Does the Bible's creation account rule out the possibility that the universe began with the big bang

Ok, so you are a bible literalist. But in that case you have to explain how you have 'a morning and an evening' before the sun and stars existed.

You can't have it both ways. Either 'day' was a metaphor or the sun came on day one.

I am arguing that the Bible makes no sense when discussing science, or anything about how the real Universe works. The text clearly says that plants were created before the sun (even if you treat "days" as time periods).

The original question is whether the Bible's creation account rules out the possibility that the Universe began with the Big Bang. The answer is clearly 'yes'. Scientific observation directly contradicts the Biblical account.

All this rationalizing of the bible is very entertaining, but the bottom line is that everyone is trying to make the bible's language fit into the scientific reality and not the other way around. So whether people want to admit it or not, it's the scientific view which trumps the bible myth.

Here is something that scholars and other experts know, The Bible does not specify the length of each of the creative periods. Yet all six of them have ended, it being said with respect to the sixth day (as in the case of each of the preceding five days): “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a sixth day.” (Ge 1:31) However, this statement is not made regarding the seventh day, on which God proceeded to rest, indicating that it continued. (Ge 2:1-3) Also, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day, commenced, Paul indicated that it was still in progress. At Hebrews 4:1-11 he referred to the earlier words of David (Ps 95:7, 8, 11) and to Genesis 2:2 and urged: “Let us therefore do our utmost to enter into that rest.” By the apostle’s time, the seventh day had been continuing for thousands of years and had not yet ended. The Thousand Year Reign of Jesus Christ, who is Scripturally identified as “Lord of the sabbath” (Mt 12:8), is evidently part of the great sabbath, God’s rest day. (Re 20:1-6) This would indicate the passing of thousands of years from the commencement of God’s rest day to its end. The week of days set forth at Genesis 1:3 to 2:3, the last of which is a sabbath, seems to parallel the week into which the Israelites divided their time, observing a sabbath on the seventh day thereof, in keeping with the divine will. (Ex 20:8-11) And, since the seventh day has been continuing for thousands of years, it may reasonably be concluded that each of the six creative periods, or days, was at least thousands of years in length.

That a day can be longer than 24 hours is indicated by Genesis 2:4, which speaks of all the creative periods as one “day.” Also indicative of this is Peter’s inspired observation that “one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.” (2Pe 3:8) Ascribing not just 24 hours but a longer period of time, thousands of years, to each of the creative days better harmonizes with the evidence found in the earth itself.

Hopefully this bit of info helps.

So then Anthony...

How do you explain the fact that according to the Biblical text plants were created before the Sun existed?

No one has explained how that happened yet.

I thought it was all magic. Am I missing something here?

That just isn't true unless you a priori define the Big Bang as 'something God didn't do'.

When the first line reads "In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." and science says the universe began with the Big Bang - where is the conflict? How exactly does science directly contradict the bible?

You have yet to give a rational explanation of why my interpretations are wrong. Especially since your interpretation of the bible as literal obviously makes no sense and you staunchly stand by that interpretation.

When two interpretations of something are posited, I go with the one that adds up. You appear to go with the one that supports your personal view.

It's the timing.

Already explained possible reasons for the timing. Waiting on you or someone to refute them.

Guess you like the tactic of 'declaring victory and going home.'?

I think this point of yours can be sharpened by expanding on an idea you offered a few pages ago. What length of a day would be both

1. long enough to so that seven of them would cover the 13.8 billion years from the Big Bang to the emergence of humans, and
2. short enough that plants could survive one of them without the sun?

It sure looks like a difficult needle to thread.

Not to mention those 'morning and evenings' before there was a sun.

Hey maxdancona,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.

I wish more people approached an examination of what the Bible says as you do. It provides for a much richer conversation.

The text in question is Genesis 1:14 where it states: "14 Then God said: “Let there be luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night, and they will serve as signs for seasons and for days and years."

A thorough investigation of this text reveals that the Bible is not saying that the luminaries, "Sun and Moon", where created after vegetation began to grow, but that heavenly luminaries became discernible from the vantage point of earth as can be understood from the context of verses 3 & 4 of chapter one where clearly the sun and the moon already had been created where light and darkness are already in evidence well before vegetation began to appear as is related starting in verse 11.

For some time now scientist have theorized that during its early formation, the earth was enveloped in an unusually thick canopy of vapor which would not have allowed for a direct viewing of the sun or moon. This canopy eventually evaporated over time. The Bible's creation account runs in line with this theory. Thus when we examine all of the evidence it becomes clear that the Bible account of earths creation is indeed credible.

Oh does it now? Frankly, I don't see how this hypothesis survives even a cursory reading of the relevant text.


For someone who understands the word "yom" to mean a time interval of no specific length in particular, the author of Genesis 1 seems surprisingly hung up on the idea that yoms are delimited by successions of evenings by mornings. You know, just like these things to which we English-speakers refer by the word "day".

You make an interesting point. But it would be good to ask, how long was each evening and morning, day? Clearly the Hebrew term and the context of events does not allow for a 24hr period but for something vastly longer.

This is not true. There are no real scientists who theorize this. (I define scientists as people who base their understanding on experiments, observation and data).

Land plants developed after ocean life, and there was no thick canopy of vapor obscuring the sun during this time (which spanned hundreds of millions of years).

But you are just making stuff up. Which leads to the real question.

But if you are going to just make stuff up like this, then why did you ask the question in the first place? If you can just make up whatever you want without considering the facts or evidence, then asking whether the "big bang" is possible doesn't make any sense.

"Clearly"? Name three Hebrew dictionaries stating that a morning or an evening can be vastly longer than 12 hours.

Well, I can promise you that I'm not making things up. The context of the Scriptures in the Genesis account clearly show that the sun and the moon were in evidence priror to vegetation appearing on the surface of the earth.

Well, for example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

This seems awfully clear that according to the Biblical text, God "set [the sun and moon and the stars] in the vault of the sky" on the fourth day.

But OK... I accept your ability to interpret the Bible however you want.

Which do you think came first according to the Biblical text; land plants or sea animals?

Do you believe that there were any sea creatures swimming around before the first plants appeared on land?