The Big Bang Theory

I'm sorry for not being clear about my beliefs. I also believe in the Big Bang Theory. Just not in the long day theory.

I think this is interesting, and would like to hear more. Not knowing where you are going with this, I will fill in my views.

I believe in both the Big Bang and long day because Science shows us that the Big Bang is likely, and the Bible tells us that we can know God through his creations, such as:

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

It seems to me that if we have two apparently conflicting ideas (A Big Bang that has created billions of years of change in the universe versus a biblical account that talks about creation over an apparently short period of time) we should try to reconcile them.

I do not think God would "lie" through creation by giving us something that has an "apparent" age of billions of years, which is in fact only thousands of years old. If we can learn about God through creation, than we must trust our observations.

Now, we could be wrong in what we're observing, but considering the massive data, I don't think so.

So let's look at the other conflicting item: scripture. We are making translation judgements based on our understanding of something that was written thousands of years ago. I consider it far more reasonable to think that an ancient document may be misinterpreted than to think that current tools of measurement which have proved accurate enough for pinpoint operations in space being wrong.

Since: Science and the Bible seem to agree on the possibility of a creation point; the Bible can more easily be reconciled with science being reconciled with the bible on this point ; and the *length* of creation is not key to Christian doctrine (though the EVENT of creation is!), I feel comfortable in my view that the God of the Bible created the universe through what we describe as the Big Bang, and it took billions of years to prep his universe for his culminating creation: humankind.

IMHO

*sigh*, as my grandmother might say, "In _my_ day reading the bible was much easier..." (note the clever use of the word 'day' to refer to a period of time... )

Hmph, I need a .sig

You're right. Science does show the Big Bang theory to be very likely which is why I also believe it happened. But only as God's creative introduction of time, space, and matter.

Please don't take what I am about to say as an attempt to throw your statement back in your face. I'm just giving my beliefs.

I really do believe that we are wrong in much that we observe. As I mentioned in another post, Jesus said in Mark 10:6, "At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" Indeed there is a massive amount of data, but the source of that data contradicts the popular interpretation of it.

So either Jesus was wrong because He lied, or He was wrong for some other reason (forgetful, not actually God, etc.), or He was right and we have been making distorted and incomplete observations. I tend to lean toward the final option, which is why I don't believe in the long day theory.

Hmmm, awesome thoughts and intellectual ideas on all this. But one thing for me makes it alittle easier to digest the Bible writings as factual...

I'll speak in laymans terms here, instead of trying to sound like I have a Phd. Cause I don't.

It simply amazes me that people today, in their short little lifespans here on earth can think that a theory a few decades old can indeed be fact just because its unique ideas fit into the puzzle hole nicely.
When you think of mans intelligence, we have constantly strived to understand. Period. Whether its how a tree grows, how rivers flow, etc. When we find a 'solution' that we think fits nicely...we latch our intelligence onto it, and claim "WE'VE GOT IT"!

*giggles* Silly, silly creatures we are. The universe has been alive for billions (some say millions - whatever you get the point) of years...churning and churning away its wonders at rates we don't even understand. Then along comes man (and woman) and now WE have all the scientific answers to the world. Well, I believe if you step back and look at this, we truly fancy ourselves as 'smart' creatures who can figure "it all out". I laugh at all our "scientific solutions" on things.

Example 1: How many of us old farts remember that we were taught that dinosaurs walked around upright, but their tails dragged? That was taught forever, but now...we go "whoops" no they didn't. Now 'supposedly' they stick straight out. *giggles*

Example 2: Remember 100 years ago when we thought the best 'treatment' for mentally ill men, women and even children was to lock them away in asylums and torture them, in hope that we would reabiliatate them? This also lasted decades as the "intelligent' solution to this scientific problem. We know now we were 'off our rockers' to think such a thing. But it was the solution that best fit the puzzle hole.

Not escaping the point of the thread, I view this "big Bang theory" in the same light. Its working for some folks NOW, but I'd love to live long enough to see how we will giggle at this 'intellectual theory' in 100 years. I'm sure it will dissolve away, and some new "We're smarter than we were 100 years ago" theory about how the universe began will crop up, and be the debate. Funny thing is to me though...is how ALL THESE THEORIES change through the years, yet Gods creation of the world still holds ground in most circles for thousands of years.
I'm waiting for folks to post back saying "But WE ARE SMARTER NOW, WITH GREATER UNDERSTANDING THAN OUR ANCESTORS!" - Which is the point of my post. No...we aren't. We just think we are.

There's my .02
JMRE5150

No we a smarter than we were.

Forgetting about pure science - the way you describe the progress we would not have any technological advances.

There is a reason the interpretation of dinosaurs changed - advances is paleontology and the application of comparitive anatomy. We are not going back to tail dragging for instance.

The big bang arose out of explaining observations we did not posess a century ago.

I know far more physics than Isaac Newton ever hoped of knowing. Does that make me a better physicist than Newton. No. What he did with the information he had was incredible. But what I can do with the knowledge he contributed and others subsequent to him are things he couldn't even dream of.

So to sum up, we ARE smarter (i.e. more capable) than our ancestors.

Originally Posted by david_84

Jesus said in Mark 10:6, "At the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'" Indeed there is a massive amount of data, but the source of that data contradicts the popular interpretation of it.

Originally Posted by david_84

So either Jesus was wrong because He lied, or He was wrong for some other reason (forgetful, not actually God, etc.), or He was right and we have been making distorted and incomplete observations. I tend to lean toward the final option, which is why I don't believe in the long day theory.

As I understand your analysis, you think the possible choices consist of the following:

• Jesus was wrong because He lied;
• Jesus was wrong for some other reason (forgetful, not actually God, etc.), or
• Jesus was right and we have been making distorted and incomplete observations about creation.

How about a fourth option:

• None of the above.

It appears to be rather unlikely that Jesus was lying or that he was forgetful or that he was not actually God. But it also appears rather unlikely that he was ignorant of the fact that God’s creation of the first man and woman with souls and the capacity to fellowship with God came on the sixth and final yom of creation rather than at the beginning of creation. So what was Jesus actually referring to in the second chapter of Mark? Let’s look at the context, shall we?



Some Pharisees had come to Jesus and attempted to test or trap him by asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” The Pharisees obviously knew the “correct” answer. After all, they were experts in the law of Moses. But they probably also knew that Jesus and John the Baptist were opposed to divorce—and that John had been killed by Herod after speaking out against divorce and adultery. They therefore devised a question that would either force Jesus to acknowledge the fact that the law of Moses permitted divorce (which would also uphold the Pharisees’ procedures) or make Jesus incur the wrath of Herod (and anyone else who had had a divorce).



Although Jesus acknowledged that Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send his wife away, he said “It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law.” God had initially made man and woman for each other. “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”



Jesus was not talking about the beginning of the creation of the universe, but rather the beginning of the creation of man and woman for each other—as opposed to the later law of Moses, which permitted them to separate and go their separate ways. So Jesus was not wrong—and he was not talking about the length of each yom of creation, but rather was talking about God’s creation of man and woman for each other…

As I understand, one meaning of 'beginning' is the 'first part of something.' This being the case, to say man and woman were created at the beginning of creation is not contradictory to a 'literal' reading of Gen. 1 and 2, where the first six days could easily constitute the first part of a 6,000 to 10,000 year time span. However, it is not likely that 20 billion years (minus the few thousand that humans have been around) could be called the first part of something. And Jesus said the 'beginning of creation,' seeming to lump it all together, rather than narrowing it down by saying 'your creation' or 'man's creation.'

Speaking of context though, do you think that the context of 1 Cor. 15:22 or 1 Cor. 15:47 gives up any possibity of a figurative interpretation of the first man, Adam?

Hello Deamiter,

I know I may be critized by people, since I am a young-earth creationist, but what you are saying here is that there is a contradiction in the Bible. I am not trying to start a debate, I just want to see if you would understand how this contradiction can be explained. How this apparent "contradiction" can be explained is that God is describing what is going to happen on the earth, and that happened a few days later. Another example of this is in the beginning God wanted to creat mankind for one reason: to have a loving people to have a relationship with. He decided that the people that he has a relationship with will have eternal life with Him. Of course, our free will decided another way, our own. Since sin has seperated us from a loving relationship with God, God had to provide a way for people to love Him, which is Jesus Christ. We know that Jesus did not appear on the spot to be a sacrifice, it was several thousand years until He came to earth to be a perfect sacrifice for our sins, so that we could be in a loving relationship with Him once again. God had a plan in mind, but it took a little while for that to happen, God is a patient God, who always appears at the perfect time.

servant4ever

I am not sure I understand your question. If you are asking whether I think Adam was an actual person or was only figurative, my personal view is that he was an actual person, although I understand how some Christian brothers may disagree with that interpretation.....

IMHO, a Christian (independent of being "young earth" or "old earth") would, of necessity, need to view Adam as an actual person. I personally believe God may have used evolution to populate the earth, but He had to put His hand in creation for humankind.

There had to be an "Adam" and "Eve" because there had to be a first person with a soul to go to Heaven. Theologically, you cannot have a race that "sorta has souls". Adam and Eve had to either be created as a simple Biblical reading states, or created though evolution but with a significant leap forward from the previous generations. If nothing else, the generation that received Prevenient Grace (Adam and Eve) were a significant evolutionary step forward (How does one evolve to have a soul?)

Similarly, many of these talks about "contradictions" stem from simplistic readings that do not take into account various "isms" of Jewish culture. It is these simplistic readings that cause contradictions (literal 7-day creation versus God being revealed in the heavens we observe). Biblical readings that take into account original language nuances and culture help to reconcile contradictions without having to say "well, I just take it on faith."

It wasn't until I learned to read the Bible critically, and start examining possible meanings of individual words ("day") and phrases ("turn the other cheek") that the contradictions melted away to insignificance.