Can Genesis and the Big Bang be reconciled?

[McCulloch]

Can Genesis and the Big Bang be reconciled?
Did God reveal a version of modern cosmology in Genesis?
I have heard the claim that there is no conflict between the modern scientific viewpoint of the Big Bang and the beginning of Genesis. That if one reads Genesis in a non-literal way, I have been told that one can see that it is describing God's creative powers in the beginning of the universe.

• Genesis and the Big Bang Theory : The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible, by Gerald Schroeder
• God, Genesis and the big bang

Here are the first three verses of Genesis from various translations:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.

It is clear to me, at least, that in the Genesis account of creation, earth and water existed prior to light. This is clearly in conflict with modern science where water and earth, even in a chaotic state, could not have existed for quite some time after the appearance of light or photons.
If you believe Genesis and modern science, then why don't they agree? Did God reveal a falsehood?
Is it possible to believe that Genesis is a true account and to believe modern cosmology? Or must you make a choice?

[Lotan]

Not so much. Evolving cognition and consciousness caused her to give birth to children with larger heads, and this caused women great pain at childbirth. As a result of that humans developed more cognition and the human family eventually left their eastern garden in Middle Awash area in Afar, Ethiopia. It's been a long struggle for existence since.

Eveyone knows that!
What I mean is that if the fall occured "before the foundation of the world" then that business about the apple didn't really change anything.

[harvey1]

What I mean is that if the fall occured "before the foundation of the world" then that business about the apple didn't really change anything.

Theologically speaking, the "fruit of the forbidden tree" is symbolic for knowledge that rejects spiritual understanding in favor of natural understanding. "Eve" represents the biological move of creation toward naturalized knowledge. It's a good thing that Eve sought knowledge and consciousness, but the consequence of biology taking that step is to be kicked out of paradise and into cold reality (e.g., the reality of death and a deeper sense of pain that comes from cognition). Ultimately it means a destructive outcome that only God can save us from. Therefore, the Fall was a consequence of this, and the need for the saving grace of the Lord. All of which was set in motion before the foundation of the world, but the reasons were actually exemplified in at least one instance by what apparently began to happen in Middle Awash about 4 million years ago.

[HughDP]

But why the pathetic need for some biblical apologists to try to shoehorn the creation myth in Genesis into the mold of modern science.
If you believe in an omnipotent God who created the entire universe by force of His will and who inspired biblical authors to write about it, then why don't you simply believe what He tells you. If the omniscient God says that matter existed prior to energy, who are you, mortal, to question it? If Genesis is right, even if not literally, then science is wrong.

Blunt though that sounds, I agree with it.

God is 'supernatural' and thus beyond the realms of science (which is merely 'natural') and will thus never align with science. For one who believes that Genesis represents the Word of God, science should be of minimal concern and intra-disciplinary arguments about interpretation would surely begin from a 'supernatural' standpoint, working from the Bible outwards, not attempting to pander to science.

From the other side of the fence, if a scientist doesn't believe that the Bible is the Word of God (or doesn't believe in God at all) then, unless he believes it holds scientific relevance in some hugely significant, non-religious way, why would he even consider it?

We're then left with those on the fence itself: the Christian scientists who believe that Genesis represents the Word of God (sort of) but that the interpretation must be so far removed from the literal that it can fit in nicely with current scientific theories. It is this point of view that I find hardest to understand.

[harvey1]

We're then left with those on the fence itself: the Christian scientists who believe that Genesis represents the Word of God (sort of) but that the interpretation must be so far removed from the literal that it can fit in nicely with current scientific theories. It is this point of view that I find hardest to understand.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see why God cannot inspire text without having to write down word for word while correcting for every error, misconceived thought, and current limitations of the writer. Why can't God be more like the force of gravity where large objects naturally settle (and must settle) into their orbits after undergoing a great deal of chaotic and unstable motion?

[QED]

Without the fall, a Christian invention, where would your Jesus fit such a scenario?

A fair question. I would say that the Fall did happen. However, it happened "before the foundation of the world" (I Peter 1:20) That is, the natural world was pre-determined to exist prior to any event that happened on earth many billions of years later.

Perhaps, but then again Harvey, you know I rather feel the fall was dreamt up to account for the darker side of human nature -- after all, I'm sure you would agree that we've evolved from something much more "basic". But the philosophers of a few thousand years ago were long removed form that and probably viewed themselves as nearly, but not quite "Godlike". I think the fall was therefore invented to account for that puzzling little gap.

[HughDP]

We're then left with those on the fence itself: the Christian scientists who believe that Genesis represents the Word of God (sort of) but that the interpretation must be so far removed from the literal that it can fit in nicely with current scientific theories. It is this point of view that I find hardest to understand.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't see why God cannot inspire text without having to write down word for word while correcting for every error, misconceived thought, and current limitations of the writer. Why can't God be more like the force of gravity where large objects naturally settle (and must settle) into their orbits after undergoing a great deal of chaotic and unstable motion?

I don't think there's any reason why a God can't behave like that, but the Christian God doesn't appear to.

I think if one is to believe that the Bible is the Word of God in the first place, then it's hard not to take it literally. An omniscient, omnipotent God would not have problems with errors or the writers' limitations. Surely if He meant to tell us that the universe was created in, say, a Big Bang, He would have said so a lot more clearly, even given the linguistic differences of an era thousands of years ago.

[harvey1]

Perhaps, but then again Harvey, you know I rather feel the fall was dreamt up to account for the darker side of human nature -- after all, I'm sure you would agree that we've evolved from something much more "basic". But the philosophers of a few thousand years ago were long removed form that and probably viewed themselves as nearly, but not quite "Godlike". I think the fall was therefore invented to account for that puzzling little gap.

Sure, there can always be "reasons" for an event that explains why the event happened at one level. I realize that when this low level explanation is found, there's a naturally tendency to dust off your hands and ask for the next trivial problem to solve.

However, what is missing in your account is not just the need to explain how humans found themselves Godlike but not quite, there were other theological problems that need to be addressed. I think these theological problems require the Fall in order to properly explain:

1) Assuming an all-intelligent, all-powerful God, why would God create a world filled with so many thorns and thistles unless there were a reason for God's hand being tied in some way? The Fall answers this by saying that because God allowed free will to exist, God had to allow nature to behave naturally (i.e., with God in hidding just supporting the natural laws).

2) How does God distance divine perfect will from imperfect moral events? The Fall suggests that the land of perfection was an idea that nature itself rejected, and therefore thorns and thistles are a consequence of God being rejected by nature (e.g., humans). God is not responsible for imperfection in the Fall account, responsibility is a consequence of free will.

I think these two issues represent the more significant reason for the Fall theology. In Christianity it became even more important because it was then necessary to explain why Jesus died, and how he could be the Jewish Messiah without having saved the Jews as prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures (in fact, he was killed as a petty criminal for what appeared to outsiders as ludicrous to say he was king of the Jews).

But, you gotta love the parallels between Middle Awash and the Garden of Eden. From all paleoenvironmental accounts, it was a perfect place. A valley set apart by mountains, cool humid conditions, plenty of hot springs, major river systems, "including a mosaic of woodland, bush, grassland, and water-side habitats." Our ancestors might have even been chased out of there by severe volcanic eruptions. It's as close to the garden of Eden that one could imagine. (Of course, I know you'd like to stress the importance of that last word...)

[harvey1]

I don't think there's any reason why a God can't behave like that, but the Christian God doesn't appear to.

I would disagree. I think there's plenty of examples in scripture where God does just that.

I think if one is to believe that the Bible is the Word of God in the first place, then it's hard not to take it literally.

Again, I would say that early Christians didn't take the scriptures as literally as you suggest.

An omniscient, omnipotent God would not have problems with errors or the writers' limitations.

Of course, that only assumes that it's a problem for God if the writers do make errors or have limitations. I think that would be an incorrect assumption.

Surely if He meant to tell us that the universe was created in, say, a Big Bang, He would have said so a lot more clearly, even given the linguistic differences of an era thousands of years ago.

Why? Why is God obligated to tell us anything that we think God ought to tell us? Is the person who makes a clay pot obligated to tell the clay how it will be formed?

[HughDP]

Harvey1,

The points you make are all fair ones, but I think they all tend to hinge on this last one:

Why? Why is God obligated to tell us anything that we think God ought to tell us? Is the person who makes a clay pot obligated to tell the clay how it will be formed?

If we're to believe that God doesn't have to tell us the 'whole story' then we're left in something of a limbo when it comes to our interpretations. In fact, we can virtually interpret what we like.

I can't see the point of Him not just telling it like it is, but I'll grant you that it would be presumptuous of me to question God like that (assuming I believed in a God in the first place).

I'm interpreting what God does by my own standards, but I have no others by which to interpret what He does. I could try to accept that 'He works in mysterious ways' but as I'm not a Christian that doesn't come easily, so I try to inetllectualise it from a logical point of view, which is probably wrong by any Christian standard.

[harvey1]

If we're to believe that God doesn't have to tell us the 'whole story' then we're left in something of a limbo when it comes to our interpretations. In fact, we can virtually interpret what we like.

The caveat being that orthodox Christianity abides generally by a coherent interpretation of the writings of the New Testament.

I can't see the point of Him not just telling it like it is, but I'll grant you that it would be presumptuous of me to question God like that (assuming I believed in a God in the first place).

Coming from my theological view, there's not a problem with this. If I were to summarize it: it's none of our business.

I'm interpreting what God does by my own standards, but I have no others by which to interpret what He does. I could try to accept that 'He works in mysterious ways' but as I'm not a Christian that doesn't come easily, so I try to inetllectualise it from a logical point of view, which is probably wrong by any Christian standard.

I think it is much easier understanding the Christian God from a logical point of view. It gets harder when emotionally we don't like God to be that way.