After the preliminary remarks, the moderator turned the conversation over to the panelists.
Students – How can one explain the emergence of information (Exhibit G) without first acknowledging the mind of the first cause?
Arthur Peacocke, British theologian and scientist, said this:
“In no way can the concept of ‘information’, the concept of conveying a message, be articulated in terms of the concepts of physics and chemistry, even though the latter can be shown to explain how the molecular machinery (DNA, RNA, and protein) operates to carry information.”
Yet there are those scientists committed to strict materialistic hypotheses who will insist
“that the information-carrying properties of DNA must ultimately have emerged automatically out of matter by a mindless, unguided process. For if, as materialism holds, matter and energy must possess the inherent potential to organize themselves in such a way that eventually all the complex molecules necessary for life, including DNA, will emerge. On the basis of their materialistic hypotheses no other possibility is conceivable or allowable.”
Professor – Who said that?
Students – John Lennox, British mathematician. And Richard Dawkins confirms this view:
“The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object’s sole reason for living.” Francis Crick adds: “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.”
The probability of these views being true would compare favorably to a spontaneous Big Bang. Information contained in the DNA of every form of life had to have come from a mind. My theory is that the mind responsible is that of the creating first cause.
Professor – It is a sound theory.
Students – We think so. We are thinking beings because of our human brain (Exhibit H). Able to handle more than a million messages per second, it is the storehouse and processor of an immense amount of information, including our emotions, our thoughts, our memories, our imaginations, etc. It takes in all the objects and colors we see, all the phenomena exerted on our bodies, the itch on our left elbow, the texture of a piece of wood, the temperature of the morning chill in autumn. And without our awareness it controls and monitors our bodily functions like breathing, sleeping, eye washing, salivation, and body temperature. It frees up our minds to focus on important things. It contains intelligence, logic, emotions, imagination, volition, and social acumen.
Our marvelous brains contain the mysterious entity called the mind (Exhibit I), and it receives, contains, processes, and communicates information in the form of language. Information, as much an entity in our universe as time and space, requires a mind of supreme intelligence as a source, and minds as receptors of the information. The human mind could not exist without the supreme intelligent mind imparting the ability to understand, to imagine, to process, and to execute. The mind is not physiological. It resides in the brain, but it is not the brain. It is a mysterious force that is imparted and developed, and this can only happen under the creative power of the mind of the first cause.
Professor – I can’t imagine any college professor presenting this to his or her class.
Students – And that’s the shame of it all. Shall we dismiss the first cause because it is invisible? Are not scientifically proven facts like gravity and electromagnetism also invisible, and yet no one will dispute their existence. The thoughts in our mind are invisible, and yet they are indeed invisibly factual.
The mind is the faculty in a person that enables them to relate to their environment, to think, and to be conscious. It is the base of consciousness. It is the element in a person that consciously communicates with other conscious minds.
The mind is a powerful piece of circumstantial evidence that points to a super intelligent mind responsible for all minds. It is extremely difficult to quantify because it is not physical, even as the mind of the first cause is not physical. But each human mind draws its existence and function from the primal mind of infinite intelligence. The very fact we are conscious and aware of our place in this universe points to a mind outside the constraints of time and space. A human mind is simply too complex, too capable, too far ranging, too unique to not have a source infinitely more profound than itself. Do we overstate this?
Professor – Not at all given the strength of your hypothesis.
Students – Then we’ll proceed with your blessing.
We are born with fully developed eyes (Exhibit J), and, we might theorize on the strength of probability, eyes that never evolved. The eye can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages all at once. Evolution focuses on mutations and changes from and within existing organisms. Yet evolution alone does not fully explain the initial source of the eye or the brain at the commencement of living organisms from nonliving matter.
Darwin himself had trouble with the eye. He said:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus for 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.”
But being the trooper he was, he went on to try to explain how natural selection brought it about. However, natural selection – the necessary vehicle to move evolution along its track – has a heavy load to carry if one reviews the odds of it ever beginning in the first place without a first cause. Eyes are too complicated to have evolved, and how can any species survive without adequate eyesight, especially those purportedly closest to man?
Eyes never grow, unlike our ears and noses, and they require a complex system of irrigation, cleaning, lubrication, and protection. This system is activated every time we blink – 4,200,000 times a year. Eyes have a muscular response stabilizing system so precise that we can see objects without blurring or scattering even when we move our heads.
Professor – And to think I have only a cursory knowledge of this.
Students – As we did when we first learned of it.
That first cause created the eye is beyond dispute. A telescope is like an eye in that it is contrived to manipulate light to assist in vision. It is intricate, precise, immensely complex, and it has a designer and maker. It is impossible to imagine that the eye, which is many times more complex than the most powerful telescope, or microscope, for that matter, could have come about in a random or evolutionary way. It came from the mind and will of the first cause as complex as it is now, because, had it not, survivability of the creature needing its eyes would have been impossible.
But there is still something more incredible to us than the eye.
Professor – Really? I can’t imagine.
Students – See if you agree.
As complicated as creation is in so many aspects, few rival photosynthesis (Exhibit K) in sheer complexity and in revealing the infinite intelligence of the first cause. It is the ability of plants, primarily, to take sunlight (photo) and water and produce (synthesize) sugars (food) for themselves and for herbivores. No life on Earth can exist without this process.
Professor – A bold statement. Explain.
Students – We’ll try. Light from the sun is a form of energy that comes to Earth as photons, or, simply put, as particles of the sun itself. They supply the energy necessary to break the bond between the two hydrogen atoms and the one oxygen atom in water. When the energetic photons enter a plant leaves’ tiny cells containing chloroplasts, green chemical molecules in the chloroplasts called chlorophyll absorb them. Meanwhile carbon dioxide in the air enters the leaves through the stomata – minute openings in plant leaves – and is diffused into the chlorophyll where the photons from the sun and water (H2O) from the roots meet to start the process of building sugars that the plant needs to produce fruit. The chemical reaction from these three ingredients – photons, carbon dioxide (CO2), and water (H2O) – breaks apart each molecule and produces oxygen (O2) and sugar (C6H12O6). The formula for the overall reaction is this:
6H2O + 6CO2 ————— C6H12O6 + 6O2
Written out in translation, it is: six molecules of water plus six molecules of carbon dioxide produce one molecule of sugar plus six molecules of oxygen
The plant does not need oxygen, so it expels it. We need it and breathe it in; plants need what we breathe out (CO2). This is the classical definition of symbiosis. We need what plants reject, and plants need what we reject. Plants need the sugar for growth and development, and developed plants become food for herbivores. Without this process (which had to be complete from the inception of creation) human, animal, and plant life cannot exist. Only the mind and will of the first cause could have devised such an intricate and complex system to sustain life on this planet.
We could go on, but it may not be necessary.
Professor – I find it interesting, if you don’t mind.
Students – It’s hard to know where to stop. We suppose we could present a boatload of natural facts in support of our hypothesis.
Professor – Like what?
Students – Like the bacterial flagellum, the bombardier beetle, the long tongue of the woodpecker, the long neck of the giraffe, nesting English swallows, and a vast assortment of birds and flowers. We think we’ve made our point. We don’t live in a random world that came about by chance. Nature has design and nature has purpose. But with all this said, we will venture to say that to study nature exclusively will never answer the overarching question as to why first cause bothered to create in the first place.
Professor – I would agree.
Students – We think it’s fairly clear that first cause wanted to create (emotion), designed creation (intellect), and executed the designed plan (volition); therefore, we theorize that the first cause is a living, therefore conscious, personality. We say “person” because of how the first cause went about creating through the elements that comprise the soul of a person – mind, emotion, and will. This is important because it reveals a creating personality, not an amorphous, soulless force.
Professor – When we started this dialogue, you mentioned the second book as being the Bible. Being an academic, I have never had a high opinion of this book.
Students – Perhaps we can elevate that. What has led to your assessment?
Professor – If I had to sum it up, I would have to say science. I don’t think the Bible can answer what science has discovered over the years. I certainly disagree that the Bible can be taken literally.
Students – You probably represent the majority in the academy. But we remind you how lacking science is when faced with the facts of the natural world.
Professor – True. So what is your hypothesis regarding the Bible?
Students – A simple one. We hypothesize that the Scriptures, Hebrew and Greek, are the revelation, the words, the teachings, and the purpose of the first cause. We call it the book of scriptures.
Professor – To say that the Hebrew and Greek scriptures were written by the first cause is a tall order.
Students – We agree. Especially given the climate of thought among academicians. If we can make our case to you without relying on superstition, then we will consider our time well spent. You will determine how well we do.
Professor – I will try to lay aside my preconceptions and listen with an open mind.
Students – So far you’ve done exactly that. We can ask for no more. Allow us a few opening remarks, and then we’ll dive into what we feel is good evidence.
The notable feature of the natural world is life, and animals and human beings are consciously alive. The higher the life, the higher the consciousness. Nature indicates in many ways that first cause is living and conscious, and is able to impart that life into the natural world. The life of the first cause must be the highest life and consciousness of anything created. Human beings are the highest created life next to the angels, followed by animals in varying degrees, and then plants. It only follows that the person of first cause would want to make known to its creatures the purpose for creation. This is the core of our hypothesis. It was necessary that the first cause would make itself known. Nothing else makes sense. Why create, we ask, if the creatures of the highest consciousness cannot or do not share in the purpose of creation?
Professor – Why would you ask?
Students – After seeing the intricate design work of the natural world, doesn’t it make sense that the first cause would inform the highest created beings on this planet the reason for it all?
Professor – That goes to the question of the meaning of life.
Students – And beyond. The meaning of the entire creation.
Professor – So what do you propose?
Students – We propose that the first cause colluded with and inspired willing human agents to produce a written document for the knowledge, guidance, and benefit of the human race. We hypothesize that what we have before us is that person’s gift to its human creatures – the Hebrew Scriptures and the Greek New Testament. It is what the father of the scientific method – Sir Francis Bacon – considered the second book of God.
Professor – But doesn’t it run contrary to science?
Students – We don’t think so. Although it is not a science manual, if our hypothesis is correct, and it is written by the first cause, there should be no conflict between the maker of nature and the writer of the Bible.
Professor – You have a huge task facing you.
Students – All we ask for is your open mind.
Professor – You have it.
Students – Good. We trust your fair-mindedness.
Professor – Thank you. I try. Proceed.
Students – In a fair reading of the Bible we find the name, nature, and purpose of first cause, and, like in the book of nature, there is evidence that supports the theory that the Scriptures are the words and teachings and explanations of the first cause. But what evidence supports this? Why should we trust that the Scriptures are true and a reliable source of our hypothesis? Again we will use exhibits of circumstantial evidence in support of our theory. In addressing whom the creator is, the Bible also discloses the purpose of creation, and, especially, the meaning of human life. No other book ever written does this. This book reveals why we are on this particular planet.
In searching for external evidence for the credibility of the Bible, we could do no better than to begin with Archaeology (Exhibit L), and within archaeology is the evidence of Noah’s flood, generously accorded mythological status by even incipient skeptics. But even though every culture has a flood story, and archaeology confirms a flood, it seems to make no difference to the closed-minded. Here is what Wikipedia reports:
“The flood myth motif is found among many cultures as seen in the Mesopotamian flood stories, Deucalion in Greek mythology, the Genesis flood narrative, the Hindu texts from India, Bergelmir in Norse Mythology, and in the lore of the K’iche’ and Maya peoples in Mesoamerica, the Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa tribe of Native Americans in North America, the Muisca, and Cañari Confederation, in South America.”
It is simply too coincidental that a great flood appears in archaeological digs around the world. Noah’s flood is no myth, unless the different cultures in disparate places and times somehow had a master copy of the narrative. We’ll deal more in depth with Noah in the internal evidence of the Bible.
Babylon is well excavated and well known in the Bible, as it was the first empire to force Jews into exile under Nebuchadnezzar. It began as a small Semitic/Akkadian city during the Akkadian Empire circa 2300 B.C. The name means “Gate of the Gods,” which fits nicely into the Hebrew narrative about Nimrod, the builder of the famous tower. Sargon ruled from 2334-2279 BC. In 1792-1750 BC Hammurabi ruled and transformed the city into a powerful and influential force in Mesopotamia, and in 1755 BC it became the largest city in the world. He established a code of law to maintain peace and to promote prosperity. It is a seven-foot stone (stele) engraved with Hammurabi’s code, which, interestingly, is called “the law of the tooth.” This is reflected in Moses’ word in Exodus 21:18-24:
“If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed. If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Professor – Is that not plagiarism on Moses’ part?
Students – Some think so. They accuse Moses’ of plagiarizing Hammurabi, but a closer look reveals otherwise. Even though both the Mosaic Law and Hammurabi’s Code contain prohibitions about adultery, murder, theft and kidnapping, that only demonstrates that every society has problems that must be addressed by the authorities, otherwise there is a disintegration of that society. Every civil society up to the present time has similar laws in regard to violence and immorality. That Babylon had laws protecting its society from heinous crimes does not preclude Moses from encoding and enforcing similar laws to protect Israel’s society. To say he copied Hammurabi is unfounded. Moses’ Law was rooted in the worship of one deity above all. That was Moses’ intention, and he gave it so the Israelites could live righteously. It speaks of sin and the sinner’s obligation before Israel’s deity. Hammurabi and the ancient codes preceding him do not. Moses’ Law provided justice, like the Code of Hammurabi, but unlike Hammurabi, it promoted spiritual laws that resulted in individual and national holiness. In Moses there is compassion mixed with justice; but in Hammurabi there is harsh retribution, even brutal punishment. There is a spiritual dimension in Moses not found in Hammurabi.
Archaeologist Alfred Hoerth, author of Archaeology and the Old Testament, says,
“The Old Testament law code is religiously oriented, while others are civil. The Mesopotamians believed the god Shamash gave Hammurabi his law code so people could get along with one another. In the Bible, the law code was given primarily so people could get along with God.
“Both Hammurabi and Moses recorded a complex system of laws that were unique to their times. Hammurabi claimed to receive his code from the Babylonian god of justice, Shamash. Moses received God’s Law atop Mount Sinai directly from Yahweh, the God of the Israelites. There are some similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Code of Hammurabi, as would be expected from two legislative systems. However, their significant differences demonstrate the baselessness of the charge that Moses copied from the Code of Hammurabi.”
Professor – That’s an enigma solved.
Students – Does it make sense?
Professor – Yes. Continue, please.
Students – The exodus of the Israelites from Egypt occurred in 1446 BC when Thutmoses III (b. 1496) was the pharaoh. He reigned in Moses’ place because Moses was the first son of Thutmoses II, whose daughter Hatshepsut (b. 1541) rescued Moses (b. 1526) from the Nile and adopted him as her own son. When Moses killed the Egyptian (1486), he fled to the desert, leaving the throne to his half brother Thutmoses III, who had to share the throne with his Aunt Hatshepsut until he was of age. She died in 1464.
When he returned to confront his brother, and unleashed the torrent of plagues, the Israelites left Egypt for the desert. Thutmoses III sent his armies in pursuit, catching them at the tip of the Sinai Peninsula. The Israelites passed through the Red Sea on dry land, but Pharaoh’s armies perished when the water collapsed upon them.
The interesting history here is that revealed in the Egyptian records. From the second year of the reign of Thutmoses III, he had conducted 17 annual military campaigns somewhere in the Levant, but in 1446, the record of military conquests ceases. His army was gone. Thutmoses III had been defeated by his half brother Moses. This so enraged the king that he returned to Egypt, blamed his dead aunt for Moses and the death of his army, and proceeded to deface every statue and mention of her in Egypt, a fate worse than death to the superstitious Egyptians.
Archaeology, this time Egyptian, confirms the scriptural account of the most important event in Israel’s history.
Professor – And for years I thought the Exodus was as credible as Noah, or Eve’s apple.
Students – Fortunately for believers in the Bible and for historians, the Egyptians kept good records. Let us give you some more examples.
When the Assyrian king Sennacherib moved against Judea in the 700s BC, Hezekiah, king of Judah, responded by cutting a tunnel through 1750 feet of solid rock from the Gihon Spring under the Temple in Jerusalem to the Pool of Siloam inside the city walls to protect the city’s water supply. The tunnel is exactly the same today as it was 2700 years ago, and water is still flowing through it. The diggers came from both directions and somehow (some say miraculously) met in the middle of a very meandering path.
King Hezekiah, who ruled from 721 to 686 BC, commissioned the construction of a tunnel (2 Kings 20; 2 Chronicles 32) stretching a third of a mile through solid rock from the Gihon Spring under the Temple to the Pool of Siloam. This tunnel preserved Jerusalem’s water supply. An inscription at the pool commemorating this accomplishment resides in the archaeological museum in Istanbul.
Professor – Is the spring there in Jerusalem today?
Students – Yes. In the City of David excavations.
Professor – Where in the Bible is this event revealed?
Students – 2 Kings 20 and 2 Chronicles 32. Archaeology continues to unearth proof of the historicity of the Bible. As with Babylon, so with the Hittites, long thought to be a biblical myth. But digs in Turkey revealed the ruins of Hattusas, the ancient Hittite capital, and many historical records of the Hittites, thus confirming the literality of Abraham’s purchase of the cave of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite (Genesis 23), and of Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11).
Archaeology has confirmed the existence of numerous biblical places such as: Jerusalem, Jericho, Haran, Hazor, Lachish, Beersheba, Gener, Shechem, Megiddo, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Samaria, Dan, Samaria, and many others. The Hebrew Scriptures are not fantasy, but literal. These are real, on-the-ground places. Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron have all been excavated and some are cities in Israel to this day.
As for personages in the Bible, the evidence yields to the spade. Until 1993 there was nothing physical to indicate that Israel’s king David was anything but a myth and the subject of rabbinical propaganda. Then in the town of Dan north of the Sea of Galilee, a 3000-year-old Aramaic inscription by David’s enemies describes the defeat of the kings of Judah and Israel, and mentions the “king of Israel” and the king of the “House of David.” Note that this inscription was not done by conspiratorial Hebrew scribes promoting a legend, but by enemies of Israel. So much for David, and, by extension, the Hebrew Scriptures being fantastical.
The Moabite Stone mentions Moab’s victory over Ahab’s family (c. 850 BC) and engraved on it are the words that Israel had “perished forever.”
The stone burial plaque of King Uzziah, who ruled Judah from 792-740, was found on the Mount of Olives.
Cyrus the Great of Persia, a benevolent ruler, especially in regard to the Jews, is recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:23, Ezra 1. He permitted the Jews in Babylon to return to their homeland to rebuild the Temple that Nebuchadnezzar had torn down. The discovery of a nine-inch clay cylinder found in Babylon attests to Cyrus’ victory and policy of allowing the exiles to return.
While digging in Caesarea on the coast of Israel, archaeologists unearthed a three by two foot limestone block with this Latin inscription: “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.” This astonishing discovery provides historical evidence of the man who condemned Jesus to death.
An ossuary found in a burial cave two miles south of Jerusalem contained the bones of Joseph Caiaphas, the high priest presiding over Jesus’ trial.
Professor – That’s an impressive list.
Students – We could go on with other examples, but there is no question that the Bible is not a fable, but a beautiful corroboration of historical evidence dug from Middle Eastern sand. At least that’s our hypothesis.
Professor – I can’t disagree.
Students – We’ll move on to our next exhibit.
The staggering number of ancient manuscripts (Exhibit M) far outstrips those of any ancient writer, and that alone should confirm the uniqueness of the Bible. For example, the New Testament accounts for 24,000 manuscripts and fragments, the earliest dated at c. 125 AD, containing John 18:31-33, 37-38. In contrast Homer’s Illiad (800-725 BC) numbers 643; Thucydides (c. 410) histories number eight; Plato (c. 400 BC) has seven; Aristotle’s (384-322 BC) Poetics five; Julius Caesar’s (100-44 BC) Gallic Wars has ten; and Tacitus (58-117 AD) twenty, to name a few.
As for the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), a group of Jewish scholars – Mesoretes – meticulously preserved the ancient text with astounding accuracy. They labored in the sixth through tenth centuries on behalf of the Jews in the Diaspora. This work of providing a singular Torah provided much needed adhesion of the dispersed and persecuted people. That the Jews could survive their wanderings in the world through countless trials and tribulations is a tribute to the fastidious scribes who toiled for centuries, preserving their Book and their original language.
Professor – Is there any internal evidence of the validity of the Bible as a reliable record of the words of the first cause?
Students – We think there is plenty. Here we can revert from using “first cause” to describe the creator, to Yahweh as his name. However, the first mention of the first cause is “Elohim” in Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth.” In the book that reveals who Yahweh of creation is we have a plural deity – Elohim – creator and judge of the universe.
Professor – Fair enough. If, as you contend, the first cause, or Yahweh, does indeed have a name. My mind is still open.
Students – And we are grateful.
Our hypothesis is in accord with Sir Francis Bacon’s assertion that we have two books of discovery, each which exposes who the creator, or Yahweh, is – the book of nature and the book of Scriptures. As we’ve said, if our hypothesis (and Bacon’s concept) is true, then there should be no conflict in the two books. Although the Bible is not a scientific journal, there are allusions to scientific facts (Exhibit N) that came long before science confirmed them.
For example, the reason why the deity of the Israelites prohibited the eating of blood was because the life of the animal was in the blood. In Leviticus 17:14 we read:
“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, `You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.”
From ancient Egypt to the 1800s, bleeding people to heal them of disorders was common practice because there was no concept that physical life was contained in the blood. Knowledge of this may have originated with William Harvey in the early 1600s when he discovered the circulatory system that began and ended with the heart. Physicians following Harvey eventually acknowledged the truth about blood, a truth that Moses wrote about 3400 years prior.
Moses recorded this command to Abraham:
“And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants” (Gen. 17:12).
Is there a scientific basis for circumcision on the eighth day of a newborn’s life? Vitamin K is responsible for liver production of prothrombin, the vital ingredient in blood coagulation. On the eighth (and only) day of a male’s life, Vitamin K and prothrombin are at their peak levels, elevated above one hundred percent of normal, and optimal for surgery.
Here’s another example. Nothing in the Bible suggests that turtles, or elephants, or a rather large and strong man support the Earth and its atmosphere. Rather Job 26:7 says,
“He stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing.”
Job is purported to be the oldest author in the Bible, perhaps living as a contemporary of Abraham. Job’s idea that the Earth hangs in space on nothing far predates the Greek astronomers.
Isaiah wrote that the Earth is round, not a flat disk.
“It is He who sits above the circle of the earth” (40:22).
It was 2400 years later before science confirmed this fact. Columbus sailed west with confidence that the Bible was accurate, that he would not fall off the edge.
Solomon described wind currents in Ecclesiastes 1:6, something not understood by science until centuries later.
“Blowing toward the south, then turning toward the north, the wind continues swirling along. And on its circular courses the wind returns.”
Job 26:8 says of the creator,
“He wraps up the waters in His clouds,
And the cloud does not burst under them.”
It wasn’t until the 1600s that a German scientist confirmed this ancient insight into the physical world.
In the same chapter is this:
“When He imparted weight to the wind, And meted out the waters by measure” (Job 26:25).
It wasn’t until the early 17th century, probably by Galileo, that science confirmed this.
Hand washing came late to civilization. Not until the mid 1800s did physicians understand that microscopic pathogens could be responsible for the spread of diseases. Then began the practice of hand washing. Had these physicians read and understood Moses, they could have saved many lives.
“Now when the man with the discharge becomes cleansed from his discharge, then he shall count off for himself seven days for his cleansing; he shall then wash his clothes and bathe his body in running water and will become clean” (Lev. 15:13).
When the Black Plague ravaged Europe in the 1300s, the common people had no access to the Scriptures. They could have followed the instructions in Leviticus 13 concerning leprosy and been saved from the contagion.
Jesus spoke of the second coming occurring at night and during the day at the same time (Luke 17:34-36), proof that the Earth revolves every day.
Here is what Wikipedia says about the conservation of mass and energy:
“The law of conservation of mass or principle of mass conservation states that for any system closed to all transfers of matter and energy, the mass of the system must remain constant over time, as system mass cannot change quantity if it is not added or removed. Hence, the quantity of mass is “conserved” over time. The law implies that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space, or the entities associated with it may be changed in form, as for example when light or physical work is transformed into particles that contribute the same mass to the system as the light or work had contributed. Thus, during any chemical reaction, nuclear reaction, or radioactive decay in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products.”
Is this what Solomon was referring to in this verse? Ecclesiastes 1:9:
“That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun.”
It wasn’t until the 18th century that the theory became a law of science.
Isaiah wrote of the water cycle. “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater” (Isaiah 55:10). So did Solomon in Ecclesiastes 1:7.
“All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again.”
This concept was not fully understood for many centuries. Wikipedia explains:
In the ancient near east, Hebrew scholars observed that even though the rivers ran into the sea, the sea never became full (Ecclesiastes 1:7). Some scholars conclude that the water cycle was described completely during this time in this passage: “The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to its circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again” (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7, KJV). Scholars are not in agreement as to the date of Ecclesiastes, though most scholars point to a date during the time of Solomon, the son of David and Bathsheba, “three thousand years ago, there is some agreement that the time period is 962-922 BCE. Furthermore, it was also observed that when the clouds were full, they emptied rain on the earth (Ecclesiastes 11:3 – “If the clouds are full, they pour out rain upon the earth”). In addition, during 793-740 BC a Hebrew prophet, Amos, stated that water comes from the sea and is poured out on the earth (Amos 5:8 – “He who made the Pleiades and Orion and changes deep darkness into morning, Who also darkens day into night, Who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the surface of the earth, The LORD is His name.” And 9:6 – “The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth, The LORD is His name”).
In the Book of Job, dated between 7th and 2nd centuries BCE, there is a description of precipitation in the hydrologic cycle.
“Which the clouds pour down, they drip upon man abundantly.” (Job 36:27-28,).
Also found in the book of Ecclesiastes
“All the rivers flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place where the rivers flow, there they flow again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
Up to the time of the Renaissance, it was thought that precipitation alone was insufficient to feed rivers, for a complete water cycle, and that underground water pushing upwards from the oceans was the main contributor to river water. Bartholomew of England held this view (1240 CE), as did Leonardo da Vinci (1500 CE) and Athanasius Kircher (1644 CE).
The first published thinker to assert that rainfall alone was sufficient for the maintenance of rivers was Bernard Palissy (1580 CE), who is often credited as the “discoverer” of the modern theory of the water cycle. Palissy’s theories were not tested scientifically until 1674, in a study commonly attributed to Pierre Perrault. Even then, these beliefs were not accepted in mainstream science until the early nineteenth century.
Professor – Another impressive set of arguments.
Students – There’s still more. We think each one of them deepens the connection between Yahweh of nature and the writer of the Bible. Our hypothesis states that they are one and the same. For example, what but gravity can explain these verses from Job?
“He stretches out the north over empty space and hangs the earth on nothing” (26:7).
And:
“Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades, or loose the cords of Orion? Can you lead forth a constellation in its season, and guide the Bear with her satellites? Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, or fix their rule over the earth” (38:31-33)?
Even modern psychology stands on the shoulders of ancient Hebrew Scriptures. Although it may be axiomatic and full of common sense, we, nevertheless, read this in Proverbs 16:24:
”Pleasant words are a honeycomb, Sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.”
In 17:22:
“A joyful heart is good medicine.”
It is apparent that there is compatibility between the Bible and science, simply because, according to our hypothesis, they both come from Yahweh as creator of the physical cosmos and the writer of the Bible through human agency. Secular scientists will discount this vehemently, but they must first explain how an ancient book written by many authors has so much circumstantial evidence validating it. There is too much here to be coincidental. These writers should not have known this stuff.
Professor – That’s a good point.
Students – Nevertheless, some mathematicians belittle the Scriptures for lacking anything mathematical; however, the Bible contains an important mathematical formulation (Exhibit O) that predates Archimedes by about 800 years. Solomon commissioned Hiram to build a laver for the Temple consisting of a large bowl of certain dimensions. Here are the verses from 1 Kings 7:23, 26:
“Then he made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. . . Its thickness was a handbreadth . . . “
If this were merely a theoretical bowl, then the value of pi would be three, and the Bible would deserve derision from its critics; however, Hiram did not build a theoretical bowl, but a real, tangible object with walls a handbreadth thick. The diameter – “brim to brim” – is 10 cubits, or 180 inches, and includes the thickness of the bowl (a handbreadth). The radius to the outside of the bowl would be 90 inches: to the inside of the bowl 86 inches. The inside circumference is 30 cubits, or 540 inches, and does not include the handbreadth thickness of the bowl.
So the inner radius is 86 inches, and the inner circumference is 540 inches. The formula is C = 2pi x r.
540 = 2pi x 86
540 = 172 x pi
pi = 540/172
pi = 3.1395, or
pi = 3.14
Professor – I never had any idea about this.
Students – We think it’s valid, once you consider the details. The circumstantial evidence of the four Exhibits – archaeology, manuscripts, science, and mathematics – is only external. Is there anything internal to the Bible that would validate our hypothesis that Yahweh did indeed inspire and guide the writing of Scriptures? Is the Bible truly the second book of the unveiling of the creating first cause? What is in the actual text that can legitimate this hypothesis? Did Yahweh have a reason, or reasons, for making this writing available to humanity? Can we find in it a purpose that answers the ongoing quest of thinking people for the meaning of human life and creation? If Yahweh did indeed cause the writing of the Scriptures, then it follows that it should be unique among all the writings ever penned. Can that theory be proved? We shall see.