Genesis 1 might be interpreted to be compatible with the iIg Bang theory of the universe origin if you interpret the earth being formless indicating that in the beginning there was nothing-no matter, etc. Then scripture says God said “Let there be light” it seems that light could be interpreted as pure energy in the singularity that was the start of the Big Bang. OR is this a useless exercise?
Here is a short video about astronomy and the Big Bang that you may find helpful. Origins Session 4: Astronomy and the Big Bang - YouTube
1 Like
A great little video, thanks for sharing.
1 Like
I don’t think it’s related at all really. Since I don’t believe that the creation account is meant to be literal, it can be matched to any reality.
By no means Linda. It is a timeless ode, no matter what we work out about the cosmos. It towers above all other creation myths in the quality of divinity it portrays.
People have two approaches to Genesis. One approach is called concordism, which is trying to fit the words and descriptions to the scientific reality. The other doesn’t have as firm a name, some people would say cultural contextualization or accommodation. With that approach people assume the Genesis account was using the conceptual categories and knowledge base of the ancient audience, and therefore wasn’t attempting to describe or explain modern scientific realities. Most people around here prefer the second approach. Old earth creationist organizations like Reasons to Believe prefer the first approach.
I would agree with Walton and some other OT scholars that for the original audience, the account wasn’t interpreted as describing the creation of the material world out of nothing. Rather it took elements common to creation stories in their cultural context and reframed them or contradicted them to teach the theological truths distinctive to Judaism and the worship of the one true God. If you aren’t familiar with what most people of the time believed, then a lot of the salient points get lost.
Christians believe God is the creator of the material world, so I don’t think there is anything amiss contemplating God’s role in the Big Bang. I just don’t think Genesis necessarily describes it.
3 Likes
There is an interesting book, “The Genesis Enigma” by scientist Andrew Parker that makes a case for the six days of creation lining up rather well with our modern scientific view of the creation process/order.
My view is that G-d wrote Genesis to speak to at least two audiences. To primitive humankind, the message was that G-d created in six literal days. To a technologically sophisticated humankind, the message is that G-d created over billions of years using a sequence of events not unlike what is written there. Socio-cultural evolution is an important component of the creation process. G-d has chosen to work within the confines of that developing process. Like child rearing, we communicate differently to our offspring based on their intellectual age. G-d has the same issue as He seeks to nurture humanity toward maturity over time, but He also has chosen to remain scientifically invisible which adds further complexity into the mix.
I find it awe inspiring to think that G-d has hidden meanings in Scripture waiting for natural revelation to unlock its meaning for us.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.