t f p g+ YouTube icon

Universe and Multiverse, Part 3

Bookmark and Share

April 9, 2012 Tags: Earth, Universe & Time
Universe and Multiverse, Part 3
Example of a Calabi-Yau manifold. Image courtesy Wikipedia commons.

Today's entry was written by Gerald Cleaver. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of BioLogos. You can read more about what we believe here.

Note: This essay is Part 3 of a series from Gerald Cleaver’s chapter in the book Delight in Creation: Scientists Share Their Work with the Church, edited by Deborah Haarsma & Scott Hoezee and published by the Center for Excellence in Preaching at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Another version of the essay appeared at the Ministry Theorem, as part of their “What I Wish My Pastor Knew About. . .” series. In Part 1, Cleaver described his own path to science through the Church; in Part 2, he suggested that fellow Christians should seek to reconcile science and the Scriptures and began a short history our changing views of cosmology. Today, Cleaver discusses the way evidence for the Big Bang widened the horizons of our cosmology again, while scientists were simultaneously searching to understand the fundamental building blocks of matter.

Evidence for the Big Bang

The univercentric paradigm naturally raised the question, “How came the universe?” Not only does modern science show us the extent of the universe, but its understanding of the history of the universe is also highly detailed and exact. In 1929, Edwin Hubble proved that the universe was expanding. By observing distant galaxies and the light they emit, he showed that the further away a galaxy was from ours, the more rapidly it was moving away from it. As an analogy, consider a spherical balloon being blown up (Figure 1). The dots on the surface of the balloon are analogous to galaxies, and the inflating balloon is analogous to the stretching of space between the galaxies. An observer on any one of the dots would perceive the other dots to all be moving away from him at rates proportional to their distance away.

This expansion means that in the distant past the universe was much smaller than it is today. So, following Hubble’s discovery, scientists began to consider a model in which the universe started out extremely small, with all of the matter packed close together. Near the very beginning, the entire universe would have been extremely hot (at least 1032 degrees) and extremely small (10-33 cm, which is much smaller than an atom, in fact 1/100000000000000000000 times smaller than the tiny nucleus inside an atom). This model was called the Big Bang. Although some people use the term “Big Bang” as if it were a replacement for God, it is merely a scientific explanation of how the universe developed after the first instant (immediately after time t = 0).

The Big Bang was confirmed by several independent pieces of evidence. The first and best known is the verification of a specific Big Bang prediction, that the heat of the early universe should still be visible today as low energy radiation from all over the sky. This cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered unintentionally by two IBM employees in 1963.

Several independent lines of evidence point to billions of years of history since the Big Bang. Astronomers understand much of this history and have found no serious gaps, other than what happened to start the Big Bang. I understand this detailed history of the universe as the ongoing process by which God continually creates the universe.

Forces and Particles

Parallel to the development of modern cosmology in the twentieth century, physicists began a concerted drive to understand the forces of nature in a consistent, interrelated manner. Long before this, in 1687, Newton had worked out a basic understanding of the force of gravity. Two centuries later, in 1864, James Clerk Maxwell derived the fundamental equations of electromagnetism, thereby proving that electricity and magnetism were manifestations of a second force, one associated with light. From then until the 1930s, gravity and electromagnetism were believed to be the only forces. But with the discovery of the neutron in 1932, physicists learned of additional forces (what became known as the strong and weak nuclear forces). Although the first attempts to explain the strong nuclear force appeared in 1935, the first true models of the nuclear forces did not develop until the 1950s. Then in the 1960s, a way to combine electromagnetism with the weak nuclear force was discovered and referred to as electroweak theory. Simultaneously, understanding of the strong nuclear force was accomplished during 1963 to 1965. The related theory was named quantum chromodynamics (QCD). These theories showed that all the fundamental forces (with the exception of gravity) were related.

As the understanding of forces developed, physicists were also learning about the elementary particles that compose all matter. Around 1870, the periodic table of the elements was developed by Dmitri Mendeleev and others as a systematic way to organize the dozens of known atoms; today 117 types of atoms are known. In the early 1900s, physicists discovered that each atom is not solid like a billiard ball, but is made of more fundamental particles: protons and neutrons in a nucleus with electrons swirling around the nucleus.

Yet the protons and neutrons are still not the most fundamental: high- speed collisions in particle accelerators hinted at the existence of even more elementary particles. Experiments also began to reveal many particles besides protons, neutrons, and electrons. For a time, physicists were discovering new types of particles faster than they could explain them— there seemed to be a “zoo” of particles rather than orderly categories (see Figure 2).

Gradually a more orderly picture came together. Protons and neutrons were each discovered to be made of elementary particles called “quarks.” The two most common types of quarks are called up and down, and come in three varieties (called red, green, and blue). When you add in the electron and the electron neutrino, you get a family of eight elementary particles. All of the atoms in the periodic table can be explained with just those eight particles. That’s a lot simpler than 117!

Physicists also found that associated with each of these eight particles is an anti-particle. Anti-matter is commonly referred to in science fiction, as in Star Trek, making it sound very exotic. Yet the essential difference between anti-matter and regular matter is just the sign of the electric charge: if a particle is positively charged, its anti-matter partner carries a negative charge (or vice versa). The existence of anti-particles doubles the number of elementary particles in a family to sixteen.

As all of the elementary matter particles were discovered, physicists were also learning more about forces and discovered the existence of another category of particle: a “force-carrying” particle. This is difficult to picture, but you have already heard of one such particle, the photon. The photon is the force-carrying particle for electricity and magnetism. QCD is associated with eight force-carrying particles (called gluons, because like a glue, they cause quarks to stick together) and the electroweak force with four force-carrying particles (including the photon), making a set of twelve force-carrying particles (see Figure 3).

The left three columns show three families (“generations”) of matter particles (quarks and leptons, shaded purple and green). The right column shows force carrying particles (bosons, shaded pink). In addition to the particles shown, each quark comes in three so-called colors (red, green, blue), and each of those has an antiparticle with opposite color (anti-red, anti-green, or anti-blue) and opposite electric charge. Each lepton also has an anti-particle of opposite electric charge. Thus, there are 16 = 2*3 + 2*3 + 2 + 2 matter particles in each generation. The force carrying particles also come in more varieties than shown (a total of 12). This set of forces and matter particles became known as the Standard Model of Elementary Particle Physics. Next week we'll talk a bit more about the Standard Model and then turn to the relationships between the very small and the very large aspects of the cosmos.

Gerald Cleaver is an Associate Professor of Physics at Baylor University. He is a member of the Physics Department's High Energy Physics group and also heads the Early Universe Cosmology and String Theory division of Baylor's Center for Astrophysics, Space Physics, and Engineering Research. Gerald earned his Ph.D. at Caltech in 1993, where he studied under John H. Schwarz, one of the founders of string theory. His research interests focus on elementary particles, fundamental forces, and superstring theory. His hobbies include radio-controlled model aviation, small-boat sailing, and tae kwon do.

< Previous post in series Next post in series >

View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Page 1 of 1   1
HornSpiel - #68929

April 9th 2012

This cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered unintentionally by two IBM Bell Laboratory employees in 1963.

Correction: Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were investigating unexplained problems in telephone transmissions for Bell Labs when they found the background radiation.

Jeff - #68937

April 10th 2012

Assuming that this website exists to convince Christian layman (like myself) of the reasonableness of modern scientific theory on the origin of the universe, you have got your work cut out trying to explain to me and others how the expanding balloon illustration leads logically to the conclusion that the entire universe actually started out billions of years ago as a really, really, really hot speck of matter smaller than an single atom.  I’ll keep reading, but at this point, I don’t think anyone could blame for being skeptical…

HornSpiel - #68939

April 10th 2012


You are absolutely right. That the entire universe came from an infintessimal speck of energy seems incredible. Yet astronomers and physicists accept it because it accounts for what they observe. It is reasonable because it fits the scientifically observed facts.

As David Wilkinson says, citing John Polkinghorne, the study of relativity, quantum theory, and cosmology  “breaks the tyranny of common sense.”


I wonder Jeff what you think would be reasonable and why?

Jeff - #68953

April 11th 2012

HornSpiel writes:

As David Wilkinson says, citing John Polkinghorne, the study of relativity, quantum theory, and cosmology “breaks the tyranny of common sense.”

It is interesting to me that in the Bible, God never asks me to abandon common sense.  In fact, He gave me common sense and appeals to it quite powerfully in His arguments in Scripture.  Granted, sometimes God asks me to believe in things which cannot be proven (e.g. the outcome of future events), but I find it quite agreeable to common sense to believe the statements of a God who has convincingly shown Himself to be both morally pure and infinite in wisdom and power.  However, as soon as I so much as put my little toe into the waters of quantum theory, I suddenly find myself being asked to abandon my common sense as if it were some kind of intellectual tyranny trying to deceive me.  So when a proselytizing movement such as the Big Bang Theory initiates its followers with a call to abandon common sense that its doctrines might be believed, I wonder: Would such a movement be more properly termed a ‘science’ or a ‘cult’?

HornSpiel also says:

I wonder Jeff what you think would be reasonable and why?

Since you asked, I think it would be reasonable for men to show more humility before God than they commonly do today.  What is the Big Bang Theory, really?  Relative to all that might be known of the universe from its beginnings until now, it is a trivial smattering of data points collected by ingnorant fallen creatures over the course of a few decades, unjustly subjected to a philosophy of science that demands a uniformitarian view of the cosmos, and interpreted by an army of secular humanists in labcoats who are passionately committed to disproving the existence of a God whom they despise.  And what is the result?  We get this highly promoted idea that some untold billions of years ago the universe was contained in a really, really, really hot and really, really dense particle of matter-energy which was an unfathonable fraction of the size of an atom.  Incredible indeed!  And when I dare to laugh at such an idea (and how can I not laugh?), I find myself being asked, “Okay, Jeff, what do you think would be reasoanble, then?”  Well, I suppose if I was an atheist, I would not be able to come up with anything more reasonable than the great hot speck theory of the universe that has be propounded so articulately.  But thankfully, I am not an atheist.  I am a Christian theist, and so I think the most reasonable thing would be for us to believe that an infinitely wise and powerful God created a fully formed universe in the space of six glorious days, which is precisely what the Bible teaches. 

A long time ago there was a man named Job who thought that he would contend with God, and when God appeared to put this little man in his place, He said to him: “Who is this who darknes counsel by words without knowledge?  Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me.  Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?  Tell Me, if you have understanding.  Who determined its measurements?  Surely you know!  Or who stretched the line upon it?  To what were its foundations fastened?  Or who laid its cornerstone, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”

I appeal to my fellow Chrisitan theists: Do we really think that we know on the basis of our little measurements of the stars what happened to the universe billions of years ago?  Really?!!!  Have we grown so fearfully proud that we would now carelessly dismiss the word of our God as a mere myth in favor of this incredible quantum theory of which common sense cannot possibly approve?  Brothers, let the atheists have their Big Bang Theory!  They need it, I suppose.  But we do not need it.  We already have a theory of the origin of the universe which is quite reasonable and capable of making sense of all the genuine facts of science today while preserving in us that spirit of humility before God which is of the essence of true wisdom among men.

HornSpiel - #68956

April 11th 2012

Thanks Jeff for your honest response. I wonder, if that is what you feel about mainstream science and scientists, why you even hang around a site like Biologos.

Ceratinly though it is not true that all scientists are “secular humanists in labcoats” much less that they “are passionately committed to disproving the existence of a God whom they despise.” The scientists represented one this site are a case in point.

When Gallileo showed that the earth revolved around the sun, this disproved certian interpretations of Biblical passages, but it certainly did not disprove God. In fact, the vistas made visible by telescopes and other scientific instruments continually magnify the greatness and otherness of God. If what God does conformed to what I or anyone else thought was reasonable, then I don’t think He would be God.

I hope you will stick around and discuss thoughtfully the points made by the posters here. I don’t think they, or the majority of regulars around here,  have any agenda except seeking the truth about Gods Word and Works.

sy - #68940

April 11th 2012

Thank you for this very lucid and useful summary of particles.

Chip - #68944

April 11th 2012

Hi Jeff,

I actually think that the BBT is quite consistent with xian theism—so much so in fact that when it was first proposed (as an alternative to the then-in-vogue steady state model), many secular thinkers rejected it out of hand because an admission that the universe had a beginning was uncomfortably close to “In the beginning….”

I’m reserving my skepticism for the “multiverse” malarky, which appears in the title but has yet to be addressed by the author.  Stay tuned….

Jeff - #68948

April 11th 2012

Hi, Chip.  What is xian theism?

Chip - #68949

April 11th 2012

Sorry—“xian” is shorthand for Christian.  Theism:  belief in God. 

Roger A. Sawtelle - #69290

April 12th 2012

Jeff wrote:

It is interesting to me that in the Bible, God never asks me to abandon common sense.

For most people God and humanity are very different.  It defies “common sense” that Jesus Christ is both 100% God (very God of very God) and 100% human (very Man of very Man.)  It goes even further against “common sense” that Jesus Christ, a human being, could be “in the beginning….” and that the universe was made through Him.

If Jesus Christ is the Logos, the rational Word of God, as the Bible says, then the role of Science is to rationally discover how God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit gave structure and purpose to the universe.  Common sense, which is a human, not divine, is not the basis of revelation or science.    

Jeff - #69297

April 13th 2012

Roger writes:

If Jesus Christ is the Logos, the rational Word of God, as the Bible says, then the role of Science is to rationally discover how God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit gave structure and purpose to the universe.

This statement makes no sense to me.  It appears to be an enthymeme (i.e. a syllogism with a missing premise), but I can find no logical relationship between the premises and conclusion:

Jesus Christ is the rational Word of God.

[Missing premise]

Therefore the role of science is to rationally discover how God gave structure and purpose to the universe.

Sorry, Roger.  I do not see the logic here.  But regardless of how you arrived at this conclusion, I disagree with the statement that it is the role of science to use reason to discover how God gave structure and purpose to the universe.  The role of science is not for arrogant man to figure out how God made the world, but rather to piously explore the glory of the world that God has made, and secondarily subdue and use the goodness of God’s world for the good of our fellow man.  That is a scientifice endeavor worthy of the Christian scientist.  It is atheists who originally set out on this preposterous journey to explain the origin of the universe by means of science, and the Christians have unfortunately been drawn into what I believe will prove to be a grand and misguided exercise in futility.  If there is anything for us to know about how God created the universe, that knowledge will be granted by the special revelation of the Scriptures, and whatever knowledge of our Creator’s ways lies beyond that revelation is in all likelihood beyond our ability to know.  If man would be truly rational, then let him humbly marvel and rejoice in the world that God has made and use that world to the best of his ability to help others in need.  But as for this storytelling about the distant past with which modern science is so obsessed, let us leave that to the religion of the atheists.  They have their creaton account, and we have ours, and the two are not at all the same.

Roger A. Sawtelle - #69305

April 13th 2012


The fact that Jesus is the Logos, the rational Word of God, which is the foundation of the universe, means that the universe is rationally structured and understandable.  This is the basis of all science.  Atheists do not understand this or ignore it to their own spiritual and intellectual peril.  

This is a very important fact that we as Christians should point out.  I guess one can appreciate something without understanding it, but I find that appreciation is much deeper when I understand it.  Certainly it is very difficult to use science to help others without understanding it.

I find it difficult to understand the view that knowledge of God’s universe somehow diminishes the power of God.  While some people in their arrogance might think so, we know that it is false.  Even so there will always be “fools who say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’”    

William - #69295

April 13th 2012

Howdy Folks,

Jeff brought up the subject of a singularity at the beginning of time. I’d like to take a shot at that subject. As I understand it a singularity has no dimensions; no height, depth nor length and no movement. Because there would be no movement in a singularity there is no time, nor is there temperature. So, what is a singularity? Well, I have a physicist friend who would say that it is a gateway to as many as 26 dimensions. I have another physicist friend who would say that singularity’s don’t exist. And I have friends who would come up with answers that would range in between those two. So, what is a singularity? Your guess is as good as anyone else’s. Keep in mind that the concept of a singularity is based upon a mathematical construct. At this time there is no experimental evidence to support it.

My argument is that the singularity at the beginning of all things point to God. That God is the only answer for this wonderful universe that we all live in. And my proof that God exists? The Father inside of me is all the proof I need.

Just in case you are interested, I am a Baptist Minister and an Amateur Astronomer.

Peace, Pastor Bill

Roger A. Sawtelle - #69296

April 13th 2012

Pastor Bill,

Thank you for that thought.  Clearly the original singularity was nihil, nothing, but it is also the beginning of everything.  It certainly illustrates the doctrine that God created the universe ex nihilo, out of nothing.

Of course that makes it strange that some conservative Christians oppose this theory, while some atheists point to it as evidence that we don’t need God. 

Christians need to look st the issues for themselves and reject simplistic solutions.  God the Father created the universe through the Logos/Son and the power of the Holy Spirit.  There are no simple solutions in a complex/one universe. 


HornSpiel - #69302

April 13th 2012

Pastor Bill,

I am neither a mathematician or physicist but In regard to your question: “What is a singularity?” I think you are on the right track. Like you say: “A singularity is based upon a mathematical construct.”

I don’t remember where I read it, but my understanding is that a singularity is what happens when the mathematical equations stop working. So for instance: at temperatures (high) and sizes (small) that seem to exist or have existed in black holes or at the beginning of the universe. singularities represent the limits of our current state of knowledge. I think the statements of your friends all shed light on the problem from different aspects, though I would tend to agree more with the statement that “singularity’s don’t exist.” That is, they only exist theoretically as pointers to where a theory is inadequate.

So does the singularity at the beginning of the universe point to God? No, I don’t think so. A singularity points to a gap in our knowledge, so such a statement is open to God-of-the-gaps issues. However, I do think the fact that the equations do point to a beginning of the universe does legitimately point to the existence of a Creator.

Mark Sprinkle - #69320

April 15th 2012

For a discussion of the way cosmological theories relate to the idea of God’s creation (which is, of course, a philosophical question more than merely a scientific one), have a look at William Carrol’s essay from a few weeks ago: http://biologos.org/blog/creation-cosmology-and-the-insights-of-thomas-aquinas.



Uncle Bonobo - #69298

April 13th 2012

Hi Jeff,

I think you might have been reading a few too many fundamentalist pamphlets on the “evils of atheistic scientists.”

The big bang theory was first proposed by the renowned physicist-astronomer Georges Lematre, a Catholic priest.  As another commenter above noted, there was some objections that his challenge to the then-prevailing “steady state” theory was too theologically convenient.

It’s very interesting story—check out the Wkipedia article on Georges Lemaitre.

To answer your  question:  Not most—ALL—Christian theists who are physicists and astronomers accept the big bang theory.  There’s too much evidence supporting the theory.

Jeff - #69303

April 13th 2012

Uncle Bonobo says:

All Christian theists who are physicists and astronomers accept the big bang theory.

You make this too easy!  You could have said “most” or even “a great majority”, but you couldn’t restrain yourself and instead you had to go and use the word “all” and put it in capital letters to boot!  Go to www.cosmologystatement.org for a lengthy list of BBT dissenters from the world of astrophysics.

Roger A. Sawtelle - #69307

April 14th 2012


What you seem to miss is that the statement you cite denies that the universe has a beginning.  Thus it indicates that the universe is eternal and not created by God as stated in Genesis. 

Thus while it does indicate that no everyone agrees with the Big Bang, it does not support Biblical view of Creation.  It is very likely, although not certain, that there are no Christians in the group that opposes the BBT, which would make Uncle Bonobo right, unless you are the exception that proves the rule.    

GJDS - #69310

April 14th 2012

I am a scientist but not a cosmologist. As I understand it, two theories were in vogue, the expanding Universe and the steady state (expanded and contracted) Universe. The current view is the big bang (expanding) universe because of mathematics and measurements such as the background radiation - a singularity as I understand it, is invoked because the laws of physics ‘cannot apply’ at speific points in this theory; also most of the ‘mass’ of the Universe remains unaccounted and dark matter and energy are invoked to try to cope with this. All this seems sensible within the notion of scientific speculation and hypothesis.

The bigger questions however are still as perplexing. Just what is a biginning? What is nothing? How can something come from nothing? I cannot see how science is expected to answer these questions. Mathematics uses zero and infinity when symbols are placed in a logical order and these are used in accordance with mathematical rules and given mathematic proofs. I scratch my head when people then begin to make statements that are beyond methaphysics and try to impact on Faith.

I am curious and would appreciate someone making this point clear to me.

(1)   The universe is supposed to have begun from a singular point, and expanded since then ‘as a balloon’.

(2)   We gather light from distant galaxies, and if we look far enough, we will obtain light from sources that were close to the big bang.

(3)   Say the distance from the ‘early source’ is measured at 100 billion light years ago – in that time, the observer (earth) has moved for 100 billion years away from the distant source.

(4)   I cannot understand the measurement unless (a) the speed of light is exceeded, or (b) the earth observers’ speed has ‘slowed down’ to allow the light to ‘catch up’. This is the more puzzling since the galaxies are expanding out at greater speeds.

(5)   Is it possible for someone to use the ‘balloon’ theory to calculate both the speed of our position away from the big bang point, and also the way the light from the early event would reach us now?

(6)   The red shift is used to obtain a measure of the speed that the galaxies are moving apart – just how ‘red-shifted’ would light that has originated say 100 billion years ago be? If this is close to the big band, should this light not contain information relevant to the big bang (e.g. radiation features that would have existed at that time, including all sorts of particles?)

Faith Tucker - #70380

June 11th 2012


This response may be a bit delayed, but I thought I might offer a little insight into your questions, many of which I think will be answered by an accurate understanding of Big Bang cosmology. 

Most importantly, the Big Bang did not take place at a particular location in space, it in fact occurred everywhere at the same time. At first this may seem counterintuitive, but it is important to understand that the Big Bang is not an event that occurred within time and space; it was the beginning of time and space. It was not the case that the Universe was just as it is today 13.7 billion years only with all of the matter and energy squeezed together in some remote corner. Instead, space itself was also confined within this unbelievably tiny volume. When cosmologists talk about space expanding, they really mean it – it’s not that the Big Bang propelled all the matter outward, on large scales the matter is actually staying relatively still, it’s the space in between that is being stretched and so carries the matter apart with it. To return to the balloon example: We don’t begin with an already inflated balloon in which dots migrate from the center to the surface; we begin with a deflated balloon with dots already drawn on it that then expands, carrying the dots outward with it. 

In that way, there is no direction or location in space that we can point to where the Big Bang happened because it happened everywhere. This affects the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) or the background radiation left over from the Big Bang too because it means that the photons that make up the CMB are not in a shell on the perimeter of the universe ever traveling outward away from us (in which case we would be unable to see them). Instead they are basically evenly distributed throughout the entire universe and are traveling in every different direction, allowing for such photons to rain down on the Earth from every direction constantly (as they do for every other object in space). 

Lastly, if the Big Bang occurred everywhere, then it makes no sense to have measurements of objects that occurred near its location. Our horizon (or the distance in the universe that we can see) is limited by the distance light can have traveled in the 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang. However, because distant galaxies are constantly moving away from us, we can actually see light from galaxies that are currently farther than 13.7 lightyears away because those photons were emitted billions of years ago when the galaxy was within 13.7 billion lightyears. Remember: the farther away you look, the farther back in time you’re seeing.

It’s also good to remember that black holes and singularities are not synonymous. Theories do predict that there are singularities at the heart of black holes, but they are only black hole because they are within (and therefore warping) spacetime, causing their characteristic gravitational effects. The singularity theorized at the Big Bang is not embedded within spacetime, it actually contains it. It’s hard to wrap your head around, but it’s an important difference.

I hope that helps a bit!

Menno van Barneveld - #69315

April 15th 2012

The Big Bang as the start of the expanding univers is impossible from itself because it starts with a black hole. From a black hole nothing can escape, not a big bang of a universe at all.

The background radiation can not be a proof of the cooling down of the expanding universe, because the primairy radiation of the bing bang should go outwards forever into empty space and not return, for there is no mirror surface to reflect the radiation.

The right explanation of the backgound radiation is the thermal radiation of cool elementary particles in the intergalactic space, that form the invissable matter.

From this one can conclude that the Universe did not come into existhence by big bang but according to Genesis 1:3

And God said, “Let there be light;” and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God seperated the light from the darkness.

God created a light source to fill the universe with matter. This gives an expanding univers by definition, because the light has an outward impulse. And He made sure that the light did radiate only in the Heavenly Universe and in the Earthly Universe and not anywhere else.

Therefor the Bible can be on this point correct and science is not!

I do not know this from myself, but from Jesus Christ our lord by revelation only.


Page 1 of 1   1