No 'big" "bang"

There has been voiced some reservations on the new cosmos model since its conception called "big" "bang".

At least in English interpretation, some see it as a possible misnomer if taken literally. And by what gauge, since we weren't around then, do we depict what occurred as "big" plus it must be a "bang"?

First, was it "big"?  Most concepts posited don't support initially anything big about the beginning. Quite a few trace it backward toward a really miniscule presence at the beginning and say inflation gave it size later. And now that we are thinking on it presently, "big" would be misleading the miniscule size compared to the now huge volume the universe is said to occupy.

Secondly, "bang" usually entails something strong happening and explosive. These tend to lead to ideas in

English of a destructive nature with perhaps nothing to survive thereafter. So the big bang would be depicted

as an incidence of self destruction, not output of growth potential. Often illustrated in examples of matter-antimatter contact outcomes.

So maybe better phraseology for the postulated very beginning could be: eruption, break out or outbreak, in retroflection.