# the big bang theory?



## kd116 (Jun 12, 2009)

im currious what do you guys think about it.

i know rc sprould and a few other well known theologians of today believe it. well i dont do any of you? if so please explain to me why and how can you if you hold to sola scriptura?


----------



## lynnie (Jun 12, 2009)

From a point of infinite density smaller than this dot . the entire universe emerged. Within that point none of the laws of physics applied. (This is not yet proven but mathmatics has allegedly come close.) 

What do I think? It takes more faith to believe in the big bang theory than to believe in God. 

I don't know what RCS has said.....I suppose in a way that God creating the universe out of nothing might seem like another way to say it all emerged through that tiny point of infinite density, even if they are really saying two different things. I don't like to criticize RCS and whatever he thinks, I am sure he gives God all the glory. He wouldn't say it just happened spontaneously out of nowhere, he would say God created it, which right there is not the big bang theory. BB theory does not hold to any God.


----------



## Bookmeister (Jun 12, 2009)

Funniest show on TV, period. Oh wait, nevermind.


----------



## Theognome (Jun 12, 2009)

The Big Bang Theory- God spoke and, BANG! it happened!

Theognome


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 12, 2009)

Theognome said:


> The Big Bang Theory- God spoke and, BANG! it happened!
> 
> Theognome



Exactly. I've not had a problem with this Big Bang Theory except that the Hebrew uses the word "it was so" instead of "Bang." 

Actually, one thing to know is that the "Big Bang" theory doesn't attempt to address the beginning. It is used to describe the events that follow the initial "event." 

Even so, it's the closest thing the secular world has come to acknowledging _ex nihilo_ creation. That's one reason it was opposed in the 20s and 30s: it implied a beginning.


----------



## Denton Elliott (Jun 12, 2009)

2 Peter 3:10 (King James Version)

10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a *great noise*, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

In the Greek *great noise* means Big Bang! 

So I think they have it on the wrong end of history!


----------



## Scynne (Jun 12, 2009)

I would have nothing against it, except that inherent in the theory is the notion that it took a lot longer than six days (like ~379000 years) before everything had cooled to a temperature low enough to even form atoms, let alone birds, fishes, and humans.


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 12, 2009)

I kind of like secularists embracing the Big Bang Theory because I can say, "Ohh, so you too are a man of faith?" Their incredulous facial expressions are priceless and so is explaining the irony of their beliefs.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 12, 2009)

Order of creation is that the Sun was created on what day? Does'nt the big ban theory state that the earth was from the sun? The creation account says the sun was created after the earth. I am not that familiar with the big bang theory.



> (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> 
> (Gen 1:2) 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Confessor (Jun 12, 2009)

I thought Sproul was YEC.

And I agree with Josh.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 12, 2009)

Confessor said:


> I thought Sproul was YEC.
> 
> And I agree with Josh.



According to this thread Dr. Sproul became a literl 7 day / young earth creationist.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/r-c-sproul-changes-his-mind-days-creation-35204/


----------



## VictorBravo (Jun 12, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Order of creation is that the Sun was created on what day? Does'nt the big ban theory state that the earth was from the sun? The creation account says the sun was created after the earth. I am not that familiar with the big bang theory.




Not necessarily, Randy. It deals with the idea that the universe expanded from a single point way back when. It doesn't necessarily require that the earth form out of the sun or even that the formation of the earth and sun are related. That's later along the timeline and more in the realm of astrophysics and geology.

BTW, I'm not promoting the Big Bang, I just want to see it treated in a fair fashion. I'm a young earther who doesn't like how many YECers mischaracterize what science is saying.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 12, 2009)

lynnie said:


> From a point of infinite density smaller than this dot . the entire universe emerged. Within that point none of the laws of physics applied. (This is not yet proven but mathmatics has allegedly come close.)



Actually that's not true at all (as far as the theory goes). All the laws of physics apply all the time, even at the big bang as well as now.


----------



## OPC'n (Jun 12, 2009)

I'm not sure that Sproul is a big bang holder. I've listened to so much of his stuff that I think I would have come across his thoughts on holding to the big bang theory. Do you have a reference by him which states that? Also, is the reference old or new?


----------



## kd116 (Jun 12, 2009)

TranZ4MR said:


> I'm not sure that Sproul is a big bang holder. I've listened to so much of his stuff that I think I would have come across his thoughts on holding to the big bang theory. Do you have a reference by him which states that? Also, is the reference old or new?



yes i do.

he has a book i will have to look it up i will do that in a min.

but also the first time i heard him say it was in a dvd i got from
Welcome to Ligonier Ministries titled ultimate issues. the dvd is very much worth buying i luv it. the only part i disagree with him is the big bang theory.

srpoul is one of my favorite theologians and thats not gonna change because he approves of the big bang. 

the big bang theory is not essential to christianity.

did God create the universe out of nothingness or did he create the big bang out of nothingness with His direct guideance to create the universe......

we may never truly know.

ok i looked it up and the name of the book is defending your faith by sproul


----------



## Webservant (Jun 12, 2009)

Everything there is from something which is infinitely small. Sounds like ex nihilo to me. Infinity works in both directions. 

There were no human witnesses to creation. It is impossible to adequately describe an event which human senses have never experienced - an event which occurred, presumably, during a time when some of the laws of the physics were not even in place.

For the longest time I used to argue creation with non-believers, until I figured out that there comes a point where you cannot argue creation on the world's terms. When you do so you may just lower the whole debate to that which can be observed, and since the world is used to arguing on a basis other than faith, they will win the debate. The difference is faith, and no amount of scientific evidence or speculation can comprehend utter certainty about that which will can never and will never be observed.


----------



## ZackF (Jun 15, 2009)

kd116 said:


> im currious what do you guys think about it.
> 
> i know rc sprould and a few other well known theologians of today believe it. well i dont do any of you? if so please explain to me why and how can you if you hold to sola scriptura?



I hold to it as the leading hypothesis with the similar grasp many scientists do. I am looking forward to the readings we will see from the new telescopes going into orbit in the next few years. To this day the galactic photos from Hubble take my breath away. From my lay-science buff view, cosmology is going to be rocked pretty heavily again over the next few years.


----------



## Narnian (Jun 15, 2009)

I have no problem with the general idea of the big bang:

1. Cosmologists who support it have not explained where the "." came from that the big bang originated from. As soon as it appeared it would have exploded which in my mind meant it appeared suddenly Ex Nihilo.

2. They accept that the laws of physics AND even time were different at the origin. Even the speed of light may not have been limiting. This opens the door to a much shorter creation period perhaps?

3. It does support an origin - "and then there was ...".


----------



## Edward (Jun 15, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Order of creation is that the Sun was created on what day? Does'nt the big ban theory state that the earth was from the sun? The creation account says the sun was created after the earth. I am not that familiar with the big bang theory.



But note that the earth in Gen. 1:2 was without form. 

Then the sun was created (Gen 1:3)

Then the earth took its present form (Gen 1:7-10)


----------



## ZackF (Jun 15, 2009)

Narnian said:


> I have no problem with the general idea of the big bang:
> 
> 1. Cosmologists who support it have not explained where the "." came from that the big bang originated from. As soon as it appeared it would have exploded which in my mind meant it appeared suddenly Ex Nihilo.
> 
> ...



I thought this lecture was interesting. A bit technical but not totally inaccessible.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jun 15, 2009)

I may be in a minority position here ... I hold to a six day, framework interpretation of Gen 1, which means it is not a chronology at all (which I take from the text that time was created on the 4th day). Better minds than mine have argued it.

As to the big bang? I have no idea. From a "created from nothing" it fits ("before" the bang, the infinitesimal universe would not have existed, so its existence would require creation). The Bible is, from my viewpoint, silent on exactly what the operational mode of creation was, and so we are free to explore the book of God's work to find the mode.

What is the point of the question? Is it to understand the theory of the BB, or is it to understand the Biblical exegesis of those that think it is true?


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 16, 2009)

Do unbelieving humans find it easier to believe that a " . " came from nothing than that the whole universe came fully formed from nothing?

Sounds like some simplistic fallacy of the (fallen) human mind. It's easier for the " ." to appear without God's help because the "." is very small. 

It would surely take just as much infinite power to create the " . " as to create a universe, would it not?

Then you've got the problem of how the " ." was kept in existence (sustained) after its creation by pure chance, and then turned into the universe by pure chance.


----------



## Gator_Baptist (Jun 17, 2009)

My personal opinion on the subject is that it is nonsense, and here is why. If you believe the big bang theory, then that is clearly a stepping stone to things like macro-evolution, and an old earth world view. So then you get into the whole debate of whether _yom_ is a 24 hour period or an indefinite period of time. It is a crime in my opinion to suggest that _yom_ is not a literal 24 hour day. And the passage that makes it clear is Exodus 20:8-11



Exodus 20:8-11 said:


> Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
> 
> Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
> 
> ...



I just can't with a clear conscience bring myself to say that _yom_ is an indefinite period of time in this passage. Otherwise God is basically saying, "Since I created in 6 periods of millions of years and then rested during the seventh period, I want you to work 6 days and rest on the seventh." The alternative literal 24-hour day fits this passage perfectly, and the above interpretation in my opinion is a butchering of the Bible and what it is clearly saying.


----------



## sastark (Jun 17, 2009)

Edward said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Order of creation is that the Sun was created on what day? Does'nt the big ban theory state that the earth was from the sun? The creation account says the sun was created after the earth. I am not that familiar with the big bang theory.
> ...



Actually, in Genesis 1:3, *light* was created, not the Sun. The Sun was not created until Day 4.


----------



## Tripel (Jun 17, 2009)

I believe scientific discovery shows that the universe is expanding, which leads me to believe that at one point a "big bang" started it all. The big bang, in my opinion, is God's first creation of matter.


----------



## Confessor (Jun 17, 2009)

Universe expansion could also imply that the universe was made at a specific size (bigger than . ) from which it is expanding. In other words,, that the universe is expanding is an underdetermining factor regarding BBT and YEC.


----------



## Tripel (Jun 17, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Universe expansion could also imply that the universe was made at a specific size (bigger than . ) from which it is expanding. In other words,, that the universe is expanding is an underdetermining factor regarding BBT and YEC.



That could be the case. I'm open to other possibilities, as I don't think this debate is settled for one side or another. But given the evidence, I think it most likely that a big bang of sorts started it all (as orchestrated by God) and billions of years later the earth is still expanding from that bang.


----------



## Theognome (Jun 17, 2009)

Is there any reason why God couldn't have initiated the universe in an expanding state? Does not the very concept of day/night described in Genesis imply motion?

Theognome


----------



## Sven (Jun 17, 2009)

Regarding the expansion of the universe there is evidence that it is not expanding uniformly, unlike what you'd expect if the BBT was true. I highly recommend this book by John Byl:

Amazon.com: God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe: John Byl: Books


----------



## ZackF (Jun 19, 2009)

Sven said:


> Regarding the expansion of the universe there is evidence that it is not expanding uniformly, unlike what you'd expect if the BBT was true. I highly recommend this book by John Byl:
> 
> Amazon.com: God and Cosmos: A Christian View of Time, Space, and the Universe: John Byl: Books



I am of OE/OU beliefs that are way to the "left", for the lack of better categories, than most on this board or those who would come near it but I am always eager to learn. Watching my funds really close these days but I found these papers ,freebies by Byl, and plan on reading some of them as I am able. Thanks for the suggestion.

Blessings,


----------



## Grimmson (Jun 19, 2009)

This is an interesting question and let me give you my take on the issue. I saw someone say that the Sun came out of the being bang, actually it doesn’t technically if you look at the theory that comes out of stellar evolution theory, which in turn affects the development of planetary bodies. Do not get me wrong the different theories are tied together but they are technically separate. Now in Genesis God spoke the universe in existence, by his work came light. The point is the power of God and his control in creation. It is not one of those Babylonian or Egyptian creation myths which shows a cycle of death and creation from that death. God spoke it and it was done, no details are shown how or what process outside of the direct effect of his word that everything occurred as he wished it to be good. Therefore a big bang could have occurred, however I think it is important in light of this idea we should be mindful of the 6 day creation presented in our text. Could all that God wished occur within the framework that he desires, of course he is God and can do all he wants without any need of advice or feedback my us mere men. So it is possible to some degree to marry the ideas together but it is a narrow tightrope when billions of years are added to the equation, forgive my pun. The Big Bang Theory is a creation out of nothing and so is the Genesis account, without the detailed account of what process occurred after the word was spoken for the event of creation to come to be. And lets face it if you were a Israelite or a modern day Christian seeing the exact full process after the spoken word we all probably be confused. So leave it to God to go straight to the point. He knows are needs and let us try to be gracious to those hold to one way or another on the Big Bang Theory when they accept our Lord and Savor, who bought them with the high price of his blood.

To God be the Glory and Honor Forever


----------



## Brian Withnell (Jun 20, 2009)

Richard Tallach said:


> Do unbelieving humans find it easier to believe that a " . " came from nothing than that the whole universe came fully formed from nothing?
> 
> Sounds like some simplistic fallacy of the (fallen) human mind. It's easier for the " ." to appear without God's help because the "." is very small.
> 
> ...



Actually, the "." would have had to be created ... if it did exist prior to the bang, the bang would have occurred earlier. It would have had to come into being and start expanding instantaneously, so the question is not related to the "." not requiring God, for the "." would be impossible without God.

-----Added 6/20/2009 at 01:58:02 EST-----



sastark said:


> Actually, in Genesis 1:3, *light* was created, not the Sun. The Sun was not created until Day 4.



Hmmmm. While I see what you are saying, I read this a little more literally:


> Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;



Days were the creation of the fourth day. If one doesn't have a 24 hour day theological axe to grind, having this in the midst of the passage pretty clearly shows that whatever yom was talking about, it certainly wasn't talking about literal days which did not exist on days 1 - 3 if yom does mean 24 hour day. The plain reading of the text could not be 24 hour days ... so the only way to have it mean 24 hour days is if you already have decided what it means, and then you are going to have to fit conjecture around what it says.

But this is still  in that it does not address anything to do with the OP (at least the OP doesn't say anything about YE/OE controversy or 6x24 creation, or the unending 7th day).

-----Added 6/20/2009 at 02:10:25 EST-----



Theognome said:


> Is there any reason why God couldn't have initiated the universe in an expanding state? Does not the very concept of day/night described in Genesis imply motion?
> 
> Theognome



The main reason I find I have a problem with the view "couldn't God have ..." is that conjecture beyond what the scripture states or what can be derived by necessary conclusion is fraught with danger. I don't know if God was concerned with giving a chronology in creation or not. Given the clear parallels of 1 and 4, 2 and 5, day 3 and 6, I would presume _*just from that passage*_ that it was not chronology.

What I don't think we have in Genesis is a science book description of creation. What we have is more concerned with authority and hierarchy than chronology. Is it possible to contort what it says into a chronology? Yes, but I do believe that would be a contortion based on having an already formed opinion as to what it means. Do I think I could be wrong? Of course I could be, but I think it is the most logical reading of the text possible. Is it possible for me to be persuaded otherwise? Perhaps, but it would take clearer teaching on the text than what I have seen so far by someone trying to convince me. The plain meaning (what I've heard called the framework interpretation) is what I hold and it seems to fit together perfectly not only with the Book of God's Word, but it even seems to fit a lot of the book of God's work.


----------



## charliejunfan (Jun 20, 2009)

I am a 6/24 hr day creationist who believes the earth is somewhere between 8,000 and 13,000 yrs old. I believe that a big bang creation view does nothing bad to christianity, and I abhor the attitude that says, "that isn't conservative/historical/orthodox, therefore I am not that". It is ridiculous to call something "liberal" or "modernist" when there is no effort put forth in trying to understand the view from a Christian/biblical standpoint. As long as one believes that God brought forth creation by His word then they are just as much Christians by faith as we.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 20, 2009)

Brian Withnell said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Do unbelieving humans find it easier to believe that a " . " came from nothing than that the whole universe came fully formed from nothing?
> ...



Yes. My point was that it may be easier for people who don't believe in God to believe that the universe began with a "." because of the fallacy that it would be easier for a "." to come from nothing than something bigger to come from nothing. That might sound like a rather simple oversight but it shows the noetic effects of sin. Atheists are people of course who are able to persuade themselves that the universe was created and is sustained by impersonal chance, though the fact that they keep searching for laws and answers shows that they don't really believe this.

In a similar way atheists find it easier to believe that very "simple" and small life emerged from the primeval soup than a fully formed man and woman (wearing swimsuits) It may well be that the latter is no less likely than the former.

The principle seems to be that if you start small and simple enough, you can do without or forget about God. The reality is that however small and simple you get - it may fool the simple-minded atheist - but you still need God.

None of this touches on the evidence for a Big Bang, except that the theory may have been influenced by the need for atheists to start small in origins Qs. I would personally take the BBT with a heavy pinch of salt, although something like it, but very different to what naturalists envisage, might be compatible with Genesis (?) 

The first verse of Genesis says that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and we are not told how He did that miracle, nor how long the heavens and the earth were in existence before He started work on them on the First Day. Is such a (modified) Gap Theory feasible from the text of Genesis Chapter One?


----------



## Confessor (Jun 20, 2009)

I thought I'd continue the  train...



Brian Withnell said:


> The plain meaning (what I've heard called the framework interpretation) is what I hold



If there's anything attractive about the FH at all, it's certainly _not_ its perspicuity. It's just not there to be exegeted -- that's why Kline had to appeal to ANE extrabiblical studies to support it, and that's why no one will look at the text and actually come up with it except as some means to "protect" Biblical authority from secularist science.

Besides, even if you want to take the 1-4, 2-5, 3-6 structure of it, you must realize that that contributes nothing to making it figurative. The story of the flood is configured poetically too, but it is literal history. That God chose to have a kingdom-inhabitant pattern in creation does not imply that all of a sudden Genesis is not literal.

And regarding that "it couldn't be a day because days were created on 'day' 4": no, it could. Days are a length of time, and even though the usual marker that humans use to measure it would not have been available, it doesn't follow that God wasn't speaking of that length of time. Thus, God did not create days on day 4; He created the usual signs that help humans understand when a day occurs.


----------

