For those that believe in the Big Bang, what was there before?

[~candice~]

 

Mark - how do you how the original audience interpreted Genesis?

 

You have to look at their worldview at the time and their language. Scientism was not part of their worldview at all, it is a modern invention. Please don't pretend that you don't have to defend the lens by which you interpret scripture. We all have to do that.

 

So please - try and defend reading Genesis as science. I don't think it is possible.

How do you know what there world view was?

 

They were probably a lot smarter than us. And why would God start them off with a lie?

 

 

I study history! I read commentaries. I read about what the prevailing thoughts were at the time. I read about their culture and their understanding of the physical universe at the time.

 

Why do you think they were a lot smarter than us? By what evidence?

 

And God did not start them off with a lie. God started the bible off with a creation account that reinforces His Oneness, His separation from created things, His relationship with man, and His plans for mankind. That isn't a lie. 

[MarkNigro]

 

 

Mark - how do you how the original audience interpreted Genesis?

 

You have to look at their worldview at the time and their language. Scientism was not part of their worldview at all, it is a modern invention. Please don't pretend that you don't have to defend the lens by which you interpret scripture. We all have to do that.

 

So please - try and defend reading Genesis as science. I don't think it is possible.

How do you know what there world view was?

 

They were probably a lot smarter than us. And why would God start them off with a lie?

 

 

I study history! I read commentaries. I read about what the prevailing thoughts were at the time. I read about their culture and their understanding of the physical universe at the time.

 

Why do you think they were a lot smarter than us? By what evidence?

 

And God did not start them off with a lie. God started the bible off with a creation account that reinforces His Oneness, His separation from created things, His relationship with man, and His plans for mankind. That isn't a lie. 

 

what HIS-story do you read?

 

The Holy Bible is the word of God.

[~candice~]

You still havent justified why we should read Genesis with a scientific lens that wasn't created for 2100 years after the penning of Genesis. 

 

And remember that while it was penned that long ago, it was an oral tradition for a lot longer than that. So there are far more than 2 millenium between the beginning of the creation account being shared, and the emergence of the scientific hypothesis.

 

It just doesn't add up.

[~candice~]

 

 

 

Mark - how do you how the original audience interpreted Genesis?

 

You have to look at their worldview at the time and their language. Scientism was not part of their worldview at all, it is a modern invention. Please don't pretend that you don't have to defend the lens by which you interpret scripture. We all have to do that.

 

So please - try and defend reading Genesis as science. I don't think it is possible.

How do you know what there world view was?

 

They were probably a lot smarter than us. And why would God start them off with a lie?

 

 

I study history! I read commentaries. I read about what the prevailing thoughts were at the time. I read about their culture and their understanding of the physical universe at the time.

 

Why do you think they were a lot smarter than us? By what evidence?

 

And God did not start them off with a lie. God started the bible off with a creation account that reinforces His Oneness, His separation from created things, His relationship with man, and His plans for mankind. That isn't a lie. 

 

what HIS-story do you read?

 

The Holy Bible is the word of God.

 

 

 

See, that is a "pat answer" that doesn't really address my question.

 

Parts of the bible are literal, real, reliable history. Parts aren't. How does that address my question? 

 

Yes, the Holy Bible is the word of God. Does that infer we don't need to justify why we read it with a scientific lens? Nope!

 

So let's try again hey? Why read Genesis through scientific goggles?

 

Genesis is correct. Holy. Inspired. Word of God. It needs no correction. It isn't a lie. But it isn't to be read as prescriptive science and was delivered through man. We just need to read it for what it is, and not what we want it to be. That means acknowledging how our worldview differs from the original audience.

[MarkNigro]

 

 

 

 

Mark - how do you how the original audience interpreted Genesis?

 

You have to look at their worldview at the time and their language. Scientism was not part of their worldview at all, it is a modern invention. Please don't pretend that you don't have to defend the lens by which you interpret scripture. We all have to do that.

 

So please - try and defend reading Genesis as science. I don't think it is possible.

How do you know what there world view was?

 

They were probably a lot smarter than us. And why would God start them off with a lie?

 

 

I study history! I read commentaries. I read about what the prevailing thoughts were at the time. I read about their culture and their understanding of the physical universe at the time.

 

Why do you think they were a lot smarter than us? By what evidence?

 

And God did not start them off with a lie. God started the bible off with a creation account that reinforces His Oneness, His separation from created things, His relationship with man, and His plans for mankind. That isn't a lie. 

 

what HIS-story do you read?

 

The Holy Bible is the word of God.

 

 

 

See, that is a "pat answer" that doesn't really address my question.

 

Parts of the bible are literal, real, reliable history. Parts aren't. How does that address my question? 

 

Yes, the Holy Bible is the word of God. Does that infer we don't need to justify why we read it with a scientific lens? Nope!

 

So let's try again hey? Why read Genesis through scientific goggles?

 

Genesis is correct. Holy. Inspired. Word of God. It needs no correction. It isn't a lie. But it isn't to be read as prescriptive science and was delivered through man. We just need to read it for what it is, and not what we want it to be. That means acknowledging how our worldview differs from the original audience.

 

How do you know how it is to be read.

 

exodus 20:11

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

 

Statement of fact by the Almighty.

[MarkNigro]

 

D9,

I do agree that the days of Gen 1 can be taken as 24 hours, but I also contend they are not tied to the 24 hour limit.

The term "evening and morning" can refer to a sunset and sunrise, though this poses problems for the 24 hour view in that by their view there was no sun to set or rise till day 4. Also the terms evening, morning, sunset and sunrise all are meaningless without a fixed point of reference. If God was speaking about the earth as a whole, evening and morning are happening concurrently at separate locations on the earth.

Finally, the terms evening and morning can and.are used to refer to the end and beginning of extended periods of time. they are not tied only ti the movement of the sun

 

I do not think Genesis is concerned with our modern perceptions of the Earth and Solar system. I think the ancient Hebrews believed in a flat Earth covered with a dome/firmament where the celestial objects revolved around us. I also think that Genesis 1 is poetic in nature. What I'm getting at is I suspect they would have no slot for time zones on Earth, and measuring a day without a Sun wouldn't pose the problems we would associate with the dilemma. 

 

I'll agree that evening and morning can be ambiguous, but from everything I've seen I do think the days fall into 24 hour days. However, to read it as plain history does a disservice to the religious tradition IMHO. To bounce off of Candice, I do see the spiritual lessons as the main importance of the story, not the length of the days. 

 

I think the Holy Bible is quite clear that is was 6 days for creation. One could try to interpret Genesis 1 as a story about spiritual truth. 

 

The language does look like an actual record and thus literal.

[neil_]

 If you're looking for more complex answers, I suggest researching the Lambda-CDM model

 

 

Perhaps you meant “looking for more questions”, instead of answers.

 

 

 

 According to Hawkins' latest proposal, time and space itself came into existence at the moment of the big bang. 

 

 

Perhaps you meant Hawking’s old proposal.

 

 

 

Therefore, there was no "before the big bang".  

 

 

Indeed, the most important exists outside time. The rest will soon get to pass, together with time itself.

 

 

 

   Are you saying that evolutionary biologists and such all have an "atheistic worldview" and are conspiring (e.g., fudging data, rigging results) to discredit the Bible?  

 

 

Absolutely. I’ll leave others here to provide such evidence in regard to biological evolution. In regard to cosmology however, if you’re asking me you’re asking the right person.

 

 

 

   it is indeed a conspiracy by "atheistic scientists"   

 

 

Correct. This once again proves the Bible right (the world has never wanted God).

 

 

 

 Where is their work?  Where are their manuscripts and the resulting arbitrary rejection letters from the prestigious scientific journals?   

 

 

You obviously mean prestigious EVOLUTIONARY journals. Which never include Creationist science. So there’s your answer.

[neil_]

Science, in this case the big bang, tells me HOW He did it. i.e. God created via the big bang. 

 

Actually, big bang is wrong. And it’s so simple to prove that. Literally, it would only take 2 words…

 

 

  The biggest thing I disagree with atheists about is not science, but philosophical naturalism.   

 

Good. Then you don’t believe in evolution. But then why exactly would you believe in cosmic evolution (aka big bang)? You’re contradicting yourself.

 

 

   The BB doesn't cover creation or evolution, it is just a theory of beginnings.  

 

Big bang cosmology covers the entire time (except the very beginning) – including today. Which by the way, in your universe doesn’t exist.

 

 

   A scientific reading of Genesis clashes with evolution. I dont think we should read it scientifically though.  

 

Evolution and science clearly don’t belong in the same sentence (unless you use one to negate the other). Popper clearly proved that in regard to both big bang cosmology and biological evolution.

 

 

but that said, evolution is not synonymous with the big bang. The time periods in which they operate don't overlap.

 

If you believe so dearly in what evolutionists promote with their godless agendas, then how exactly did you miss terms like “cosmic evolution”, “geologic evolution”, “chemical evolution”?

[neil_]

 My understanding is that this isn't something Hawking made up, but a direct consequence of applying Einstein's Relativity (space-time) to the big bang. 

 

How interesting that the famous spacetime doesn’t actually exist. So simple to prove - only three words…

 

 

 Although, if there is a multiverse or whatnot, I'm not sure what that would do.   

 

It’s amusing how evolutionists (cosmic evolutionists in this case) must invoke other universes each time this universe proves them wrong.

[neil_]

 The theory of gravity STILL isn't complete. 

 

It’s not even true…

 

And by the way, there are multiple theories of gravity, not just Einstein’s (and obviously not including Newton).

 

 

 Yet the things we don't understand about gravity do not disprove gravity.

 

I can tell you one thing about gravity which is true: it doesn’t work. Do you want me to tell you why, or you can do your own research?