I respect everyone's right to hold views on any matter - even if they are wrong in my opinion. But the answer to this science vs theology debate is simple.

Science argues it has good evidence to suspect everything started with the Big Bang, but they're not certain. It seems like a plausible argument. But what existed before the Big Bang? Where did everything come from before that and in what state was it in? They don't know, but they have faith in their science that they'll find out one day.

Theologians argue that in the beginning God created everything, maybe even the Big Bang itself, whatever, but where did God come from? How could God have created Him/Her/It-self from nothing in the beginning? They don't know, but they have faith in their religion that they'll find out one day.

See the pattern emerging here?

Both have faith in their repective beliefs. Neither one has the answers, proof or evidence and neither one will probably ever know. So in the meantime, both continue to have FAITH in what they believe is correct and neither one can argue that the other one's FAITH is wrong.

Perpetual dilemma - what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Frankly, I can't understand why there's been so much written about this subject here. It's just a matter of choosing one's favourite faith and being tolerant of the other fellow's. Surely each has a right to do that.

Alchemist.... its one thing to rattle off a few 'ancient' document names, its another to actually show their real connection to the matter of Christian origins. You might score a point or 2 with Kenny :) but not with the informed.
Kenny, before you jump down my throat for that tease, I take your point about Genesis, I was referring more to the scenario of Genesis 1:1 Not the individual creation of various life forms, but science being what it is, you never know.... it might revise itself.

Nag Hammadi texts....

tells us about Gnosticism, already known and dealt with by the early Church. This just fills in some blanks about what they used and why.

Nadan Fragrment....

Tells us an interesting story about a man who adopted his nephew... err.. your point ?

Dead Sea Scrolls

support the orthodox position... what are u on about ? A wonderful copy of Isaiah among them.

9 letters left out ?...

err.. maybe because the eye witnesses who were still alive during the compilation of the New Testament were able to see them for what they were.. not worthy of being 'scripture'.

Which Text/Bible... all translations of translations etc...

You have a point. There are a few textual issues which are raised, minor but real. None of those issues take away from the central core of Christs person and work or the teaching of Paul etc. The Bible Old and New testaments did not 'drop out of the sky' and we don't claim it did. We do however,accept and believe that the Holy Spirit guarded the truth God wished to communicate to us. 1 Corinthians 15 being a classic example. See FF BRUCE New Testament Documents.
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

It certainly had an impact.. its 'which' year ? from 'what' event ?

blessings all

Maximus, you skew the argument a little there. We all know that the universe exists: that does not involve faith.

Science and religion both put forward theories regarding the origin of this universe, but the Christian theory simply pushes the problem one step further away without even trying to answer it. Instead of an unexplained universe, we end up with a universe created by an unexplained God.

If you argue that God is more complex than the universe, then you have made the problem worse: instead of a universe that sprang into existence for no obvious reason, you have an even more complex God that sprang into existence for no obvious reason. Nice story, but hardly an explanation.

If, on the other hand, you argue that God is less complex than the universe, you have to explain how the less complex was able to create the more complex, and that doesn’t even sound like a good story.

I suppose there is a third option, in which God is exactly as complex as the universe, in which case it would be simpler to say that God IS the universe and avoid the terminological problem. We could then stop using the word "god" altogether, except in the sense that we use terms like "elf", "goblin" and "Harry Potter".

if god is the universe then its interseting to consider wether it can contravine its own laws. for example can god travel faster than the speed of light? if not then considering that last time anyone saw him it was about 2000 yrs ago,..... 2000yrs at 299 792 458 m / s..
that means god is 18908509910976000 km away, and will take longer to return, considering its going to take a while for him to slow down enough to turn around.

38,000 different sect's in Christendom and climbing with many having very different views then you BD, some don't event believe in the divinity of Jesus.
As for What was before the "Big Bang" well nothing there was nothing before the "Big Bang" both time and space from into being at the "big Bang" so it is pointless to talk about a time before the "big Bang" or a cause for it. One of the most important implications of quantum physics is that at the level of the fundamental building blocks of matter the ideas of cause proceeding effect don’t apply. At the quantum level many events seem to be truly spontaneous.

Talking about what happened before the Big Bang is a bit like talking about building a house 8 km south of the South Pole. It is dimensionally incoherent.