The origin of the Universe: harmony between science and faith

Faith & Science Conversation
1

I. THE PRE-BIG BANG

Gen 1:1-2 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was formless and empty.

The issue of the origin of the universe is still a subject of debate between creationists and evolutionists. Evolutionists often point to the Big Bang and creationists stick to the above verse. If we analyze their arguments, we can see that they are struggling with a misunderstanding because the Big Bang is not the origin of the universe. Even creationists do not have an idea about the beginning of the universe. In order not to touch their faith, I prefer through this publication to answer the question “how the Universe began according to the Bible or how was its beginning”. It is this beginning that creates the harmony between science and religion.

The evolution of the Universe was done in different stages, both biblically and scientifically. Therefore I advise those who read me to start with the first publication.

I have already talked about the origin of the Universe through the publications related to the meaning of the word “heaven” What does "in the beginning God created the heaven" (i) and the word “earth” What does "in the beginning god created... the earth" mean? , as well as the meaning of the biblical days Are the days of creation real or are they periods? . Reading them is very important for understanding this publication.

Since this subject is very important and will advance science, and lead scientists to more research, I prefer to make it a complete publication for a debate of ideas in the spirit of Biologos.

Currently science has discovered many natural phenomena (physics) that the ancients attributed the manifestation to spirits or gods. Among these phenomena we have energy, gravitation, lightning, whirlpools, violent waves, earthquakes, volcanoes. Even the rain was sometimes the object of human sacrifices so that they rain. The restitutions of these phenomena to their real name have allowed to understand a lot about the thought of the ancient authors. The only book that has been forgotten that also contains ancient texts that deserve attention is the Bible.

In the series of debates between science and faith with a view to harmonizing views, we have focused on the biblical scheme of creation contained in the first two chapters of Genesis. If we can give back their true names to certain phenomena, this will allow a great advance in this debate. Thus, the restitution of the true names in relation to the ancient names and words that are contained in this scheme gave rise to the Universal Cosmological Model. Therefore, everything I will share with you in this publication is part of the Universal Cosmological Model.

Many people tell me that the biblical scheme of creation is unscientific and cannot prove anything about the universe. I ask you to read the following example carefully:

"Suppose you (astrophysicists) discover an abandoned building (universe) in the forest. You set it up and make it your home. Several years later, someone shows up (God) and tells you that it is his property, and he is the architect. You ask him for proof. He answers that he has many proofs, but, for the moment, the only proof is to show you that this building (universe) has a cellar (the sphere of the Before Big-bang) well arranged and which serves as a base for the house (universe). You do research and surveys, you find that everything is well paved and that it is impossible that this building has a cellar in the basement. You call the person an impostor or a liar.

Finally, the person shows you how to access the cellar hidden by the pavement. You enter and discover that everything corresponds to the description as it was given to you. What will be your reaction afterwards? You will only have to negotiate because, the person tells you that, as the owner and architect, he still has many things to show you and to tell you.

The same is true for the universe. People think that it was created by the chance of nature. Religious people have come to tell them that the architect is God, but they don’t have convincing evidence. 100 years after the discovery of the big bang theory by a catholic priest, the Universal Cosmological Model has just brought back more evidence from biblical verses, because the big bang itself was also taken from a biblical verse. In this new evidence from the Universal Cosmological Model, the owner (the Bible) describes to you the basement or the sub-Big-bang or the Pre-Big-bang. It describes what the foundation was like and what you will discover once you enter it, and it clearly shows you the biblical verses that make it difficult for you to enter.

Those who will take this owner seriously, if the day they decide to go down, if they discover that everything responds to the observation according to the description of the biblical verses as restored in the Universal Cosmological Model, what will they do? will it not reopen the question of knowing if the Universe was created by God?

How could an ancient text from 1500 BC describe the Before Big-bang to the Big-bang. This is what you will learn by following the thread of my publications which is part of the Universal Cosmological Model. The Universal Cosmological Model harmoniously combines faith and science and fulfills all the wishes of associations or organizations that militate for a harmonious language and understanding between science and religion or science and faith.

1. The question about the origin of the Universe

Recently, I laughed a lot when I heard the head of NASA say that the James Webb Telescope will tell us about our origins. Indeed, according to Bill Nelson, the NASA administrator, "The promise of Webb is not what we know we will discover; it’s what we don’t yet understand or can’t yet understand about our universe. (. (Cfr : What the Webb Telescope Images Didn’t Capture - Post - BioLogos).

The book describing Our Origin, we all have in our closets, is the Bible. James Webb will only bring us physical structures. But, the Bible describes the Universe from minus infinity, reaching stage 0 which is the point of the big-bang and continues until the creation of man which is the last one attested even scientifically.

The images that the James Webb Telescope brings us are sometimes blurred and confused. They are processed, analyzed by astrophysicists and published. The images that the Bible brings back to us about the Pre-Big-bang which no Telescope can reach are also blurred and sometimes confused. Hence the confusion of interpretation among us believers. But, in these days, with the help of cosmology and other disciplines, they are analyzed in the Universal Cosmological Model and made clear. It is this analysis that I bring you in this publication.

1) The origin of the Universe

So far, there is no scientific model that has clearly addressed the question about the origin of the Universe. The majority of scientific models support the Big-bang as the beginning of everything (space and time). Some astrophysicists have rejected the Big-bang theory to assert that there was a pre-Big-bang without touching the origins of the Universe. This remains as a blur for everyone so that the French physicist and philosopher Etienne Klein said in his book “The Discourse on the Origin of the Universe”: “Among all the questions that we ask ourselves about the universe, the question of the beginning is the most dizzying, the most intriguing too”. For the religion also, to ask questions on the origin of the universe; it is borrowed the way of the madness. One understands why since the antiquity until today, this question remained pending.

Astrophysicists are now counting on the analysis of the images that the James Webb Telescope, which cost NASA more than ten billion dollars, will send us. But, one cannot better analyze an image of the deep sky if one is theoretically limited. However, everyone’s idea seems to be limited to the Big-bang without going below. And yet, with only 1 $ to buy a Bible or the Torah or the Koran, astrophysicists will have in their hands the complete scheme of the Universe as described by Moses or Moussa. They will only have to study the parameters.

As we have said, the question of the origin of the Universe does not find clear answers in science. No one trusting in God, no one wanted to question the Bible, which describes the scheme of creation as a fairy tale. And yet the Bible is the only book to have answered this question since 1500 BC. This answer will surprise all scientists, at least those who read the articles published in this forum.

What does the Bible say about the origin or the beginning of the Universe? We will base ourselves on three versions of the Bible. The first one used by the Catholics, the second one used by the Protestants and the third one which has been abandoned in the archives.

Gen 1:1-2: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was empty and waste…That was the first day. (Jerusalem Version)

Gen 1:1-2: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and empty… That was the first day. (Louis Segond Version)

Gen 1:1-2: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void… That was the first day. (Septuagint Version)

Among the three versions above, the most original version is the Septuagint version which is abandoned in the archives. It is the first version that was translated from Hebrew into Greek in 270 BC by the Jews themselves. The other versions, wondering how an earth could be invisible, began to put their comments without knowing that they were departing from the truth. In fact, by speaking of the creation of the earth on the first day, the author wanted to specify that it was not the planet earth. As the word “Universe” was not used at the time (1500 years BC) and to make the difference with our planet Earth, he issued a definition namely “The earth was invisible and empty”.

Our Earth is visible and has a form. Even smoke or steam can be photographed and we can see their shape when we photograph them. But here, we are told about an invisible, formless, empty and vague earth. This is simply to say that something that has no form is like a colorless gas that cannot be seen. It is like air; who can tell its form in the void? And yet it is there, invisible, although it is composed of matter (particles).

The word “vacuum” has a different meaning for astrophysicists than for theologians. This is why I said that the study of the biblical scheme of creation also requires the participation of astrophysicists. If an astrophysicist is told that a star is invisible, he will know immediately that this star is composed of particles so that it appears to be empty to a witness. Hence the verse “an invisible and empty earth” defining the Universe at its beginning.

The earth is composed of matter. By speaking of an invisible and empty earth, the author of the biblical creation diagram simply wanted to tell us that at the beginning the Universe was composed of invisible matter, so that it seemed to be empty. It is difficult for theologians and common mortals to understand that there is content in an invisible body, but for astrophysicists, they know that such matter could only be particles.

It is said that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, but this earth was formless and empty. A thing that is formless and empty is like a gas that we can feel but we cannot see and therefore we cannot give it a form. Here, the author wants to tell us that the Universe was only an empty sphere, filled only with energy (the spirit of God). According to science, there is no such thing as a vacuum or absolute vacuum, there is always energy. It was this filling that showed that we were in a physical sphere called “invisible and empty earth”, compared to the spiritual sphere known as the “heavens” (Gen 1:1).

Therefore, compared to all scientific models, the Bible is the only one to say with authority that the universe, which it called “invisible and empty earth”, began in a vacuum and was filled with an invisible matter. It is the presence of particles in the Universe (the earth) which also seemed to be invisible that differentiates it with the spiritual world (the heavens) which is also invisible in the verse “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, the earth was formless and empty”.

  1. The harmony between science and religion on the origin of the Universe

The title of my publication is “The origin of the Universe according to the harmony between science and religion”. I did not refer to science to understand what it means “an invisible and empty earth”. This is how the universe was defined 1500 years ago. So no one can call me a concordist.

Without referring also to the Bible, some scientists have come to the same conclusion while waiting for science to approve them. They can already rejoice in having reached the same conclusion as the biblical scheme of creation, restored in the Universal Cosmological Model. I discovered the analysis of these scholars only after my own discovery in the Bible that the Universe began in a vacuum as one of the stages of its creation. Among these scientists we have Prof. Lawrence Krauss and the Italian physicist Gabriele Veneziano. The description that the Italian physicist Gabriele Veneziano made captivated me more. It is really a scientific development of the biblical scheme of creation.

In fact, according to the Italian physicist Gabriele Veneziano, inventor of the string model: “the Universe comes from an infinite vacuum and was filled with particles” (Cfr: https://www.pourlascience.fr/sd/cosmologie/l-univers-avant-le-big-bang-2971.php ). At this stage, for a fictitious witness, the universe can only be invisible and empty as the Bible says. As a scientist, to say that the universe comes from an infinite void, nobody will be able to condemn it. But, for believers, the infinite represents God and the universe whose name did not exist at the time was qualified as an invisible earth in the Septuagint Bible. Despite the difference in the words used, we can see that the basic idea is the same. This is also reflected in the title of the publication.

So, from today, let everyone know that the earth spoken of in this first verse of the Bible on the first day represents the Universe (Gn 1:1-2). And, through the scientific development made by the Italian scientist Gabriele Veneziano in the link above, we discover that answers to the observations, even if the scientists have not yet validated it because they stick to the Big-bang. If I am asked to say “where did these particles come from”, I am forced to enter into the depths of religion and join the creationists. This is what I do not want to do in my publications. I want that in this forum, me and the scientists, that we are on the same wavelength and that the debate which will follow respects the spirit of the subject.

To discover that according to the Bible, the Universe began in a vacuum is a major discovery and a great revelation for the scientists (the astrophysicists).

Flavien Phanzu Mwaka - Auteur

2

That’s a massive wall-of-text facing us readers. It’s intimidating. It’s off-putting.

Why not instead take your single main idea (whatever that is) and present it clearly and concisely in a single, brief paragraph or two? Give us your 30-second “elevator pitch”. Ensure that the reading time is less than thirty seconds, and that your single key point is clearly expressed.

(Did you see what I did there?)

5 Likes
3

As I see it, the main take aways are:

In fact, by speaking of the creation of the earth on the first day, the author wanted to specify that it was not the planet earth. As the word “Universe” was not used at the time (1500 years BC) and to make the difference with our planet Earth, he issued a definition namely “The earth was invisible and empty”.

…But here, we are told about an invisible, formless, empty and vague earth. This is simply to say that something that has no form is like a colorless gas that cannot be seen.

The earth is composed of matter. By speaking of an invisible and empty earth, the author of the biblical creation diagram simply wanted to tell us that at the beginning the Universe was composed of invisible matter, so that it seemed to be empty…

It is said that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, but this earth was formless and empty. A thing that is formless and empty is like a gas that we can feel but we cannot see and therefore we cannot give it a form. Here, the author wants to tell us that the Universe was only an empty sphere, filled only with energy (the spirit of God)…

Therefore, compared to all scientific models, the Bible is the only one to say with authority that the universe, which it called “invisible and empty earth”, began in a vacuum and was filled with an invisible matter.

In fact, according to the Italian physicist Gabriele Veneziano, inventor of the string model: “the Universe comes from an infinite vacuum and was filled with particles” (Cfr: https://www.pourlascience.fr/sd/cosmologie/l-univers-avant-le-big-bang-2971.php ). At this stage, for a fictitious witness, the universe can only be invisible and empty as the Bible says.

1 Like
4

The most original version would be the Hebrew. Any reason you appear to avoid addressing the actual text of Genesis?

6

It is said in “the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was formless and empty”. Every visible thing has a form. Here, the Bible presented the state of the Universe at its beginning. So, the universe began in a vacuum as the Italian physicist, Professor Gabriele Veneziano of the Collège de France, has scientifically affirmed. Hence the title of my publication: Harmony between science and religion on the beginning of the universe.

7

Thank you very much, you have done a very good summary. But this is the first time someone has noted this. That’s why I put a lot of argument to avoid many of the questions.

2 Likes
8

No, there are no reasons. By the way, I only discovered this version by chance after my publication. I mentioned this to show that the word invisible does not come from my imagination, otherwise I will be called a concordist.

9

Which version are you talking about?

Based on what you said in the OP it certainly appears you added invisible to the translation which means it did come from your imagination. The Hebrew doesn’t support it.

From a standard commentary on Genesis

10

In the beginning created God the heavens and the earth

What heavens? Plural? The Earth is less than a third as old as the universe. And the universe was opaque, not transparent, like a heaven, a sky, an atmosphere or above, for the first three hundred and seventy thousand years.

And the Earth was formless and void

You interpret this thus

Every visible thing has a form. Here, the Bible presented the state of the Universe at its beginning. So, the universe began in a vacuum as the Italian physicist, Professor Gabriele Veneziano of the Collège de France, has scientifically affirmed. Hence the title of my publication: Harmony between science and religion on the beginning of the universe.

The Bible isn’t talking about the universe in this verse. So you interpret Earth to mean universe. So that you can tie up void, one minority meaning of the many meanings of tohu (futile, empty, chaos, confusion, desolation, waste) and the meaning of bohu, with vacuum. A meaningless concept in the ANE until the Greeks brought it two centuries after discussing it. If the universe began in a vacuum, it wasn’t in empty space. It was a null. It may well not have begun in a vacuum. But in a ‘2D’ (actually 11D) brane beyond Veneziano’s ‘1D’ (actually 10D) string. There are many other possibilities, that’s the one I favour.

And darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

What deep? The Earth was a pre-existing water-world in the imagination of the unknown C6th BCE Exilic author. His God character had made an unilluminated, featureless ocean planet. That’s all. No heavens yet. Whereas the Earth actually was a water world a billion years after it formed.

So so far, I’m not seeing any harmony between science and ANE myth. Even if you force Earth to mean cosmos.

This is all tohu I realise, but just in case some impressionable young mind is reading and needs to see some critical thinking at work,

1 Like
11

If my initial study of the text is accurate…the words to describe the state of the planet in the greek are used the following number of times in the bible…
formless - 10 times
void 2- times
I wonder, what in your vocab do the words “formless” and “void” mean?

When I research those two terms, formless is without any shape, however, void, is “empty space”. Its the void here that poses the problem…that is very obvious nothing…absolutely nothing!

This text would have mean read it as meaning that essentially, there was nothing here but a thought…and that thought was what the earth was. It was simply a planned object not yet created. I do agree that it would be good if Moses had described exactly what it was using better words.

12

Tohu wa-bohu also appears in Isaiah 24:11 as the wilderness haunt of birds. The opening verse of Genesis could be translated the earth was empty and desolate.

The desert owl and screech owl will possess it;
the great owl and the raven will nest there.
God will stretch out over Edom
the measuring line of chaos
and the plumb line of desolation.

1 Like
13

Not an ANE concept.

1 Like
14

You are right: “it was simply a planned object that had not yet been created”. So there was the void. Formlessness and emptiness pose problems only for theologians. For astrophysicists it is not a problem. I think you are trying to create a problem because these two words coincide with the beginning of the Universe according to science.

15

I am talking about the Septuagint Bible. Check it out and you’ll find that the first verse begins “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was invisible and empty”. I did not add anything. Why do you want the Bible not to join science or science not to join the Bible?

16

Not according to what you wrote in the OP

And the LXX is a Greek Translation. Since translations are human and fallible you need to go back to the Hebrew if you want to argue word meaning.

When I checked for English translations of the LXX I found the following two examples:

  • But the earth was unseen and unready,
  • But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished,

Neither support your addition of invisible.

17

You refuse to understand what I have written, to ask me questions about what you think.

  • first of all, in the subtitle, I did specify the Before Big-bang. The universe of which you speak to me that it was opaque, it is the Universe of after Big-bang which does not concern this publication.
  • Secondly, you say that I interpret the earth as being the Universe. Not at all. You see that the one who wrote Genesis is more intelligent than us. As the word universe did not exist at that time, he defined it as a “formless or invisible and empty earth”. I did not define it that way. Just as there are professors who explain the lessons, I also only explain without adding anything. When you say that it is possible that the Universe did not begin in a vacuum, this is your point of view. Your freedom of expression. For the Bible, the universe began in a vacuum.
18

When you say that the earth was empty and desolate, it means that the earth was already there. That’s not what the Bible says. The Bible says that the earth was invisible, representing the invisible matter that was at the very beginning of the universe. It is from these invisible matters known in these days under the name of particles that all the stars will be created after the Big-bang.

19

Again, I tell you that I did not create the word invisible. Type “Septuagint Bible” in your search engine and validate. You will discover that the second verse of Genesis 1 says that the earth was invisible. Now enter the history of the Septuagint Bible. You will be told that this is the first bible that was translated from Hebrew into Greek by the Jews themselves. The other translators who came after, started asking themselves “how can a land be invisible?” So they started putting comments that they found passable: tohu bohu, vague, formless, etc… They put these comments because they didn’t know anything about cosmology. why are you running away from the truth?

20

Why do you reference the Septuagint as if it is definitive? While it is very useful for analysis of the Hebrew scriptures, Biblical scholarship has never regarded it as the final word. An English translation of a Greek translation is yet another step removed.

Yes, that would be the implication.

21

Flavien,
My sympathies.
It’s a painful lesson to learn, but it’s an inevitable lesson: Audiences come in many flavors.

  • In my opinion, there are only two people in the audience of those willing to give your thoughts fair hearing: you and me.
  • There may be as many as five or six persons, 10 at the very most, who will put in the time and energy to challenge your thoughts.
  • There will probably be more than 5 but less than 20, who revisit this thread from time to time, in order to see if an interesting arm-wrestling match has taken place or is taking place.
  • Then there may be a brief and temporary audience of up to 100 or so who stop by, look once, and move on.
  • Consider yourself fortunate, if I’m correct. :smile:
  • The kind of things you are saying are not new; they are at least 2,600 years old.
  • What’s interesting is that, although I was a Classics Major in College, in the early 1970s, the first time I actually met someone who talked about the things you’re trying to say was in 2002, in a Physics forum now defunct.
  • It doesn’t take an Einstein to quickly figure out that the vacuum and “the heavens” in the vacuum you attempt to describe, conflict with Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and necessarily with the general theory too.
  • That kind of stuff doesn’t win many friends, in this forum or elsewhere.
  • Bonne chance.
1 Like