Genesis predicted a creation event. As late as the 1920's the most brilliant scientists in the world, including Mr E=MC^2, held to a static universe, ie: no creation event. Genesis was correct. How can this be?
An Revelations predicts an end which also didn't jib with a steady state universe.
So did most other creation myths. It's the explanation most primitive peoples came to when they wondered, "where'd this Earth thing come from?" and crafted stories to imagine what might have happened, because humans tend to expect things to have beginnings.
As late as the 1920's the most brilliant scientists in the world, including Mr E=MC^2, held to a static universe, ie: no creation event.
Because at the time there wasn't a lot of evidence that there had been one.
Genesis was correct. How can this be?
Luck. That is, unless you want to credit all the other incompatible-with-Genesis creation myths with *also* being somehow infallibly dictated as opposed to just fortuitously correct on that one point also...
And you can't have it both ways -- if you're going to give Genesis "credibility points" for matching the conclusions of science on that *one* point (even though the actual *details* of the Big Bang differ hugely from the Genesis creation scenario), then you're also going to have to accept the fact that numerous *other* "predictions" in Genesis are quite wrong when compared to the conclusions of science.
And as a side issue, it's amusing to note how many of the Usual Suspects among the creationists actually rail *against* the Big Bang theory for some reason. Go figure. Apparently they're not nearly as happy about the Big Bang's "confirmation" of Genesis as you are.