Nearly 25 years ago, I wrote in a former RTB publication that “Big bang cosmology is an explosive topic.”1 It has led to heated reactions over the years from groups opposed to one another. However, the reasons for expressed rejection of big bang cosmology are not scientific. They are religious. Thus, it seems that establishing a biblical basis for the big bang may help turn down the heat.

What Is the Big Bang?
There are many big bang models for the universe. What these models share in common is that

1. the universe has a beginning;
2. the laws of physics have not changed over the history of the universe;
3. the universe began as an infinitely or near infinitely small volume, and infinitely or near infinitely hot;
4. the universe began in a low entropy state and the entropy has been steadily increasing;
5. the universe has been expanding and, therefore, cooling since the cosmic creation event;
6. the universe has been expanding for approximately 14 billion years;
7. the universe began with only one element, namely hydrogen, and no stars;
8. during the first few minutes after the cosmic creation event about a quarter of the universe’s primordial hydrogen was fused into helium and a trace amount of lithium; and
9. stars have manufactured all the elements heavier than lithium.

The label “big bang” was coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, a British astronomer who was a lifelong opponent of the big bang model. Hoyle’s label resulted in confusion about the model because people presumed that “big bang” implied that the entire universe was undergoing a chaotic explosion. Instead, a core feature of the big bang model is that every component of the universe is experiencing the identical rate of cosmic expansion. The expansion of the universe is not chaotic; it is extraordinarily fine-tuned. Decades ago, Robert Dicke, an atheist American physicist who sponsored my membership in the American Astronomical Society when I was an undergraduate sophomore, calculated that for physical life to be possible in the universe, the cosmic expansion rate must be fine-tuned to within one part in 1055!

If the universe expands too rapidly from the cosmic beginning, stars and planets will never form. If the universe expands too slowly from the cosmic beginning, the universe will collapse before stars and planets capable of sustaining life can form. The cosmic expansion rate must be exquisitely fine-tuned throughout the history of the universe for life-supporting stars and planets to form within the cosmic time window where physical life is possible.

Brief History of the Big Bang Model
The first astronomical observations that pointed to the big bang nature of the universe were announced by Vesto Slipher at the 1914 meeting of the American Astronomical Society. There, Slipher described his discoveries, beginning in 1912, that many galaxies are receding away from Earth at high velocities.2 In 1916, Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity.3 A straightforward subtraction of one of his equations of general relativity from the other equation demonstrated that if general relativity correctly describes the dynamics of the universe, then the universe must be or has been expanding. This implication of general relativity was affirmed in 1922, by the Russian meteorologist, Alexander Friedmann, who found a simple algebraic error made by Einstein that, once corrected, showed that either the expansion of the universe will go on forever or the expansion will eventually stop and be followed by contraction.4

In 1927, Belgian priest and astrophysicist Georges Lemaître published the first demonstration that the recession of nearby galaxies could be explained by an ongoing expansion of the universe.5 In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble published additional observational evidence showing that the universe has been expanding from a cosmic creation event.6 Since 1930, observational evidence establishing the big bang model for the universe has grown exponentially. I describe this growing evidence in my book The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th edition.7

No longer do astronomers debate whether or not the big bang correctly describes the origin and history of the universe. The debate has moved on to considering exactly what kind of big bang model best describes the origin and history of the universe. Astronomical observations now heavily favor the LCDM big bang model. In this model, the two dominant components of the universe are first, dark energy (L), and second, cold dark matter (CDM).

Reasons for Rejecting the Big Bang Model
When Lemaître and Hubble provided the first observational evidences for the big bang cosmological model, other scientists expressed strong displeasure. For example, famed mathematical physicist Sir Arthur Eddington wrote, “Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant.”8 He explained why. “We [must] allow evolution an infinite time to get started.”9 Eddington recognized that a cosmic beginning in finite time posed a major threat to his atheistic beliefs.

Einstein apparently agreed with Eddington. He added a term to his original equations of general relativity, a term that canceled out the implied cosmic expansion.10 As Einstein explained, this cancellation would eliminate the need for a cosmic beginning and permit the universe to remain in a static state for infinite time.

Three British astrophysicists—Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle—circumvented the cosmic beginning via “continual creation.”11 Their models asserted that creation of matter is a law of nature, not a one-time miracle from outside of nature.

Physicist John Gribbin wrote, “The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe is philosophical—perhaps even theological—what was there before the bang?”12 His way around a Causal Agent for the universe was to propose that the universe cycles through an infinite number of natural reincarnations.

Atheist astronomers rejected the big bang because the model implied a cosmic Beginner. Many Christians, Muslims, and Jews rejected it and still do because of the model’s implied age for the universe. These religious adherents hold to a young-earth view and they think that to acknowledge the 14-billion-year-long history for the universe implied by the big bang model is to discredit the authority of their holy books.

Other Christians, concerned that unbelievers might cite scientific data to discredit the accuracy and reliability of the Bible, insist that it is wrong to interpret the Bible as stating anything significant about the origin, history, or present properties of the universe. Theologian John Walton, for example, strongly warns Christians against wedding the Bible to big bang cosmology.13 For him, the big bang or any model of the universe cannot be scientifically stable. He states, “All scientific frameworks are dynamic and subject to change.”14

The Bible and the Big Bang
Ironically, many Christian theologians strongly reject the claim that the Bible aligns well with big bang cosmological models, while twentieth-century nontheistic and atheistic astronomers have strongly reacted to the same models’ clear theological, specifically biblical, implications. Some twenty-first-century evangelical theologians see no links at all between the Bible and big bang cosmology, but non-Christian astronomers consistently have and still do. As a skeptical young astronomy student, I, too, saw links.

In my first serious reading of the Bible at age 17, I noted that the Bible repeatedly and specifically declares three distinct features of the universe:

1. The universe had a single beginning of everything humans could possibly detect: matter, energy, space, and time (Genesis 1:1; 2:3–4; Psalm 148:5; Isaiah 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16–17; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 11:3).
2. The laws governing the universe are constant, unchanging throughout cosmic history (Genesis 1–3; Jeremiah 33:19–26; Romans 8:22).
3. One of these unchanging laws is a pervasive law of decay, termed by physicists as the second law of thermodynamics or the law of increasing entropy (Ecclesiastes 1–3; 9–12; John 16:33; Romans 8:20–22; Revelation 21:4–5).

These three biblically referenced features of the universe were consistent with the big bang model but contradicted by that model’s twentieth-century competitors: the steady state, the quasi-steady state, the hesitation, the plasma, and the oscillating universe models.15 In this regard, I was impressed that the Bible showed astonishing predictive power. It would mean that multiple Bible passages, written more than 2,500 years ago, correctly predicted features of the universe that astronomers would not discover until the twentieth century.

If, in fact, ongoing astronomical observations proved the big bang model correct and its competition false, such validation would stand as strong evidence that the Bible had been supernaturally inspired by the One who created and designed the universe. Seeing features of big bang cosmology in the Bible was one of several evidences that led to my signing my name in the back of a Gideon Bible, committing my life to Jesus Christ.

Years later, upon hearing me speak about the wonder of the Bible’s accuracy in identifying three distinct, recently confirmed features of the universe, a theology professor in my audience approached me afterward to say that I had missed one: cosmic expansion. Although I was aware of the possibility, I felt unsure that the biblical mentions of “the stretching out of the heavens” were literal references to the expansion of the universe.

John Rea explained to me that in the 11 Bible passages declaring that God stretches out the heavens, the Hebrew verb, natah, is employed in two of the three Hebrew verb forms. In seven passages (Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:24, 51:13, and Zechariah 12:1) natah’s Qal (meaning “simple”) active participle form is used. This verb form of natah means “the stretcher out of them” (the heavens) and implies continual or ongoing stretching of the heavens. In four passages (Isaiah 45:12, 48:13, and Jeremiah 10:12, 51:15) natah appears in the Qal perfect form (past tense). Here, the verb form of natah implies the stretching out of the heavens was completed. In just one passage, Isaiah 40:22, the verb form of natah is in the Qal imperfect (past and not completed) form.

The use of both the Qal active participle and the Qal perfect forms of the verb natah in the eleven passages implies in one sense that God continues to design or control the universe with the property of ongoing expansion and, in another sense, he created and designed the universe at the cosmic creation event so that ongoing cosmic expansion would occur. Isaiah 40:22 affirms these two features of cosmic expansion:

“He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.” (Isaiah 40:22)

In this verse, two different Hebrew verbs are used in two different verb forms. In “he stretches out the heavens like a canopy,” the verb natah appears in the Qal active participle form. In “and spreads them out like a tent to live in,” the verb mathah appears in the waw consecutive plus Qal imperfect form. (The waw consecutive involves prefixing a verb form with the letter “waw” to change its tense or aspect.) This is the sole appearance of mathah in the Old Testament. Its appearance in Isaiah 40:22 in the waw consecutive with Qal imperfect form implies that God has spread out the heavens. This one verse and the combination of the other ten verses both state that God is continuing to stretch out the heavens and has stretched them out. This simultaneously finished and ongoing aspect of cosmic stretching is in perfect accord with astronomers’ observations of the universe and their theoretical construct of the big bang creation model.16

I asked Rea if he thought there was any possibility that the 11 Bible passages declaring that God stretches out the heavens could be figuratively referring to something other than a literal expansion of the universe. His reply was he thought it to be unlikely. He explained that if the intent was figurative rather than literal there would be only one or two independent Bible verses making the claim, not 11, and there would be only one or two Bible authors making the claim, not five. Furthermore, the use of all three Hebrew verb forms in the 11 passages left little doubt, in his opinion, that the Holy Spirit inspired five different human authors to proclaim we live in an expanding universe.

Independent of Rea, I was impressed that in Job’s list of natural wonders and miracles God has performed, he included the stretching out of the heavens and grants God exclusive credit. Job 9:8 states, “He [God] alone stretches out the heavens.” Astronomers have determined that the physical constants governing cosmic expansion manifest by far the most spectacular measurable fine-tuning (1096 times greater than anything designed and manufactured by humans) to make physical life possible in the universe.17

Figurative language is used in Isaiah 40:22 and Psalm 104:2. In these two passages, the stretching out of the heavens is likened to one unfurling and stretching out a tightly wrapped tent, akin to a backpacker removing his wrapped-up tent from his backpack and stretching it out so that he can occupy it. This analogy provides an additional response to the claim made by some theologians that only the recent expansion of the universe can be discerned from the 11 biblical texts.

The figure of speech employed in Isaiah 40:22 and Psalm 104:2 provides a good scientific analogy for the universe’s expansion. In big bang cosmology the universe begins as an infinitesimally small volume. The expansion of the universe causes the space surface of the universe to grow ever larger. All the matter and energy of the universe, including all the galaxies, stars, and planets, are constrained to the three-dimensional surface of the universe.

I now agree, therefore, that it is possible the Bible declared four, not just three, distinct features of the universe. John Rea and I ended up writing an article detailing where and how the Bible proclaimed at least three and maybe four distinct features of the universe.18

Cosmic expansion from a space-time beginning under constant laws of physics, where one of those laws is a pervasive law of decay, implies that the temperature of the universe will cool down in a predictable manner. The laws of thermodynamics (decay) predict that any system undergoing adiabatic (without transfer of heat or mass to an environment outside the system) expansion will experience a drop in temperature proportional to the degree of expansion. Therefore, the cooling down of the universe could also be a biblically predicted cosmic feature.

Some theologians think that Rea’s interpretation of 11 Old Testament passages implying an expanding universe could be concordist overreach. (I hold to moderate concordism, meaning that several discoveries in nature will reveal concordance with some of the words of Scripture.) One of the theologians who participated in a workshop Reasons to Believe held on dual revelation on June 24–25, 2022, Vern Poythress (professor of New Testament, biblical interpretation, and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary), wrote the following in an email sent to me on June 29, 2022:

The Hebrew tense system is very different from English. Context of use is necessary to narrow down the function of any one occurrence. There are a multitude of contexts, and a variety of meaning implications that go with the contexts. The tense system in Hebrew is in many ways more about aspect than tense (as a grammatical specification of time at which the event occurred). This is especially evident in poetry. Parallel poetic lines may have a perfect in the first line and an imperfect in the second line, or vice versa, to enhance the rhyming of ideas that is customary in parallel lines.

In Job 9:8 are two participles, both translated as simple past tenses in the English Standard Version: “stretched” and “trampled.” Verse 9 has another participle, which context shows must designate a one-time event in the past.

So, what is the point in the poetic image of stretching out the heavens? Isaiah 40:22 has one of the fuller renderings,

who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,

and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;

Both lines draw an analogy with a piece of cloth, “a curtain” or “a tent (cover).” As the initial draft of your manuscript recognizes, the image evoked in Isaiah 40:22 “is likened to one unfurling and stretching out a tightly wrapped tent.” Ps. 104:2 is not as elaborate, but similar. The occurrence of a number of such passages in the Bible does not show that some special information is being conveyed. Rather, it is a reinforcement of the point made in any one of them.

The comparison with a tent brings God’s work into connection with Israelite work. The poetic association that is primary is probably the ease and mastery and confidence with which God has structured creation. The Bible also speaks of God “founding” the earth. Both are naturally associated with Israelite habitations. Houses have foundations; even tents have stabilization with pegs. The roof of a house is a matter for considerable labor, in order to make sure it does not collapse. By comparison, a tent is easy. One or two poles to hold up the middle, and one stretches out the tent cloth over them. One of the points of the comparison is that it is easy for God. And the purpose is to make something “to dwell in.” That is another reason why the comparison is a favorite one. God dwells in his world (Jeremiah 23:24). But, the world is preeminently a dwelling for mankind.

If one wants to press for something literal here, as John Rea does, it goes against the poetic context of most of the verses. But then the literal picture that one does get is of material cloth—which has some elasticity but only of a minor kind, not like an elastic band—being stretched until it is taut. It evokes the power and wisdom of God. It need not supply any technical information as to how God is dealing with spatial measurements of the size of the cosmos. We can evoke Calvin’s principle (with which I basically agree), discussed in his commentary on Genesis, that Moses writes about what ordinary people could observe.

I would contend that not reading cosmic expansion into the Bible’s statements on the universe is not soft concordism. Neither is reading the expansion of the universe into the same biblical statements hard concordism. They are both examples of the dynamic nature of moderate concordism. They exemplify the need for ongoing theological and scientific research and the integration of science and theology so that progressively more accurate determinations of the boundaries of moderate concordism can be established.19

The reality that the Bible made declarations of at least three specific features of the universe millennia ago and stood alone until a century ago—outside of commentaries on the Bible—in making these declarations, stands as strong evidence that the Bible was supernaturally inspired by the One who created and designed the universe. It is evidence we can use to persuade unbelievers that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

For me, seeing elements of the big bang model declared in the Bible was not the strongest evidence for scientific concordism. Without a doubt scientific concordance played a major part in my recognizing that the Bible was the inspired, inerrant Word of God. However, I dedicated my life to Jesus Christ several months before physicists discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation that was predicted by the big bang cosmic creation model. Much more so than elements of big bang cosmology in the Bible, the concordance of the chronological sequence and description of creation events in Genesis 1 and the descriptions of science and creation in Job 37–39, Psalm 104, and Proverbs 8 with the established scientific record convinced me that the Bible was God’s Word (for details and documentation see my book, Navigating Genesis20).

Hindsight or Foresight?
In one university forum debate I had with the executive director of the Skeptics Society, Michael Shermer, he told the audience that my claims of the Bible predicting some of the big bang features of the universe were examples of hindsight biblical interpretation. He declared that I was falsely reading into biblical passages features of the universe that I knew were true based solely on astronomical observations made in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Shermer contended that I was imposing literal interpretations upon Bible passages that are clearly intended to be figurative. As proof that I was falsely reading details about the universe into biblical texts, he asserted that no one previous to the twentieth century had ever interpreted these biblical texts in the manner I was claiming. He emphatically declared that the Bible did not predict any of the big bang features of the universe.  

To be clear, neither John Rea nor I have ever claimed that the Bible teaches all the fundamental features of the big bang creation model. We are saying that it teaches three or four of the several dozen big bang features of the universe that astronomers have identified.

Is It Just Hindsight Interpretation?
The nontheists, besides Shermer, who have engaged me about the Bible and the big bang avow that they do not need to read my articles on the Bible and the big bang or the biblical passages I cite to know that my claims are wrong. They say, like Shermer, that no theologian previous to the twentieth century ever commented on the Bible making such claims. This lack, they insist, is sufficient evidence that it is just my twenty-first–century astrophysical bias that makes me think the Bible teaches big bang features of the universe.

These skeptics, though, tend to not dispute that the Bible teaches that the laws of physics are constant and that one of those laws is a pervasive law of decay. The claim for the former is stated in passages in Genesis 1–3, Jeremiah 33, Romans 8:19–22, and Revelation 21:1–5. The claim for the latter is found throughout Proverbs and especially in Ecclesiastes and Romans 8:18–22. Nontheists, whether familiar or unfamiliar with these Bible passages, perceive that these two properties—at least as far as Earth and its life are concerned—would have been evident to at least some pre-twentieth-century populations simply based on their observations of the natural realm. It is worth noting, however, that there were pre-twentieth-century religions and beliefs that denied these two cosmic properties.

Pre-Twentieth-Century Theologians on Ex Nihilo Creation
Michael Shermer and the nontheists I have engaged dispute that any theologians previous to the twentieth century had ever discerned that the Bible teaches an ex nihilo (from nothing) beginning for the universe or that the Bible teaches the universe has expanded and is expanding. However, many pre-twentieth-century Jewish and Christian theologians wrote about the Bible’s teachings concerning the characteristics of the universe. For the sake of brevity, I will highlight only some of the comments by a few of the more prominent ones.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (120–202), stated, “God, according to His pleasure, in the exercise of His own will and power, formed all things (so that those things which now are should have an existence) out of what did not previously exist.”21

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) wrote in his Confessions, “You [God] were, and besides you nothing was. From nothing, then, you created heaven and earth.”22 Later in Confessions he added, “You created them [the heavens and the earth, that is, the material universe] from nothing, not from your own substance or from some matter not created by yourself or already in existence. . . . You created the matter from absolutely nothing and the form of the world from this formless matter.”23

The most famous of the medieval Jewish theologians, Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), also known as the Rambam, wrote extensively about Old Testament declarations concerning the beginning of the universe. In his 13 Principles of Faith, Maimonides stated, “We believe that this Oneness is necessarily primary. All that exists other than Him is not primary in relationship to Him. There are many references in the Scriptures. This is the fourth Principle, as affirmed by the verse (Deuteronomy 33:27): ‘God who preceded all existence is a refuge.’”24 Here, Maimonides explicitly states that the universe cannot be eternal; it must have a beginning.

In The Guide of the Perplexed, Maimonides elucidated what the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) stated about God, the universe, space, and time. He wrote that the entire universe “was brought into existence by God after having been purely and absolutely nonexistent.”25 Maimonides declared that Moses in the Torah asserted “that there is nothing eternal in any way at all existing simultaneously with God.”26 Therefore, according to Maimonides, the Mosaic position puts forth a view of creation that is both ex nihilo and de novo (from [the] new).

Maimonides explains that creation de novo does not mean God exists in time and space and picks a particular moment to begin his creations.27 He asserts that time itself is one of these creations. It is not eternal; only God is eternal. Only God is responsible for creating the universe.28 Maimonides also clarifies his definition of “nothing” and the impotence of nothing: “if nothing is pure and absolute, it cannot be the material cause of anything; it is, after all, nothing.”29

Pre-Twentieth-Century Theologians on Cosmic Expansion
Shermer and the nontheists I have engaged especially dispute that any theologian previous to the twentieth century had ever discerned that the Bible teaches that the universe has expanded and is expanding. There is at least one. Medieval Jewish theologian Moses Nachmanides (1194–1270), also known as Rabbi Moses ben Nahman Girondi, wrote in his Commentary on Genesis about the expansion of the universe:

“At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was so thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this ethereally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed.”30

There may have been others besides Nachmanides who wrote about, lectured, or discussed cosmic expansion previous to the twentieth century. However, one reason why we should not expect a lot of written resources on cosmic expansion from scholars previous to the twentieth century is that cosmic expansion was not an issue for skeptics of Christianity whereas a cosmic beginning definitely was. Nontheists throughout all centuries recognized that a cosmic beginning implies a cosmic Beginner and that an ex nihilo cosmic beginning implies that the Beginner must be an Entity possessing the capacity to operate freely and create independent of matter, energy, space, and time. Therefore, while Christian and Jewish apologists felt compelled to defend the doctrine of a cosmic beginning and creation ex nihilo in particular, no such compulsion drove them to address cosmic expansion.

A conclusion that can be drawn from the works of pre-twentieth-century Jewish and Christian apologists is similar to the “discussion” between Vern Poythress and John Rea. There is no reasonable doubt that the Bible taught at least three fundamental features of big bang creation models. A case can be made that the Bible also taught a fourth feature of the universe—expansion from the cosmic creation event.

Biblical Cosmology Implications
The Bible’s unique position among texts from the ancient world in its specific and unambiguous details about the origin and history of the universe has profound implications. Twentieth and twenty-first-century discoveries about the universe are bringing more attention to biblical texts describing the origin and characteristics of the universe. These discoveries establish that the universe has a beginning, which implies the existence of a cosmic Beginner. They also imply that the universe has been designed, extraordinarily fine-tuned, for the existence of life.  

These discoveries demonstrate that the Bible possesses unique predictive power. Georges Lemaître, Edwin Hubble, Albert Einstein, and George Gamow were not the first humans to talk and write about the big bang creation model. That credit goes back to biblical authors Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Paul, and the author of Hebrews. This success in uniquely predicting specific features of the universe millennia ahead of scientific discoveries of such cosmic features provides strong evidence that the source of the Bible’s message is from the Being who created and designed the universe. Such evidence implies that all humans would be wise to read, understand, and submit to the entire content of the Bible.

Check out more from Reasons to Believe @Reasons.org

Endnotes

1. Hugh Ross, “A Beginner’s—and Expert’s—Guide to the Big Bang: Sifting Facts from Fictions,” Reasons to Believe (June 30, 2000).
2. Vesto M. Slipher, “Radial Velocity Observations of Spiral Nebulae,” The Observatory (August 1917): 304–306.
3. Albert Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” Annalen der Physik 49, no. 7 (1916): 769–822, doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702.
4. Alexander A. Friedmann, “Über die Krümmung des Raumes,” Zeitschrift für Physik 10, no. 1 (1922): 377–386, doi:10.1007/BF01332580.
5. Abbé Georges Lemaître, “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-Galactic Nebulae,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91, no. 5 (March 13, 1931): 483–90, doi:10.1093/mnras/91.5.483. The original paper appears in French in Annales de la Société Scientifique de Bruxelles, Tome XLVII, Serie A, Premiere Partie (April 1927): 49.
6. Edwin Hubble, “A Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Extra-Galactic Nebulae,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 15 (March 1929): 168–73, doi:10.1073/pnas.15.3.168.
7. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed. (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018), 33–198.
8. Arthur S. Eddington, “The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics,” Nature 127 (1931): 450, doi:10.1038/127447a0.

9. Arthur S. Eddington, “On the Instability of Einstein’s Spherical World,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 90, no. 7 (May 9, 1930): 672, doi:10.1093/mnras/90.7.668.
10. Albert Einstein, “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” in Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (February 8, 1917): 142–152.
11. Herman Bondi and T. Gold, “The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108, no. 3 (1948): 252–270, doi:10.1093/mnras/108.3.252; Fred Hoyle, “A New Model for the Expanding Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 108, no. 5 (1948): 372–382, doi:10.1093/mnras/108.5.372.
12. John Gribbin, “Oscillating Universe Bounces Back,” Nature 259 (January 1, 1976): 15–16, doi:10.1038/259015c0.
13. John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 105.
14. Walton, The Lost World, 61.

15. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 25–122.
16. Ross, 33–76, 85–122.
17. Ross, 45–55.

18. Hugh Ross with John Rea, “Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First!,” Reasons to Believe (July 1, 2000). The article has been reissued as an RTB101 paper and appears as a chapter in both The Creator and the Cosmos, 4th ed. (pages 25–31) and A Matter of Days, 2nd ed. (pages 135–144).
19. Hugh Ross, Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2023): chapter 9.
20. Hugh Ross, Navigating Genesis: A Scientist’s Journey through Genesis 1–11 (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2014).
21. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book II, chapter 10.2 in Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 1, The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999), 370.
22. Saint Augustine, Confessions, trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin (London, UK: Penguin Books, 1961), Book XII.7, 285.
23. Augustine, Confessions, 344.
24. Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), Guide II.13, 281.
25. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, Guide II.13, 281–82; Kenneth Seeskin, “Metaphysics and Its Transcendence” in Kenneth Seeskin, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 92.
26. Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, 281–82; Seeskin, The Cambridge Companion, 92.
27. Maimonides, 281–82; Seeskin, 92.
28. Maimonides, 281–82; Seeskin, 92.