*takes metal back from breece* it ain't over yet... half.note is keeping it alive:P
I was actually referring to the specifics of the actual Big Bang Theory. Not the little converation that de-railed the thread.
*takes medal back from Packer*
However I will give a short response, I'm a little pressed for time:
You bring up a very good point:
Much of the Bible is written from an earthly perspective.
A human perspective.
A flawed perspective.
Second off, you're wrong about people never believing the earth was flat. They did, it's just the specifics of the Columbus story that are not true.
Columbus didn't set out to prove the earth wasn't flat.
That doesn't change the fact that almost everybody in time period of the Bible believed that the Earth was flat, that's why we have ancient depictions of the Earth in the Church as flat, and why we have mythology about how the flat earth is held up.
Second off, I've done a little research and if you absolutely insist I'll post some links but I'm pretty sure that "ends of the earth" is a fairly modern idiom, and was used literally back then.
Forgot about this thread.
I had started typing out a reply, but I don't know what happened to it.
I'm not in the mood to do it again right now, but I'll answer this some other time.
Sorry I'm so late on the reply. The combination of my business and laziness don't make for a very active forum life. :)
Anyways, I see your point. We only know a fraction of what there is to know on the topic, so we very well could be wrong. I agree. I believe scientists in the 21st century are often pretentious as to exactly what their theories (or those of other, better scientists) do and do not prove. However, while the details are extremely vague, the basics of the Big Bang are pretty well established. You have to realize that what's put into textbooks regarding cosmology and evolutionary biology is only a tiny piece of the case for its validity and is an almost insultingly shallow explication of their evidence. There are entire networks of scientists using these theories as the basis for everything they do. In short, if the Bible can be interpreted multiple ways, why not take the way with a little evidence over the way with none?
I think you may be misinterpreting what I said on the Evolution thread. The issue doesn't matter for salvation purposes, but it definitely matters for the purposes of Christianity's standing in culture and the academia. The future of the church and billions of possible converts are at stake.
William Lane Craig alone has converted thousands of non-Christians with his revitalized version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which uses the Big Bang's occurrence as its main premise. If it doesn't matter one way or another, then why not accept the opinion of 99.9% of serious scientists over that of a reactionary subculture?
That was to RarelyJaded, by the way.
oh....I don't have a problem with the Big Bang. I have a problem with macro-evolution, but humans coming from apes in particular. I see how the Bible can coincide with science, in fact when the Big Bang theory was produced it shocked the science community. No scientist in that field has an explanation for how the Big Bang was initiated, so that evidence points towards a god.
Don't even remember my part in this thread, it's been so long :P