Problems with the Big Bang Theory

[JohnMartin]

Including Thomas Aquinas, who promoted several positions that were contrary to Catholic doctrine on God's omnipotence.

An example?

JM

[Roy]

An example?

From here:

From here*:

In addition to the ambiguity of Tempier's list, the question of Thomas' inclusion in Tempier's condemnation has also been clouded by an incorrect interpretation of evidence furnished by three of his contemporaries, Henry of Ghent, John Pecham and William de la Mare. According to their testimonies, two theses that were clearly Thomistic - one of them concerning the controversial doctrine of the unicity of substantial form, the other the existence of matter without form - were censured in 1277.

*transcribed, so may include typoes

[Roy]

There are numerous and large discrepancies between the creation week and the big bang theory.

JM

An example?

[Sparko]

Genesis 1 was understood by the Church fathers as a literal week, with the exception of Augustine, who taught the week was an instant of creation. The consent of the Church fathers is against the big bang theory. The Church father's consent is binding on the Church. The creation event occurred in a week, whereby the earth was created first, then after the earth, the other cosmological bodies.

JM

Still endorsed by the Pope and the Catholic Church. so if you are denying it, then you are heretical.

[JohnMartin]

An example?

Genesis 1 (G1) - days are understood by the Church Fathers as literal.
BB - there is no creation week.

G1 - the universe is created by a supernatural (SN) divine agent from nothing.
BB - the universe emerges from a small volume.

G1 - the SN act of creation involves no change.
BB - emergence involves change.

G1 - earth is created first.
BB - earth does not emerge until after other bodies.

G1 - portrays the universe as a temple.
BB - universe is only a natural effect of an unknown process.

G1 - portrays the universe as good as a perfect work of the creator, without sin, evil and death.
BB - assumes death and evil are part of the emergence process, tied into evolutionary theory.

G1 - portrays the creator as the ultimate cause of all life, produced via divine speech.
BB - portrays the ultimate cause of life in a material cause.

G1 - the goal of the created universe is the Sabbath rest.
BB - the goal of the BB emergent universe is inflation, and then perhaps collapse.

G1 - portrays the created order as directed towards the author of the universe as the true final end.
BB - there is no order towards the divine within the universe.

G1 - is the start of the divinely revealed story of creations fall from grace and its restoration according to the action of the power of God.
BB - there is no story of fall from grace and no restoration of the universe.

G1 - Adam is the head of the human race.
BB - there is no head of the human race.

G1 - creation involves a covenant union between God and man as a marriage. Such serves as the type of Christs marriage to the Church.
BB - there is no reference to a covenant of marriage.

G1 - SN world view.
BB - naturalist world view.

G1 - the written text is prophetic, whereby the text is true, as divine speech.
BB - is merely the theory of the academy, based upon inference and speculation, and subject to change and review.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Still endorsed by the Pope and the Catholic Church. so if you are denying it, then you are heretical.

I affirm what the Church fathers taught so I am orthodox.

JM

[Sparko]

Genesis 1 (G1) - days are understood by the Church Fathers as literal.
BB - there is no creation week.

Not a bone of contention in the Catholic Church. They allow belief in a long historic timeline not just YEC.

G1 - the universe is created by a supernatural (SN) divine agent from nothing.
BB - the universe emerges from a small volume.

Actually same thing. BB comes from singularity that was nothing.

G1 - the SN act of creation involves no change.
BB - emergence involves change.

That is ignorant and not true. Of course there was change, the entire first chapter of Genesis is about the changes.

G1 - earth is created first.
BB - earth does not emerge until after other bodies.

It just said he created the heavens and the earth. Not the order or time involved. It is a summary statement.

G1 - portrays the universe as a temple.
BB - universe is only a natural effect of an unknown process.

Again, something you just made up. Not true.

G1 - portrays the universe as good as a perfect work of the creator, without sin, evil and death.
BB - assumes death and evil are part of the emergence process, tied into evolutionary theory.

Not true.

G1 - portrays the creator as the ultimate cause of all life, produced via divine speech.
BB - portrays the ultimate cause of life in a material cause.

Not true. The BB says nothing for or against God speaking the universe into existence.

G1 - the goal of the created universe is the Sabbath rest.
BB - the goal of the BB emergent universe is inflation, and then perhaps collapse.

God is going to remake the universe one day so this is a non-sequitur. Right now it is in decay and collapse so your argument is invalid.

G1 - portrays the created order as directed towards the author of the universe as the true final end.
BB - there is no order towards the divine within the universe.

wow you are really reaching now. The BB is about the origin of the universe, not about for or against divine order. Invalid argument again.

G1 - is the start of the divinely revealed story of creations fall from grace and its restoration according to the action of the power of God.
BB - there is no story of fall from grace and no restoration of the universe.

The BB, again, is just about the origin of the universe, it describes pretty close what the bible says happened. It doesn't go into stories. It doesn't contradict any stories. Invalid argument AGAIN. You are really stretching things.

G1 - Adam is the head of the human race.
BB - there is no head of the human race.

Non-sequitur.

G1 - creation involves a covenant union between God and man as a marriage. Such serves as the type of Christs marriage to the Church.
BB - there is no reference to a covenant of marriage.

non-sequitur

G1 - SN world view.
BB - naturalist world view.

Non-sequitur.

G1 - the written text is prophetic, whereby the text is true, as divine speech.
BB - is merely the theory of the academy, based upon inference and speculation, and subject to change and review.

Non-sequitur. yet again.

[Sparko]

I affirm what the Church fathers taught so I am orthodox.

JM

You deny what the Pope and the Holy Catholic Church affirms so you are a heretic.



Unless you are calling the Pope a heretic. Which would of course, make you a heretic.

[rogue06]

Genesis 1 (G1) - days are understood by the Church Fathers as literal.
BB - there is no creation week.

Actually the Early Church Fathers had a rather wide variety of interpretations concerning the nature of the days of creation. While many did see them as being literal 24 hour long days many others did not. Some like Augustine saw the entire creation as taking place instantaneously while others believed that it took place outside of time.

Further, there were a number of the Early Church Fathers who clearly taught that the days of creation were a thousand years long based on the fact that Adam didn't die within 24 hours after eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as he was told ("for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" -- Genesis 2:17) but lived until he was 930 years old (Genesis 5:5). To them this indicated that the days were a thousand years long^[1].

For example, in his Adversus Haereses ("Against Heresies"), Book 5, Chapter 23 (written between 175 and 185 AD) Irenaeus wrote, "And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin."

Twenty or thirty years earlier, Justin Martyr, while writing about the reign of a thousand years, expressed a similar sentiment in his "Dialogue With Trypho", Chapter 81, when he commented that, "For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years."

Later (c. 250 AD) Cyprian of Carthage, in his "Treatise 11," or "Exhortation to Martyrdom," (section 11), also expresses a comparable view in passing when he wrote that, "As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand years..."

Victorinus of Pettau, who I've heard some say taught that the days were 24 hours long^[2][3]

The take away from all this was that not only was there disagreement over the nature of the days of creation but more importantly nobody was much troubled by this disagreement.


















1. not to mention that the psalmist wrote that with God "a thousand years is as one day, and one day is as a thousand years" (Psalm 90:4; cf. II Peter 3:8). According to the Wesleyan Bible Commentary, Methodius said that Origen suggested the possibility that each day was a thousand years long based on II Peter 3:8.

2. James Mook, "The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth," in Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (both employed by AnswersinGenesis), eds., "Coming to Grips with Genesis"

3. One source lists this as Jubilees 4:29-30 (HERE as well) whereas another says it was Jubilees 4:21-22

[JohnMartin]

Still endorsed by the Pope and the Catholic Church. so if you are denying it, then you are heretical.

You don't understand the role of the Papacy, or what doctrine is, or what heresy is.

JM

[rogue06]

G1 - portrays the universe as good as a perfect work of the creator, without sin, evil and death.
BB - assumes death and evil are part of the emergence process, tied into evolutionary theory.

Incorrect. God declared that Creation was either "good" (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) or "very good" (Genesis 1:31), but absolutely nowhere does God describe creation as being "perfect." There is a Hebrew word for perfect (tawmiym) and if that was what was meant it would have been used. By "very good" it seems likely that this means "very good" for attaining God's goals for the creation, especially for mankind.

There are several strong indications that the creation wasn't perfect starting with the existence of the "cunning" serpent, which tempted Eve, in Eden before the Fall in the first place. In a "perfect" creation no such creature would have existed.

Then there is Genesis 2:18 where God states that "It is not good that the man [Adam] should be alone," which is the first time God declares that the creation wasn't good and this was prior to the Fall. Would you care to explain how there can be something that "is not good" in a perfect creation?

Third, the very fact that this creation had the ability to be corrupted should show it wasn't a perfect because, after all, can heaven become corrupted?

Also, the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. The Theory of Evolution is not concerned with how matter was formed, how stars and planets were formed, or even how life arose but rather is solely concerned with what happens to life after it has arisen -- no matter how that took place.

[JohnMartin]

Actually the Early Church Fathers had a rather wide variety of interpretations concerning the nature of the days of creation. While many did see them as being literal 24 hour long days many others did not. Some like Augustine saw the entire creation as taking place instantaneously while others believed that it took place outside of time.

Mook agrees with me where he says most of the Church Fathers were creation week literalists.

Most of the Church Fathers interpreted Genesis 1 in a plain and straightforward way, as actual history.

Further, there were a number of the Early Church Fathers who clearly taught that the days of creation were a thousand years long based on the fact that Adam didn't die within 24 hours after eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil as he was told ("for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" -- Genesis 2:17) but lived until he was 930 years old (Genesis 5:5). To them this indicated that the days were a thousand years long^[1].

But Adam did die after eating, that's why he could see himself as naked. The naked self is a way of seeing one's self through the eyes of a sinful conscience. Such is brought about through the loss of divine life God gave Adam at creation. Adam was then expelled from the garden as a punishment for sin. The expulsion is a punishment following upon sin, which brings spiritual death. After sin, Adam was unworthy of living in the garden temple. The nakedness, and expulsion indicate Adam did die immediately after eating of the fruit.

For example, in his Adversus Haereses ("Against Heresies"), Book 5, Chapter 23 (written between 175 and 185 AD) Irenaeus wrote, "And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin."

This is an ambiguous statement that does not evidence your claim. Even so, the thousand year theory only means there may be an allegorical understanding of the word, yom. But an allegorical understanding presupposes a literal understanding in the context of the Genesis 1-3 narrative. One can hold to both the literal and allegorical meanings of the same text, without concluding that the creation week was not a literal week according to the literal sense.

Twenty or thirty years earlier, Justin Martyr, while writing about the reign of a thousand years, expressed a similar sentiment in his "Dialogue With Trypho", Chapter 81, when he commented that, "For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years."

The scriptures have an ambiguity in them for the reader to discern. The physical death was a result of the spiritual death, which was immediate after eating of the fruit.

Later (c. 250 AD) Cyprian of Carthage, in his "Treatise 11," or "Exhortation to Martyrdom," (section 11), also expresses a comparable view in passing when he wrote that, "As the first seven days in the divine arrangement containing seven thousand years..."

This is only another example of allegory, which presupposes a literal sense for the word yom in the context of the creation week.

Victorinus of Pettau, who I've heard some say taught that the days were 24 hours long^[2]

Same as above.

^[3]

Physical death is a result of spiritual death. You have to ignore the former and only concentrate on the latter to hold to your particular spin. The latter infers the more important spiritual death after eating the fruit, was immediate. The final physical death occurred after Adams body had degenerated as an effect of the sin and expulsion from the garden.

The take away from all this was that not only was there disagreement over the nature of the days of creation but more importantly nobody was much troubled by this disagreement.

Allegory presupposes literal sense of the text.

JM

[rogue06]

Quick note: Mook is the same one who made demonstrably false claims about Victorinus of Pettau as I revealed here:

Victorinus of Pettau, who I've heard some say taught that the days were 24 hours long^[2]2. 2. James Mook, "The Church Fathers on Genesis, the Flood, and the Age of the Earth," in Terry Mortenson and Thane H. Ury (both employed by AnswersinGenesis), eds., "Coming to Grips with Genesis"

Perhaps he isn't the best source to rely on.

In any case, I noted that many of the ECFs believed the days of creations represented literal 24 hour days. I was responding to your claim that the "days are understood by the Church Fathers as literal" which implies this was the universal or orthodox position. It was not. It was just one view among several.

[JohnMartin]

Quick note: Mook is the same one who made demonstrably false claims about Victorinus of Pettau as I revealed here:

Perhaps he isn't the best source to rely on.

In any case, I noted that many of the ECFs believed the days of creations represented literal 24 hour days. I was responding to your claim that the "days are understood by the Church Fathers as literal" which implies this was the universal or orthodox position. It was not. It was just one view among several.

My statement did not infer the understanding of the Church Fathers of the literal days was universal. I even included the claim of Augustine who stated the creation event was instantaneous. What is required is a moral majority to bind on a doctrine. This is pretty much what we see on the literal 7 day creation week.

JM

[JohnMartin]

G1 - portrays the universe as good as a perfect work of the creator, without sin, evil and death.
BB - assumes death and evil are part of the emergence process, tied into evolutionary theory.

Incorrect. God declared that Creation was either "good" (Genesis 1:4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25) or "very good" (Genesis 1:31), but absolutely nowhere does God describe creation as being "perfect." There is a Hebrew word for perfect (tawmiym) and if that was what was meant it would have been used. By "very good" it seems likely that this means "very good" for attaining God's goals for the creation, especially for mankind.

The creation event had to be perfect for the act was directly caused by God, who always acts perfectly. Before the creation event there was no sin and death, hence the divine act was perfect. Perfection is derived from the nature of God, regardless of what the Hebrew says.

There are several strong indications that the creation wasn't perfect starting with the existence of the "cunning" serpent, which tempted Eve, in Eden before the Fall in the first place. In a "perfect" creation no such creature would have existed.

All angels were created good, and without sin. Satan chose to sin after he was created. Then Satan entered the garden.

Then there is Genesis 2:18 where God states that "It is not good that the man [Adam] should be alone," which is the first time God declares that the creation wasn't good and this was prior to the Fall. Would you care to explain how there can be something that "is not good" in a perfect creation?

The creation of Eve took place within the creation week, whereby a partial creation is not good. Therefore the completed creation is good.

Third, the very fact that this creation had the ability to be corrupted should show it wasn't a perfect because, after all, can heaven become corrupted?

Any disorder within creation can only occur through sin, and as a consequence of sin. The paradise state does not infer sin is excluded from creation. The state only means man was placed within a creation that had no disorder caused by sin.

Also, the Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with biological evolution. The Theory of Evolution is not concerned with how matter was formed, how stars and planets were formed, or even how life arose but rather is solely concerned with what happens to life after it has arisen -- no matter how that took place.

The BB theory is a materialist prelude to the theory of evolution. The BB theory is part of the secular understanding of the universe, which attempts to explain the universe and life without the need for a supernatural cause. The BB and evolution theories are both adverse to the biblical understanding of special creation, and the consequences of original sin.

JM