Can Genesis and the Big Bang be reconciled?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:48 am

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.

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

NASB wrote: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.

NIV wrote: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.

KJV wrote: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.

Young's Literal Translation wrote: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?

theleos6 · Post by **theleos6** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:04 am

Genesis itself has contradictions, not only with cosmology, but with creation of man and beast:

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image.
Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.)
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The true order of events was just the opposite. Genesis 1:1-2:3

God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (Genesis1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? Genesis 1:3-5

"He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars. Genesis 1:16

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:53 am

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.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 2:50 pm

McCulloch wrote:If Genesis is right, even if not literally, then science is wrong.

I developed a reconstructed version of Genesis that doesn't contradict modern science here--in case you're interested...

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:56 pm

Nice recreation Harvey. It belongs in the UB.
As soon as it makes it in the cannon and is believed to be the "word" of God then it might answer the charges.
McCulloch wrote:

If Genesis is right, even if not literally, then science is wrong.

The account is Genesis is myth borrowed from other cultural myths and shaped to meet the religious needs of the Hebrew people.
Harvey's account sounds like science with God added and lacks the punch of the Hebrew account. Without the fall, a Christian invention, where would your Jesus fit such a scenario?
McCulloch's point, I believe, is they take it literally.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:24 pm

Cathar1950 wrote: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.

theleos6 · Post by **theleos6** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:06 pm

God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants, rather than creating them directly. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. Genesis 1:11
And he has the earth "bring forth" the animals as well. So maybe God created livings things through the process of evolution? Genesis 1:24

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 2:42 pm

harvey1 wrote:I would say that the Fall did happen. However, it happened "before the foundation of the world" (I Peter 1:20)

So that lets Eve off the hook then?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:03 pm

You got all that from I Peter 1:20 Harvey?
Wow!
Lotan it is about time some one stood up for Eve.
How about Adam? Wait, Sin entered by one man and one man, very slowly, takes it away. Adam must feel like he has been "punked".

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:09 pm

Lotan wrote:
harvey1 wrote:I would say that the Fall did happen. However, it happened "before the foundation of the world" (I Peter 1:20)
So that lets Eve off the hook then?

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.