000 years" refers to an expanding universe. Until you do so, it is only your opinion based on you reading into the biblical text a meaning which may not have been intended by the author.

Well, Fee - the ‘proof’ has already been presented. What part did you miss? For 3000 years the Bible has presented the concept that at some specific point in the past the universe began to exist and since it began to exist it has expanded. This is not my opinion it is God’s word summed up in Isaiah 42:5…

'This is what the Lord says - He who created the heavens and stretched them out.'​

Do you believe God created the heavens and stretched them out?

 

[Free]

Well, Fee - the ‘proof’ has already been presented. What part did you miss? For 3000 years the Bible has presented the concept that at some specific point in the past the universe began to exist and since it began to exist it has expanded. This is not my opinion it is God’s word summed up in Isaiah 42:5…

'This is what the Lord says - He who created the heavens and stretched them out.'​

Do you believe God created the heavens and stretched them out?

You're dodging. You first made this argument:

"The Bible presents God who “stretched out†(i.e., expanded) the universe? Didn't 'majority science' present a "static universe" not too long ago?

“[God]...stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. (Isaiah 40:22)"

All everyone is asking is that you provide proof that 'stretched out' means 'expanded.' 'Stretched out' does not necessarily mean 'expanded' and it certainly doesn't indicate that the universe is currently expanding. You seem to be going beyond the text and making the Bible say something you want it to say. Until you provide proof, it is your opinion and not necessarily that of Scripture.

 

[zeke]

Again, you have yet to establish this by anything other than post hoc assertion. As I pointed out previously, 'stretch out' does not absolutely equate to 'expand' in the sense you wish to use it here.

Ditto above - the ‘proof’ has already been presented.

If I stretch out my arms, I do not expand them in the sense that the Universe is now seen as expanding under BB cosmology.

Moot point (unless you are God). God is Spirit and has "no body of flesh and bones" - no physical arms to stretch out. Easy concept.

 

[lordkalvan]

Prior to the telescope the total number of stars that could be seen by the naked eye were about 4,000 (even from every point on earth). Ancient studies of "cosmology" and attempts to deal with the nature and origins of the universe were very limited. lordkalvan's point isn't moot at all but I'm more impressed with the bible saying that the number of stars is uncountably vast and the comparision of their numbers to the grains of sand.

I take your point about the Bible and stars, Sparrow, but I remain unconvinced that this is an unequivocal reference to the multitude of stars invisible to the naked eye. Ancient writers were notoriously prone to exaggerating numbers and, from experience, although I 'know' that the number of visible stars is relatively small, whenever I have experienced the night sky under clear conditions and at a significant distance from street lighting, the overwhelming impression is one of a countless array of points of light. I am sure this experience would have been even more profound three thousand years ago.

 

[lordkalvan]

It certainly doesn't and I never made that claim - did I? You made the following statement...

​

To which I asked you - is your ignorance bliss? To which you have never given your answer.

If I misunderstood your intention, I apologise. There is no emotional content to my statement that I don't know what the precise origin of our part of the Universe is.

I would really like to know how you reconcile the notion that something came from nothing with sound logic.

Again, you have not established that a singularity, if our part of the Universe originated from such a thing, amounts to 'nothing'. If an energy potential 'always' existed, then it could be argued that the Universe came from that energy potential being transformed into something different.

Surely you have some philosophical methodology that satisfies your mind - to some rudimentary degree. What would that philosophical methodology be?

Why do you regard this as necessary? Just because you appear to have such a requirement, why do you suppose that others might need something similar? If the energy potential for our part of the Universe 'always' existed, how is this any different from the 'philosophical methodology' that supposes God 'always' existed and somehow created the Earth and the firmament apparently out of nothing as well?

I have no problem with the explanation found in the word of God. I prefer it over your religion of Scientism that leaves you in self-admitted ignorance. Remember, the Bible has taught an expanding universe that had a beginning for over 3000 years. You scientism is a late-comer to this biblical truth.

You are entitled to your belief, but pretending to an absolute knowledge may convince yourself, but alone has little merit for convincing me that it is a meaningful explanation. Again, you have continued to fail to establish the central tenet of your claim here, that 'stretched out' in this context can reasonably and unequivocally be interpreted as representing a description of an expanding Universe as implied by Einsteinian physics and BBT.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ditto above - the ‘proof’ has already been presented.

Not that I can see. Can you direct me to your post where you have established unequivocally that 'stretched out' in this context can be unequivocally understood as referring to the expansion of the Universe as proposed by Einsteinian physics and BBT? You have certainly asserted this a number of times, but I cannot find a post in this thread where you have presented 'proof' to this effect.

Moot point (unless you are God). God is Spirit and has "no body of flesh and bones" - no physical arms to stretch out. Easy concept.

Where did I make any reference to God stretching out his arms? I was offering you an example where using the phrase 'stretch out' bears no relation at all to the idea that it means something has expanded and continues to expand from a point origin.

ETA Do you have a reference for your Schroeder citation, please?