Big Bang Debunked

[MorningGlory]

3 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Well, I feel better. 

Also for Christianity. I am going to be frank with you: if Christianity in general really insisted in an over literal interpretation, leading to flat earths or moons emitting their own light, then Christianity would be extinct in one generation. For obvious reasons. 

So, It is good that this view is held only by an irrelevant percentage of the Christian population.

Your assessment is correct, sieg; the overwhelming majority just laughs off these crazy CTs.  They don't have much influence on society as a whole.  In fact, sometimes I believe that even some of the flat earthers don't believe all this nonsense.  They are just playing people.

[siegi91]

I would like to ask a question to the audience. I am not a Christian, so I need some help.

Why are many people here opposed to the Big Bang? I am not trying to make a case for the BB here, but I find this skepticism puzzling on a pure philosophical level. 

I understand opposition to evolution, since it is really at odds with a benevolent and wise God Who does not operate under the test and trial principle, but the Big Bang? I don't know, but if I were a theist I would probably show that as clear evidence for the creative act of a supernatural agency. Think about it: an "explosion" that is so well fine tuned to bring all we observe to existence. Fine tuned to an astounding precision. Completely different from the opportunistic selection and transmission of lucky mistakes we have in evolution. No, this really seems to have been planned from the beginning to provide the expected outcome immediately.

Ok, the physics leading to the BB entails also a very old Universe and a course of events different from what we have in Genesis, and that might be difficult for literalists, unless they want their cake and eat it too. But consider the bonus. It is, in my opinion, one of the few very important questions left that have no scientific explanation (we have basically no clue of the physics operating sufficiently close to that event) and has all characteristics to be divine, involving  the origin of all that it exists.

Doesn't that offset the price of moving some verses of Genesis to the metaphorical level?

I ask also because the Christians here in Europe seem to move in exactly that direction. And I believe some American Christian philosophers and apologists (e.g. WL Craig) support the BB, too, for purely theological reasons.

 siegi

Edited December 5, 2017 by siegi91

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

Of course you should already know, my origins viewpoint are a pariah here and rarely tolerated uncontested.

There are even some of us here (well, at least one, counting me :-P) that are Bible-believing followers of Christ that accept evolution. But that's a completely different can of worms...

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

So matter what our origin is, we are no more than dust without God.  God gives us life and without Him there is no life.  If God can bring human life to dust, anything is possible.

Absolutely, I could not agree more. While I disagree with many here about the mechanism of His creation, I wholeheartedly agree that God is both Creator and Sustainer of life.

[GandalfTheWise]

For me, the big picture comes down to something like this.  Is the physical universe everything or not?   If so, everything ultimately has a physical explanation behind it.  If not, there is the potential for the "beyond the physical" to introduce effects into the physical universe and the physical to introduce efforts into the "beyond the physical".  Another question I see is related to the existence of abstract order and regularity.  Why is 1+1 = 2?  This seems to be something that goes beyond mere physical existence.

Within the Christian community, there seems to be general agreement on there being meaning, personality, order, and creativity in the "beyond the physical" and that the physical universe was generated from the "beyond the physical".  There does not seem to be general agreement on particular details of how the "beyond the physical" generated the physical universe.  Different Christians place different priorities on knowing the details.

 

[Enoch2021]

On 12/4/2017 at 11:33 AM, GandalfTheWise said:

From my observations, the majority of Christians in the U.S. think that the earth is sphere like and that the usual orbital descriptions of the various bodies in the solar system is fine.

From my observations, the majority of Christians think the earth is: "Sphere Like", "Orbits", and in a "Solar System" because they're NOT "thinking".  They're just PARROTING Pseudo-Scientific Fairytales that they've been indoctrinated with since diapers and then feebly attempting to marry the Pseudo-Science "Just-So" Stories of the day with Scripture via Eisegesis and a heavy dose of Mental and Linguistic Gymnastics so as to keep the Fairytale Alive.

 

Quote

The main issue boils down to the use of a particular Hebrew word used in the Old Testament to describe the earth.

 Huh?  Which "Word" might that be? 

The Main Issue is:

1.  Roughly 65 Scriptures CLEARLY stating that the Earth is: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed/Geocentric.

2.  ZERO Scriptures even remotely implying: Sphericity/Moving-Rotating/Heliocentric.

ps.  Here's a New Testament word that settles the matter...

(Revelation 20:9) "And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

 

"Breadth" = "Platos" Strong's Greek Definition G4114 --- from G4116 (plat'-oos)..: Spread out "FLAT".

 

The Passage (In English) should read: "And they went up on the Flat Earth and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

 

Quote

Most see that word as having a range of meaning and indeed potentially referred to a spherical earth thousands of years ago.

Why didn't you mention "That Word" specifically?   And then, show WHY/HOW it has a 'Range of Meaning'? 

 

Quote

A minority of Christians think that only one possible meaning (referring to a flat shape only) is allowed for this word.

  Again, no mention of this mysterious "Word".

 

Quote

It is my understanding that this is why there are some who hold to the OT as teaching a flat earth and take that as a matter of fact.

It's not just the Old Testament (which should be good enough anyways), SEE above Rev 20:9 and...

Dr. Michael S. Heiser (Renowned Bible Scholar)...

"The issue is how “literal creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, as I would call them, “inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in both testaments), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc.  But creationists who claim the literal mantel don’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. My view, as readers know, is that we ought to simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living millennia ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it. Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Frankly, any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible.  So, who’s the literalist now?"  

http://drmsh.com/interpreting-genesis-1-literalist/

 

Quote

As far as I can tell, in their view, the matter is not open for debate.

It's very much "Open" for debate; however, there's not much of one.  Just take a look at the few that have been held in this forum.

 

regards 

[Enoch2021]

23 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Well I feel better

That's the most important thing.

 

Quote

Also for Christianity. I am going to be frank with you: if Christianity in general really insisted in an over literal interpretation

Christianity doesn't "Insist", it's a World-View...not Animate.  Inanimate objects/concepts don't "Insist"; it's a Reification Fallacy.

 

Quote

...leading to flat earths or moons emitting their own light, then Christianity would be extinct in one generation.

Sure.  I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.

 

Quote

For obvious reasons. 

Please, Persuade us...? Post these "Obvious Reasons", THEN...try something Novel and coherently SUPPORT them.

 

Quote

So, It is good that this view is held only by an irrelevant percentage of the Christian population.

1.  It's growing rapidly, DAILY.  And converting atheists into Christians, Posthaste!! 

2.  Appeal to Consensus/Majority Fallacy.

3.  Nobody is irrelevant.

 

regards

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Dr. Michael S. Heiser (Renowned Bible Scholar)...

I've seen some of Dr. Heiser's material, and although he talks about ancient Hebrew cosmology, he clearly indicates that it is contrary to our understanding today. Check out this short video to see -- https://youtu.be/zvMsi29jQsY

 

[Enoch2021]

14 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I've seen some of Dr. Heiser's material, and although he talks about ancient Hebrew cosmology, he clearly indicates that it is contrary to our understanding today. Check out this short video to see -- 

1.  It's against Forum Rules to post Videos in Threads.

2.  Well Dr. Michael Heiser clearly states that Scripture clearly states:  "a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc" in Both Testaments.

But Dr. Michael Heiser doesn't believe that it's the case.

So who to Believe??  ...

A.  God's Word.

or

B.  Dr. Michael Heiser's word that he's merely PARROTING from Pseudo-Science Priests.

 

Your Choice ... Choose Wisely .

 

regards

[books]

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

...

Dr. Michael S. Heiser (Renowned Bible Scholar)...

"The issue is how “literal creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, as I would call them, “inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in both testaments), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc.  But creationists who claim the literal mantel don’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. My view, as readers know, is that we ought to simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living millennia ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it. Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Frankly, any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible.  So, who’s the literalist now?"  

http://drmsh.com/interpreting-genesis-1-literalist/

...

Are you aware that Dr. Micheal S. Heiser "(Renowned Bible Scholar)" does not believe in a flat earth?

http://drmsh.com/christians-who-believe-the-earth-is-really-flat-does-it-get-any-dumber-than-this/