Big Bang Theory

If all things are possible with god, then either,

1) God created using the big bang, and thats how he left the evidence, and we arent ment to take Gen literally.

Or

2) God created with 6 literal days but planted evidence to point to a big bang to trick us into believing a lie, and we are supposed to read gen literally.

Which is more likely?

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

Thats a good question
Im not too sure.
What do you think?

Then again, if we arent to take Genesis literally, then why would it be in the Bible?

Maybe people think that the since the bible is just a book, then the creation by God, as pointed out in the bible, is a big lie?

If you are talking to me,
I think that if god did create the universe, and I had to pick between me misunderstanding something (I do it often enough ) and god going to a lot of work to propogate a lie of how we were created...

I would go with, me misunderstanding that Gen should be read literaly.

__________________

Wei wu wei

Green faeries

To poetically and symbolically recount the creation of the universe.

__________________

• Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum. (I think I think, therefore I think I am.)

I'm so profound it hurts.

Maybe, but what were the authors of the Bible symbolizing? It's not as if they actually knew what was on the other side of the galaxy. Heck, they didn't know what was on the other side of the Earth. It's possible that Genesis was poetic and/or symbolic, but what deeper meaning could the authors possibly have been trying to convey?

I don't think Genesis is primarily concerned with the nuts and bolts of creation. It has a few points to make - God did it (ours, not yours, it was saying to the cultures around). He did it how He wanted (not necessarily how the YECs want Him to have done it), He didn't battle against primaeval chaos - He spoke, it happened. The sun, moon and stars are not gods, just lights that God created. And God created with purpose - three days of preparation, three days of filling. The creation week also symbolises the working week - six days of working, one of resting.

Genesis is much more concerned with people, which is why it compresses all the theologically irrelevant science into a couple of poetic narratives. Here it goes into more detail, recounting how, again, God made everybody, that no man is an island (by descending us all from one man), and how humans invariably turn from God and do what they didn't oughta - the Fall story is not, IMHO, about what two putative ancestors did thousands of years ago; it is what I and every other person on this planet does on a daily basis. It shows God's response - He's ticked, but also He will provide the solution to the problem. The man and woman become aware of their nakedness; He makes them clothes. Evil will attack them, but God, through the woman, will provide redemption. And so on and so forth.

My tuppence worth. None of which depends on anything approaching a literal interpretation.

Wasn't Genesis all about the absorbing of a whole bunch of funny heathen Gods under one umbrella God? useful at the time, but a bit defunct now, in other words. (Just the creation bit... not the rest of genesis)

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.

This is an interesting point.... look at little children, they are more than happy to run around completely naked, but once they get older they hide their bodies... until they get to about 14 or 15 when alot of the girls seem to expose them again.... oops, rambling there.

__________________
MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.