My Old Testament Challenge

[Kylie]

Congratulations!

You now know the secret of debating creationism.

Never ... under any circumstances ... stray from Genesis 1 in discussing creationism.

If you do, the conversation is over, and they will discuss everything BUT creationism.

So I guess all those passages where Jesus talks about creation can take a hike, huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

So I guess all those passages where Jesus talks about creation can take a hike, huh?

Did Jesus debate creationism?

 

[Kylie]

Did Jesus debate creationism?

He certainly talked about it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

True or false?

The Big Bang is an Old Testament event.

I'd say no, but not for the reasons most people would. From my perspective, even if I was a Christian, I wouldn't view the universe itself as a direct creation of god, but rather god as a product of the universe forming. So, all the accounts in the OT would have to be post Big Bang. The formlessness of the Earth could be interpreted as it not being all in one piece, and god collected the matter together to form the planet. Same goes for stars; the matter was there, but had yet to be organized into stars. I derive this from Genesis only stating that god creates objects out of existing matter, such as Adam being made out of dust rather than his mass just poofing into existence.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'd say no, but not for the reasons most people would.

So the universe came first, then God?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So the universe came first, then God?

They could have arose at the same time, or god could have been a product of the Big Bang, the bible does not say. Simply put, if I were a Christian, I would not interpret the OT as actually mentioning the origin of god or the universe itself, since it starts out with things already existing, such as water, so it'd have to be post Big Bang.

 

[AV1611VET]

They could have arose at the same time, or god could have been a product of the Big Bang, the bible does not say. Simply put, if I were a Christian, I would not interpret the OT as actually mentioning the origin of god or the universe itself, since it starts out with things already existing, such as water, so it'd have to be post Big Bang.

We have a word for that: blasphemy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

We have a word for that: blasphemy.

Lol, it's just that I don't interpret "heavens" as the entire universe. Plus, since time existed only post Big Bang, the concept of "in the beginning" doesn't work prior to it. Which of course means that time already existed at the start of the OT, from the very first verse. But, I have a verse that may help:

Ecclesiastes 3:11
"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

Perhaps why no one can do that is because even the very concept of a "beginning" doesn't entirely apply to god because it formed before time did (and said formation could have been the catalyst for the Big Bang), but that would be some extreme speculation on my part. I think it is very clear that the OT only covers events after time already existed.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Did Jesus debate creationism?

Jesus said: "As it was in the days of Noah". By his recognition of Noah as a real person & the flood of Noah, that is a defense of creationism. Also Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." This is a reference to the "beginning" with Adam and Eve. Jesus reminds us of God's purpose and intention with Adam and Eve in the beginning. Jesus clearly substantiates everything Moses wrote.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Lol, it's just that I don't interpret "heavens" as the entire universe. Plus, since time existed only post Big Bang, the concept of "in the beginning" doesn't work prior to it. Which of course means that time already existed at the start of the OT, from the very first verse. But, I have a verse that may help:

Ecclesiastes 3:11
"He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

Perhaps why no one can do that is because even the very concept of a "beginning" doesn't entirely apply to god because it formed before time did (and said formation could have been the catalyst for the Big Bang), but that would be some extreme speculation on my part. I think it is very clear that the OT only covers events after time already existed.

When time took a hold of the universe that was the beginning. Also that was when the universe began to expand. Classic physics begins when time began. Before time you have quantum physics.

Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe

 

[Aman777]

They could have arose at the same time, or god could have been a product of the Big Bang, the bible does not say. Simply put, if I were a Christian, I would not interpret the OT as actually mentioning the origin of god or the universe itself, since it starts out with things already existing, such as water, so it'd have to be post Big Bang.

God is a Spirit and before Jesus had NO physical image. God is Love and exists physically only in His Son called YHWH in the Old and Jesus in the New Testament. God is One in Christ Who is the ONLY God you will ever see physically. Jesus caused the Big Bang at the end of the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4

We know this because is was less than a billion years from the BB to the lighting of the first Stars, The First Stars in the Universe which happened on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 It was late on the 3rd Day since each of God's Days/Ages is 4.5 Billion years in man's time. Most of the 3rd Day was taken up with the formation of Adam, by Jesus/Lord God BEFORE the BB at the end of the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7

Jesus IS God and in Him dwelleth ALL the fulness of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) BODILY. Col 2:9 When God said, Let there be Light, God Himself, came into the physical world as YHWH/Jesus. That is God's Truth Scripturally. Amen?

 

[AV1611VET]

True or false?

The Big Bang is an Old Testament event.

Only six votes?

 

[Halbhh]

Only six votes?

I think most people would not know enough about what the "Big Bang" is supposed to be to dare to have an opinion about whether it seems likely to have happened or whether it fits scripture.


Question: Was the Big Bang basically a huge explosion? (thus chaotic, etc.)

Correct Answer: No. No at all.

The "Big Bang" is a idea of the sudden coming into existence --instantaneously -- of the Universe, all the heavens.

Not at all like an explosion (other than there was an expansion), but more similar in analogy to an sudden unfolding, orderly, by an amazing design (of physics, the design inherent in Nature, or Creation.) Creating this amazing heavens we see through telescopes, by design!

So, most people -- lacking a good understand of what this Big Bang theory even says in some clear sense (a good understanding) -- most we'd hope would then very reasonably refrain from expressing an opinion about it in a situation where that opinion might have weight or meaning to others.

One shouldn't pronounce judgements about things one doesn't know hardly anything about, after all:
John 7:24 Stop judging by outward appearances, and start judging justly."

 

[lesliedellow]

True or false?

The Big Bang is an Old Testament event.

Scientific theories are nowhere to be found in the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientific theories are nowhere to be found in the Bible.

But is it an Old Testament event?

 

[Kylie]

But is it an Old Testament event?

Depends how flexible you want to be with your interpretation of the Bible. If you allow a great deal of flexibility, then you can fit anything in there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends how flexible you want to be with your interpretation of the Bible. If you allow a great deal of flexibility, then you can fit anything in there.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but as for me: if I believed in the Big Bang Event, then I would believe the Big Bang occurred in 13,800,000,000 BC.

That makes it an Old Testament event.

Look at it this way:

It certainly wasn't a New Testament event.

 

[Kylie]

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but as for me: if I believed in the Big Bang Event, then I would believe the Big Bang occurred in 13,800,000,000 BC.

That makes it an Old Testament event.

Look it it this way:

It certainly wasn't a New Testament event.

That wasn't remotely what I was talking about.

I was saying that if you are flexible in your interpretation of what the OT says, you can interpret some passages to be about the Big Bang. For example, Job 9:8, Psalms 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 44:24, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13, Isaiah 51:13, Jeremiah 10:12, Jeremiah 51:15, Zechariah 12:1. Each of these passages could be interpreted as referring to the expansion of the universe.

 

[AV1611VET]

Each of these passages could be interpreted as referring to the expansion of the universe.

Again, I don't know what you're getting at then.

The expansion of the universe and the Big Bang are two different things, aren't they?

I'm only concerned about the event that [allegedly] occurred in 13,800,000,000 BC.

Since the universe is still expanding, its expansion would be both an Old Testament and a New Testament phenomenon.

 

[Kylie]

Again, I don't know what you're getting at then.

The expansion of the universe and the Big Bang are two different things, aren't they?

I'm only concerned about the event that [allegedly] occurred in 13,800,000,000 BC.

Since the universe is still expanding, its expansion would be both an Old Testament and a New Testament phenomenon.

Technically, the Big Bang is still happening. When the bomb explodes, you don't say the explosion finished 1/100th of a second later, do you? At that point, there's still a fireball, still an expanding shockwave, etc. The Big Bang is simply that portion of the universe's expansion when the universe was compact, hot and dense.