The Instigator
Truth_seeker
Pro (for)
Winning
1 Points
The Contender
lefillegal1
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

the Big Bang is biblically consistent

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 60192
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Truth_seeker

Pro

The Big Bang does not contradict the Bible

first round acceptance
Debate Round No. 1
Truth_seeker

Pro

I would like to point out that ex -niholo (creation from nothing) is not biblical for the following reasons:

1. Genesis describes creation from something (water, chaos, etc.) not from nothing

2. In Hebrew, there is no word to describe creation from nothing

3. Logically, something had to exist (God), thus creation did not come from nothing.

In Hebrew, the concrete concept which illustrates the meaning of bara is found in 1Sa 2:29

Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat (LHBRYAKM) with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?

In other words, it means to fatten. God filled the universe with everything in it.

Notice that in Genesis 1:1 it says that God "Created the heavens and the earth"

Heavens in Hebrew cosmology were defined as the stars, moon, sun, space, constellations, etc. so it's too much of a coincidence for the Bible to begin with heavens seeing how the big bang also claims that everything came from a single point in space-time.

God did not create something out of nothing (if you use that to charge the big bang as being absurd, you may as well use it against the Bible). In fact, the big bang never states that nothing brought everything, but that the universe began at a simple point (1). How did that point get there? We don't know.

That being said, no conflict is found in the Bible and in the theory of the big bang.

Sources:

1. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
lefillegal1

Con

Thanks for the definitions, but they do nothing to prove your resolution. Your resolution states the big bang thoery doesnt contradict The Bible. I assert it does. This assertion can be easily confirmed. One look at the "Original" reason, as to WHY the "Big Bang" was even theorized, shows it was MEANT to contradict the bible. It was originally an "alternative" explanation to the universe's origin. An alternative to The Bible's explanation. Whenever offering an "alternative", some "contradiction" to the "original", must be made. So it follows, if offering an alternative explanation for our universe's origin, the big bang must also, offer with it, contradictions to the explanation we already recognize. The Big Bang is not, without these contradictions, yet you mentioned none of them. You CLAIM there is no contradiction and that the theory "possibly" explains how God went about creating our universe. How do I know youre wrong? Lets examine the most easily understood contradictions.
1.Time
The Big Bang states millions, if not billions, of years, must have passed, developing our universe. The Bible claims, only seven days, was needed to make our universe. Even if 1 day to God, is as 1000 years to man, the times do not match. Is that not a contradiction?
2.New heaven and New Earth
The bible speaks of a new heaven, and a new earth. Where is the new heaven and new earth in the big bang? Is it a new planet, new solar system? Was Jesus looking to a new universe or some distant planet to relocate to? Will that new earth and new heaven take millions of years to form, or will it arrive in the day of the lord as the bible records? The big bang says the universe is always expanding(slowly, forming planets over millions of years) and will a:continue to expand, or b:collapse in on itself. Either way that contradicts what the Bible teaches about a new heaven and new earth. The theory fails to explain what happens as a result of the collapse, but be sure no new heaven or new earth is mentioned in the event this does happen. So where the Big Bang Theory leaves you guessing about the earth's end, the Bible doesn't.
Again, there are many contradictions the Big Bang must come with, to offer itself as an alternative to Genesis. I have only chosen to show these, as they are enough to defeat the resolution.
Debate Round No. 2
Truth_seeker

Pro

"1.Time
The Big Bang states millions, if not billions, of years, must have passed, developing our universe. The Bible claims, only seven days, was needed to make our universe. Even if 1 day to God, is as 1000 years to man, the times do not match. Is that not a contradiction?"

The Hebrew does not restrict itself to a literal 7 days. Hebrews had no concept of a precise literal 24-hour period. If creation took 24 hours, that would be defined as a day. If it took billions of years, it would also be defined as a day (1). Because of this, no contradiction is found.

"2.New heaven and New Earth
The bible speaks of a new heaven, and a new earth. Where is the new heaven and new earth in the big bang? Is it a new planet, new solar system? Was Jesus looking to a new universe or some distant planet to relocate to? Will that new earth and new heaven take millions of years to form, or will it arrive in the day of the lord as the bible records? The big bang says the universe is always expanding(slowly, forming planets over millions of years) and will a:continue to expand, or b:collapse in on itself. Either way that contradicts what the Bible teaches about a new heaven and new earth. "

The Big bang was simply to begin this present earth and heaven (Gen. 1). Of course the new heaven and new earth will probably not occur in the same way this universe did. Either way, this does not contradict the fact that the big bang happened in THIS universe.

Sources:

1. Doukhan, p. 200. Cf. Von Rad, Vol. 2, p. 100-101.
lefillegal1

Con

The Hebrew does not restrict itself to a literal 7 days. Hebrews had no concept of a precise literal 24-hour period. If creation took 24 hours, that would be defined as a day. If it took billions of years, it would also be defined as a day (1). Because of this, no contradiction is found."

Wrong. To say Hebrews had no concept of 24hrs or a 7 day week is misleading. Their days consisted of evening to morning.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
As scripture records a day is equal to 1 evening until the next. That sure looks like 24hrs to me. Now lets talk about a 7 day week. How could one observe the Sabbath if they have no concept of a day. How would they find the 7th day?
Exodus 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Genesis 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Hmmm, why would God command them to keep the sabbath when he knows they have no concept of "day"? Did not Hebrews keep the sabbath? As you can see, the Hebrews definately had a conept of "day". Not only did they have a concept of "day", they also had the concepts of "months and years". Lets examine scripture.

Exodus 12:2 This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

Notice, the DAYS of Adam totaled 900+ Y EARS?

Genesis 5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

Why would they say certain days, within certain months, within a specific year, xyz happen if they had no concept of day?

Ezekiel 1:1 Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. 1:2 In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin's captivity.
Scripture clearly records they had the concept "day" and also the concepts of "months and years".

So, Hebrews had the concept, now what? The word "day" is still ambiguous, how do we know which meaning the writer intended? Scripture confirms scripture! If we continue reading Genisis, when we come to the fourth chapter, we encounter a new phrase. Lets read it.

Genesis 4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.,

What have we here? Up until this point, all throughout Genesis, a passage of time is referred to specifically as "day". Now we find it as "in the process of time". Couldnt the writer just have used "day" instead? Would it not have been less confusing had he done so? After reading the passage, its easy to see, the writer clearly knew the difference between "day(24hrs)" and "in the process of time(hours,days,years,eons,ages,etc)" its not until AFTER Genesis 4:3, that "days" are referred to as "years,months,etc". One should only conclude that the writer intended it that way. Why? As seen in the verse, the writer makes a clear distinction between "time passing" and "day". As not to confuse the reader. To put the meaning of "time passing" onto "day" before this verse is an error. To do so, one would have to explain why Genesis does not say " And "in the process of time" God ended his work which he had made; and he rested "in the process of time" from all his work which he had made.? I ask you why not?

"The Big bang was simply to begin this present earth and heaven (Gen. 1). Of course the new heaven and new earth will probably not occur in the same way this universe did. Either way, this does not contradict the fact that the big bang happened in THIS universe."

Big Bang a fact? Prove it!!! I know you cant, its a "theory". One you have faith in! Yet this same "theory" was started to DISCREDIT Genesis. The fact is, this "theory" changes over time, God's word doesnt. That is indeed the Biggest contradiction to the Bible! How is something, that always changes consistent with something that never changes?
Debate Round No. 3
Truth_seeker

Pro

"Wrong. To say Hebrews had no concept of 24hrs or a 7 day week is misleading. Their days consisted of evening to morning.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.Genesis 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."

The phrase "Evening and morning" is a Semitic idiom used for an indefinite period of time. It's used to mark the end of each creation work regardless of length (1). Furthermore, in Hebrew, these are ordinal days (day 1, day 2, day 3, etc. ) not length periods of time (2).

" How could one observe the Sabbath if they have no concept of a day. How would they find the 7th day?"

Hebrews incorporated their calendar to mark the seasons and cycles of the Sabbath (3).

The Hebrews defined day by the acts of completed events. In the verse you brought, the time periods to observe festivals was determined by the natural rhythms of the seasons (4). While yes, it does mention months, it is based on the cycles of the moon, not on concepts such as "past,present, or future."

"Big Bang a fact? Prove it!!! I know you cant, its a "theory". One you have faith in! Yet this same "theory" was started to DISCREDIT Genesis. The fact is, this "theory" changes over time, God's word doesnt. That is indeed the Biggest contradiction to the Bible! How is something, that always changes consistent with something that never changes?"

A term scientists call "primordial B-mode polarization" proves the big bang happened (5). The big bang theory states that the universe formed after millions of years. As we have seen, no contradiction exists between Genesis and the big bang. In fact, we know that science and God's Word cannot conflict, therefore we must look at the evidence to better understand God's Word.

Sources:

1. Krista Bontrager, The Bigger Picture on Creation, pgs. 42-45 (2008)]

2. Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982:p. 61

3. http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. Henri Frankfort, H.A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsen, Before Philosophy, Penguin Books, reprint, 1964: 32.

5. http://gizmodo.com...
lefillegal1

Con

lefillegal1 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by frio937 3 years ago
frio937
I am excited for this debate.
Posted by elusiveness 3 years ago
elusiveness
This should be a great Debate. I've been talking about this for a long time. I am on the pro side of this argument, however this will not influence my vote. Good luck guys!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
Truth_seekerlefillegal1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side presented a coherent enough case to warrant arguments. But Con forfeited, giving a clear conduct point. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.