Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Big Bang in Genesis?

65 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

The first verses of Genesis describe the creation of the Universe. To me it is a tolerable description of the Big Bang. One of the most enigmatic phrases is that the Earth was created but was without form and void. It was created but it wasn't there. Que? My insight into that is that the God had the thought first. That the Creation was the thought and that it was then made real. If space before the Big Bang was empty, devoid of matter, then its natural state is dark. Light and Life that comes with it, have to be physically introduced. 'Let there be light' is the Big Bang.

 

We have accumulated a vast store of knowledge since the time in which Genesis was written. The trick is to take what we know and see it through the filter of the knowledge extant at the time. Moses, Abraham et al believed the Earth was flat and that would have influenced their world view. Obviously the Big Bang could not be appreciated in the terms we know today, it was described to the best that their abilities would allow.

 

I believe that this describes a Big Bang. I don't understand the resistance Christians have in acknowledging our explosive birth. After all someone must have lit the fuse....

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hi, Rusty. Congratulations, your membership is official, so a Worthy Welcome to you! You are now allowed into the forums for discussion on your topic: Genesis 1:1-2. There are two ages here between verses, that have made for much confusion, doctrinal interpretation and disputation... There is no Big Bang. I'm going to invite you to the forums on this one and submit it to the experts, for further explanation. God bless and prepare for the best!

Shalom,

David/BeauJangles 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The first verses of Genesis describe the creation of the Universe. To me it is a tolerable description of the Big Bang. One of the most enigmatic phrases is that the Earth was created but was without form and void. It was created but it wasn't there. Que? My insight into that is that the God had the thought first. That the Creation was the thought and that it was then made real. If space before the Big Bang was empty, devoid of matter, then its natural state is dark. Light and Life that comes with it, have to be physically introduced. 'Let there be light' is the Big Bang.

 

We have accumulated a vast store of knowledge since the time in which Genesis was written. The trick is to take what we know and see it through the filter of the knowledge extant at the time. Moses, Abraham et al believed the Earth was flat and that would have influenced their world view. Obviously the Big Bang could not be appreciated in the terms we know today, it was described to the best that their abilities would allow.

 

I believe that this describes a Big Bang. I don't understand the resistance Christians have in acknowledging our explosive birth. After all someone must have lit the fuse....

Have you studied Hermeneutics? The bible was written as it was then, and has not changed. It is fatal to add our "now" to fit the intended word.

 

That is what you are doing to a degree. Your supposition that Genesis speaks of the Big Bang is just that, supposition. Many new age proponents would love to shoehorn evolution and the big bang (among others) into scripture to fit their world view. Don't go down that route, it leads to confusion.

 

I am still waiting for you to answer ncn's question on your first post. Who is Jesus to you?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

He just answered in his previous thread, Fez.  And I just responded to him...

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

He just answered in his previous thread, Fez.  And I just responded to him...

Thank you I will follow up!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I believe that this describes a Big Bang. I don't understand the resistance Christians have in acknowledging our explosive birth. After all someone must have lit the fuse....

 

~

 

Hi Rusty

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Indeed The Key Is, "I Believe"

 

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

 

And the evening and the morning were the third day. Genesis 1:11-13

 

And God Told Us He Casually

 

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,

 

what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? Psalms 8:3-4

 

Created The Rest Of The Cosmos On Day Four

 

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

 

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night:

 

he made the stars also.

 

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

 

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19

 

Some Big Bang Huh?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The first verses of Genesis describe the creation of the Universe. To me it is a tolerable description of the Big Bang. One of the most enigmatic phrases is that the Earth was created but was without form and void. It was created but it wasn't there. Que? My insight into that is that the God had the thought first. That the Creation was the thought and that it was then made real. If space before the Big Bang was empty, devoid of matter, then its natural state is dark. Light and Life that comes with it, have to be physically introduced. 'Let there be light' is the Big Bang.

 

We have accumulated a vast store of knowledge since the time in which Genesis was written. The trick is to take what we know and see it through the filter of the knowledge extant at the time. Moses, Abraham et al believed the Earth was flat and that would have influenced their world view. Obviously the Big Bang could not be appreciated in the terms we know today, it was described to the best that their abilities would allow.

 

I believe that this describes a Big Bang. I don't understand the resistance Christians have in acknowledging our explosive birth. After all someone must have lit the fuse....

 

Hi, Rusty, and welcome to Worthy.  I believe the 'Big Bang' occurred; it was the moment God spoke everything into being.  Modern day science has looked out into the universe (seeing the farthest things as they were 14 or so billion years ago) and have determined that the universe had a beginning.  No surprise there.  It's written in Genesis.  And a created universe had a Creator.  It's that simple. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That the Creation was the thought and that it was then made real. If space before the Big Bang was empty, devoid of matter, then its natural state is dark. Light and Life that comes with it, have to be physically introduced. 'Let there be light' is the Big Bang.

 

No, "let there be light" is not the big bang.   Let there be light was first ever manifestation of God's Shekinah glory.  The first thing that comes on the scene is God's glory.  it is the same glory that man cannot look upon without being destroyed.  It is the same light (although in measured form) that shone around Jesus on the Mt. of Transfiguration. 

 

We need stop surrendering the interpretation of Scripture the scientific community (and to Hollywood for that matter).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't think it's wrong to try and fit the Big Bang into God's word. As long as we don't contradict his word then what's wrong with speculating and filling in the blanks ourselves?

The only time it is wrong is when our speculation becomes immutable, when we are not willing to be flexible about it.

In my mind I have a speculation that fits the Big Bang and I have a speculation that doesn't, just in case it turns out that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

Besides when witnessing to a seeker, giving an explanation that ties in with science is no bad thing. I have a friend who said that he wanted to believe in God but couldn't because Genesis didn't tie in with the view that scientists gave. If he had been more willing to be flexible, he could have reconciled those views. Later, faith would have made him abandon his old theories.

Science isn't wrong, it can't be by its own definition, but science unfortunately is determined by scientists and being human they are often wrong. God knows science and he knows it better than anybody.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I don't think it's wrong to try and fit the Big Bang into God's word. As long as we don't contradict his word then what's wrong with speculating and filling in the blanks ourselves?

The Big Bang doesn't fit into God's word and is a contradiction of it.  God left those blanks unfilled for a reason and we need to be satisfied that we know what God intends for us to know and that we will receive more light on the matter when He is ready to reveal it to us. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

I don't think it's wrong to try and fit the Big Bang into God's word. As long as we don't contradict his word then what's wrong with speculating and filling in the blanks ourselves?

The Big Bang doesn't fit into God's word and is a contradiction of it.  God left those blanks unfilled for a reason and we need to be satisfied that we know what God intends for us to know and that we will receive more light on the matter when He is ready to reveal it to us. 

 

Amen!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

That the Creation was the thought and that it was then made real. If space before the Big Bang was empty, devoid of matter, then its natural state is dark. Light and Life that comes with it, have to be physically introduced. 'Let there be light' is the Big Bang.

 

No, "let there be light" is not the big bang.   Let there be light was first ever manifestation of God's Shekinah glory.  The first thing that comes on the scene is God's glory.  it is the same glory that man cannot look upon without being destroyed.  It is the same light (although in measured form) that shone around Jesus on the Mt. of Transfiguration. 

 

We need stop surrendering the interpretation of Scripture the scientific community (and to Hollywood for that matter).

 

 

I can see visible light as being a manifestation of God's glory, but I wonder how you came to this conclusion and how you can say that it is absolutely so.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Fez - Have you studied Hermeneutics? The bible was written as it was then, and has not changed. It is fatal to add our "now" to fit the intended word.
 
Genesis is quite open to interpretation simply because it is not a detailed, scientific account ... as obviously it was intended not to be. One can infer or extrapolate from the foundational truths found therein to various interpretations, and do so without contradicting scripture.  Evolution is an evil word to many Christians yet the Genesis account describes processes, surely the term “evolution” could be used to define God ordained processes. (And counter in detail to much of mainstream science’s view)  I don’t see how the “Big Bang” negates the Biblical account, ultimately the salient truth is that “In the beginning God...”.
 
Certainly the Bible has not changed however our understanding of the world around us grown exponentially. Such understanding is not “adding” to the word but in many ways a more awe inspiring glimpse of God’s handiwork.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

That the Creation was the thought and that it was then made real. If space before the Big Bang was empty, devoid of matter, then its natural state is dark. Light and Life that comes with it, have to be physically introduced. 'Let there be light' is the Big Bang.

 

No, "let there be light" is not the big bang.   Let there be light was first ever manifestation of God's Shekinah glory.  The first thing that comes on the scene is God's glory.  it is the same glory that man cannot look upon without being destroyed.  It is the same light (although in measured form) that shone around Jesus on the Mt. of Transfiguration. 

 

We need stop surrendering the interpretation of Scripture the scientific community (and to Hollywood for that matter).

 

 

I can see visible light as being a manifestation of God's glory, but I wonder how you came to this conclusion and how you can say that it is absolutely so.

 

The light manifested by God at the start is not the visible light we see.  It was the light that God produces and the only that emanates from Him anywhere it is mentioned in scripture.  It is His Shekinah, the inapproachable light.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

Fez - Have you studied Hermeneutics? The bible was written as it was then, and has not changed. It is fatal to add our "now" to fit the intended word.
 
Genesis is quite open to interpretation simply because it is not a detailed, scientific account ... as obviously it was intended not to be. One can infer or extrapolate from the foundational truths found therein to various interpretations, and do so without contradicting scripture.  Evolution is an evil word to many Christians yet the Genesis account describes processes, surely the term “evolution” could be used to define God ordained processes. (And counter in detail to much of mainstream science’s view)  I don’t see how the “Big Bang” negates the Biblical account, ultimately the salient truth is that “In the beginning God...”.
 
Certainly the Bible has not changed however our understanding of the world around us grown exponentially. Such understanding is not “adding” to the word but in many ways a more awe inspiring glimpse of God’s handiwork.

 

Evolution cannot be fit into Genesis.  God made everything perfectly after its own kind.  There are barriers that cannot be crossed between kinds (birds, reptiles, mammals, etc.)   Evolution proposes things that violate the description of God's creation, particularly where it comes to man having been made in God's image, completely separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.    The special creation of man alone defeats the false notion of Evolution.

 

You can believe the Bible or you can believe in Evolution, but you cannot have both and still have a coherent theology.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Fez - Have you studied Hermeneutics? The bible was written as it was then, and has not changed. It is fatal to add our "now" to fit the intended word.
 
Genesis is quite open to interpretation simply because it is not a detailed, scientific account ... as obviously it was intended not to be. One can infer or extrapolate from the foundational truths found therein to various interpretations, and do so without contradicting scripture.  Evolution is an evil word to many Christians yet the Genesis account describes processes, surely the term “evolution” could be used to define God ordained processes. (And counter in detail to much of mainstream science’s view)  I don’t see how the “Big Bang” negates the Biblical account, ultimately the salient truth is that “In the beginning God...”.
 
Certainly the Bible has not changed however our understanding of the world around us grown exponentially. Such understanding is not “adding” to the word but in many ways a more awe inspiring glimpse of God’s handiwork.

 

Evolution cannot be fit into Genesis.  God made everything perfectly after its own kind.  There are barriers that cannot be crossed between kinds (birds, reptiles, mammals, etc.)   Evolution proposes things that violate the description of God's creation, particularly where it comes to man having been made in God's image, completely separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.    The special creation of man alone defeats the false notion of Evolution.

 

You can believe the Bible or you can believe in Evolution, but you cannot have both and still have a coherent theology.

 

 

This thread is about the Big Bang - it's not about evolution.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oakwood - This thread is about the Big Bang - it's not about evolution.

 

You will note that my response was simply to Fez's post where he said "Many new age proponents would love to shoehorn evolution and the big bang (among others) into scripture to fit their world view."  My post was simply responding to that point in terms of Genesis interpretation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shiloh357 - You can believe the Bible or you can believe in Evolution, but you cannot have both and still have a coherent theology.

 

I can quite easily believe, with qualifications, in both based on scripture. I don't quite see where the "Big Bang" in any way contradicts scripture...we know one thing "In the beginning God..." then within in the limitations imposed by His word, creation is quite open to interpretation. It is obvious too that the BB is offensive to many as it posits a beginning, thus myriad opposing views and work towards a non-BB cosmology.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oakwood - This thread is about the Big Bang - it's not about evolution.

 

You will note that my response was simply to Fez's post where he said "Many new age proponents would love to shoehorn evolution and the big bang (among others) into scripture to fit their world view."  My post was simply responding to that point in terms of Genesis interpretation.

 

Yes, I realise that but I didn't want people to become too sidetracked. Evolution is a different issue altogether and has no connection with the Big Bang.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

That the Creation was the thought and that it was then made real. If space before the Big Bang was empty, devoid of matter, then its natural state is dark. Light and Life that comes with it, have to be physically introduced. 'Let there be light' is the Big Bang.

 

No, "let there be light" is not the big bang.   Let there be light was first ever manifestation of God's Shekinah glory.  The first thing that comes on the scene is God's glory.  it is the same glory that man cannot look upon without being destroyed.  It is the same light (although in measured form) that shone around Jesus on the Mt. of Transfiguration. 

 

We need stop surrendering the interpretation of Scripture the scientific community (and to Hollywood for that matter).

 

 

I can see visible light as being a manifestation of God's glory, but I wonder how you came to this conclusion and how you can say that it is absolutely so.

 

The light manifested by God at the start is not the visible light we see.  It was the light that God produces and the only that emanates from Him anywhere it is mentioned in scripture.  It is His Shekinah, the inapproachable light.

 

 

Ok, great.  How can you be so sure? 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shiloh357 - You can believe the Bible or you can believe in Evolution, but you cannot have both and still have a coherent theology.

 

I can quite easily believe, with qualifications, in both based on scripture. I don't quite see where the "Big Bang" in any way contradicts scripture...we know one thing "In the beginning God..." then within in the limitations imposed by His word, creation is quite open to interpretation. It is obvious too that the BB is offensive to many as it posits a beginning, thus myriad opposing views and work towards a non-BB cosmology.  

I am sure you can and you can justify and rationalize it to yourself in  way that works to your satisfaction.  It still leaves with a confused and incoherent theology.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

 

That the Creation was the thought and that it was then made real. If space before the Big Bang was empty, devoid of matter, then its natural state is dark. Light and Life that comes with it, have to be physically introduced. 'Let there be light' is the Big Bang.

 

No, "let there be light" is not the big bang.   Let there be light was first ever manifestation of God's Shekinah glory.  The first thing that comes on the scene is God's glory.  it is the same glory that man cannot look upon without being destroyed.  It is the same light (although in measured form) that shone around Jesus on the Mt. of Transfiguration. 

 

We need stop surrendering the interpretation of Scripture the scientific community (and to Hollywood for that matter).

 

 

I can see visible light as being a manifestation of God's glory, but I wonder how you came to this conclusion and how you can say that it is absolutely so.

 

The light manifested by God at the start is not the visible light we see.  It was the light that God produces and the only that emanates from Him anywhere it is mentioned in scripture.  It is His Shekinah, the inapproachable light.

 

 

Ok, great.  How can you be so sure? 

 

sure about what?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That light is in fact God's glory manifested.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Shiloh357 - I am sure you can and you can justify and rationalize it to yourself in  way that works to your satisfaction.  It still leaves with a confused and incoherent theology.

 

No need for me to "rationalize" simply an unconfused and coherent reading of Genesis 1.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That light is in fact God's glory manifested.

God is the only thing/person in existence.  There are no natural light sources anywhere else. 

 

Where else would the light have emanated from than from Him?  If you know of other sources of light that preexisted the stars, suns and any other celestial luminaries, please provide a list of such for review.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0