The origin of the Universe: harmony between science and faith

[Bill_II]

@FLARIMI0701

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.

I did and for the first two two translations I found, which I included, neither said the earth was invisible. If you did then reference the translation that you found, but be aware that there are other ways to translate the Greek.

@FLARIMI0701

You will be told that this is the first bible that was translated from Hebrew into Greek by the Jews themselves.

I am well aware of the history of the LXX.

@FLARIMI0701

The other translators who came after, started asking themselves “how can a land be invisible?”

Prove it.

@FLARIMI0701

So they started putting comments that they found passable: tohu bohu, vague, formless, etc…

Exactly how much Hebrew do you know? Translators would know Hebrew very well.

@FLARIMI0701

They put these comments because they didn’t know anything about cosmology.

Modern translators are well aware of modern cosmology.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

There is no refusal in my understanding. I’m not asking you what I think. Are you asking me what you think?

Firstly, the earth wasn’t in the pre-big bang.

Secondly, your lack of awareness of the multiverse is not a matter of opinion. None of the nine types in four levels mention vacuum. And what do you understand by it?

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@rsewell

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.

I did not say that the Septuagint was definitive. When I researched the meaning of “The earth was formless and empty” (Louis Segond Version), I came to the conclusion that no thing can be without form if it is visible. Then I understood that according to the Bible the universe began in the void, that is, as a gas that could not be given a form. It was only a few years later that I discovered the verse that confirms that “in the beginning the earth was invisible” (Septuagint version). I myself was very surprised and started to use it to support my argument. Otherwise, I will be called a concordist. The word “invisible” comes from the Bible and not from me.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@Terry_Sampson

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.
• 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.

You are right to say that “the vacuum I am trying to describe is in contradiction with Einstein’s theory of special relativity”. Indeed, the theory of relativity does not apply in the Universe after the Big-bang. This situation concerns the pre-Big-bang universe where quantum mechanics prevails. And, astrophysicists themselves know that quantum mechanics and Albert Einstein’s relativity are often incompatible. Those who answer me, do not answer me on the basis of what they read, but, because, it is already programmed in their head that the biblical scheme of creation is a tale… Whoever wrote this story did not know that 3500 years later there will be someone who will prove that the story is true. The day an astrophysicist will take me seriously and start to verify what I write, that’s the day we’ll start talking about this scheme again.

[Terry_Sampson]

@FLARIMI0701

Whoever wrote this story did not know that 3500 years later there will be someone who will prove that the story is true.

Prove that the story is true? Neat trick, Brother. The only way to approach that goal is to show that the alternative does not make sense. That can be done, but only if you are open to the possibly of seeing it done.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

I say that even without referring to the Septuagint translation which says “in the beginning the earth was invisible and empty”, even if you analyze the other translations, you will understand that in the beginning, the earth did not materially exist. I know that I have just introduced a new debate in science and faith because until then, the debates turned only around concepts like creationism, evolution and Big-bang. But now I have just introduced something that no one expected.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@Terry_Sampson

Prove that the story is true? Neat trick, Brother. The only way to approach that goal is to show that the alternative does not make sense. That can be done, but only if you are open to the possibly of seeing it done.

until then, I’m only at the beginning. Many surprises still await you. We will know that the biblical diagram of creation is the first cosmological diagram to which scientists must draw inspiration.

[Terry_Sampson]

@FLARIMI0701

Many surprises still await you.

Ha! Flavien, I’m 74 years old, I have rejected Einstein’s theory of special relativity since the 1980s and figured out how “to draw diagrams” in the first decade of the 21st century. I believe in the physical ressurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. I suspect that nothing that you could show me would surprise me; interest or please me? Yes. Surprise? No.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@Klax

There is no refusal in my understanding. I’m not asking you what I think. Are you asking me what you think?

Firstly, the earth wasn’t in the pre-big bang.

Secondly, your lack of awareness of the multiverse is not a matter of opinion. None of the nine types in four levels mention vacuum. And what do you understand by it?

See that you don’t understand me. I did say that the earth spoken of in the first day of Genesis is not our planet Earth. Here, the author has rather defined ‘the Universe’ by the terms “A shapeless and empty earth” (Louis Segond Version), “An Invisible and empty earth” (Septuagint Version). is not the planet earth which is visible and has a form.Here, we are in the Before big-bang where everything was played between energy and particles.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

In other words you are saying that the Earth, despite not being the heavens, is the cosmos. What energy and particles existed before the BB?

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

I’m telling you a little bit about the story because my first publication where I talked about the Universal Cosmological Model was deleted by the moderators believing that this model was a belief, but it’s a model like any other cosmological model, except that here spirituality is taken into consideration. I did not study philosophy, theology, or even cosmology. So, it is difficult for me to agree. Concordism can only be done by someone who has done one of the above studies. At the beginning, I had asked myself the question, why the biblical diagram of creation is not taken into account in cosmology. So, I first wanted to understand cosmology by diligent reading. After when I came back to the Bible, God opened my eyes and I began to understand what no one before had ever fully understood in this diagram. There, I am only in the first days that are already stirring the pan. When I get to the second day, I’m sure even the New York Times will talk about it if one of their reporters will read what I have to publish.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

no, I did not say that the Earth, although it is not the sky, is the cosmos. I said that in the first two verses of Genesis, the earth spoken of, with its definition of “an invisible and empty earth” represents the Universe. In the Pre-Big Bang period, there were no structures except energy and particles. This will be the subject of my next post. According to quantum mechanics, there were first virtual particles until we got to particles. Read “vacuum is creation of particles” in Google, you will understand.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

I understand just fine thank you very much. Virtual particles are not the precursor of particles. I like the way you deny what I say and then confirm it. I also like the way you are the ultimate and sole authority on the pre-BB, ignoring all others as if they didn’t exist. Which to you they don’t as you cannot read them. Humble yourself if you can. We can help once you stop putting up conditions, which is almost impossible I know. You need to get to back to C5th BCE Athens. A great starting point: Until you know that you know nothing, there is no knowing.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

@Klax

I understand just fine thank you very much. Virtual particles are not the precursor of particles. I like the way you deny what I say and then confirm it. I also like the way you are the ultimate and sole authority on the pre-BB, ignoring all others as if they didn’t exist. Which to you they don’t as you cannot read them. Humble yourself if you can. We can help once you stop putting up conditions, which is almost impossible I know. You need to get to back to C5th BCE Athens. A great starting point: Until you know that you know nothing, there is no knowing.

Are virtual particles the precursors of particles or not? No one has demonstrated this yet, but particles must also have a beginning. I know that several researchers have published on the pre-BB and my first publication is only from 2020. Before my publication, I had not researched whether there are people who have gone before me. I thought I was the only one because I know scientifically that this period was declared non-existent. It was only when I discovered that the Big-bang was biblical, that I knew that there should also be a Before Big-bang. And, it was always with the verses that I discovered the description of the sphere of the Before Big-bang which I started the explanations of the word “heaven and earth” contained in the first verse of Genesis I. Therefore, I have not based myself on the scientific works of people. Even Gabriele Veneziano, whom I often quote in my publications, I discovered him only after my first publication and I have appreciated his work very much, which now serves me as a proof.
If I consider myself “the ultimate and only authority on pre-BB, ignoring all others as if they did not exist”, it is because my literal description is more complete than anyone else’s. Moreover, it is not from me, but I am the first to discover that it is a sphere that has existed and that has been well described in the papyri through the first cosmological scheme which is the biblical scheme of creation. So, you accuse me of what I am doing only to restore.

[beaglelady]

@FLARIMI0701

When I get to the second day, I’m sure even the New York Times will talk about it if one of their reporters will read what I have to publish.

They say it’s “all the news that’s fit to print.”

@FLARIMI0701

If I consider myself “the ultimate and only authority on pre-BB, ignoring all others as if they did not exist”, it is because my literal description is more complete than anyone else’s

There’s a lot to be said for humility

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

Mate, you haven’t the faintest idea what you don’t know. You are close to the top of the first peak in the Dunning-Krueger twin peaks range, but you may have stopped climbing. Just an nth more. Come on. You can do it. We’ll be waiting for you the other side.

[beaglelady]

@Klax

You are close to the top of the first peak

What, pray tell, is the elevation? I fear someone is suffering from hypoxia.

[David_Lee]

@FLARIMI0701

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

Scripture (rendered as English): “In the beginning God created the heaven[s] and the earth.”

Your discussion point: “Here, the Bible presented the state of the Universe at its beginning.”

Are you assuming these are the same? The Bible talks about “the heavens and the earth” (in English translation/paraphrase). But your point is about modern astronomy’s “the Universe”. You are assuming they are the same. But that is to impose an assumption. This attempted “concordism”, even at this point, is a human-made, imposed assumption, isn’t it?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

My point exactly David. Which our man denies and then repeats. Only he can say it, we can’t. I don’t know what you call that. If we say he’s saying that, we’re wrong. But he can say it. That’s a new one on me, but feels familiar.

[FLARIMI0701 (FLAVIEN PHANZU)]

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
To make it coincide with modern cosmology is not a point imposed by man. The person who wrote this story knew what they were saying, except that their vocabulary was poor. I only restore in the real vocabulary and that answers scientifically to the observations. For example, as the term universe did not exist at that time, the person said “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was invisible and empty” (Septuagint Bible). This is to specify that it was not the planet that is not vague, has a form and is visible. Believers trust the messages contained in the Bible. Science has not brought anything to the Universe. It only analyzes it with a modern and rich literature and presents us the results. But whether in ancient times or now, the universe is always the same. And those who reasoned in ancient times came to the same conclusions as our scientists today, who use mathematics.