Do you believe that the supposed big bang is possible with what it says in the
Bible as I think I am not sure but from the Bible I have never seen anything
which directly contradicts this theory.

As I would assume you know, this is a matter of opinion.  More accurately, it
is a matter of Bible interpretation, as the truth is not effected by human opinion. 
Since you asked, I will express my opinion. 
The Big Bang model was created by scientists, many of whom were predisposed
to assume that the universe was not created.  Physicists such as LeMaitre and
Gamov created this theory because the evidence demanded it.  The "red shift"
of light approaching the earth from very distant objects in the sky demostrates
clearly that the universe is expanding.  The more distant objects from us are
receding from us at a faster rate than those which are closer.  This fact was
discovered in the 1920s and 1930s by Hubble and Humason.  Further evidence, including
the discovery of a nearly homogeneous background microwave radiation which fills
the universe (Penzias and Wilson, early 1960s) all points to the validity of
the Big Bang model.
The Big Bang model implies that the universe was "created" as an unimaginably
dense flash of light which condensed into the fundamental particles and eventually
into atoms, galaxies, stars and planets.  What we can say for sure is that the
Genesis creation account implied all along that the universe and everything in it were
created at some point in the past.  The universe we live in has not always existed
according to the creation story in Genesis chapter one.  Science–more accurately
cosmology–caught up with this correct claim of the Bible in the twentieth century. 
If our best models are correct, the universe had a beginning.  It was created
as a super-dense flash of light.  From this super-hot beginning, expansion led
to cooling, which led to clumping of matter due to gravity, which led to the formation
of galaxies and stars in those galaxies.  As these stars exploded and reformed,
heavier elements allowed for rocky planets such as the earth to form of reconstituted
stars such as our sun.  As the earth cooled, an atmosphere, and a liquid ocean
formed.  As the "crust" further cooled, buckled,  and folded, allowing lighter
silicate rock to rise above the oceans, life appeared in water first, followed
by life on land. 
The point of this description is that in outline form, the Genesis creation
account is in good accord with science.  Good accord, that is, if one allows
for the "days" of creation to be eras, rather than literal twenty-four hour
periods.  Whether or not the grammar and Hebrew vocabulary of Genesis one allows
for this interpretation is something for the experts in Hebrew to decide.  
My study has led me to believe that this is not an unreasonable interpretation
of the text.  I would suggest you pick up a copy of the book "Genesis, Science
and History" by Douglas Jacoby from  Dr. Jacoby goes into more
detail than I am qualified to do regarding the theology and language of the
Genesis creation account.  I do cover this subject fairly extensively in my
book, "Is There a God: Questions of Science and the Bible."  A new edition
of this book will be available by Jan 2006 at
I summary, the Big Bang model was forced on scientists–believing or unbelieving–by
the evidence.  It just so happens that this model and the data we have is in
general agreement with the Genesis creation account.  This is in dramatic contrast
to the "creation myths" of other cultures.  Does this information (about the creation
and expansion of the universe) contradict Genesis chapter one?  I say no, but
will freely acknowledge that others disagree with me on this.  I will leave
you to do a more in-depth study of the Hebrew scripture so that you can make your own
In closing, let me give you one more reference.  This one is a bit tougher going,
but also more in-depth.  It is "In the Beginning" by Henri Blocher, a French
author.  The book has been translated into English by IVP.
John Oakes

Comments are closed.