Forgive me if this has been previously addressed ( I don’t even know if it has been considered…)
IIRC, I was taught that the Big Bang created the Universe, then in the future a black hole well develop (or has developed) in the center and will “suck” the universe back in, just to explode all over again.
In Revelation, Chapter 21 it says:
1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away
Couldn’t this be God’s validation of the modern theory of the Universe’ contracting and expanding?
There’s something in there somewhere about God rolling it all up like a scroll too; I suppose you could wring a few different meanings out of that too.
My advice would be to wait until the predictions that science is making about the fate of the universe get a little more specific and firm, then claim the Bible said it first; there’s bound to be a verse in there somewhere that’s a fairly good fit.
Sorry, vanilla, I don’t mean to be snide about it, but Lindsey really is a crackpot. His exegetical methods are extremely arbitrary, slapdash, and uninformed. None of his predictions from Late, Great Planet Earth have come true. He believes in psychics and demons. He makes up “facts” as it suits him (e.g. “rolling up the sky”) His interpretation of Revelation has no relationship to any serious theological scholarship. He is not taken seriously by legitimate theologians or Biblical scholars.
I know this is a hijack, but I wanted to explain myself a little more.
As to the OP, Hindu mythology is replete with the image of an infinitely recurring cycle of universes being born, destroyed, and reborn. I think that your quotation from Revelation is not contradictory to big bang theory, but it is pretty vague and generic.
no offense was taken. I’d read ALL Lindsey’s books right after I got saved, and thats what I know about Revelations.
Also, someone wrote that in the Bible it mentions men’s eyes melting while they were still standing.
And that couldn’t happen until we used nuclear blasts.
True? Or not?
I think you’d have to provide a specific quotation before I could comment on it.
You should understand, though, that Revelations was never regarded as a prophesy of the future until the 19th century. In its historical context it was about the destruction of Israel and God’s eventual vengence on Rome.
’Nilla, I sure wish I had had Diogenes along when we had that “false prophet” thing going that got Habs and you in an uproar. That’s about what I was saying – his exegesis is spastic. Not that he is or is not a good man or sincere in what he believes.
News to me if it does, though I wouldn’t put it totally out of court (but not moved enough to search for it). Any hot-and-strong-enough blast would achieve those results, whether or not occasioned by nuclear weaponry – I’d bet the Dresden firebombing of 1945 would qualify.
The “the Bible predicted the Bomb” quote I’ve always found to be shivers-up-the-spine on target was: “And the elements will melt with fervent heat” – whether you understand that in the classic Four Elements (earth, air, fire, water) or the contemporary all-atoms-with-the-same-number-of-protons meaning, that just about calls for a thermonuclear blast to accomplish.
Melting as the result of a nuclear blast would be a somewhat liberal interpretation, I feel, but what the heck. (It’s a little easier to stretch to fit if you use the KJV)
What’s wrong with “spastic”? While most spasms are physical, you can use the word to apply to sudden bursts of emotion or passion, and, while I don’t know if Lindsey writes like that, if he does, wouldn’t it be an appropriate word?
e-logic, I think that Polycarp just meant that Lindsey’s methods are “spastic” in the sense that his methods are erratic and inconsistent. They are, well, not methodical, they are selectively tailored to fit a preconceived conclusion.
Sorry, Polycarp. I only ever hear ‘spastic’ used as a term of abuse these days, and cos of the negative context I assumed this was the same. Sorry for butting in.
It was my understanding that the infinite boom-expand-contract sequence was no longer (or ever?) the favored prediction for the universe. I think the latest theory is that the universe is expected to end in an “ice death”, expanding until it runs out of energy and freezes. There must be someone on the board who knows for sure, yes?
