Much compelling evidence exists for faith in the God of the Bible. One type of evidence is that of scientific insight in the Bible. The Bible consists of scientific foreknowledge reflecting natural facts and healthy practices before scientific discovery. Therefore, the Bible was either guided by God or written by very intelligent people who in this case believed in God and thought that they received these facts from God. If the Bible is the production of ancient superstitious minds of men who spoke of nature and their own medical practices, then this would mean that the Bible would most likely err from proven science. However, there are no errors.
Scientific foreknowledge is an old evidence to those who know Christian evidences, and this is just as compelling now. Here are some scientific facts first appearing in the Bible before being discovered scientific study more than 2000-3500 years later:
Cosmology
- The cause of the universe must transcend the natural laws of the universe (Gen 1:1; Heb 11:3).
- The cause of the universe must be more powerful than the universe (Gen 1:1; Heb 11:3).
- The laws of the universe were set after each part of creation (Exod 20:11; Heb 4:4).
- The universe is precisely balanced for the existence of intelligent life (Gen 1; Jer 10:12; 51:15).
- The universe is in the state of entropy and wearing out as affirmed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Ps 102:25–26; Isa 51:6; Heb 1:10–11).
- The universe permits humanity to observe the universe and to reason from causality (Ps 19:1; Rom 1:20).
- The universe is stretched out (Job 9:8; Ps 104:2; Isa 40:22; 42:5; 44:24).
- The earth is a sphere (Job 26:10; Prov 8:27; Isa 40:22).
- The earth hangs upon nothing (Job 26:7).
- The stars are too numerous for people to be number (Jer 33:22).
- The states of constellations Pleiades and Orion differ in nature despite casual observation (Job 38:31).
- The sun has an orbit of its own around the center of the Milky Way galaxy (Ps 19:4–6).
Geoscience
- The universe exists in a mature state (Gen 1).
- Billions of dead things are buried in layers of rock laid down by water all over the world (Gen 6–9; 2 Pet 3:5–6).
- The discoveries of currents in the sea and oceanography came from when Matthew Fontaine Maury investigated Psalm 8 read (Ps 8:8).
- Fresh water springs release in the seas (Job 38:16).
- Lightning has a natural path and is the cause of thunder (Job 38:25; Jer 10:13; 51:16).
- Wind has weight and a regular course (Job 28:25; Eccl 1:6).
- Water moves through the water cycle (Job 36:27–28; Eccl 1:7; Amos 9:6).
Biology
- Biology exists in an advanced developed state (Gen 1; Mark 10:6).
- Life only comes from life, and one genus only comes from its own genus. Louis Pasteur established the Law of Biogenesis affirming that life only comes from life and life of its own kind (Gen 1:11, 12, 21, 24; cf. 30:30–43).
- The complex order of life is far greater than human design, and whatever is more complex than design is also designed (Gen 1; Heb 3:4).
- Blood is essential to the life of the flesh of man and animals (Lev 17:11–14; cf. Gen 9:4–6).
- Humanity is fearfully and wonderfully made (Gen 1:26; Ps 139:14).
Anthropology
- The universe supports intelligent life that is able to observe the universe (Ps 19:1; Rom 11:36).
- Humanity is distinct with a moral conscience and recognizing natural moral laws (Gen 1:26–27; Rom 2:14–15).
- Humanity has a universal agreement that fairness exists and expects agreement for justice based on objective moral values (Rom 2:14–15).
- Human beings rely upon reason and unchanging laws of logic (1 Tim 6:20).
- No primitive language existed (Gen 11:1, 8).
Medical
- The Bible describes infections for diagnosis (Lev 13:24–25).
- The biblical diagnosis of skin diseases prevents the spread of disease such as smallpox (Lev 13).
- Quarantining helps stop the spread of certain diseases (Lev 13:45–46; Num 5:1–4).
- The Bible gives instructions for recognizing and using clean water (Lev 11:33–36).
- Israel was to wash infectious wounds with clean water (Lev 15:13).
- Contagious clothing should be washed, altered and, or burned to prevent spread of disease (Lev 13:34, 46–59).
- Growths in houses should be cleansed with prescribed soap. If such growths remain, then remove portions of the house to prevent the spread of diseases (Lev 14:39–41, 49–53).
- People should avoid the uncleanness of dead bodies and become clean by washing with water containing antiseptic, antibacterial soap described in a recipe of ashes from cedar, hyssop, and scarlet (Num 19).
- The ideal time for surgery of an infant boy is on the eighth day after his birth (Lev 12:3).
- The human body may be opened for surgery (Gen 2:21).
Applied Physics
- The ideal ratio for a seaworthy barge is 30 x 5 x 3 (Gen 6:15)
Conclusion
One or two facts may be interesting or even a coincidence, but the number of facts predating the times of recognized discovery compounds probability. How could the writers of the Bible continue to know such things about the world without advanced technology to observe such things? The book of God revealed these things to the people of God. The biblical writers claim God as their source. No other ancient book claims God’s guidance and presents such foreknowledge to scientific discovery.
The Breath of God 
Here is my comment from before arguing falsely for Biogenesis. I’ll post it so it doesn’t end up not making sense in light of this previous post and because there are some other arguments for other points that should be included.
I’m not sure why you are suprised about Biogenesis, it doesn’t conflict with my beliefs unless you interpret it in the strictest light possible, which creationists do. I was created to disprove the idea that maggots or fungi appeared from nothing, it was never meant to explain the origin of life. As I said I think you have a point when you use tis interpretation.
You are far off on the simplest gemone as I state below. At the time Carl Sagan mad that statement E. Coli was probably the only bacteria genome sequenced, since it is the most common lab strain. Things have changed, you should read up.
You realize that people define what life is right? So when something becomes life is up to us based on the definition we have created. Prions, as I stated, are not alive. Neither are virus’s according to our definition. But they form a continuum of reproduction and growth, only lacking response to stimuli to be considered alive in the case of virus’s. A prion needs nothing more than other protiens to reproduce and thus could easily have evolved into a virus. Some virus’s contian RNA, a simpler code than DNA (and coincidentally much less complex than E. Coli which is does not have the simplest genome of all organisms as you claim. That would go to Mycoplasma genitalium http://tinyurl.com/2xy4dz. It has a genome of 580,000 base pairs, 14% of the size of E coli which has 4 million base pairs). RNA or DNA virus’s have immenselly less complex genomes than do even the smallest bacteria, thus another link in the chain. Prions do not need a host, but one could
easily imagine a symbiotic
relationship between virus’s and prions, or other virus’ which would result in evolution of increasingly complex structures and DNA or RNA. At the point at which they could respond to stimuli they would be considered alive. Pointing to E coli or even M genitalium as the least complex cell that can survive is not logically correct. They have knocked genes out of M genitalium and it still survives. We don’t know how small you could get, but it would be very small.
As for stars the argument that by the time you got to the last star others would not exist is a ridiculous argument. You already counted it, so whether it disappears or not is irrelevant. The point is theoretical since we both agree that we don’t currently have the tools to do it. My point was that you can’t argue that they are uncountable acording to science if you also say they are finite. A finite number can be counted with enough effort, an infinite one cannot. If you want to base your conclusions on scientific foreknowledge then use scientific logic, don’t bend it to suit your conclusion.
Have you been to the desert, especially Saudi Arabia? In a flat expanse of only a few miles the horizon looks to be the same distance in every direction. From the top of a tall hill, probably mount Ararat would be this way, the horizon appears the same in all directions. What is it when you are equidistant from the edge of something in all directions, you are inside a circle. Not to mention that the path of the sun in the sky is obviously semicircular. It’s not a logical leap to assume that that orbit continues despite not being able to see it. Early humans didn’t get everything but they weren’t stupid.
I think you missed my point about human waste. It isn’t that many cultures didn’t get it, it is that some did well before Moses. How can it be foreknowledge if humans discovered it before Moses? The fact that not all cultures followed that rule, or figured it out, or forgot it does not negate the fact that it was figured out before Moses and thus could not have been foreknowledge. It’s great that they figured it out, but the fact that other people figured it out on their own means that it might not have been God who told Moses to do it, it might have been that they figured it out on their own. The same goes for the medicinal stuff we have hashed over as well.
Let me get one thing straight about the “Law of Biogenesis” after some further reading. I have made a mistake. Pasteur is the one who is credited with coining the term, however his experiments did not have anything to do with how life began and everything to do with how life in it’s present form is created. http://tinyurl.com/dp9zt , http://tinyurl.com/29gd9l.
His experiments involved boiling media and comparing sterile conditions in open and closed containers. The closed containers did not grow. This proves that microbes do not spontaeously come about in closed, sterile conditions. It does not prove that in an open system, with lot’s of time and appropriate media, life could not evolve or even be created by a God. He also did not address whether these “ovum” as they were called were created by the mixing, or hybridization of species or not. His experiments simply did not extend that far, they only went as far as to say that life, in our current world, does not simply arise out of conditions in which no life has been able to enter.
If you have other research to cite that says that this “Law” can be applied to biological species interbreeding or evolution let me know. I don’t see any literature references to a “Law of Biogenesis” that don’t relate to Haeckel and his very different, and very discredited, theories of embryo development and evolution. That is, except for citations by Apologetics Press and other creationist websites. I’m inclined to wonder why it is that scientists don’t consider it a law, but creationists do?
So, now that we are clear on that…let’s continue. I have made the mistake of enabling an argument that this theory is related to the origin of life and/or hybridization, you have made the mistake of postulating that they are related, we are both at fault. I’m afraid we have both been barking up the wrong tree with our arguments about hybridization and evolution. They simply don’t apply.
In that light I’m not sure how you would prove foreknowledge. We can continue to debate whether these biblical passages allow for interbreeding or not but in either case the fact of the matter is that knowledge of hybridization is old as the hills. Donkeys have been around a really long time. So I don’t see how that line of reasoning really would lead to any idea of foreknowledge in the Bible.
To take the opposite tack on Pasteur’s experiments, is there evidence of biblical foreknowledge that life in it’s current form cannot be created out of nothing. No, there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that God created life. Unfortunately this relies on belief rather than rational thought. The same applies to the origins of life by evolution. I can show a logical progression of existing structures and thought experiments but cannot prove or disprove it. It is essentially the same for divine creation. We can debate the issue, as many do, but there is no smoking gun for either case.
So, to answer you last question: No I don’t see a problem with believing in evolution. This “Law of Biogenesis” does not need to be “sacrificed” as you say because it doesn’t really exist in relation to the origins of life. But, I do realize that my belief is just that, a belief. I base it on an extrapolation of scientific facts but, as you know, extrapolation is not proof. You are free to have your belief, as am I, until a smoking gun is found one way or the other.
I am interested after reading more about circumcision that you are correct that vitamin K is highest around 8 days and thus children with clotting disorders would have bled less after that point. I was impressed by the number of clinical citations I found. I stop short of calling this foreknowledge simply because I can easily imagine that it wouldn’t take too long for a preist who circumcised babies regularly to realize that fewer babies bled profusely when they were circumcised after 8 days than if they were circumcised before that. This would be especially true if most children were vitamin K deficient and therefore did not clot as well. These days it is only children with clotting defects which bleed profusely without vitamin K so it would have taken a huge sample of children to reach a conclusion. If most babies were deficient, which is likely given their living and diet conditions in Moses time, it would not have taken a very large sample size to figure this out.
Evidently, I am not intelligent enough to understand how hybrids disprove the Law of Biogenesis or the Genesis account. I looked past the genus since those assignments are historically subjective anyways. Strange according to “science” animals of different genus are not supposed to breed together, but then “science” proves that they can. Assigning a genus to each animal is somewhat subjective and set by men. So, “science” was wrong about intergenus hybrids. Has “science” ever been wrong? Could “science” ever be wrong again? That just sounds like “science”, but the Law of Biogenesis is very general regarding animals producing after their own kind. Could one not say that these animals that can produce hybrids are of one kind? “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.” There are four kinds. Can these interbreed? The chromosomes between horses and donkeys differ as well, so I don’t really see any problem here either if that is what you are referring to.
Here let’s reconcile the Law of Biogenesis with your faith. If animals still produced their own kind while mutating gradually, then these animals are still producing their own kind while evolving. If I were an atheist, this is what I would say, but then this does not disprove the fact that God created animals to evolve from the position of accepting evolution. The only other struggle is again life coming from nothing. When does a collection of proteins start to perceive?
I expect non-believing scientists to not believe in the Law of Biogenesis, but scientific laws have to be sacrificed to accept an origin of life without a Creator. I know the atheist can think around these evidences and ignore these facts as just coincidence. This post does make many like you stop and recognize this “coincidence”. Do really believe in no Creator whatsoever? Isn’t Deism more appealing? I thought you believed in inherent morality, so where would this come from?
One more,
I don’t think you get the idea of hybridization. A wolf mixing with a Jack Russell would create a half wolf/half jack russell (Assuming the jack russell wasn’t eaten before it could mate). The progeny would exhibit intermediate features. The traits would converge the more you mated these hybrids with wolves but you could always see the hybridization in the DNA. They are all from the genus of Canis so they look like dogs, but according to science they are distinct species, therefore throwing a wrench in the Law of Biogenesis to some degree.
An even bigger wrench in the Law of Biogenesis is the sheep-goat hybrid I cited that you obviously didn’t read or understand. These animals for from entirely different genus and thus should be unable to hybridize, however, they have been shown by science to exist. Here are some links to journal articles on the subject.
http://tinyurl.com/2vkoeb
http://tinyurl.com/39vjau
So, if Genesis says that each animal must produce it’s own kind then how can a goat and a sheep breed naturally since they are entirely different genus of animal? The animal produced is a mix of both, not one or the other. To me this shows that the Law of Biogenesis is less a law and more of a theory or genrealization and that Genesis was generally correct but science has shown that it does not hold up in all circumstances, thus science has shown that it was not foreknowledge. Mabye we scientists should stop calling it a law.
After all, it is easy to see that most animals breed with their own and produce similar offspring. Any primitive person would have realized this. Therefore, to prove foreknowledge you must show that the forekowledge applies in the strange situations which are not obvious to any prehistoric farmer. The sheep goat hybrid being shown in the peer reviewed scientific literature shows that science does not support this statement of biblical foreknowledge.
Answers to my rhetorical questions above.
Where on earth can I go see a visible circular horizon? Nowhere on Earth just in space can anything be called circular regarding the shape of Earth in Prov. 8:27, which is not figurative and there is no firgurative language in that passage. Just present another alternative to understanding what “a circle set on the face of the deep” is. If anyone referred to the circle of the Earth today, most people would know that they are talking in reference to the globe.
Did Egyptians use excrement and urine for medicine? Yes, so people did not handle their waste in the best way.
Where did most European cities in the Middle Ages dump their waste? In the streets thus the Plague.
Jens,
Yeah, I continue to edit my posts, every single one of them. I didn’t write this for you to debate it though you can. Just address what I’ve written and if I change something, you have to the right to criticize. I think that I have edited every single post since I published them. I like to fix grammatical flaws and clarify my reasoning and conclusions.
I really don’t think that you get the fact that these Scriptures are perfect science for that time. Not eating pork, blood, and oysters is a perfect rule more than 2,000 years ago to prevent disease then while today that’s not usually a problem. Yeah, the ancients were smart and sometimes very ignorant.
Thanks for the sources; I could send back to you. The journal blatantly redefines dormancy saying that dormant seeds are active in remaining dormant in changing environments. That explains the title “Redefining Seed Dormancy: an attempt to integrate physiology and ecology”. The title explains that it an attempt to integrate physiology and ecology. That’s like redefining a physically inactive man as active due to the rotation of the Earth. So, a seed is dormant doing nothing internally or externally, and it is alive. What would be the state of a dormant seed that died naturally? Maybe you should also define death. How many people over 2,000 years ago knew that the seed was biologically inactive? Well, Jesus did.
In ancient times, the 8th day was the best time for circumcision since it is the only time in the life of a newborn that their vitamin K levels are at 200% and then some. Yes, today, men can be circumcised any time, and such was true of Abraham and Moses’ sons. The 8th day was the ideal time according to God. This is a perfect example to point out that even Moses did not understand that vitamin K was increased though somehow there is a purpose behind God’s instruction that Moses nor anyone actually knew.
So, if someone said that the Earth is a circle, then they would be wrong? Why would I look at a Parallel Bible when I and many others have done word-studies in Hebrew? I did look at it. The most reliable translation said “circle”. “khug” is the Hebrew word for circle or sphere. See the other Scriptures in the figurative speech part. The figurative speech is not being used, but its blatant common sense interpretation. Proverbs 8:25-27, “Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; (26) While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. (27) When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep,”
Regarding the Law of Biogenesis, the point is not to prove origin of life between Creation or Evolution, but to affirm foreknowledge in this Law. You surprised me. I just thought that you would write off the Law of Biogenesis altogether sense it stands against your faith in atheistic agnosticism. Though the idea of micro-evolution from the point of Creation would not contradict the Bible or the Law of Biogenesis, the Law still debunks the theory of natural origin of life being coincidental. Here’s an animal mix for you too. What if a wolf mated with a Jack Russell? What if a horse mated with a donkey? Animals still produce of their own kind.
Prions, clusters of proteins, are not living. Viruses need living hosts to reproduce. What is the most basic living host for a virus? It is bacteria. The virus could only have evolved after some other life did, according to the evolution hypothesis, so I’ll help you out and give you the simplest independent life form, bacteria. How many bits of data exist in bacteria according to Carl Sagan? One trillion. Carl Sagan also noted that the most basic DNA known to exist, E. coli DNA, to have formed is like every letter of every word of every book in a library of 10,000,000 books coming together accidentally. I think he is exaggerating though his point made is against his own faith. The following article does just as well: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html
Just the idea of at least 10×25 stars in the Universe, how can these ever be numbered when reaching the last star others may not exist and more may exist? I guess a billion people could with the most advanced scopes yet to be invented spend 100 years of their life counting a little over 100 billion stars a day, but I still don’t think that is possible. But, how would we know if the first stars still exist when one is finished counting centuries later when we only see the light of the stars traveling only in the direction toward us thousands of years from the actual stars? Over sextillion stars are as the Scripture says that the stars “cannot be numbered”. Only God knows the finite number of stars in the Universe at any point in time. You would better make your point by asking how the light of stars millions of light-years away reached Earth when the stars and Earth were created less than 10,000 years ago according to the Bible. I was once a skeptical believer.
Why don’t you just say that this is just one big coincidence like the rest of the Universe?
You might want to tell people that you are editing your posts. You’ve switched a bunch of your items around, changed, and added several since I replied. I’d hate to think that others who just joined the conversation would think I moved the goalposts by not including some of your new assertions in the post I put on my blog or my subsequent replies.
You added that circumcision is best done on the 8th day of life. Where did science show that to be the case? My son was circumsized on his second day. I know there is debate about the health effects of circumcision but I hadn’t heard that science had established that a particular day was better than another.
Thanks for qualifying dead with dormant. At least people know what you are talking about even if dormant does not mean dead (http://tinyurl.com/32hbbq) It’s etemology is based on sleep, not death; the word dormir for anyone who has studied a romance language. Here is a journal article on seed dormancy which states such (http://tinyurl.com/36pp74) Look at the last sentence. You can pay the fee to see the whole article if you want to see citations for that conclusion.
I’m confused as to why you added the statement that eating meat without blood is somehow related to foreknowledge. Isn’t that just a food taboo? Meat with blood in it won’t hurt you, nor has science taken a stand on that as far as I know. It doesn’t look as good, or process as well but that would have been obvious to the earliest humans just as it is for us.
I’m intrigued by the Law of Biogenesis you added. I actually think it might have some truth to it. If you consider Gen 1:24 to mean that all animals give birth to other animals of the same species, which is the literal interpretation, I wonder how interspecies hybrids (many, like the liger are fertile (http://tinyurl.com/6at2e)) play into this foreknowledge though. Natural hybrids across genera (like the naturally occuring sheep-goat hybrid documented here http://tinyurl.com/352mmg) put an even larger wrench in the works. The chimera of goat and sheep is lab created but still causes some confusion in this area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geep).
To take Genesis 1:24 and interpret to mean that no living thing can come from something not living takes a bit of a logical leap, but not much of one. Gen 1:24 only talks about making babies from mothers which already exist and were created from nothing by God as said in verses 1,11 and 21. The text doesn’t explicitly address whether animals can come from nothing or not. The question is implicitly answered by the fact that God just created them from nothing.
So, you can see it two ways. You can see it as implicitly stating that life must produce other life since God alone can create life. Or, you can see it as limited to talking about reproduction of species. Either way is parsing words I think, although the first one has the prerequisite of belief while the second does not. If we are talking about comparing science and religion any statement that requires religious belief in order to answer is a nonstarter. I’m not qualified to make that distinction, I’m not a biblical scholar.
To me the fact that Prions exist (protiens which reproduce and cause diseases such as Mad Cow and CJD http://tinyurl.com/s2vsd) and are able to reproduce and infect without so much as a genome points to a progession from-molecules-to-more-complex-molecules-to-life. This is bolstered by viruses which are basically the step up from Prions in that they have a genetic code but are still not alive. Further still the Miller-Urey experiments show the possibility of beginning this progression from very simple molecules (http://tinyurl.com/wl8cr). Still, I have to admit that there has been no confirmed cases of abiogenesis scientifically so this is just my hunch, not fact. You could easily be just as right as I am on this.
I’ll give you this statement if you want it. To argue it further would be parsing the shades of words.
I would like to see your answers to the replies above as I am very confused by your logic on several, as you can see.
Wow, I really liked this post. It’s interesting to see all of the “common sense” that come from the OT, like antiviral soap. Cool beans, Scott.
Response to Jens’ skepticism,
Concerning the world being round, this Scripture is clearly referring to creation before the creation of the Sun, so it is not the circuit of the Sun. Where on earth can I go see a visible circular horizon? Just read the verse along with Job 26:10 and Isaiah 40:22.
There is no life in a seed between dispersal and germination. It is dead or in other words dormant.
Ancient people had stupid ideas about their waste. Did Egyptians use excrement and urine for medicine? Where did most European cities in the Middle Ages dump their waste?
The following article will suffice in answering you’re other errors concerning the medical foreknowledge. It presents what people did believe for which you think they should have just figured out.
“Scientific Foreknowledge and Medical Acumen of the Bible”
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3159
Regarding the water cycle, no, it was not discovered in detail until Pierre Perrault. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9059317/Pierre-Perrault
There are over sextillion stars and the ancients did try to number them. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1791
See my blog for a discussion of this point by point. I’m very skeptical as you might imagine. I’d enjoy your elaboration on sme of the points.
http://jenshegg.blogspot.com/