The Big Bang: The Bible Taught It First

Started by ushomefree2 pagesPoll

The Big Bang Theory: What is most "plausible?"

The Big Bang: The Bible Taught It First

Most science textbooks that address cosmology credit Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson with the discovery that the universe arose from a hot big bang creation event. While it is true that they were the first (1965) to detect the radiation left over from the creation event, they were not the first scientists to recognize that the universe expanded from an extremely hot and compact state.

In 1946 George Gamow calculated that nothing less than the universe expanding from a near infinitely hot condition could account for the present abundance of elements. In 1929 observations made by Edwin Hubble established that the velocities of galaxies result from a general expansion of the universe. Beginning in 1925 Abbé Georges Lemaître, who was both an astrophysicist and a Jesuit priest, was the first scientist to promote a big bang creation event.

The first direct scientific evidence for a big bang universe dates back to 1916. That is when Albert Einstein noted that his field equations of general relativity predicted an expanding universe. Unwilling to accept the cosmic beginning implied by such expansion, Einstein altered his theory to conform with the common wisdom of his day, namely an eternally existing universe.

All these scientists, however, were upstaged by 2500 years and more by Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Bible authors. The Bible’s prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, “This is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens and stretched them out.”

The Hebrew verb translated “created” in Isaiah 42:5 is bara’ which has as its primary definition “bringing into existence something new, something that did not exist before. ”The proclamation that God created (bara’) the entirety of the heavens is stated seven times in the Old Testament. (Genesis 1:1; 2:3; 2:4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18). This principle of transcendent creation is made more explicit by passages like Hebrews 11:3 which states that the universe that we humans can measure and detect was made out of that which we cannot measure or detect. Also, Isaiah 45:5-22; John 1:3; and Colossians 1:15-17 stipulate that God alone is the agent for the universe’s existence

Biblical claims that God predated the universe and was actively involved in causing certain effects before the existence of the universe is not only found in Colossians 1 but also in Proverbs 8:22-31; John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; and 1 Peter 1:20.

The characteristic of the universe stated more frequently than any other in the Bible is its being “stretched out.”

Five different Bible authors pen such a statement in eleven different verses: Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; and Zechariah 12:1. Job 37:18 appears to be a twelfth verse. However, the word used for “heavens” or “skies” is shehaqîm which refers to the clouds of fine particles (of water or dust) that are located in Earth’s atmosphere, not the shamayim, the heavens of the astronomical universe. Three of the eleven verses, Job 9:8; Isaiah 44:24; and 45:12 make the point that God alone was responsible for the cosmic stretching.

What is particularly interesting about the eleven verses is that different Hebrew verb forms are used to describe the cosmic stretching. Seven verses, Job 9:8; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 51:13; and Zechariah 12:1 employ the Qal active participle form of the verb natah. This form literally means “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching. Four verses, Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; and Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15 use the Qal perfect form. This form literally means that the stretching of the heavens was completed or finished some time ago.

That the Bible really does claim that the stretching out of the heavens is both “finished” and “ongoing” is made all the more evident in Isaiah 40:22. There we find two different verbs used in two different forms. In the first of the final two parallel poetic lines, “stretches out” is the verb natah in the Qal active participle form. In the second (final) line the verb “spreads them out” (NASB, NIV, NKJV) is mathah (used only this one time in the Old Testament) in the waw consecutive plus Qal imperfect form, so that literally we might translate it “and he has spread them out . . .” The participles in lines one and three of Isaiah 40:22 characterize our sovereign God by His actions in all times, sitting enthroned above the earth and stretching out the heavens, constantly exercising his creative power in His ongoing providential work. This characterization is continued with reference to the past by means of waw consecutive with the imperfect, the conversive form indicating God’s completed act of spreading out the heavens. That is, this one verse literally states that God is both continuing to stretch out the heavens and has stretched them out.

This simultaneously finished and ongoing aspect of cosmic stretching is identical to the big bang concept of cosmic expansion. According to the big bang, at the creation event all the physics (specifically, the laws, constants, and equations of physics) are instantly created, designed, and finished so as to guarantee an ongoing, continual expansion of the universe at exactly the right rates with respect to time so that physical life will be possible.

This biblical claim for simultaneously finished and ongoing acts of creation, incidentally, is not limited to just the universe’s expansion. The same claim, for example, is made for God’s laying Earth’s foundations (Isaiah 51:3; Zechariah 12:1). This is consistent with the geophysical discovery that certain long-lived radiometric elements were placed into the earth’s crust a little more than four billion years ago in just the right quantities so as to guarantee the continual building of continents.

Finally, the Bible indirectly argues for a big bang universe by stating that the laws of thermodynamics, gravity, and electromagnetism have universally operated throughout the universe since the cosmic creation event itself. In Romans 8 we are told that the entire creation has been subjected to the law of decay (the second law of thermodynamics). This law in the context of an expanding universe establishes that the cosmos was much hotter in the past. In Genesis 1 and in many places throughout Job, Psalms, and Proverbs we are informed that stars have existed since the early times of creation.

Even the slightest changes in either the laws of gravity or electromagnetism would make stars impossible. As already noted in the accompanying article, gravity, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics yield stable orbits of planets around stars and of electrons around the nuclei of atoms only if they operate in a universe described by three very large rapidly expanding dimensions of space.

What sucks is that a lot of people won't read your post because it's too long, so they'll just say it's all bullshit. Atheists for you 😐

Yay, more sock threads!

There have been other religious texts that have decribed the big bang long before the bible has

I would rather have him link to the article that he is posting than copy and paste it and then put in his own thoughts not trying to pass them off as his own 😉

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/science/creation-questions/SC-creation-questions-days-genesis.htm

Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
I would rather have him link to the article that he is posting than copy and paste it and then put in his own thoughts not trying to pass them off as his own 😉

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/science/creation-questions/SC-creation-questions-days-genesis.htm

/sigh

lol

really, if the bible wants to support a scientific theory, all power to it 🙂

But everybody already knows that the BigBangTheory was originally presented by a former priest (who IIRC had drawn his inspiration from the bible) . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But everybody already knows that the BigBangTheory was originally presented by a former priest (who IIRC had drawn his inspiration from the bible) . . .

weird, ive never heard that

4. The universe has no beginning.

Originally posted by inimalist
weird, ive never heard that

Most people haven't. I just wanted to sound clever 😛

I came across it in "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" I think. Surprised me at first but it does actually makes sense.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
4. The universe has no beginning.

I heard this interview with a man named Victor J Stenger. He wrote a book called The Comprehensible Cosmos in which he describes a universe that could have been created by a big bang, but also has no beginning.

I think your position is recollapsing universes, and he takes a bit different of a view, namely that nothing existed before the universe, and because nothing is so unstable, it had to collapse into something. But before the universe there was no time, so this nothing never really happened at any time... one of those ones 🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Most people haven't. I just wanted to sound clever 😛

I came across it in "A Short History Of Nearly Everything" I think. Surprised me at first but it does actually makes sense.

I have a friend who sings praises about that book. It does make a lot of sense too. I've never seen why religion can't be compatible with science, but then, I'm not religious

As for the poll....

How about a "I think the universe was a byproduct of physical laws that are the exact opposite of random"

Originally posted by inimalist
I heard this interview with a man named Victor J Stenger. He wrote a book called The Comprehensible Cosmos in which he describes a universe that could have been created by a big bang, but also has no beginning.

I think your position is recollapsing universes, and he takes a bit different of a view, namely that nothing existed before the universe, and because nothing is so unstable, it had to collapse into something. But before the universe there was no time, so this nothing never really happened at any time... one of those ones 🙂

I am familiar with that theory. I really don't know, but it seems that the option of no beginning is always left out in these conversations.

Originally posted by inimalist
recollapsing universes
Also, chaotic inflation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
it seems that the option of no beginning is always left out in these conversations.
Because then there'd be no fun. 😈

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am familiar with that theory. I really don't know, but it seems that the option of no beginning is always left out in these conversations.

No beginning really seems odd to people though.

A circle is more likely.

In usual thinking, I guess.

Re: The Big Bang: The Bible Taught It First

Originally posted by ushomefree

I missed the part where it said "BANG" in Hebrew.

BTW...Size 1 text is perfectly legible okthnxbi13

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am familiar with that theory. I really don't know, but it seems that the option of no beginning is always left out in these conversations.

Some hypothzise that it bent back around on itself...meaning no beginning.

I don't know the math, but I'm leaning more towards bullshit, simply out of historical example.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No beginning really seems odd to people though.

And yet, it's the simpler proposition, that Something Always Was (if in different form(s)). You don't have to deal with what was Before, or First Cause.

Eh, humans.

Originally posted by Mindship
And yet, it's the simpler proposition, that Something Always Was (if in different form(s)). You don't have to deal with what was Before, or First Cause.

Eh, humans.

our brains just need that magical cause...

and someone who is to blame....

To all who embrace the "universe having no beginning" as truth, please present your case. Virtually all astronomers and astrophysicists reject that position--Stephen Hawking the most influential, even Albert Einstein!

The cosmos are expanding, cooling, and decaying; these are but a few of many evidences available for scrutiny. These characteristics do not support the universe being eternal.

And moving on, I really do not have the capacity to hold fast to the universe being a product of nothing and/or chance--randomness. No one would ever attribute the assembly of a 757 Boeing to the blasting of a tornado through a junk yard! A 757 Boeing is a remarkable piece of machinery, and we understand its complexity without study and scientific theories. Its completely natural. And that is precisely what separates us from mental capacities of meal worms.

Knowing so--despite the cosmos sharing such complexity--why do some reject the "possibility" of an intelligent designer, namely a Creator?

Some call it junk/pseudo-science simply because it has religious implications. (Note: Intelligent Design Theory [I.D.] is NOT dependent on religion; rather, I. D. has religious implications.)

Dismissing Intelligent Design Theory as junk/pseudo-science on the grounds that it has religious implications is in "itself" junk/pseudo-science! Who cares about evidence, right?!

These astronomers and astrophysicists--even molecular biologist--are not quacks (as popular culture will have you believe). They are scientists, within their respected fields, simply looking at the evidence.

On your own, try explaining to yourself how "out of nothing" comes "something!" You are forced to reach two conclusions:

(1) It just happened--its magic, or,

(2) Something created it--an intelligent being!

Holding fast to the ladder does not require committing intellectual suicide, for it fits the bill naturally. For something "non-existent" to create "itself" is absurd. Nothing in the universe works that way! Nothing wills itself.

If you and I were hiking in the mountains and heard an enormous explosion in the distance and asked, "What in the hell was that," and someone responded, "Oh... it was nothing," such a response (or idea, even) would be totally insufficient in answering what caused the explosion.

We would ask for another opinion.

Originally posted by Mindship
And yet, it's the simpler proposition, that Something Always Was (if in different form(s)). You don't have to deal with what was Before, or First Cause.

Eh, humans.

Not really...something that always was also brings lots of questions..it's not necessarily easier.