You're only been over 'your own' take of it all. The Bible clearly says God created the universe and then spread things out, put them into their position. Things being spread out/expanding is not out of reason here with a relation between the Bible and the big bang theory.
This has already been answered above.
No it hasn't. ALL you've demonstrated is that you're willing to make massive leaps in logic, to make the bible fit with science.
And it doesn't matter what some of the Church did/does believe, this is not my belief nor the Christians/creationists that I am aware of. We do not teach the big bang but a very simply basic "idea" if you will, is apparent in both. Feel free to deny it. But what are you really denying? All I'm finding in your posts are struggling attempts to find an opposing view to me showing desperation in some of what you post. But I expect this as God's word is so clear.
It's basic logic. I don't know how else to put it. You're not even addressing the other interpretations put forward. You're not addressing the logical, philosophical argument of Occam's Razor. You are cutting yourself on Occam's Razor when you insist Job 9:8 is a reference to the big bang.
You seemingly do not care about whether or not your position is logical. You're literally willing to leap to the belief that contains the most assumptions, which is illogical.
Funny how almost to all of what I have given has never been done away with.
What exactly do you think this sentence means?
It seems like you're saying that "you can't prove my interpretation wrong".
I'm pretty sure I've already pointed out to you that this is a logical fallacy called the Argument from Ignorance.
If you're interested in truth and your arguments leading to truth, you have to care about whether or not your arguments are logical. They're not. Take the time to learn about logical fallacies.
Here's the thing Rodhulk. It should be
trivial for you to understand why your conclusion about Job 9:8 is a massive leap in logic. But you keep holding to your interpretation as though its fact. It should be trivial to accept that there could be other interpretations with less assumptions, but you keep denying logic to hold onto conclusions with massive assumptions built in.
Face it. You're a fundamentalist. If you can't accept basic logic on such a trivial passage, you're a lost cause.