Along with my series on trades and occupations I am concurrently working on a series about the veracity of scientific statements made in the Bible too. This is the first post in that series.
Chemistry and the periodic table as science is a newer branch of knowledge for all its achievements it has only been around for the last few centuries. It can hardly be compared to or bear much relation to the alchemy of the Middle-Ages. Alchemy that wanted the famous philosopher’s stone in order to transform the base metals into gold. The Bible does not agree with any of these speculations or abilities of alchemists. Then again it doesn’t speak directly to modern science of chemistry either. The word chemistry itself comes from a modification of the word alchemy, which referred to an earlier set of practices (of pseudoscience) that encompassed elements of chemistry, metallurgy, philosophy, astrology, astronomy, mysticism and medicine. It is likely the word chemistry was purposely taken from the word alchemy specifically to differentiate from it.
It is important to note however, that contrary to most uniformed opinions the Bible nowhere conflicts with the conceptions of modern chemistry whereas other ancient writings do. From what I can tell the Bible presents a few very interesting examples of chemistry now better understood and these make fine points of contact and contrast in bringing the claims of the Scriptures to acolytes of science. I will review some of them over the next few posts in this series.
I imagine the true composition of matter and its changes when heated, burned, etc., must have been a mystery and a subject of wonder to Biblical authors as well as to the other ancients. Several chemical processes such as smelting metals, burning lime, etc. were known to the Bible authors and are mentioned. But a scientific explanation of the processes is never given. They were content to leave these items and processes as unknown and dependent on the providence and sovereignty of God.
Ecclesiastes 11:5 As
you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother's
womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things
Job 28:2 Iron is taken out of the earth (עָפָר / aphar/dry dust), and copper is smelted from the ore.
Job knew that iron comes from dust (probably hematite or limonite ore) and copper from stone (such as malachite) but no explanation of the process is attempted by Job. It is merely stated as a matter-of-fact. It is in these matter-of-fact statements that we see the mark of divine inspiration. That someone like Job who could have so many erroneous thoughts and make so many erroneous statements to God, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar but when making absolute truth statements about a field like chemistry and its elements…he was correct.
So is the Bible free from contemporaneous scientific error? Let’s first examine some documented secular sources. Let's first contrast the Bible’s statements with that of Herodotus in Book IV in his Histories which were supposed to be a historical record of the ancient traditions, politics, geography, and clashes of various cultures that were known in Greece, Western Asia and Northern Africa at that time. In other words, what he wrote in Histories should’ve been accurate history. In reality it was so ridiculously wrong it was laughable. Yet, the Bible as history is routinely mocked. SMH. Evidently Herodotus wasn’t aware of moose and reindeer...
“To me it seems that
the cold may likewise be the cause which prevents the oxen in Scythia from
having horns... in countries where the cold is severe animals either have no
horns or grow them with difficulty—the cold being the cause in this instance.”
Now let us also review Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, Ch. 10. Josephus states that a section of Egypt has, “….a multitude of serpents, some of which ascend out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air, and so come upon men at unawares.” Josephus here obviously made a mistake in natural history.
As a last counterpoint I mention Aristotle makes similar mistakes in Part of Animals, Book II, Chapter 3 & Chapter 7. Thankfully Aristotle wasn’t my cardiologist or neurologist. He states, “…digestion is effected through natural heat” that “the brain is a compound of earth and water” that the brain is a cold organ and is “a counterbalancing effect to the heart with its contained heat” and that “it is the brain…which is the cause of sleep. For either by chilling the blood that streams upwards after food or by some other similar influences, it produces heaviness in the region in which it lies (which is the reason why drowsy persons hang the head).”
The Bible makes no such errors.
How much ridicule and scorn would’ve additionally been heaped upon the Bible had they made these types of obvious scientific errors? How different would the picture be if the Bible taught as the errant alchemists did, that gold could be transmuted from base metals by driving out the impure quality called sulfur?
What do we think would’ve happened if the Bible said that all matter was composed of varying combinations of four elements—earth, air, fire, and water as Empedocles of Ancient Greece taught and believed? Christians would’ve been laughed off the face of the Earth. Suppose the Bible taught the spontaneous generation of plants or animals. Up until the Middle-Ages there were superstitions that rags and corn meal created/bred mice. The Bible in Genesis 1, on the contrary, clearly and positively teaches that like-begets-like and there is procreation in no other way.
Another point where the ancients went astray, but the Bible did not, is in the employment of magic in chemical processes. The Bible warns against all sorcery and magic. It is literally prohibited to engage in the supernatural outside of dealing with God that is the hallmark of Scriptural obedience. The supernatural realm is reserved for God and angelic messengers alone.
Enough about errors outside of the Bible, as we will see in the next few posts the infallible character of the Bible is maintained even under closer scientific scrutiny. We will see Solomon was one of the greatest metal magnates of ancient times. We have considerable examples of his wisdom and many details of his metal work for the temple, but there is no hint of the efficacy of magic in either the smelting or foundry operations for the Temple. Solomon’s Phoenician workers may indeed have used charms, but the Bible never sanctions them. The metallurgy of the temple is that of science and one of the regularity of natural law—interrupted only by miracles at the direct interposition of God for some special purpose. Since mentioned I should address miracles too.
The presence of miracles in the Scripture narrative is in no way a contradiction of science. They are paradoxical but not contradictory. True miracles in the restricted Biblical sense are not phenomena brought about by occult laws nor are they the balancing of one natural law against another as when air pressure on the wings keeps an a plane from falling. Miracles are reasonable, divine interruptions of natural law worked by immediate will of the personal Creator.
There is no difference between a little or great miracle. Both are utterly impossible for man to accomplish but easy for God. Example: The stopping of the rotation of the world for a few hours…if this is the correct explanation of Joshua’s long day. The whole point of the miraculous is to have it function as a signpost that points us to God. It is in-fact the nature and main character of the miraculous that miracles contradict the “natural laws” of chemistry, physics, etc. The miracles very purpose was/is to show there is a God above the universe, the Author of natural laws that can also alter them. In altering those so-called physical laws He reveals Himself and in His Son.
Miracles in the true sense are believable only for a theist. An atheist will never acknowledge the miraculous as coming from God. There would need to be a naturalistic explanation since they don’t believe God exists. The atheist precludes the existence of a priori metaphysical knowledge. It would be contradictory to them. But for a theist they are no problem at all regardless of his belief in natural law, atomic structure or even quantum phenomena. Paul the Apostle would allude to this incredulity in the Book of Acts while addressing a real king (King Agrippa) about the miracle of the Resurrection in real history at his trial.
Acts 26:8 Why is it
thought incredible by any of you that God raises the dead?
No comments:
Post a Comment