quote:
Yet, to me I can’t understand how people who lived 2000-3000 years ago could possibly have known of the Big Bang that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. They didn’t have anything like the scientific instrumentation or communications that we have today. Indeed, their metaphors sound to me like made-to-fit-almost-anything metaphors that anyone could just dream up.
And the fact that they used metaphors instead of directly stating specifics like the Universe starting 13.7 billion years ago, or life starting on Earth at least 3.5 billion years ago, only dramatically increases the likelihood that they didn’t know of those events.
So, my first question is: please could you explain why you are convinced that the metaphors were designed to describe what we both accept to be real events such as the Big Bang?
I agree with you that the authors did not know about the Big Bang. I don't believe that they were trying to describe the Big Bang. This is a scientific concept, but the Bible is not a science text.
The Bible is trying to convey a theological message, not a scientific one. It describes God as the creator of everything using theological and philosophical language, not scientific language.
There are many ways of understanding and interpreting Genesis chapter 1. The various views can be grouped into "concordist" views, where Genesis 1 is matched up with modern science, and "non-concordist" views, where Genesis 1 is seen as a purely literary account with no direct match to modern science.
You seem to be assuming a "concordist" perspective, and this is probably the natural approach for most people. The best concordist view I've seen is from Hugh Ross of
Reasons to Believe (
http://www.rtb.org) In this view the Big Bang belongs in Gen 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Note that this verse does not describe a Big Bang; it says nothing about when or how the creation of the universe occurred, only that God created it.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.