What is Biblical Cosmology? - Dr. Danny Faulkner (Conf Lecture)

okay developing a biblical cosmology first of all I need to answer the question what is cosmology it comes from two words Greek words cosmos meaning the world or the big picture of everything and logos literally meaning the word which we've kind of generalized to mean the study of so it's a study of the world or study of the universe now today we generally think of cosmology as being the big picture the structure of the universe as a whole but in the past people could argue more restricted forms of that for instance the geocentric model the idea that the earth is a center of everything that is a cosmology the heliocentric model that the Sun is the center of the solar system that too is a cosmology furthermore there is a related word caused called cosmogony and cosmogony is technically they study the history and the origin of the universe and much of what today is passed off as cosmology technically is cosmogony particularly I'm talking about the Big Bang model it's called the cosmology but technically it's a cosmology but I found things to cosmogony cause a cosmology many times but I'm not gonna argue the point anymore I'll just say it's a cosmology be done with it all right many Christians today accept the Big Bang and I disagree with that assessment for a number of reasons I may share some of those with you here now what is the Big Bang well it's the belief that the universe suddenly appeared 13.8 billion years ago when I say the universe I mean that the totality of everything and it's not just matter and energy that suddenly appeared it's the appearance suddenly of matter energy space and even time wrap your head around that space and time people sometimes will ask well what was here before the Big Bang well that's really an improper question because here kind of denotes that there was space and and before kind of denotes that there was time but neither one existed then so I used to tell my students that here wasn't here then and then wasn't then then either so it just it doesn't make any sense to ask that question but of course we're gonna ask that question anyway I'm sure but if you really understand the Big Bang model it is a sudden appearance of energy matters space and time all together coming into existence and so before the Big Bang as it were there was absolutely nothing and if I ask all of you to close your eyes get very Zen and think about nothingness most of you would probably think of empty space but I can't do that because space is a something so to have truly nothing you must have something less than nothing in that respect I know this sounds like double-talk and stuff but that's the kind of things we talk about in cosmology and these things it's it's really as mind-altering without any kind of side effects all right though it can be habit-forming okay the universe suddenly appears and then that appearance is of one where the universe is initially there much smaller than today and it's very hot and it's very dense and it's a type of gas but it's not kind of gas we're familiar with because the densities and temperatures are off the charts normal matter as we know it can't exist you maybe have quarks and stuff existing means you don't have protons and neutrons yet as it expands and by the way it starts off expanding that way I'm often wondered does it have to start off that way and I don't know the answer to that according to general relativity but everybody assumes that it starts off that way and of course as it expands it cools and as it cools it allows the quarks then to come together to form protons and neutrons that have been chilly they form atoms and and away you go and after a billions of years of expanding and cooling the universe we see today is the result of all of this now it's not without problems and problems I mean right here are the problems for Christians the very first question that comes up is the matter of time it started off 13.8 billion years ago and I don't believe scripture allows for that kind of time to have existed in the past also you have other issues coming up stars existing before the earth the earth appears really very early on in the creation account but stars are johnny-come-lately on on day four so the earth is at least a few days older than the stars are but according to the Big Bang stars begin to form within a billion years after the Big Bang and that means that there were stars forming for more than eight almost nine billion years before the earth even showed up that's the problem biblically and there are other problems as well and there's difficulties along the line here so I reject this approach of saying this some people want to read Genesis 1:1 to say in the beginning 13.8 billion years ago God created the heavens than the earth with a big bang that's the way they try to read Genesis 1:1 which is of course ruling all over the text big time so I would like if I reject the Big Bang you may ask me well what kind of cosmology do you have and for many years I didn't have one but today I'm happy to report that I now sort of have a cosmology developing I couldn't be more happy about that let's examine the biblical evidence to see what I'm talking about ok Genesis 1:1 gets started in the very first verse says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and that seems I think I'm quoting from the ESV here and that seems pretty straightforward sort of statement what does it mean that God created the heavens in the earth well many creationists myself included for many years thought that the creation of the heavens they're referred to space itself space and time so you have space and time being mentioned very first here with the earth being created and then you go on from there tuck that away for future reference than this talk alright then we come today to and God made this thing that's in the in the in the King James is firmament and a lot of modern translations it's expanse and I understand in the Hebrew the word is yeah it's that okay there okay don't we've got to hit braced in the audience and I'm always intimidated that I'm gonna mispronounce these words so I hope you'll be kind to me here I'll try to much as I can when I say rocky I love that word though I know it's not rocky I so I'll refrain from saying it that way so that's what you have on day two alright tuck that away for future reference more specifically let's look at Genesis 1 6 through 8 the entirety of the the the day to account and I will go ahead and read it in English as it appears in the ESV and he says there and those three verses and God said let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate the waters from the waters and God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse and it was so and God called the expanse heaven and there was evening and there was morning the second day alright whenever you see the word expanse there realized in the King James it's gonna say firmament and also when it's in the Hebrew it's gonna say rakia at that point so the words used several times there in the day to account and its entirety now notice also that in verse eight he says that it says that God called the expanse heaven the Hebrew word there is Shem ayam and it's Itzik waiting those two whatever this expanse of rakia is that he made on on day two God calls it explicitly heaven at that point makes an equation between rakia and she Mayim on that day - that's important note a few things then number one all I've talked about so far is day one and day two this thing that God made on day two is separated the waters and I read this in the King James when I started getting into science and creation science back in high school many years ago I read through this several times trying to make sense and I read the firmament the King James it's all I had at the time and I looked at and I thought what is this thing that really baffled me and bothered me and its purpose seemed to be separating waters not make sense because well we have separation of waters on the surface of the earth but hold on a minute number number one that separation horizontally comes to Ray on day three not on day two talks about vertical number two a vertical separation of waters above and waters below so whatever this thing is that he makes on day two there's water up above it apparently water below it so if you want to figure out what this this rakia is on day two you're going to have to deal with the issue of what the waters above if you decide what the waters above are before deciding what the rakia is it will dictate what that rakia is Monat on the other hand if you identify here first it will then identify what the waters above are and I think too many people have tried to identify the waters first and then try to use that to figure out what that expanse was I think that's looking at it all wrong I think the expanse is mentioned first maybe I ought to start with it also note I'm dealing with days 1 & 2 here I haven't talked about day 4 and that's when the stars came in so water of this thing is the stars aren't involved yet in fact none of the astronomical bodies are involved yet they don't come around until day four three days after this or two days after this excuse me also notice that the very first verse says that God in the beginning created the heavens and the earth and then in verse eight it says after he makes this expanse god called this expanse heaven and that seems to put us in the curious position of God creating heaven twice God if you think he made it on day verse one then he made it again on day day two and that bothered me I thought wait a minute God I don't think he made this thing twice I think he made it once whatever it is and that's problematic for me here okay the Greek word I'm too big where the the English word in the King James firmament again it comes from that word rakia and it occurs 17 times in the Old Testament that's not a lot of occurrences but many times with words if you not sure what it means in one passage it helps to go to other passages and see how it's used in those other passages and that'll help you out that's good except over half of the occurrences 9 of them occur in Genesis 1 alone and I think it's talking about the same thing each time it does so obviously over half the occurrences are not available to you because if you don't know what it is in verses 6 7 & 8 you probably don't know what it is when it's mentioned elsewhere in that first chapter well you couldn't go to the other eight occurrences but someone are problematic then the Psalms I think it's talking about the same thing here once and Daniel not so sure it is talking about it when you get to Ezekiel however I'm thoroughly convinced it's talking about something totally different I don't know about you but I'm really uncomfortable trying to go to the Psalms to try to figure out something means I think it's bad form just build up teaching based almost entirely upon what comes out of the Psalms are good for a amplification and in reinforcement it's not so good for deducing what the meaning is many times you got to be very careful about that okay kind of striking out on this one as far as help is concerned but heaven is a different story that Hebrew word there's Shem maíam and it occurs four hundred and twenty times in the Old Testament and most of those three hundred ninety-eight in the King James at least it's translated heaven or heavens notice it's singular or plural well which one is it well if you know anything at all about Hebrew and I don't know that much but I do know people who do know Hebrew and I listen to them a lot that I am ending on the back of Shem ayam tells you it's a plural word okay that's good except there is no singular form for it that's kind of odd but then we have a few words in English so like that dieter for instance you can have one deer you could have two or more deer right and that's nice you can usually figure out how many deer you're talking about it's either plural or singular how do you do that well the world words around it the articles you choose like you say that deer or a deer it's pretty clear lettuce one if you say the deer it may refer to probably a bunch of them even better if it's got a number attached to it like I shot two deer deer then you know it's to a two or more if it's the subject of a sentence it really helps you know the deer did whatever you can use the plural or singular form and that will help you quite a bit on figuring that that out which which is meant here but unfortunately the word shamaya only occurs as a subject of sentence a couple of times it's the object a lot and so the verb doesn't help it too much here but those couple occurrences when it does it really really helps you out at that point it turns out in the day the Genesis one it occurs in the objective objective not the subjective sense so it's of no help and then in in Hebrew it doesn't matter in English it does and if you look at the very first verse sometimes some passage that some bye will say heaven singular some say heavens plural which one's right I don't know Kate comes down as simple as that not a lot of help here yet then you go to the day for account and that's what it starts appearing again it says in verse 14 just a part of the phrase there's talking about God creating these lights and the luminaries in the heavens he says let there be lights in the expanse of the heaven or if you will there rakia of the of the shamaya so it's telling us he's gonna put these lights in this thing and it puts expanse of heaven or rocky of shamaya mcgann why is it put together that way those two words with a preposition in between I think it's reinforcing the idea that whatever this is it's talking about the same thing he made on day two I think that's the significant significance of that but it's even better than that it repeats it in verse 15 there location again is in that expansive happens the same exact construct that appeared in verse 14 and we're not done yet because in verse 17 it uses the same thing God set them in the expanse of the heavens no when he says it three times maybe it's for emphasis I don't know but that seems to get my attention and again I think the fact that he puts shamaya manner and and here together and I think it's suggesting very strongly that lest there be any doubt it's talking about the same thing that was being talked about in the day to account and notice the context here is telling you that's where the stars are what's with a heavenly body as a Sun in the moon so whatever this thing is it's where the heavenly bodies or the astronomical bodies seem to be put and that's very important I think now it's that same phrases mentioned another time in the day five account talking about the birds and it says there in verse 20 of chapter one and God said let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures and let birds fly across the earth across the expanse of the heavens and again you see that that same terminology expanse of the heavens or Rocky the shamaya and people say what's talking about the exact same thing okay so well this is that's where the birds are but hold on a minute I've put in bold there the entire context not only do you have the expense of the heavens but you also have this word across in the ESV it didn't appear in the the day for account at all I think James crop of heavens and indeed you find it expressed different ways than different versions now again I'm no Hebrew scholar not even a Hebrew student but I've talked to people and it turns out this I understand is a little difficult to translate in just one or two words it takes a bit more fleshing in on that but as I understand this you've got this rakia sitting there where the heavenly bodies are and the actual thing that's getting across is the birds are flying across this near side of it or the face of this side of it it's got some depth to it but they're not very far into it they're just kind of on this nearest edge of this thing that's what's trying to get across with this unusual sort of difficulty it translates succinctly wording at this point so there's a relationship between where the birds are but there's also - where the heavenly bodies are but it's not exactly an equation of the same thing suggesting to me that perhaps where the birds are and where the heavenly bodies are are not exactly the same thing they're closely related but not exactly the same thing now Psalm 19:1 is one of the cleanest places where it's mentioned I've got it here in the ESV and I don't like this particular one because they changed the word or he instead of having an expanse they have it as sky which is by the way not a bad translation but it's not consistent with what I see elsewhere but all maybe what I'll do is I'll just try to quote it - substituting in the King James words the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament above proclaims this handiwork notice that with word have bold-faced in them and each one of those I've got the pointer here I both faced the heavens there that is the word what anybody remember show maíam and this word here is rakia now notice this is from the Psalms which is poetry and there are certain elements of ancient Hebrew poetry very unlike modern English poetry I should say English poetry we work off of meter and rhyme and all these kinds of things but that's not really showing up at least not in the English translations of ancient ancient Hebrew poetry they they work off of parallels and contrasts you find these a lot in the Proverbs for instance the wise man does this but the foolish man the fool does that or you would say it that's a that's a contrast you say it positively say it negatively kind of the opposite sometimes you end up with parallel structures you know you do this and you do that it's the same thing being said just saying in different ways I would submit to you that's what we have here we have a parallelism and between these two phrases making up this single verse the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork it's saying the same thing isn't it more or less just saying it differently ah but that parallel structure only works if there's an equation between the SHA maíam and the rakia that parallels parallelism only works if these are the same entities being talked about there now this reinforces what I've deduced from chapter 1 of Genesis because in verse 8 God explicitly equates the heavens with the rakia and so that reinforces that idea very nicely furthermore if you go into Psalm 19 you will find in verses 4 and so there's equation of the two you get up the first is 4 through 6 and this clearly places a Sun one of the heavenly bodies one of the luminaries God made on day 4 clearly places it in this thing it's talking about it introduces this rakia this this shamaya and then it goes on in verses 4 through 6 talks about the Sun the tabernacle for the Sun moving a circuit and it's clearly in that same place having said all that then I can reach a conclusion at least about the rakia I believe I believe that rakia or the expanse is where the astronomical bodies are now as you gonna find out in a moment here that's it was a radical departure from me and I'll go over where that where I came from and how I got here just a little bit now this whole idea of what this ident of the rakia is has been bungled quite a bit for millennia and for centuries and it's mainly had some bad consequences all the way around we can go back and blame the reeks for these things you have here a model of what the Greeks thought the world was like this is a model they have my labs back at the University when I taught it before I left I took a photograph of all these things inside the lab you've got this little globe inside that represents the earth you see South America right there and then a much larger globe outside it's made out of hard plastic you got little yellow dots everywhere those little yellow dots represent stars the little blue outlines represent the location the outlines of constellations you got other thing got the Sun up here in the moon you can move you've got a dial to move things around or horizon play and all that kind of stuff and this is really quite a bit like the model the ancient Greeks had they thought that the world was surrounded by this big sphere we call today the celestial sphere it was clear and it was hard and had the Stars impregnated in it does anybody believe this model today I don't think there's a single person alive who does but 2,000 years ago they certainly did in the Greek world so if nobody believes this why do I have this in my lab I used it in my instructions that I gave an astronomy I'm taking my class several times and I'm showing them things I used it had two labs I wrote for my students to do a little little love demonstrations with these things in the lab why did I use a such a horribly flawed false model in my teaching and in my labs well because it's useful and we kind of pretend it works and we still actually use terminology with this like astronomers regularly talk about moon rise moon set sunrise sunset that's definitely following this kind of model but none of us believe it so that's just the schizoid world we live in it doesn't bother me it shouldn't bother you at all nobody teaches us as truth today but in the past people did and the Hebrews usually the Greeks had a word for this they call it a stereo MA and a stereo ma is something that's hard and it's transparent and it's firm and the the word appears the New Testament I think in Galatians it talks about being steadfast at the word stereo ma is the word actually use there well when the the septuagint translators got to the the word rakia there in the third century so BC in Alexandra they weren't steeped in Greek learning and culture they they saw that and they said AHA this is that thing God made because the stars you see are in it and God made this this stereo ma on day two and he filled it with stars on day four so let's translate rakia as stereo ma a few centuries later Jerome he's living in the same world now more Roman I guess but they still have Greek cosmology he has no problem with this cosmology and he doesn't want to go back and try to rethink the rakia so he comes up with the translation as firmament tomb in Latin which then gets transliterated into English and early English translations as firmament and that's where it comes from and I have to read firmament I'm thinking of something hard like this it's exactly what the Greeks would have said but by the 20th century nobody believed that anymore so you've got an attempt here by the Septuagint translators 23 centuries ago to read into the text of Genesis the cosmology of their day that sound familiar yeah people today trying to repeat the same mistake with the with the Big Bang model aren't they and we after 23 centuries we're still living with the effects of that bad mistake gotta tell us something about the Big Bang shouldn't it and this got morphed even more this is a famous Flammarion engraving and this supposedly represents what the cosmology of the ancient world was the cosmology of the Bible you have the Old Testament you have the Flat Earth sitting here and you get a dome with stars in it and the Sun and the moon and some intrepid explorers come over here and actually poke this hole on the edge of the earth and he's looking out beyond but times all the gears behind all of this and of course that represents the ancient cosmology and the medieval cosmology and aren't you thankful that due to the effect of the Enlightenment so-called we got away from this this sort of thing and of course this is a very ancient engraving it was only back the Flammarion x' book published in 1888 this was part of the hatchet job that the so-called Enlightenment did on the world they had to run down the Middle Ages and call it the Dark Ages and everything I am the opinion that the the VIII and so-called Enlightenment was the third greatest disaster to strike humanity and I got a three-point sermon a sermon outline with alliteration here the three great disasters knowing where the enlightenment came from you've got the fall the flood in France all right so that's your three-part outline for free that you can take and use all that you want here this is nonsense this has never never taught by the church it was never believed by the ancient Hebrews as nerds that well it was by some of them it was never the cosmology the Bible people try to interpret the Bible in terms of that and as a whole talk I can give on that but no time for that today so we've had a lot of wrong ideas about this rakia going back at least to the 3rd century BC trying to incorporate the cosmology of the day and it's just been a disaster after disaster we talked about the Ptolemaic model and all sorts of other things and the problems it gave us but then in the twentieth century we find people trying to correct this and trying to trying to fix this and so the 20th century a new approach was unleashed and I don't know if it's original the 20th century in fact the person who popularized it was Henry Morris and he didn't actually even originate it but he did popularize it and he took the opinion that the heavens of day one was the creation of the space of the universe MIT says in the beginning God created heaven in the earth he says right there the earth is created and space as we know it was created and by the way the word space is of modern origin it's not an old term it's a fairly recent term I'm not sure how far back it goes but certainly in the last few centuries so but Henry Moore said that the heavens of day one is the creation of space as we know it and I too held that opinion for quite a while well if space is created on day one and spaces where astronomical bodies would be and I just argued a few moments ago that that I believe the thing made on day two the rock he is a location of heavenly bodies that would make the rock here on day two space would it not in our modern parlance so how did Henry Morris handle day two well he said the expanse of day two is the Earth's atmosphere now let's go a little bit of ancient Greek cosmology once again they kind of divided things up you had the first heaven which was the atmosphere of the earth where the birds flew where the clouds were in the rain was you had the second heaven the astronomical Evan and you have the third heaven they abode of God above that and many people think that that's the biblical cosmology but the only allusion to that dichotomy are trichotomy of heavens is found once in the New Testament where the Apostle Paul spoke about being up in the third heaven at one point now does that mean then that that's God's cosmology or the Bible cosmology or the Bible well no Paul was an educated man he was a Jew Jew of the Jews but at the same time he also was a Roman citizen I think he was educated probably in Greek thinking and he was probably expressing what he had gone through which is hard to describe in terms of what he and his readers and listeners would have probably understood and so he used a Greek concept not necessarily endorsing it that happens a lot in the New Testament with people mentioning things without necessarily endorsing those things so you got to be careful people say oh ha this is the cosmology of the Bible I don't think it necessarily is it might be but it's don't be too dogmatic about that point so what Henry Morris said was well there are two other heavens the atmospheric and the astronomical so let's listen to do it this way day one is astronomical heaven day two is the Earth's atmosphere now right away a problem arises there because he would argue remember I talked about the difference between a day five in a day four account and this construction they are about expanse of the other heaven there and a firmament of heaven and it seems to me he kind of flipped this completely around he was trying to take the the the the across the face of or the open firm of heaven of day five and making that sound like that was what was made on day two and the stars merely appeared to be in in the the that heaven event they really aren't and I think really he got it completely backwards I think it's the birds that appear to be there and the stars are actually there they asked I'm good body so you get something backwards from what I think there's the proper approach to him now why did he do that well I think it was to help support the canopy model again he did not originate it but he certainly popularized it and it made most of us believe in it for a number of years oh the canopy model is this idea that there was water surrounding in some form surrounding the earth it says vapor here but I think you'd have to be really believed it had to be water if this is the case and this water canopy above the Earth's atmosphere you see if the thing I'm a non-date to is your established fear then you have to believe there was water above that atmosphere and supposedly it blocked out a lot of harmful radiation coming into the earth allowing us to see things nevertheless and it supposedly explained a host of different things like the fact that there was no rain before the flood no rainbows before the flood and people lived to be great ages and this harmful radiation was blocked down well hold on a minute does the Bible really say it didn't rain before the flood not really does the Bible say there were no rainbows before the flood not really and as far as longevity well we don't know why that happened exactly that's one's possible suggestion but there are other reasons in fact divine intervention could be one of the better reasons for this I think maybe the canopy model was trying to explain way too much but he said the pre-flood world was very different and this respect beyond others before the flood this thing collapsed at the time of the flood and it helped to provide one of the two sources of precipitous of heaven being open was this canopy collapsing and then the other thing was the Fountains of the great deep ocean basins or other subterranean water coming up well there's other problems with this I could mention like for instance I believe it's Psalm 148 says praise the waters of crazy water above the heavens now Psalm 148 we don't know who wrote it but it almost certainly was post flood and yet he's talking there as if those waters were still there but if they precipitated during the flood they couldn't possibly still be there so if they were there in the psalmist day I think the waters may still be there as well well this whole idea of the vapor Cantor or the water canopy is largely rejected now for a number of reasons some of the ones I've just mentioned as among others so my question is if we reject the canopy shouldn't we go back and reevaluate the cosmology about which the canopy stood and apparently nobody has done that at least they haven't committed the print that I'm aware of so that well it's amazing we that really can be but we still keep thinking in terms of the cosmology up on which the canopy quite literally in some respects rested so straightforward of Genesis one I straightforward reading I think of Genesis one is probably that this rock here the expanse the firmament is space and maybe by extension would include the inter inter part of that which would be at least part of the atmosphere turns out this dichotomy between the atmosphere and space we used to call outer space by the way don't say outer spudge it much anymore like we did in the sixties but this dichotomy is fairly modern furthermore it's a little fuzzy even today where does the atmosphere end and space begin well I'm aware of at least two definitions one is at a height of 50 miles I understand if if somebody from the United States acquires the altitude at least 50 miles like it's some x-15 pilots did they are astronauts another standard is 100 kilometres which is 62 miles you see the atmosphere just doesn't shut off at one point the atmosphere thins out and thins out and thins out and right now I think we can clearly say we're in the atmosphere the space station is clearly not but where in between does is the interface where one ends and one begins and there is no clear statement of that and so if there's no clear statement of that it's arbitrary then I'm not sure what part of the atmosphere part of it or all of it is part of that rakia I have no problem with it all being that the atmosphere and space as well and if we take what I want to deduced here that space is largely what the rock here is it leads me to three startling conclusions and this is just blows my socks off when I finally got my head wrapped around this a couple years ago first of all it suggests that the universe has an edge to it and that's anathema to modern cosmology the universe cannot have an edge now there's nothing wrong with there having edged other the fact that nobody likes it for that reason I think there are a number of philosophical biases against it once you get past that then it's pretty easy to having that but when I suggest that the fellow astronomers they look at me like what are you out of your mind but I think biblically it says it has an edge because it goes out there and it talks about this water separation and it better have a finite edge to it someplace if you're gonna have that water at that edge on there which brings me to another point this thing was kind of expanded outward from the earth and so that would suggest if it grow goes out somewhat symmetrically doesn't have to be but if it is then that suggests that the universe probably has a center to it particular has an edge to it it probably has a center and again that's anathema to modern cosmology furthermore if that thing was expanded outward somewhat symmetrically from the earth not only is there a center but the earth is somewhere near the center now it's not required that it be but I think that's kind of an implication that I'm getting and that's really Anathem because you see not only does in modern cosmological terms does the or the universe not have a center but even if it did as vast as universe is what's the probability we would be anywhere near the center vanishingly small and so the atheistic mind or the materialistic naturalistic mind is going to resist this so their dying breath I'm certainly convinced to this but this is the implication that I'm taking away from Scripture at this point and then this is probably one of the wildest ones not only is there an edge not only somewhere near the center but at the edge there is water now some people may say well if it's out there it's low pressure and it's low temperature that can't possibly be water it must have gone through a phase transition so now that it's ice or that it's gas and that's okay physically that might be the case but you know there's a problem if the universe has an edge to it I think physics is kind of off the table at that point and I don't know what kind of physical conditions would prevail at that point furthermore the word maíam which means water means liquid water and we do the same thing today if I say water to you you're probably not gonna think ice if I say water you probably not gonna think steam and we recognize at some level that that that that isn't just a different form of water but we have different words for those different forms don't we and that's idea that it's just simply a solid water or gaseous water that's a fairly modern concept furthermore I understand that the ancient Hebrews had a couple of words if you meant ice you could say use that word if you meant steam you could use that word they didn't they use the word maíam which suggests that it's liquid water well that's really mind-blowing as well but water is also a made of normal matter we technically would say baryonic matter which just means protons neutrons electrons normal matter as it were and I would think by the third law of thermodynamics its temperature problem didn't know there's a third law did you the third law of thermodynamics would require I believe that the temperature be above absolute zero I don't think it can be absolute zero well there's a general understanding of physics out there if you have baryonic matter this is where my science is finally kicking in the physics is finally kicking in if you have very onic matter that's above absolute zero it must radiate it must radiate now since this is on the edge of the universe I'm gonna expect that this radiation is going to be turned inward it's gonna be radiating inward to the toward the inner supports parts of the universe and so I would expect the radiation from this water layer out there would manifest itself as uniform radiation coming from all directions in space every direction you look you're gonna see water and so you're gonna see radiation coming from that water now I also accept from astronomy observational astronomy that there's a thing called the hubble relation and that means the farther away something is it's it's spectrum is redshifted more and more and more shifted towards longer wavelengths now the most direct interpretation of that the simple interpretation most obvious interpretation is that the universe is expanding and as a creationist I'm another problem with the universe expanding some of my creation brethren do I don't care they do accept the fact that the Hubble relation works and so there should be increasing redshift of greater distance if you want to explain it some other way and go at it has no bearing upon this that means that the radiation that this thing gives off would be red shifted towards longer wavelengths now objects like this if it's in the liquid form if there's any appreciable depth to it I'm gonna expect to give off a particular type of spectrum and that particular spike type of spectrum we call a black body spectrum a black body spectrum so the prediction is based upon this biblical model I'm trying to develop here is that we should have radiation from water in every direction in space it has a certain characteristic blackbody curve it's gonna have a certain temperature associated with it because it's been red shifted by whatever's going on in the universe then it should be at a fairly low temperature so the prediction is from my for my proposal here that we should have this uniform radiation field of low temperature coming from every direction in space some of you are already figured out where I'm going with this because that's exactly what we see we call this the Cosmic Microwave Background this is a map of this I think from the I think this is from the plunk experiment I believe we've done it three times now from spacecraft always I can always get the W map and the plunk confused when I see the plot of it this is the entire sky that we have basically like the globe of the earth the equators running through here and the poles are up here so you've seen the whole sky in there and these little red and blue regions represent temperature variations and the background radiation would have been much subjective discussion for the past 30 years or so because you see back in 1948 one of the proponents of the Big Bang Theory suggested that in their model there was a period of time in the universe was very hot and we should be able to see the radiation field from it and they weren't able to detect that for another 15 years but they finally did in the early 60s and in 1965 mr. paper where they said the universe is filled with this microwave radiation they caught that because it's in the microwave part of the spectrum and consequently this was taken as proof of the Big Bang and this is the primary reason why the Big Bang cosmology has been the only game in town for a half-century by the way it's the only evidence for the big bang there's a prediction they did experiment it came out sometimes people will try to snow you by getting a whole list of proofs of the Big Bang or evidences for it there aren't any those are made up this is the only well only one they have and I must I have to confess to you I'm impressed with it and when people will ask me you don't believe in the Big Bang well how do you explain to C and B and for much of the time I'd have to say I don't know well now I have an explanation and when you have loved it if maybe 75 years ago somebody would have taken Genesis 2 very seriously because if they had they might have been able to with combining what little physics you need to add to it towards the end to predict that there should be a Cosmic Microwave Background and we could have predicted that somebody could have predicted it before it was discovered I was just a little kid at the time so I can't be taken was accountable for this but somebody could have figured this out from Genesis and other Scriptures alone sad that they did not ok can we build upon this I think we can there are some features on here that show up I want to point out two of them this is a big bright bar running Christ right there that's called the axis of evil if you don't believe me Google that it will come up once you get past the axis of evil the first president Bush you'll get to the cosmic axis of evil and they don't know what this is what Carleen call they can explain other things but they can't explain that one that's a weird one can we explain that well I don't know maybe we can and by the way this this axis of evil is lined up with the Earth's orbit Earth's orbit around the Sun it's close to the ecliptic that's weird and that has to be coincidence you would think but maybe not also there's a little cold spot that's the big cold spot right there that's called the great the big cold spot down there and nobody knows what that is either so we got couple of features on the that you don't talk about it too much we have two features on the c and b that maybe we can explain furthermore if this is a mission from liquid water i would expect that there would be a couple of a mission or absorbs some absorption features or mission features depending on the conditions and those might be at the long wavelength into this thing where nobody's looking there might be some actual spectral features but nobody looks at that part of the spectrum won't have to kind of tweak this model and maybe quantify it just a little bit and make a prediction about what kind of spectral features so there's a possibility here of explanatory power of explaining these two oddities and there's also the possibility of predictive power of what might lie in the spectrum of this thing this model i'm suggesting is in its infancy and it needs more work and I probably need help for more work I would like to direct my final words here to people in the room or people watching if you're a young person you have you love the Lord you're looking for guidance in your life what you should do with it and you have aptitude and interest in science I would suggest that you consider the possibility prayerfully consider entering Sciences your field I made that decision as a sophomore in high school and to be an astronomer for God's glory and that's what I've been doing ever since then in preparation and now in work and it's been a wonderful career I highly recommend it and I'm looking for replacement people so maybe you could take this and and build on it and do something else with it well thank you very much [Applause]

Channel: Is Genesis History?

Views: 30,487

Rating: 4.596899 out of 5

Keywords: creation, creationism, bible, genesis, science, stars, space, astronomy

Id: UfgqV_6XxAE

Length: 44min 17sec (2657 seconds)

Published: Thu Nov 16 2017