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

[Sparkey]

I can answer your questions
but you need to first answer mine:

Well which is it - does the Bible agree or disagree with science?
Was God there "in the beginning"?
Are there scientists who believe the Bible does not contradict science?
What does that have to do with the truth taught in the Bible? Is God bound by the US Supreme Court?
Are you saying [blah, blah, blah]?
Was God there in the beginning when the universe expanded?
Did God stretch out the heavens?

Your assertion that you have an answer to my question(s) and request for clarification from post # 90 has not been supported by any evidence. Your assurance that you will give an answer is belied by your failure to respond. Sadly, this behavior is typical.

 

[zeke]

I'm sorry you have such difficulty understanding straightforward English. I am also sorry that you clearly have no interest in a serious discussion along the lines I proposed and simply wish to continue your tactics of evasion, avoiding answering questions, ignoring arguments, selectively mining others' posts to cherry pick bits you can scoff at and limiting your responses to the level of schoolyard taunting. It really seems pointless trying to engage with you at all.

Your frustration is noted but I can't go beyond the truth taught in the Bible that conveys the concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? As noted, the Bible is not a textbook - it's the revealed truth from the One who created the universe and will always remain true.

Let us know if/when you ever find your missing proof for BB singularity - real scientists haven't even done that yet. And it would always be helpful if you could actually throw in a little science to support your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another" - you never really explained what you thought your were presenting with that one.

Remember, Hawking agrees with me - if you want to know what happened before BB singularity you will need to appeal to God. But you refuse to go there. Listen to Hawing's advice one more time and think about it...

...science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God. (Hawking)​

The offer still stands - if you want to start a thread in the fairy-tale forum on your pink unicorns and chimp-man notion I can join your there and evaluate the other evidence you don't have.

 

[zeke]

Your assertion that you have an answer to my question(s) and request for clarification from post # 90 has not been supported by any evidence. Your assurance that you will give an answer is belied by your failure to respond.

The answers I gave were answers you didn't like - that sounds like your personal problem, not mine. You have misrepresented me - I never said the Bible is a science textbook and you never answered my questions - are you saying that in your mind it is impossible for the "stretching out the heavens" to mean the expanding universe - does that idea really run counter to your theology? Was God there in the beginning when the universe expanded? Did God stretch out the heavens? Use your noodle.

 

[Sparkey]

I can answer your questions

but you need to first answer mine:

The answers I gave were answers you didn't like - that sounds like your personal problem, not mine. You have misrepresented me - I never said the Bible is a science textbook...

You say you've answered? That is simply untrue. Here's the questions:

1. What do you mean by the term "the universe" -- do you refer to all creation? Specifically, is your term "the universe" synonymous to what is spoken of in Genesis chapters 1 and 2?
2. Secondly, what do you mean by the term "Expansion of the Universe"? Do you use this term synonymously with the biblical term "stretched out the heavens"?

I also quoted 4 verses that mentioned "stretching out the heavens" and asked if you had any other references. Here's the link to Post #90 again: My unanswered questions

If the bible is not a textbook of science why try to use it as one?

 

[Sparkey]

Zeke, you've asked about my theology. You've asked if (in my mind) it would be impossible for God to have created the universe in a manner that is similar to what modern scientists ascribe to the Big Bang Theory billions upon billions of year ago. Frankly, I don't agree with you (if that is what you mean - you're not been exactly forthcoming about your beliefs).

Here's Psalm 139 - which reflects King David's thoughts (sung by Deb Fung)
[video=youtube;dwfZMRYw-lI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwfZMRYw-lI[/video]
The song (Psalm) starts at marker 1:12.

Now, when we look at what God declared in Genesis 1 and 2, we see that He is intimately involved with all creation; we understand that He personally formed Adam and breathed the breath of life into his nostril. This is a far cry from BBT. It's sad that you can't see this but I do have hope for you. That hope is grounded in the fact that God knows and loves you, that He is filled with grace and understands your heart.

:sing "Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." - (Psa 139:23-24 NIV)

 

[lordkalvan]

Your frustration is noted but I can't go beyond the truth taught in the Bible that conveys the concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? As noted, the Bible is not a textbook - it's the revealed truth from the One who created the universe and will always remain true.

Let us know if/when you ever find your missing proof for BB singularity - real scientists haven't even done that yet. And it would always be helpful if you could actually throw in a little science to support your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another" - you never really explained what you thought your were presenting with that one.

Remember, Hawking agrees with me - if you want to know what happened before BB singularity you will need to appeal to God. But you refuse to go there. Listen to Hawing's advice one more time and think about it...

...science could predict that the universe must have had a beginning, but that it could not predict how the universe should begin: for that one would have to appeal to God. (Hawking)​

The offer still stands - if you want to start a thread in the fairy-tale forum on your pink unicorns and chimp-man notion I can join your there and evaluate the other evidence you don't have.

More misrepresentation, evasion and simply ignoring whatever you don't like - NWRT. Let me know when you're prepared to engage positively, because at the moment it is clear that you're not.

 

[zeke]

What do you mean by the term "the universe" -- do you refer to all creation? Specifically, is your term "the universe" synonymous to what is spoken of in Genesis chapters 1 and 2?

universe - all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.​

Yes--- "the universe" is synonymous with but not limited to what is spoken of in Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

Secondly, what do you mean by the term "Expansion of the Universe"? Do you use this term synonymously with the biblical term "stretched out the heavens"?

I do. If you do not please explain why you do not.

I also quoted 4 verses that mentioned "stretching out the heavens" and asked if you had any other references.

Not off-the-cuff but there probably are other references (conceptually) regarding the concept of God stretching out the heavens. Why do your ask?

In your mind did God stretch out the heavens? In your mind if the universe has expanded or is currently expanding is it due to the creative power of God? In your mind did the universe have a beginning? Does current science now accept the concept of a universe that 'began' and the concept that the universe has expanded since it began?

Do those scientific concepts agree or disagree with the Bible? Does the U S Supreme Court allow you to answer these questions on this thread or are you taking the Fifth for obvious reasons?

If the bible is not a textbook of science why try to use it as one?

I don't, of course, as you well know from my prior posts. Why do you continue to misrepresent me?

 

[lordkalvan]

Is it just me, or can anyone else hear irony meters exploding across the forum?

 

[Sparkey]

So you equate what modern science teaches about the universe to what God said He created in Genesis. Fine. I don't, but I would agree that God's creation covers that at minimum. I guess my point is that there's no reason to limit it to the observable. God has also created angels for instance. They are mentioned in Genesis and Exodus (as well as other places). They exist even if modern science does not acknowledge the fact. In the same manner, some may postulate "Dark Energy" that can not be observed but can be theorized. Just because God said he separated the light from the darkness, do we automatically assume that he was talking about the same thing that 21st century science speaks of when addressing theories of dark energy?

You said, "Yes--- "the universe" is synonymous with but not limited to what is spoken of in Genesis chapters 1 and 2." -- I take that to mean that the terms are not really synonymous. One (the universe) would be a sub-set of the other (God's creation). You're answer seems contradictory in that manner. I think that I understand what you mean though. They're the same but different, right?

You've stated you think the modern scientific term "expansion of the universe" as defined by Hubble, and used by Hawking in reference to Big Bang theory has the same meaning as what the Prophets Jerimiah and Isaiah meant when they declared that God stretched out the heavens. You're statement is unsubstantiated and represents your opinion. Fine. I disagree and would refer you to the entire thread (read it again) and various posters including Free and lordkalvan as well as my previous posts for my response to your request that I explain why I don't agree with you. Enough has been said for you to have your answer if you are willing to hear.

Frankly I don't rely on scientific observation for matters of faith.

 

[zeke]

So you equate what modern science teaches about the universe to what God said He created in Genesis. Fine. I don't, but I would agree that God's creation covers that at minimum.

"At minimum" what are you trying to say? Please expand your thinking. You still didn't answer the questions - give it a shot---

• In your mind did God stretch out the heavens?
• In your mind if the universe has expanded or is currently expanding is it due to the creative power of God?
• In your mind did the universe have a beginning?
• Does current science now accept the concept of a universe that 'began' and the concept that the universe has expanded since it began?

You said, "Yes--- "the universe" is synonymous with but not limited to what is spoken of in Genesis chapters 1 and 2." -- I take that to mean that the terms are not really synonymous.

Then you take it wrong - I clearly stated that "the universe" is synonymous with but not limited to what is spoken of in Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

You've stated you think the modern scientific term "expansion of the universe" as defined by Hubble, and used by Hawking in reference to Big Bang theory has the same meaning as what the Prophets Jerimiah and Isaiah meant when they declared that God stretched out the heavens.

My statement was very clear - I said the Bible conveys the concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? Do you agree with that statement?

You're statement is unsubstantiated and represents your opinion. Fine. I disagree and would refer you to the entire thread (read it again) and various posters including Free and lordkalvan as well as my previous posts for my response to your request that I explain why I don't agree with you. Enough has been said for you to have your answer if you are willing to hear.

My statement is supported by God's word and you have yet to prove that word wrong. Can you? Do you think God understands science?

 

[zeke]

Is it just me...

Lol - in your deleted post above you noted the deletion was due to "Duplicate pist" - was that a parapraxis or did you mean it in a literal way? ;)

parapraxis - a minor error, such as a slip of the tongue, thought to reveal a repressed motive. See also Freudian slip...​

If you ever find your evidence please post it for review and we will evaluate it for you.

 

[lordkalvan]

Lol - in your deleted post above you noted the deletion was due to "Duplicate pist" - was that a parapraxis or did you mean it in a literal way? ;)

parapraxis - a minor error, such as a slip of the tongue, thought to reveal a repressed motive. See also Freudian slip...​

If you ever find your evidence please post it for review and we will evaluate it for you.

Still NWRT. When you are interested in engaging in a mature and positive way, let me know.

 

[zeke]

Still NWRT. When you are interested in engaging in a mature and positive way, let me know.

I think it was simply a Freudian slip.

Let me know when you can prove the biblical concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" is not the way it all began. And let us know if/when you ever find your missing proof for BB singularity - real scientists haven't even done that yet. And it would always be helpful if you could actually throw in a little science to support your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another" - you never really explained what you thought your were presenting with that one. WYSIWYG.

 

[lordkalvan]

I think it was simply a Freudian slip.

Let me know when you can prove the biblical concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" is not the way it all began. And let us know if/when you ever find your missing proof for BB singularity - real scientists haven't even done that yet. And it would always be helpful if you could actually throw in a little science to support your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another" - you never really explained what you thought your were presenting with that one. WYSIWYG.

And still NWRT. When you have exhausted your desire to flamebait, let me know when you are willing to engage in a mature and positive discussion along the lines I offered in Posts 91 and 94, an offer that appears to have left you quaking in fear if the evidence of your replies and subsequent posts is anything to go by.

 

[zeke]

And still NWRT. When you have exhausted your desire to flamebait, let me know when you are willing to engage in a mature and positive discussion along the lines I offered in Posts 91 and 94, an offer that appears to have left you quaking in fear if the evidence of your replies and subsequent posts is anything to go by.

When you can prove God's word wrong and/or present a coherent argument to support your naturalist worldview that includes pink unicorns and the chimp-man saga then present it for review. We are here to evaluate your notion anytime. WYSIWYG...

 

[lordkalvan]

When you can prove God's word wrong and/or present a coherent argument to support your naturalist worldview that includes pink unicorns and the chimp-man saga then present it for review. We are here to evaluate your notion anytime. WYSIWYG...

NWRT (still).

 

[zeke]

NWRT (still).

WYSIWYG...

 

[lordkalvan]

WYSIWYG...

In Post #91 I suggested you pick*one of the lines of research into the BB singularity that I had listed earlier and I would be happy to discuss it further with you to see how well it provided evidence for the BB singularity you had demanded proof of. I said that it seemed*reasonable in return to ask that you support your repeated claims concerning the correspondence between the Bible and BB cosmology with some evidenced argument of your own, given that this was the purpose of the thread and that you had made repeated assertions to this effect.

In response you chose to offer some rhetoric that effectively ignored both my offer and my *quid pro quo.

In Post #94, in response to this rhetoric, I asked you whether, in your opinion, God could have created the Universe from a singularity via the BB and allowed its development to proceed entirely naturalistically thereafter and, if not, why not?

You ignored this question.

I also repeated my offer of Post #91, pointed out that your rhetoric was erroneous and that a quotation you offered from Stephen Hawking was no longer relevant to his understanding.

You ignored the entirety of these comments, but simply scoffed at the length of a particular sentence and posted some more irrelevant rhetoric,*ignoring points I had raised and avoiding showing any willingness at all to engage positively along the lines I had proposed, while at the same time offering provocation with some flamebait, flamebait repeated in a number of subsequent posts.

So we can all see what we get in the nature of reasoned and mature responses in posts from yourself. Do you want to engage in a discussion as I proposed in Post #91, or would you rather simply continue to evade, misrepresent, ignore questions asked of you and engage in flamebaiting?*

 

[zeke]

In Post #91 I suggested you pick*one of the lines of research into the BB singularity that I had listed earlier and I would be happy to discuss it further with you to see how well it provided evidence for the BB singularity you had demanded proof of. I said that it seemed*reasonable in return to ask that you support your repeated claims concerning the correspondence between the Bible and BB cosmology with some evidenced argument of your own, given that this was the purpose of the thread and that you had made repeated assertions to this effect.

I have already told you the Bible is not a science book but the Bible conveys the concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? It's all in the Book. If we want to go beyond BB singularity we will need to do as Hawking suggests - appeal to God. Have you ever appealed to God?

Regarding your still missing proof for BB singularity - we both know real scientists haven't even done that yet but I would be happy to review anything you have to present. If you are simply looking for a conversation starter maybe you could expand on your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another" - you never really explained what you thought your were presenting with that one. Your dammed lake thing didn't float. Or you could review Sparrowhawke's Psalm 139 video - sung by Deb Fung and we can discuss that at length. Your choice.

 

[lordkalvan]

I have already told you the Bible is not a science book but the Bible conveys the concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? It's all in the Book. If we want to go beyond BB singularity we will need to do as Hawking suggests - appeal to God. Have you ever appealed to God?

Regarding your still missing proof for BB singularity - we both know real scientists haven't even done that yet but I would be happy to review anything you have to present.

If you are simply looking for a conversation starter maybe you could expand on your "energy potential" that has always existed "in one form or another" - you never really explained what you thought your were presenting with that one. Your dammed lake thing didn't float. Or you could review Sparrowhawke's Psalm 139 - sung by Deb Fung and we can discuss that at length. Your choice.

Continued lack of interest to engage and continued readiness to misrepresent and ignore others' points and arguments noted. How seriously do you really expect us to take you?