How does Science PROVE the Bible?

Submit YOUR questions, through our easy to use form,
to our team of mature Christians known as the Email Evangelists!

Can Science really prove the Bible? Atheists, scoffers and others say the scriptures are nothing more than a collection of fairy tales and fables passed from generation to generation. They contend the Bible has little credibility. Christians, however, believe it is the very word of God Almighty that explains the right way to live life both now and in the future. Somewhere in the middle are those who believe PARTS of the scriptures are true but not all of it. But who is right?

Is the Bible all true, partly true, or just plain fiction? Is there anything in it that would prove it had to be DIVINELY inspired? Does it contain scientific facts or knowledge that were clearly above and beyond the understanding of those who authored its pages? And what are some of the most ridiculous claims made by science trying to prove God doesn't exist and evolution is true?

Imagine living a few thousand years ago writing a book. Like everyone else in your day, you would wonder what holds up the earth. We know about the force of gravity only because modern science have discovered it. Aside from that knowledge, living on the earth, observing only what a human can see and feel, wouldn't it be the logical conclusion that the earth rests on or is supported by SOMETHING?

"The world was often said to rest on the back of a turtle."

How then was the Bible able to get it right? How could a man writing a book a few thousand years BEFORE the discovery of gravity write about its existence? Notice what the Bible says in Job 26: "He stretches out the north over EMPTY SPACE. He hangs the earth on NOTHING." (Job 26:7, NKJV throughout unless noted). All of us have seen pictures of the earth taken from outer space like the one on the right. Doesn't the earth look like it is hung out in space by NOTHING? And indeed, isn't gravity, the force we now know holds up the earth, something that is NOT seen? Job, written around the 1660s B.C., is the oldest book of the Bible. What he wrote was against all the logic and science known at the time. His statement referencing what we today call gravity HAD to be divinely revealed!

Earth as seen from Apollo 17 space mission.

Let's look at more Bible statements that science can prove - this time regarding springs or wells in the oceans. In the book of Genesis we learn how the great flood (Noah's flood) was created:

"In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the FOUNTAINS OF THE GREAT DEEP WERE BROKEN UP, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 7:11)

The word translated as "fountains" in the above verse (Strong's Concordance #H4599) can mean springs or wells in addition to fountains. Are there really fountains or springs in the oceans? If your answer is that the Bible was wrong about that, you would have seemed correct for some 3,000 years. Correct until 1977 that is. Despite sixty years of modern submarine activity, ocean springs were unknown and undiscovered until 1977. In that year, with only 5% of the ocean floor explored, scientists found springs in the ocean off the coast of Ecuador (The Medusa and the Snail by Lewis Thomas, published 1979 by Viking Press, NY. ). They were found at an ocean depth of 1 1/2 miles (2.4 kilometers)! These springs contained super-heated water of about 450 degrees. Additionally, scientists exploring another section of ocean floor expected to find springs 125 to 200 miles apart. Instead, they were much closer. The scientists found six springs about 60 miles apart. How many more springs might there be vast ocean yet unexplored?

Some Bible skeptics claim the oceans and the atmosphere together do not contain enough water to cover the earth to the depth needed to reach above the mountains, as was the case in the great flood. This criticism does not hold up because the Bible says the springs in the oceans were broken up at the time of the flood, which would increase their flow. How much extra water could the broken up springs produce? Some scientists believe there is probably as much water circulating under the sea floor as there is in the oceans above. Isn't that remarkable? You might want to ponder that a moment.

The Bible statements about springs in the oceans, written long ago, were against all logic and science extant at the time. This knowledge had to come from someone or something higher and greater than man. This knowledge had to come from God.

A speaker I once heard stated that there were no NEW cells being created. The speaker based his comment on the research of several scientists who stated that "All cells come only from existing cells." (Introductory Biology by Linda R. Berg, published 1997 by Saunders College Publishing). One of the people listening to the message asked that IF no new cells are being created today, then where do the trillions of our body cells body come from? The answer to this question is the third scientific fact that helps prove the Bible. In Genesis 35 the Bible tells us:

"And God said unto him, I am God Almighty; be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of you, and kings shall come OUT OF YOUR LOINS." (Genesis 35:11, KJV)

The New King James Version translation of the verse is:

"Also God said to him: 'I am God Almighty. Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall proceed from you, and kings shall come FROM YOUR BODY.' " (Genesis 35:11, NKJV)

There are other references to "coming out of your loins" or coming out of the body in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Kings, and Chronicles. Let's also notice what Hebrews 7 says:

"And indeed those who are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a commandment to receive tithes from the people according to the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come from THE LOINS OF ABRAHAM; " (Hebrews 7:5)

Abraham was the father of Issac. Issac was the father of Jacob, who was later renamed ISRAEL. Jacob had twelve sons, each of which would grow into its own tribe. They are collectively referred to as the twelve tribes of Israel. Levi was one of the twelve sons. Now let's take a look at verses 9 and 10 of the same chapter:

"Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, so to speak, for he was STILL IN THE LOINS OF HIS FATHER when Melchizedek met him." (Hebrews 7:9-10)

In other words, the Bible is stating that Levi, who was born after Abraham, was in a sense present at the meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek since he was in the loins or body of his great-grandfather. Are the verses we just read from based on SCIENCE? Was Levi REALLY present in the loins of his ancestor Abraham? For that matter, were we, in a very real way, present in the loins of our grandfather or great-grandfather? Or are these statements in the Bible merely a metaphor or allegory? A further study of cells shows that what is stated in God's word is a scientific fact.

A bit of clarification is needed by what is meant that no NEW cells are being created today. True enough, our bodies create cells all the time and in that sense they are new. But where did the cells that currently make up our bodies come from? Did they just pop into existence out of NOTHING? Were they created out of some random CHANCE of the right molecules coming together at the right time in exactly the right order, etc. etc. . . . as evolutionists believe the basic building blocks of all life were created? NO! The current cells in our body were made from the splitting of cells that ALREADY EXISTED! In short, our existence was made possible by those (our parents) who ALREADY existed!

The book Cell and Molecular Biology states: "Cells can only arise by division from a PRE-EXISTING cell." Lewis Thomas puts it this way: "You start out as a single cell derived from the coupling of a (already existing!) sperm and an egg". The Way Life Works says: "We each began as an egg fertilized by a sperm, a single cell." Biologist Gerald Karp explains it this way: "The production of offspring by sexual reproduction includes the union of two (already existing!) cells." (Cell and Molecular Biology).

Every human starts out as ONE CELL that quickly divides and multiplies. This one cell, with our entire genetic makeup, was created when two EXISTING cells - one from each of our parents - combined. But that begs another question. Where then did the two cells that combined to form the one cell that led to our existence COME FROM? The cells in our parents that created us ultimately came from cells that already existed in THEIR parents (our grandparents)! And so on and so on as we go back through our ancestors. In fact, science states that all life - including animals and plants - came from cells that existed in their parents.

So it's all about ancestors, isn't it? Just as the Bible said! The book The Medusa and the Snail supports these conclusions when it says: "All of today's DNA, strung through all the cells of the earth, is simply an extension and elaboration of that first molecule." Substitute cell for molecule and it goes back to the first cell, even to Adam and Eve. The book Cell and Molecular Biology sums it up when it says: "Cell division, therefore, forms the link between a parent and its offspring; between living species and their extinct ancestors."

So the many Bible statements about a person "being in the loins or body of" someone else are accurate AND scientific! But how did the Bible writers know this principle of science thousands of years ago? It was not until 1855 that a German scientist named Rudolf Virchow learned about cells. He stated that all cells come from existing cells. Even then Virchow's statement about cells was not universally accepted until it was finally proven correct with the explosion of modern cell research in the 1950's. Virchow's book adds that in 1880 A.D. August Weismann pointed out that, since cells come from pre-existing cells, "all cells today can trace their origins back to ancient cells." Yes, science says we can trace our present day cells back to the ancient cells of our ancestors.

The Bible statements written thousands of years ago were based on cell knowledge not known at the time. I submit that this accurate scientific knowledge came from something or someone higher than man and prove the divine inspiration of God's word.

Reconstructed facade of Ur's Ziggurat

For centuries, skeptics stated that the Bible was nothing more than a collection of stories, myths, legends and fanciful tales created out of the imaginative minds of ignorant shepherds and nomads. Therefore, is was reasoned, statements in the Bible should not be considered factual, true or verifiable (like statements made by science!). For example, skeptics often state that if the Bible was true then WHERE is the ancient city of Ur? Ur was the city the Biblical patriarch Abraham, by command of God, was said to have left for another place (Canaan) God wanted him to live:

"Then He (God) said to him (Abraham), 'I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.' " (Genesis 15:7)

"You are the Lord God, who chose Abram, and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans, and gave him the name Abraham;" (Nehemiah 9:7)

The entire account of Abraham's journey can be found in Genesis 12. The New Testament refers to this journey in Hebrews 11:9-10. For years the skeptics used the fact that Ur had not been found as a justification for believing the entire Bible is wrong, until . . . . the city was FOUND in 1854!

In 1854 not much excavation work was done. It took an Englishman named Leonard Wooley to excavate Ur. He labored there from 1922 until 1934 A.D. What Wooley found amazed scholars and laymen alike. It was discovered that Ur had been a powerful, prosperous, colorful and busy capital that was a major hub for trading. The city, it turns out, not only existed but was sophisticated and highly organized!

In a surprising contrast, the city of Babylon was found to have had only simple mud buildings. But Ur, which was built 1,200 years BEFORE Babylon, had homes made of burnt brick, much like ours today! But were these homes simple dwelling places with a few rooms? NO! Wooley found homes that were actually two-story villas with thirteen to fourteen rooms surrounding a courtyard. These homes also had a modern lavatory. These residences had more than enough room for a family, their servants, and guests.

The excavations of Ur also produced a workshop were TWELVE kinds of clothing were made. Also found recorded were the names of the mill girls and their quota of rations, even to the weight of wool given each worker, and what each produced. Tax receipts were found that had been meticulously kept by week, month, and year. The Ziggurat (the translated name means "house whose foundation creates terror") of Ur, which was the city's main religious structure, was built four hundred years before Abraham. It was three stories high, with walls that all sloped inward - there was not a straight line in it! The discovery and excavation of Ur is another important confirmation from science that the Bible is accurate in its details.

The book of Ecclesiastes was written between 970 and 930 B.C. during the reign of Solomon. Imagine yourself living in that time. What would you know about the WIND? Only what you could see and feel, right? You would know it blows some days very strong, some days very weak, and some days not at all. Sometimes the wind comes from the north, other days it might come from the south in the morning then later change to blowing from the west. The wind, given the understanding at the time, would seem not to have any pattern as to where it blows from, how strong and long it might blow, etc. In short, the wind would be seen as unpredictable.

In the book of Ecclesiastes there is a very interesting statement about the wind:

"The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north. The wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit." (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

How could anyone, thousands of year ago, have known about the pattern of the earth's winds? This statement, against everything that could have been observed, has stood by itself for nearly three thousand years. It took a French mathematician named Coeriolis, who died in 1843, to study and identify wind circuits. What Coeriolis discovered supported the Bible statement in Ecclesiastes - not just in one way, but in THREE ways!

Earth's Prevailing Winds

First notice the Bible says the wind goes south then turns to the north. Coeriolis found the wind goes clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, and then turns about and goes counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere! Named for him, the Coriolis effect is very important in understanding wind and ocean currents. Second, are there in fact wind circuits? The World Book Encyclopedia has a diagram showing the known wind systems, or circuits. Their diagram is a map of the earth with little arrows showing the location and direction of each wind circuit. How many are there? Their diagram has plotted 28 circuits!

But there's more. You may have heard of a weatherman refer to the "jet stream" and how it affects your local weather. Jet streams do exist and do have established circuits. The jet streams have winds at speeds of up to 200 mph and were first discovered by World War II fighter pilots.

Third, the Bible said the wind whirls about continually. How could an observer on the ground possibly know that winds can move constantly since such consistent winds occur only at high altitudes? Ecclesiastes 1:6 made no sense, from a human observable point of view, until the research of Coeriolis in the early 1800's. The Bible's statement about the winds was against all that was known at the time. The statement in Ecclesiastes is yet another one in scripture that can be proven by modern science.

A revealing statement of science fact is stated in Isaiah 40:

"Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket, and are counted as the small dust on the scales. Look, He (God) lifts up the isles as a very little thing." (Isaiah 40:12)

What do you think about this verse? Is it silly? Is it folly to say that whole nations are like a "drop in a bucket?" We know those descriptions can't possibly be literal, don't we? What reason could Isaiah have had to write such seeming nonsense?

Those reactions, or something like them, made perfect sense - until the twentieth century that is. For it was only during the past one hundred years that scientists were able to look into the atom, which is the building block of all the matter in the universe. And what did they find? They found - as incredible as it sounds - that atoms are mostly EMPTY SPACE!

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

Compare the size of the nucleus to the size of the space between it and the molecules that orbit it!

Most of the mass of an atom is in the tiny, tiny nucleus: "At least 99.995% of the mass of each atom resides in a tiny nucleus composed of protons and neutrons.(Discover magazine, columnist Bob Berman in his column, "Sky Lights"). How big is an atom's nucleus, which contains almost all its mass, compared to the space between it and its molecules? "If the typical atom were the size of a football field, the nucleus would be a grain of salt at midfield." (ibid.) "If a hydrogen atom were about 4 miles in diameter, its nucleus would be no bigger than a tennis ball." (World Book Encyclopedia, 2004 edition, article "Atoms")

"If the atom were to be inflated until it filled an Olympic stadium, the nucleus would be the size of a pea lying alone in the center of the track." (Super Nature by Lyall Watson, Bantam Books edition published 1974)

Since almost all of the mass of an atom is in an even tinier, tinier nucleus, what is the rest of an atom filled with? Writing about the rest of an atom outside of its nucleus, one author put it like this: "A cloud of electrons marks the atom's outer bounds. The rest is a void. " (ibid.)

Since the building blocks of all matter are themselves mostly empty space, can you see how scientifically accurate Isaiah's statement is? Remember, he said,

"Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket, and are counted as the small dust on the scales. Look, He (God) lifts up the isles as a very little thing." (Isaiah 40:12)

Do modern scientists say much the same thing?

"All matter is like this [empty]. Take a man and squeeze the empty spaces out of him, like the holes in a sponge, and you are left with a little pile of solid substance, no larger than a flyspeck." (Super Nature by Lyall Watson, Bantam Books edition published 1974)

The author added this observation,

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

So it seems the latest discoveries of science confirm that all of the matter that makes up a man, or makes up the whole earth, with the emptiness removed, would be the size of a flyspeck or fit into the head of a pin! What do humans see as they look around at their physical world? Don't we see objects that appear solid and substantial? Is not it the furthest thing from their minds is that they are made up of atoms - atoms that are mostly EMPTY SPACE?

But if you were the creator of that physical matter, wouldn't you see them for what they really are? Wouldn't you see them as trillions and trillions of atoms - atoms that are mostly empty space? What Isaiah wrote did not come from the active imagination of a mere human. It came from the Creator God. The same Creator who can look at the earth and everything on it and see them for what modern science says they really are: innumerable atoms that contain very little actual mass or substance.

Early man thought the shape of the earth was flat, a rigid platform at the center of the universe. Yet, we find written in the pages of the Bible:

"It is He (God) who sits above THE CIRCLE OF THE EARTH, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers . . ." (Isaiah 40:22)

This verse was written about two thousand eight hundred years ago when it was believed the earth is flat. When did the idea of a circular earth finally become accepted? The concept of a spherical earth was not widely accepted until the Renaissance! Isaiah's writing about a circular earth two thousand plus years ago is yet another proof of the scientific accuracy and credibility of the Bible.

Let's review the modern discoveries of science that prove the accuracy of statements found in the Bible:

1. The earth is hung on nothing just as today's space photos so clearly show.

2. The scientific study of cells has shown that we came from our parent's cells, and that those cells came from THEIR parent's cells and so on.

3. The city of Ur was finally discovered in 1854, much to the dismay of the Bible skeptics!

4. Coriolis discovered that winds turn about at the equator - going clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, and going counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. It was also discovered that there were wind circuits - 28 of them - as diagrammed in the World Book Encyclopedia. Also, it was found that the wind blows almost continuously in the atmosphere.

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

6. Discoveries made in the world of the atom reveal that all matter is mostly empty space.

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

Ridiculous claims made by Science regarding evolution 

Did matter came into existence from nothing? Taken at face value, this claim states exactly what the book of Genesis says that God did. In our case however, we have evolutionists making the same statement with no causal agent. I have done quite a bit of research on this point, and it is evident that most evolutionists agree that matter is not eternal, that it came into existence at some point in the past. On the other hand, if matter were eternal, then it would be completely inert and disorganized because all energy tends to render itself less usable over time as it changes form; that is, it follows the second law of thermodynamics. Nothing in the universe would be radioactive because all radioactive matter would have exhausted its half lives in eons past.

Most evolutionary scientists believe that the universe came into being 12.7 billion years ago, and that it started from a "Big Bang," which is evolutionary lingo for an enormous explosion somewhere in the nothingness of space. The "Big Bang" theory assumes that there was once a super-concentrated glob (not to be confused with the physics term "mass") of subatomic particles (all the mass and energy in the universe) that exploded, hurling mass and energy outward from that explosion point. The story goes that as the matter raced outward, it began to cool and coagulate into the celestial balls we see at night called stars and planets. This is, of course, a very simplistic explanation of the Big Bang theory, but I think you get the gist of it.

If I were in a classroom, I would have to ask a few questions at this point. Where did the subatomic particles come from? What physical laws in a nonexistent universe caused the Big Bang to occur? Why 12.7 billion years ago? Why not 107.7 billion years ago? What was the causal agent of the Big Bang? Where did the physical laws originate that govern the cooling and coagulating of the matter into stars and planets that was hurled outward by the Big Bang.

One of the problems with the Big Bang theory is the concept of time. Time is important to us on earth, but in the rest of the universe there is only mass, motion, and energy. So, when we say 12.7 billion years, can we say for certainty that time has always been a constant factor in determining the age of the universe? 

Is evolution statistically POSSIBLE? To avoid allowing this discussion to become too complicated, let me quote a number of well-known scientists. 

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place" (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability).

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10 ^340,000,000.  This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power!  The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10⁸⁰ (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University).

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did" (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner).

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation" (Professor Phillip E. Johnson).

Evolution assumes the increase in order in the universe and the increase in the usability of energy, in addition higher complexity in supposed "evolved" organic species of plants and animals. However, the second law of thermodynamics (called "entropy") states that matter tends toward chaos and that energy becomes less usable over time. This universally known and recognized law directly contradicts the brazen postulation of the theory of evolution that matter has become more organized over time and that the evolution of living organisms has somehow produced greater order and provided us with more usable energy. 

One of the assumptions of evolutionists is that geological strata in places like the Grand Canyon or Williston Basin in North Dakota can be used as a measuring stick for the evolution of plant and animal species. What is generally not revealed in geology or biology text books is that any animal or plant species is likely to be found resting conformably (i.e., without upheaval or disruption) in any set of rock layers anywhere in the world. In other words, trilobites might be found at the bottom of a geological column in the Grand Canyon. In another part of the world, or even in the state of Arizona for that matter, trilobites might be found resting conformably in what are considered to be the "newer" layers in the column. There is no such thing as a geological column that can be used as a standard by which to measure the likelihood of "old" or "recently evolved" species of plants or animals. The truth is, the geological column has been pieced together from exposed layers and core drilling from around the world. It is a patchwork.

In actual fact, the strata are "dated" by the fossils contained in them. You read that correctly; the strata are dated by the fossils, and the fossils are dated by the strata. This kind of circular reasoning is very tricky, but biologists and geologists have been using it for years to "prove" their case for evolution. As some paleontologists state:

 "It is a problem not easily solved by the classic methods of stratigraphical paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology [theory of rock strata] is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology" (Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record, 1973, p. 62).

"The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales" (O’Rourke, J.E., "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53).

Is evolution REALLY based strictly on science? Evolution is not observable, it is not measurable, and it is not repeatable - three absolutely necessary ingredients for any theory to be deemed scientific. To be scientific, evolution must be based on theories that are falsifiable, which means that such theories can be repeated and disproved (if false) by others. The assumptions for any experiment cannot be rigged to lead only to the conclusion that the theory is true (which evolutionists have done). It has to allow the scientist the option of concluding that the theory is false. The scientific method has four steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. What makes evolution unscientific is that it cannot be tested. Some may object to this statement by saying that we can observe evolution by looking at the rocks and fossils in the Grand Canyon and many other places. The problem with that objection is that evolution, as it is defined, is not rocks and fossils, it is a process of the mutation of one species into another that supposedly continues to this day.

Since any hypothesis has to be based on observation, where can we observe the process of evolutionary mutations taking place? We can’t, because they are not taking place. In actual fact, if evolution were true, we should see many more transitional (intermediate) species of plants and animals than we see fully-formed species, yet we see none. We do not see them in the fossil layers; we do not see them around us in living "half-species." They do not exist.

However, evolutionists are not even looking at the process of evolution. They are looking at what they assume are the results of some hitherto unobserved process that they call organic evolution. They assume the results of that process are recorded in the fossil record. Their theory is based on two mutually supportive (and faulty) assumptions: that the fossils date the rocks, and the rocks, in turn, date the fossils. It cannot be both. You have to pick one or the other and test it.