HomeMenu of Articles.Two questions evolution can't answer.Interview with the writer.Offer to church groups.Contact information.Christian links.BONUS LINK - What really happens to the unsaved?
twoscientist.jpg

Scientific discoveries that prove the Bible

Although some try, this writer thinks it is circular reasoning to quote the Bible to prove the Bible. Let's take this approach instead: Is there any scientific knowledge in the Bible that was over and above human knowledge at the time written? If so, wouldn't that be strong evidence that the Bible was written by a higher intelligence? Let's look at six scientific discoveries that do just that. In addition, let's add one bonus verification.

Proof number one

Imagine yourself living 3,000 years ago. Further imagine yourself writing a book.

 

Like everyone else in your day, you wonder what holds up the earth. Surely it has to rest on something. (We know about the force of gravity only because modern scientists have discovered it.) Aside from that knowledge, living on the earth, observing only what a human can see and feel, wouldn't it be the logical, indeed the only conclusion that the earth rests on or is supported by something physical?

 

Gravity not having been discovered, what did ancient man believe the earth rested on? The book "World Mythology" (1) says this "The world was often said to rest on the back of a turtle". Wouldn't that make sense to human beings living thousands of years ago? Wouldn't it seem logical that the earth would rest on something slow and steady? Yes it would. So, not knowing better, a giant turtle might be thought of as an ideal platform for the earth.

 

Not all cultures believed in the turtle answer though. Reference (2) tells us more " When one examines the writings of the Hindu, Buddhist or Greek pagan worships, for example, one finds clear reference to the concept of the earth being held up by a man, elephant, catfish, or some other physical support."

 

The Encyclopedia Americana (13) tells us about ancient man's belief about the earth, "The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe".

 

Whatever the particular answer, ancient logic and belief was that the earth had some kind of physical support.

 

How then was the Bible able to get it right? How could a man writing a book - 2,800 years before the discovery of gravity - possibly get it right?

 

Notice what the Bible says in Job 26:7, "He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth on nothing".

 

All of us have seen pictures of the earth taken from outer space. Isn't that exactly how the earth appears? As if it is hung on nothing? And indeed, isn't gravity, the force we now know holds up the earth, something that is not seen?

 

This scientific statement, written 3,000 years ago, was against all that was known at the time. I submit to you that this correct knowledge, this scientifically accurate picture, came from something or someone higher than man; that a higher intelligence is revealed.

Proof number two

Let's look at more Bible statements. This time about fountains, or springs, or wells, in the oceans. (The Hebrew word used in the Bible can mean any of those three).

 

Notice Gen 7:1, telling about the flood. It says, "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life...were all the fountains [springs] of the great deep broken up..."

 

Notice Prov 8:29 that says, "Wisdom was there when God established the clouds above, and strengthened the fountains [springs] of the deep."

Are there really fountains or springs in the oceans? If your answer is that the Bible was wrong about that, you would have seemed correct for some 3,000 years. Correct until 1977 that is. Despite sixty years of modern submarine activity, ocean springs were unknown and undiscovered until 1977.

 

With only 5% of the ocean floor explored guess what? In 1977 scientists found springs in the ocean off the coast of Ecuador. (8) They were found at an ocean depth of 1.5 miles! They contain super heated water of about 450 degrees, and are called Hot Springs.

The article reported more springs. It said scientists exploring another section of ocean expected to find springs 125 to 200 miles apart. Instead they were much closer together. The scientists found six springs about 60 miles apart. As you consider this, remember that the springs were discovered with only 5% of the ocean floor explored. How many more springs might there be in the other 95%?

 

The discovery of ocean springs - a blow to Bible skeptics

As a side note, some Bible skeptics claim the oceans and the atmosphere together do not contain enough water to flood the earth to the depth needed to cover the mountains. That criticism does not hold up after the discovery of ocean springs, because the Bible says the springs in the oceans were broken up at the time of the flood, which would increase their flow.

 

These newly discovered springs cause even more problems for Bible skeptics. How much extra water could the broken up springs produce? Notice this quote (9) "There is probably as much water circulating under the sea floor as there is in the oceans above."

 

Isn't that remarkable? You might want to ponder that a moment.

 

The Bible statements about springs in the oceans, written 3,000 years ago, were against all logic, all that was known, or indeed could possibly have been known, at the time. I submit to you that this correct scientific knowledge came from something or someone higher than man; it reveals a higher intelligence.

 

Proof number three

I recently gave a message at the Church of God, Terre Haute, Indiana. Included in the message was a reference that no new cells are being created today. I based that on studies where scientists agree, "All cells come only from existing cells." (For more information footnote (7).)

One of my listeners, Levi, was certainly paying attention. He came to me afterward to ask a good question; "If no new cells are being created today, where do the trillions of our body cells body come from?"

 

Levi's question prompted me to do more research on cells. That research led me to what I consider proof of the Bible number three.

 

In Gen 35:11 the Bible tells us this, "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of you, and kings shall come out of your loins."

 

There are five other references to "coming out of your loins" in Genesis, Exodus, Kings, and Chronicles.

 

Let's notice Heb 7:5 that says, "And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood....though they come out of the loins of Abraham". An explanation may be helpful. Abraham is an ancestor to the sons of Levi.

Now notice verse 10 that really makes my point, "For he [Levi] was yet in the loins of his father [Abraham], when Melchizedek met him."

 

A little explanation may again be helpful. The Bible is saying Levi, who was born after Abraham, was present at this earlier meeting because he was there in the loins of his father [Abraham].

Is that factual? Is such a statement scientific? Was Levi present in the loins of his great grand father Abraham? How about us? Were we present in the loins of our father before we were even born? In the loins of our grandfather? Was our father in the loins of his father? What‘s going on here?

My further study of cells showed the Bible statements are very scientific.

The scientific evidence

In previous studies I had read several scientific statements like this, "Cells come only from existing cells." The conclusion given in my message that new cells are no longer being created was correct. The confusion arises from the fact that new cells are being made, but they come only from an already existing parent cell.

Levi's question that prompted me to do more study led to a better definition from the book "Cell and Molecular Biology"(5) "Cells can only arise by division from a pre-existing cell." So what appears to be newly created cells are actually existing cells dividing themselves.

Every human starts out as one cell, which divides and multiplies. That one cell was the result of an existing cell - one from each parent. Where did our parent's one starting cell come from? From their parents.

 

Lewis Thomas (6) puts it this way, "You start out as a single cell derived from the coupling of a sperm and an egg".

 

"The Way Life Works" (4) says, "We each began as an egg fertilized by a sperm, a single cell."

 

Biologist Gerald Karp explains it this way, (5) "The production of offspring by sexual reproduction includes the union of two cells,"

 

So there you have it. We start out as a single cell, which resulted from the union of two cells, one from our father and one from our mother. Our parents in turn started from the union of existing cells from their father and mother. And we can go back through our ancestors. All came from existing cells.

 

Which means, and this is vital, that original cell existed in your parents before you were born.

 

All humans, and indeed science tells us, all life including animals and plants, came from cells that existed in their parents.

 

I belong to the Spencer family genealogical society. Our lineage is traced back to four brothers who immigrated to Connecticut in 1630. Their parents were born in 1576 in Stotfold, England. .

The point is that for $99.00 the Society will do a DNA test to establish that a member did or did not come from a particular ancestor. Many members are taking advantage of this comparatively low priced service. This ability to DNA test for a far back ancestor I find quite remarkable.

My son Craig told me his family obtained a mixed breed dog from the pound. He added that for a $1,000 the pound will do a blood test and tell them exactly what breeds his dog's ancestors were. I find that also quite remarkable.

It's all about ancestors

So it's all about ancestors, isn't it? Just as the Bible said!

Reference (6) supports these conclusions as it says this, "All of today's DNA, strung through all the cells of the earth, is simply an extension and elaboration of that first molecule." Substitute cell for molecule and it goes back to the first cell, even to Adam and Eve.

 

Reference (5) sums it up well when it says, "Cell division, therefore, forms the link between a parent and its offspring; between living species and their extinct ancestors."

 

So the many Bible statements about "being in the loins of" are accurate, are scientific.

 

But how did the Bible writers know that scientific principle thousands of years ago?

 

It was not until 1855 that a German scientist named Rudolf Virchow learned about cells and stated that "All cells come from existing cells." (7) Even then Virchow's statement about cells was not universally accepted until it was finally proven correct with the explosion of modern cell research in the 1950's.

 

The book adds that in 1880 August Weismann pointed out that, since cells come from pre-existing cells, "all cells today can trace their origins back to ancient cells." Yes, science says we indeed can trace our present day cells back to the ancient cells of our ancestors.

 

The Bible statements written from 3,000 to nearly 2,000 years ago were based on cell knowledge not known at the time. I submit to you that this accurate scientific knowledge came from something or someone higher than man; it could only have come from a higher intelligence.

Proof number four

The Encyclopedia Americana (13) tells us this about a flat earth, "The earliest known image that men had of the earth was that it was a flat, rigid platform at the center of the universe". The well known historian, Richard Pipes, (21) adds this, "...living 500 years ago, in the 15th Century, the vast majority of the people believed that the earth is flat".

 

So where did the knowledge in this Bible statement come from? "It is he who sits upon the circle of the earth." (14) That verse was written about two thousand eight hundred years ago, written when the only belief was the earth was flat.

 

Not until 200 years after Isaiah's writing did a man start to think the earth might not be flat after all.. Notice as we are told this, "As early as the 6th century B.C., however, some Greek thinkers such as Pythagoras had progressed far enough beyond this simple image to realize that the earth might be a sphere". (13)

 

So it wasn't until two hundred years after Isaiah that Pythagoras considered the earth might be a sphere. And his version was not accepted by many of the people living in his time.

 

When did the idea of a circular earth finally become accepted? We are told this, "The concept of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until the Renaissance, however".(13) Just as Pipes confirmed in his writing.

 

 

So it appears Isaiah's scientifically correct Bible statement was written two thousand three hundred years before a round earth was widely accepted.

 

A skeptic might argue, "OK, so the general wisdom in Isaiah's day was the earth was flat. There still could have been someone in Isaiah's time who thought the earth was round, and that is where Isaiah got his idea".

 

Let's take up a skeptic's argument and see if it makes sense for Isaiah to have gone against the wisdom of his day.

 

First we have to acknowledge there are only two alternatives:

1) Either Isaiah was writing solely himself, which means he was lying when he said he was writing at God's direction. Or,

2) It was written by a higher intelligence communicating to his human creatures through Isaiah.

 

Logically, it has to be one or the other.

 

So let's examine the first alternative. If it was written by a man entirely on his own, wouldn't that man want his writings to be accepted by his peers? And for the man to receive that acceptance, wouldn't the writer have had to follow the prevailing wisdom of his day?

 

There you have the vital crux of the matter.

 

It seems evident that the pre-dominant wisdom at the time of the writing, in the eighth century B.C., was that the earth was flat. Therefore for Isaiah to write otherwise would subject him to the disdain and ridicule of his peers.

 

We then have to consider, why would a man write a book entirely of his own making, while at the same time claiming what he wrote came from God?

 

Wouldn't it be to elevate himself in the eyes of others? Wouldn't it be to advance his own glory and edification? Wouldn't it be to gain a measure of prestige for himself?

 

Yes, yes, yes to all of those.

 

So if Isaiah was a man writing for his own glory and edification, surely the last thing he would do in his writings would be to go against the conventional beliefs of his day!

 

So it took courage for Isaiah to write about a circular earth. It went against everything at the time. Doesn't it seem what Isaiah wrote came from a being who knew the earth was circular, and not flat?

 

I submit that Isaiah writing about a circular earth two thousand three hundred years before a round earth was widely accepted is proof number five.

 

Proof number five

There is an another revealing section of the Bible found in Isaiah 40:12 "Behold the nations are like a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance; behold, he [ the creator] takes up the coasts as a very little thing."

 

How do you react to that verse?

 

Is it silly? Is it foolish? Is it folly to say that whole nations are like a "drop in a bucket"? How about saying the coasts are a very little thing? Isn't that just as far-fetched?

 

We know those descriptions can't possibly be literal, don't we? What reason could Isaiah have had to write such nonsense?

 

Those reactions, or something like them, made perfect sense - until the twentieth century that is. For it was only during the past one hundred years that scientists were able to look into the atom, which is the building block of all the matter in the universe.

What did they find? They found as incredible as it sounds - that atoms are mostly empty space!

 

What does that mean? It means there is very little actual substance or mass in everything around us.

 

It will be necessary to lay a foundation for me to show readers how scientifically accurate is the verse in Isaiah 40. Please bear with me, for it is necessary.

 

The first point about the building blocks of all matter is that atoms are very tiny. I will let some science sources speak for themselves.

 

"Everything around us is made up of atoms. An atom is incredibly tiny - more than a million times smaller than the thickness of a human hair. (15)

 

The smallest speck that can be seen under a microscope contains more than 10 billion atoms. (15)

"Each of your fingertips, for instance, contains a trillion atoms." (17)

 

So atoms are incredibly small.

 

The second point about these "building blocks" is that most of their mass is in the tiny, tiny nucleus. Notice:

 

"At least 99.995% of the mass of each atom resides in a tiny nucleus composed of protons and neutrons." (17)

 

If most of the matter is contained in the nucleus, how big is the nucleus compared to the rest of the atom that contains only 0.005% of the mass? Here are some answers:

 

"If the typical atom were the size of a football field, the nucleus would be a grain of salt at midfield." (17)

 

"If a hydrogen atom were about 4 miles in diameter, its nucleus would be no bigger than a tennis ball." (15)

 

"If the atom were to be inflated until it filled an Olympic stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a pea lying alone in the center of the track." (18)

 

Since almost all of the mass of an atom is in an even tinier, tinier nucleus, what is the rest of an atom filled with? Let our experts confirm that an atom is mostly empty space:

 

From the reference that told us our fingertips contain a trillion atoms, we have this, "Surprisingly, there is still plenty of nothing in those fingertips." (17)

 

Writing about the rest of an atom outside of its nucleus, one author put it like this, "A cloud of electrons marks the atom's outer bounds. The rest is a void".(17)

 

A recent issue of Discover magazine had an article about the emptiness of atoms and thus the emptiness of the matter that is made from atoms.

 

The title of the article all by itself helped make my point because it was....Much ado about Nothing". (17) The sub-title of the article reinforced my point nicely because it was....."Time to let go of Matter, Emptiness is what Rules the Universe".

 

Since the building blocks of all matter are themselves mostly empty space, are you starting to see how scientifically accurate Isaiah's statement is? Remember, he said, "The nations are like a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance, behold, he takes up the coasts as a very little thing."

 

Don't modern scientists, time after time, say much the same thing?

 

Need more? How about this one? "All matter is like this [empty]. Take a man and squeeze the empty spaces out of him, like the holes in a sponge, and you are left with a little pile of solid substance, no larger than a flyspeck." (18)

 

The author added this observation, "We are like hollow men and our insubstantial bodies are strung together with electromagnetic and nuclear forces that do no more than create the illusion of matter."

 

Reference (19) puts it like this, "The dimension at which compressed matter becomes a black hole is called the Radius. For Planet Earth, the radius would be the size of a pearl. Can anyone imagine this entire planet squeezed down to the size of a pearl?" (Well, yes, one did. Some 2,800 years ago.)

 

Another reference (8) says this, "Scientists describe a black hole as a single point in space that is infinitely dense. That is hard to grasp, but think about the head of a pin. Now imagine everything on the Earth, the trees, the houses, the beaches, the oceans, [we might say the nations] everything fitting into the head of that pin. The point in space where a black hole exists is infinitely smaller than the head of that pin, yet anything can be compressed and fit into it."

 

So it seems the latest scientific discoveries confirm that all of the matter that makes up a man, or makes up the whole earth, with the emptiness removed, would be the size of a flyspeck, or a pearl, or fit into the head of a pin!

 

For a Bible skeptic, could it get worse? Yes it could. You see Isaiah had more wording that sounds strangely like he knew about twentieth century physics. Writing about the creator, we find this, "Who has measured...the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance"? (19)

 

Haven't we just read that all the dust of the earth can fit into a measure, all the matter in the mountains can be compressed so as to fit on scales, and the hills can be compressed and their actual material would fit in a balance?

 

It took a different mind to write that way

What do humans see as they look around at their physical world? Don't we see objects that appear solid and substantial? Isn't it the furthest thing from our minds that they are made up of atoms - atoms that are mostly empty space?

 

But if you were the creator of that physical matter, wouldn't you see them for what they really are? Wouldn't you see them as trillions and trillions of atoms - atoms that are mostly empty space?

 

I submit these verses in Isaiah came not from a mere man writing of his own very limited knowledge, but came from the Creator God. The creator who looks at the earth and everything on it and sees it for what modern science says it is - innumerable atoms that contain very little actual mass or substance.

 

In the final analysis, modern science confirms that the whole earth and everything on it are specks of dust.

 

There is no way a man writing two thousand eight hundred years ago would have had a clue about atoms and their emptiness. Those verses in Isaiah chapter 40 are proof - and strong proof indeed - number five that the Bible is the result of a higher intelligence.

 

Proof number six

The book of Ecclesiastes was written about 3,000 years ago. Imagine yourself living in that time. What would you know about the wind? Only what you could see and feel, right? You would know the wind blows some days very strong, some days very little, some days none at all. Sometimes from the north, then south, then east and west.

 

In short, all you would know are two things:

1) The wind without any advance pattern to it can come from any direction.

2) The velocity of the wind varies without any advance pattern, from strong to weak to none at all.

How, then, could you possibly make this statement in Eccl 1:6? "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again to its circuits." Notice the key words: "whirls about continually" and "its circuits".

 

This statement, against everything a human could observe and possibly know, stood by itself for nearly three thousand years!

It took a French mathematician named Coeriolis, who died in 1843, to study and identify wind circuits. What Coeriolis discovered supported the Bible statement in Ecclesiastes, not just in one way, but in three ways.

 

First notice the Bible said wind goes south and turns about unto the north. Coeriolis found the wind goes clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, and then turns about and goes counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere!

Named for him, the Coriolis effect is very important in understanding wind and ocean currents.

 

Second, are there in fact wind circuits? The World Book Encyclopedia has a diagram showing the known wind systems, or circuits. Their diagram is a map of the earth with little arrows showing the location and direction of each wind circuit. How many are there? Their diagram has plotted 28 circuits!

 

But there's more. You have heard your local TV weather personalities refer to the "jet stream" and how it affects your local weather. Jet streams do exist. And, as we know, streams, are continual, the opposite of intermittent. They too have established circuits. The jet streams have winds at speeds of up to 200 mph. World War II pilots first discovered them.

 

Third, the Bible said the wind whirls about continually. How could an observer on the ground possibly know that? In fact at ground level the wind blows the very opposite of continually. But obviously the higher winds do. If they didn't, the encyclopedia could not diagram 28 of their circuits.

 

Eccl 1:6 made no sense in 1,000 BC, and no sense for 2,800 years until the research of Coeriolis in the early 1800s.

 

That Bible statement about the winds written 3,000 years ago, was against all logic, all that was known, or indeed could be know, at the time. I submit to you that this correct knowledge, this scientifically accurate picture, came from something or someone higher than man; it was inspired by a higher intelligence.

 

What is the significance of these proofs of the Bible?

As pointed out in "Creation Corner" articles, we are not to use the Bible to prove the existence of the creator. Instead we are told to look at the things that have been made; things outside of the Bible. This particular study has attempted to do just that - prove the Bible by coupling Bible statements with things discovered outside of the Bible.

 

Why is proving the Bible important?

Why is it important to have the credibility and authority of the Bible verified?

Because the Bible serves these major purposes:

1) It explains life and death.

2) It gives history, things that were done poorly and things done well, that humans can learn from.

3) It reveals Jesus as personal savior who voluntarily died a very humiliating and painful death that his human creatures might have eternal life.

4) It explains God's plan and purpose for his human creatures.

5) It contains instructions from the creator advising humans how to live their physical lives to gain for themselves the most fulfillment and happiness.

6) In short, because it is the Maker's Instruction Manual of how to live.

 

The Creator in other religions

Before we look at how the Bible handles creation different than other religions, let's first acknowledge that other religions and cultures also recognize a creator.

1) Hinduism believes in Brahma the creator. Then Hindus proceed to worship hundreds of other gods. Just as warned in the Bible, Hindus worship the creatures instead of the creator.

2) Surprising to me Islam teaches a creator of the cosmos. But Muslims then proceed to follow the teachings of Muhammad, a mere human being. In that sense they, too, worship a created being instead of the creator.

3) A previous (11) article showed that a creator is a common belief around the world. But like the others, their worship generally ends up being the creatures and not the creator.

 

How does the Bible handle creation differently?

The first way Christianity is different is that Christians worship the creator, not the creatures. An absolutely vital difference.

 

The second way Christianity is different from the others is that in the Christian religion, Jesus the Christ, the one who did the creating, is revealed and worshipped as personal savior.

The third way Christianity is different from all other religions is the Bible. How? Because it is the only religion where the creator claims to communicate to His human creatures. That communication is through the Bible. Proving the accuracy of Bible statements helps establish the credibility of the creator's communication.

 

Number seven - a bonus verification of Bible accuracy

For centuries skeptics said the Bible was stories and myths told by ignorant shepherds and nomads. For example, the skeptics taunted, where is the city called Ur? It could not be found.

 

Ur was the city the Bible patriarch Abraham was said to have left to dwell the rest of his life (about 125 years) in tents as commanded by God. The account is found in Gen 12:1 and 15:7. Neh 9:7 also confirms it. The New Testament talks about it in Heb 11:9-10.

 

So for hundreds of years the skeptics had a field day with Ur. Because it was not found, the skeptics said Ur proved the Bible wrong; proved the Bible to be myths and unfounded legends.

 

But in 1854 the city of Ur was found!

Not much excavation work was done however. It took an Englishman named Leonard Wooley to excavate Ur. He labored there from 1922 until 1934. What Wooley found amazed scholars and laymen alike.

It turned out Ur had been a powerful, prosperous, colorful and busy capital and trade center. It was a sophisticated city, highly organized. In a surprising contrast, Babylon the Great had simple mud buildings. But Ur, which was built 1,200 years before Babylon, had homes made of burnt brick, much like ours today.

Were the homes in Ur a simple 3 or 4 rooms? No! Wooley found they had been 2 story villas, with 13-14 rooms surrounding a courtyard. They had a modern lavatory up the stairway. There was more than enough room for the family, their servants, and guests.

One workshop made 12 kinds of clothing. The names of the mill girls and their quota of rations, even to the weight of wool given each worker, and what each produced, was all recorded.

Tax receipts had been meticulously kept by week, month, and year.

How about mathematics? Tables and formulas computing square and cube roots were found.

How about architecture? Surprisingly the architects of UR used all of today's engineering techniques; the column, arch, vault, and dome,

The Ziggfurat, which was the city's main religious structure, was built 400 years before Abraham. It was three stories high, with walls that all sloped inward, there was not a straight line in it. All walls were slightly curved so as to minimize what would otherwise be an over powering strength effect. The principle is called "entasis", and was lost after Ur and not re-discovered till the Parthenon at Athens.

So the finding and lengthy excavating of Ur took away the skeptics taunts and claims. Ur became yet another scientific discovery that proves the Bible was accurate.

A Review

Let's review the seven scientific discoveries that this writer believes prove the accuracy of statements found in the Bible:

1) The earth is hung on nothing. Just as discovered by modern science and as today's space photos so clearly show.

2) There are springs in the oceans. They were discovered even though only 5% of the ocean bottom has so far been explored. The problem for Bible scoffers is they were not discovered until 1977.

3) The scientific study of cells, not done until 1855, shows we do come from our parents cells, they from their parents, and so on. Our first cell was in the loins of our parents before we were even born.

4) The Bible talked about a circular earth while mankind still believed the earth was flat.

5) Twentieth century discoveries into the atom reveal that all matter is mostly empty space, and can be compressed into mere specks of mass, just as the Bible said.

6) Coriolis discovered that the winds do turn about at the equator; going clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, and going counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.

7) There are wind circuits - twenty-eight of them as diagrammed in the World Book Encyclopedia.

8) Although the wind blows intermittently with different velocities near ground level, it does blow continuously in the atmosphere; thus the jet streams and the diagram of 28 circuits.

M 9) The problem for Bible scoffers is these wind characteristics were not discovered until the early 1800s.

10) After centuries of skeptics taunting the accuracy of the Bible, the city of Ur was found in 1854. And what a marvelous city it was!

 

So there you have it

Seven scientific discoveries this writer says prove the Bible's authority and credibility - prove it had scientific knowledge not available to the men who wrote it. What do you say?

 

C. Frazier Spencer

 

References and Footnotes:

Note: Italics, bold, and underlining are sometimes added to references for emphasis.

(1) "World Mythology" by Donna Rosenberg, published 1994 by NTC Pub. Group, Lincolnwood, IL.

(2) "Myths and Legends" by Neil Philip, published 1999 by DK Publishing, NY.

(3) "Creation Corner" article "Evolution and Humans are just Animals".

(4) "The Way Life Works" by Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson, published 1995 Times Books, NY.

(5) "Cell and Molecular Biology" by Gerald Karp, published by John Wiley and Sons, NY.

(6) "The Medusa and the Snail" by Lewis Thomas, published 1979 by Viking Press, NY.

(7) "Introductary Biology" by Linda R. Berg, published 1997 by Saunders College Publishing.

(8) "Science News" Oct. 24, 1998, article by Sarah Simpson.

(9) From the web site spacedaily.com/news/life-03h.html.

(10)"My Life and Work" by Henry Ford, published 1973 by Arno Press, Inc. From the original work published in 1922. (This book should be on everyone's to read list.)

(11) "Sex and the Origins of Death" by William R. Clark, published 1996 by Oxford University Press, NY.

(12) For more details see the article "Evolution vs. Humans are just Animals".

(13) Encyclopedia Americana 2002 edition, article "Earth".

(14) Isaiah 40:22. According to Strong's Concordance, the Hebrew word for circle means just that, a circle.

(15) World Book Encyclopedia 2004 edition, article "Atoms".

(17) "Discover" magazine, columnist Bob Berman in his column, "Sky Lights".

(18) "Super Nature" by Lyall Watson, Bantam Books edition published 1974.

(19) Isaiah 40:12

(20) Sorry, I really did read it, but not realizing it fit in somewhere, did not note the source.

(21) "Vixi: Memoirs of a Non-belonger" by Richard Pipes, published 2003 by Yale University Press, New Haven and London, CT.