Category: I2 – Physical Science

by John Holbrook Jr.
A Biblical View, Blog #100 posted August 5, 2019, edited March 10, 2021.

Prelude

Most people can tell the difference between (a) dead things like rocks and (b) live things like flowers, kittens, or boys and girls. Thus, the difference between death and life is usually pretty obvious. Moreover, they know that there is a hierarchy to living things: plants are inferior to animals in complexity and abilities, and animals are inferior to humans in complexity and abilities, but just what is the quality or phenomenon which they share, which we call life. Who can explain it? I can’t, and I have not found anyone that can. It is one of the mysteries of Universe. Nonetheless, God has given us some clues concerning where to look.

This essay is divided into three sections: (1) the Kingdoms of Nature, (2) the Bible is Full of Numbers, and (3) the Source of Life.,

1 – The Kingdoms of Nature

There are four categories into which the natural world can be divided.: the three classical kingdoms (1) the Mineral Kingdom, (2) the Vegetable Kingdom, and (3) the Animal Kingdom and (4) the Human Kingdom which I separate out from the Animal Kingdom for reasons that will become evident.

1a – The Mineral Kingdom

The mineral kingdom consists of physical material – all compounds of the 118 known chemical elements. These compounds exhibit energy when in the form of the four classical elements or temperaments:
•  air, from which we obtain oxygen, in which birds can fly, but which often blows things hither and yon, often to their destruction,
•  earth, on which we can stand, from which we grow our food, but which often erodes and buries things,
•  fire, from which we derive warmth for our bodies and heat for our cooking, but which often melts and consumes things, and
•  water, which we can drink, on which we can float, in which we and fish can swim, but which often drowns and destroys things.

But these elements are inert in the sense that they cannot extract energy from their environment to live, grow, and reproduce. They can only release energy when (a) they are broken down into their component parts, as in a nuclear reaction, or (b) they pass on the energy of the forces that act on them. They are dead. They are lifeless.

1b – The Vegetable Kingdom

The vegetable kingdom consists of flora (or plants). They live by absorbing (a) radiant energy from sunlight or (b) nutrients from the ground. They grow, reproduce their own kinds, and die. They are immobile in the sense that their roots are fixed in place. They are unconscious and therefore unable to sense pleasure and pain, and they are unable to communicate with one another.[1] They are what Alfred Korzybski calls the energy-binding class of life.[2]

1c – The Animal Kingdom

The animal kingdom consists of all creatures excepting humans – i.e. animals, birds, fish, insects, and creeping things. They move around; they live by foraging for nutritious plants and hunting for other creatures, both of which they eat and convert to energy. They grow, reproduce their own kinds, and die. They are conscious and therefore able to sense pleasure and pain, and they are able to communicate with one another to a limited extent. They are unable, however, to receive information from previous generations and to pass on information to subsequent generations, so they are unable to learn as a species and develop any kind of civilization over time. They are what Korzybski calls the space-binding class of life.

1d -The Human Kingdom

The human kingdom consists of only one creature – humans. Like other creatures, they move around; they live by foraging for and raising nutritious plants and hunting for and raising other creatures, both of which they eat and convert to energy. They grow, reproduce their own kind, and die. They are conscious and therefore able to sense pleasure and pain. They are able to communicate with one another to an almost unlimited extent. They are also able to receive information from previous generations and to pass information down to subsequent generations, so they are able to learn as a species and develop civilizations over time. They are what Korzybski calls the time-binding class of life. Humans are more than time-binders, however, because individually they possess a spiritual component which, when quickened by the Holy Spirit, enables a person to perceive spiritual reality – something which Korzybski and many others fail to understand.

2 – Numbers in the Bible

2a – The Numerical Values in Verbal Texts

The Bible is written almost entirely in Hebrew and Greek.[3] Both languages lack separate symbols for numerals. Thus their letters serve as building blocks for both words and numbers. Aleph & alpha = 1; beth & beta = 2; gimel & gamma = 3. daleth & delta = 4; he & epsilon = 5; etc. As a result, every Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible carries a numerical value (hereafter NV), as does every phrase, sentence, paragraph, and book in it. These NVs have been the subject of study for centuries, first by rabbis using the tools of Gematria and now by Christian pastors and laymen using the tools of Gematria, Numerics, and Theomatics.[4]

At this point I must call your attention to Bonnie Gaunt’s book, Genesis One.[5] All her books are about the numeric fingerprints that God has imbedded in his creation, which become obvious when you decipher what the Bible says with the tools of Gematria, but this one concentrates on the creation of Universe and life. I can’t recommend it too highly.

Before proceeding, I need to mention two things:
•  First, the definition of a prime number is a number which has only one and itself as divisors.
•  Second, according to Gaunt, in Gematria the meaning of an NV is unchanged by the introduction or removal of zeros.

2b – The Numbers 3 and 7

In my mention of Ontological Orders above, I referred to the primordial realm, which the Ancients called materia prima and which I define elsewhere as “…a world of something, but the something is undifferentiated – i.e. without forms and substances.”[6] Its Hebrew equivalent is golem, which means “unformed matter.” Golem has a NV of 73. It is a prime number and is composed of two other prime numbers – i.e. 3 and 7, which turn out to be unusual.

First, all nine digits in mathematics can be expressed in terms of these two numbers: 1 = 7 – (3+3), 2 = 3² – 7, 3 = 3, 4 = 7 – 3, 5 = 7 + 7 – 3², 6 = 3+3, 7 = 7, 8 = (7+7) – (3+3), and 9 = 3².[7]

Second, Gaunt points out that all the Hebrew names for the fundamental ingredients of Universe – contain these numbers. Consider Einstein’s equation e = mc²”, where “e” = energy, “m” = mass, and “c” = “the speed of light through space.” [8] In this form, it is the formula for the destruction of matter, in the process of which a small amount of matter is converted into an enormous amount of energy, as in a nuclear explosion.[9] Now consider Einstein’s equation in another form, e/c² = m.  In this form, it is the formula for the creation of matter, in the process of which an enormous amount of energy is converted into a small amount of matter.

Now let’s look at this formula using Gematria. E = energy, the equivalent of which is “power” (or “might,” which I prefer and use hereafter). The Hebrew words for “might” are (a) ool, the NV of which is 37, (b) mashal, the NV of which is 370 or 37, and (c) echen, the NV of which is 37, and thus, 37 can be substituted for “e” in the equations. C² = the speed of light through space, the equivalent of which is light itself. The Hebrew words for “light” (a) are owr, the NV of which is 207 or 27, and (b) nare, the NV of which is 270 or 27, and thus 27 can be substituted for “c²” in the equation. Thus, using the altered form of Einstein’s equation, “(ool, mashal, echen, or might) ÷ (owr, nare, or light) = matter” or “37 ÷ 27 = 1.37037037… ad infinitum,” which, if multiplied by 100, equals “137.037,037,037 ad infinitum.”

2c – The Mysterious 137

137.037037037 ad infinitum turns out to be a very interesting number. First, most people who have studied and written about numbers in the Bible agree that “1” represents God, “3” represents the Godhead or Trinity, and “7” represents spiritual perfection. All are present in the number 137. Second, Gaunt points out that it is a very close approximation of 137.0359997, which is the fine-structure constant in physics and denoted by alpha in mathematical equations. A website dedicated to the physicist Richard Feynman contains an article entitled The Mysterious 137, which notes the following about Feynman’s interest in it:

Richard Feynman…believed that there were still many things that experts, or in this case, physicists, did not know. One of these ‘unknowns’ that he pointed out often to all of his colleagues was the mysterious number 137.  This number is the value of the fine-structure constant (the actual value is one over one-hundred and thirty seven), which is defined as the charge of the electron (q) squared over the product of Planck’s constant (h) times the speed of light (c). This number actually represents the probability that an electron will absorb a photon. However, this number has more significance in the fact that it relates three very important domains of physics: electromagnetism in the form of the charge of the electron, relativity in the form of the speed of light, and quantum mechanics in the form of Planck’s constant. Since the early 1900’s, physicists have thought that this number might be at the heart of a GUT, or Grand Unified Theory, which could relate the theories of electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, and most especially gravity.  However, physicists have yet to find any link between the number 137 and any other physical law in the universe.[10]

The above comment was followed by a quote from one of Feynman’s books substantiating his anticipation of the general connection between the quantum coupling constant and “p.”

There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e, the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to -0.08542455. (My physicist friends won’t recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to p or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms?  Nobody knows. It’s one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the “hand of God” wrote that number, and “we don’t know how He pushed his pencil.” We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don’t know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!

To summarize what is important in all of the above:
•  In Hebrew, the NV of “light” 27 = 3 x 3 x 3.
•  In Hebrew, the NV of “might” is 37.
•  In Hebrew, the NV of “unformed matter” is 73.
•  In Hebrew, the NV of “matter” is (the NV of might = 37) divided by (the NV of light = 27), which equals 1.37.037037037…ad infinitum and, if multiplied by 100, equals a very, very, very close approximation of 137.
•  In Hebrew, (the NV of “light” = 27) + (the NV of “might” = 37) + (the NV of “unformed matter” = 73) = (the NV of “matter” = 137) – i.e. the Creator used his light and his might to compress “unformed matter” into matter, which he then used to construct Universe.
•  In Hebrew, the NV of “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is 2,701 = 37 x 73.

In addition to the above, it is worth mentioning that
•  In Hebrew (Daniel 4:2), the NV of “God” is 37.
•  In Hebrew (Genesis 3:9), the NV of “Jehovah God” is 111 = 3 x 37.
•  In Greek, the NV of “God” is 555 = 5 x (111 = 3 x 37).
•  In Greek, the NV of “Jesus” is 888 = 8 x (111 = 3 x 37).
•  In Greek (Revelation 15:3), the NV of “Lord God” is 888 = 8 x (111 = 3 x 37).
•  In Greek (John 1:41), the NV of “the Messiah” is 925 = 25 x (111 = 3 x 37).
•  In Greek, the NV of “Christ” is 962 = 26 x 37.
•  In Greek (Colossians 2:9), the NV of “Godhead” 962 = 26 x 37.
•  In Greek, the NV of “Lord” is 999 = 9 x (111 = 3 x 37).
•  In Greek (2 Corinthians 4:4), the NV of “Image of God” is 1,369 = 37 x 37.
•  In Greek (Acts 5:40), the NV of “Name of Jesus” is 1,998 = 18 x (111 = 3 x 37).
•  In Greek (1 Peter 4:14), the NV of “Name of Christ” is 2,220 = 20 x (111 = 3 x 37).
•  In Greek (1 Corinthians 5:4), the NV of “Name of the Lord Jesus” is 3,330 = 30 x (111 = 3 x 37).
•  In Greek (Colossians 3:24), the NV of “The Lord Christ” is 40 x (111 = 3 x 37).
•  In Greek (1 Timothy 6:15), the NV of “King of kings and Lord of Lords” is 8,103 = 37 x 111.

3 – The Source of Life

At this point, let’s ask the question, where in humans, animals, and plants does life lie?

3a – What the Bible Says

Let’s start with what the Bible says. The Bible states that “…the life of the flesh is in the blood…” (KJV Leviticus 17:10-11). Clearly, by “flesh,” the Bible is referring to all members of the Human Kingdom and most members of the Animal Kingdom – i.e. mammalian animals, birds, fishes, reptiles, and amphibious creeping things – all of which possess blood-circulatory systems.

Blood chemistry is very complicated, and what I know about it merely scratches its surface. Blood consists of four main components:
•  red cells, which transport oxygen from the lungs or gills, where it was extracted from the air or water, to all body-tissues, where it is converted into carbon-dioxide, and then carries carbon-dioxide from the body-tissues to the lungs or gills, where it is discharged into the air or water;
•  white cells, which protect the body from infection and get rid of dead blood cells;
•  platelets, which clot blood at the site of a cut to prevent excess blood-loss; and
•  plasma, which carries red cells, white cells, platelets, and nutrients throughout the body via the blood-circulatory system.

3b – Hematin & Chlorophyll

Red blood cells contain hematin, which seems to regulate the ability of the plasma to carry oxygen (a) by stimulating the synthesis of globin and (b) by inhibiting the synthesis of porphyrin (I hope I’ve got that right). At any rate, what interests me most about hematin is (a) its presence in the blood and (b) its molecular structure. Here is a diagram of the hematin molecule:

Hematin Molecule ^[11]

 As you can see, the hematin molecule possesses 6 rings, 12 branches, and a total of 137 atoms, at the center of which is an iron atom.

What about plants? Well, the life of plants depends on photosynthesis, which is the process that plants use to convert radiant energy from the sun into chemical energy. Photosynthesis depends on a substance in the plants’ leaves called “chlorophyll.” Here is a diagram of the chlorophyll molecule:

Chlorophyll Molecule ^[12] 

As you can see, the chlorophyll molecule possesses 6 rings, 12 branches, and a total of 137 atoms, at the center of which is a magnesium atom. You will immediately notice that the hematin and chlorophyll molecules are nearly identical. The only difference between them lies in the atoms at their center.

The amazing, structural similarity between the hematin and chlorophyll molecules has led some scientists to refer to chlorophyll as “the blood of plants.” For my purposes here, however, their structural similarity is less important than what they share from the point of view of gematria. You have undoubtedly noticed already that they share the number 137, which is both Richard Feynman’s mysterious number and gematria’s numerical value for God’s might 37 divided by God’s light 27 multiplied by 100. Moreover, there is more.

Gaunt gives us a brief sampling of the appearance of 137 in scripture:
•  137 = “the God of Truth” in (Hebrew (Isaiah 65:16).
•  137 = “the God of gods” in Hebrew (Psalm 136:2).
•  1,370 = “Be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create” in Hebrew (Isaiah 65:18). ^[13]

Perfect numbers are unusual in that they are the sum of their positive divisors, excluding themselves. For example, the first perfect number is 6, which is the sum of its positive divisors: 1, 2, and 3 (6 is excluded). The second perfect number is 28, which is the sum of its positive divisors: 1, 2, 4, 7, and 14 (28 is excluded). The third perfect number is 496, which is the sum of its positive divisors: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 31, 62, 124, and 248, (496 is excluded).  Perfect numbers are very rare, as you can see from the next two in the series: 33,550,336 and 8,589,869,056.

Gaunt points out that the number of protons in hematin is 496, which is the third perfect number, and she gives us a brief sampling of the appearance of 496 in the scriptures:
•  496 = “perfect” in Hebrew.
•  496 = “the blood is the life” in Hebrew (Deuteronomy 12:23).^[14]

3c – God and His Creation

Gaunt then focuses on the name of God, Yahweh, which in Hebrew is spelled – right to left – yod, he, zayin, and he, the numerical values of which are 10, 5, 6, and 5 respectively.

The sum of 5, 6, 5, and 10 is 26, which is one of the numbers for God. Also, it is at the center of the hematin molecule – just so we don’t forget who created us!

The product of 5, 6, 5, and 10 is 1,500, which is the NV for both might and light in Greek.

Moreover, the sum of the squares of 5, 6, 5, and 10 equals 5² + 6² +5² + 10² = 25 + 36 + 25 + 100 = 186. If we add three zeros, we get 186,000, which is a close approximation of the speed of light in miles per second.

Plus, the first verse of the Bible is, “In the beginning, God created the earth and the heavens” (KJV Genesis 1:1). The NV of this verse in Hebrew is 2701, which equals 37 (God,s might) x 73 (unformed matter).

Lastly, put all of these concepts and numbers together: 27 (God’s light) + 37 (God’s might) + 73 (unformed matter) = 137 (matter) = 137 (God’s truth).

3d – A Curious Signal

Here I will interject a note concerning a curious phenomenon. Scientists have discovered that, at the moment of conception, when a sperm enters an egg, the calcium level inside the egg rises, causing the egg to emit a “zinc spark.” Wanting to observe this phenomenon, scientists put an egg in a solution containing a fluorescent tag (FluoZin). When they simulated the process of conception, at the instant of penetration by the sperm, the egg emitted a zinc particle, and the tag (a fluorphore) bonded to it. By illuminating the solution with light of one color, the tag emitted light of another color, which they could see with the help of a microscope.[15]

Initially several Christian publications reported that scientists had discovered that a flash of light is emitted by the egg at the instant of fertilization. That is not an accurate description of what happens. Nonetheless, something unusual does happen, which may be related in some way to the Holy Spirit’s contribution to life’s beginning.

3e – The Giver of Life

Even though we know that hematin and chlorophyll (a) are necessary ingredients in the chemistry of life and (b) bear God’s fingerprints all over them, we must understand that life ultimately requires the action of God himself, for the Bible tells us that “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing…” (KJ21 John 6:63) and “…the Spirit giveth life…” (KJ21 2 Corinthians 3:6), a doctrine which, since 325 AD, has been enshrined in the Nicene Creed, where the Holy Spirit is identified as “…the Lord, the Giver of Life” (line 26).

© 2019 John Holbrook Jr.
________________________________________

[1] Two men who disagree with that assessment were Peter Thompkins and Christopher Bird, who wrote The Secret Life of Plants, Harper & Row, New York, 1973.

[2] See Alfred Korzybski’s Manhood of Humanity (1921, reprint 1950), International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing Company, Lakeville CT. Korzybski divides life (the organic world) into three categories: (1) the energy-binding class of life, which consists of plants, (2) the space-binding class of life, which consists of animals, birds, fish, insects and other non-human creatures, and (3) the time-binding class of life, which contains only humans.

[3] Some passages were written in Aramaic – mostly in Daniel and Ezra. Since this section is mostly concerned with Genesis and Psalms in the OT and John in the NT. I will not spend time on this subject here.

[4] Any partial list of the latter should include Peter Bluer, E.W. Bullinger, John J. Davis, Bonnie Gaunt (Gematria), F.W. Grant, James Harrison, Robert D. Johnson, Don Kistler, Michael Leonard, Max Luna, Ivan Panin (Numerics), Ed F. Vallowe, and Del Washburn (Theomatics).

[5] Gaunt, Bonnie, Genesis One – 888 The Sacred Code of Creation 999, Adventures Unlimited Press, Kempton IL, 2003.

[6] See both Chapter 6 – The Cosmology of the Bible and Appendix 6B – Smith’s Ontological Orders in my book, A Biblical View of Nearly Everything – through the eyes of a curious architect.

[7] Gaunt, op. cit., page 14.

[8] Physicists have determined the speed of light through space to be 186,282 miles per second.

[9] A particle physicist, Adam Jacholkowski, once determined that one atom of uranium-235 generates 202.5 million electron volts, which “…is about 2.5 million times more than the energy released from burning coal” (Wikipedia, July 9, 2019, at https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-1-uranium-atom-release-if-split). Now imagine this process running in reverse and the amount of energy which God used to compress primordial or unformed matter into all the atoms in Universe.

[10] See http://www.feynman.com/science/the-mysterious-137/, which I accessed on July 6, 2019.

[11] Gaunt, Bonnie, op. cit., p. 17.

[12] Grant, Bonnie, op. cit., p. 16.

[13] Grant, Bonnie, op. cit., p. 18.

[14] Grant, Bonnie, op. cit., p. 19.

[15] I found this information in an article by Stacy Trasancos entitled Contrary to Reports, There is No Flash of Light at Conception – see: file:///F:/Documents/RES%202-OTHER/PROSE/Science%20-%20Conception/2016-05-23%20Contrary%20to%20Reports,%20There%20is%20No%20Flash%20of %20Light%20at%20Conception%20by%20Stacey%20Trasancos.pdf

by John Holbrook Jr.
A Biblical View, Blog #066 posted November 12, 2018, edited March 10, 2021.

Theistic evolutionists claim that God used evolution to create the flora and fauna that have existed or now exist on Earth. Many of the scientists among them are undoubtedly competent in their respective scientific fields, but all of them display a weak understanding of epistemology and logic when they start tinkering with the creation story in the Bible, which the half-way house that they have chosen to inhabit requires them to do.

Epistemology

Epistemology deals with the question. How can we judge the truth of statements about anything? One cannot judge what is true in a vacuum. All judgments require a standard. It is an epistemological necessity that one adopts a standard by which one judges everything else. The fundamental question is: “What standard?”

Without going into a long, philosophical discourse, I maintain that there are only two basic standards from which to choose: divine revelation and human inquiry.[1] Obviously, if the issue in question is not addressed in the Bible, one must use human inquiry. If the issue is addressed in the Bible, however, the question arises, Does one rely on the Bible (the only text which claims to be the Word of God) and judge the wisdom of men by it, or does one rely on the wisdom of men and judge the Bible by it? One must choose whether or not to believe the Word of God – just as Eve did in the garden.

Interestingly, one must choose one’s standard by faith. In 1931, the mathematician Kurt Godel proved that every logically consistent system contains at least one un-provable assumption. In order to operate within that logical system, one must accept the assumption by faith.[2] Thus, the reliability of neither divine revelation nor human reason can be proved. Each of these standards incorporates un-provable assumptions. Either one puts one’s faith in the Bible as the Word of God, or one puts one’s faith in the wisdom and works of men. Faith is unavoidable. This should not surprise us, for the scriptures tell us that “…without faith, it is impossible to please [God].”[3] Of course the faith that pleases God is our faith in his Word – both written and incarnate.

Science

One form of human inquiry, of course, is science and both its professionals and the public place an increasing degree of confidence in it. Unfortunately, many professionals and most lay people do not understand the nature of science. Consider the following points.

First, faith and science are not opposites. Faith is actually an ingredient of science. For example, the conduct of science depends upon the un-provable assumption that the cosmos is structured and behaves in an orderly and predictable manner. That is a rational assumption if one believes that a God of order and goodwill created and governs the cosmos. It is an irrational assumption, however, if one believes that the cosmos evolved by chance, which has become an article of faith for most scientists today, for there is then no reason to believe that its laws will not change in the next minute. Not surprisingly, the era of theistic science (the 18th and early 19th centuries) was characterized by confidence, clarity, and coherence, whereas the age of atheistic science (the late 19^th, 20^th, and early 21st centuries) has been increasingly characterized by anxiety, confusion, and unreason[4] – to say nothing about fraud.[5]

Second, scientific facts and scientific theories are not the same. A scientific fact may be called a scientific truth, because it is incontrovertible – e.g. water in air under one atmosphere of pressure always boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit. On the other hand, a scientific theory may never be called a scientific truth, because it will always be open to question and subject to refinement or disproval in the future – e.g. the 17^th century contention that phlogiston – a substance without color, odor, taste, or weight – is given off during combustion. Think of the number of scientific theories that were believed in their day, but now lie in the dustbin of history. Thus, one must avoid equating any scientific theory with scientific truth.

Third, there is an important difference between history and science. History describes what happened in the past; it is a methodology for maintaining mankind’s collective memory. Science describes what happens in the present under certain carefully defined circumstances; it is essentially a methodology for observing, recording, and organizing data and for creating, testing, and promulgating theories that explain the data. An historical event cannot be repeated; a scientific event can be. Therefore, the veracity of an historical account cannot be tested in the way in which a scientific account can be and must be if it is to be accepted by the scientific community.

That leads me to the difference between the Bible and science. Much of the Bible is history. It purports to be an accurate account of the real experiences of real people as God acted in their lives. Because it is history, it cannot be tested by science. If scientists dismiss the biblical accounts, they run the risk of being wrong. For instance, the Bible describes rocks falling from the sky during the battle between the Israelites and the Amorites at Beth Horon several decades after the Exodus. Moreover, both ancient and medieval sources describe the same phenomenon as having occurred in their times. Because people in later years didn’t see rocks falling from the sky outside their windows, however, many of them refused to believe these reports. In the 19^th century, because such phenomena could not be reconciled with their theories, scientists ridiculed these reports and anyone who believed them. Later, after astronomers discovered that the earth is bombarded by meteorites on a daily basis, they decided that rocks falling from the sky was not impossible and modified their position, but of course they never apologized to the people whom they had ridiculed.

The Bible

Despite Christendom’s historic claim that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore infallible, some Christians today waffle on this issue, claiming that the Bible is “authoritative” or that the Bible contains the Word of God, but does not constitute the Word of God. They have not, however, thought through the implications of their claim. If only some of the Bible is divinely inspired, what criteria are available for discerning between the passages that come from God and the passages that do not come from God? Such criteria do not exist! One cannot escape the necessity of deciding this issue by faith – by faith informed by reason, but nonetheless by faith.

Without apology I believe that the Bible is God’s Word and therefore inerrant – i.e. its original autographs were free of error.[6] I believe that its authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit[7] to write exactly what they wrote – i.e. every chapter, every verse, every word, and every letter in the Bible were determined by God. I believe that God meant the Bible to be mankind’s standard of truth and that the wisdom and works of men must be judged by it. One reason I believe the foregoing is that Jesus said, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”[8] Clearly, the Bible is more important to Him than His physical creation.

The foregoing has serious implications for those of us who believe that the Bible is the Word-of-God-Written and therefore trustworthy in all its particulars. We must bear witness to its truth. Although the Bible is an historical, not a scientific document, its accounts of what happened in the past impose certain constraints on scientists and scholars. If any scientific or scholarly theory cannot accommodate the chronology and events which the Bible records, then that theory must be either revised or discarded entirely. Needless to say, that is not a popular message, even among many evangelical Christians, who fear being ridiculed by their secular colleagues and friends – let alone by the secular members of the scientific and scholarly academies.

One example is cosmology. On the one hand, most scientists maintain that the world in which we live is the product of billions of years of cosmic, terrestrial, and macro-biologic evolution. On the other hand, the Bible records that the earth and its creatures were created roughly 6,000 years ago in six twenty-four hour days. If the Bible is true, these scientists are spectacularly wrong and scientists like D. Russell Humphrey are closing in on the truth. [9]

Logic

Here logic enters the picture. Genesis 1:1 through 3:24 contains a very carefully crafted, time-specific account of God’s creation of Universe, God’s formation of the earth, God’s creation of the terrestrial flora and fauna, God’s creation of Adam, God’s issuance to Adam of the prohibition against eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, God’s creation of Eve from material taken from Adam’s side, Eve’s seduction by Satan, wherein she ate the forbidden fruit, Adam’s uxoriousness in succumbing to Eve’s urging that he also eat the forbidden fruit, God’s judgment, not only on all three persons involved, but on Universe as well, after which all things became subject to disorder and decay and plant and animal life became subject to disease and death (all effects that are captured in the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics), and finally God’s ejection of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, where they had enjoyed daily fellowship with God.

Note the sequence here: (a) God created all living species, (b) these species lived for awhile in a world without disorder, decay, disease and death, (c) Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and then (d) God judged them and their entire world, after which disorder, decay, disease and death entered Universe.

Now the Old Earthers[10] suggest that the six days in Genesis 1:3 through 1:31 actually amounted to eons, with macro-evolution accounting for the development of all living species -from the first organic molecule to mankind. They are burdened with some serious problems here. Among them are the following:

First, many scientists have admitted that evidence for macro-evolution is lacking. For example: Darwin himself wrote, “Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”[11] Darwin was being logical here: no intermediate forms, no evolution. So are there such transitional forms? The celebrated paleontologist and Harvard professor Stephen J. Gould noted, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”[12] (actually he waffled a bit here, suggesting that there are a few, whereas in fact there are none, but he did admit that paleontologists are being less than transparent on the issue).  National Geographic admitted, “Illuminating but spotty, the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 out of 1,000 frames have been lost”[13] Richard Dawkins also admitted, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening”[14] – an admission that was regarded by many as “letting the cat out of the bag.” Here we begin to see the illogic in the evolutionist position: evolution has been observed, but there has been nothing to observe!

Second, many scientists claim that macro-evolution is simply impossible. I recommend the following books on the subject: Evolution: Possible of Impossible? – Molecular Biology and the Laws of Chance (1973) by James F. Coppedge, Director of Probability Research in Biology at Northridge, CA, Darwin’s Black Box (1996) by Michael Behe, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, and Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome (2005) by Dr. J.C. Sanford, a Cornell University Professor and specialist in genetics.

In his book, Sanford claims that modern Darwinism is built on what he calls the Primary Axiom. “The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is a constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus, It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or, should I sat, dare) to question the Primary Axiom. It is for this reason that the overwhelming majority of youth who start out with a belief that there is more to life than mere chemistry will lose that faith while at college. I believe this is also the cause of the widespread self-destructive and self-denigrating behaviors we see throughout our culture.”[15] He then writes: “…every form of objective analysis I have performed has convinced me that the Axiom is clearly false. So now, regardless of the consequences, I have to say it out loud: The Emperor has no clothes!” [16] By the end of the book, I believe that any reasonable and open-minded reader will agree with him.

Third, macro-evolution requires the death of trillions of living forms before mankind arrived on the scene. Yet the Bible consistently states that disease and death were consequences of Adam’s sin, not its prelude. Thus, the theory contradicts the Bible – a contradiction with which any professing theistic evolutionist must deal. For instance, one cannot believe at the same time that (a) death preceded the appearance of sin and (b) death followed the appearance of sin.

One way out of this contradiction, of course, is to dismiss the biblical creation story as a fable. That, of course, creates another problem. At the center of the biblical story are two men: the first Adam, by whose disobedience sin entered the world, and the second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, by whose obedience redemption from sin entered the world. If you remove Adam from the story, a host of questions spring to mind. Given the obvious presence of sin in the world, where did it come from? If mankind is the product of evolution, at what point in our development did men and women become sinners? Was there a sinless period in mankind’s history equivalent to the Bible’s Edenic Era? If so, what happened to the Garden of Eden? Perhaps most important, Why is Christ called the second Adam? The  biblical story progresses logically from (a) God finding his creation of mankind very good to (b) Adam and Eve living in fellowship with God to (c) Adam sinning to (d) Adam and Eve  becoming subject to disease and death to (e) to God providing them with an initial covering to (f) God ejecting Adam and Eve from the garden and fellowship with himself to (g) God entering his creation in the person of Jesus to die on a cross to atone for the sins of sinful men, women, and children to (h) God’s future restoration of creation at the Parousia. Without Adam, this story falls apart. Moreover, where do you stop once you start rejecting pieces of this story? With Noah’s flood? With the division of the land in Peleg’s day? With the confusion of language and the destruction of the Tower of Babel? With the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? With Job’s trials? With the ten plagues of Egypt and the Exodus? With the sun standing still in the sky during the battle at Beth Horon? …With Jesus being born of a virgin? With God-the-Father identifying Jesus as his Son at Jesus’ baptism? With Jesus turning water into wine? With Jesus healing lepers and restoring sight to the blind? With Jesus walking on water? With Jesus rising from the dead on the third day after His crucifixion? With Jesus ascending into heaven? I could go on, but you get the picture.

© 2018 John Holbrook Jr.
_________________________________

[1] At first glance, this dichotomy appears to be an over simplification. Traditionally, philosophers have identified (a) six philosophical problems (the theological problem, the metaphysical problem, the epistemological problem, the ethical problem, the political problem, and the historical problem), (b) five ways of knowing about these problems (the testimony of others, intuition, abstract reasoning from universal principles, sensory experience, and practical activity having successful consequences), and (c) six types of logical theory (authoritarianism, mysticism, rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, and skepticism – the first five of which correspond to the five ways of knowing; the sixth of which was developed because there are many propositions that cannot be proved by any of the first five criteria). Upon reflection, however, one realizes that all these categories are subsumed by the description “human inquiry.”  The revelation of God, although it sometimes uses human mediation, originates with God and cannot be “worked out” by man. It is not the product of human inquiry. It cannot be verified by human inquiry. It can only be accepted by faith –albeit a faith which is informed by human reason and, up to a point, subject to the tests of coherence, lack of contradiction, reasonableness, etc. – I say up to a point because some apparent contradictions, such as the perceived conflict between divine ordination (e.g. predestination) and human freedom and accountability (e.g. acceptance or rejection of Jesus as Lord and Savior), cannot be resolved by such tests.

[2] This conclusion emerges from Godel’s “incompleteness theorems” in an article entitled Ober formal unentscheidbare Satze der “Principia Mathematica” und verwandter Ststeme (On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems).

[3] Hebrews 11:16.

[4] A curious corollary of Godel’s Proof is that within any logically inconsistent system one can prove anything. That goes a long way toward explaining why so much of today’s science and scholarship, which assumes the absence of a creator, is both confusing and contradictory. For example: Classical Darwinism postulates that differing classes of living creatures are the descendants of long-extinct common ancestors, and that transitional forms linked each group to those ancestors. The problem: the transitional forms cannot be found.  To plug the gaps, so to speak, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould proposed a modification of classical Darwinism called “punctuated equilibrium” in which a new species can appear fully developed, thereby eliminating the need for intermediate forms. That is equivalent to saying: The theory of evolution predicts transitional forms, but transitional forms are lacking. Since we know that evolution produced the species that we see, evolution must operate without transitional forms. Under such illogic, the theory of evolution cannot be proved wrong. That is not science; it is unreason.

[5] See Bergman, Jerry, “Why the Epidemic of fraud exists in science today,” Creation Science Ministries, posted July 24, 2013, and Nuzzo, Regina, “How scientists fool themselves” Nature, Volume 526, October 8, 2015.

[6] See Rousas Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, Volumes 1 & 2, Ross House Books, Vallecito CA, 1994, pp. 1-57.

[7] Romans 3:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:16, & 2 Peter 1:20-21.

[8] Just so we don’t miss it, this statement is recorded three times in the Bible: Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Luke 21:33.

[9] You might be interested in my blogs of 2/20, 2/27, and 3/6, 2017 entitled respectively Natural History 1 – An introduction to biblical cosmology, Natural History 2 – An introduction to biblical cosmology continued, and Natural History 3 – Humphrey’s Cosmological Theory. Humphrey provides a good example of a scientist who takes God’s Word seriously and is trying to come up with a scientific explanation for what God says actually happened.

[10] Old Earthers are people who accept the current cosmological and geologic paradigm that Universe is roughly 20 billion years old and the earth is roughly 3.5 billion years old.

[11] C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed., London, 1872, p. 413 – reprinted by John Murray, 1902.

[12] S.J. Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, 86(5):14, 1977.

[13] “Was Darwin Wrong? No!,” National Geographic, Nov. 2004, Page 25.

[14] Transcript @ pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins, Dec, 3, 2004.

[15] Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome, FMS Publications, Waterloo, NY, 2008, pages v-vi.

[16] Ibid, p. vii.