Reasons To Believe

I have been trying to check out the faith/science stance. In that, reconciling the two can be difficult. I have noticed how convincing it can be though. Hugh Ross seems to have all the answers about the Big Bang and God. He calls this the "creation event". Has anyone checked out this site, Home - Reasons to Believe? I watch "Reasons to believe" T.V program. It's one of my fave shows. Hugh Ross writesAstronomers observe stars with masses ranging from a tenth of solar mass to a few dozen times the solar mass in stable burning states. This observation indicates that the universe is expanding at a highly fine-tuned rate. If the universe had expanded too quickly, no stars at all would have formed. If it had expanded too slowly, only black holes and neutron stars would have formed.Would atheists agree with this? What do you make of the "fine-tuned" stance? It seems to me that the universe coming about through or without a cause is highly improbable, but that's just my opinion. By Hugh Ross and John ReaMost 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,1 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.2 In 1929 observations made by Edwin Hubble established that the velocities of galaxies result from a general expansion of the universe.3 Beginning in 1925 Abb Georges Lematre, who was both an astrophysicist and a Jesuit priest, was the first scientist to promote a big bang creation event.4

​

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.5 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.6

​

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 saysHe 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.7 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 shehaqm which refers to the clouds of fine particles (of water or dust) that are located in Earth’s atmosphere,8 not the shamayim, the heavens of the astronomical universe.9 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. --> Read more here HereSurely this stuff gives me a good reason to reconcile proper science with my bible? What do believers/none-believers think about the above? It excites me this stuff. I think it definately merits some reading this website. I myself do recall reading about the "stretching" of the heavens, and have never really had a problem with the idea of the Big Bang.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Mike, if that helps you then fine. But if when I look at the cites I cannot find anything other than the authors fancy.For example, the sections from Isaiah clearly are not talking about anything close to our understanding. The analogy is to a view of the heavens that is more akin to a tapestry than anything with three demensional depth. As is so often the case, they are quote mining and not considering the rest of the passage. Consider the selection from Job. There is nothing in that to equate with anything close to the modern view of the universe.They have produced an interesting fiction but I find nothing in there proposal that points towards some Biblical understanding of the Universe.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Mike, supposing that the Bible could be clearly shown to have foreshadowed scientific discoveries, what place would remain for belief?

Well, as we can see from my quote in the OP, there are many more references to the stretching of the heavens. Also, I don't see how your quote from Job really helps. Well, I mean are you saying the bible doesn't allow for the possibility of the Big Bang? I don't get it, I thought you guys wanted real science and no creationism? All we're doing is showing that as we reach into the "great things past finding out" isn't that rather true? The "past finding out" --> We find out from the past from looking back in time into the universe. Anyway, all I'm we're saying is that the "stretching" of heavens is indeed very relevant when you look at the Big Bang.

What I'm saying is that there is no need to stretch or mangle the Bible to prove or support the evidence of a Big Bang.The Bible is not a science book. It can neither support or refute what is seen around us. The passages that were cited can only be seen as supporting the current theories of the universe by manipulating their meaning way beyond any reason.Trying to stretch Biblical writings to fit a modern world view just doesn't work. IMHO, they simply gave their best view of the world and universe as they saw them. Trying to make that into something more is just an exercise in creative fiction.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

But if either of these other two events had occured (and who says they havent previously in other universes (assuming this is a possibility)) then we wouldnt be here to discuss it, the reason its pretty much bang on (pun not intended) is because if it wasnt, we wouldnt be here to give it that value.However i dont know if the expanision rates would make that sorta difference, i will have to trust your source on it for now. But as far as the beginning of the universe goes, well its just a matter of choice in your beliefs on how it came about.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

Jar - Fair enough. I myself like the wonders of the bible, and I think the Big Bang was the creation event. If we are believers in God, which you and I are, then obviously we will see it as a creation event. If what you are saying is that the bible is being stretched to fit the Theory then I must disagree, I think it's the heavens that were/are stretched, not the bible Unseul - I suppose that's okay. I still think it was no accident though, or as you say, we wouldn't be here. The "fine-tuning" is accurate. Many scientists would agree with that. I think that was one reason, of about twelve, there are many more facts at the website.

Unseul, I have just found this above quote aswell.

Mike, did you read the next paragraph from those folk? Huh???????????These folk are really out there. They are making a leap from gravity to sin? That is the craziest thing I think I've ever read. There is absolutely no way any sane reasoning person can get from physics to sin. Mike, these are nut cases.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Thanks for the site. Information that goes against the grain of current dogma and points out things evolutionists will never admit excites me as well.I doubt you'll find here many sympathetic ears to your desire to reconcile science with the Bible though. The evolutionists and atheists far outnumber the believers.
From a biblical perspective I'm not entirely sure we can speculate totally accurately on the nature of the universe before the fall of Adam as it was after the fall that death entered the world and after the fall that God cursed the ground and held all creation in the "bondage of decay". But I can't rule anything out yet.Another good site is Center for Scientific Creation – In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood This site goes into depth on the hydroplate theory as well as evidence for creation over evolution. Chuck Missler's site Koinonia House contains some interesting things as well.In another thread another evolutionist said it wouldn't really take that much to convince him/her and that he/she is partial to math. I don't expect this to really convince him/her though.
A few pointers to the inspiration of the Bible:The first geneology from Genesis:
Hebrew English
Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort
The gospel in a nutshell:
"Man [is] appointed mortal sorrow; [but] the Blessed God shall come down teaching [that] His death shall bring [the] despairing rest."I know Bible codes are controversial but here is an interesting one:
on the 49th interval in Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers and Duteronomy these words appear: Torah Torah Yaweh haroT haroT
Yaweh is on the 7th interval and of course the sqr root of 49 is 7, God's favorite number.Recurrence of sevens: seven days of Creation , seven Feasts of Israel, seven days between the two doves, Jacob serves seven years for each of his wives, seven kine and seven ears of corn in Pharoah's dreams (seven good years and seven years of famine), seven lamps of the Menorah, the seven elements of furniture in the Tabernacle, seven days of... and i could go on and on... seventy sevens of years will Israel last... In revelation there are seven churches, seven lampstands, seven stars, seven seals, seven horns, seven spirits of God, seven angels, seven trumpets, seven thunders, seven crowns, seven last plagues, seven bowls of wrath, seven kings, and the list goes on...The words in the geneology of Christ recorded by Matthew:
The number of words in it divisible by seven (all divisions are with no remainder): seven.
The number of letters divisible by: seven.
Number of vowels and number of consonants divisible by: seven.
The number of words that begin with a vowel divisible by: seven.
"" a consonant "" : seven.
Number of words that occur more than once divisible by: seven.
Number of words that occur in only one form divisble by: seven.
"" in more than one form divisble by: seven.
Number of nouns divisible by: seven.
Words that are not nouns: seven.
Number of names divisible by: seven.
Number of nouns not names: seven.
Number of male names divisible by: seven.
Number of generations: 21 divisible by seven.
Can anyone out there create a geneology with these specifications even with fake names much less real ones very easily?
The probabilities of this happening by chance are less than one in six hundred trillion.
The last 12 verses in Mark have more than 34 heptadic features.
Probability of this happening by chance: 1 in 5*10^28
(these won't impress evolutionists of course because these are all far more likely to happen by chance than life spontaneously generating)In the canonical books of the New Testament (not including apocryphal books) the number of words unique to each book are divisible by 7.There are other "macrocodes" in the bible that point to future events. To name one, the encampment of the israelites:
They were instructed to camp in a certain order around the tabernacle. If one draws out their camp according to these requirements a cross is seen from the air. Every time the Israelites camped they formed a huge cross! One could also talk about the Tree of Life in the Garden or Abraham's defered sacrifice of Isaac on the very hill where Christ was Crucified.Due to these things plus the many prophecies about Israel and Christ that were fulfilled to the 'T' plus the scientific verification of the Bible (I know atheists will scoff at this) plus my own faith, plus miracles that have been and are still being performed by God, plus the way God has worked in my own life and the lives of others, plus the way he has answered countless prayers of mine, plus the fact that the doctrines found in the Bible fit life I know that Christ is Lord and the Bible is the inspired Word of God.This message has been edited by Hangdawg13, 05-31-2004 10:43 PM

---

"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the honor of kings to search out a matter." Proverbs 25:2

It is more likely that the believers in both evolution and the Christian God outnumber both the atheists and the literalists added together.If you disagree you may have a go at producing numbers that suggest otherwise.

Hangdawg13, your post states your beliefs very clearly.Just FYI, and so that the intention of this post is clearer I am not an atheist, but also do not have your certain conviction of "what is".As I asked in an earlier post, why, if a person is secure in a faith, to the point of calling it "knowledge", do you need proof in the form of confirmation from science? After all, scientific theories change as new discoveries are made.Or, if you do not need such confirmation, why do you find it exciting?

Hangdawag13 wrote:

---

Due to these things plus the many prophecies about Israel and Christ that were fulfilled to the 'T' plus the scientific verification of the Bible (I know atheists will scoff at this) plus my own faith, plus miracles that have been and are still being performed by God, plus the way God has worked in my own life and the lives of others, plus the way he has answered countless prayers of mine, plus the fact that the doctrines found in the Bible fit life I know that Christ is Lord and the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

---

Due to the fact that Christians use mathematics to create imaginary codes in the Bible,
Forbidden
Torah CodesMake up silly stuff like Bible Numerics,
Page not found – Revival Centres ChurchBlatantly lie about fulfilled prophecy,
Farrell Till Prophecy » Internet Infidels
Bible: Prophecy and MisquotesThe fact that science has discredited most of the Bible,
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
Bible: Science and HistoryThe invalidity of the personal experience of God,
Theism Experience » Internet InfidelsThe fact that Christians defraud other people (and are themselves mistaken) in relation to faith healing,
Page not found | Skeptical InquirerTotal abscence of miraculous intervention by God in human history,
Theism Miracles » Internet Infidels
Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story » Internet InfidelsThe Bible being full of incorrect, immoral, illogical and frightening stuff that, in it's entirity fits only the life of confused and dangerous nutters,
Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon
Page not found » Internet InfidelsThe fact the Christians also lie about stuff like Pyramidology,
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/paramyth.htmThe fact that there are so many different religions, and so many versions of Christianity, so clearly you guys aren't getting any directions from your God,
Homepage - adherentsThe fact that leading Biblical scholars do not support major claims of the Christian church, like the resurrection,
Page cannot be foundThe evidence that suggests many Christian churches are mind controlling cults,
http://www.rickross.com/mind_control.htmlThe fact that principle Christians arguments are easily disposed of,
Theism Arguments » Internet InfidelsThe fact that even an 18 year old can draft a convincing rebuttal of major tenets of Christianity:
http://www.jacobspinney.com/tomshort.htm....I know that Christ is largely a mythical figure and the Bible is merely an intriguing ancient text and that the Christian God resides solely in the hopeful imagination of men.IMHO.

Jar, I know that he was trying to show physics and sin, I read it. OFCOURSE there are going to be opinionated stuff at the site, it has many other issues. But from watching the programs "Reasons to believe" - I can see that these guys aren't that much "out there". I mean, when they are arguing FOR the Big Bang, can they really be as "out there" as AIG??? AIG say the earth is six thosand years old. These guys are showing evidences in the bible that God stretched the heavens. Which "reconciles" this somewhat. I am not interested in the physics/sin part of the site. I only took that quote because it was about the universe, and I thought Unseul might like to read it.Checkout just how much actual real science they go along with, and check HR's credentials aswell if you want.The possibility that God could have prepared the universe for sin is yes, only a possibility. If he has prophecy though - anything's possible. Oh I forgot, you don't believe in the bible do you, and the prophecies therein. OFCOURSE this is opinionated speculation, but that's all! Now come on Jar. A few sentences you disagree with and you judge people as nutcases. People who basically are in agreement with science.