The origin of the Universe: harmony between science and faith

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.

I am well aware of the history of the LXX.

Prove it.

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

Modern translators are well aware of modern cosmology.

1 Like

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

Firstly, the earth wasnā€™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?

I did not say that the Septuagint was definitive. When I researched the meaning of ā€œThe earth was formless and emptyā€ (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 ā€œin the beginning the earth was invisibleā€ (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 ā€œinvisibleā€ comes from the Bible and not from me.

You are right to say that ā€œthe vacuum I am trying to describe is in contradiction with Einsteinā€™s theory of special relativityā€. 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 Einsteinā€™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 taleā€¦ 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, thatā€™s the day weā€™ll start talking about this scheme again.

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.

I say that even without referring to the Septuagint translation which says ā€œin the beginning the earth was invisible and emptyā€, 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.

until then, Iā€™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.

Ha! Flavien, Iā€™m 74 years old, I have rejected Einsteinā€™s theory of special relativity since the 1980s and figured out how ā€œto draw diagramsā€ 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.

1 Like

See that you donā€™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 ā€˜the Universeā€™ by the terms ā€œA shapeless and empty earthā€ (Louis Segond Version), ā€œAn Invisible and empty earthā€ (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.

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?

Iā€™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 itā€™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, Iā€™m sure even the New York Times will talk about it if one of their reporters will read what I have to publish.

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 ā€œan invisible and empty earthā€ 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 ā€œvacuum is creation of particlesā€ in Google, you will understand.

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 didnā€™t exist. Which to you they donā€™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.

1 Like

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 ā€œheaven and earthā€ 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 ā€œthe ultimate and only authority on pre-BB, ignoring all others as if they did not existā€, it is because my literal description is more complete than anyone elseā€™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.

They say itā€™s ā€œall the news thatā€™s fit to print.ā€

Thereā€™s a lot to be said for humility

2 Likes

Mate, you havenā€™t the faintest idea what you donā€™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. Weā€™ll be waiting for you the other side.

2 Likes

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

1 Like

Scripture (rendered as English): ā€œIn the beginning God created the heaven[s] and the earth.ā€

Your discussion point: ā€œHere, the Bible presented the state of the Universe at its beginning.ā€

Are you assuming these are the same? The Bible talks about ā€œthe heavens and the earthā€ (in English translation/paraphrase). But your point is about modern astronomyā€™s ā€œthe Universeā€. You are assuming they are the same. But that is to impose an assumption. This attempted ā€œconcordismā€, even at this point, is a human-made, imposed assumption, isnā€™t it?

2 Likes

My point exactly David. Which our man denies and then repeats. Only he can say it, we canā€™t. I donā€™t know what you call that. If we say heā€™s saying that, weā€™re wrong. But he can say it. Thatā€™s a new one on me, but feels familiar.

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 ā€œIn the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, but the earth was invisible and emptyā€ (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.