Was our universe created from a white hole ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#/media/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hole

RXR.: No, the big bang is unbiblical; not to mention it has so many scientific flaws.

Krazy: Agreed, I find the big bang to be one of the more "out there" scientific theories. It actually isn't unbiblical though.

Blackflag: Agreed, I find the big bang to be one of the more "out there" scientific theories
It's joyful to see that we agree on something.

It actually isn't unbiblical though.
How does the big bang fit with the Bible?

According to the big bang, it took 14 billion years to form the universe.
According to the Bible, it took six days for God to create the universe (Genesis 1; Exodus 20:11).

According to the big bang, the sun and stars came before the earth.
According to the Bible, the earth came before the sun and stars (Genesis 1:14-19).

According to the big bang, evolution is true.
According to the Bible, evolution is false (Genesis 1-11).

Not only this, the big bang teaches that the universe came by natural processes. The Bible teaches that God created the universe supernaturally.

These two models could not be more opposite.

Krazy: I agree with you now on the first point you brought up.

I don't see where the bible teaches God has magical powers. In my school of Christianity, God is constrained by the rules of the universe, not above it.

Blackflag: Really? Given a fairly reasonable definition of "magical", how do you reconcile water into wine, restoring a withered hand, making the sun stand still in the sky as three completely random but all biblically supported examples?

You're going to need to do a serious rewrite of the Bible to make a book which describes the supernatural fit into the narrow definition of natural science.

nzlockie: Given a fairly reasonable definition of "magical", how do you reconcile water into wine, restoring a withered hand, making the sun stand still in the sky as three completely random but all biblically supported examples?

You're going to need to do a serious rewrite of the Bible to make a book which describes the supernatural fit into the narrow definition of natural science.
There are so many denominations of Christianity, because they all interpret the bible differently.

There isn't biblical canon, so don't listen to the Catholics. Especially not the Catholics.

A lot of the bible is interpreted metaphorically, and IS NOT god breathed. That was a declaration first made by the Papacy after having personally defiled the bible.

Blackflag: I don't see where the bible teaches God has magical powers.
It's not a miracle to create the universe in 6 days? If you're saying that's not a magical power, I will ask for you to do it.
And just by the way, salvation is a magical power. God coming down in the form of man, dying and being resurrected to save us is, indeed, a miracle. If you don't believe that God can do miracles, then that just threw away the core part of Christianity.

In my school of Christianity, God is constrained by the rules of the universe, not above it.
He literally spoke the universe into existence (Genesis 1:3). He created the universe and the laws of nature, so He isn't confined by the laws that He creates.

There are so many denominations of Christianity, because they all interpret the bible differently.
Yes, but only one interpretation is true. But the Bible is so clear on some subjects, that there isn't any room for interpretation; such as the fact that God created the universe and so He isn't restricted by it in any way (Genesis 1).

There isn't biblical canon, so don't listen to the Catholics. Especially not the Catholics.
I agree that the Catholics aren't really Christians. Many of the "traditions" they do are unbiblical. And the biggest problem is that they don't believe that faith in Christ alone is sufficient enough for salvation, which the Bible makes abundantly clear that it is (Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10, Romans 10:13; John 1:12; John 3:16; John 3:18; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9).
The canon isn't a catholic concept. The word "canon" is just a term used to describe which books are divinely inspired and should belong in the Bible. Today, the canon is complete. Saying that there isn't a biblical canon is like saying there's no such thing as the Bible.

A lot of the bible is interpreted metaphorically
If it's poetry, such as the Psalms, you interpret it as poetry. If it's in the historical narrative, like most of the Bible, you interpret it as history. And history is always literal. Hermeneutically, it's easy to tell which verses of the Bible are literal or metaphorical within their context. Most of the Bible is easy to read.
The only exception to me is Revelation. I've read that many times, and I still don't understand many parts of it. That is a hard book to read.

and IS NOT god breathed
It is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). It seems like you're taking parts of the Bible and taking them as true while taking other parts and saying they're false.

That was a declaration first made by the Papacy after having personally defiled the bible.
It wasn't by the papacy, it was by the Bible.

It's not a miracle to create the universe in 6 days? If you're saying that's not a magical power, I will ask for you to do it.
God is an absolute force, not a sky wizard who waves his hands around.

He literally spoke the universe into existence (Genesis 1:3). He created the universe and the laws of nature, so He isn't confined by the laws that He creates.
What do you mean? By definition God is a component of the universe, unless by some paradox he created himself.

Yes, but only one interpretation is true.
The bible is a collection of Christian writings by priests and figureheads. Jesus didn't personally sit down and write the pages of the bible. There are probably around 200 books which aren't accepted as Christian canon, although they have as much legitimacy to exist than the ones in the Catholic or Protestant bibles.

The problem is that the bible contradicts itself, a lot , especially when you get the master collections with over 60 books in them.

Today, the canon is complete. Saying that there isn't a biblical canon is like saying there's no such thing as the Bible.
Sorry to break it to you, but there is no such thing as biblical canon unless you are a Catholic.

Different churches omit and add books to the bible to fit them in to their belief systems. There are huge differences between the Catholic Bible and the Lutheran Protestant Bible. A practice I am against, but a practice that will continue none the less.

It is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16)
First of all, Timothy is fallible (and undoubtedly wrong in this case), and he wasn't referring to his own writings, but the writings of the Old Testament.

It wasn't by the papacy, it was by the Bible.
What are you talking about? Kings, Priests, and Popes defiled the bible before it entered widespread publication. Most of the writings in the New Testament are in-corrupted, unlike the Old Testament which was very abused by the Jewish priesthood. Yet several books completely disappeared or were destroyed all together. A lot of them come from apocrypha, but not all.

Blackflag: I'm not going to debate you on this about the Bible because you seem to have not read it, or at least fairly. You claim so many things about the Bible that just aren't true.

However, if you have genuine questions about the Bible, http://www.gotquestions.org/ is a great website.

Krazy: I'm not going to debate you on this about the Bible because you seem to have not read it, or at least fairly. You claim so many things about the Bible that just aren't true.
I am someone annoyed by this statement. I have read multiple versions of the bible, and the works of many Christian philosophers.

If you think I said something false, then try to debate it.

This is the whole reason I left Christian forums. They never wanted to discuss, they just establish that you are false if you have a dissenting opinion or different interpretation of the bible. The problem with Christianity is the level of close mindedness. I am open minded about almost everything, so just debate me.

Blackflag: Fine, I will do so reluctantly.

God is an absolute force, not a sky wizard who waves his hands around.
God is not just a "force". The Bible clearly says that He is a Being. He is a person (well, actually He's 3).

What do you mean? By definition God is a component of the universe,
That's not the definition that the Bible gives. The Bible says that God created the universe (Genesis 1:1). So logically He isn't restricted by it in any way.

unless by some paradox he created himself.
God didn't create Himself. The Bible says that He created time (Genesis 1:1). God is spirit (John 4:24). And God is eternal (Psalm 90:2; Psalm 102:12; Psalm 102: 24-27; 2 Peter 3:8). Time began when God created the universe.

The bible is a collection of Christian writings by priests and figureheads.
That is a heavy straw man. Only one priest took part in writing part of the Bible. None of them were "figureheads". Most of the people who wrote the Bible were random nobodies. The people who wrote the Bible included a cupbearer, fishermen, kings, a military general, scholars, shepherds, prophets, and a priest.

Jesus didn't personally sit down and write the pages of the bible.
He didn't physically write down the text of scripture with a pen. But it is accurate to say that He did write the Bible. God inspired men to write the Bible, is actually more accurate. The Scripture is "God breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). God is quoted over 400 times in the Bible with the phrase "thus saith the Lord". The Bible calls itself the Word of God multiple times (Psalm 119; Proverbs 30:5; Isaiah 40:8; Isaiah 55:11; Jeremiah 23:29; John 17:17; Romans 10:17; Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12). The Bible says that it comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 8:4). The Bible literally says that God the Holy Spirit carries people to write the scriptures (2 Peter 1:21). If that's not enough, keep in mind that the Bible also states that God will literally FORCE a person to write His Word if necessary (Jeremiah 20:9).

There are probably around 200 books which aren't accepted as Christian canon, although they have as much legitimacy to exist than the ones in the Catholic or Protestant bibles.
Your use of the word "probably" implies that you don't actually know. And it doesn't even matter how those books weren't accepted into the Word of God. The important thing is that God chose not to put them in His Book, through the persuasion of men. And we have the complete Bible today.

The problem is that the bible contradicts itself, a lot , especially when you get the master collections with over 60 books in them.
Provide one example please.

Sorry to break it to you, but there is no such thing as biblical canon unless you are a Catholic.
Here's the definition of canon: "The works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine". The Bible is the way it is because God put it that way.

Different churches omit and add books to the bible to fit them in to their belief systems.
What churches do doesn't matter, and is irrelevant. What matters is that the Bible is complete.

There are huge differences between the Catholic Bible and the Lutheran Protestant Bible. A practice I am against, but a practice that will continue none the less.
There's only one Word of God, whether or not people accept it. The reason why some books were not included in the Bible, such as the apocrypha, was because they were historically inaccurate and posed theological problems with the rest of the Bible.

First of all, Timothy is fallible (and undoubtedly wrong in this case), and he wasn't referring to his own writings, but the writings of the Old Testament.
What do you mean by "Timothy"? Timothy as a person or the books 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy? Timothy as a person was of course fallible, as any man is. But when God drove him to write down part of God's book, God intervened into his mind and made him say what He wanted to say, while letting him keep his writing style and feelings. 2 Timothy 3:16 says that ALL Scripture is God breathed. It didn't say specific parts of it.

What are you talking about? Kings, Priests, and Popes defiled the bible before it entered widespread publication
God wouldn't have allowed that to happen. He wanted His Word to be heard, so He's going to do it.

Most of the writings in the New Testament are in-corrupted, unlike the Old Testament which was very abused by the Jewish priesthood.
What does "in-corrupted" mean? Did you meant to say "un-corrupted"? And again, God wouldn't allow to let His own Word to be lost or damaged.

Yet several books completely disappeared or were destroyed all together
Then they must have not been the Word of God.

A lot of them come from apocrypha, but not all.
Agreed, but the point still remains. God wanted people to hear His Word. No man is able to prevent that plan.

Blackflag: And in your claim that Christianity is close minded--that is absolutely true. I love being close minded. In fact, Jesus says "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6). The Bible states "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12). I don't want to be "open minded". I like to be close minded on things like 2+2=4. I'm happy to be close minded on things like that. 2+2=4 is absolutely true and there's nothing nobody can do to convince me otherwise.

Blackflag: Oh, I have seem to mistaken you using "close minded" with "narrow minded". The latter is what I meant earlier. But either way, being close minded or narrow minded is neither a problem for me.

Blackflag: Yet several books completely disappeared or were destroyed all together. A lot of them come from apocrypha, but not all.
I take back what I said that I agreed. I just noticed this. If some books were "completely disappeared or were destroyed", then how do you know they came from the apocrypha.

Blackflag: Yet several books completely disappeared or were destroyed all together. A lot of them come from apocrypha, but not all.
Again, I will repeat my question.
If several books were "completely disappeared or were destroyed", then how do you know that they came from the apocrypha? I will enjoy hearing your answer.

God is not just a "force". The Bible clearly says that He is a Being. He is a person (well, actually He's 3).
I don't see the evidence that God was a person. Christ was the physical representation of God, but the Lord and Holy Spirit in the triumvirate are not represented by physical characteristics.

That's not the definition that the Bible gives. The Bible says that God created the universe (Genesis 1:1). So logically He isn't restricted by it in any way.
In a sense, God is a component of the universe. The universe by definition encompasses everything that exists. Since God exists, he is a component of the universe itself.

Time began when God created the universe.
The logical inconsistency with this, is that for God to have existed, time must have existed before the creation of the universe. The best explanation is that the universe was constant, at least God was.

That is a heavy straw man. Only one priest took part in writing part of the Bible
This I can deny. The Old Testament, the one we often ignore when it comes to dscussing scripture, was heavily modified by the Jewish priesthood.

Deteronomy, the most commonly quoted book by anti-theists (because the high number of barbaric advocations), was believed to have been written by around 200 members of the ruling Jewish priesthood.

The Scripture is "God breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). God is quoted over 400 times in the Bible with the phrase "thus saith the Lord"
I attach higher significance to the things Jesus personally said.

Paul in particular preached a lot of things which Jesus never claimed or had said, such as homosexuality is a sin (it is, but that is beside the point as Jesus never said it)

In the case of Timothy, he referred specifically to the old testament being god breathed, but there is no evidence or backing for this besides his own personal opinion. If Deuteronomy is god breathed, then I would call into question the legitimacy of God's rule.

And it doesn't even matter how those books weren't accepted into the Word of God. The important thing is that God chose not to put them in His Book, through the persuasion of men. And we have the complete Bible today.

Okay, I'll make this clearer...

There is more than one version of the bible. I personally know of seven different bibles, but I can confirm the existence of over a dozen accepted as canonical by different churches.

Some Eastern Churches have bibles that are three times as long as the standard Protestant bible with 38 books. How can something be god breathed if there isn't even a commonly accepted scripture?

God wouldn't have allowed that to happen. He wanted His Word to be heard, so He's going to do it.
In Lutheran churches they teach that Jesus's goal on earth was not to preach. I don't see any substantiated evidence that the bible was composed with intent from God, and that is where I am having difficulty.

Then they must have not been the Word of God.
Interesting belief.

I am actually partial to the idea that the scripture is god breathed, but I am in the position of not believing so due to most evidence being against the position.

There is an ancient relic, a book of sorts, that was written by God himself. It was loss when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem. Wouldn't you think that would of been important?

And in your claim that Christianity is close minded--that is absolutely true. I love being close minded.
God stated that the ultimate purpose of life is the pursuit of wisdom. When he talks of heaven, he claimed that it is an eternity spent in study.

Therefore I do not think Christianity is a close minded religion. God rewards those who question, especially him. I remember a particular sermon about this, but I can't recall what exactly was taught. It is important though to remember the difference between asking god a question, and questioning God.

If several books were "completely disappeared or were destroyed", then how do you know that they came from the apocrypha? I will enjoy hearing your answer.
We knew of their existence before they were destroyed or defiled.

Just so you know Krazy, you are under no obligation to debate me. I was just slightly annoyed that you questioned my studies of the scripture, over whether my interpretation was correct.

Blackflag: Just so you know Krazy, you are under no obligation to debate me.
Alright.

Krazy: Lol, I see you took me up on that offer. These forum debates get exhausting for me too, especially with admin.