Bible References


The Bible is the only book that explains how everything in the Universe came into being from nothing. The "Big Bang" theory extrapolated from fourteen creation references in the Bible was FIRST proposed by Catholic Priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927, and is the most widely accepted creation scenario among Astrophysicists and Planetary Scientists even till this day, holding that everything in the Universe was created from nothing, at an exact point 13.7 billion years ago. (1, 2, 3, 4). Notwithstanding the puzzling folly of famous atheists scientists such as Carl Sagon, Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson basing numerous books and science documentaries touting Fr. Lemaitre's theories (without ever mentioning Lemaitre's name). Astonishingly, the 13.7 billion year Lemaitre calculation from galactic velocities determined from Doppler red-shifts and projected distances from the apparent center of the Big Bang explosion has been repeatedly found accurate by countless Astrophysicists and Planetary Scientists for 89 years! Not one contested that it's really 13.6 or 13.8! Even more astonishing is how two physicists (Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson) who accidentally proved Fr. Lemaitre's expanding universe while experimented with the Holmdel Horn Antenna were awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978, while while the entire science community and public school textbooks completely ignore who discovered the Big Bang in the first place. Fr. Lemaitre's motivation was the Catholic Bible which asserts that God created everything from nothing (Genesis 1:1) (Hebrews 11:3), as well as 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens (and the Earth) in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words "stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. "A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon" to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the "Big Bang" model. The Universe is literally stretching out, exactly as stated in the Bible. Pope John Paul II felt that the Big Bang theory was the Creation scenario closest to that portrayed in the Bible (5). According to a April 10, 2014 article in Astrobiology Magazine; "The most powerful space telescope ever built, the Hubble provided evidence that the Universe is slowing down in its infinite rush into whatever lies beyond" (6). According to Fr. Lemaitre, the inevitable conclusion to the Big Bang scenario is the Big Crunch, when gravitational forces overcome and halt the expansion, causing the Universe to collapse in upon itself. The unfathomable gravity eventually creates one enormous massive super black hole containing all matter in the Universe, collapsing in on itself with such great gravitational force as to approach zero in size. The properties of matter falter as this super black hole reaches critical mass and explodes into pure energy, triggering another Big Bang, forming a new Universe. This cyclic recreation process is confirmed in both the Old and New Testament, God creates a new Heaven and a new Earth, as the old Heaven and Earth pass away (Isaiah 65:17, Revelations 21:01).

Thousands of years before scientific explanation, the Bible was the very first text ever to describe the earth as a sphere; "It is He that sitteth upon the sphere of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: He that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22). Likewise, the Bible is the very first text ever to describe the earth as free floating in space; "He stretched out the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

Fr. Georges Lemaitre

Sister Mary Kenneth Keller

“The Catholic position on [scientific creationism] is clear. St. Thomas [Aquinas] says that ‘one should not try to defend the Christian Faith with arguments that are so patently opposed to reason that the Faith is made to look ridiculous.’ It is simply nonsense to say that the world is only 6,000 years old. To try to prove this scientifically is what St. Thomas calls provoking the irrisio infidelium, the scorn of the unbelievers" (7). Several atheists have endeavored to misrepresent the content of Genesis in attempts to invalidate the Bible (8). The Bible reveals in both the Old and New Testament that God's day is as a thousand years (Psalm 90:4 & 2 Peter 3:8). And logically because millions of years were beyond the understanding of ancient people. Just as Jesus told Peter to forgive 70 times 7, not that Peter should not forgive after 490 times, but always forgive. Jesus expressed a number that Peter might consider infinite. It's likely human pride to assert that God's day is tantamount to a 24 hour "earth day" when the Bible reveals in both the Old and New Testament that it is most certainly not. Another example is "but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the Day that you eat from it you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17). So was God lying and the devil telling the truth, or was the length of God's day different?


Detailed Examination of Biblical Creation Account

Understanding Genesis


01 In the beginning, when God created the Heavens and the Earth

The word "Heavens" represents the "Universe", including our Milky Way Galaxy and Solar System, which was obviously created first as unmistakably indicated by the word placement in the sentence. The formation of our Solar System is believed to have begun approximately 4.6 billion years ago, resulting from the gravitational collapse of a portion of a giant molecular cloud. The majority of collapsing mass collected in the center (eventually becoming our Sun), as the remainder flattened into a protoplanetary disk that eventually coagulated into the planets, moons, planetoids, asteroids, comets, etc. The Earth would understandably be the third large formation of debris orbiting the center mass.


02 The earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters.

As our Solar System shook itself out, the Earth was a formless wasteland.


03 Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

About 4.567 billion years ago the temperature and pressure at the core of the Sun became so great that it's hydrogen atoms began to fuse, creating an internal source of heat energy that countered gravitational contraction until hydrostatic equilibrium was achieved. This event began the prime phase of our Sun's existence, known as the main sequence. In short, the Sun ignited.


04 God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. 05 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." Thus evening came, and morning followed the first day.

The Earth’s spin was initiated from a cataclysmic impact 4.5 billion years ago. It is the general consensus of planetary scientists that a small rouge planet "Orpheus" orbiting between Earth & Mars that impacted the Earth billions of year ago forming our moon. Previous to the impact, proto Earth’s spin was negligible. Planetary Scientists believe that previous to this impact, the Earth always had the same side facing the sun, just like the moon always has the same side facing the Earth. This was the beginning of Earth day / night sequence. Literally the first day on Earth, which scientists believe was about four hours long. The length of a day has been decreasing by a fraction of a second each year.


06 Then God said, "Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other." And so it happened. 07 God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. 08 God called the dome "the sky." Evening came, and morning followed the second day.

Note: There are several explanations for the enigma of day references:

1. Genesis in the Hebrew Torah did not utilize the Hebrew word for "day", but "yom", there is a difference. "Yom" can represent anything from the daylight "day" (or even part of it), to a 24-hour day, and up to many years. The oldest copy of Genesis (Dead Sea Scrolls) dating to about 3,500 years ago also employed the word "yom", not "day" (9).

2. Both the Old & New Testament are exceptionally clear that God's day is very different than our day. Psalm 90 & 2 Peter 38 both assert that God's day is as a thousand years, and its a foregone conclusion that it was unfeasible to articulate "millions of years" to stone-age people four millennium ago. It couldn't be done two millennium ago, as Jesus told Peter in Matthew 18:22 to forgive "seventy times seven times", obviously Jesus didn't mean to not forgive on the 491st time. Jesus was expressing a number beyond the perception of poor fishermen.

Planetary Scientists hypothesize that the Earth's primordial atmosphere formed very quickly from Volcanic out-gassing, lacked oxygen, and would have been toxic to most modern life. Much of the Earth was molten because of extreme volcanism and frequent collisions with other bodies. As water cannot exist in its liquid form at such high temperatures, nearly all Earth's liquid water was concentrated in the atmosphere in the form of steam vapor, much like Venus today.


09 Then God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear." And so it happened: 10 God called the dry land "the earth," and the basin of the water he called "the sea." God saw how good it was.

Over time, the planet cooled and formed a solid crust, allowing liquid water to exist on the surface.


11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it." And so it happened: 12 the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was. 13 Evening came, and morning followed - the third day. 13 Evening came, and morning followed - the third day.

This part of Genesis illustrates the cultivation of life in preparation for human habitation. Again, a detailed explanation of the billions of years of complex preparation was far beyond the understanding of early humans. Jesus used parables to explain difficult concepts to His followers. He is the same God who said "Let there be light", therefore the same methods of articulation were utilized in Genesis as in the New Testament. God didn't change, and His strategy didn't change.


Those who contest the creation scenario as outlined in the Bible occasionally cite that the book of Genesis claims that God created the earth in six days (10). A day on the earth is approximately 23 hrs and 56 minutes. Planets in our solar system obtained their axis spin from off-center meteor impacts in the distant past (11). Venus rotates backwards, due to a large moon sized impactor that reversed its direction of rotation (12).  Valles Marineris is an enormous trench across the Marian hemisphere that resembles the Grand Canyon, however it is 19,000 miles long.  Planetary Scientist believe it is a giant gash resulting from a Martian moon that fell out of orbit causing Mars to spin in the direction of the strike (13).  Uranus rotates backwards and on its side from an impact of a body the size of Earth (14).

NASA orbital computer simulations verified that our moon is not a captured rogue satellite.  No matter what angle, distance, speed or trajectory is considered, the Earth does not capture the moon, it passes by.  These simulations also show that our moon (25% of the Earth in size) is too large to have formed around the Earth.  The Earth’s spin was initiated from a cataclysmic impact 4.5 billion years ago. It is the general consensus of planetary scientists that Orpheus, (a Mars sized planet that orbited between Earth and Mars) impacted the Earth billions of year ago forming our moon (15, 16). Impact Scientist Dr. Jay Melosh confirmed the mathematical model, but also demonstrated that most of the computer simulated mathematical test models resulted in two moons that fell out of orbit after 2 billion years, crashing into the earth.  We are exceptionally lucky that the impact resulted in one very large moon (17).  Food for thought: Throughout the Bible, the moon is referred to as female and companion to the Earth (Gen 37:09, Solomon 6:10).  The Bible also recounts the creation of woman by being taken out of man (Genesis 2:21).  Likewise, the moon (female) was created by being taken out of the Earth.

Previous to the impact, proto Earth’s spin was negligible.  Scientist believe the Earth always had the same side facing the sun, just like the moon always has the same side facing the Earth.  We never knew what the dark side of the moon looked like until it was photographed it with orbiting satellite spacecraft.  After the impact the length of a day instantaneously became four hours. The earth’s spin has been steadily decreasing ever since. If we attributed God’s day to the Earth’s spin, shouldn’t it be at the beginning of the Earth’s creation? Proto Earth's day at that time frame was negligible and may have been many millions of  years.  How long is God’s day? Why would we attribute it to the Earth’s spin now, billions of years later?  It is clear in the Bible that God already had an established day before he began creating. Psalm 90 attributes God's day to being much longer, "A thousand years is as a day", the "thousand years" is likely to be symbolic of periods incomprehensible in earlier times (18, 19).  As the Universe is God’s realm, could God’s day be a complete rotation of the Universe?  Four hundred years ago the Catholic Church burned people at the stake for believing the world was round and orbited the sun. As science progressed, Church officials were eventually forced to accept reality, particularly when their standpoints became more and more untenable.  As we discover other planets, suns, solar systems and galaxies, it starts to become apparent that setting God's day at 23hrs and 56 minutes is as absurd as when the Catholic Church held that the stars and planets are carried around by being embedded in rotating crystal spheres moving around the Earth.  Those who continue to adhere to nonsensical standpoints eroded Church credibility.  Ideas that have nothing to do with the Bible, Faith and Morals should never be elevated over the Bible, Faith and Morals.  In debates, atheists will endeavor to concentrate on the untenable topics, recline and watch Creationist Christians bury themselves by arguing that Adam and Eve had pet Tyrannosaurus Rexes (20).  In holding such ludicrous ideologies, credibility becomes tantamount to that of the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones or those who thought they were going to flying away on the Hale-Bopp comet.  In arguments, atheists have typically retorted; "Sure, and a few years ago Christians would have us believe that the Earth is flat and the moon is made out of cheese".


One of our contributing editors is an Orthodox Rabbi who explains that the Jewish people do not adhere to a literal six day creation. "Since the Hebrew word for 'day', "YOM", as used in the Hebrew Bible, can represent anything from the daylight 'day' (or even part of it), to a 24-hour day, and up to many years. It all depends on the context of the passage where the word is used. This is not so much different from the use of 'day' even in English - e.g., 'today', 'nowadays', 'days are coming', etc. The earliest scrolls used similar wording to reflect not a 'day', but a period of time or a time frame. Those caught up in the six day creation premise fall victim to myopic thinking, basing their hypothesizes on rudimentary English translations. In his book "The Science of God", Orthodox Jewish physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder, using proven science, actually "maps" the six "days" of Creation into the six epochs of the development of the universe, and comes up with a number for the age of the earth that is almost identical to the consensus among geoscientists. Even if you don't accept this point-of-view, the main thesis of the book is that this universe did not get created by "accident"; rather, that there is a Creator who designed it. Christians who adhere to a six day creation should invest in a copy of Prof. Schroeder's "The Science of God" - it is available in paperback for less than $10".


Scientists know the length of a day throughout time owing to several different methods that yield analogous results. One method is examining paper-thin rock layers called tidal rhythmites which reveal the frequency of prehistoric tides (21).  These slender petrified sediment layers reveal that primitive tides were more frequent and the days shorter.  Dr. Marjorie A. Chan verified how tidal records a billion years old reveal that a day at that point was 18 hrs long.  The results are supported by Continental Drift back calculations, which are at a known rate of slightly less than 3 inches per year. Tidal rhythmite data has also been accurately verified by studying ancient coral skeleton's fossilized calcium carbonate growth rings. All coral on earth grows one micro layer per day and has annual growth rings. Ancient fossilized coral contain more micro rings that correspond to age, as there were more days in a year as we go back in time, since there were less hours in the day. Moreover, as we are losing our moon by one and a half inches each year, it becomes mathematically verifiable to establish tidal frequency and corroborate sample dating by working backwards, accounting for the moons gravitational effect.  Supported by four very different independent scientific studies (Tidal Rhythmites, Continental Drift, Coral Fossils and Moon Distance) which all yield identical results, the science becomes rock solid.

The Average Earth - Moon Distance = 238,857 Miles (the moon is moving away at 1.5 inches per year)


1.5 inches = .00002367424 miles

1 Billion = one thousand million

Miles moon moved away in 1 billion years

1,000,000,000 years x .00002367424 miles = 23,000 miles

Earth - Moon Distance 1 billion years ago

238,857 miles - 23,000 miles = 215,857 miles

Creationists have attempted to use the recession of the moon to prove the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but their math is completely erroneous (22).  There are still some Pastors who preach that the earth is only six thousand years old, notwithstanding that according to Biblical chronology and archeological findings, these dates would be impossible, for it would leave only 66 years between Noah and Abraham (23). Moreover, these calculations refuse to even consider how the Bible recorded people in Adam's period living to almost a thousand years of age (Adam died at 950 years), which could easily push the Biblical time of the creation of man to as far back as fifty thousand years.  These Creationist allege that the Bible must have meant months not years, which is hypocritical.  Why hold to six days and then claim that the Bible was wrong on Adam's age?  Such wild assertions of a very young Earth could only be possible if God made an atom by atom snapshot of a previously existing Earth-moon system (as radio isotopes of lunar samples confirmed that they originated in the Earth's mantle) from another solar system, and materialized a precise duplicate in our solar system.  Obviously such a proposal would have to come with an explanation as to why.  One possible elucidation could be the 500 million years required to accumulate enough organic matter to sustain advanced human civilization.  Another could be the rarity of the impactor scenario that resulted in our necessary moon, a one in a trillion collision.  Yet, there are a hundred trillion stars in our Galaxy alone.  If we can imagine such incredible scenarios in science fiction episodes like Star Trek, it may not be too far fetched to suppose God done something of the sorts.  However, it would be a tough argument to float.

The Bible also describes the amazing story of Noah's Ark, which is now gaining some scientific support.  The Bible states that "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened (Genesis 7:11) (24, 25). Atheists contested that such springs are nonsense, but now a June 12, 2014 science article claims that seismologists discovered otherwise, that these "springs of the great deep" are called transition zones "and could potentially have the same amount of water as all the world's oceans" (26, 27). The missing water has now been discovered.


Passages in the Bible Describing the Creation of the Universe

Most scientists employ the example of superimposed dots stretching out on the surface of an expanding balloon to illustrate the redshift of the galaxies moving away from each other in the "Big Bang" model. There are 14 mentions of God creating the Heavens in the Bible, 13 of which utilize the words "stretch, stretched, stretches, stretcheth, stretching, stretched-forth spanned, spreadeth and spread-out. This is a significant confirmation of the "Big Bang" creation theory in the Bible.


Genesis 01:01 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Job 09:08 Who alone stretches out the heavens

Isaiah 40:22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the sphere of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. 42:05 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein. 44:24 Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; 45:12 I stretched out the heavens with My hands. 48:13 Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: [when] I call unto them, they stand up together. 51:13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?

Jeremiah 10:12 And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens. 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

Job 09:08 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea. He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, [and] hangeth the earth upon nothing. 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, [which is] strong, [and] as a molten looking glass?

Psalms 104:02 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain.

Zechariah 12:01 The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.





Is the Big Bang in the Bible?

By Karl W. Giberson

March 23, 2014 12:00 AM


The “Big Bang” theory of the origin of the universe got a big boost this week when scientists reported the discovery of 14-billion-year-old echoes of the universe’s first moments—the first proof of an expanding universe, and the last piece of Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Creationists and other conservative religious believers have a curiously ambivalent relationship with the Big Bang—unlike evolution, which is universally condemned. Young-earth creationists mock the Big Bang as a wild guess, an anti-biblical fantasy that only atheists determined to ignore evidence of God’s creation could have invented. In contrast, creationists who accept that the earth is old—by making the “days” of creation in Genesis into long epochs—actually claim that the Big Bang is in the Bible. Some of them are rejoicing in the recent discovery. The leading evangelical anti-science organization is Answers in Genesis (AIG), headed by Ken Ham, the guy who recentlydebated Bill Nye. AIG’s dismissive response to the discovery is breathtaking in its hubris and lack of insight into how science works. They call for Christians to reject the discovery because the “announcement may be improperly understood and reported.” This all-purpose response would also allow one to deny that there is a missing Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777. Secondly, Answers in Genesis complains that the predictions being confirmed in the discovery are “model-dependent.” They fail to note that every scientific prediction ever confirmed, from the discovery of Neptune, to DNA, to the Ambulecetus transitional fossil is “model-dependent.” The whole point of deriving predictions in science is to test models, hypotheses, theories. Finally, AIG suggests that “other mechanisms could mimic the signal,” implying that, although the startling prediction was derived from Einstein’s theory of general relativity and the inflationary model of the Big Bang, it could have come from “some other physical mechanism.” No alternative mechanism is suggested. The AIG response declares instead that “Biblical creationists know from Scripture that the universe did not begin in a big bang … we know from Genesis 1 that God made the earth before He made the stars, but the big bang requires that many stars existed for billions of years before the earth did.”


Not all biblical literalists take such a hard-line stance. Like Ham, the popular Christian apologist Hugh Ross is a biblical literalist who rejects all forms of evolution: Ross believes that the “days” of creation in Genesis are vast epochs and thus the universe can be billions of years old. Ross heads the organization Reasons to Believe, which is often ++attacked by AIG++ and other young earth creationist groups for having a “liberal” view of the Bible. ( Ross, an astronomer by training, was delighted by the discovery of the gravitational waves and told the Christian Post that “The Bible was the first to predict big bang cosmology.” Ross, in fact, is convinced that many ideas in modern science—including the inflationary model for the Big Bang confirmed by the recent discovery—were actually predicted by the Bible. He argues—to the dismay of Hebrew scholars—that the word “bara,” translated “create” in Genesis 1:1, means “to bring into existence that which did not exist before.” Ross has ingeniously located much of modern physics in the Bible, including the laws of thermodynamics and the Big Bang. The initial response from the Discovery Institute, the headquarters of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, maligned the motivations of the cosmologists searching for the gravity wave, claiming they found more theologically friendly models of the Big Bang “disturbing,” and wanted to refute them. The recent discovery of the gravity waves—after years of searching—is being trumpeted by the scientific community because it “saves the jobs of a thousand people at two national labs who are having to justify their expensive failure. Despite his organization’s snarky cynicism, the Discovery Institute’s director, bestselling ID author Stephen Meyer, was in the this-new-discovery-proves-the-Bible camp. Meyer went on the John Ankerberg show to extol the theological virtues of the Big Bang. Using the same arguments as Hugh Ross, Meyer finds both the Big Bang and even the inflation model in the Bible: “We find repeated in the Old Testament, both in the prophets and the Psalms,” he told the Christian Post, “that God is stretching or has stretched out the heavens.” Meyer says this “stretching” means that “Space expanded very rapidly,” and the recent discovery provided “additional evidence supporting that inflation.”


Meyer and Ross are right that English translations of the Bible do speak of the heavens being “stretched out.” But to suggest that this is what has been confirmed by the recent discovery is simply not possible. A typical biblical passage supporting this claim is found in Isaiah 40:22 where we read that God “stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.” Does this really sound like an event at the beginning of time when the universe experienced a momentary burst of expansion? And what do we make of the apocalyptic vision described in Revelation 6:14 that, at the end of time, “the sky rolled back like a scroll”? The biblical authors, and most ancients, understood the sky over their heads to be a solid dome, an inverted bowl resting on a flat earth for the authors of Genesis, a crystalline sphere surrounding a round earth for Aristotle and most Christians until the scientific revolution. The Hebrew word used in Genesis for the sky is “raqia” which means “bowl” or “dome.” It does not mean “space-time continuum” and it is not something that could be “inflated.” It could, however, be “stretched out like a tent” or “rolled back like a scroll.” These divergent responses are full of hubris in both directions, making extravagant claims for or against scientific discovery, embracing or rejecting science on the basis of existing religious commitments. But these extremes aren’t the only ways for religious believers to respond to major scientific breakthroughs. Not every scientific idea has to have a theological interpretation, although the tendency to fit new science into ancient religious frameworks is often irresistible. And the Big Bang is certainly no exception.


The Big Bang theory, in fact, was developed in the 1920s by a Catholic priest who was also an acclaimed physicist, the Monsignor Georges Lemaître. It was ridiculed and rejected by Lemaître’s atheist colleague, Fred Hoyle. Hoyle applied the derisive term “Big Bang” to Lemaître’s theory in a 1949 BBC interview, a nasty label that stuck. Hoyle, who labored heroically to produce an alternative theory, didn’t like the theological implications of the universe beginning suddenly in a moment of “creation.” It sounded too much like the first verse in the Bible: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” And, as Hoyle and others noted, Lemaître was a priest who might reasonably be suspected of trying to smuggle Catholic theology into science. Hoyle’s concern was amply illustrated in 1951 when Pope Pius XII declared that, in discovering the Big Bang, science had indeed established the Christian doctrine of the “contingency of the universe” and identified the “epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator.” “Creation took place,” the pope said. “Therefore, there is a creator. Therefore, God exists!” The Vatican’s science advisor was horrified by the Pope’s confident assertion that physics had proven God. He warned him privately that he was shaky ground: the Big Bang should not be enlisted in support of the Christian belief in a Creator. The Pope never mentioned it again. The Catholic Church learned in the Galileo affair, scientific theories should not be opposed on theological or biblical grounds. These lessons have been learned by Catholics, for the most part, as evidenced by the relative scarcity of prominent Catholic science-deniers. Unfortunately, we cannot say the same things for many evangelical Protestants, many of whom belong to truncated religious traditions that began after Galileo, or even after John F. Kennedy. They lack the accumulated wisdom that restrains the Pope from inspecting every new scientific discovery and either rejecting it because it counters a particular interpretation of Genesis or enthusiastically endorsing it because it confirms this or that doctrine. And when the Pope strays, his advisors quickly get him back on track. Catholic thinking on science is informed by the pontifical academy of science, an advisory group with no counterpart in Protestantism.


Ken Ham and his colleagues at Answers in Genesis, Hugh Ross and his colleagues at Reasons to Believe, and Stephen Meyer and his colleagues at the Discovery Institute are too quick to embrace, reject, or gloss with theological meaning the latest scientific discoveries. Rather than rushing to the Bible to see whether its ancient pages can accommodate the latest science, they would do well to heed this caution from Lemaître, as he spoke of the theory that he discovered: “We may speak of this event as of a beginning. I do not say a creation … Any preexistence of the universe has a metaphysical character. Physically, everything happens as if the theoretical zero was really a beginning. The question if it was really a beginning or rather a creation, something started from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations.”



Inconsistencies in the Bible


As previously mentioned on our home page, some contrived atheists have become very adept at challenging the Bible, pirating the bulk of their ammunition from several websites constructed by elite Jewish Professors in effort to curtail escalating Jewish conversions to Christianity, such as Bombarding a novice with this huge bulk of disputations compiled by some of the most influential Rabbis in the world can quickly have a believer performing reverse triple summersaults defending their faith. Some opponents have assembled a few discrepancies in the Bible, several of which are very far reaching and quite easy to contend. For example; In the Old Testament Genesis 1:11-12 & 1:26-27 God created trees before Adam and Genesis 2:4-9 God created trees after Adam. These are classic examples of taking passages out of context, the Bible essentially states that God created trees on earth before Adam in Genesis 1:11-12 & 1:26-27. Genesis 2:4-9 does not describe the creation of the earth's first trees, but the construction of the Garden of Eden.

 The first Official Bible was compiled by Catholics During the Council of Trent in 1545. It was assembled from text dating back to approximately 40 - 80 AD, which were exclusively Catholic, as it was the only Christian Church in existence then. Ostensibly, the times of Jesus were quite different; there were no recording devices, video cameras, nor newspaper reporters taking notes like a stenographer. Although it is thought there were very early texts, it is hypothesized  by Catholic Scholars that they were likely destroyed during the persecutions of the early Christians (when the Romans were feeding the first Christian martyrs to the lions).

Considering that the four main Gospels were written separately about 40 - 80 years after the events, it is remarkable that they are so analogous, with only a few very minor discrepancies. And some of these are readily explainable. For example, the contention that Luke 2:7 records baby Jesus in a manger immediately after birth, while Matthew has him in a house during the adoration of the Wise Men. Other writings that the Council of Trent did not include record that the Shepherds (the first to visit the new born Jesus), promptly located a hospitable home for the Holy Family in Bethlehem. Another example: There are no mentions of  Joachim and Anne (Mary's Parents) in the Bible, but we know of them through the Gospel of James (not included in the Bible) as well as mentions in the Quran / Koran. "As for the figure of Joachim/Imran, he is revered by Muslims for being the father of Mary and the grandfather of Jesus and also for being one of the most saintly men present in Jerusalem at the time, along side the priest Zachariah. By tradition, Imran's wife was Hannah, the Catholic Saint Anne (28).