[Replying to post 4 by DrNoGods
From my own experience, I would say: "One can believe the Bible and, at the same time, believe in the notion of the Big Bang." There are scientists who do. In fact, the Big Bang Theory was one of the greatest gift Science has endowed in support of the Bible. One notable example of those scientists is astronomer Robert Jastrow. In 1978, with reference to The Big Bang, he wrote:
â€œNow we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world
. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.â€�â€”God and the Astronomers (New York, 1978) https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes ... rt_Jastrow
Note the phrase, "the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical origin of the world". The Biblical origin of the world, which he was referring to, is as stated in the very first verse of the Bible, Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Scientists used to believe that the universe has always existed, i.e., no beginning. One such belief was championed by the Steady State Theory but this was discredited by the Big Bang Theory which specifically states that the universe did have a beginning.
Please, before you go dismissing such biblical personalities as Noah and Adam, note that Jesus traced his fleshly lineage from them (Luke 3:23-38). And Jesus is the most historical person that has ever existed. For one thing, Western calendars in use today is reckoned from the supposed date of his birth. No other individual can claim to that honour.
The reference workThe Historiansâ€™ History of the World observed: â€œThe historical result of [Jesusâ€™] activities was more momentous, even from a strictly secular standpoint, than the deeds of any other character of history. A new era, recognised by the chief civilisations of the world, dates from his birth.â€�
Yes, think about it. Even calendars today are based on the year that Jesus was thought to have been born. â€œDates before that year are listed as B.C., or before Christ,â€� explains The World Book Encyclopedia
. â€œDates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord).â€�
If Jesus is historical, so are Noah and Adam. Even Moses as well.
Even famous people such as Einstein believes Jesus' historicity. He asserted:
â€œI am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.â€� When asked if he viewed Jesus as a historical person, he responded: â€œUnquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus.
His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.â€� - Wikipedia, Religious and Philosophical Views of Albert Einstein https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio ... t_Einstein
Even ancient historians did not deny his existence:
TACITUS (c. 56-120 C.E., or Common Era) Tacitus is considered to be one of the greatest of the ancient Roman historians. His Annals deal with the Roman Empire from 14 C.E. to 68 C.E. (Jesus died in 33 C.E.) Tacitus wrote that when a great fire devastated Rome in 64 C.E., Emperor Nero was considered responsible. But Tacitus wrote that Nero accused the Christians in order to â€œscotch the rumour.â€� Then Tacitus said: â€œChristus, the founder of the name [Christian], had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus.â€�
, XV, 44
I, could, then have good reason to assert: Science and the Scriptures are two branches of the same tree - truth. Or as Freeman Dyson said:
â€œScience and religion are two windows that people look through trying to understand the big universe outside.â€� - https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
â€œScience without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.â€�â€”Albert Einstein https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... e.religion