Is the Big Bang Theory consistent with Genesis' Creation account?

[Sinai]

The Big Bang theory has received widespread acceptance within the scientific community, including scientists who are Christian, Jewish, and atheists. Judging from responses I’ve seen on various threads on the older version of these message boards, there seems to be a split among you as to whether the Big Bang theory is compatible with the Genesis account of creation.

The purpose of this thread is to give you a chance to voice your opinion and to back it up with data, quotations and data from whatever sources you have found to be beneficial. Please note, however: This thread is NOT about the theory of evolution, as that topic is already covered very nicely in other threads on the CF message boards. Also, if you wish to discuss the age of human beings on this planet, it should be related to the Big Bang theory in some manner, as the topic of the age of human beings on Earth is discussed at least indirectly on other threads on the CF message boards.

So what are YOUR thoughts and beliefs about the Big Bang theory? Is science finally coming around to the Genesis account of creation? Or is it in direct contradiction with what the Bible says? When the Bible talks about the “days” of creation, what do you think it means? Let’s hear your ideas on these and related questions.

 

[beautimus]

Do you mean the timeframe associated with the big bang theory? And you can not seperate the big bang from evolution, it was supposably the spark to start the metamorphosis that became evolution. My Bible says nothing about a "bang".

 

[mac_philo]

I think there is nothing inconsinstent whatsoever.


(Sidebar: the previous is not relevant to evolution. Evolution, if correct, is merely the change of species over time as shaped by natural selection. Natural selection is merely a principle, not a physical entity that was 'made possible' after the big bang created a 'metamorphosis.')

The story of genesis, if nothing else, is a world class piece of literature. It may or may not reveal spiritual truths, but it surely is not 'incompatible' with the big bang.

 

[marauderdog]

this really doesn't have to do with this thread, but mac philo, i notice you profess atheism. i personally don't believe there can be a such thing, i'll also debate about evolution. there are many inconsistencies with the theory.

 

[BWSmith]

As a theistic evolutionist, I affirm that the Big Bang is compatible with the general doctrine of God as Creator of the universe, but incompatible with the text of Gen 1, which describes the creation of a flat-earth cosmology.

In other words, there was only one act of Creation at the beginning of space and time, but God did it.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by BWSmith
As a theistic evolutionist, I affirm that the Big Bang is compatible with the general doctrine of God as Creator of the universe, but incompatible with the text of Gen 1, which describes the creation of a flat-earth cosmology.

What causes you to think that the first chapter of Genesis describes "the creation of a flat-earth cosmology"? Thank you.

 

[BWSmith]

The Gen 1 creation account describes three days of the creation of realms and three days of populating those realms. The "deep" is the primordial ocean that surrounds the earth above and below. The "firmament" is the hard vaulted dome of the heavens that keeps the water locked above (but has latticed windows to let the rain through (see "floodgates of the heavens" in the flood account). The lights of day 4 are set IN the firmament, as if lights in a hard object. Plants are portrayed not as "living" things, but as natural extensions of the dry earth itself (which is why Noah didn't need to bring plants on the ark; plants aren't really "alive").

Comments?

 

[Sinai]

What I was asking about was your statement that "the text of Gen 1...describes the creation of a flat-earth cosmology." Since I had never heard this theory before, I was wondering what caused you to think that. Which verses or other sources refer to the earth being flat?

In verse 2, the Hebrew thehom is most commonly translated as "the deep" or "the abyss" or "the chaotic mass", but "primordial mass or blend" could also be used. "Primordial ocean" might be a bit more of a stretch, but the Hebrew is general enough that it might support that usage.

What the KJV translates as "firmament" are actually several different Hebrew words. I need to know which reference to "firmament" you are talking about. Thank you.

 

[BWSmith]

Here's one website that gives a detailed survey:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

- tehom (deep): Notice that in the flood account (Gen 7-8), the "fountains of the deep" and "floodgates of the heavens" are opened/closed. Note also that the Babylonian goddess of the ocean (and chaos) is named "Tiamat", which sounds a lot like tehom...

- raqiya (firmament) and chuwg (vault): The Phoenician root of raqiya means "tin dish", implying that the raqiya in the sky was something hard that was hammered out (notice that the heavens are described in Job as "hard as a mirror" (Job 37:18), and God walks on the vault of heaven. (Job 22:14).

 

[ZiSunka]

Ten years ago, Science News Journal, a well-respected periodical of breakthroughs in science, reported that many cosmologists no longer subscribe to the Big Bang Theory. They are now looking at mulitple bangs. No cosmologists of consquence are pursuing Big Bang anymore.

Just though you would want to know.

 

[ChristianPilot]

I can't tell you how many times this has come up, but I kick myself on the inside everytime.
A neighbor of mine wrote an article for Astronomy magazine about how the big bang theory and the Bible's account of creation actually work together. It made a lot of sense, but I haven't seen a copy of it since.


As for the flood: I heard a very interesting theory that explains the flood as well as the formation of mountains and also (if I remember correctly) tectonic plates.
Look at a geological map of the Pacific ocean, just west of South America. Notice that big long ridge right there in the ocean? There's another one in the northern and southern parts of the Atlantic ocean as well as one in the Indian ocean.

This theory said that, back in Mose's time, there was a very small layer of water under the earth's surface under very high pressure. When the time for the flood came, a small crack formed and spread. The water shot up from cracks near these ridges that actually formed the ridges (the video I watched only said the Atlantic ridge, but I assume all the other ridges were involved as well because they're almost exactly the same) very high up into the atmosphere. Then the water rained down for 40 days and 40 nights on Noah and his ark.

This theory explains, if I remember it correctly, the way mountains were formed (notice that a lot of mountain ridges are generally parallel to the faults under the ocean). I don't exactly remember the part that touched on the tectonic plate theory, but if I find a copy I'll remember it

 

[Sinai]

Thanks for that web site, BW. It was a hoot! Very interesting read. At first I was wondering why it claimed "The word “firmament” appears in the King James version of the Old Testament 17 times, and in each case it is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, which meant the visible vault of the sky." After all, the KJV uses the word "firmament" four times in just verses 6-8 of the first chapter of Genesis--but only one of those four times used raqiya (or raqia') The words 'eth-haraqia' and laraquia' are used the other times. Then I looked up "firmament" in my Strong's Concordance--and it cited 17 times for "firmament" and indicated that each of them was word number 7549, which is of course raqiya, which is defined as meaning "an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky." The writer apparently relied upon Strong's Concordance (which is generally a rather good source) but did not look up the actual Hebrew phrases. Still, I enjoyed reading about "the flat earth Bible" used by those persons who still assert that the world is actually flat and cannot be moved.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by lambslove
Ten years ago, Science News Journal, a well-respected periodical of breakthroughs in science, reported that many cosmologists no longer subscribe to the Big Bang Theory. They are now looking at mulitple bangs. No cosmologists of consquence are pursuing Big Bang anymore.

Just though you would want to know.

Because the Big Bang Theory says that there was a definite beginning point for the universe, all matter and time itself, it sounds too much like the first chapter of Genesis for a relatively small number of scientists--including a few who are relatively well known and respected, so that they have proposed various other possible theories (multiple or parallel universes, etc.).

Granted, there are some others (especially non-scientists) who have stated some particular objections to the Big Bang Theory (especially in support of some book or other product they are selling), but as far as I know, none of them have advanced a different theory that has been particularly accepted within the scientific community.

I am curious as to where you got the opinion that "No cosmologists of consquence are pursuing Big Bang anymore." Even a casual examination of current scientific literature would show that such is not the case.

 

[iLoveLife]

i ask the same questions.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by lambslove:
No cosmologists of consquence are pursuing Big Bang anymore.

Response posted by Sinai:
I am curious as to where you got the opinion that "No cosmologists of consquence are pursuing Big Bang anymore." Even a casual examination of current scientific literature would show that such is not the case.

Earth to lambslove....

Earth to lambslove.....

It's been over a month. Any response????


Thank you.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Ambrosia416


Evolutionists (or those who believe in the theory) teach that 4.6 billion years ago there was a big bang in the universe that somehow created order over millions of years.

Actually, the Big Bang theory is a separate theory, and the "big bang" is generally placed as being 10-20 billion years ago, with the most likely time being about 14-16 billion years ago. I find it especially interesting how the discoveries of modern cosmology (which support the BBT) also tend to corroborate the opening chapter of Genesis.

Also, the BBT does not necessarily speculate on what (or Who) created order out of chaos--but if you read ancient Hebrew commentaries, you will note that one of the most likely meanings for the "evening and morning" wordings in the first chapter of Genesis is that God continued to bring order out of chaos. When the Bible says that it was very good, that can also be translated to mean that it was a unified order.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by lambslove
No cosmologists of consquence are pursuing Big Bang anymore.

Just though you would want to know.

 

Quite the contrary.  It would be more accurate to say that relatively few "cosmologists of consequence" do not subscribe to the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Sinai]

A good discussion regarding the Big Bang theory can also be found on this forum at the thread started by Simple Christian entitled A simple question, I think, which may be accessed by clicking
here.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

"Genesis and the Big Bang" is a book devoted to the topic by a PhD in the subject.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Sinai
The Big Bang theory has received widespread acceptance within the scientific community, including scientists who are Christian, Jewish, and atheists.

Sorrry, but until you can prove to me that the Big Bang has the official stamp of approval of Jehovah's Witnesses, the Islamic Jihad, Rosicrucians, the Pepsi Generation, Grateful Dead-heads, and the Cult of Jerry's Bar and Grill in Bayonne, NJ, then I'm not buying it because it doesn't have enough popular support.

Originally posted by Sinai
Judging from responses I’ve seen on various threads on the older version of these message boards, there seems to be a split among you as to whether the Big Bang theory is compatible with the Genesis account of creation.

And since you were there, I hope you can resolve this issue once and for all.

Originally posted by Sinai
The purpose of this thread is to give you a chance to voice your opinion and to back it up with data, quotations and data from whatever sources you have found to be beneficial.

You forgot to tell them they could use data, too. I recommend hard data, like pictures of the Big Bang.

Originally posted by Sinai
Please note, however: This thread is NOT about the theory of evolution, as that topic is already covered very nicely in other threads on the CF message boards. Also, if you wish to discuss the age of human beings on this planet, it should be related to the Big Bang theory in some manner, as the topic of the age of human beings on Earth is discussed at least indirectly on other threads on the CF message boards.

But please, no inappropriate content.