JC Disciples
Genesis and the Big Bang, by Dr. G. Schroeder
I have found the book Genesis and the Big Bang to a very useful book in coming to understand Genesis in light of our modern understandings of the universe.
- Author's reason for this book:
Dr. G. Schroeder"An understanding of both physics and biblical tradition shows that the opening chapters of the book of Genesis and the findings of modern cosmology corroborate with rather than dispute each other. I make this statement well aware that skeptics from both the scientific and the biblical schools are looking over my shoulders. They have a shared design: Each wants to leave the topic totally unconvinced of the validity of the other's teachings. I doubt that I can convince an avowed secularist that, beyond providing cultural insights, the Bible is also a valid source of cosmological insight. The fundamentalist, on the other hand, may have little use for the claims of cosmology as an aid to understanding the Bible. If this book can broaden the perspective by which each views the other's knowledge, then I will have accomplished my goal."
Dr. G. Schroeder is Jewish and has a PhD in physics.
- Biblical commentary source used by author:
Genesis and the Big Bang pg 18:"Only a few biblical commentators have withstood time's test. Four are accepted by Jew and Christian alike as guiding lights in the interpretation of the book of Genesis. It is on these four that I rely. They are Onkelos (ca c.e. 150), Rashi (Solomon ben Issac, ce 1040-1105, France), Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon, ce 1135-1204, Spain, Egypt; also known as Rambam), and Nahmandies (Moses ben Nahman, ce 1194-1270, Spain, Israel; also known as Ramban). Because their commentaries were written long before the advent of modern physics, we avoid the folly of using interpretations of tradition that may have been biased by modern scientific discoveries."
Please note that all of these men died before Galileo (ce 1542-1642), and yet somehow they had a very "modern" understanding of the universe that we are just now beginning to understand with our "advanced" technology.
- Time
Genesis and the Big Bang pg 53-54:When the Bible describes the day-by-day development of our universe in the six days following the creation, it is truly referring to six 24-hour days. But the reference frame by which those days were measured was one which contained the total universe. This first week of Genesis is not some tale to satisfy the curiosity of children, to be discarded in the wisdom of adulthood. Quite the contrary, it contains hints of the events that mankind is only now beginning to comprehend.
Biblical sages long ago warned us that our perception of the events of the first six days of Genesis would be inconsistent with our understanding of nature for the time following Adam. They learned this from the descriptions of Sabbath rest contained in the Ten Commandments. If we were to compare the text in Exodus 20:11 with Zechariah 5:11 and 2 Samuel 21:10 [in Hebrew], we would find that the same word for resting is used. The usage in these texts reveals that the intent is not that God 'rested' on the Sabbath. Rather the Creator caused a repose to encompass the universe that had been made during the first six days. Our perception of this repose, according to Maimonides, is that from this first Sabbath and for all thereafter, the laws of nature, including the flow of time, would function in a 'normal' manner. In contrast, the flow of events that occurred during the first six days would appear illogical, as if the laws of time and nature had been violated. The sages' predictions of a perceived incongruity between the biblical and scientific views of the early universe have, in fact, been meet.
The first Sabbath marks the start of the post-Adam calendar. It is this portion of the biblical calendar that satisfies our perceptions of reality based on logic. The extraordinary *fact* of the relativity of time, Einstein's law of general relativity, has extended the validity of the biblical calendar into those first six days. It has obviated the need to explain fossils as being placed in our world by the Creator to test our belief in Genesis or to satisfy our curiosity. Radioactive decay in rocks and meteorites and fossils accurately records the passage of time, but the passage as it was and is measured by the clocks of our earthbound reference frame. That time was, and still is, only relatively, that is only locally, correct. Other clocks in other reference frames record earthbound events at very different, but equally correct, times. This will always be the case as long as the universe follows the laws of nature.
To reiterate his point: Time is not constant throughout the universe! This is a proven fact.
- Evolution
Someone immediately assumed that the author is saying life is a random event, again his own words.
Genesis and the Big Bang, pg 186:...At on random try per second, with even a simple sentence having only 16 letters, it would take 2 million billion years (the universe has existed for about 15 billion years) to exhaust all possible combinations.
Chance cannot have been the agent that formed the similarities in such complex things as the nearly identical proteins found in bacteria, wheat, and humans. Somehow we are all related. Furthermore, if life is limited to only a few basic variations in function, one of which is the DNA and RNA genetic system of all Earth-based life, then chance cannot have formed life. There just was not enough time for this to have occurred by chance.
I would have to agree. The argument that given enough time, life must form ignores the statistical evidence. It would like expecting the desk that your computer is sitting on to suddenly "jump" up. Afterall, all the molecules are "randomly" bouncing around inside the desk. There is nothing to say that the molecules couldn't all "jump" in the same direction at the same time (at least as far as I know).
- Science wants to destroy the Bible
First of all, some scientists want to "destroy" or "devalue" the Bible. But to make a blanket statement that science (and by association scientists) is out to destroy is a unthinking statement. Science, like many things is neither good or evil in and of itself. How it is used can be good or evil. If science leads someone to a greater and better understanding of who God the almighty is, because of their understanding of His creation - then it is good. If on the other hand, science leads someone to believe their is no God, then it is evil. Because at that point it is not science, but a philosphopy.
- My viewpoint
As I recently posted in the soc.religion.christian newsgroup, I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to the Father. My belief in this occured six years ago when I was born-again. I think the author of GBB answered a number of questions I had concerning Genesis and the study of cosmology and for me they confirm my understanding of God and the universe He created. Now I will readly admit, that this maybe an indication that my faith in God is weak since I will not say that science is totally wrong about the beginnings of the universe. But by the same token, is it possible that the literal Christian's faith might also be weak concerning this issue.
As for the atheist or agnostic, this book might leave you with some hard questions to answer. The one that I find fasinating is how did those commentators know so much about our universe; long before Galileo, Newton and Einstein?