A Concordist Rossian View

[DaleCutler]

A Small Big Universe

[DaleCutler]

@Mercer

Then you tried to dismiss John Harshman’s perfectly literal reading of Young’s Literal Translation as “simplistic,” which is a clear admission that you reject true literalism when convenient.

Are these conclusions correct?

No, they’re simplistic.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@DaleCutler

And that anular range isn’t useful to science, I presume you are implying.

I’m implying nothing of the sort.

[DaleCutler]

@Mercer

And that anular range isn’t useful to science, I presume you are implying.

I’m implying nothing of the sort.

Then your argument evaporates, because if it’s useful to science, fine-tuning is unscathed.

[John_Harshman]

You have presented evidence that some scientists have become Christians because of the big bang. However, Sandage’s story doesn’t say why he converted, Kinson is a pseudonym, so we don’t even know if he’s a scientist, and the page says nothing about why he became a Christian either. But I’ll give you Ross and Salviander. More importantly, two or even four names are not what I would call “numbers”.

[John_Harshman]

@DaleCutler

In the case of Christians, it is about accepting the testimony of the Author

What testimony? How do you know that it’s God’s testimony?

@DaleCutler

and that acceptance is not arbitrary and without reason and support

Then you should be able to offer reason and support. Go ahead.

@DaleCutler

In your case, all you have is the testimony of your senses and how your brain has evolved to process the signals sent to it, and it has nothing to do with truth.

Isn’t that all you have too?

@DaleCutler

Just because I gave you a condensed statement does not mean that it was less than coherent.

Agreed. It’s the fact that it’s incoherent, not that it’s condensed, that leads me to believe it’s incoherent.

@DaleCutler

That was the way your brain wrongly processed the evidence of the condensed statement.

What was the evidence of the condensed statement? What was it trying to say?

@DaleCutler

Another example of testimony is the testimony of big bang cosmology.

What do you mean “another”? Where’s the first?

@DaleCutler

It is good evidence for a beginning and the Beginner.

Sorry, but it’s only evidence for a beginning.

@DaleCutler

We can lie to ourselves…

You seem to be accusing a lot of people of lying to themselves. But you will need a stronger argument if you want to assert that.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@DaleCutler

…if it’s useful to science, fine-tuning is unscathed.

Huh? Walk me through that, please, graciously. I implied nothing either way.

[DaleCutler]

@Mercer

It’s a range, and that fact significantly weakens the fine-tuning inference.

@Mercer

…if it’s useful to science, fine-tuning is unscathed.

Huh? Walk me through that, please, graciously. I implied nothing either way .

If science can learn more about stellar physics, say (since you are definitely “implying nothing of the sort”, that it is not useful to science), because of annularity, and thus learn more about how the universe works (the universe that we can see so much of from our finely-tuned position in it), how does the fact that “It’s a range… significantly [weaken] the fine-tuning inference”?

Even if the annularity of eclipses does not so add to scientific knowledge, why would a secular astronomer say anything like that total eclipses are “magic”?! It has to do with the amazing fact that the size of the disc of our moon can produce a total exclipse, and relatively frequently! How again does a range of annularity weaken the fine-tuning argument?!

[DaleCutler]

@John_Harshman

DaleCutler:

It is good evidence for a beginning and the Beginner.

Sorry, but it’s only evidence for a beginning.

More than that! It is evidence that leads to a reasonable inference that something outside of our spacetime exists. What might that be? Combined with plenty of other evidence… think, “Ockham’s razor.”

“Appeals to imagined forces and phenomena have been the basis for all the cosmological models proposed to avoid the big bang implications about God. The disproof of these models and the ongoing appeal by nontheists to more and more bizarre unknowns and unknowables seem to reflect the growing strength of the case for theism.”

A quote from The Creator and the Cosmos

Atheist Accepts Multiverse Theory Of Every Possible Universe Except Biblical One

[DaleCutler]

@AllenWitmerMiller

Can you please identify the specific Hebrew scholars Ross consulted in making those specific claims? And are you certain that Ross correctly reflects their scholarship? (Also, did he consult Old Testament professors he happened to know or did he consult scholars who specialize in Hebrew lexicography?)

Ken Ham has consulted with scientists and other scholars (primarily on his own Answers in Genesis staff.) Does that make Ham’s claims immune to challenge? If not, why would Ham be subject to challenge but not Ross?

Also, can you explain why Ross’ many years of claiming that the Biblical text recognizes (and thereby predicted the future discovery of) cosmic inflation has not resonated among leading Hebrew lexicographers?

Also, can you cite any peer-reviewed literature where this claim of NATEH describing cosmic inflation has been well received by the Classical Hebrew academy?

The following are from a Facebook OEC group in response to your list of questions – they don’t answer them all, and I haven’t sorted or parsed them…

Interesting:
//5. Moses Nachmanides, a 13th century Kabbalist Rabbi, wrote: There’s only one physical creation, and that creation was a tiny speck….As this speck expanded out, this substance—so thin it has no essence—turned into matter as we know it… (Web Article Entitled: “The Age of the Universe”. (Issues - Age of the universe - Aish Hatorah), pp.12, 13.) https://sites.google.com/site/oldshepherd1935/kabbalistcosmologicalwisdom //

//I’m not sure about that specific topic, but besides Archer and Kaiser, I know Dr. Ross has referenced scholars such as Bruce Waltke, C. John Collins, Thomas E. McComiskey, Rodney Whitefield, David Tsumura, and he often references such works as the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT).//

//Here is an article, which first appeared in the pages of “Facts for Faith” (2000), former magazine put out by Reasons to Believe: http://old.reasons.org/articles/big-bang---the-bible-taught-it-first

Why co-author Dr. John Rea’s bio isn’t included here is unknown. Here it is, from the original article:
Dr. John Rea, a specialist in Old Testament languages and archeology, is Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Regent University College of Theology and Ministry, Virginia Beach, Virginia. He earned a Th.D. from Grace Theological Seminary in Winoma Lake, Indiana, and was manuscript editor for the two-volume Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia.//

//Kathleen Ross: from Hugh –There is a difference between cosmic inflation and cosmic expansion. Cosmic inflation refers to the symmetry breaking that occurred when the universe was about 10^-35 seconds old. For a time period that lasted less than 10^-32 seconds the universe hyper-inflated, expanding at a rate that was many, many times the velocity of light. Cosmic expansion refers to the general expansion of the universe that has proceeded at an approximately constant rate throughout the 13.8-billion-year history of the universe. During my first reading of the Bible I noticed that nearly a dozen different Bible texts spoke of the “stretching out” of the heavens in a manner that was consistent with the cosmic expansion that is a fundamental feature of big bang cosmology. I also noted that the Bible declared other fundamental features of Big Bang cosmology, for example, a spacetime beginning, constant laws of physics, and a ubiquitous and pervasive law of decay. However, not being fluent in biblical Hebrew, I did not put any of my observations into print. In 1999, Old Testament theologian Dr. John Rea assured me that my observations were biblically sound and encouraged me to put them in print. In 2000, he co-authored an article with me that was published in our Facts for Faith magazine. That article also appears with minor edits in my book, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition, chapter 3 and in my book, A Matter of Days, 2nd edition, chapter 13. The analysis of the Hebrew words and grammar that appear in the article are Dr. Rea’s, not mine. Dr. Rea and I are far from alone in noticing the concordance between what the Old Testament declares about the universe and big bang cosmology. Jewish physicist Gerald Schroeder, for example, has made a career out of pointing this concordance in several of his books and in demonstrating that Jewish theologians saw in the Old Testament what we now recognize as the fundamentals of big bang cosmology several centuries before any astronomer saw any hint of big bang cosmology in their observations of the universe. As noted by others here, Jewish scholar Moses Nachmanides in the 13th century wrote about the expansion of the universe.//

MOD EDIT: Added quote block

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@DaleCutler

In the case of Christians, it is about accepting the testimony of the Author, and that acceptance is not arbitrary and without reason and support.

@DaleCutler

You might as well insist that there USED to be a firmament, and at some point (maybe after the Flood?), God removed the firmament (and celestial ocean) permanently.