~Home~ ~Life Lines~ ~Study Surveys~ ~Bibliology~ ~Tracts & Articles~ ~Our Printed Materials~

The doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures as we defined it in part A of our study of Bibliology has met with many objections from those who deny it. As we said, the doctrine of inspiration may be stated thus: "The Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, inspired by the Spirit of God equally in all its parts, including not only the ideas but also the very words, so that what is written is without error (inerrant) whether of doctrine, fact, or precept." Or, more briefly, "What Scripture says, God says-through human agents and without error." Those who deny this say that men wrote the Bible; therefore it must of necessity contain errors. We do not deny that men wrote the Bible, but God's Spirit inspired them to write what they did so that no human error was permitted to enter. (As we have also seen, this applies only to the autographs of Scripture.)

In this section (F.) we will deal with the major areas of objections to the doctrine of inspiration. They are: 1. science, 2. miracles, 3. myths and legends, 4. moral objections, 5. contradictions, and 6. discrepancies and errors. It would be impossible to cover each objection, but we will deal with examples of each of these major kinds.

a. EVOLUTION

A major reason why many people today reject the inspiration and authority of the Bible is that they believe that "science has disproved the Bible." This objection involves many aspects of science and the Scriptures, but by far the most common and the most serious as well as the one that has been most effective in undermining the authority of the Bible in our culture is the theory of evolution.

Actually the conflict between "science and the Bible" is a misnomer. Instead we should say the conflict between science and theology. Science is the study of the physical universe while theology is the study of the Bible. There can be no true conflict between the physical universe and the Bible because both are creations of God-the universe is the work of God and the Bible is the Word of God. The conflict arises as men seek to "read" and interpret both the universe and the Bible. It is how the facts of creation and Scripture are interpreted that gives rise to the conflict, because while the facts are what they are in each case, men are not infallible in interpreting the facts. In the past some of the major conflicts between scientists and theologians have been due to misinterpretation of Scripture on the part of theologians. But today, especially regarding evolution, the conflict is due to inaccurate interpretations and assumptions-and in many cases downright distortions-on the part of scientists.

Evolution is the belief that all living things have their origin in a single living cell. Single-celled organisms developed or evolved into more complex organisms, and these into even more complex ones until the variety and complexity of living things that we have today eventually came about. Of course this belief is in direct contradiction to the Bible which says God made everything, including all living things, and that he made them all about the same time; they didn't develop from less complex organisms over a long period. God made each kind of living thing with its own set of characteristics, not from lower forms of life.

Although we know and believe the Bible is true and evolution is false because it contradicts the Bible, it probably will not be enough for those we meet today who have been deceived by evolution to tell them, "Evolution is wrong because it does not agree with the Bible." It's not that we should be ashamed to believe or say this; it's just that it probably will not convince unbelievers today. It would be more effective to point out that evolution is bad science.

The idea of evolution is not at all new. The ancient Greek philosophers believed that life came from non-living matter and developed into more and more complex organisms. But it was Charles Darwin who gave evolution its first "scientific" credibility and made the theory popular with the publication in 1859 of His book The Origin of Species. He was the first to offer an explanation of how evolution occurred-through natural selection. Natural selection is much like artificial selection which is breeding. By being selective in which specimens we choose to produce offspring, we can breed for certain characteristics, such as size, strength, or resistance to extreme conditions. We can do the same with plants, obtaining higher yields per acre, etc. This takes place in nature to some extent as well, hence the term "natural selection." But never does either natural or artificial selection produce anything truly new in an organism, and it certainly never produces a new organism altogether. But this is what Darwin said happened- natural selection produced higher and higher kinds of organisms which was the "how" of evolution. Since his time, scientists have demonstrated that it is impossible for natural selection to produce new organisms, so they have abandoned Darwin's thesis. They now say mutations were the "how," the way evolution took place. But as we shall see, it is also quite impossible that mutations could do this.

The supposed evidences for evolution are examples of variation and selection (but these are always within a certain kind, never producing new kinds), mutations (but these are extremely rare and never produce anything good, let alone a higher organism), fossils (badly misconstrued, sometimes downright hoaxes), supposed transitional forms ("missing links" between kinds of organisms; all of which have been successively advanced, then abandoned, by evolutionists), similarity of design (as much an argument for design by a single Creator as for evolution), and embryology (that the human embryo goes through the successive plateaus of evolution, an idea long ago abandoned by leading evolutionists but still appearing in many books).

The following are the eleven best scientific evidences against evolution:

1. The second law of thermodynamics.

2. The law of biogenesis.

3. The absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

4. The absence of continual upward development from one level of complexity of living thing to another in the fossil record.

5. The complexity of life, even of a single living cell.

6. The complexity and diversity of higher organisms and their cells.

7. The rock strata associated by evolutionists with eons of change and development were actually formed simultaneously-sideways, not vertically.

8. The methods of dating which give evolutionists their needed eons of time are unreliable.

9. Ninety-nine percent of all mutations are harmful.

10. Variation takes place only within kinds, never producing something truly new.

11. There is much evidence the earth is much younger than evolution requires and claims.

Now we will take up and briefly discuss each of these in order:

1. The second law of thermodynamics.

Some say this is the very best single evidence against evolution, capable in itself of overthrowing the whole system, which it has actually done in some scientists' minds. 'Therm" means "heat' and "dynamics" means "works"-thermodynamics is the study of heat and how it works. Heat always "flows" or passes from a hotter object to a colder one, never from a colder to a hotter (unless it is made to do so by an outside force and work is done). In other words, heat always flows "downhill." But scientists have learned that this principle applies to everything else in the universe as well and can be stated a number of ways. Everything, not just heat, runs downhill. The usable energy of a body or the universe itself becomes less and less with -time. The natural tendency is for complex and orderly arrangements of things to become simpler and more -disorderly, not more complex and orderly. Chaos never becomes orderly on its own; rather, order tends to degenerate into chaos. Everything ages and wears out, not vice versa. Orderly rows in the garden become plots of randomly growing weeds if left untended too long. This second law of thermodynamics, variously stated and exemplified, is one of the most proven, demonstrable, and universal laws of nature. But for evolution to be true, it would have had to defy this unchanging, universal law. More and more complex forms of life would have had to arisen out of simpler ones, even from non-living matter itself.

2. The law of biogenesis.

"Bio--" means "life" and "genesis" means "beginning." This law states that living things can come only from living things and never from non-living matter. Until the modern scientific era, men thought flies as well as other living organisms arose spontaneously from non-living matter. Francisco Redi, an Italian physician, about 1665 became one of the first to present evidence against "spontaneous generation" as it was called. In a series of experiments with decayed meat in jars, he demonstrated that the larvae of flies called maggots did not spontaneously arise from decaying meat at all as was commonly supposed but that flies attracted to the meat laid their eggs which produced the maggots. Later others including Louis Pasteur showed conclusively that spontaneous generation does not occur with any organism, including micro-organisms. There is simply a huge difference between living and non-living matter, far too big a difference to "jump across" at once, which is what had to have happened if evolution were true. Evolutionists say that the first living cell arose from complex protein molecules in the ocean. Aside from -the question of how these complex protein molecules could have arisen on their own, in order for them to become a living cell, they would have had to function as living cells and reproduce before they were living cells, which is an impossibility.

3. The absence of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Transitional forms are "missing links." Since living things differ greatly from kind to kind, for evolution to be true, there would have to have been "in-between" organisms; for instance, some animals in between birds and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, and -apes and man. And there would have to have been many, not just one "link" between these kinds since -they are so different from each other, having many very different features. And there would be many fossils of these "in-between" forms if evolution were -true because multitudes of them would have had to arisen, then died off, as the gradual changes -developed between, say, reptiles and mammals. -Darwin knew that one of the great weaknesses of his theory was the absence of these "missing links." He expected these forms would be found as scientists dug more and more into the earth, but they have not been forthcoming-the "missing links" are still missing! Some evolutionists, when asked why we do not see evolution occurring in the present, have responded, "Because it is taking place too slowly to observe." But when asked why we do not find evidence of these -changes in the past (the fossil record) they responded, "It must have taken place too rapidly"!

There are a few "examples" of missing links that have been set forth by evolutionists (and subsequently abandoned as more was known about them). The only intermediate between reptiles and birds -(evolutionists assume birds evolved from reptiles) that I has been offered is Archaeopteryx. But leading evolutionists now admit that it was simply a bird and speak of Pro-Avis as the link instead. The problem here is that no remains of any such creature have been found-it remains purely hypothetical! Besides flying creatures would have to have evolved from non flying ones in four different places on the evolutionary "tree"-flying insects, flying mammals, flying reptiles and birds. And as yet, not one of any of the multitudes of necessary "links" have been found! There are no examples of links between fish and amphibians or amphibians and reptiles, all necessary if evolution were true.

Despite some superficial similarities, man is far removed from apes. There would have to have been many transitional forms between them. Evolutionists have offered (and subsequently withdrawn) many "links": Ramapithecus, Australopithecus (one in particular named "Lucy"), and Homo Habilis, but all are now admitted to be simply extinct apes. "Peking Man", "Java Man", "Nebraska Man", "Piltdown Man", and "Neanderthal Man" have all been hailed as "missing links." But the original bones of Peking Man were mysteriously lost and all that is left is "casts" (which are always of doubtful usefulness) and 2 teeth! Java Man was an ape's skull cap with a human thigh bone found some distance away (isn't it likely that man simply had monkey for dinner?) and Nebraska Man was later discovered to be merely the remains of an extinct pig. Piltdown Man was later proven to be a -deliberate hoax! And leading evolutionists admit that Neanderthal Man was 100% human, similar to some tribes alive today.

The fossil horse series is often set forth as good evidence of evolution, but each of these are really only examples of distinct species of extinct animals. Besides, examples of modern day horses have been found to have co-existed with the "earliest" horse.

4. The absence of continual upward development from one level of complexity of living thing to another in the fossil record.

Evolutionists identify various stages of evolution time-wise by the "geological column," a series of ten strata of rock formations. The problem is, 80-85% -of the earth's land surface doesn't have even 3 of these 10 supposed "periods" represented. And it is quite common to find the layers that do appear in a completely different order from what they are supposed to be. Thus animals that were supposed to have evolved -much later than simpler ones are often found along-side or underneath the simpler ones. In other words the "geological column" is only a hypothetical arrangement of the layers. The fossil evidence is that the complex invertebrates (sea creatures) appeared suddenly and abruptly and had no evolutionary ancestors and no "links" between them and simple single-celled animals.

5. The complexity of life, even of a single living cell.

It is true that everything in the physical universe is made up of matter, including living things; but -the chemical make up of living things is unbelievably complex compared to non-living matter, so complex that it is quite impossible for living things to have simply evolved. It is impossible that the first living cell could have arisen from non-living matter as evolution says.

For centuries, men did not clearly understand the difference or appreciate the difference in complexity between living and non-living things. It was not until modern times that scientists learned that all living things are made up of cells. And it has only been in the last 30 years or so that scientists have begun to understand how complex the single living cell is. The cell is made up of an outer membrane or wall filled with protoplasm and having a nucleus in the center. This is about all that was known a little over 30 years ago. Since then, men have discovered that the nucleus is made up of tremendously complex proteins called nucleic acids-DNA and RNA for short. These "super-molecules" (some almost 6 feet long) contain complex codes that direct all the cell's activities necessary for life to exist. The odds of such substances evolving by chance are infinitesimal. As one scientist so well said, when DNA and RNA and the secrets to life -they contain were discovered, it should have ended the evolution/creation debate then and there.

Besides the nucleus, there are other tiny bodies in the protoplasm of the cell called organelles. These Include the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi apparatus, mitochondria, lysosomes, and ribosomes. Each of these have their own function involving other tremendously complex chemicals called enzymes. All of these are necessary for life to exist. It is said that there are over 1,000 known enzymes in the human body that regulate and control all the processes of life. Enzymes are so chemically complex that they have never been duplicated in the laboratory. One great problem for evolution is that the first living cell could not have existed without these enzymes, but that enzymes can only be created by the living cell!

Evolutionist Michael Denton said, "The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle."

6. The complexity and diversity of higher -organisms and their cells.

Besides the unbelievable complexity of even -the simplest living cell, we may consider the even greater complexity of cells and organs in higher organisms. In the human body there is a great range of -diversity of cells and tissue: skin, bone, muscle, nerve, blood, and connective tissues of all types. Each of -these are highly diverse and suited to a particular function. Nerve cells are quite different from skin cells, etc.

Take the human eye, for instance. It is so complex and marvelous that it is impossible that it evolved by chance. No camera on earth even approaches its marvelous range of focusing power, resolution, and adaptability to available light. Tiny, highly specialized cells called rods and cones on the back of the inside of the eyeball act as photocells that gather light and conduct the impulse through the optic -nerve to the brain. Charles Darwin himself said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances -for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been -formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess absurd in the highest degree" (Origin of the Species, Chapter VI). It is impossible that such an instrument should have evolved one part at a time, for each of the highly specialized parts are useless without the others. And yet for evolution to be true, the eye would have to have evolved as a whole unit no less than four different and completely separate times on the "evolutionary tree"!

And it is not just the so-called "higher organisms" that exhibit great degrees of complexity. "The brain capabilities of even the smallest insects are -mind-boggling. The tiny speck of a brain found in a little ant, butterfly or bee enable them not only to see, smell, taste and move, but even to fly with great precision. Butterflies routinely navigate enormous distances. Bees and ants carry on complex social organizations, building projects, and communications. These miniature brains put our computers and avionics to shame, in comparison" (The illustrated Origins Answerbook, Paul S. Taylor, p.25).

7. The rock strata associated by evolutionists with eons of change and development were actually formed within a matter of weeks or months-sideways, not vertically.

Until recently it was assumed that each little layer in rock strata was formed separately one on top of the other, requiring billions of years. But experiments in the laboratory recently in the 1980's have demonstrated that strata are formed rapidly by running water depositing sediment in a sideways, not vertical manner. The fossils trapped in the sediment which became stone must not be dated in a vertical manner but at the same time as others which may be above them.

There is also evidence of this rapid formation of strata in and around the Mount St. Helens area where flooding streams cut through massive rock and deposited strata in a matter of weeks in the time following the volcano's eruption in 1980.

8. The methods of dating which give evolutionists their needed eons of time for evolution to occur are unreliable.

Most of the systems for dating things involve radioactivity. The methods include Carbon-14, Uranium to Lead, and Potassium to Argon. The principle behind these methods is that radioactive elements break down into non-radioactive forms or elements at a precisely predictable rate. By testing a given rock or specimen for the non-radioactive form or elements, it is believed one can arrive at a date for it. Carbon-14 testing can only be done on material that was once alive. Carbon-12 is the normal, non-radioactive form of carbon; Carbon-14 is a much rarer, radioactive form. When things die, they quit taking in Carbon-14, so it is thought that by measuring how much of it is present in a specimen of dead material (knowing at what rate it breaks down into Carbon-12) one can arrive at how old the specimen is. It does seem to be useful for dating items a few thousand years old, but not older.

With the other methods, which are used solely on matter that was never alive, there are many assumptions and problems. It is assumed that all of the Lead or Argon in a sample or rock was once Uranium or Potassium, and that none of the Uranium or Potassium was dissolved by water and washed out. When tested against the known age of certain samples, some embarrassingly contradictory dates have been known to occur. So many false readings have been obtained by the Uranium/Lead method that it has lost favor. And volcanic rocks known to have been formed by an eruption in Hawaii in 1800 yielded dates of 160 million to 3 billion years old by the Potassium/ Argon method! So many assumptions are built in to the process as well as repeated juggling of the data and stretch interpretation by the testers that the results are unreliable. Even Carbon-14 dating has yielded some erroneous results: living snails from an artesian spring in Nevada have an apparent age of 27,000 years; dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were dated as 4,600 years old; and a freshly killed seal dated 1300 years old (Origins Answerbook, Taylor, p. 59).

9. Ninety-nine percent of all mutations are harmful.

As we said, Darwin submitted natural selection as the mechanism by which evolution occurred, but since then evolutionists have come to grips with the reality that this could not have been the case. Instead, they have cited mutations as the means. A mutation is a sudden change in a plant or animal, an 'accident" or "freak" change in its form, such as a calf born with six legs or two heads. They are the result of a sudden, random change in the DNA due to some intrusion such as radiation or a chemical agent. But mutations are almost always (adding 'almost" only for remote possibility's sake) harmful, not helpful. Besides, the changes produced never mean a new species, only a badly altered specimen of the same species. Mutations are also so rare that even if a great percentage of them were helpful, not harmful, enough of them could not have occurred even in the wildest allowed evolutionary time span to produce all the varieties of forms of life we have on earth.

Incredibly, however, mutations are the centerpiece for today's 'Neo-Darwinism" proposed most prominently by Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould. According to a children's book he as well as several national science associations endorsed, one day a dinosaur laid an egg, and due to a stray cosmic ray, out came the first bird, with feathers, wings for flying, and vocal apparatus for chirping! Of course, what would such a creature do with no one to mate with to propagate the new 'monsters"!? Unless, as chance -would have it, another mother dinosaur (nearby!) got zapped with another cosmic ray at just about the same -time and hatched another monster of the same kind-and of the oppose sex, no less! Such is the desperation of today's evolution for a workable mechanism for its theory, all in the name of "science." And they say Christians are the gullible ones that base everything on faith, not scientific fact!

10. Variation takes place only within kinds, never producing something truly new.

Of course minor changes occur in selective breeding of animals and plants in order to obtain a desired trait or characteristic. But this never produces a new species, only a different color, size or breed of the same species. All dogs, for instance, regardless of their size, color, or shape are still members of the same species-domestic dog. You can breed dogs and even create new breeds, but you still have only dogs, not cats or something else.

Selection or variation also occurs in nature, but there again only within a species or kind and never produces a truly new species. This was the mechanism for original Darwinism, now abandoned in favor of mutations or "hopeful monsters" but sometimes advanced as a secondary mechanism along with mutations. Sometimes in textbooks examples such as the peppered moth in England are advanced as evidence for evolution. But this again is nothing more than a different breed of peppered moth with a different shade of coloring, not a new species or kind. The -differences in genetic code in the DNA make it impossible that our present plants and animals could have derived from extinct ones we find in fossils. Each -kind of living thing remains its own kind, generation after generation, both now and in the past.

11. There is much evidence that the earth is much younger than what evolution demands and claims.

Although in documentary after documentary and report after report scientists repeatedly, routinely, and confidently state that the earth is billions of years old (most say 5 billion), there is a lot of real evidence it is much younger-by billions of years-than that. Some evidence even suggests it is only thousands, even 10,000 or less, years old. According to Paul S. Taylor's Origins Answer Book, these are some of the best evidences:

1. Earth's magnetic field. The strength of the earth's magnetic field which is what makes a compass work is steadily decreasing in strength, 6% since 1835 when measurements began. At this rate, the earth could not be over 10,000 years old or it would have had at one time a magnetic field stronger than that of a star!

2. Helium in the earth's atmosphere. Helium is produced by the decay of certain radioactive elements. Since there is very little of it in our atmosphere and very little of it escapes into space, the earth must be much younger than thought-as little as 10-15 thousand years old or as much as 1.8 million years, which is still much, much less than the estimated 5 billion years.

3. The world's population growth. Evolutionists claim that man has been here a million years or more. If so, why haven't we overpopulated the earth long before now? If we assume the growth rate has -been only 0.5% per year (some say it has been 2%), it would take only 4,000 years to produce today's population of 5 billion people. This would fit well with the Biblical timing of the flood when all but 8 people drowned. On the other hand if man has been here a million years, the population would be 10 to the 2100 power (trillions of trillions)! Even if the growth rate was much slower, almost zero, in a million years at least 3,000 billion people would have lived on this planet. But if so, where is the fossil or archaeological evidence for it?

4. Comets. Comets disintegrate due to the sun's gravity, solar "wind", and explosions. If the solar system were billions of years old, no "short-period" comets would be left. The maximum lifetime of these comets has been estimated at 10,000 years. Evolutionists, subsequently, have invented a "cloud" of -comets that produces a new supply of them, a cloud too far away to have ever been detected from earth!

5. The distance from earth to the moon. Due to several factors, including tidal friction, the earth's rotational speed is constantly slowing. Though the decrease is slight, it is enough to result in a constant increase of the distance from the earth to the moon. Given the rate of change, if the earth was as old as evolutionists claim, there would have been a time when it would have been too close to stay in orbit around the earth. Any distance closer than 11,500 miles would have meant the earth's gravity would have -broken the moon into small pieces which would have become rings like Saturn's around the earth. The rate of change in the distance suggests the earth is much younger than usually thought.

6. The shrinking of the sun. Because the sun is constantly consuming itself as fuel, its size is shrinking. At the conservative present estimated rate, only one million years ago the sun would have been twice its present size. For 99.8% of the earths supposed 5 billion years, it would have been too hot to support life. Only 10 million years ago earth would have been too hot for life to exist. A mere 210 million years ago the sun would have been large enough to touch earth!

7. Dust on the moon. When astronauts first landed on the moon, many evolutionists feared the dust layer would be so thick due to the supposedly great age of the moon that the astronauts or their spacecraft would sink into the moon and perish! This is why large flat "feet" were put on the landing vehicle. But instead the astronauts found the dust was only a few rather than 50 or more feet thick. Since that time scientists have adjusted their figures for the rate of dust settlement in the solar system. Nevertheless, the problem has not gone away and the evidence is that the moon (and earth) are much younger than thought.

Taylor then lists 103 processes offered by some that suggest a young earth and universe (The Illustrated Origins Answer Book, Paul S. Taylor, pp. 14-20). In addition, Dr. Henry Morris includes the following among his evidences for a much younger earth:

8. The amounts of elements deposited in the ocean. Given the amounts of the elements found in sea water and their present rates of flow into the oceans from streams and rivers, one can calculate the age of the earth. The figures vary greatly for different elements, but none of them come anywhere near the 5 billion year figure proposed by evolutionists. The amount of sodium suggests 260 million years, which is still far less than 5 billion; magnesium: 45 million years; potassium: 11 million; silver: 2 million; gold:

560,000; uranium: 500,000; tin: 100,000; copper: 50,000; mercury: 42,000; nickel: 18,000; silicon: 8,000; lead: 2,000. Some measure at less than 1,000 years; aluminum tests out at only 100 years (Scientific Creationism, Dr. Henry Morris, pp. 153,154). Dr. Morris lists 68 evidences for a young earth in his book The Biblical Basis for Modem Science.

Scott Huse includes the following:

9. The Mississippi River Delta. Comparing the rate at which sediment is being deposited each year by the River into the Gulf of Mexico and the total amount that has been deposited to form the delta that extends out into the Gulf yields a time span of 4,000 years.

10. Petroleum and natural gas deposits. These are contained in huge underground reservoirs which are under great pressure, extremely high in some cases. Oil and gas, therefore, often permeate through the rocks that cap them and reach the surface. Calculations show that these pressures could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years. If the earth were as old as evolutionists claim, all these deposits would have leaked to the surface long ago, but obviously the vast majority of them have not.

11. The earth's slowing rotation. Given the present rate of slowing, if we went back billions of years, the earth would have been rotating so fast it would have flattened. If it were as old as claimed, it should have slowed down and stopped long ago (The Collapse of Evolution, Scott M. Huse, pp. 23-25).

For the Christian, evolution can be rejected on the grounds that the Bible says otherwise, that instead of everything evolving, God created it all. Evolution can also be rejected simply because it defies common sense. The immense complexity of living things (not to mention the existence of the non-living universe) definitely points to an Intelligence behind them not chance. In the creation we see the best evidence for God's existence. We see His "fingerprints" as it were, just as we would know someone had been in the room if we saw his footprints across the floor. But in defending the faith or communicating with skeptics and unbelievers, we can show how evolution should be -rejected on the grounds that it is bad science. As Christians we are not opposed to good science because it is simply the study of God's creation and the discovery of the laws and principles He used in creating it, helping us to use it to our best advantage as He intended us to do. But we are opposed to bad science that denies the Creator His place in His own creation. Evolutionists often refer to evolution as a "fact," but this is pure hog-wash, as even good evolutionists will admit. At times evolution is referred to as a "Theory," but even this is inaccurate. In science, a theory is an explanation for a phenomenon based on observable testing. Evolution is at best an hypotheses or guess. Actually it is a belief that in itself has become a religion-- an alternative to Biblical authority and accountability to a Personal Creator.

b. The Bible in the light of modern science

Most people would assume that the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures is more vulnerable to being discredited over its scientific accuracy than any other point. But it is quite ironic that when we examine the Bible in the light of modern scientific knowledge, we actually find the greatest evidence of all that it is inspired of God.

Most people assume that the inspiration of the Scriptures is simply a religious belief that one either accepts or rejects entirely on faith. And in the ultimate sense, this is true. As we have said, it is improper to say we can prove that the Bible is inspired of God. But this does not mean we believe the Bible is inspired without evidence for our belief or against evidence that it is not. One might think there is no way to test whether the writers of Scripture were inspired or not since they wrote long ago and we were not there. The Bible says its writers were moved on by the Holy Spirit so that what they wrote was the infallible Word of God. Most would think we either believe or disbelieve this, whichever way you may be inclined, and that is all there is to it.

But as we said, there are ways to test the accuracy of the Bible in many areas. One way is history. The Bible is, more than anything else, a book of history-at least that is what it claims to be and in the most authoritative manner. Genesis is the early history of the world and the Jewish nation. Most of the rest of the books of the Old Testament with the exception of the books of poetry are primarily history. Since we have other accounts of history including secular writings of lone ago as well as archaeology, we can test the Bible's accuracy concerning history. We -must admit that if the Bible is inspired of Gad, then it could contain no historical errors. Men might and -indeed do make mistakes in recording history, but God could not. He knows all history, every moment of it on every spot on the earth, including not only what happened, but what men were doing and even thinking at any given time. And the Bible stands up very well under the test of historical accuracy. In the 20th century especially, archaeology has confirmed again and again the historical accuracy of Scripture, even overturning what was earlier supposed to be its mistakes. But as we have already admitted, the -historical accuracy of the Bible is not a proof of its inspiration-a book may be historically accurate -without being inspired. It is, rather, a "negative" evidence of inspiration in that if it were not historically accurate, it could not be inspired. Science is another -area in which the accuracy of the Bible may be tested. But here the test is different. It is conceivable that men without inspiration could record history accurately. All they would have to do is observe and carefully record the information they obtained. (Even here the fact they make no errors is impressive since most history books even the greatest, contain many errors.) But when it comes to science, the test is different. Whatever the dates one may assign to the books of the Bible conservative or liberal, it must be conceded that the writers wrote many, many centuries before the modern scientific era and could not possibly have had access -to modern scientific knowledge. The most liberal dates for the Old Testament take us back centuries before Christ for the most part of it, and the New Testament was written soon after the times of Christ. All of this is many centuries before the modern scientific era which began, say around 1500. Actually most of the great scientific discoveries came even later-in the eighteenth, then the nineteenth, and in most cases, only the twentieth, centuries. Since the Bible writers wrote long before this time, scientific knowledge (that is good, verifiable, provable science, not hypotheses and theories) is another way to test the accuracy of the Bible. As I said, one may be an accurate historian just by being very careful of his facts. But if the Bible writers avoided the scientific errors of their day, which, understandably, were gross and plentiful, this would be an even more impressive evidence that they were being guided by an intelligence other than their own. Further, if it can be demonstrated that they not only I avoided the common errors of the day but actually wrote things about the natural world that are consistent with modern scientific knowledge, this would be an even yet more impressive evidence they were being -moved upon by divine intelligence as the doctrine of inspiration claims. In fact, this would border upon proof more than anything else could that they were indeed moved upon by God to write what they wrote, since there was absolutely no way available to them at the time for knowing these things. And in this section, this is exactly what we propose briefly to show.

It is commonly said that "the Bible is not a science book." This usually comes from those who wish to shield the Bible from being discredited by science. It is unfair, they seem to say, to judge the Scriptures and the human instruments who wrote it by modern scientific standards. One of our creationist scientists responds, "It's true the Bible is not a science book-if it were it would have to be updated again and again to conform to present facts and theories, seeing our knowledge is constantly increasing and improving!"

Should we hold the Bible accountable when it comes to scientific knowledge? Some Christians give up the whole issue and say we should not. The writers wrote too long ago to have had the opportunity to access present scientific knowledge; they could only write according to what they knew at the time. But this is to forfeit the whole doctrine of inspiration, because it is our contention that the Bible is not the word or mind of man, but the Word and mind of God. God, since He is the Creator, certainly had access to modem scientific knowledge (if it is true knowledge) even if the men of the times in which the Bible were written did not. He was not subject to their limitations. He would have always understood perfectly all the complex issues discovered or raised by scientists concerning the origin, make-up, and function of everything in the entire universe, seeing He was its Creator. To say we cannot hold the Bible writers to modern scientific standards of knowledge is to give up the whole idea of special inspiration. Unbelievers always say, "The Bible was written by men." We do not deny men wrote the Bible, at least they were the instruments God used. We say the Bible is a divine-human Book. God moved upon the writers so that what they wrote is the Word of God, infallible or free from errors. If the Bible writers made scientific errors, they were not inspired in any special sense.

It is true the Bible is not a textbook of science. That is not its scope and purpose. It does not list the elements and their weights and numbers; it does not give us a model of the solar system; it does not supply us with a medical encyclopedia with treatments for disease, etc., etc. But it does, in fact, it could not help but, make statements about the physical universe, which is the domain of science; and when it does, it is remarkable that it does exactly what we have intimated: 1) it avoids the common scientific errors of the day and 2) it includes many bits of information that are perfectly in harmony with the latest scientific knowledge.

Kenny Barfield in his book Why the Bible Is Number I (Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI; 1988, now out of print) compares the Bible with the world's other sacred and secular writings in the light of science. The remaining material in this article is derived either directly or indirectly from his excellent book. To demonstrate that the Bible writers avoided the common scientific errors of their day, we must show what those errors were, and this can be done, as Mr. Barfield does, with ancient writings, both sacred and secular. The Bible is not the only book in the world that men claim is divine. There are supposedly inspired writings in many of the world's religions-Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, Shintoism, Sikhism, Taoism, and Zoroastrian-ism. We can put these to the same tests we do the Bible, and they do not compare favorably at all. It is more than just a matter of faith as unbelievers assert; accepting the Bible as divinely inspired while rejecting other religious writings is a matter of evidence as well.

Barfield divides his book into three sections, each dealing with a different field of science. The first is the human body and medicine, the second is astronomy, and the third is the earth sciences.

We know what ancient man thought about medicine and medical "science" (if you can call it that) in the time, let's say, of Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Bible, from a number of secular and sacred writings of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Mesopotamians (Semitic people near Bible lands), the Chinese, and Hindus. They are all full of the grossest errors imaginable (and some unimaginable). Barfield lists seven kinds: 1. bizarre prescriptions, 2. attributing -all disease to demons, 3. magical control of diseases, 4. the doctrine of signatures, 5. alchemy, 6. astrology, and 7. divination and omens. It is significant that the Bible writers avoid all these errors while other ancient -writings both sacred and secular include them.

Egypt was number one in medical knowledge in the ancient world surpassing any other nation or culture. Two large papyri constituting what is now known to have been their official medical guides were found in Thebes in 1862. They are known as the Ebers and Edwin Smith papyri. These date from the time of Moses, so we know what their medical ideas and practices were at that time. Despite their advances in a few well-publicized areas like surgery, the Egyptians were woefully deficient in medical knowledge and practice. Barfield writes:

"The papyrus prescribed the following remedy for those with 'trembling in the limbs': the fruit of the dom palm, garlic, honey, copper, and verdigris. After the mixture had been consumed, a dog's hide was to be placed on the patient and he was to be delivered to the gods for healing. For the treatment of embedded splinters, Egyptian doctors were advised to prepare a remedy that included 'worm's blood' and 'asses' dung' and were told to apply the resulting compound to the infected area. When one realizes that dung is filled with tetanus spores, it becomes obvious why short life spans (only 3 of 10 Egyptians reached adulthood] were prevalent. These Egyptians were apparently also plagued with numerous diseases of the eye, and the papyrus instructed them to rub gall of tortoise and honey on their eyes when white spots appeared. Numerous eyewashes were advised by the authors of the old medical text and were prepared with cattle urine and pig bile. ...Waste products figure so often in the prescriptions that medical historians have labeled the Egyptian practice as 'sewage pharmacology'" (pp.18,19).

When other remedies failed, doctors would prescribe skinned baby mice for sick children to be consumed whole because the Egyptians believed baby mice were the protectors of children. Other papyrus prescriptions include: a dog's hide, the heel of a greyhound, burnt quills of a hedgehog, and the backbone of a raven.

In ancient Babylon, prescriptions included gall of a black ox, gall of scorpion, gall of pig, head of stork, human bones reduced to ashes, and human waste. The ancient Hindu writing the Kausika prescribes earth from an ant hill for diarrhea, earth from a mole hill for constipation, sprinkling water over the patient's head by means of 21 tufts of sacred grass for dropsy. Later works recommend ground bones of a goat, bile, animal blood, and urine.

The ancients commonly attributed all disease to demons. It is true that in the New Testament some of those Jesus healed had maladies caused by demons, but it was only the minority of cases. Because the ancients believed demons were the cause of every sickness, their prescriptions were often nauseous or disgusting in appearance or smell in the belief that this would repel the demon. Thus the Babylonians' drugs included swine's fat, dog's dung, and other kinds of excrement and urine. These prescriptions were not only useless, they were downright harmful, sometimes even fatal.

The belief that demons or the gods were behind all disease led to all kinds of magical remedies. Barfield says,

"Egyptians and their physicians also associated disease with witchcraft. Records in papyri, tombs, and monuments reveal that Egyptians were careful about concealing anything that might have been a part of their person. They feared that even a drop of blood, a hair, or a toenail clipping in the hands of a wizard could bring on disease. Once a wizard obtained any part of a person's body, however small it might be, it was their belief that he could simply put that possession in a lump of wax, mold the wax into a person's image, expose that image to fire, and then fever would develop." (p.20)

Babylon's physician-priests used amulets, incantations, and substitutions to treat their patients. Chinese medicine included demonology, divination, alchemy, and magic. Hindu, Taoist, and Zoroastrian religious writings are all filled with magic.

Barfield continues,

"Egypt, along with the rest of the ancient world, was attracted to a 'doctrine of signatures.' This theory advised physicians to search for drugs that physically resembled the disease or the afflicted organ. Thus, a plant or flower shaped like an ear would be prescribed for an earache, yellow plants would be prescribed for jaundice, and red berries would be given for a rash on the skin. If an Egyptian incurred a battle wound from a spear, a leaf that resembled a spearhead was used to doctor the injury. Such examples could be multiplied not only among the Egyptians but also throughout the ancient world" (p.20). Of course the idea was totally worthless.

Alchemy is the belief that the elements can be changed into other elements, for instance, lead to silver or silver to gold. In medicine, it involved the concocting of liquids from various metallic substances such as mercury, silver, or gold. These "elixirs of life" were not only useless in treating disease, they were in themselves, when too much was taken, often fatal.

Mesopotamia gave rise to astrology. It was the belief that everything on earth, including sickness and health, was determined by the position and alignment of the heavenly bodies.

Divination and omens were used extensively by Mesopotamian physician-priests to treat disease. The three main methods were liver divination; dreams, the movement of animals, or freak births; and astrology. In liver divination, the priest sacrificed an animal, usually a sheep, and examined its liver for size, shape, and unusual features to determine how to -treat the person who was ill.

Moses wrote the Pentateuch about the time the Egyptian papyri were in circulation. He was educated in all the ways of the Egyptians according to Acts 7:22. Sometimes unbelievers and skeptics say Moses got all his knowledge to write the laws for Israel from the Egyptians and Babylonians. But of course it is obvious he did not. Not only did he not include the errors of his day (remember these were not known to be errors at the time, but the best knowledge available), he repudiated "sewage pharmacology."

Compared to other ancient writings, secular and sacred, the Bible seems remarkably sane and sound when it comes to medicine. In fact there are a number of things in the Pentateuch concerning disease that are amazingly in harmony with the discoveries made by science in only the last 200 years. The most -notable ones are:

 

1. Sanitation.

Barfield writes:

"Scholars are nearly unanimous in attributing the world's first system of sanitary laws to precepts laid down in the first five books of the Bible.. .[One] concedes that they are 'scientifically sound,' even in light of modern discoveries, and admits that no other medical code of antiquity was anywhere near as thorough. Another writes that the practices were 'remarkably prescient in light of current understanding' and adds that 'the ancient Hebrews have been termed -the founders of preventive medicine... .Harry Wain, a current historian of medicine, [said].. that the laws are -'advanced,' were 'superior to any which then existed,' and are 'as worth following now as when they were first promulgated.'" (pp. 42,43)

Of course we are referring to the laws of washing and disposal of wastes, which were not meant to be laws of health but were ceremonial or religious in nature. However it is amazing that when looked at in the light of modern science, they have this secondary health validity. God knew they would be good for the Hebrews' health even though the medical principles involved were unknown until the last century. God did say that if they would listen to and obey His laws, health would be the result:

"If you listen carefully to the voice of the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you" Exodus 15:26.

"If you pay attention to these laws and are careful to follow them, then the Lord your God will keep -his covenant of love with you, as he swore to your I forefathers... .The Lord will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who hate you" (Deuteronomy 7:12,15).

Although the sanitation laws are primarily religious in nature, health benefits were also built in to them.

It must be kept in mind that until the 1800's sanitary precautions were largely unknown. In the 1840's a doctor named Ignaz Semmelweis tried in vain -to institute the simple practice of physicians washing their hands between patients. He worked in the maternity ward of a large, celebrated, teaching hospital in Vienna where he was troubled at the fact that one of every six women who came in for childbirth died. Determined to find the answer and not satisfied with the usual explanations, he found through keeping careful records that the first thing doctors and their students did each morning was perform autopsies on patients who had died in the preceding 24 hours. Then, without washing their hands, they would immediately go and examine their living patients! Because he was in charge, Semmelweis made a rule that the doctors had to wash thoroughly before they came into his ward. One month later, the mortality rate dropped to one in 42! He then made the doctors wash their hands in between every patient and in another month the rate dropped to one in 84! But the doctors resented Semmelweis and his rules, thinking he was an eccentric troublemaker. His contract was not renewed for the next year, so he returned to his native Budapest and tried to institute the same practices in a hospital there, but met with the same resistance and was fired. He died years later in an insane asylum. It was not until over 30 years later in 1876-78 that washing to prevent contagion was finally received and practiced.

But this modern scientific discovery was already present centuries before in the law of Moses. God commanded washing oneself thoroughly in running water, not a basin as Semmelweis did, after contacting anything dead or diseased (Numbers 19; Leviticus 13-15). Running water would carry the disease germs away better than standing water. Not only that, but in Numbers 19:18 there is included the command to use a primitive soap! Wet branches of hyssop, which most authorities say refers to a type of marjoram plant, were to be used to shower the unclean person. Oil of marjoram contains about 50% carvacrol, which is almost identical chemically to thymol, an anti fungal and antibacterial agent that is still used in medicine today!

These laws, if strictly observed, would have gone a long way toward preventing the spread of disease and would have saved thousands of lives. It is the same with the command God gave Moses to properly dispose of human wastes and blood (Deuteronomy 23:12,13; Leviticus 17:13). Both of these were to be buried outside the camp, a hole having first been dug, then the material covered with dirt. The benefit of these practices was unknown until the 1800's. Until then the major cities of the world were little more than garbage heaps with sewage running right down the streets, giving rise to awful plagues that wiped out millions of lives at a time.

2. Contagion.

It is the same with contagion, that disease is spread by contact through micro-organisms. The world was totally ignorant of this until beginning in the middle 1500's, and not fully knowledgeable until much later. Barfield writes:

"Specifically, laws in Leviticus 13 and 14 that relate to medical concepts of illness include: (1) the recognition and diagnosis of disease; (2) the separation or isolation of the diseased person; (3) the placing of a covering over the nose and mouth; (4) the designation of anything that had been touched by a diseased person as unclean; (5) the process by which the unclean became purified; and (6) the destruction of -those items that could not be cleansed. All are followed to some degree by modern medical practitioners." (p. 48)

Who put all these things in Moses' mind? Certainly not the Egyptians nor the Babylonians! This is profound evidence that the doctrine of inspiration is true. God, who knows everything about disease and how it is spread, is the only One who could have communicated such laws to Moses. He had no other way of knowing that they were "wise" laws. (Deuteronomy 4:6). Thus we begin to see that it is right at the point that one would expect the Bible to be the most vulnerable-its scientific accuracy- we find instead the greatest evidence of its inspiration!

3. Sex laws.

Sexually transmitted disease has always been and still remains one of the major health problems of -the world. AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency -Syndrome) gets all the publicity today because it is so -deadly, but there are over 30 sexually transmitted diseases on the loose in America today. Some of the most serious are syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, PID (pelvic inflammatory disease), and chlamydia. With the introduction of sulfa drugs and penicillin in the 1940's it was thought that venereal disease would be wiped out, and there was a drop for a while in civilized countries. But with the rapid decline in morals of the 50's and 60's, the so-called "sexual revolution" these diseases have sky-rocketed. According to the U.S. -Center for Disease Control, in 1984 gonorrhea was the number one disease reported (921,895), with an -estimated over one million cases unreported Each -year there are 250 million new cases of gonorrhea and 50 million new cases of syphilis worldwide. In -addition, there were 260,000 consultations for herpes simplex infection in 1983, and an average of 267,200 women are being hospitalized annually for PID. There is an estimated four million cases of chlamydia per year in the U.S. It is estimated that one in every four Americans will contract some kind of sexually transmitted disease in their lifetime.

The effects of many of these diseases go even beyond the disease itself. It is believed that over 90% of the blindness in decades past was due to a child being born of a mother with gonorrhea. Washing baby's eyes with silver nitrate in civilized countries has -reduced this dramatically, but in countries where -modern medicines and conveniences are rare, blindness caused by gonorrhea-infected mothers is still very great. As Dr. S. I. McMillan says in his book None of These Diseases, "The chronic ill health, disability, suffering, sterility, unhappiness, and premature deaths -caused by gonorrhea in backward areas of the world are still numbered in the countless millions" (p.40). Syphilis often results in insanity and motor nerve destruction with the loss of control of bodily actions and in other disabilities. Barfield writes:

"A baby passing through the birth canal of a mother with active herpes can be infected, blinded, or killed by the virus. This is exacerbated by the fact that '70% of neonates with herpes infections are born to women with no (outward) signs or symptoms'.. ..[W]omen with herpes increase their risk of cervical cancer by five to eight times." And there is -no known cure.(pp. 64,65) AIDS may threaten the lives of as many as tens of millions of people in the next few short years. It began with sexual promiscuity in Africa and has been spread in the U.S. through homosexual males. It is true that some innocent people including children get aids through blood transfusions or other means but the fault for these also lies with the immoral behavior of homosexuals. Sin has consequences on others besides one's self.

Sexually transmitted disease has caused untold suffering and death in the world, but it could all have been avoided if people would only take heed to God's laws concerning sex! This is remarkable in that -as late as the 14th century men did not know how these diseases were contracted and transmitted, but -God certainly knew. High school and college young people today mock at God's laws concerning sex as old-fashioned, out of date, impractical, and too restrictive-"we want to have fun!" But God's laws are not designed to keep us from having fun-they're designed for our happiness. Sexually transmitted disease is certainly no fun at all.

It is in the laws concerning sex that we can see the clearest relation between the keeping of them and health as is stated in Exodus 15:23 and Deuteronomy 7:12,15. God was not just saying that if the people would observe His laws He would heal them when they were sick but that in keeping His laws there were built-in health benefits. But of course Moses could not have known this at the time. It is interesting to note that nearly all the curses for breaking God's law listed in Deuteronomy 28:15-66 are known to be effects of venereal disease.

Biblical sex laws include the forbidding of: sexual contact with prostitutes (Leviticus 19:29; Proverbs 7:4-27; 29:3; Leviticus 19:29; I Corinthians -6:1516), adultery (Exodus 20:14,17; Leviticus 18:20; Proverbs 5:3-14; 6:24-33; 7:5-23; 9:13-18; Romans 7:3; I Corinthians 6:9,10; Galatians 5 19 21) fornication (Acts 15:20; Romans 1:28-32 I Corinthians 5:9; 6:18; 10:8; Galatians 5 19 21 Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; I Thessalonians 4:3-7; Hebrews 13:4; Jude 7), homosexuality (Genesis 13:13; 18:20-21; 19:1-28; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18; Judges 19:14-24; Romans 118 32; I Corinthians 6:9-11; Jude 7), and sexual relations with relatives or animals (Leviticus 18). And the Bible is unique among world religions on its restrictions of sexual conduct. Shintoism has none, Hinduism does not censure marital infidelity on the part of the husband, Muslim men are allowed to have -an unlimited number of female slaves. The Egyptians -regarded fornication lightly with no prohibitions and religious prostitution was part of their way of life The Babylonians had no prohibitions, and nothing needs to be said about the morals of the ancient Romans Only Buddhism limits sexual behavior, but it forbids sex entirely, going beyond the Bible, which sanctities and even pronounces a blessing on sexual union in marriage.

What a terrible history of suffering, physically, spiritually, and mentally, let alone eternal suffering, could have been avoided if people would observe only -the laws of God concerning sex!

4. Food laws.

Although the distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals and the forbidding of eating the unclean ones was primarily ceremonial or religious in nature and not intended to be for health reasons, it is interesting to find that all or almost all the animals Moses forbid as unclean have been shown to be high in fat content. Too much fat in the diet is, nutritionists and doctors tell us in the 20th century, a major cause of leading health problems in our country: obesity heart disease, strokes, cancer, etc. God knew this long ago and had Moses to include these animals on the forbidden "unclean" list. The prohibition of pork is the most notable (Deuteronomy 14:8). The flesh of the pig is now known to be especially dangerous not only -due to fat content but also various worms and parasites. Also banned were scaleless fish (all the poisonous fish do not have scales) and oysters (which have in modern times caused typhoid and other -epidemics) (Deuteronomy 14:8). God also specifically forbid the eating of the fat and blood of clean animals (Leviticus 7:22-26; 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-14; Deuteronomy 12:23-35). The Mosaic law also forbid eating any animal that had died of natural causes or was killed by wild animals (Deuteronomy 14:21). Carcasses are known carriers of fleas, ticks, and lice, all of which in turn carry such things as bubonic plague spotted fever, or typhus fever. All of these laws would have gone far to limit the occurrence and spread of disease. It is true that other religions forbid pork and a few other things, but for ridiculous reasons, one being that you -would look like a pig if you ate it!

5. Circumcision.

Again, the Biblical command to circumcise every male on the 8th day of life was religious in nature-the sign of God's covenant with Abraham and the Jewish people. But only in the 20th century has it been discovered that circumcision also carries with it great health benefits. Studies have shown that it -reduces the occurrence of cancer in bath male and female reproductive organs. It is true that Moslems practice circumcision, but at the age of three instead of on the eighth day. But it has been discovered that the eighth day is the safest and best day to circumcise. Between the second and fifth days of life, the infant is most susceptible to bleeding because the important blood clotting element vitamin K is not formed in normal amounts until the fifth through the seventh day of life, so the eighth day is the first safe day! Further, this early period of life is best from the standpoint of pain and discomfort.

6. The Sabbath rest.

Again, resting and doing no work on the seventh day or Sabbath was primarily religious in nature, but it also has been found to have health benefits. Not getting enough rest in sleep or from work weakens the body's immune system and makes us more susceptible to disease. Resting at least one day out of seven has been shown to be a healthy practice, giving the body time to recuperate.

7. Laws concerning stress management.

An accidental discovery in the 1930's which I led to further research that confirmed it resulted in the conclusion that stress is a major cause of disease. A young medical researcher, trying unsuccessfully to produce a new hormone by injecting rats with extracts from cow ovaries, noted that the test animals came down with all sorts of diseases. From his observations, he advanced the theory that the stress the rats were subjected to in the experiments was the cause. In the 60 years since, study after study has confirmed that stress-mental, nervous and emotional tension, anxiety, or pressure-does indeed contribute to disease.

Most disease is caused by microscopic organisms ("germs"). Since the germs that cause disease are everywhere around us, they cannot help but enter our bodies. At any given time we possess many disease organisms in our bodies, but only rarely -do these result in the actual outbreak of disease in us. The reason they do not, even though they are in our bodies, is because God equipped us with a natural immune system that fights and controls infection. Stress weakens our immune system, making us more susceptible to disease.

It is relatively easy to see the connection between stress and, say, ulcers of the stomach. If you worry a lot, you may get ulcers because the emotion of worry causes your stomach to secrete too much acid and gastric juices. But stress causes many other diseases as well. In fact, some doctors say it is a factor in all disease. Studies show that at least 80% of the minor ailments people complain to their doctors about are reactions to stress. A number of more serious diseases are certainly related to stress-high blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, migraine headaches, arthritis, allergies, perhaps all infections, and even cancer in the case of extreme stress. Many authorities believe stress is the key factor in over half of man's diseases. One study showed that 75% of heart patients had a heart attack after a long bitter family argument, an illness or death in the family, or failures in business or marriage.

The ancients believed all disease was caused by such things as "bad air," worms, demons, or "bile." -John Wesley, writing in the 1700's, often recommended "a change of air" (visiting another location) as a remedy for disease. But Bible writers avoided all these mistaken causes, and, which was certainly far beyond any knowledge available to them at the time, gave many commands that we now know will lower or eliminate stress.

"Negative" (actually sinful) emotions such as hatred, anger, bitterness, resentment, envy, fear, and worry are all frequently forbidden in the Bible (Ephesians 4:26-32; Colossians 3:5-8; Leviticus 19:17-19; Proverbs 14:17; 16:32; 20:3; Psalms 27:1-3;55:22; Philippians 4:6). In their place we are commanded to love and forgive others, be patient, trust God and cast our cares upon Him, and be glad and joyful in Him (Ephesians 4:32-5:2; Philippians 4:4,5; Colossians 3:12-16; James 1:2-8; I Peter 5:7; Psalms 27,34,37). Proverbs 17:22 says, "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine, but a broken spirit drieth the bones" (KJV); the Good News Bible reads, "Being cheerful keeps you healthy. It is slow death to be gloomy all the time." One might think that this would be helpful only in preventing disease, not curing it, but more than one experimental study has shown that laughter has aided in the recovery of even terminally ill cancer patients!

Barfield writes,

"Amazingly, the attitudes and characteristics so vehemently opposed by biblical authors are the very stress agents that modern scientists and physicians find to be the causal or aggravating factor in much of our illness (P.71)." All of this knowledge has come only in very recent times.

Of course the main reason God commands us not to indulge in these sins of the temperament is because He is holy and hates sin, and sin will take you to hell. But a secondary reason is the health benefits in abstaining from these and doing the opposite. It is all a great example of how observing His commands brings health (Exodus 15:23; Deuteronomy 7:15).

How did the Bible writers know all this? A coincidence? I hardly think so. There is only one explanation-God really did move on them to write what they did!

2. Astronomy

The second section of Barfield's book, Why the Bible Is Number 1, deals with the study of the sky or astronomy. Of course the Bible is no more a textbook of astronomy than medicine. But it was natural and unavoidable, since God is the Creator of the heavens, that the Bible writers should speak of the sun, moon, stars, planets, etc. And here just as with medicine, we find they avoided the many, universal, totally false ideas of their day. First,

A. Secular writings.

1. The Chaldeans were the world leaders in astronomy (actually astrology) just as the Egyptians were in medicine. They believed there was a wall around the earth and sea, that a dome of hard metal covered the sky which reflected sunlight in the day and -served as a backdrop for the "gods" (planets, stars, and moon) at night. The universe was no larger than -the observable skies, the number of the stars was extremely limited, the stars were brands or torches suspended by ropes. The earth was larger than the sun, moon, and stars combined; it was a large, flat plain at the bottom of the sky. The movements of the heavenly bodies were viewed as demons, omens and other activities of the gods, and they exported this astrology to Egypt, India, Greece, Rome, and Arabia

2. The Egyptians were worse: the stars were the souls of dead Egyptians who had become gods.The sun was alive and divine, the universe was a large rectangular box with the earth on the bottom, the sky was a vaulted ceiling held up by four giant mountains, the ocean was a giant river circling the earth, the sun rode in a boat on the river and passed behind a giant mountain at night.

3. The Greeks were more advanced-the earth was a sphere which rotated, and they had a better sense of the distances of objects in the sky. But in many respects, they were still in gross error. Anaximander said the earth was the center of the universe and the sun was the same size as the earth; Ariaximenes said the stars were nailed in place and went behind mountains at the edge of the world at night; Pythagoras said the sun was only three times further away than the moon; Philolaus said the sun was a glass disc reflecting light coming from the -center of the universe; Eudoxus said the earth and sun were nearly the same size; Hicetas said the earth was - the only body that moved and all the others were stationary; Democritus said the moon was a star; and Aristotle said the earth was the center of the universe and that comets and the Milky Way were closer than the moon.

4. The Chinese are often acclaimed for advances, but this applies only to record-keeping. They were astrologers.

One science historian said, "Until about 1500 astronomy remained an inextricable mass of confusion."

B. Religious writings.

1. The Koran (Islam's scriptures, written by the prophet Mohammed) does contain fewer errors than other ancient religious writings (except the Bible). It was written in the 7th C. and so had access to 6 centuries of more information; nevertheless the few references made to the heavens are totally false. It subscribes to the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic "doctrine of -the spheres"-there are 7 literal heavens in which everything moves and these are all solid. The stars are "lamps" whose main purpose is to be "darted at devils" to keep them from entering the heavens and tempting the inhabitants; they also served as "guardians for those on earth" (astrology). There was a literal roof over the heavens and the sun "sets in a sea of black mud." The distance from the earth to the edge of the heavens is 50,000 years.

2. Hindu writings (much worse). The Rigveda (all the Vedas are considered divine) says the sun, planets, moon, and stars are all gods suitable for worship. The moon is 50,000 leagues (a league is about 3 miles) further away than the sun and produces its own light which produces vital energies that give life to the earth. At night the sun passes behind an 84,000 league high mountain at the center of the earth. The earth is a flat triangle with 7 stages or stories, each with its own inhabitants and ocean, one filled with honey, another with milk, etc. It rests on the back of four elephants on the back of an even larger turtle which is swimming in a sea of milk!

3. Buddhist writings (closely parallel Hindu since Buddhism is reformed Hinduism). The heavenly bodies are gods or vehicles the gods travel in. The earth is flat with an 84,000 league high mountain at the center; the moon is 40,000 leagues in diameter composed of silver and jewels; the sun is 50,000 leagues in diameter composed of crystal outside with a golden interior.

4. The Chinese also worshiped nature and made sacrifices to the "earth spirit" and various -heavenly bodies until the Christian era.

5. Judeo/early Christian writings are also full of errors. The Talmud (Jewish commentary) reconciled astrology (the horoscope) with Judaism. Other rabbis said a person's character was determined by the day of the week on which he was born and that -the stars were the size of mustard seeds.

E. M. Fallaize said, 'There was a universal belief among primitive races that both sun and moon should be regarded as alive and quasi-human in nature." C.F. Whitley contrasted various heathen views with that of the Bible writers:

"The heavens were personified by the Mesopotamians as the god Anu, and they were regarded by the Egyptians as the divine Mother; but to the Hebrews they were but one aspect of Yahweh's [Jehovah's] power and glory. The Mesopotamians, again, conceived of the sun as Shamash, the god of justice; the Egyptians invested it with the properties of a divine creator; but the Hebrews merely accounted for it as one of the luminaries created by Yahweh. The moon was similarly worshiped by the Babylonians as the god Sin, and the stars were thought to determine the destiny of man; but to the Hebrews they were created by God." (The Genius of Ancient lsrael: Philo Press: Amsterdam; 1969, pp. 61,62, quoted in Barfield)

Ancient descriptions of the heavenly bodies -also included the ideas that the stars were the moon's children and caused earthquakes, and that comets were balls of lightning or rockets thrown from the earth or signs sent from the gods to threaten rulers with death. The Chaldeans believed that the moon was half dark and half bright and that when an eclipse occurred the bright side turned away to show its displeasure. The Chinese and Hindus believed that in its eclipse, the sun was being eaten by an animal or demon. Confucius, the greet ancient Chinese wise man (500 B.C.), told the people that beating drums would drive the demon or animal away, and the people religiously believed and practiced it because-it obviously always worked!

It is easy to ridicule the ancients as incredibly stupid regarding these things, but we should not be to hard on them (except for the astrology). After all, they had no telescopes or other instruments, so they had no way of knowing any more about the heavens than what they could observe with the natural eye. It was only with the invention of the telescope in 1608-1609 by a Dutch optician and Galileo that men could discover more about the heavens. Galileo saw for the first time -that the Milky Way was made of stars and clouds of gas, not milk; that the moon had craters and mountains; that Jupiter had moons; and that Copernicus was right about the sun being the center of the solar system, not earth, because Venus went through phases just like the moon.

Often when confronted with Scripture, unbelievers say there are many other books that other religions believe is the word of God, so why should the Bible be considered unique? Isn't one belief as good as another? But we can examine them for evidence for or against their claims by comparing what they say -with modern science, and when we do, the others fail miserably while the Bible stands.

As with medicine, not only did the Bible writers avoid all these errors in astronomy (which is remarkable in itself considering the times in which they wrote), they included many very notable statements about the heavens and heavenly bodies that were only discovered through natural means in very recent times. Here are 10 of the most outstanding:

1. The stars are innumerable (Genesis 15:5; 22:17; Jeremiah 33:22).

At first glance this does not seem impressive since we are so used to thinking the stars are innumerable. But we should remember that ancient people had no way of knowing the Milky Way was made up of stars, etc. They could only see the ones they could see with their naked eye; therefore it was I commonly and universally believed that one could count them. The Greek astronomer Hipparchus (200 B.C.) was one of the first to compile a star catalogue -and number them (either 800 or 1080). Ptolemy also -published a catalogue, which means he took it for granted they could be numbered. Chinese astronomers said there were nearly 1500; Chang Hing gave the largest number-2500 plus 11,520 small ones. It is striking, therefore, that the Bible writers said they were innumerable. However, we now know that although the stars are too numerous for anyone to count and no one knows just how many there are, there is not an infinite number of them. The universe is limited, not infinite. Bible writers avoid this error also by saying that God -numbers the stars and calls them all by name (Psalms 147:4; Isaiah 40:26). The Bible is exactly -correct in that the stars are innumerable as far as man is concerned but they are not infinite in number-God knows their exact number.

Even though we cannot count the stars, it may be that we can approximate how many there are. Donald B. DeYoung in his book Astronomy and the Bible, gives us this intriguing account:

"On a clear, moonless night about 3,000 stars are visible with the unaided eye. A small telescope would increase the number to 100,000. But this is just the beginning! The stars we can see are all in our corner of the Milky Way galaxy. This entire galaxy numbers about 100 billion stars. Arid beyond the Milky Way are other galaxies of all shapes and sizes. Around 100 billion such galaxies are known to exist. Taking the Milky Way as an average galaxy, the total number of stars is thus (100 billion)²=(10¹¹)²=10²² [or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000]. Suppose these stars were divided up among the world's total population of five billion people. Then each person would receive two trillion stars! Yet all these stars may be only page one in God's catalogue of the heavens (p.57)... .The promise was given to Abraham that he would be blessed with 'descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore...' (Genesis 22:17)....Let us consider a rough estimate of all the sand grains on the seashores of planet earth. We will depict this total as a block of sand that is 10 feet deep, 100 feet wide, and 1,000,000 miles long. This length equals 42 trips around the world, a generous figure for the world's sandy beaches. The total volume of this block is found by multiplying the three dimensions, which is represented as 5.28 x 10¹²ft.³ = 10¹⁶ in.³ A one-inch cube of average sand contains about 1,000,000 grains (assuming there are 100 grains lined along each edge). The total number of grains in the imaginary block of sand is [total = volume x density, or 10¹⁶in.³ x 10⁶

grains/in.³, or 10²² grains!]... Surprisingly, the very same figure is used to approximate the total number of known stars, including all galaxies! The stars are indeed as numerous as the sands on the. seashores... .To help us understand vast numbers such as 10^22, [there are 2 x 10⁵ hairs on an average head, 3 x 10⁷ seconds in a year, 2 x 10⁹ seconds in a lifetime to retirement age, 5 x 10⁹ people on earth, 6 x 10¹² miles in a light year, 10¹⁶ words spoken since creation 10²⁵ water drops in all the oceans, 3 x 10²⁷ candle power in the light of the sun, and 10⁸⁰ electrons in the observed universe]." (Astronomy and the Bible, Donald B. DeYoung; Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, MI; 1989, pp. 120,121)

2. The nature of the sun and moon (Isaiah 30:26).

The reference to the sun in this text is -hammah, or "the hot one" which means literally "that which produces warmth." On the other hand, Bible writers spoke of the moon as Lebhenah or "the snow white.' This is contrary to ideas prevalent about the sun and moon in ancient times.

3. Stars emit sound (Job 38:7).

The Lord told Job that at creation, "The morning stars sang together." The word for sang in Hebrew is ranan which means to emit a loud shrill sound. This is no doubt a poetic expression, but still -one that is in perfect agreement with 20th C. science. In 1932 Karl Jansky first noted sounds produced by -stars as he experimented with radio "static" (which is certainly loud and shrill), but he did not properly identify it as coming from the stars. Ten years later Grote -Raber attempted to find the origin of radio static but gave up. In the same year, U.S. Army scientists were sure that static was Nazi interference. Finally the origin of static was traced to the sun and the age of radio astronomy began. Now huge radio telescopes search the heavens for these sounds and analyze it for information about the stars.

4. The stars appear small because of their great distance from the earth (Job 22:12).

"Is not God in the heights of heaven? And see how lofty are the highest stars!' Compare this with what we have already noted ancient people thought about the stars. Some even thought there were no stars at all. What appeared to be stars was really sunlight leaking through holes in the roof of heaven which were caused by giants throwing rocks!

5. That Pleiades is "bound together" as a true star cluster and not as a normal constellation (Job 38:31).

The text mentions or actually contrasts two star groups, Pleiades and Orion. The Lord asks Job, "Canst thou bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?' (ASV). Pleiades is also known as "The Seven Sisters' because there are supposedly seven stars in it that are visible to the naked eye. It is located to the right and above Orion; simply extend the line of Orion's belt on through the bright star Aldebaran and you will come to Pleiades. If your eyes are good you will see five to seven stars very closely associated together in a small space. Actually there are at least 200 (maybe as many as 500) stars in this cluster. It is not a galaxy; it is part of our Milky Way and a near; neighbor to us (only about 400 light years away!). -Orion is the large, easily recognized configuration of four large stars forming a quadrangle with three stars slanted in the middle and some smaller stars below these three. The four stars are supposed to be the shoulders and legs of Orion, the mighty hunter. The three stars in a row in the middle are supposed to be his belt and the smaller stars make a line under his sword. The interesting thing is that Orion is a true. constellation, not a cluster like Pleiades. None of the. stars that make up Orion are anywhere near each other-they only appear to us to be in a group. But Pleiades is a true star group or cluster-the stars are -relatively close together just as they appear to be. They are moving together as a group through space, unlike the stars in the constellations, which are no where near each other and in most cases are moving away from each other. We know all this now with the -aid of modern instruments and measurements, but there is no way the Bible writer could have possibly known any of this. The stars of Pleiades truly are "bound together in a cluster" but the "bands" or main stars of Orion that form the figure are "loosed," not bound together, just as this text says.

6. The universe is not fixed and small but immense and expandable (Genesis 1:8, 14-19).

The word translated "firmament" in these verses is the Hebrew raqia which means "stretched out" or "extended," an "expanse." "Firmament" is really a mistranslation which has came to us from the Latin -through the Septuagint and suggests something solid, which is not at all what the Hebrew word means. It is best translated "expanse" or 'that which is spread out." -The New American Standard Version and the New International Version both read, "expanse." Job says God "spreads out the northern skies" (Job 26:7; also 9:8 and 37:18). Isaiah 40:22 says God stretched out the heavens like a canopy. Psalms 104:2 and Zechariah 12:1 say God stretches out the heavens. And Jeremiah 31:37 reads, 'This is what the Lord says: 'Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,' declares the Lord." Compare this with what we have seen that the ancients thought of the -universe-that it was fixed in size, extremely small, and encased in some kind of box or dome, or that it -made a complete revolution every 24 hours, or that the Milky Way was closer than the moon, or that the heavens were made of fixed spheres that moved.

7. The universe is not eternal and unchanging (Psalms 102:25-27; Romans 8:10-22; Matthew 5:18; 24:35).

Most ancients, especially the Greeks, believed just the opposite. Rudolf Clausius in 1865 was the first to set forth proof that the universe was not eternal but was in fact degenerating. From his work came the formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The Bible writers had it right thousands of years earlier when they said the heavens would wear old like a garment and be discarded, and that heaven and earth would pass away. All the stars including our sun are consuming their energy and -slowly "burning out." Everything in the universe follows this tendency to run down, deteriorate, break down and wear out.

8. The earth is suspended in space and not resting on anything (Job 26:7).

Job said of God, "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." This is truly a remarkable statement in light of all the things we have seen that the ancients believed the earth rested upon. It was Isaac Newton, known as the mastermind of the human race, who advanced the universal laws of gravitation in the 17th C., saying that everything in the universe from the very greatest body to the smallest atomic particle exerts a force on every other body and particle. In other words the universe and everything in it is held together by gravity. That's what puts everything where it is without the need for any other support. Job was right, but how could he have possibly known this except that he was moved by the Spirit of God just as the Bible says the Scripture writers were?

9. The earth is a sphere (Proverbs 8:27; Isaiah 40:22; Luke 17:31-36).

Proverbs 8:27 in the NASB reads, 'When He established the heavens, I [Wisdom] was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep [referring to the oceans]." Isaiah 40:22 reads, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers..." (NIV). In Luke 17:26-36 Jesus spoke of His second coming-"when the kingdom of God -would come" (v. 20), "the days of the Son of Man" (v. 26), or "the day the Son of Man is revealed" (v. 30). It would be like in the days of Noah when the flood came and destroyed everyone except Noah and his family inside the ark (vv. 26,27). It would be the same as in -the days of Lot when fire and brimstone rained down -out of heaven and destroyed everyone in Sodom on the -day Lot and his family escaped (vv. 28,29). "It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot's wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be -taken and the other left" (vv. 30-35, NIV). The interesting thing here is that Jesus clearly says that it -will be day for some people when He suddenly comes but at the same time night for others. Some will be in the field or grinding grain, activities reserved only for -the daytime. But then He goes right on to say, "On that night... We know now what no one in Jesus' day understood, that at any given time, exactly half of the world is in the sunlight and exactly half is dark. This is because the earth is a sphere and the sun shines on it constantly. It is the rotation of the earth on its axis that produces day and night. Inherent in and implied in Jesus' statements, therefore, is the idea that the earth is a sphere. This is the only way it could be both day and night somewhere on the earth at the same time.

10. The earth rotates daily on its axis (Job 38:12-14).

The Lord said to Job, "Have you ever given orders to the morning, or shown the dawn its place, that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment" (NIV). These verses describe the dawning of the day, but from a perspective totally unknown in Job s day -They speak of the "edges of the earth" as the earth "takes shape" and "its features stand out." This is exactly what happens as the earth rotates and the portions of it that have been in the dark at night dawn into morning. You could see this happening from space-the dark part of the earth would not be visible. The dark portion would appear or become visible at the edge of where the sunlight struck the earth, which would be the point of dawn if you were on earth. The New English Bible reads, "In all your life have you ever called up the dawn or shown the morning its place? Have you taught it to grasp the fringes of the earth and -shake the Dog-star from its place; to bring up the horizon in relief as clay under a seal, until all things stand out like the folds of a cloak, when the light of the Dog-star is dimmed and the stars of the Navigator's Line go out one by one?" (vv. 12-15). Mountains and other land features would cast long shadows at the "edge" of the earth (dawn as viewed from space) appearing much like the folds of a cloth!

The word translated "turned" in verse 14 in the KJV means to turn about. It occurs in several other passages, for instance, Genesis 3:24 to describe the turning of the sword in the angel's hand guarding the way to the Garden of Eden where the New American Bible has "revolving" and the NEB has "whirling."

The reference to "clay to the seal" (KJV), or, better, as most translations has it, "clay under a seal" (NIV, NEB), requires some explanation. Barfield writes:

"In biblical days, several types of seals were used to make impressions in clay. Those impressions were then used the same way as a signature is used today. They were marks of authority and identification. Many seals were in the form of rings either hung about the neck or worn on the finger. Others were cylinders through which holes were bored and solid objects (often well-formed pieces of wood) or cords were inserted into the opening. [The seal on the surface of the cylinder with a stick of wood through it top to bottom would then be held so as to make contact with clay spinning on a wheel so that the image of the seal would be impressed upon the spinning clay surface.] The Hebrew word for the latter type (hotam) is the term used by Job. This type of seal was dominant among both Egyptian and Babylonian cultures.... In speaking of the dawn, the writer says that morning is brought to the earth in the same manner in which clay is turned and given an impression by the seal (hotam). Thus, the clay (earth) which receives the impression (dawn, daybreak) of the seal (sun) does so in the same way that daybreak is produced on earth by the sun. The earth turns and, in so doing, produces the dawn... .The similarities between this ancient description and modern scientific knowledge are remarkable. One, both the clay and the cylinder are described by the writer as being in a fixed position relative to one another. Analogously, the sun and the earth are in a fixed position relative to one another. Two, the seal remains in place while the clay rotates on a potter's wheel. As the clay rotates, the seal makes an impression on its soft surface. Likewise, the sun remains in place while the earth turns. Rays of light from the sun make an impression on the land as they illuminate the ground. A rotating earth makes day and night possible. Again, in a remarkably accurate fashion, biblical authors illustrate scientific knowledge." (pp. 111,112)

Remember, it was not until centuries after Job's day that some of the ancient Greeks (Heraclides and Philolaus) may have suggested (the references may be suspect) that day and night are caused by daily rotation of the earth. But other Greeks (Ptolemy and Aristotle) believed the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and everything else revolved around it. Not until the modern scientific era (Copernicus and Galileo, 16th and 17th C.'s) did men begin to understand what is so eloquently and beautifully portrayed in these verses in the book of Job, one of the earliest books in the Bible!

The accuracy of the Bible regarding astronomy has certainly been challenged by unbelievers. Let us deal briefly with a few of these. Critics have held (1) that Bible writers borrowed from Babylonian myths in the account of the creation and that the Bible teaches (2) that the universe is encased in a vault or dome, (3) that the earth rests on a foundation of massive columns, (4) that the earth is flat, having "four corners," (5) that the earth is the center of the universe, and (6) that light was created before the sun. We will deal with each of these by their respective numbers:

(1) The Babylonian Enuma EIish, rediscovered by archaeologists in the 1800's, bears little actual resemblance to the biblical account of creation, and any evidences of supposed relationship may be easily refuted.

(2) This challenge is based upon a faulty understanding of the word "firmament" used to describe the sky or heavens in the King James translation of Genesis chapter one. Since the word "firmament' suggests something solid, it is assumed by critics that the Bible teaches that the universe had a domed roof like many of the ancients wrongly conceived. But this is not the case at all. The word "firmament' comes from Latin and is derived from the Latin Vulgate which was influenced in this case by the Septuagint (Greek). However, not only does the Greek word not necessarily require a solid sky, more importantly, the Hebrew word in the Bible text behind all this is raqia which means "stretched out" or "extended." It is best translated by "expanse" or "that which is stretched out" as most modern translations agree (NIV, NASV, etc.). The Hebrews had no word for "universe," so they used the word "heaven" for everything above the surface of the earth-the sky or atmosphere, the place of the stars, and the abode of God. Besides, it is obvious that this "firmament" as the KJV calls it was not solid-the heavenly bodies are described as being in, not on, the firmament, and the birds are said to fly "in the firmament"' Obviously space, including the atmosphere and the heavens, not something solid, is meant.

(3) This objection is based on Job 9:6 where Job says God moves the mountains without their knowing it and overturns them in his anger. He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble." The pillars no doubt are only figurative; James, Peter, and John are called "pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9), the church is the "pillar' and ground of the truth (I Timothy 3:15), etc. Besides, we have before shown that the same book of Job states the earth hangs upon nothing (26:7) and rotates to produce day and night (38:12-14) which would be impossible if it rested on literal pillars in the way ancients thought. Other Scriptures speak of the "foundations" of the earth (I Samuel 2:8; Job 38:4-7; Psalms 75:3; 104:1,5; Jeremiah 31:37), and in a sense, indeed it does have foundations. First, there is the massive bedrock anywhere from a few to several hundred feet from the surface made up of rocks cemented together. Second, the earth's mantle, which makes up the bulk of its volume, consists of masses of granite rock from just under the crust (which averages 22 miles in thickness) all the way to the earth's core which is made up of first molten, then solid, metal.

(4) The fact that the Bible speaks several times of the "four corners" of the earth certainly does not mean it teaches the earth is flat. Even the ancients who believed the earth was flat seldom thought of it as a square or rectangle with corners but as a disc. Besides, the term "four corners" is used many times interchangeably with the "four winds" (Ezekiel 37:9; Daniel 7:2; 11:4; Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27; Revelation 7:1). Since this is obviously a figure of speech, so is the parallel term "four corners." It refers to the four directions-north, south, east, and west. On the other hand, once again, there may indeed be four "corners" on the earth after all. In 1965 scientists learned through satellites being pulled from their true orbits that there are four high points around the globe-one between Ireland and the North Pole, one between New Guinea and Japan, one between Africa and Antarctica, and one just west of South America!

(5) It is true that the Bible speaks of the earth as the center of God's activity and concern and that the other bodies minister to it. But being first in importance does not mean physically central in the universe. There is no clear reference in the Bible to the earth being the center of the universe. Most who assume that the Bible does teach this base it upon the controversy between Galileo (and Copernicus) and the Catholic Church in the 1600's. Galileo proved with his telescope that the earth and the other planets revolved around the sun like Copernicus said earlier. Catholic Church leaders opposed them, it is true, but not because they based their opposition on the teaching of Scripture but on the philosophy of Aristotle. They appealed to Aristotle, not Scripture, in refuting Galileo.

(6) It is true that Genesis 1:3 tells us that God said, "Let there be light," before He created the sun (verses 14-18). But this by no means contradicts what scientists know about the universe, as there are many bodies besides the sun which produce light. Genesis one also tells us God created plants on the third day before He created the sun on the fourth day. But again, this is no real problem since the plants could surely have survived without the sun for a single day. This fact also rules out the "day/age" theory advanced by theistic evolutionists" that each day stands for thousands or millions of years.

As we come to the end of this section on examples of the Bible's accuracy concerning facts of astronomy, we quote Kenny Barfield's conclusion:

"In every way, the astronomical references in the Scriptures are true and advanced far ahead of their times. Such accuracy certainly deserves an explanation. Where, then, must one turn for this explanation? In reality, there are no more options available here than there were in earlier discussions. One can attempt to account for both the lack of error and the advanced knowledge by claiming (1) that biblical writers copied from earlier sources; or (2) that the books were written later than previously estimated, at a time when such was common scientific knowledge; or (3) that the writers were just plain lucky; or (4) that there must be a supernatural explanation... .[Regarding] the first three 'explanations' listed above. What ancient source could possibly have avoided all the errors of the day?. What astronomer in that era of primitive technology could have known [the 10 things we cited the Bible says about facts of astronomy]?.. .And to do as some would and shove the biblical materials to dates of origin some five hundred years later would accomplish nothing. .the doctrines recorded are still centuries ahead of their time... .To invoke "luck" as an answer is to rely on chance against insurmountable odds. The probability of simply avoiding the errors of antiquity would be beyond reasonable expectations. We must therefore conclude that the Bible writers were truly 'inspired'!" (pp. 130,131)

When we turn to the earth sciences and compare what the ancients thought about the earth and various phenomena concerning it with what the Bible writers said about these things, we see the same thing as we did in the areas of medicine and astronomy. The Bible writers not only avoided the errors of their day, they made some statements that were far in advance of their time and in harmony with the very latest discoveries of science.

The ancients had many misconceptions concerning the earth, things in the earth, and phenomena connected with it. They "idealized" the world as something that was literally alive. The Egyptians and others thought stones, minerals, air, water, and fire were alive. They observed the ocean tides come in and go out and experienced earthquakes. The earth moved, and since only living things moved, it must be alive. The earth grew crops which were alive and in order to be able to do this, it must be alive, too. This idea that the earth was alive, a living thing, dominated to the times of Plato the Greek philosopher who said the earth had a soul like a man does.

Since the earth was alive, it and all it contained was capable of growing. Gems, fossils, gold, metals, etc., it was thought, grew from seeds like vegetables do. Even the Greeks believed this; in fact, the idea continued until the 18th C. Some in ancient times believed certain gems and minerals were produced through the influence of certain heavenly bodies on the earth. For example, the sun was responsible for producing gold and the moon, silver, etc.

The Egyptians were the first to worship the earth as a god. They and other ancients offered sacrifices to the earth before they engaged in various activities that might disturb or hurt it such as plowing, digging foundations or wells, mining, or harvesting crops. These activities might cause the earth pain and cause it to get angry and cause floods or earthquakes, etc., in retaliation! Earthquakes were commonly conceived as punishment for tampering with the earth. Some ancient peoples believed that gods caused earthquakes; others that the earth (seeing it was alive) was being stung by bees or bitten by insects and thus jumping and shaking like a person might do; others thought the shaking was due to the dead in the underworld fighting! Almost all ancient cultures believed some animal or creature was holding the earth up and each culture explained earthquakes in terms of the movements of these creatures: the Japanese believed a fish or spider held up the earth, the Slavic nations said it was 4 whales, in India they said it was a snake with its tail in its mouth and earthquakes resulted when the snake bit its own tail! Others in India said 8 elephants held up the earth. 'What held up the elephants?" someone asked. 'A large mud turtle," came the answer. 'What holds up the turtle?" Answer: "A sea of milk." That seemed to satisfy everyone and no one thought to ask, 'But what holds up the sea of milk?" In Ceylon they believed that a giant held up the earth. He stood on the back of a serpent coiled on the back of a turtle who was sitting on a frog who was cushioned by air. The Manicheans said the giant who held up the earth switched it from one shoulder to the other every 30 years, thus causing earthquakes. At the end of each 30-year period, it was necessary for someone to yell at the giant and remind him there were people living on the earth! In Egypt and Arabia they blamed the worst quakes on a bull who was playfully tossing the earth like a ball from one horn to the other. Even Aristotle believed the earth was alive and that earthquakes were its breathing. Another Greek philosopher said they were due to the collapse of underground caves.

Mountains were viewed as alive also and often as deities or the dwelling places of gods or demons. Water was viewed as a god; sacrifices were made to large bodies of water. The ocean floor was thought, even up to 1900, to be smooth and sandy. The Greeks thought it was relatively shallow and consisted of a giant river circling the earth enclosed by a ring of mountains. Others said the ocean had no bottom. Very little was known about the ocean depths and floor until the 20th C.

Weather phenomena were totally misunderstood. Most thought lightning was missiles hurled by the gods. The early Chinese regarded lightning as divine. The ancients sought to control lightning through charms and ritual ceremonies. Some regarded objects struck by lightning as sacred and worshiped them while others regarded them as cursed and taboo. Most considered lightning striking as an omen of some good or evil thing to come. Rain was worshiped also. It was only in the 1700's that Benjamin Franklin in his experiments demonstrated that lightning was indeed electricity. But still not very much was really understood about lightning until the last 20 years or less.

Sacred literature abounded with errors concerning the earth just as the secular did. The Hindu Vedas and Upanishads taught that all objects and phenomena were alive and divine. The Buddhists based their ideas on the same "sacred" literature. The Taoist Tao-Te-.Ching taught that mountains were gods, that lightning was alive, and that the rainbow was the deadly rain dragon. Confucianism taught that inanimate objects were alive and they deified and worshiped them-heaven, earth, mountains, rivers, etc. Zoroastrianism worshiped fire as sacred and also the heavenly bodies to a limited extent; mountains warded off winds and demons and were also considered sacred. Shinto writings taught magic to make it rain as did other ancients; that an eclipse of the sun could be warded off by hanging jewels in a sacred tree; that storms, wind, rain, thunder, fire, sea, land, mountains, and rivers were all living entities. Mormon leader Heber Kimball taught as late as 1857 that the earth was alive and had a spirit.

The Bible stands in stark contrast to all these pagan religions in that, as Barfield says, "Nature is not a deity to be feared and worshiped, but a work of God to be admired, studied, and managed" (p. 163).

To sum up, the Bible writers avoided all these widespread errors of the times: (1) Belief in a living earth, (2) Deification of nature, (3) Astrological influences regarding nature, (4) Magical control of nature, (5) Demonological influences in nature, and (6) Incorrect understandings of earthquakes, storms, oceans, mountains, lightning, and other physical phenomena. It might be expected, given the fact that Bible writers were writing from the perspective of the Lord as Creator and Sustainer of the universe, that they would avoid errors (1)-(5), but it is quite remarkable that they would also avoid (6). Incorrect understandings of earthquakes, storms, oceans, mountains, lightning, and other physical phenomena. It is not that they avoided writing about these things altogether-they did write about each of these. And whatever their understanding may have been of these things, it could not have been correct, because correct understanding of these things simply did not exist until very recent times. When we reflect upon this, as we have said before, it becomes the greatest of all evidences for the truth of the doctrine of inspiration, that they were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what they wrote. They did not write out of their own understanding.

And as with the other sections of our study, the Bible writers not only avoided the errors of the day (as remarkable as this is in itself), but they also included many statements about earth sciences that were centuries ahead of their time, statements that have been confirmed only in the most recent of times. Let us look at some of these:

1. Resting farm land to allow its recovery (Exodus 23:10,11; Leviticus 25; Deuteronomy 15:1-11). Every seven years the Israelites were to let their land lie uncultivated. To this was added every 50 years the year of Jubilee which meant the land lay fallow for two years. This did much to prevent irreparable depletion of the soil, although this could not have been known until modern times. Today this resting is not practiced due to the widespread use of modern chemical fertilizers, but the principle is scientifically valid and far ahead of its time and unique in ancient literature.

2. Plate tectonics. In 1912 Alfred Wegener, after millions of man hours of research by him and his associates, published the theory known as "plate tectonics" that all the earths land area was originally united together as one whole continent. But at least 3,000 years earlier, the Bible said, "And God said, Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let the dry land appear"' (Genesis 1:9). Then nine chapters later we read, "Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg ['division'], because in his time the earth was divided" (Genesis 10:25). Although there is great discrepancy between science and the Bible on the time of this, and the theory cannot be proved, it does seem that this was actually the case.

3. Canyons in the ocean floor (2 Samuel 22:16; Job 38:16; Psalms 18:15). Until very recent times the ocean depths remained largely a mystery. Even in our day much is yet to be known. But the ancients, lacking the means to investigate the ocean floor, were woefully inaccurate concerning its true nature, being limited to guesswork and imagination. Men believed the ocean bottoms were flat, smooth, uniform, and deeper in the middle like a dish or bowl. It was not until the voyage of H.M.S. Challenger in 1873 that scientists confirmed the existence of large underwater canyons. Even then it was many years later before oceanographers finally began to understand the sea bottom. Even more, it was really only in the 1940's that very much was known, and much is yet unknown. And yet Scripture writers, contrary to the understanding of their day, in at least three passages testify to recesses or canyons in the deep: "The valleys of the sea were exposed..." (2 Samuel 22:16; Psalms 18:15); "Have you...walked in the recesses of the deep?" (.Job 38:16).

4. Seamounts (Jonah 2:3,6). Another feature of the sea floor completely unknown to the ancients was the existence of mountains under the sea. One scientist said there "are 10,000 seamounts and guyots [flat-topped underwater mountains] in the Pacific alone, some of which rise 10,000 feet above the ocean floor." Thousands of years ago, Jonah, describing his stay in the fish's belly, said, "You hurled me into the deep, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me.. ..To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you brought my life up from the pit, 0 Lord my God" (Jonah 2:3,6).

5. Springs or fountains in th, sea (Job 38:16; Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Proverbs 8:28).

The Lord asked Job, "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea...?" (38:16). Referring to the time of Noah's flood, Moses wrote, "All the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened" (Genesis 7:11), and after the flood, "Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed" (Genesis 8:2). "The deep" most likely indeed refers to the ocean depths. Proverbs 8:28 says the Lord "established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep." Barfield says, "These references predate the earliest non-biblical source of such statements by almost one thousand years" (p. 171), and "Strabo [a Greek geographer] was the first to write of these springs, sometime after 63 B.C." (p. 214). We know today that undersea springs of fresh water can be found near every major continent. There may be as much as 30 x 10¹⁹ tons (30 million trillion tons) of water are trapped under the earth, much of it escaping into the oceans by these fresh water springs.

6. Ocean currents (Psalms 8:8; Ecclesiastes 1:7; Isaiah 43:16).

The Psalmist referred to "the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the sea" (8:8). Matthew Maury, superintendent of the U.S. Navy's Depot of Charts and Instruments, used this very text of Scripture as the basis for his search for and discovery of ocean currents. The Portuguese are generally credited with first recognizing ocean currents, but Maury was the first to fully map them. He compiled the world's first textbook on ocean currents in 1855. "There is a river in the ocean," he wrote, because he had read of them in Psalms 8:8. It is also now known that marine life is not equally distributed throughout the ocean as once thought, but, just as Psalm 8:8 implies, living things follow these ocean currents, virtual fisheries, as though they were rivers in the ocean. For this reason, fishing fleets gather in the currents.

7. The rain cycle (Amos 5:6-8; 9:6; Ecclesiastes 1:7).

Historians tells us that the first scientifically accurate understanding of the origin of rainfall was set forth by French scientists Pierre Perrault and Edme Mariotte in the 17th C. Until then man's understanding of rain was full of guesswork and speculation. Some said there were literal flood gates in the solid dome of heaven through which the water poured. Others said that plain air (not water vapor) was changed into rain. All the ancients practiced charms, magic, and incantations to try to make it rain. But the Bible writers correctly albeit simply record what is obvious to us now-that rain comes from clouds, that clouds come from water vapor, and water vapor from the oceans. Rain then flows into the streams and rivers and back to the ocean from whence it originally came. Amos said, "Seek the Lord and live... (he who made the Pleiades and Orion, who turns blackness into dawn and darkens day into night, who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out over the face of the land-the Lord is his name" (5:6-8; also 9:6). Barfield writes, "Because no one else in those days made such statements, some scholars try to explain them away. One typical explanation [from W.E. Middleton, A History of the Theories of Rain and Other Forms of Precipitation] suggests, 'It is very probable that the passages in the book were inserted much later.... If not, it is a most interesting passage"' (p. 177). Over 200 years earlier, Solomon wrote, 'All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:7).

8. That lightning is involved in causing rain and that it travels in a "way" or "path" (Job 38:25,26; Psalms 135:7).

Everyone recalls Benjamin Franklin's extremely dangerous yet successful experiment with his kite in a thunderstorm that demonstrated that lightning was indeed electricity as he had supposed. But "modern lightning research began in the latter part of the nineteenth century" (Martin A. Uman, Lightning; quoted in Barfield, p. 178). It is only in the past 30 years, however, that scientists have come to understand much about it, and much more is yet to come.

One thing that was believed long ago and continued until modern times was that it was thunder, not lightning, that caused sudden gushes of rain. From this it was deduced that any loud noise might do the same-cannons, gongs, whistles, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.-therefore, most "rain makers" made a lot of noise. But the Bible writers long before suggested a relationship between lightning and rain. The Lord asks Job, "Who has prepared a channel for the torrents of rain, or a path for the thunderbolt, to cause it to rain on the uninhabited land, and on the desert where no man lives.. .?" (38:25,26, Amplified Bible). Later the Psalmist asked the same thing: "Who causes the vapors to arise from the ends of the earth, who makes lightnings for the rain...?" (135:7, Amplified). Although lightning is not the primary cause of rainfall, scientists have identified it as one ingredient. It is often the case that rain intensifies after flashes of lightning. The electrostatic attraction between drops of water that prevents their falling as rain is broken by the surge of current in lightning.

The Lord also mentioned to Job "the path for the thunderbolt" (which is lightning, as in Psalms 78:48). It was only in the 1930's that experiments showed that instead of randomly winding its way along from cloud to cloud or cloud to earth as it appears to do, a bolt of lightning actually flows through an unseen "wire" or conductor made up of charged particles that is completed just before you see the flash of lightning. There is literally a "path" for the thunderbolt just as the Lord told Job. The current of electricity in lightning ranges from a few thousand to 200,000 amps and temperatures in the channel may reach 50,000 degrees F.

So how do we account for all these "coincidences" found in the Bible, that the writers avoid the errors of their day while including some remarkable statements far ahead of their time and confirmed only by modern science? The Bible writers were not men of advanced intelligence or scientific knowledge. They never claimed anything of the sort; in fact they humbly disclaimed any superior knowledge or intelligence. They attribute what they wrote to another Source-the Spirit of God-so that what they wrote was the Word of God: "thus saith the Lord." And by this comparison of what they wrote with modern science, by putting them to the test of modern scientific knowledge, we realize the greatest of all evidences that they were right-they must have been inspired. The Bible is the inspired Word of God.

"All Scripture is given by Inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16). "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21).

`