Question:

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.

Answer:

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 www.ipibooks.com 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 www.ipibooks.com.

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
decision.

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