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

[Sparkey]

What you falsely stated was that my "attempt to equate God wrapping Himself in a garment with modern scientific language fails". But I never made that statement - did I? You misrepresented me, Sparrow. Why? Are you that desperate? My statement remains true and you have never proven it wrong. You need to reevaluate you false remarks.

Again, what I tried to say in my most notorious and defamatory post (that you've seized upon) was that your attempt to support the original post and its premise has failed. I didn't word it right. Accept my apology and get over it. It seems that the only reason you can't is because it's easier to pretend that you're offended than to deal with the issue. Try supporting your allegation (once) and show that the Hebrew word natah:stretch can possibly mean the expansion of the universe. Give Scriptural support (without stripping its context) if you can. I've tried to do that for you and I too have failed.

I have only presented the truth that the Bible conveys the concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created?

I don't understand your question here, except maybe when you cut-n-paste your rhetoric you don't even read it? Why is there a question mark at the end? I've already addressed your statement. If that was the only thing you've said I might be fine with it, but contrary to what you allege here, it is not the only claim you have tried to make. You're claiming that the Hebrew word natah is synonymous with the modern, scientific, theory of the expansion of the universe. You, who speak often of hand-waving and dancing; you, who speak often of desperation; you, who claim truth as your defender --fail to address this one simple issue: Is 'natah/stretched' scripturally used as a synonym of the expansion of the universe from the big-bang?

If the terms are indeed synonymous they would embody the same concepts. Yours don't. If you want me to retract my statements, defend yours. Show me a Scripture (and include its context) to prove me wrong. Failing that, accept the fact that your opinion doesn't carry the same weight as the word of God and that the Bible does not attempt to affirm or deny the Big Bang theory, nor does it address the other issues of your theory such as red-shift, greater than light speed expansion, singularity, the Planck Epoch, or the conservation of energy, and etc. Can you really pretend that you think putting up a tent or adorning oneself with light or stretching out the heavens like a curtain, or any other passage of the bible supports modern scientific cosmological statements about the origin of the universe? Of course you can. It's obvious that you do. That's not "proof" though and you've a tough row to hoe there. Until the time that you attempt to prove your allegation your row remains fallow. Your opinion remains your own. I'm fine with that.

 

[zeke]

Again, what I tried to say in my most notorious and defamatory post (that you've siezed upon) was that your attempt to support the original post and its premise has failed. I didn't word it right. Accept my apology and get over it.

"Get over it"? Again my friend - we want to keep the record straight and in your zeal to make a weak point you misrepresented me by falsely attributing to me something I never said and now you back-pedal . And for the record - it is not my obligation to "support the OP". We can 'get over it' when you admit you misrepresented my words.

I have presented the truth from God's word - a truth that you cannot prove wrong. God's word does not lie. 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 was God's desire to reveal His intention in Creation - He wanted to state that "the expanse" was able to contain all the stars, etc. that He created (Isaiah40:26). You have never proven God's word wrong yet - can you?

Lift up your eyes on high, And see who has created these things, Who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, By the greatness of His might And the strength of His power; Not one is missing.
(Isa 40:26 NKJV)​

Did God create "the expanse" by the greatness of His might to contain all which He created? That only requires a 'yes' or 'no' answer. Which is it? If you can answer that question correctly we have no argument. If you can prove God's revelation untrue then present your evidence. Easy concept.

Your 'argument' appears to be headed south quickly - yes?

 

[Sparkey]

You state that if I can answer the one question, "Did God create "the expanse" by the greatness of His might to contain all which He created?" -- then we have no argument.

I disagree.

You've claimed that God's use of the word natah is synonymous with the modern usage of the phrase "expansion of the universe."

I disagree.

Your quote of Isaiah is a good try because it doesn't include obvious poetic language, and does declare God's glory. But it doesn't mention anything close to modern, scientific thought about the Big Bang nor the expansion of the universe. Care to try again?

 

[zeke]

You state that if I can answer the one question, "Did God create "the expanse" by the greatness of His might to contain all which He created?" -- then we have no argument.

I disagree.

You've claimed that God's use of the word natah is synonymous with the modern usage of the phrase "expansion of the universe."

I disagree.

Your quote of Isaiah is a good try because it doesn't include obvious poetic language, and does declare God's glory. But it doesn't mention anything close to modern, scientific thought about the Big Bang nor the expansion of the universe. Care to try again?

There is no need to "try again" - God's word does not lie. The Bible conveys the concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? God clearly has revealed His intention in Creation - He states that "the expanse" was able to contain all that He created. You have never proven God's word wrong yet - can you?

Do you finally admit that you misrepresented my words or are you in denial? A little advice for you...

“The first rule of holes: When you're in one stop digging."​

 

[Sparkey]

Do you finally admit that you misrepresented my words or are you in denial? A little advice for you...

“The first rule of holes: When you're in one stop digging."
​

So apply your "first rule" to yourself because the more you complain about being misquoted when I included the context of the Scripture we are discussing, the more we see that your whole (hole) argument depends on removing a single word from its context.

Look at the Psalm again. It is the meditation of David. "My meditation of him shall be sweet: I will be glad in the LORD." (vs. 34). Psalms are poetic books that oftentimes express the feelings of devout worshipers of God. David said, "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:" - (Psa 104:1-2 KJV)

Twisting Davids terminology and taking it out of context does nothing to prove your contention that the Bible's use of the word "stretching" or the verb 'natah' is synonymous with the "expansion of the universe" as discussed by modern, scientific thought.

 

[zeke]

So apply your "first rule" to yourself because the more you complain about being misquoted when I included the context of the Scripture we are discussing, the more we see that your whole (hole) argument depends on removing a single word from its context.

So now you are back to denying you misrepresented my words and you remain in denial? Typical.

Do you also deny the truth taught in the Bible which conveys the concept of a universe where God "stretched out the heavens"? You still have never proven God's word wrong - can you? Obviously you cannot and in your zeal to make a weak argument you have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar and can't figure out what to do. As entertaining as you are, you may want to review the "second rule of holes'...

If you are going to insist on digging deeper, at least make sure your instrument is sharp.​

 

[Sparkey]

Hey, zeke! I've apologized for misrepresenting you. See post number #141. Get over it. Sheesh.

You're not acknowledging the issue. You've stated that the biblical term "stretched" means the same thing and is synonymous with modern, scientific use of the term "expansion of the universe". Review my questions from Post # 104.

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"?

Review your answer(s) from post # 107

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?

Yes--- "the universe" is synonymous with but not limited 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 do.

I've given several Scriptural references for the biblical term "natah" which translates "stretched" or "inclined" or "wrest" to show that the two terms or phrases are not synonymatic. You've failed to show anything that suggests otherwise.

 

[zeke]

I've given several Scriptural references for the biblical term "natah" which translates "stretched" or "inclined" or "wrest" to show that the two terms or phrases are not synonymatic. You've failed to show anything that suggests otherwise.

natah - to stretch out, extend, to spread out, to thrust away​

All one has to do to defeat your misinterpretation is to review a good lexicon. Then one can easily see that God stretched out, extended or spread out the universe to contain all of His creation. God created “the expanse” to be big enough to contain the “two great lights” and “the stars”, i.e., the visible universe.

"And God made the two great lights ... and the stars ... and placed them in the expanse of the heavens"​

You can deny God’s revealed truth until the cows come home but your error does not trump God’s word.

Questions for your - in your theology did God create “the expanse” to be big enough to contain the “two great lights” and “the stars”? In your science do the "two great lights” and “the stars" make up part of the known universe? Take your time - you will get there.

 

[Sparkey]

Your asking if God created the heavens and the earth? Yes. He did.

Now, let's get to the meat of the question under discussion: Does the bible say exactly how He did it? Does it support current modern theories about the Big Bang? The Expansion of the Universe? Does it mention red-shifted light? Or Hydrogen at all for that matter?

Or, does the Bible speak instead of the heavens being similar to a garment or a tent? Does the Bible say that the earth is hung upon nothing or does it specifically discuss gravity?

We are talking about the current, modern, scientific understanding of the expansion of the universe and there are two aspects. The inflation period which is called the Planck Epoch and the ongoing expansion as evidenced by Hubble's observation. Does the Bible address either of those two aspects of the Expansion of the Universe? Does God tell us how he did it, or do we His word that He did indeed do it. If you ask me, "Did God create... ???" I'll readily answer yes, I believe He did.

Does that mean your allegation that the word "stretched" is synonymic to modern thought about the expansion of the universe? No. It does not. Further, the OP said that Christians had known about the expansion of the universe before the 1920's. What's your position on that? Given your history of evasion I'll predict you try to dodge this question as well.

 

[Sparkey]

natah - to stretch out, extend, to spread out, to thrust away
​

All one has to do to defeat your misinterpretation is to review a good lexicon. Then one can easily see that God stretched out, extended or spread out the universe to contain all of His creation. God created “the expanse” to be big enough to contain the “two great lights” and “the stars”, i.e., the visible universe.

"And God made the two great lights ... and the stars ... and placed them in the expanse of the heavens"
​

You can deny God’s revealed truth until the cows come home but your error does not trump God’s word.

Questions for your - in your theology did God create “the expanse” to be big enough to contain the “two great lights” and “the stars”? In your science do the "two great lights” and “the stars" make up part of the known universe? Take your time - you will get there.

It looks like you're trying to quote Gen 1:16-17. What version are you editing? Here is the public domain KJV version without edits: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth," - (Gen 1:16-17 KJV)

Are you now trying to "stretch" your opinion to include another fact not in evidence? In your opinion does the word "firmament" mean that God must have created the heavens according to modern, scientific thought? What version did you use, please? The verb used in that verse is נָתַן (nathan, meaning:to give, put or set). Can we really stretch נָטָה (natah, meaning stretch) it's meaning here as you suggest? I think no.

Consider the the affirmation of Baalam, son of Beor and its use of the word natah in the book of Numbers when speaking about tents (and tabernacles of Israel) in order to compare them to valleys: ""How good have been thy tents, O Jacob, Thy tabernacles, O Israel; As valleys they have been stretched out, As gardens by a river; As aloes Jehovah hath planted, As cedars by waters;" - (Num 24:5-6 YLT)

According to your method can we conclude that valleys obey the red-shifted light observations of Edwin Hubble? Take off your rose-colored glasses. The Bible doesn't make scientific proclamations about such things. Neither valleys nor galaxies can be considered when speaking about stretching except as the word of God intends. Tents? Yes. Garments? Yes. Valleys? Yes, but only in a certain fashion. Stars and Galaxies? The bible doesn't mention Galaxies neither does it expound on the way they were created or how they came to be. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." There are other examples, like a hand being stretched out in greeting. But can we use these concepts to validate one scientific theory over another? You can, it seems. But I would not rush in to make any such assertion. It is much more reasonable to leave poetic expression as that: a simile or metaphor that lines up in some points but not all.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters... (Gen 1:6 KJV)
And God called the firmament Heaven. (Gen 1:8 KJV)

You have yet to show anything to demonstrate your opinion that the bible gives a scientific explanation that validates the Big Bang Theory or the Expansion of the Universe as defined by modern scientific thought. A major element of the current model, added in the 1980s, is the theory of "inflation," a period of hyperfast expansion that occurred within the first second after the big bang. You've brought nothing to demonstrate this theory either. But those events that happened within the Planck Epoch are critical to the Big Bang Theory. They are needed to show why the universe is seen today with homogeneity and "smoothness".

Science tries to answer questions about HOW the universe came to be as it is seen today. The Bible tells us that God created the heavens and the earth (on the first day) but doesn't even attempt to explain HOW. We are left with the conjecture of zeke for that.

 

[zeke]

Your asking if God created the heavens and the earth? Yes. He did.

I am asking two specific question - can you answer them? In your theology did God create “the expanse†to be big enough to contain the “two great lights†and “the stars� In your science do the "two great lights†and “the stars" make up part of the known universe? Take your time.

 

[Sparkey]

I am asking two specific question - can you answer them? In your theology did God create “the expanse†to be big enough to contain the “two great lights†and “the stars� In your science do the "two great lights†and “the stars" make up part of the known universe? Take your time.

The quote that you mention is not defined. What version did you use for the term "the expanse"? If you are asking if the Bible declares that God created the heavens and the earth, I've already answered that question.

If you are asking if God created the firmament, then my answer is yes, He did. What's your point? You ask "in your science" --- and I got to stop you there, do you mean my understanding of modern scientific thought? I'll assume yes... are you asking ME if the sun and the moon and the stars are part of the heavens as seen from the earth? Why do you need to ask me that? Go outside and look for yourself. Your rhetoric is tedious.

You have yet to show anything to demonstrate your opinion that the bible gives a scientific explanation that validates the Big Bang Theory or the Expansion of the Universe as defined by modern scientific thought.

 

[zeke]

You have yet to show anything to demonstrate your opinion that the bible gives a scientific explanation that validates the Big Bang Theory or the Expansion of the Universe as defined by modern scientific thought.

You misrepresent me once again. I have never made the statement that the "bible gives a scientific explanation that validates the Big Bang Theory" - have I? I have told you the Bible is not a science book but it does reveal truth regarding reality including the reality that God created “the expanse” to be big enough to contain the “two great lights” and “the stars” as God "stretched out the heavens". You have yet to prove God's word incorrect. Can you?

 

[Sparkey]

No problem. I accept your retraction. I agree. God created the heavens and the earth.
There is no evidence that the term "stretched out" is synonymous with the tenents of the Big Bang Theory or its statements about the Expansion of the Universe.

I will admit (readily) that God did stretch out the heavens but what that means exactly has not been scientifically determined.

 

[zeke]

No problem. I accept your retraction. I agree. God created the heavens and the earth.
There is no evidence that the term "stretched out" is synonymous with the Big Bang Theory or the Expansion of the Universe.

Lol - you remain confused - there is nothing to 'retract'. You operate under some type of straw-man that if someone can't prove BB singularity via the Bible that you win the big cigar. The rest of us operate in reality with the truth that the Bible conveys the concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created? My statement remains true and you have never proven God's word wrong.

 

[Sparkey]

So you don't retract your statement that the Bible's use of the term "stretched out" is synonymous with modern, scientific concepts of the "Expansion of the Universe"?

I guess I am confused. I'm glad we agree though. I have no problem with your assertion that God created the "two big lights" and "the stars". I don't know that you've proven your point that the bible speaks of galaxies or other parts of the universe but we don't have to make too much of that. We both agree that all of creation had a beginning. We also agree that God has no beginning and no end, right? Your choice of the word "universe" vs. my choice of the words "all creation" is mere symantics. As far as the whole "stretching of the heavens" goes - you've failed to establish anything about how it relates to modern scientific thought especially in regard to the "expansion of the universe" so your opinion that the two terms are synonymous doesn't matter to me. You've conceded that the Bible doesn't try to teach science and isn't a science book. I don't think we have anything further to discuss here.

Poetry maybe?

 

[zeke]

You've conceded that the Bible doesn't try to teach science and isn't a science book.

I have noted from the beginning of this thread that the Bible is not a science book and it does not conflict with real science. The Bible presents reality and the biblical concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created is in agreement with current science. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Sparkey]

Zeke, I don't know. I'm wary of agreeing with you because I've tried to explain myself as carefully as I am able but you and I don't seem to agree even then.

If I were to agree would that mean that I would have to answer another 77 questions? Please say no.

I noticed you've expanded your rhetorical question to include some kind of undefined new phrase: "current science." Who knows what you mean by that. Would that for instance include or exclude pink unicorns? What about black holes? White holes? You want to argue from the general in order to establish the specific. That's why your statements here continue to fail.

The Bible presents reality and the biblical concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created is in agreement with current science. Wouldn't you agree?

Do you have chapter and verse for that? Or are we still speaking about the bible according to zeke?

 

[zeke]

I noticed you've expanded your rhetorical question to include some kind of undefined new phrase: "current science." Who knows what you mean by that.

Oh come on, mate you are not that dull. Current science, i.e., the science of the day as opposed to the science of yesterday or what might be discovered tomorrow. As I have noted - the science of the mid-twentieth century believed the universe was eternal. The science of today has caught up with the Bible, which has always taught a universe that began at Creation.

Do you have chapter and verse for that? Or are we still speaking about the bible according to zeke?

Think conceptually my friend - the Bible teaches the concept of a universe that had a beginning when God "stretched out the heavens" to contain all which He created. Is that something you deny or does it work for Sparrow's theology?

 

[Sparkey]

Then no, I don't agree. I do notice that you define your term, "current science" as the science of today opposed to the science of yesterday or tomorrow. This points to the essential difference. Scientific "fact" changes. The Word of God doesn't.

You continue to try to support the specific from the general. Your conclusions do not follow your premises with logical necessity. You claim the certainty of God's word for man's thought and theory.