Some understand these days as six consecutive 24-hour periods, a view known as young-earth creationism. Others read the same text and conclude that the word “day” (the Hebrew word yôm) represents longer periods of God’s creative activity. This approach is often called old-earth creationism.

Both perspectives begin with Scripture and seek to honor its authority. The difference lies in how each interprets the language and structure of the creation account, not in their commitment to God or his Word.

For Christians who wonder how scientific evidence for an ancient universe fits with a faithful reading of Genesis, old-earth creationism represents a historical understanding of God’s two revelations. It holds that God is both the Author of Scripture and the Creator of the natural world. Therefore, the two won’t ultimately contradict each other. God’s “two books”—the Bible and the created world—work together to reveal the same Creator.

Old-earth creationists recognize that while God’s two books are wholly reliable, human interpretations of both are not. Theology is our attempt to interpret Scripture; science is our attempt to interpret the natural world. No one has complete knowledge of either, and our assumptions can lead us astray. So when our theology and our science seem to conflict, old-earth creationists see that tension not as a reason to dismiss one or the other, but as a call from God to study both more carefully.

In the following sections, we’ll explore what old-earth creationists believe, how they interpret the creation days in Genesis, how their view compares to other creation perspectives, and why this discussion matters for Christians who want to take both the Bible and the evidence of nature seriously.

What Is Old-Earth Creationism?

Old-earth creationism is the view that God created the universe, Earth, and all life over long periods of time—billions rather than thousands of years.

Where it differs from young-earth creationism (YEC) is in timing. The old-earth creation view asserts that the “days” of Genesis are not 24 hours each, but rather long spans of God’s creative activity.

From an old-earth creationism perspective, scientific evidence for an ancient universe and Earth—including radiometric dating, geological records, expansion of the universe, and the light from distant stars and galaxies—is consistent with God’s creative work and with Scripture.

Current scientific measurements place the age of the universe at roughly 13.8 billion years and the age of the Earth at about 4.6 billion years.

This idea that the six creation days may not be six 24-hour periods has deep historical roots. Early Jewish and Christian thinkers, including Philo, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, and Augustine, allowed for creation time periods other than 144 hours. This means the idea of long creation days is not a modern compromise with science. It predates modern science by more than a thousand years

What Do Old-Earth Creationists Believe?

Old-earth creationists like those at Reasons to Believe see the universe as ancient—billions of years old—yet shaped and designed by a personal, purposeful God. Their core convictions include that God reveals himself through both Scripture and the natural world (dual revelation); that the “days” of Genesis represent long, consecutive time periods (the day-age view); that God directly created new forms of life at key moments in Earth’s history; and that Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals from whom all humanity descends. We explore these more fully below.

Is Old-Earth Creationism Biblical?

How can we assess if old-earth creationism is biblical? For many, this is less a question of “Could God create in six days?” but “What does Genesis mean by ‘day’?”

This matters because our answer shapes whether Christians see science as a threat to their faith or as a witness to the same God who inspired Scripture.

The Hebrew word translated as day, yôm, has four literal definitions: part of the daylight hours, all the daylight hours, a 24-hour calendar day, or a long, finite time period. Old-earth creationists hold that the context of Genesis 1 supports the fourth meaning. (For a deeper look at what the Bible says about Earth’s age, see this blog post.)

Core Tenets of Old-Earth Creationism

If Scripture and creation truly speak in harmony, what does that look like in practice? Old-earth creationists ground their view in several core convictions:

Dual Revelation

Old-earth creationists hold to the historic Christian teaching, often called dual revelation, that God reveals himself through both Scripture and the natural world. Because both come from a God for whom it is impossible to lie (Hebrews 6:18), they work together in harmony. This is not a modern idea—the Belgic Confession (1561) describes creation as “a beautiful book” through which God makes himself known, alongside his written Word (drawn from Psalm 19:1–9 and Romans 1:20). Reasons to Believe (RTB), founded in 1986 by astrophysicist Hugh Ross, has been a leading voice for this view, showing how science and Scripture function as two independent witnesses that corroborate one another where they overlap.

A Universe Both Ancient and Faithful

Multiple independent lines of evidence, from astronomy to geology to nuclear physics, converge on the same picture: an ancient cosmos, roughly 13.8 billion years old, on an Earth about 4.6 billion years old. The prophet Jeremiah reminds us why we can trust these measurements: God made the laws that govern heaven and earth fixed and unchanging (Jeremiah 33:25). The constancy of natural laws over billions of years reflects the faithfulness of the God who set them in place.

Day-Age View

Why do we interpret the Genesis 1 creation days as consecutive long time periods?

One of the literal definitions for yôm (day) is a long, finite time period. The Hebrew words for evening (‘ereb) and morning (boqer) can likewise mean ending and beginning. The first six creation days all conclude with an “evening was, morning was” phrase—but the seventh day has no such marker. This implies God’s seventh day has not yet ended, a reading confirmed by both Psalm 95:11 and Hebrews 4:1–11, which state that we are still in God’s seventh day.

If the seventh day has lasted thousands of years at minimum, it is not a 24-hour day. The scientific evidence confirms this pattern. The fossil record documents the appearance of new species throughout Earth’s pre-human history, but no new species have appeared since humans arrived on the scene. This is exactly what we’d expect if God ceased his creation work on the seventh day, as Genesis 2 describes.

Genesis 1:27 says God created humans, male and female, during the sixth day. Genesis 2 details what happened within that day: God created Adam, placed him in Eden, had him tend the garden, observe all the animals, and name each one. Only after all this did God create Eve. When Adam first saw her, the word he spoke—happa’am—means “at long last.” Both the number of events and Adam’s own response suggest the sixth day, like the seventh, was far longer than 24 hours.

Some assert that the fourth of the ten commandments implies 24-hour creation days. However, the Bible addresses Sabbath periods of different durations.

Direct Creation

Old-earth creationists accept that species adapt within their kind—what scientists call microevolution. But they hold that natural processes alone cannot explain the sudden appearance of new, complex life-forms in the fossil record or the unique capacities of human beings. These transitions in the fossil record reflect moments of direct divine action, with God introducing new forms of life at different points in Earth’s history, consistent with the pattern presented in Genesis 1.

This view rejects macroevolution—the idea that all life descends from a single common ancestor through undirected processes. Instead, the complexity of living organisms, the fine-tuning of their systems, and the gaps in the fossil record point to a God who actively and purposefully created life throughout Earth’s long history.

Historical Adam and Eve

Old-earth creationists affirm that Adam and Eve were real, historical individuals specially created by God, from whom all human beings are descended. Adam was formed from the dust of the ground and given life when God breathed into him; Eve was created directly by God from Adam’s side.

This sets humanity apart from all other creatures and establishes humans as bearers of God’s image. Because Adam and Eve are historical, the doctrines that depend on them—the fall, original sin, and Christ’s redemption of a fallen humanity—stand on historical ground, not metaphor.

The Flood That Swept Humanity

According to the old-earth creationism view, the Genesis flood destroyed all humans outside the ark and their domesticated animals—but not the entire planet. It was worldwide in the sense that the whole world of ungodly people was wiped out (2 Peter 2:5). Noah and his family were the only survivors.

Regions not occupied by humans were not flooded. The Hebrew supports this reading. The word used throughout the flood account, eretz, often translated “earth,” can also mean “land” or “region.” The second most common word, ‘adama, refers to land inhabited or tilled by humans—which makes sense, since only land inhabited by humans can be damaged by human sin. In Genesis 8, haraba is used for the flooded land, a Hebrew word that never refers to the entirety of Earth’s land surface. The purpose of the flood was to rid the world of human wickedness and prevent humanity’s self-destruction. This reading affirms the authority of Scripture and the historicity of the flood while remaining consistent with evidence from geology, genetics, and archaeology.

Death Before the Fall

How could death exist before the rebellion in Eden? Paul tells us, “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people” (Romans 5:12). Of all Earth’s creatures, only humans sin. By saying death came to all people, rather than all life, Paul implies that microbial, plant, and animal death occurred before Adam and Eve.

Scripture reinforces this picture. Job describes a world where lions hunt and feed by God’s design (Job 38:39), and the psalmist says lions “seek their food from God” (Psalm 104:21). Animal death is not a punishment for human sin but part of the ecosystem God established. The scientific evidence agrees. The fossil record shows that animal death and extinction occurred long before modern humans appeared. The enormous abundance of biodeposits—coal, oil, natural gas, limestone, marble, gypsum—testifies to ages of life and death before humans were created.

A common concern is that death before the fall undermines the gospel. But this view preserves the doctrines that matter most: the uniqueness of humanity as God’s image-bearers, the reality of Adam’s fall, and the necessity of Christ’s redemptive work. Human death—spiritual separation from God—entered through Adam’s sin. That is the death Christ came to conquer.

Animal death before the fall does not undermine that promise. In this view, human spiritual death and separation from God are the direct results of Adam’s sin, while nonhuman death reflects the normal functioning of the natural world God made.

How Does Old-Earth Creationism Compare to Other Creation Views?

Other Creation Perspectives

The table below compares four widely discussed creation views. Two points of detail worth noting: Evolutionary creationism is sometimes called theistic evolution, but there is a distinction. Unlike some theistic evolutionists, evolutionary creationists hold that God directly intervened in miraculous ways to shape the universe, solar system, and Earth so it could support a great abundance and diversity of life.

Where evolutionary creationism parts company with old-earth creationism is on the question of life’s development: evolutionary creationism accepts macroevolution and common descent, while old-earth creationism holds that God directly created new forms of life at key points in history.

Intelligent design (ID) is not a creation model based on a particular reading of Genesis but an apologetic framework. It argues that features of the natural world—such as biological complexity and the fine-tuning of the universe—are best explained by an intelligent cause. Because ID does not specify the age of the earth or identify the Designer in biblical terms, Christians, Jews, Muslims, or even nontheists may affirm it. Many old-earth creationists draw on ID arguments as scientific support for the claim that life shows marks of purposeful design.

Popular Creation Views

What Unites Us in the Creation Conversation

Christians hold different views on creation, but old-earth creationism offers something distinctive: a reading of Genesis that takes the Hebrew text seriously and seeks alignment with what God has revealed through the natural world. It affirms that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1) and that “through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3)—while also embracing the full weight of the evidence he left for us to find.

Thoughtful Christians reach different conclusions on these questions, and the conversation is worth having. But if the same God who authored Scripture also made the heavens and the earth, we should expect his two works to tell a consistent story. Old-earth creationism says they do.

The post Old-Earth Creationism: Is It <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em>? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

But here’s the good news—it’s okay to explore these issues. Many of the so-called contradictions in the Bible become clear when we examine the context, language, and perspective of the texts. Scripture has stood the test of time not because it’s never been challenged but because its depth and consistency are strengthened with clear, thoughtful study.

When discussing this topic, it’s important to apply the Golden Rule. If we want others to give our arguments a fair hearing, we should treat theirs the same way—with respect and honesty. Addressing doubts and differing opinions requires humility and patience, but these are exactly the tools that lead to fruitful conversations.

So—are these contradictions real? Or is there a reasonable explanation for the tensions we see?

Here, we’ll take an honest look at these questions and explore how context and intent can help us trust Scripture with confidence.

Is the Bible Contradictory?

Why Do People Ask About Biblical Contradictions?

Questions about biblical contradictions arise because skeptics see them as holes in Scripture’s reliability, while believers may struggle to reconcile certain passages. With the Bible being a collection of ancient writings spanning centuries, events, and cultures, some details appear conflicting at first glance. However, many of these concerns stem from misunderstandings rather than what is a true contradiction.

The Importance of Context, Language, and Perspective

To understand the Bible, we must look at context, language, and perspective, principles that are foundational to the broader study of Christianity and the reliability of the Bible. Scripture is like a diamond—revealing new sights with every turn. For example, the Gospels recount Jesus’s life from different viewpoints, address different audiences, and emphasize unique details to form a richer, more individual narrative rather than conflicting accounts.

Language also plays a role. Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek often don’t translate directly into modern languages, leading to differences in interpretation. Add cultural nuances and evolving language over time, and many “contradictions” fall apart when viewed this way.

What Can We Learn from Science?

Consider how science handles apparent contradictions. When details in the big bang theory didn’t align with early models, scientists didn’t abandon the theory—they refined it.

The same approach applies to Scripture. Apparent contradictions provide an opportunity to dig further, uncover context, and grow in understanding, ultimately building confidence in the Bible’s unity and message.

By asking, What are we missing? we open the door to deeper truths. After all, like in science, truth is consistent—even if fully understanding it takes time to grow.

Are There Contradictions in the Bible?

What is a Contradiction?

Before we explore contradictions in the Bible, let’s define what a contradiction is. A contradiction occurs when two statements directly oppose each other, making it impossible for both to be true at the same time in the same sense. For instance, saying, “I drink coffee only in the mornings,” and later claiming, “I never drink coffee” would clearly conflict.

Now, when it comes to the Bible, differences in wording or accounts often get labeled as contradictions. But are they truly logical contradictions, or is something else going on? That’s where it’s important to dig a little deeper.

Logical Contradictions vs. Misunderstandings

Not everything that seems like a contradiction is one. Imagine two friends describing the same sporting event. One says, “We won by ten points,” while the other says, “The game was really close.” Both statements can be true, they just emphasize different parts or views of the same event.

This can also apply to Bible contradictions. Differences in numbers or events often fall into the category of a misunderstanding rather than logical error that can usually be explained by context, perspective, or translation differences.

A true contradiction would mean two passages say entirely opposite things with no way to reconcile them. Most alleged contradictions, however, can be resolved by considering the background and intent of the text.

Contradictions in the Bible Explained

Numerical Discrepancies (Textual Variants)

One of the most common biblical contradictions involves numerical discrepancies. At first glance, different numbers in the biblical text might feel like errors, but they can often be explained through potential copyist mistakes, variations in counting methods, or translation challenges over time. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

How Many Stalls Did Solomon Have?

The books of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles recount Solomon’s wealth and grandeur, including the number of stalls he had for his horses. But you might notice something curious when you read the NASB, ESV or other more “literal” translations:

• 1 Kings 4:26 says Solomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots.
• 2 Chronicles 9:25 says Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots.

At first glance, this looks contradictory–was it 40,000 or 4,000 stalls? The answer likely lies in manuscript variations or differences in counting methods. It’s possible that copyists over the centuries unintentionally added an extra zero. Or the texts describe different views—for example, the larger number may refer to total horse stalls, while the smaller may be chariot-specific stalls.

How Many Men Did David Kill?

Another example comes from a major military victory by King David:

• 2 Samuel 10:18 says David killed 700 charioteers and 40,000 horsemen.
• 1 Chronicles 19:18 records him killing 7,000 charioteers and 40,000 foot soldiers.

Again, the numbers differ, but this doesn’t mean the accounts are unreliable. Many scholars suggest this comes from variations in how numbers were recorded or interpreted during the copying process. Additionally, rounding differences may play a role, especially when ancient texts were transmitted across languages and cultures.

A Possible Solution

When we see numerical discrepancies like these, it’s easy to call them contradictions. However, they often come from manuscript variations, rounding, or different counting methods. Ancient scribes copied texts by hand, potentially leading to small changes over time.

Different cultures and eras also counted people or items differently, which could explain the variations. Instead of undermining the Bible, these examples remind us to consider context, appreciate ancient recordkeeping, and understand the challenges of preserving texts.

Timeline Discrepancies

In biblical contradictions, timeline discrepancies are another area where questions often arise. These apparent inconsistencies usually involve events recorded in different orders or seemingly conflicting details.

However, with a closer look, many of these issues can be reconciled by understanding timekeeping practices, cultural context, and the authors’ intent. Let’s examine a few notable examples.

When Was Jesus Crucified?

The Gospels of Mark and John offer two different timelines regarding the hour of Jesus’s crucifixion:

• Mark 15:25 states, “It was the third hour when they crucified him” (around 9 AM).
• John 19:14 describes the events leading up to the crucifixion, saying, “It was about the sixth hour” (around noon).

At first, these accounts seem contradictory. But a better understanding of timekeeping methods used in the ancient world sheds light on the discrepancy. Mark likely followed Jewish timekeeping, where the day began at sunrise. While John may have used the Roman method, which started the day at midnight.

When Did Jesus Clear the Temple?

Another example involves the timing of Jesus clearing the temple.

• John 2:13–16 recounts Jesus driving out the merchants and money changers shortly after his first miracle at Cana.

Meanwhile, the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) place this event closer to the end of Jesus’s ministry:

• Matthew 21:12–13, Mark 11:15–17, and Luke 19:45–46 describe Jesus cleansing the temple shortly before his crucifixion.

How can this be explained? One possibility is that Jesus cleared the temple twice, performing similar acts two times during his ministry. Another explanation is that John arranged his Gospel thematically rather than chronologically to emphasize teachings rather than a timeline.

A Possible Solution

Timeline contradictions in the Bible might seem confusing at first, but most can be understood when we give space for context and intent. Differences in timekeeping, cultural storytelling, and the authors’ purpose all play a role in shaping these accounts. Far from undermining Scripture’s reliability, these variations highlight the individual perspectives of its authors.

Ethical Contradictions

Some of the most puzzling biblical contradictions involve moral teachings that seem at odds with one another. These apparent ethical contradictions can leave us wondering how certain principles are approved in one case but seemingly rejected in another. Here are a few well-known examples.

Is Lying Always Wrong?

The Bible strongly condemns lying in several passages:

• Exodus 20:16 includes lying as a violation of the Ten Commandments, stating, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
• Proverbs 12:22 tells us, “The Lord detests lying lips, but he delights in people who are trustworthy.”

However, there are times where individuals lied and were blessed for their actions:

• Exodus 1:19–20 describes how the Hebrew midwives lied to Pharaoh about the birth of male babies, and as a result, God “dealt well with the midwives.”
• Joshua 2:4–6 recounts Rahab’s deception of the king’s men to protect Israelite spies, for which she later received divine favor.

A Possible Solution

To reconcile this, we look to context. The Bible’s general stance on lying is clear—it’s an offense to God. However, in rare cases, the higher moral priority was protecting innocent lives rather than a legalistic view on lying. Such cases reveal a God who values justice and mercy over rigid rule-following.

Should We Judge Others?

The topic of judgment is another area that seems contradictory and wrought with modern contention. Consider:

• Matthew 7:1 says, “Judge not, lest you be judged.”
• John 7:24 tells us to “Judge with right judgment.”

A Possible Solution

These passages seem to directly conflict. Are we supposed to not judge or judge rightly? The answer lies in the type of judgment. Matthew 7:1 warns against hypocritical or self-righteous judgment, which we can agree is damaging. Meanwhile, John 7:24 encourages us to evaluate situations with discernment and fairness.

These verses don’t cancel each other out—instead, they highlight the importance of judging in the right spirit, with the right motives.

Should We Repay Evil with Evil?

The contrast between the Old and New Testaments on this issue can be striking:

• Exodus 21:24 says “eye for eye, tooth for tooth,” setting up a framework for justice in legal disputes.
• Matthew 5:39 presents Jesus’s teaching, “Do not resist an evil person . . . if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

A Possible Solution

At first, these teachings appear incompatible—yet when we look at context again—we see they serve different purposes. The “eye for an eye” principle is a legal guideline on proportional justice and preventing excessive retaliation.

On the other hand, Jesus’s instruction is a call to personal humility and forgiveness, focusing on relationships rather than legality. Both teachings are valid in the proper context and actually complement rather than contradict each other.

Contradictory Verses in the Bible or Just Different Perspectives?

Contradictory verses in the Bible often stem from eyewitness perspectives or the literary focus of each author. These differences, rather than conflicts, provide a more complete picture of events. Here are key examples:

• Did Jesus carry his own cross? John 19:17 states Jesus carried his cross, while the other Gospels describe Simon of Cyrene helping. Both can be true—Jesus likely started carrying the cross but needed assistance from Simon due to exhaustion.
• What were Jesus’s last words? The Gospels record different final sayings from Jesus, such as “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew, Mark), “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” (Luke), and “It is finished” (John). These statements reflect distinct moments during his final hours, chosen by each author to align with their themes. Together, they provide a fuller account of Jesus’s anguish, trust, and mission completion.
• How many women went to Jesus’s tomb? Each Gospel lists different women visiting the tomb. Matthew names Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary,” Mark adds Salome, and Luke includes Joanna and others. These variations reflect differing levels of detail, not conflict, as eyewitness accounts often highlight different aspects of the same event.

These examples demonstrate that Gospel differences enrich the narrative with multiple perspectives rather than contradictions.

Biggest Contradictions in the Bible & Their Explanations

The biggest contradictions in the Bible are most widely debated in two categories: science and history, and theology. Here, challenges often stem from differing interpretations, gaps in historical knowledge, or deeper theological questions. Let’s explore both.

Scientific & Historical Allegations

Critics often point to believed scientific and historical inconsistencies in the Bible as reasons to question its reliability. Here are some of the main examples:

What Was Created First, Light or the Sun?

Genesis 1 presents the creation story, but the timeline can seem puzzling:

• Genesis 1:3–5 says God created light and separated day from night on the first day.
• Genesis 1:14–19 states that the sun, moon, and stars were created on the fourth day.

This raises a natural question: How could light exist without the sun or stars? The best explanations recognize the different terms used and the frame of reference for understanding the verses in question. Neither verses 3–5 nor 14–15 use the Hebrew term for “create” (bara). Rather, they use “let there be” (hayah). This is because the Sun, stars, and maybe the Moon were made “in the beginning” when God created the heavens and the Earth. Additionally, Genesis 1:2 sets the frame of reference for observing the creation week as the surface of the Earth (not out in the heavens). Since it is dark on the surface of the Earth, we know that something in Earth’s atmosphere prevents the Sun’s light from getting to the Earth’s surface. Consequently, verses 3–5 and 14–19 are describing changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, not the formation of the Sun, Moon and stars. Another possible explanation is that the “light” on the first day came from a temporary or divine source. It’s also noteworthy that Genesis may use symbolic language, not a strict scientific framework, to communicate theological truths about God as the ultimate Creator.

Did All Animals Fit on Noah’s Ark?

The story of Noah’s ark in Genesis raises another common question about “Bible contradictions”:

• Genesis 6:19 tells Noah to bring “two of every kind” of animal onto the ark.
• Genesis 7:2 says Noah should take “seven pairs of clean animals.”

While this may seem contradictory, the passages complement—with Genesis 6:19 as an overview, and Genesis 7:2 with specifics for clean and unclean animals. This detail reflects the animals’ roles as sacrifices after the flood and ensuring there was enough for both survival and worship.

Was the Exodus Event Real?

The Exodus event, where the Bible describes the Israelites’ freedom from Egypt, is another debated topic. Skeptics point to a lack of archaeological evidence as contradictory to the Bible’s detailed account. However, several points challenge this:

• Ancient records often omit defeats or embarrassing moments, making the lack of Egyptian documentation unsurprising.
• The Bible’s descriptions of locations, customs, and political dynamics during the time align with what historians know about the ancient Near East.

Though physical evidence remains scarce, the absence of proof isn’t necessarily proof of absence. Many scholars argue that ongoing discoveries continue to shed light on past biblical events.

Many of the contradictions here come from differences in interpretation or gaps in historical data.

Theological Tensions

Theological contradictions often require deeper discussion, as they touch on God’s nature and how he interacts with humanity. Here are a few examples:

Is God a God of Peace or War?

Scripture seems to offer two different views of God:

• Exodus 15:3 states, “The Lord is a warrior.”
• Romans 15:33 calls him “the God of peace.”

How can God be both? The context is vital. Exodus describes a moment of God’s power and protection in war, highlighting his ability to deliver Israel. Romans, on the other hand, showcases God’s role as a reconciler through Jesus Christ.

These descriptions show different parts of God’s overall character rather than qualities in conflict, showing that God’s justice and love coexist.

Can We See God?

The Bible appears to send mixed messages about whether humans can see God:

• Exodus 33:20 declares, “No one may see me and live.”
• Genesis 32:30 recounts Jacob saying, “I have seen God face to face.”
• John 1:18 insists, “No one has ever seen God.”

These verses make sense when we consider the distinction between seeing God in his full glory versus partial glimpses through mediated encounters. Jacob didn’t see God in his entirety but rather an appearance in human form, as many theologians interpret, and then John emphasizes that no one has fully comprehended God, reinforcing his transcendent nature.

Does God Change His Mind?

Passages about God changing his mind can seem at odds with statements about his unchanging nature:

• Malachi 3:6 says, “I the Lord do not change.”
• 1 Samuel 15:29 says, “He is not a man, that he should change his mind.”
• Exodus 32:14, however, says, “The Lord relented from the disaster he had threatened to bring.”

The solution lies in distinguishing between God’s unchanging nature and his relational interactions with humanity through mercy. God’s character, purposes, and promises remain constant, but his responses may change based on human choices.

How Accurate is the Bible?

Does the Bible Contain Errors?

Questions about errors in the Bible often come from misunderstandings of its context and the purpose behind full texts. The Bible is a collection of diverse writings, not a scientific or historical manual. Its primary aim is to reveal God’s character and his relationship with humanity. When judged by its full intentions, Scripture’s consistency and reliability over millennia are remarkable.

Biblical Accuracy vs. Bible Inaccuracies

The Bible is one of the most heavily scrutinized and critiqued books in history—and it is surprisingly accurate. Many supposed “Bible inaccuracies” can often be clarified[No Follow] with closer study. For example:

• Interpretive differences: The Bible’s authors used storytelling methods, symbolism, and thematic structures that were fitting for their time and audience. Recognizing these literary techniques helps resolve many perceived contradictions.
• Translation challenges: Original Hebrew and Greek words often carry broad meanings that don’t always translate neatly into modern languages, leading to minor differences in interpretation.
• Knowledge gaps: Our incomplete understanding of ancient history and archaeology can sometimes lead us to assume errors. Yet time and discoveries often confirm the Bible’s historical and cultural details.

Instead of disproving the Bible, these so-called “errors” should encourage us to dig deeper or consider different points.

How to Reconcile Biblical Contradictions

Understand Bible Contradictions in Context

Many Bible contradictions dissolve when their historical, cultural, and literary contexts are considered. Different authors wrote to unique audiences with varying perspectives and themes.

For example, variations in Gospel accounts reflect complementary viewpoints rather than conflicts. Distinguishing between genres like poetry, prophecy, and historical narrative also helps clarify meaning. With careful study, many first-glance contradictions start to make sense.

How to Respond to Accusations of Inconsistencies in the Bible

When someone raises concerns about inconsistencies in the Bible, it’s important to respond thoughtfully and respectfully. Here are a few practical strategies:

1. Encourage deeper study – Invite people to explore the context and historical background of the verses in question. Whether it’s questioning a timeline or a moral teaching, the answers often lie in the details.
2. Acknowledge complexity – The Bible isn’t simplistic; it reflects real life with all its nuances. Showing that you’re not afraid of tough questions that can lead to meaningful discussions.
3. Focus on the big picture – Remind others of the Bible’s overarching message of redemption, love, and hope. Isolated verses shouldn’t overshadow the purpose of Scripture as a whole.

By respectfully engaging with questions and pointing to the profound unity of the Bible, we can turn accusations into opportunities for discovery and discussion.

The post <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em> Contradictions & the Historicity of the Bible appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

[T]o be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. . . . Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws.

Christians know that the “unexplained physical laws” do have an explanation: they are part of God’s creation. Scientists must have “faith” in this truth from the Bible. Otherwise, as Davies notes, science would not be possible.

However, there are additional articles of faith that underlie the scientific enterprise. The four assumptions described here are necessary for success in science, yet they originated from biblical theism, which laid the foundation for the science that we know today.

1. The physical world exists as a separate reality that can be understood.
The Bible tells us that humans, made in the image of the Creator, are uniquely gifted to acquire a deep understanding of the physical world. God is not part of that world since he is Creator and not the creation. The Creator is to be worshiped; the creation is not. Moses and Jeremiah warned against worshipping the celestial bodies.

It can hardly be overemphasized how transformative that idea was for establishing a framework in which to do science. The Jews and later the Christians were the only civilizations of their era that demystified the entire natural world, celestial and terrestrial. Historian of science James Hannam says:

The starting point for all natural philosophy [i.e., “science”] in the Middle Ages was that nature had been created by God. This made it a legitimate area of study because through nature man could learn about its creator.¹

Since the material world is not God and is not divine, man is free to probe his surroundings to gain an understanding of it. There is no nontheistic rationale for believing that an objective description is “out there” waiting to be discovered. That biblically derived confidence continues to underpin science in our modern times.

2. The physical world is governed by fixed, universal, natural laws.
Universal laws of nature that govern the heavens and the earth are an original biblical concept. In Jeremiah 33:25, God tells us that he “established [his] covenant with day and night and the fixed laws of heaven and earth.” In the fourth century, Augustine of Hippo wrote that “the ordinary course of nature in the whole of creation has certain natural laws.”²

While modern science owes much to the legacy of the Greeks, the Greeks had no concept of universal natural laws. For them, the heavens were a separate realm from the earth. On the other hand, the Bible says that God put in place his universal “fixed laws” to govern all his physical creation, both Earth and the heavens.

Isaac Newton was building on a biblical concept when he devised his law of universal gravitation, which comprehensively explained the motions of both the moon and a falling apple. Newton’s laws of motion were the first example of universal laws. Cosmologist Max Tegmark explains the enormous significance of Newton’s theological concept of lawful universality:

Newton’s breakthrough empowered our human minds to conquer space: he showed that we could first discover physical laws by making experiments down here on the ground, then extrapolate those laws to explain what was happening in the heavens . . . . The scientific revolution had begun (emphasis added).³

The only explanation of “Newton’s breakthrough” is that the scientists of the day took seriously the biblical narrative of a Creator God who made the entire physical realm and established it under the rule of fixed, rational, and comprehensible laws.

3. The flow of time is linear and irreversible.
The concept of a linear flow of time, which undergirds all physical law, is directly attributable to the biblical view of time. The historical progression of events in time is a pervasive theme throughout the Bible. The New Testament describes Jesus Christ’s birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and eventual return to this world. That sequence resulted in a view of reality as a linear chain of events that define an irreversible progression in time toward the future. This linear view of time was ingrained in Christian thought and prepared the intellectual basis for Newton’s dynamics and the development of science.

The Bible’s view of time contrasts sharply with the cyclical view that dominated ancient thought. Oxford philosopher Jonny Thomson explains: “The reason why we see time as ‘linear’ is because of Christianity. The idea of Genesis (at the start) and Judgement Day (at the end) gives us a narrative—a linear view of time. The world of our experience does not obviously lean one way or the other concerning time.”⁴

The linear view of time provides the mathematical sciences with an “independent variable”  (time or t) for dynamical equations of motion, so they can be used to describe change. The calculus of Gottfried Leibniz and Newton and the science of mechanics would have been impossible without the concept of the continuous one-directional flow of time. Without the mathematical variable t, Newton’s dynamical law relating force, mass, and acceleration could not be known. Cars, buses, airplanes, spacecraft, etc. would not exist. We would still be dependent on sailing ships and animal power. Modern science and engineering would not exist were it not for the early scientists’ acceptance of the biblical view of time.

4. Truth can be found through objective testing.
The Bible repeatedly exhorts readers to test before they believe. The apostle Paul wrote, “Test them all; hold on to what is good.” Hugh Ross provides a biblical view of belief and faith: “The idea of testing before believing pervades both the Old and New Testaments. It forms the very heart of the biblical concept of faith.”⁵ Because of the Bible’s emphasis on evidence and testing, Ross says that the scientific method could more accurately be called the biblical method; such was the Bible’s historical impact on the legacy of science.

The notion that there is an objective truth “out there” to be discovered raises the question as to what methods should be employed in the process of discovery. Modern science was birthed in Renaissance Europe from the twin influences of Greek philosophy and Judeo-Christian monotheism. Empirical techniques are fundamental to the scientific method. However, the ancient Greeks put little value on empiricism.

No Christianity, No Science
By contrast, orthodox Christianity did. Christianity viewed humankind as corrupted and debilitated by Adam’s original sin. From Augustine and Aquinas onward, there were extensive debates about how to recover what was lost in humanity’s fall. Historian of science Peter Harrison documents how the Christian doctrine of original sin was the impetus behind the birth of inductive scientific experimentation.⁶ Since the fall separated human beings from God and corrupted their minds, human reason alone was not sufficient for an understanding of God’s creation. Humans needed and developed an appreciation of the virtues of experimentation as a way to discern truth.

Davies provides a compelling reminder of theism’s place in the development of science:

Without belief in a single omnipotent rational lawgiver, it is unlikely that anyone would have assumed that nature is intelligible in a systematic quantitative way, mirrored by eternal mathematical forms . . . . Suppose an asteroid had hit Paris in 1300 and destroyed European culture. Would science ever have emerged on Earth? I have never heard a convincing argument that it would.⁷

This evidence defeats the false claim that Christianity and science are in irreconcilable conflict. Science as we know it would not exist had not biblical Judeo-Christian theism prepared the way for it.

Endnotes

1. James Hannam, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2011), 348–349.
2. St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (Ancient Christian Writers), vol. 2, trans. John Hammond Taylor (The Newman Press, New York, 1982), 92.
3. Max Tegmark, Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 2014), 38.
4. Jonny Thompson, “A Brief History of (Linear) Time,” Big Think, December 31, 2023.
5. Hugh Ross, More Than a Theory (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2009), 257.
6. Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundation of Science (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 16.
7. Paul Davies, The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010), 74.

The post Science Is Based on Assumptions from <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em> Theism appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. And if you say in your heart, “How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?”—when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. 
—Deuteronomy 18:20–22, ESV

What is a prophet?

I imagine that when asked this question, most people conjure up an image of a mysterious old man wearing a cloak who foretells future events. I also doubt that anyone would think that scientists wearing white lab coats would qualify as prophets, but in many respects they do. 

“How so?” you might ask.

The connection between biblical prophecy and science becomes more apparent when we examine how both prophets and scientists serve as arbiters of truth.

Biblical Prophets 
The biblical role of a prophet is more expansive than just functioning as a seer. It’s true that biblical prophets did foretell future events but, first and foremost, they spoke on behalf of God, admonishing and encouraging his people. In the Old Testament, prophets brought God’s Word to Israel and exhorted the Israelites to conform their lives to his will. 

But how were the people to know if a prophet truly spoke for God? They were instructed to test the prophet’s words and prognostications. If they didn’t match Scripture or come to pass, the prophet was considered a false prophet. But, if the prophet’s proclamations came to be, then he truly was God’s mouthpiece. 

Prophecies were also part of the early church and the idea of testing appears in the New Testament. Both the apostles Paul and John encouraged those in the early church to not just test prophecy (1 Thessalonians 5:20–22), but also scriptural teachings (Acts 17:11), and the spirits (1 John 4:1). 

In other words, testing serves an indispensable role for people of faith as they seek to discern truth.

Prophecy and Science
So, what’s the connection between biblical prophecy and science? Some scholars argue that the biblical ideal of testing influenced the development of the scientific method, contributing to the birth and flourishing of modern science in “Christianized” Western Europe. Others claim that the origin of the scientific method has a richer and more varied history that arose independent of Christian influences. Perhaps. Regardless, the biblical practice of validating spiritual claims through testing reflects the heart of the scientific enterprise and provides an important bridge between Christian faith practices and science. The biblical call to test spiritual claims aligns with the approach scientists use to evaluate scientific proposals about how the world works.

To understand the world and its processes, scientists formulate hypotheses, theories, and models. (I’m going to treat these as roughly synonymous terms.) Scientific proposals have consequences that lead to predictions about future scientific observations and experimental findings. If the predictions that flow from a scientific hypothesis, theory, or model are satisfied by future scientific insights, then the scientific claims associated with the model are regarded as valid. If not, then the theory is either discarded as false or revised to accommodate the new insights. 

Scientific Predictions
While the biblical prophets’ predictions focused only on future events, scientific predictions can be made retrospectively. The predictions that flow out of scientific hypotheses, theories, and models are logical entailments and consequences of these scientific ideas. This means that some scientific predictions—retrodictions, if you will—can be evaluated immediately, as soon as scientists advance their proposal based on what we already know. Testing doesn’t need to wait for future scientific investigations. 

Another way scientists refer to successful retrodictions is to say that a hypothesis, theory, or model accounts for the information we already know, or it explains the available data. So, when scientists make these types of statements, they are really saying that the theory makes successful retrodictions. 

Scientists as Prophets
Unlike biblical prophets who are labeled false prophets—and put to death—if their predictions aren’t realized, scientists celebrate when the predictions associated with scientific proposals come up short. Scientists are even applauded if they provide the means to overturn their own ideas. Ideally, scientists’ chief objective is to falsify their own models and invite others to do the same. If they can’t falsify the predictions that flow out of their model, it indicates that their theory has scientific merit.

Scientists prize failed predictions. These failures help scientists to abandon flawed ideas or force them to revise and refine those models showing promise. Each time, the scientific community moves a little closer to understanding the truth about the world. Those scientific proposals that withstand the rigors of testing (or those that can be salvaged by revising them) are regarded as approximating reality. Each iteration of scientific testing moves them closer to a truer understanding of the world. 

Science serves as a tool to discover truth, with scientific predictions functioning as a barometer for the credibility of scientific ideas. Likewise, testing the words of a prophet becomes the means available to Bible believers to determine if proclamations made on behalf of God are to be trusted. Again, testing becomes the means to uncover truth. When both spiritual and scientific claims are made, believers and scientists alike have an obligation to test them. It is unacceptable to receive either prophecy or scientific ideas on faith alone. 

The difference between established scientific and spiritual truths is that the former are discovered, and the latter are revealed. This means that scientifically discovered truths are provisional. On the other hand, confirmed spiritual truths are unchanging.

The Creation Accounts as a Type of “Biblical Prophecy”
The Old and New Testaments contain passages that speak about God’s work as Creator. Few theological experts would regard these passages as prophetic. The primary purpose of the creation passages is theological, declaring that God the Redeemer is also God the Creator, the maker of all things in the heavens and on the earth. Everything we see is his handiwork and has been made as he intended. A subset of these passages teaches that God made us, too, as human beings. We were made to bear his image, which grounds our unique relationship with God. 

So, while communicating theological truths, the creation accounts also give glimpses into the origin, history, and features of the universe, earth, life, and humanity. Today, questions of origins also fall into the domain of modern-day science. Scientists actively investigate questions about the origin, history, and features of the cosmos, our solar system, our planet, life, and humanity. Along the way, they propose hypotheses, theories, and models about each of these aspects of nature.

Because of the overlap between the creation accounts and the interests of many in the scientific community, it’s feasible to test the creation accounts in the same way that we would test scientific ideas. That is, are they credible in light of modern science? Yet, a growing number of scholars and laypeople alike question if the creation accounts have any connection to the discoveries of modern science. They often argue that the creation accounts were written in a prescientific age, with the author and the immediate audience possessing no inkling about the modern-day insights we possess, thanks to science. Accordingly, if anything, the creation accounts reflect the erroneous “science” of the ancient Near East (ANE). The Bible’s creation accounts, they assert, were shaped by ANE mythology and share much in common with these myths. If so, they are mythical, devoid of any historical or scientific content. Instead, they merely communicate theological truths. 

This perspective leaves little room for the divine inspiration of the biblical texts. What if the biblical authors who wrote the creation accounts were, indeed, inspired by the Holy Spirit? Wouldn’t it make sense that these passages were written in a way that would have been accessible to the original audience? Wouldn’t the texts describe the world in terms they could apprehend, yet, at the same time, convey historical and scientific concepts and ideas in ways that are true and that anticipate future scientific discoveries? 

If so, then it’s proper to regard the creation accounts as prescient, maybe even prophetic.

These claims about the creation passages may make some uncomfortable. Most people understand biblical prophecy to be centered around foretelling Israel’s future and the coming of the Messiah. Accordingly, some of these prophecies have already been fulfilled, and some have been partially fulfilled. Others have yet to be fulfilled. Because many prophecies have successfully transpired, Christians confidently trust that those unfulfilled prophecies will soon come to pass. 

A special group of prophecies have double fulfillment, meaning that they successfully foretell events close to the time the prophecy was delivered by the prophet and also anticipate events much further in the future. The idea that some prophecies will be fulfilled twice provides the basis to think that the creation accounts have a prophetic (already/not yet) nature to them—foretelling future scientific discoveries while communicating theological truths to the original audience. The creation accounts communicated to their original audience in terms they would understand, while at the same time they communicate to us today in terms that we understand.

Just as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy gives us confidence in Scripture and inspires hope that unfulfilled prophecies will soon transpire, testing the creation accounts for their scientific validity also has the potential to elevate our confidence in Scripture. This is especially so because of the foundational role that the creation accounts serve in the story that unfolds in the Bible.

The prophetic aspects of the creation accounts function as the undergirding for the creation model approach we use at Reasons to Believe. Through this approach, we put our understanding of the creation accounts in harm’s way by seeking to determine if they can withstand the ongoing scrutiny of scientific testing.

Our creation model is a scientific theory for biblical creation. It operates as a bona fide scientific model, replete with predictions about scientific discoveries.

The Creation Model Approach
Our creation model bridges biblical hermeneutics and the scientific method. To build our model, we:

• collate all creation accounts and passages that describe God’s creative works
• interpret each of these scriptural passages in their immediate context using sound exegetical techniques
• check our interpretations against interpretations of other relevant passages, spiraling toward a consistent reading of the collected passages
• integrate the passages into a comprehensive and coherent description of God’s creative acts
• recast this description in the form of a scientific model,
• and from this model develop predictions about what scientists should discover

While the biblical texts constrain our model and define its framework, as is true for any scientific model, considerable freedom exists to adjust and fine-tune our model as scientists and theologians make new discoveries about nature and gain new insights on Scripture. Our creation model is dynamic, like any other scientific model. We also recognize that for some biblical passages, a range of valid interpretations exists. These possibilities mean that there can be variants of our creation model.

Yet, our model does have constraints. Out of those constraints arise core, inviolable predictions. Like biblical prophecy, these predictions are nonnegotiable and must be fulfilled for any reasonable version of our model to be valid. If any of these core predictions fail, then our model is invalid. In this sense, the core predictions of our creation model—predictions that arise out of a robust interpretation of the creation passages found in Scripture—are like the predictions associated with biblical prophecy. It is all or nothing.

To date, none of the core predictions of our creation model have been falsified. In fact, many of these predictions have been satisfied in spectacular fashion, producing a confidence in the scientific integrity of the biblical creation accounts.

Some Key Biblical Predictions Satisfied by Scientific Advance
To illustrate this testing process, I’ve included 12 key predictions of our creation model. These predictions have survived the gauntlet of scientific testing.

The universe has a beginning. Genesis 1:1 and Hebrews 11:3 teach that the creation had a beginning, formed at God’s command. This scriptural claim finds support in big bang cosmology and the discovery that the universe had a beginning about 13.8 billion years ago.

Time has a beginning. According to 1 Corinthians 2:7, 2 Timothy 1:9, and Titus 1:2, God’s plan for redemption was put in place before time began. The biblical notion that time has a beginning finds fulfillment in the space-time theorems of general relativity, which indicate that time had a beginning that coincides with the beginning of matter, energy, and space.

The laws of nature are constant. Jeremiah 33:19-26 describes the unwavering regularity of natural processes. This regularity implies that there’s a constancy to the laws of nature, an idea that is a key assumption of modern science. This assumption has been borne out by countless observations and is an integral part of the theory of relativity.

The universe undergoes decay. Romans 8:20 teaches that the creation has been subjected to decay. This aspect of biblical cosmology anticipates the discovery of the second law of thermodynamics, and the idea that the universe continues to inexorably experience an increase in its entropy.

The universe has been designed for life. Romans 1:20 teaches that we should expect to see evidence for God’s fingerprints in nature. We also learn from Psalm 19, for example, that the heavens declare God’s glory. These concepts have been affirmed by the discovery of the cosmological anthropic principle—the idea that the constants and numerical parameters that define the universe must assume exacting values for life to exist. If even one of these numerical values deviates from its current value—in some cases, imperceptibly—life simply couldn’t exist in the universe. The fine-tuning of the constants of physics reveals the design of the universe for a purpose—the advent of life.

The earth has been designed to harbor life. According to Isaiah 45:18, the Creator intended Earth to be filled with life. Astronomers have learned that hundreds of features of Earth, the Moon, Sun, solar system, and the Milky Way Galaxy must be just-right for Earth to be a life support planet. The likelihood of all these just-right features coinciding is so remote that it appears as if Earth is rare, perhaps unique, in its capacity to support life—an idea called the Rare Earth Hypothesis. The just-right conditions needed for life implies that Earth was designed so that it could be filled with life.

Earth began as a water world with continents appearing much later. Genesis 1:2 describes Earth in its primordial state. As part of this description, Earth is depicted as a water world. The Genesis 1 text doesn’t describe the appearance of land until the third creation day. Planetary scientists now recognize that Earth’s entire surface was covered with oceans in its early history and that continents appeared about 1 billion years after Earth formed.

The early conditions of Earth were desolate. Genesis 1:2 also teaches that the earth was formless and empty. In the original Hebrew, this expression implies that early Earth was a desolate wasteland. Planetary scientists have discovered that early Earth was pummeled by impactors that would have rendered the planet a magma ocean—a place of desolation that would be inhospitable to life.

Animal life in the oceans appeared after continents formed. In the Genesis 1 creation account, animal life in the oceans wasn’t created until the fifth day, after the creation of land. Paleontologists have discovered that animal life didn’t appear in the earth’s oceans until around 540 million years ago, after continents had formed.

Humans and animals share biological similarities. Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:19, which teach that both humans and animals were made from the dust of the earth, implies that humans and other animals should have similar biological makeup. These passages anticipate the anatomical, physiological, biochemical, and genetic similarity that anthropologists have discovered for humans and chimpanzees.

Humanity started from an original pair. Genesis 2 teaches that humanity started from two people created by God. While current population estimates suggest that humanity began from a population of several thousand individuals, not two, this prediction of our model hasn’t been falsified. These population numbers are time-average values, meaning that even though the average population for humanity may have been a few thousand people within the time window corresponding to humanity’s first appearance on Earth, there could easily be points of time—say, at the beginning of the time window—when humanity’s population was two and then rapidly increased in number as implied by Genesis 1–11.

Human beings are unique and exceptional. Genesis 1:26–27 teaches that human beings are uniquely made in God’s image. This concept aligns with a growing recognition among anthropologists that humans are exceptional.

This list is by no means complete. There are many more features and predictions of our creation model—and there will be more to come as we continue to develop our model. Yet this sampling should be sufficient to illustrate how the creation accounts in Scripture can be reformulated into a scientific model. The core predictions presented here are logical entailments of our model, flowing naturally from the teachings of Scripture. These predictions have been satisfied, meeting both the criteria of biblical prophecy and science.

The fulfilled predictions of our creation model, like the fulfilled predictions of a biblical prophet, gives us confidence that Scripture is indeed God’s Word to us.

Resources

• More Than a Theory: Revealing a Testable Model for Creation by Hugh Ross (book)

• Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross (book)
• Who Was Adam? A Creation Model Approach to the Origin of Humanity by Fazale Rana with Hugh Ross (book)

The post Are Scientific Predictions Like <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em> Prophecy? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The First Law Describes Total Sacrifice
In the early part of my career, I regularly taught a materials science and engineering course on thermodynamics. In trying to find ways to make the abstract aspects of the laws of thermodynamics comprehensible to students, I noticed a strong correlation between life and the first law, which states that energy is conserved (∑∆E=0). This law is commonly illustrated with billiard balls—when a moving ball hits another just right, it can transfer all of its kinetic energy into the other ball and stop moving while the hit ball moves onward with the same velocity—but it can also be illustrated with food. There’s a certain amount of energy in a grain of wheat, and when we eat it, we use that energy to think and work. But, the grain of wheat is deprived of ever becoming what it was naturally created to do—to reproduce itself. One life is “given up” for the sake of another, so continuation of life is an outcome of the conservation of energy.

More dramatically, a lamb or young calf will not reach maturity and reproduce if it’s sacrificed or butchered to become food (e.g., the Passover lamb, Exodus 13:15). This recognition of death enabling life to continue is ancient. It appears in Genesis 3:21, where God provided skins (clothes) for Adam and Eve to cover their shame when they were banished from the Garden of Eden. This sacrifice of one life given up so that another can live mirrors Jesus’s total sacrifice of himself on behalf of humans. The Creator of the universe sacrificed himself (experienced death and separation from the Father) to allow humans to outlive their earthly physical bodies. This profound sacrifice is much more than energy transfer—this is life transfer—both a physical and spiritual reflection of the first law. The Son of God gave up his earthly life so that earthly humans could live. 

The Second Law Also Describes Sacrifice
There’s a similar correlation between spiritual and physical truth about sacrifice in the second law, but it’s not quite as direct as the first law. The second law states that things naturally tend to fall apart and become disordered, something that we all experience daily. It’s possible to measure this tendency for disorder. It is given the symbol S, for entropy, where increasing disorder means that S gets larger, or, in an equation (∑∆S>0). By combining it with the first law we obtain one of the most important equations that describe how chemical reactions happen, which looks similar to how we think about taxes: net income = income – taxes. The money we get to spend is less than what we earn. Chemical changes depend on the Gibbs free energy, G, where G= H-TS, (T is temperature and H is enthalpy, which describes the state of energy of electrons in bonds within a piece of matter). At a given temperature, the change in the Gibbs free energy defines the maximum possible useful work that can be obtained from a change in H and S (∆G ≤ ∆H-T∆S). For example, this equation is used to find the maximum possible distance you can drive your car based on the reaction between a gallon of gasoline and oxygen. This equation states that only a fraction of the energy (H) can be used to move your car, and the rest cannot be used to do work, but this “entropy tax” makes the work that is done possible. 

If we think of money as a form of stored energy, where G is analogous to disposable income¹ and entropy is a tax, taxes enable the government to provide a societal structure in which we can freely choose how we spend our remaining income. There’s a similar analogy with sacrifices practiced by ancient cultures. Sacrifices could be used to pre-pay the entropy tax in order to manipulate the gods to do what humans wanted them to do, such as bring rain and fertility to the soil for the next crop (e.g., 1 Kings 18). Other possibilities include offering a portion of what we have to cover our guilt or shame (e.g., Exodus 29:14), or to express our gratitude to God for a harvest (Exodus 23:16).  

Can Humans “Disobey” These Laws?
But why can’t we use all of the available energy (or money) without paying the entropy tax? Because it won’t work. These laws are not like human laws; they are absolutely nonnegotiable. The second law must be obeyed. Hence, it behooves designers to use the available energy efficiently to do useful work so that energy is not wasted (for example, building a profitable business while not destroying the environment). As with sacrifices, our attitude toward obeying the second law can vary. For example, we can be resentful about the fact that we can’t use all of the energy in a gallon of gas, or we can be grateful for the energy we do get to use.

In Genesis 4, Adam and Eve’s two sons Cain and Abel both made sacrifices to God. Abel’s was acceptable but Cain’s was not, inviting us to wonder why. Could it be that Abel was grateful to God, and Cain was resentful about making a sacrifice, but did so to manipulate God? God warns Cain in verses 6–7: “Then the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.’” When warned by God about using the fruit of his labor (his harvest) to manipulate God, Cain resentfully chose to murder his brother Abel (Genesis 4:8), and incurred God’s curse for himself and his descendants.

So, not only is sacrificing the fruit of our labor necessary, but our attitude is also important. If we resent paying “entropy taxes,” we may harbor resentment and bitterness toward God for constraining us. If we pay those taxes with gratitude for the stability we have in which we can also worship God freely, and especially if we sacrifice additionally to God, then the fruit of our work also helps others. 

For engineers and scientists, we know that our design work cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics, or it will not succeed. Hence, the laws of thermodynamics guide us when creating useful devices, but they also constrain us—violating them will result in design failure, and possibly death. Here, I see a resonance between the physical laws expressed in math, our work, and our relationship with God.²

Is Entropy Part of the Creator’s Life-Force?
Indeed, the nature of life is rather mysterious—a living animal gathers and concentrates entropy and eliminates it as urine and feces. Yet at the moment when life leaves a body, there’s no change in the atoms in the body, but the rate of decay (disordering) increases rapidly. But we also know that rejected and concentrated entropy + sun via photosynthesis provides the nutrients and energy needed for plants to thrive, thereby enabling the cycle of life. A materialistic argument for the highly organized aspects of life based only on random processes that we can measure is missing something: it struggles to account for the life force that enables and maintains life.  

Did God Build That Life Force into His Creation?
In a conversation with a colleague who does research on the biochemical processes of life, I commented that biology and biochemistry can identify how life works, but can it explain why life works? She said that it was a good question, but no, we cannot account for this life force itself. When I think about how the laws of thermodynamics govern energy, entropy, and the mystery of life, it’s like looking into the face of the Creator of the universe, and it inspires worship.

Endnotes

1. About 40 years later, Lewis and Randall’s textbook made Gibbs’s developments accessible to chemists worldwide. SeeGilbert Newton Lewis and Merle Randall, Thermodynamics and the Free Energy of Chemical Substances(New York: McGraw-Hill, 1923).
2. The laws of thermodynamics indicate that whenever useful work is done, the entropy tax is usually paid in the form of dissipated heat.

The post Do the Laws of Thermodynamics Resonate with <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em> Truth? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Then God said, “Let there be lights [mâ’ôr] in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and they shall serve as signs and for seasons, and for days and years; and they shall serve as lights [mâ’ôr] in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater [gâdôl] light [mâ’ôr] to govern the day, and the lesser [qâṭân] light [mâ’ôr] to govern the night; He made the stars [kôkâb] also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:14–19 NASB).

Were the Sun and Moon created after Earth? Many Christians believe Earth was created “in the beginning” (Genesis 1:1), while the Sun and Moon were not created until the fourth “day.” But does the biblical text suggest a different interpretation?

The answer might be found in the Hebrew words used in Genesis to describe the Sun and Moon. Throughout the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for “Sun” is shemesh¹ and the word for “Moon” is yârêach.² In Genesis 1, however, the Sun is mâ’ôr gâdôl (literally “light big”) and the Moon is mâ’ôr qâṭân (literally “light little”). Nowhere else in the Bible do these phrases refer to the Sun and Moon.

Since unique constructions in the Bible are usually meaningful, we researched the usage of mâ’ôr elsewhere. It is a functional word. It does not describe a light-producing object such as a lamp; rather, it refers to the illumination the lamp provides. In fact, mâ’ôr normally refers to the illumination provided by a lamp in the tabernacle.

Describing the Sun and Moon as illumination carries several subtle implications. For example, the Sun and Moon could have been created “in the beginning,” but their light did not appear to the surface of Earth until the fourth day. In one of his early publications, Hugh Ross suggested early Earth was opaque to the heavenly lights because of extensive cloud cover, which broke just before the fourth day so the lights in the sky could appear.³ The biblical text seems to confirm Ross’s analysis.

Another possible reason Moses used mâ’ôr to describe the Sun and Moon in Genesis 1 might be that it frames a polemic to debunk pagan worship of the Sun and Moon. Worship of celestial bodies was a central tenet of many ancient Near Eastern religions. Shemesh is the Hebrew form of the Mesopotamian deity Shamash, a pagan name found in the Gilgamesh Epic. In Baalism, the Moon was worshiped as Yarih, a child of El and Asherah; it has the same root word as the Hebrew word Yârêach. The Hebrew words shemesh and yârêach—which were in Semitic languages long before Moses penned Genesis 1—were an outgrowth of pagan religion.

By describing the Sun and Moon in Genesis 1 with the functional word mâ’ôr and by emphasizing only their function—to “serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years” and as illumination—Moses accentuates the fact that Sun and Moon are merely inanimate objects created by God to serve a particular function in God’s universe. They are not deities themselves. This was important even for the Hebrews, who worshiped God but referred to the Sun and Moon with words based on pagan myths.

In pagan mythology, the Sun and Moon are preeminent. They are mentioned early on in creation myths and are ascribed specific roles as gods. In Genesis, however, the Sun and Moon are not preeminent gods; and they are not even lesser gods serving the God of the Hebrews. Therefore, Moses deemphasizes the importance of the Sun and Moon in two other ways. First, he delays mentioning them until the fourth day—relatively late in the creation epic. Second, he minimizes their roles to the strictly functional and obvious: to provide light for the world and to serve as timekeepers for day and night and for seasons to benefit the animals and humans God created.

As a final point, since mâ’ôr is most frequently used in the Bible as light from the oil of the lamp in the tabernacle,⁴ one is tempted to suggest that God—through Moses—is introducing the idea that the heavens are God’s holy tabernacle.

Genesis 1 may seem a simple text, but delving deeper often reveals multiple additional meanings, as we’ve seen with the unique use of the word mâ’ôr to describe the Sun and Moon on the fourth day. This one vocabulary choice suggests something about how the conditions of early Earth serve as a polemic against worship of creation, and potentially reveal that the heavens are God’s holy tabernacle.

With such deep complexity and richness, truly the Bible is the word of God!

Endnotes

1. Genesis 15:12, 17; 19:23; 28:11; 32:31; 37:9; Exodus 16:21; 17:12; 22:3, 26; Leviticus 22:7; Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; 24:13, 15; 33:14; Joshua 1:4; 10:12–13; 23:4; Judges 5:31; 9:33; 14:18; 19:14; 1 Samuel 11:9; 2 Samuel 2:24; 3:35; 12:12; 23:4; 2 Kings 3:22; 23:5, 11; Nehemiah 7:3; Job 8:16; Psalm 19:4; 50:1; 58:8; 72:5, 17; 74:16; 84:11; 89:36; 104:19, 22; 113:3; 121:6; 136:8; 148:3; Ecclesiastes 1:3, 5, 9, 14; 2:11, 17–20, 22; 3:16; 4:1, 3, 7, 15; 5:13, 18; 6:1, 5, 12; 7:11; 8:9, 15, 17; 9:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 10:5; 11:7; 12:2; Song of Solomon 1:6; Isaiah 30:26; 38:8; 41:25; 45:6; 49:10; 59:19; 60:19–20; Jeremiah 8:2; 15:9; 31:35; Ezekiel 8:16; 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Amos 8:9; Jonah 4:8; Micah 3:6; Nahum 3:17; Habakkuk 3:11; Malachi 1:11; 4:2.

2. Genesis 37:9; Numbers 29:6; Deuteronomy 4:19; 17:3; Joshua 10:12–13; 2 Kings 23:5; Job 25:5; 31:26; Psalm 8:3; 72:5, 7; 89:37; 104:19; 121:6; 136:9; 148:3; Ecclesiastes 12:2; Isaiah 13:10; 60:19–20; 66:23; Jeremiah 8:2; 31:35; Ezekiel 32:7; Joel 2:10, 31; 3:15; Habakkuk 3:11.

3. Hugh Ross, Genesis One: A Scientific Perspective (Pasadena: Reasons to Believe, 1979), 10.

4. Genesis 1:14–16; Exodus 25:6; 27:20; 35:8, 14, 28; 39:7; Leviticus 24:2; Numbers 4:9, 16; Psalm 74:16; 90:8; Proverbs 15:30; Ezekiel 32:8.

The post The Sun and Moon on the Fourth Day: What the <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em> Text Reveals appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Another biblical example is found in Romans 8:20–22. Here, Paul states that “the whole creation has been groaning” as a result of its “bondage to decay” (NIV 1984). This passage summarizes the long discourses in Ecclesiastes, especially chapters 1–3, 10–12, declaring that the law of decay, known today as the second law of thermodynamics, applies ubiquitously throughout the universe.

Foundation of Modern Science
The biblical principle of unchanging and pervasive physics launched the scientific revolution. During the Renaissance, students of the Bible began to recognize that if the laws of physics are the same for all times and places throughout the universe, then experiments and observations about natural phenomena will reveal reliable and trustworthy knowledge and understanding about the natural realm. Such understanding would not only satisfy our curiosity about nature but also yield economic and technological advances. During the Reformation, the recognition of unchanging and pervasive physics became widespread throughout Europe and gave birth to the scientific revolution.

It is no accident that the scientific revolution was birthed in Reformation Europe. Biblical literacy, for the first time, flourished in Reformation Europe and led to the widespread acceptance that the laws of physics could be trusted to reveal truth about nature.

Tests of Unchanging Physics
Even though the biblical principle of constant and pervasive laws of physics forms the foundation of the scientific method and scientific research, scientists continue to subject the principle to rigorous and exhaustive testing. They have two reasons for doing so. First, affirming the fundamental assumption undergirding the scientific method and scientific research to a greater degree of precision and to a greater extent of space and time builds confidence in the value and successes of the scientific enterprise. Second, searching for very tiny departures from the constancy of known laws of physics might reveal the existence of new, as yet undiscovered, laws of physics. For example, what appeared to astronomers at the end of the nineteenth century as a tiny departure from Newton’s laws of motion in their observations of Mercury’s orbit¹ led to the discovery of another nonvarying law of physics, the theory of general relativity.²

Christians also have a vested interest in subjecting the biblical principle of constant and pervasive laws of physics to more rigorous and exhaustive testing. Millennia before scientists had any hint that the laws of physics are constant and that they apply ubiquitously to the entire universe, the Bible stood alone in making such claims. These tests present an opportunity to demonstrate the Bible’s unique power to accurately predict future scientific discoveries. Such a demonstration provides strong evidence for the existence of an all-knowing, all-truthful God and that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant revelation from that God.

Past Tests
I have written many Today’s New Reason to Believe articles documenting the most rigorous observations and experiments that establish that the laws of physics are constant and pervasive.³ The most stringent tests achieved to date, with years over which measurements have been made, are as follows:

The two tests performed over 4–year spans were achieved in laboratories. Helioseismic observations of the Sun were responsible for the test over a 24-year span. Observations of the spectral lines of galaxies and quasars over a broad range of light-travel times yielded the three tests over billions of years. To less precision, tests show no sign of variation in the values of the fundamental constants of physics with respect to regional location in the universe.¹⁰

Latest Test
The past tests establish to high precision that no change has occurred in the fundamental constants of physics from 11.0–12.9 billion years ago until the present. That’s 93.5% of cosmic history. Until the James Webb Space Telescope and the Extremely Large Telescope become operational, it will not be possible for observations of galaxy and quasar spectral lines to push the time range earlier than 12.9 billion years ago. However, two British astronomers, Luke Hart and Jens Chluba, analyzed data from the Planck 2018 map of the cosmic microwave background radiation to determine values for the fine-structure constant and the electron-to-proton mass ratio when the universe was only 370,000 years old, or 13.79 billion years before the present.¹¹

Hart and Chluba determined that just 370,000 years after the cosmic creation event the value of the fine-structure constant compared to its value measured in present-day laboratories = 1.0005 +/- 0.0024. The value of the electron-to-proton mass ratio 370,000 years after the cosmic creation event compared to the present-day value = 1.0005 +/- 0.0099. Though Hart and Chluba’s measurements are not as accurate as the past tests, they extend the demonstration that the fundamental constants of physics remain unchanged over the past 93.5% to now 99.9973% of cosmic history.

Philosophical Implications
Observations now show that the laws of physics that govern the universe indeed are unchanged to high precision over (what for all practical purposes is) the entire history of the universe. The accurate forecasting of this scientific discovery thousands of years ago in the writings of the Bible establishes that the One who inspired the Bible authors to write what they did must be superintelligent, superknowledgeable, superpowerful, trustworthy, and truthful. These observations show, too, that the study of nature is a worthwhile endeavor that can be trusted to reveal truth not only about the natural realm but also about the attributes of the One who brought it all into existence.

Endnotes

1. Simon Newcomb, “Discussion of the Observed Transits of Mercury, 1677–1881,” Astronomical Papers Prepared for the Use of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, vol. I (Washington: Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department, 1882), available at http://relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/mercury_perihelion_advance/S.Newcomb.pdf; G. M. Clemence, “The Relativity Effect in Planetary Motions,” Reviews of Modern Physics 19, no. 4 (October 1, 1947): 361–364, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.19.361.
2. Albert Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie,” Annalen Der Physik 354, no. 7 (July 1916): 769–822, doi:10.1002/andp.19163540702; Albert Einstein, translated by Satyendra Nath Bose, “The Foundation of the Generalised Theory of Relativity,” last edited December 30, 2020.
3. Hugh Ross, “New Fine-Structure Constant Measurement Affirms Cosmic Creation,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), March 1, 2021; Hugh Ross, “More Evidences for Biblical Claim of Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), June 22, 2020; Hugh Ross, “Stronger and More Comprehensive Tests Affirm the Universe’s Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), July 1, 2013; Hugh Ross, “TNRTB Classic: Testing the Biblical Notion of Unchanging Physics,” Today’s New Reason to Believe (blog), July 4, 2013.
4. Nathan Leefer et al., “New Limits on Variation of the Fine-Structure Constant Using Atomic Dysprosium,” Physical Review Letters 111, no. 6 (August 6, 2013): id. 060801, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.060801.
5. S. A. Levshakov et al., “An Upper Limit to the Variation in the Fundamental Constants at Redshift z = 5.2,” Astronomy & Astrophysics: Letters 540 (April 2012): id. L9, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219042; Franco D. Albareti et al., “Constraint on the Time Variation of the Fine-Structure Constant with the SDSS-III/BOSS DR12 Quasar Sample,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 452, no. 4 (October 1, 2015): 4153–4168, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1406.
6. J. Kobayashi, A. Ogino, and S. Inouye, “Measurement of the Variation of Electron-to-Proton Mass Ratio Using Ultracold Molecules Produced from Laser-Cooled Atoms,” Nature Communications 10 (August 21, 2019): id. 3771, doi:10.1038/s41467-019-11761-1.
7. Levshakov et al., “An Upper Limit.”
8. Alfio Bonanno and Hans-Erich Fröhlich, “A New Helioseismic Constraint on a Cosmic-Time Variation of G,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 893, no. 2 (April 21, 2020): id. L35, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab86b9.
9. Earl Patrick Bellinger and Jørgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, “Astroseismic Constraints on the Cosmic-Time Variation of the Gravitational Constant from an Ancient Main-sequence Star,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 887, no. 1 (December 3, 2019): id. L1, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab43e7.
10. Jon O’Bryan et al., “Constraints on Spatial Variations in the Fine-Structure Constant from Planck,” The Astrophysical Journal 798, no. 1 (January 1, 2015): id. 18, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/18.
11. Luke Hart and Jens Chluba, “Updated Fundamental Constant Constraints from Planck 2018 Data and Possible Relations to the Hubble Tension,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493, no. 3 (April 2020): 3255–3263, doi:10.1093/mnras/staa412.

The post New Evidence Further Affirms <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em> Prediction of Unchanging Physics appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post More Evidences for <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em> Claim of Unchanging Physics appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em> Evidence for an Old Earth: Ham vs. Zweerink Follow-Up appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Rats’ Hide-and-Seek Game Affirms <em class="algolia-search-highlight">Biblical</em> Creation appeared first on Reasons to Believe.