[a022311]

The Bible and the Big Bang theory are not mutually exclusive. The Old Testament is a very symbolic book and gives no specific details on how exactly the world was created, other than the seven days of creation. We know that the 7 days weren't referring to our current concept of a day. There's also no water above the sky. It was written like that, because it would be easier for people to understand. Science wasn't a thing back then. If it were written in 2025, it would obviously be very different and probably much more detailed.

Modern Christians know that religion and science can go together. Science researches _how_ something works. Religion answers _who_ created it. The Big Bang theory is actually accepted by them today.

[krapp]

>We know that the 7 days weren't referring to our current concept of a day.

We don't know that. Some Christians believe that because they believe the Bible is univocal, which it isn't, and because they want to use other unrelated scripture like "a day for God is like a thousand years" to support a framework for Genesis which they believe is validated by current science.

But I see no reason to believe that when the ancient Hebrews wrote about creation taking seven days, that they didn't mean seven actual days.

>It was written like that, because it would be easier for people to understand.

A supposition not backed up by evidence, and one that assumes the author of Genesis had a modern understanding of astrophysics, which they did not.

> Science wasn't a thing back then. If it were written in 2025, it would obviously be very different and probably much more detailed.

OK. So as I suspected you believe that the Genesis creation story (or at least one, as there are two conflicting creation narratives) represents literal truth, but that the account itself couches this literal truth in metaphor.

I suppose that's better than the Biblical literalists who insist that Old Testament genealogies prove the world is only 10,000 years old and that therefore things like carbon dating are fake, but I do wish Christians would just accept that Genesis (along with the rest of the Bible) is entirely mythology and that they don't have to "make it fit" with modern science. It just didn't happen.

>Science researches _how_ something works. Religion answers _who_ created it. Religion also makes just as many claims about how as who and why.

Religion doesn't answer anything of the sort, it claims to answer it, a priori, without evidence.

And of course there are countless religions with countless such "answers." You believe only one answer is valid, again, without evidence.

This is not an opportunity for you to proselytize to me.

[jll29]

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS) is the leading authority of sciences for Roman Catholic Christians, not only do they accept big bang theory, they public scientific proceedings of astrophysics meetings: https://www.pas.va/en/publications/scripta-varia/sv155pas.ht... (free download)

[throw48k76e]

If we are free to interpret the Bible that way, does that mean the resurrection of Christ is also a metaphor? Maybe they just meant that he is alive in our hearts.

What part of the Bible are up for interpretation, and what parts are considered to be fact?

[hamdingers]

Every part of the Bible is up for interpretation. Which parts you interpret as fact will depend on what worldview you're trying to justify (or which church you're trying to be a member of).

[lo_zamoyski]

Ah, this is a good question. And a big one. Here’s a start, anyway.

Contrary to the historically recent error of sola scriptura, the Bible does not interpret itself. And contrary to the modernists, it is not whatever you want it to mean.

First, what is the general nature of Scripture? It is not meant to be a scientific text. It is meant to communicate, above all, revealed truths about God that are not available to unaided reason (obviously, it also contains things we can know through unaided reason, but the unique value proposition is in what we cannot know by our own wits).

Historically, the tradition of knowledge, indeed the content of Scripture itself, preceded the biblical canon. You needed that tradition to make the determination of what is canonical and what is not. Similarly, you need that tradition to determine the nature of a given book: is a historical in structure, poetic, etc? This unbroken tradition, scholarship, literary analysis, etc. tell us the nature of a given text.

In the case of something like the creation accounts in Genesis (and there are two accounts, which differ), it is clear under such an examination that these are not scientific descriptions. They are written using the language of a pre-scientific culture. They do not tell us in scientific terms how the physical universe was formed. They do tell us that creation is ex nihilo, or out of nothing. (This is not a question of a big bang btw. The big bang is not necessary. It is a question of casuality. God as the Logos - eternal Reason - is the per se - rather than per accidens - cause of the universe’s existence, sustaining it in existence at every moment. God is not some Paley-style watchmaker arranging parts into a watch out of some primordial chaos, and the universe is not the result of some clash of opposing forces.) Genesis also tells us that there was a first human couple and that original sin can be traced to the first freely chosen immoral act. There are no binding or definitive claims about how exactly this all occurred in a historical sense. We don’t know, and as interesting as that question is [0], for the relevant purposes of the text, it doesn’t matter.

The Gospels of the New Testament, however, are very much historical in character. They are eye witness accounts of Christ’s ministry, and the canonical four were deemed to be the only reliable ones. They aren’t figurative, and the early Christians, the many witnesses of Christ’s ministry, and new evidence all align with the received and continuous tradition (indeed, one of the responsibilities of the Catholic Church is to safeguard tradition from “innovation”). Figurative interpretations of the Gospels also tend not to be compelling either, especially in light of tradition.

Obviously, biblical hermeneutics is a big topic that goes beyond an HN post. I’ve included links to a couple of texts that should introduce the material with greater depth and expertise than I can [1][2].

[0] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/09/modern-biology-and-o...

[1] https://a.co/d/4xdAc9Y

[2] https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhorta...

[pmcginn]

The big bang theory isn't just "accepted by them today," it has been since the beginning. The father of the big bang theory was a catholic priest.

[defrost]

So you're saying that the Catholic Church also accepted the Copernican Sun centred model of the universe formulated by Nicolaus Copernicus "from the beginning" as Copernicus was also a Catholic cleric?

Perhaps it's possible that the beliefs and propositions of individual members of a greater body don't always align with the official stance of the greater body.

[sapphicsnail]

I'm sure there are some that think that but I was taught the earth is 10,000 years, the creation story in Genesis is the literal truth, and people spell Christmas "Xmas" because people are trying to take Christ out of Christmas. None of these are fringe positions in the US. There are so Christians that believe science is real but we're very much the minority.

[djeastm]

>The Old Testament is a very symbolic book

Can you tell the fundamentalists that? Thanks