Yes, I agree I made a poor paraphrase, it should be “firstborn over all creation,” the Logos is the incorruptible image of God. But that was actually my point - the Logos must precede creation. The Logos is prerequisite for creation, including a bunch of photons we call light.
Here I think the context shows that Genesis 1 and John 1 are using light in different ways. Genesis is using light as a bunch of photons and also metaphorically: clarity, order, judgment, wisdom and progress. John 1 is only using light metaphorically and then adds:
9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world.
and then
14 The Word [ie. Logos] became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (NIV)
Therefore, “true light” = Logos.
The reason I parsed this out is to show that John 1 informs us concerning the Logos, but does not tell us anything about how Genesis uses physical light. I don’t need to force the creation of light into some scheme for the sake of John 1.
As for the Big Bang being ripe for a massive change I need only remind everybody that Aristotle gave way to Ptolemy, who after 1400 years gave way Copernicus and Kepler, who gave way to Newton, who gave way to Einstien, who gave way to Heisenburg. In many people’s eyes, Scholastic Christianity was discredited by their reliance on Aristotle when Aristotle was discredited by the Scientific Renaissance.
Even after the discovery of the Higgs particle, the force of gravity still has some serious issues working with the other three forces of nature. There are tons of open questions about cosmic inflation including more than a few physicists who don’t think it happened. Much of the data that is used to confirm things is at the validation level of science - the lowest level of science. It really is the least that I can say that the Big Bang is ripe for a paradigm shift.
All the best, Lee