Big Bang Theory vs. the Bible

For Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

By: John S. Pennington Jr.

Narrated by: John S. Pennington Jr.

Length: 9 hrs and 11 mins

Publisher's summary

Big Bang Theory vs. the Bible has a truly unique comparison between two seemingly opposite perspectives. It brings religion and science together by using the truths of the Big Bang Theory, evolution, astronomy, mathematics, statistical probabilities, and the solar system. It reconciles the calendar of the creation recorded in the Book of Genesis with the calendar of the Big Bang Theory—as the two calendars perfectly and mathematically correlate.

It discusses the controversy in science today on how life actually began on Earth, with the Book of Genesis stating that life came from the “ground” or “dust of the ground” and evolution stating that the human race can trace its lineage back to a pile of tiny rocks. It will analyze the creative power of neutrons, protons, and electrons vs. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. It relates the history of the solar system with the moon’s creation compared to the creation of Eve in the Book of Genesis. It shows that over 2000 years ago the Apostle John predicted 21st-century technology that may be dangerous to Christians.

After listening to Big Bang Theory vs. The Bible, you will be asking yourself: Does the Bible validate the Big Bang Theory or does the Big Bang Theory validate the Bible as nonfiction? This author’s perspective uses logical fact patterns that enables true intellect.

©2018 Penny10, LLC (P)2022 Penny10, LLC

Very Fascinating

I think the book title was a little misleading. The subject matter of the book was more of a proof that it is easier in his opinion to have faith in God than it is to be atheist. However, I was not disappointed in the coverage of how the big bang theory and the Bible support one another. This was a great read for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Remember that these are not all doctrines in the church, but possible evidences of Christ's validity. A warning about the writing style of the author is that he is very repetitive when it comes to telling information he believes is important to impress upon the reader.

well intentioned but ultimately doctrinal nonsense

Let me start by first saying that I am an active member of the church, and I admire all the missionary efforts on behalf of the author. I am an ally, I'm not an Uber scientific atheist skeptic, nor am I an anti-mormon hater. I bought the book after watching the author on the True Millennial podcast.
With that being said, I was so disappointed in this book that I began to write down a response to debunk the ideas being proported. But that's a waste of time as it wouldn't matter to anyone but me and maybe if the author saw this. So, here are 5 points that stretch our doctrine and cause confusion among members, yet were repeated throughout this book.
1) The correct worldview of Christians and members of the Church is that truth comes from and is described by God in the scriptures. And then we see that truth manifested in the world around us. That's called a worldview. It has to start in truth. This book takes the perspective of the world and tries to show how the world (science) believes the same things as us, we just said it first, so now we're appropriating science to gain approval. That's not true. We are not compatible with the world's view remotely. We are a far comparison from Babylon, and when we are not, it's a reflection on us, not Babylon.
There is constant evidence that the author is bending the scriptures to the scientific worldview rather than science to the Doctrine. That's where we're incompatible with the world. Instead of saying that we don't understand the workings of God and asking for faith, the author has taken the position of "We don't understand the revelation of Moses. And that, by logic and the world, I will explain it properly." I wish it worked that way. It does not. That's priestcraft.
2) The author insists that we can all look at the same data and come to similar conclusions, yet he reads the book of Moses and comes to wildly different conclusions about creation than the brethren. Such as the description of time known as "a day," Genesis was properly translated by JS into plain modern English because he, a seer, described the vision Moses saw. Not the words Moses wrote. It's a revelation, not a translation. Therefore, we get the story of extra details of Lamech, Enoch, Noah, etc, nor did the Genesis account get the order of the creation days mixed up. While there may be a case for confusion about the moon, the temple makes clear that the sun was the first day. Incompatible with the big bang timeline. Even if the author divides it into 6 parts. The sun is not a separate creation from "light," as the account states clearly that God gave the account of this world only. It wasn't describing the big bang or creation of other worlds. As our prophet stated in GC "you cannot have an explosion in a printing press and get a book." While the discourse about Jupiter being Satan was entertaining, it makes us look more like pagan astronomers than serious scientists. Which we are neither.
Grass can not grow on a planet that has an atmosphere, water, dirt, and NO sun. Even the science disagrees with that assumption. See Mars, the moon, Venus, not the ocean. Even algae relies in the sun to create an atmosphere.
3) The instruction on evolution was the most offensive to my soul as it sounds like something straight out of a BYU professor's mouth (or worse). Adam wasn't created in a different world where God tried and failed over and over and then set him down in the garden when he was ready. Lehi and Joseph F Smith were correct when they made clear that death had not yet entered the world. Therefore, there have been no new plants, animal species, or humans since the garden. Evolution is incompatible with the Genesis account that species start and stay within their types.
4) Every opportunity the author had to choose between the Big Bang theory and the literal word of God, he chose the Big Bang theory. The author says it's a book written for and by a member, but I just can't see the target audience being anyone other than a 17 year old atheist with a loose grasp on both the scriptures and the big bang. Perhaps it was a projection of his own past struggles. It's like the author is going up to scientists and telling them that he's actually just like them and that we're all secretly the same! We're not.
The incorrect interpretations of Moses are all coming from the same problem: compromising the word to meet current scientific understanding. The author makes compromises throughout the book to meet in the middle. But never once is it at the expense of science. He calls the Big Bang a theory but treats it like doctrine. It's always at the cost of doctrine. It's always a compromise of the biblical timeline or the word 'day', or the creation of Adam, or the evolution of plants and animals, etc, all the way down. No wonder the atheist is confused. If we believe everything they already believe, why would they convert if we're the same? If the world and us have the same beliefs about the world, what makes us special at all? Sounds like it's the world converting us and not the other way around.

From one econ guy to another, this book may assist the atheist in becoming more comfortable with the Bible, but all it tells believers is that we can seek confirmation to spiritual truth through science. And while nature may testify of Him, the Big Bang theory does not. The science is wrong, don't put any weight on it, it will fail you. It's okay to not have answers to "the science." Have confidence that we choose the literal word over man. If you want to encourage faith by looking at science, double down on the literal word, there's plenty of material! It doesn't hurt my faith to think that 6 days were 6 days. Choose not to let the science bug you when it's different from us. Confirmation bias is called faith, when it's based on truth. We have the truth. We can stand confidently on it together. Thanks