The Big Bang....

[rocky_923]

I'm not new to these boards i just don't post very often. I have recently started my own search for truth and was hoping this board could assist. This may have been addressed in another thread, but I was unable to find a match in my search...

While the big bang is just a theory, it is a widely accepted theory. It is a theory with convincing evidence to support it. The big bang implies a beginning of the universe and time-space it's self. If we go past this beginning we have nothingness.

So, in order to create the big bang does this not require some sort of intelligent mind outside of time-space to create something out of nothing?

[israeltour]

Consider carbon dating. Carbon dating tells us that dinosaurs died 65 million years ago.

Incorrect. Practically speaking, carbon dating dies at 50,000 years. I'm not saying you throw a switch at the 50,000 year mark and it becomes worthless, because in theory we can potentially get up to 100,000 years out of it, but I am saying that the dinosaurs are so far beyond this limit that it's absurd to even consider C14 as an option.

Forgive my ignorance. Radiometric dating then.

[Curious]

But according to Genesis the Sun and Moon were not created until day 3.
It's nice to have a bit of creative thinking going on though.

Actually, it was day 4, but I'm glad you brought that up.

My God man, what version are you using? It is evident that it is day 3.

If we infer from verses 14 and 15 that Moses thought he was writing of an event that took place in the firmament, it is therefore no surprise that he would think the actual creation took place there, and therefore wrote of it as such. Had he realized that everything was already there, and that God was simply making them visible to us on Day 4, then Moses would have written something else. However, God uses us where we are at, and Moses wrote of the events to the best of his ability.

Are you seriously suggesting that Moses was there and is trying to explain what he saw? Have you by any chance changed medication recently???

[israeltour]

But according to Genesis the Sun and Moon were not created until day 3.
It's nice to have a bit of creative thinking going on though.

Actually, it was day 4, but I'm glad you brought that up.

My God man, what version are you using? It is evident that it is day 3.

Day 3 ended in verse 13. Day 4 ended in verse 19. The sun, moon, and stars were in verses 14 to 18.

If we infer from verses 14 and 15 that Moses thought he was writing of an event that took place in the firmament, it is therefore no surprise that he would think the actual creation took place there, and therefore wrote of it as such. Had he realized that everything was already there, and that God was simply making them visible to us on Day 4, then Moses would have written something else. However, God uses us where we are at, and Moses wrote of the events to the best of his ability.

Are you seriously suggesting that Moses was there and is trying to explain what he saw? Have you by any chance changed medication recently???

What matters is what Moses understood, and the perspective from which he understood it. Should it turn out that God dictated Genesis 1 to Moses, then my theory is completely bogus. If however, Moses was writing based on an oral tradition, or a vision, or a dream, or something else, then I am suggesting that he was limited to his perspective. I don't think Moses knew the stars were outside the firmament, so I think he wrote from the perspective that he understood.

But I won't leave your challeng totally alone: suppose God actually showed Moses the aftermath of the disaster 65 million years ago. Wouldn't that be cool? Moses sees God hovering over the deep, sees the light finally peek throuhg the atmosphere, though visibility is still poor, then he watches the dust and mist thin out as the firmament and the seas separate and dry land appears, and then finally the stars, moon, and sun peek through the firmament. Each act is demarkated by an "evening/morning" combination, indicating the division between phases or eras or periods. You won't hear it taught in church I admit. But it takes just much literally as typical creationism does, while acknowledging limitations that creationism has to ignore, and describes what scientists believe happened.

I can take this all the way through the rest of creation if you want, even resolving the disconnect with chapter 2 that many atheists have duly noted. However, my poin in this thread is that evolution could have been a tool of God's, without sacrificing the sanctity or historicity of scripture (though I admit it throws tradition down the toilet).

[Curious]

My God man, what version are you using? It is evident that it is day 3.

Day 3 ended in verse 13. Day 4 ended in verse 19. The sun, moon, and stars were in verses 14 to 18.

Day 3 starts verse 13. The sun and moon created in verse 16. Day 4 starts verse 19. I can't believe I really have to point this out.

...I can take this all the way through the rest of creation if you want, even resolving the disconnect with chapter 2 that many atheists have duly noted. However, my poin in this thread is that evolution could have been a tool of God's, without sacrificing the sanctity or historicity of scripture (though I admit it throws tradition down the toilet).

While it might be thought of as good that you try to incorporate modern day evidence into your philosophy rather than ignoring it, it might be advisable to concentrate on the germ of truth and let it grow into a comprehensible framework before you attempt to tie in each and every verse. The problem with trying to justify each and every verse at the ideas conception is that you restrict its growth and lead it down the road of initial interpretation. Incorporate what can be fitted by all means but allow the idea to grow and then the formation of the idea may allow for more accurate interpretation of other verses or maybe even show that some verses are incorrect in either translation or in essence. But congratulations on your attempt to at least find some consistency. I hope you have the wisdom to realise when an idea has run it's course and is no longer viable and are not too prideful to alter the direction of your study if and when the time comes. It would be a wonder indeed if the initial conception turned out to be the corrct one.

[israeltour]

My God man, what version are you using? It is evident that it is day 3.

Day 3 ended in verse 13. Day 4 ended in verse 19. The sun, moon, and stars were in verses 14 to 18.

Day 3 starts verse 13. The sun and moon created in verse 16. Day 4 starts verse 19. I can't believe I really have to point this out.

In the New King James, verse 31 reads, "So the evening and the morning were the third day." If it's beginning the third day, then day 1 didn't start until after God separated the night from the day, and man was created on Day 5. Anyways, I'm going to drop this point.

While it might be thought of as good that you try to incorporate modern day evidence into your philosophy rather than ignoring it, it might be advisable to concentrate on the germ of truth and let it grow into a comprehensible framework before you attempt to tie in each and every verse.

I've done that, but is this really the thread to spell out the whole thing?

The problem with trying to justify each and every verse at the ideas conception is that you restrict its growth and lead it down the road of initial interpretation.

There is that risk I agree, which is why I waited until I'd answered my own questions before springing my theories on others.

Incorporate what can be fitted by all means but allow the idea to grow and then the formation of the idea may allow for more accurate interpretation of other verses or maybe even show that some verses are incorrect in either translation or in essence.

That is in fact what is happening. I'm sure that further maturation of my theories will occur... no theory is ever complete. My hope is that genuine challenges from people like you will help me find the holes I haven't discovered myself.

But congratulations on your attempt to at least find some consistency. I hope you have the wisdom to realise when an idea has run it's course and is no longer viable and are not too prideful to alter the direction of your study if and when the time comes.

I will have no trouble with that. In fact, my theories have been changing and morphing over the last several years. Now they need scrutiny from others. Please believe that I'd rather find the truth than win an argument, though I'll admit to bouts of stubborness at times.

It would be a wonder indeed if the initial conception turned out to be the corrct one.

It would be by God's grace, a gift through the Holy Spirit!

[Sender]

I'm not new to these boards i just don't post very often. I have recently started my own search for truth and was hoping this board could assist. This may have been addressed in another thread, but I was unable to find a match in my search...

While the big bang is just a theory, it is a widely accepted theory. It is a theory with convincing evidence to support it. The big bang implies a beginning of the universe and time-space it's self. If we go past this beginning we have nothingness.

So, in order to create the big bang does this not require some sort of intelligent mind outside of time-space to create something out of nothing?

There was no Big Bang, but yes there is that theory out there, as inacurate as it may be. Good luck in your search.

[Lotan]

There was no Big Bang, but yes there is that theory out there, as inacurate as it may be.

Is that on page 5 of Allyn and Bacon General Science 1989 too?

[bernee51]

There was no Big Bang, but yes there is that theory out there, as inacurate as it may be. Good luck in your search.

The BB Theory is just that a theory. Whether it is accurate or not is based on interpretation of the available data. You claim unequivocally that there was no BB - on which scientific source do you base this assertion.

BTW no need to search

[Sender]

There was no Big Bang, but yes there is that theory out there, as inacurate as it may be. Good luck in your search.

The BB Theory is just that a theory. Whether it is accurate or not is based on interpretation of the available data. You claim unequivocally that there was no BB - on which scientific source do you base this assertion.

BTW no need to search

Geez, I dunno, maybe because energy has never created itself. Truely not rocket science guys.

[bernee51]

Geez, I dunno, maybe because energy has never created itself. Truely not rocket science guys.

Oh I see - not a source, an opinion. (Unsupported assertions are opinion)

From whence then, IYO, did this 'energy' arise?