The Bible and Science
1. Question: "Has modern science discredited the Bible?" Answer: Probably the most basic reason for the modern widespread rebellion against traditional values in every realm—social, moral, political, educational, religious—is the widespread impression that Biblical principles have been outdated by the discoveries of modern science. Our constitution and our entire American culture were permeated in their origins with a strong national faith in God and His Word. The gradual undermining of confidence in the Scriptures, resulting from the rise of uniformitarianism and evolutionism in the nineteenth century, inevitably was followed by a revolt against the social and political institutions erected on that faith. It is no accident that religious liberals are almost always moral and political liberals, and vice versa.
The fact is, however, that true science has always confirmed the Bible! It is not science but scientism (that is, the extension of scientific theories to a supposedly complete philosophy of life and meaning) that has attacked the Bible.
"Science" means "knowledge" and therefore includes only that which we actually know, by direct observation and experience. It is the organized body of factual knowledge and relationships. The "scientific method" necessarily involves experimental reproducibility and verification. Thus science, in its proper sense, can deal only with the processes of the world as they now exist. It can tell us nothing for certain about prehistoric events and processes, nor can it predict future events and processes with certainty.
Many scientists (not science as such, but scientists—men who are just as biased, fallible, sinful and human as any other men) have assumed that these present processes are eternal processes, and therefore that they can explain everything that ever has been or ever will be in terms of what exists now! This is the philosophy of "uniformitarianism" and is the ruling philosophy in the modern scientific establishment. It necessarily leads to "evolutionism," which seeks to explain the origin and development of all things in terms of present natural processes.
But this assumption itself violates the two most fundamental laws of science, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics! These laws deal with the all-embracing entity known as "energy," which includes all the phenomena of the physical universe. All processes are basically interchanges of energy—even matter itself is fundamentally a type of energy, which can, under the right circumstances, be converted into other forms. The First Law is the Law of Energy Conservation, which states that nothing is now being created or destroyed. The Second Law is the Law of Energy Decay, which states that in all real processes there is a net loss of energy available for further work. All natural processes, without any exception whatever, operate within the framework of the Two Laws.
Thus all processes are conservative and disintegrative, not creative and integrative.
The Bible, instead of being discredited by science, has actually anticipated modern science. The Two Laws were stated in the pages of the Scriptures thousands of years before their recognition by nineteenth-century scientists. In fact, the institution of the First Law by God is commemorated every Sabbath Day. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11). All of His "works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Hebrews 4:3). He is now "upholding all things by the Word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3). Thus, He is not now creating anything, but neither is He allowing anything to be annihilated.
The Second Law expresses in a formal way the fact that something is intrinsically wrong with the world. Everything gets old, wears out, runs down, and finally dies. In all processes, some energy becomes degraded to low-level heat energy and can no longer be used. Every ordered system, left to itself, tends to become disorganized. Complex structures tend to break up and become simpler. The "entropy" (that is, the disorder, or randomness) of a system tends to increase, and this tendency can only be superseded, locally and temporarily, if there is an excess supply of ordering energy brought in from outside the system.
In the Bible, this Law is called the "bondage of corruption" (literally, "decay") under which the "whole creation is groaning" (Romans 8:21, 22). It is nothing less than God's primeval Curse on man and his entire dominion (Genesis 3:17), which God invoked when man first brought sin into God's originally perfect creation.
This Second Law teaches that, unless God Himself intervenes, the universe is proceeding inexorably toward an ultimate "heat death," when all available energy will have been degraded to low-level heat and no more work can be done. Since this state has not yet been reached, the universe is not infinitely old and thus must have had a definite beginning!
The First Law states that, since all present processes are conservative, not creative, the beginning of all things required by the Second Law must have been accomplished by means of creative processes which are not now in existence. Therefore, they are inaccessible to science, and anything we are ever to learn about them must come by revelation from the Creator Himself.
Thus the basic framework of science, confirmed by Biblical revelation, leads us inexorably and irrefutably to the first words ever written and the most profoundly important truth ever comprehended: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
2. Question: "Do miracles such as we read about in the Bible still occur today?" Answer: The standard belief of the scientific establishment today is that miracles are impossible and that genuine miracles have never occurred, either in Biblical days or in our own day. It is usually claimed that supposed miracles can always be explained in terms of natural laws in one of the following ways: (a) the witnesses, under the excitement of the moment, may have been mistaken in what they claimed to have seen; (b) with the advance of scientific knowledge, more and more phenomena, once thought to be supernatural, are found to have a purely naturalistic explanation; (c) every natural process is known to vary statistically about some typical method and rate of operation, and thus a supposed miracle may really be only a rare, but not impossible, variation in the particular process.
Undoubtedly many so-called miracles can actually be explained by such means. God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and His laws are exceedingly reliable. If it were not so, our world would be a chaos, and science and technology would be impossible.
On the other hand, since He established the laws, He is also able to change them if He so wills. To say that miracles are impossible is actually to deny that God exists. The question, therefore, is not whether miracles can happen, but whether they do happen. And this depends merely upon whether God has adequate reason for superseding His ordinary laws or not, and also upon whether there is adequate evidence that He has done so.
These two conditions are abundantly satisfied with respect to all the Biblical miracles, and we are quite justified in believing that they really happened and that they were really miracles. Here it will be helpful if we note that there may actually be two different kinds of miracles.
The first type is what we might call a miracle of creation. This involves actual creative activity on the part of God Himself. We know scientifically that there are just two basic laws controlling all natural phenomena, as discussed in the preceding section. The First Law is the Law of Energy Conservation, and this law states that nothing is now being created in the physical universe so far as science can tell. The Second Law is the Law of Energy Degradation, and this law states that everything is moving toward a state of disorder and ultimate death. Every natural process—that is, everything that happens in the known universe—obeys these two basic laws.
Therefore, if a particular event involves a new act of creation—of matter, or energy, or order—then it is a genuine miracle which only the power of God Himself can accomplish, since He alone is the Creator. Such miracles are exceedingly rare, but they have occurred. For example, the great "signs" recorded in the Gospel of John, such as the turning of water into wine, the feeding of the five thousand, and the raising of Lazarus from the dead, were all creative miracles, and thus unite in their testimony that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through His name" (John 20:31).
One special miracle of creation is actually very common, even today. This is the miracle of regeneration, whereby, "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). When a person truly believes on the Lord Jesus, he is "born again," receiving assurance of forgiveness and everlasting life, and a transformed attitude, with purpose and meaning in his life as never experienced before. This is a true miracle in the fullest sense of the word.
The second type of miracle is a miracle of providence. This does not involve a divine intervention in the two basic laws, but rather a special ordering of the manner or time of occurrence of a particular process.
Such a miracle was the Philippian earthquake (Acts 16:26), the 3½ year drought of Elijah (1 Kings 17), and many other Biblical miracles. Often God uses his angels to accomplish miracles of this kind (note Daniel 6:22; Psalm 34:7; Hebrews 1:14, etc.).
Providential miracles still occur today. Every believing and practicing Christian knows from personal experience that God does answer prayer, often in unlikely and remarkable ways. True answers to Christian prayer, in the providential ordering of circumstances, will, of course, always be in conformity with Biblical revelation and will honor the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Question: "How could Moses have written Genesis when writing was unknown in his day?" Answer: This is an ancient criticism which is still voiced frequently today. The answer is, first, that writing was known and widely used long before Moses' time and, second, that he quite possibly compiled and edited the book of Genesis, rather than writing it himself.
There is no doubt whatever that writing was practiced long before Moses was born. For example, archeologists have unearthed an ancient library in the city of Ur containing thousands of stone "books." It will be recalled that Ur of the Chaldees was Abraham's home before he migrated to Canaan, and these stone books were written even before Abraham's day. Many of them constituted records of a most mundane sort, which indicates that not only scholars but also ordinary tradesmen could read and write.
Whether writing was invented by the Sumerians, as many scholars believe, or by still earlier peoples, it is quite certain that Moses, educated in the palace of the Egyptian emperor as he was, was fully competent to write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). It is significant that Christ Himself accepted and confirmed the universal belief of the Jews that Moses was responsible for these books, frequently quoting from them as of Mosaic authority. In fact, He taught that belief in the divine authority of Moses' writings was prerequisite to recognition of His own authority. "If ye believe not (Moses') writing," said He, "how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47). Those who profess allegiance to Christ, while denying the reliability and historicity of the book of Genesis, for example, would do well to ponder such statements as these.
But now an interesting fact appears. Although the New Testament writers quoted from Genesis at least 60 times and include it under the general category of the Mosaic writings, they never cite any of these quotations as of specific Mosaic authorship. Moses is referred to at least 80 times, however, in connection with references or quotations from the other four books of the Pentateuch.
This circumstance is best explained by the assumption that Moses edited the writings that now constitute the book of Genesis, rather than authoring them himself. He then brought them together in a collection with his own writings (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) to formulate the Torah, the "Law" of God. This explanation is also consistent with the fact that the events in Genesis all took place before Moses was born, whereas those in the other four books start with his birth and end with his death (the last chapter of Deuteronomy, describing Moses' death, was probably written by Joshua, although Moses, could have written it prophetically).
The question then arises as to who originally wrote the book of Genesis. By far the most plausible answer to this is that many different men wrote it, each narrating those events which he himself had seen or investigated. This type of origin is implicit in the very structure of Genesis, which breaks down most naturally into the ten divisions marked off by the recurring phrase: "These are the generations of...."
It has been noted by archaeologists that ancient records, especially in Babylonia, were kept on stone tablets, which were commonly identified by the author's name as a subscript at the end of the narrative on the tablet.
This fact provides an exciting key to the probable origin of the original documents of Genesis. Each division can be understood as terminating with the subscript of its author. "These are the generations (that is, 'records of the generations') of (author's name)." It is significant to note that the actual events thus recorded in each division occurred within the lifetime of the individual so named, and thus were directly accessible to his observation or interrogation. The importance of this recurring formula is indicated by the fact that the very name "Genesis" was derived from the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word for "generations" in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.
Thus, the division from Genesis 2:4b to Genesis 5:1 ends with the statement: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." (Note that it was a "book," therefore it refers to an actual written document of some kind.) This division narrates those events with which Adam, and only Adam, could have been familiar—the description of the garden of Eden, the manner of his own creation, as well as that of Eve, the temptation and fall, God's curse on him and his dominion, the expulsion from Eden, and the history of Cain and Abel.
A similar analysis could be made of each of the other divisions. All of this leads to the significant conclusion that the events of the very earliest ages of the history of man and his world were written by eyewitnesses of the events! We are not at all dependent upon age-long traditions, handed down with continuing embellishment by word-of-mouth, but rather on direct, firsthand observations and reliable records, recorded originally on stone tablets by the ancient patriarchs themselves. These were transmitted down through the line of patriarchs from Adam to Noah, then to Shem, Abraham, and finally to Moses. The latter then brought them all together with appropriate editorial transitions and explanations into the book of Genesis as we now have it. And, of course, assuring the absolute accuracy and integrity of the entire work was the guiding inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
It is noteworthy that the very first of the divisions, Genesis 1:1-2:3, describing the work of the six days of creation, does not name a human author in its subscript. Instead it says: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created" (Genesis 2:4a). Obviously no human writer, not even Adam, was present to observe most of the great events of the six days. This record could only have come by direct revelation from God Himself, who was the only one there. Perhaps it was even written on stone by the very "finger of God," as was later true with the Ten Commandments (Exodus 31:18). In either case, this marvelous first chapter of the Bible was written in a more direct way by God Himself than probably any other portion of Scripture. It is thus absolutely true in its facts and clear in its meaning, and men who reject it or "explain" it away, or ignore it, are presumptuous in the highest degree before God.
4. Question: "How does the Bible explain the origin of different races?" Answer: The concept of "race" is biological, not Biblical. There is no mention of different races, as such, in the Bible, nor even of the very concept of a "race." Evidently, there is no Biblical or theological meaning to the term, and we must conclude, therefore, that races are purely arbitrary entities invented by man for his own convenience in biological and anthropological studies.
Biologically a race is generally thought of as a variety, or subspecies, within a given species. In terms of evolutionary philosophy, it may represent a stage in the evolution of a new species. Thus different subspecies within a species may vary in their respective degrees of evolutionary advance over the ancestral species, depending upon the relative efficiencies with which the postulated evolutionary mechanisms of mutation, segregation, natural selection, etc., have been functioning in each case.
This leads to the observation that racism, in the sense of struggle between races and the conviction that one race is superior to others, must be based on evolutionism, not on theism. Evolutionary scientists may not all be "racist" in their personal or political philosophies. Nevertheless, the various philosophies that have promoted racism have, quite understandably, used the supposed universal evolutionary process as their intellectual framework for such a position. Nazism and Marxism are two notable examples.
The testimony of the Bible, however, is that all men who have ever lived in the world are descendants of Adam and, therefore, are of essentially the same race—the human race. "God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26). Furthermore, all men in the present world are also descendants of Noah, after the great Flood. Before the Flood, God had said: "The end of all flesh is come before me; ...behold, I will destroy them with the earth" (Genesis 6:13). Then, later the Bible says: "All flesh died that moved upon the earth... and every man" (Genesis 7:21). After the Flood, "God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" (Genesis 9:1). Finally the Bible says: "And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the Ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth... and of them was the whole earth overspread" (Genesis 9:18, 19).
Now although the Scriptures do not mention races, they do have a great deal to say about nations and languages. These distinctions are even noted in heaven. In Revelation 7:9, the vision of the heavenly throng was given as of "a great multitude, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues." The description of the eternal city includes this remarkable statement: "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it" (Revelation 21:24). Thus, in some sense, national identities are to be retained, even in the ages to come.
The most distinctive characteristic, and the most divisive, possessed by various groups among men, is not skin color or physical size, or some other physical trait, but language. Communication is of paramount importance for understanding and harmony, and language is certainly the most basic element in communication.
The origin of human language, and especially of the tremendous diversity of human languages, is as yet quite inexplicable to the evolutionist. There is nothing even remotely comparable to such an ability among the higher animals. That human speech and language are divine creations is by far the most reasonable explanation. Furthermore, the fact that the great variety of languages reflects a divine judgment on early man, as the Bible teaches, is also the most reasonable explanation we have.
After the Flood, when "the whole earth was one language and one speech" (Genesis 11:1), men disobeyed God's command to scatter and fill the earth, preferring to remain together and erect a single great world empire, with its capital at the first Babylon, and centered in the worship of the "host of heaven." For this purpose they erected a gigantic temple tower, or ziggurat, at whose apex was a shrine dedicated "unto heaven," undoubtedly inscribed with the signs of the Zodiac and other astrological emblems. The "host of heaven," frequently mentioned in the Bible, refers both to the stars and to the angelic and demonic hosts identified with the heavenly bodies. The great Tower of Babel, therefore (part of which may still be standing in or near the ruins of Babylon), was essentially a temple dedicated to Satan worship and evolutionary pantheism.
God's judgment on this great rebellion was to "scatter them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth," through "confounding their language, that they may not understand one another's speech" (Genesis 11:7, 8). This must have been some kind of physiologic miracle, an instant change in those centers of the brain controlling speech, so that each family suddenly found itself identifying various objects and actions with different words and tones than other families used. The confusion and incoherent arguments which resulted finally led each family to go its own way and eventually to establish its own national and linguistic identity.
Since physiologic changes were necessarily involved in this sudden confusion of tongues, it may well have been that still other physiologic changes were also induced by God at the same time, in order to hasten the establishment of each group as a distinct national entity. Whether or not this is the case, it is certainly true that the development of specific national, or even what we call "racial" traits, could not take place as long as men lived together and inter-married freely. A certain amount of isolation and national inbreeding is genetically essential for the establishment of particular characteristics in a nation or race. Thus, these could not have developed until after mankind was dispersed from its first postdiluvian home in Babylon.
Even apart from the miraculous changes suggested above, such characteristics could have developed quite rapidly, assuming that the different genetic factors (for skin color, stature, hair texture, and the like) were present in the ancestral stock, and that isolation and selection pressures of some kind—whether climatic or social or others—operated in favor of certain characteristics in each tribe. These, however, are all basically superficial and could never result in a new "kind" of man.
All nations are alike before God in that all are in need of a Savior, and in that all can come to the Savior if they will. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
5. Question: "Was the long day of Joshua a fact of history or only a legend?" Answer: The account of the "long day," as found in the tenth chapter of Joshua is certainly one of the most remarkable records in the Bible. That a day could actually have been extended, even through the length of another whole day, as indicated in Joshua, seems impossible and unbelievable.
And yet it is found in the Word of God! Furthermore, it is found in the context of the other events in Israel's conquest of Canaan, the general outline of which has been remarkably confirmed by archaeological discoveries in recent years. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern Palestinian archaeologist, President of the Hebrew Union College, has written: "As a matter of fact, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible."
According to the narrative, God caused the day to be lengthened in order that the army of Israel could complete the conquest of the Amorite forces before they could escape and re-group under cover of darkness. This was a key battle in the Canaanite campaign, and its outcome would determine whether or not Israel could win the promised land.
Thus the integrity of God's promises was at stake here, as well as the vindication of His moral law. He had, at one time, delayed the occupation of the land by Abraham's descendants, because, as He said, "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" (Genesis 15:16). But by Joshua's time, their wickedness and degeneracy were so pervasive and irreversible (a fact increasingly being confirmed by archaeological research into their cultures) that considerations of mercy, for their neighbors and even for their descendants, dictated their removal.
There was thus adequate reason for God to intervene in any way appropriate to accomplish His purposes—first, in the destruction of Amorite power and influence, and second, in the fulfillment of His promises to the seed of Jacob. The reason for using the sun in such an unusual way to do this, quite possibly, was because the Amorites were sun-worshippers. For the chief object of their worship to be used as an agent in their defeat must have implied that the God of Israel was the true God, not only to the Amorites themselves but also to the other peoples of the region who had been intimidated by them.
It is noteworthy that the Bible is not the only ancient record of the long day. As a matter of fact, traditions of a long day (or of a long night, among the American Indians and the South Sea Islanders) are quite common among early nations and tribes. Immanuel Velikovsky, in his book Worlds in Collision, gives abundant documentation of this fact, as have many other writers. It is difficult to account for the widespread incidence of such an unlikely narrative unless it is based on an actual fact of early human history. Whatever the cause, the event itself seems really to have occurred.
One common criticism of the Biblical record of the long day is that its language is unscientific. It says, for example, that "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" (Joshua 10:13). Critics say that the earth, rather than the sun, would have to "stand still" for the day to be prolonged, since normally its axial rotation controls the length of the day.
But such a criticism itself is unscientific! All motion is relative motion, and the sun is moving as well as the earth. No one knows where in the universe there may be a fixed point of zero motion. That being so, all velocities must necessarily be measured with respect to some arbitrarily assumed fixed reference point. The proper point to choose is normally the one which is most convenient to the observer. In the case of the relative motion of the sun and the earth to each other, it is almost always most convenient (and therefore most "scientific") to consider the earth as fixed and the sun as moving around it. Joshua's language, therefore, is perfectly modern and correct.
As a matter of fact, since the account says that the moon also stood still (Joshua 10:13), it may be that the entire solar system stopped in its tracks for a day, with all relative positions and motions simply suspended. This seems no more difficult to believe than that only the earth stopped rotating.
The natural reaction to the idea of a "long day" is one of incredulity, of course. It would certainly constitute an amazing miracle. The Bible itself says "there was no day like that before it or after it" (Joshua 10:14).
But to deny the possibility of the miraculous (and, after all, how do we measure the dynamics of one miracle as against another?) is to deny the existence of God. That the earth should stop rotating on its axis for a time is no more inexplicable than that it should start rotating in the beginning. The Creator who started it could also stop it if He so desired. The question is not whether an alleged miracle could occur, but whether it did occur. The testimony of Scripture, as well as the many supporting traditions, confirms that it did.
There was presumably a gradual deceleration of the motions, rather than instantaneous, so that no catastrophic geologic or geographic changes need have been caused by the long day. However, the circulation of the atmosphere and the hydrologic cycle are both controlled to some extent by the earth's rotation, so that such an event would undoubtedly disturb the atmosphere to a profound degree. This is indirectly confirmed by the devastating hailstorm which accompanied the long day as recorded in the Bible (Joshua 10:11) and by the many evidences of atmospheric violence noted by Velikovsky in his collection of ancient traditions of the miracle.
Although no amount of evidence could prove a miracle to someone who does not want to believe they can occur, there is certainly adequate reason for the Bible-believing Christian to accept Joshua's long day as a real fact of history.
6. Question: "How could Jonah survive three days and three nights in the belly of a whale?" Answer: This is one of the Bible stories most ridiculed by people who consider themselves sophisticated and intellectual. Skeptics say that no whale could swallow a man in the first place, and, even if he did, the man would certainly never survive three days and three nights in his belly, as the Bible claims.
"Christian liberals" have attempted to avoid this problem by saying that the story of Jonah was only an allegory and was never meant to be understood as actual history. However, whenever the Bible writers used allegories or parables or other symbolic stories, they always either said so or else made it evident in the context. The book of Jonah is certainly written as though it were actual history. Jonah was a real prophet who is mentioned also in II Kings 14:25. None of the ancient Jews or early Christians ever doubted the authenticity and historicity of the book of Jonah and its story.
Most importantly, the Lord Jesus Christ accepted the account as true. He said that the people of Nineveh repented of their sins as a consequence of his preaching (Matthew 12:41). He even said: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Thus Christ actually compared Jonah's experience to His own coming death and resurrection, pointing out the miraculous nature of both. One cannot deny the factuality of Jonah's experience, therefore, without charging the Lord Jesus Christ with either deception or ignorance, either of which is equivalent to denying His deity.
There is little question that the event was a miracle, but this fact certainly does not disprove it! The account, in fact, says as much: "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17). Later it says: "And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land" (Jonah 2:10). God was certainly able to accomplish this if He wished; to deny the possibility of miracles is atheism. The actual occurrence of this particular miracle is adequately attested by the very fact of its record in the Holy Scriptures, and is doubly confirmed by the testimony of Christ.
The "great fish" may have been either a whale or a shark or even a fish specially prepared by the Lord for this purpose. (The Hebrew and Greek words that are used merely mean "a great aquatic animal.") Some species of whales and some species of sharks are quite capable of swallowing a man whole. Among these are the sperm whale, the white shark, and the whale shark, all of which have been found with whole animals as large or larger than a man in their stomachs.
As a matter of fact, there are some cases recorded in whaling history even of men swallowed whole by these great animals! In at least two well-documented cases, the men were later rescued and survived.
As to whether a man could survive "three days and three nights" under such conditions, there are three possible answers that could be suggested in defense of the Biblical narrative. In the first place, it has been well established that the phrase "three days and three nights" in ancient Hebrew usage was an idiomatic expression meaning simply "three days," and was applicable even if the beginning and ending days of the period were only partial days. Thus it could refer to a period as short as about 38 hours. At least one man in modern times (James Bartley, in 1895) is known to have survived a day and a half inside a whale before being rescued. There is always some air in the whale's stomach, and, as long as the animal it has swallowed is still alive, digestive activity will not begin. Thus, Jonah's experience could possibly have happened entirely with the framework of natural law.
It is much more likely, however, that the event involved a divine miracle, as the Scripture strongly implies. The "great fish" was prepared and sent by God, as was the intense storm that threatened the ship on which Jonah was traveling. The storm ceased as soon as Jonah was cast overboard (Jonah 1:4, 15). In like manner, it was quite probable that God preserved Jonah's life miraculously all through the horrifying experience.
A third possibility is that Jonah actually suffocated and died in the great fish and then God later brought him back from the dead. There are at least eight other such "resuscitations" recorded in the Bible, as well as the glorious bodily resurrection of Christ—of which Jonah's experience in particular was said by Christ to be a prophetic sign.
This is implied also by Jonah's prayer, when he said: "... out of the belly of hell (i.e., "sheol," the place of departed spirits) cried I, and thou heardest my voice" (Jonah 2:2). In any case, it was a mighty experience, evidently well known and certified in his day, probably contributing in significant degree to the fact that all the people of Nineveh repented and turned to God (Jonah 3:5) when Jonah returned "from the dead," as it were, to preach to them.
Even in Jesus' day, it was so well known that He could use it as a "sign" of His own impending death and resurrection, which were to constitute God's crowning proof of the deity of His Son and the great work of salvation which He would accomplish on the cross for all who would receive Him. "God now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead" (Acts 17:30, 31).
7. Question: "Are there intelligent beings on other planets?" Answer: It is impossible to prove a universal negative, but there is not as yet even the slightest evidence, either Biblical or scientific, that there are men like us inhabiting other planets or star systems. There is an abundance of pseudo-scientific speculation of this sort, but the hard evidence is against it.
Life, at least such as we know it, requires a very complex combination of environmental factors to be possible, and only this planet, so far as is known, provides this combination. Water must be abundant, for example. Little if any water exists on the moon, or Mars, or Venus, or the other planets, and certainly not in liquid form. The temperatures on all the other known planets are either too cold or too hot for life in any higher form comparable to the earth's human life.
In addition, many complex chemicals must be present in abundance in order to support life processes. An atmosphere essentially like our own would also have to be present. In general, life in any form comparable to human life would require a planet essentially the same as our own planet in every respect. There is no evidence, however, other than speculation, that such a planet exists anywhere else in the universe.
The main reason that men keep wishfully searching for evidence of extraterrestrial life is that this would give support to their evolutionary philosophy. That is, if life is just a product of natural chemical developments here on the earth, as the leaders of evolutionary thought insist, then the same chance developments should also have taken place in other places in the universe, they feel, in view of the almost infinite number of other stars. Nevertheless, the actual evidence remains massively negative.
As far as the Scriptures are concerned, they teach unequivocally that the earth is uniquely the abode of man. "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's, but the earth hath He given to the children of men" (Psalm 115:16). "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:20).
It was to this earth, alone among all the uncounted billions of heavenly bodies, that God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, came down to suffer and die for man's salvation. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven" (John 3:13). The earth may not be the center of the universe (though no one knows, of course, where such a center might be), but it is certainly the center of interest of the universe! "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him" (1 John 4:9). It seems grotesque and blasphemous to suggest that the tragedy of Calvary's cross should be repeated on millions of other planets, for the benefit of other unknown and hypothetical members of God's creation.
The earth, as the astronauts observed, is uniquely beautiful and uniquely equipped as man's home. Though it is small, it is of infinitely more complex organization and variety than even the largest stars, composed as they are mostly of the simplest elements, hydrogen and helium.
Since the sun and moon were made specifically to "give light upon the earth" (Genesis 1:15), it may be possible that the moon, and even the solar system, were within the "dominion" which man was commissioned by God ultimately to "subdue," by his science and technology (Genesis 1:28). This is uncertain, but it is at least clear that the other stars, the nearest of which is four light-years away, are well beyond man's power ever to explore directly, or to control, in the present order of things.
Why, then, did God create them? What is the purpose, in God's wisdom, for the tremendous number and variety of stars, and perhaps a still greater number of planets (though the existence of these is speculative, based only on analogy with the solar system) throughout the vast universe?
We can only give tentative suggestions, of course, but it is well to remember that God is still the Creator, and there are endless ages of eternity ahead of us. Even though, for the moment, the only obvious function of the stellar heavens is to reflect the infinite power and grandeur of their Creator, it may well be that they are awaiting more specific uses by Him in the ages to come, after the completion of His redemptive program for the earth and men.
It is also possible that, even now, they have some relationship to the angels of God. This may be implied by the fact that angels are often called "stars" in Scriptures (e.g., Job 38:7; Isaiah 14:12, 13; Revelation 12:4, 9; 9:1; etc.) and that the phrase "host of heaven" is applied both to the stars and to the angelic hosts (e.g., Jeremiah 33:22; II Chronicles 18:18). The worship of the stars, which has always been a characteristic of polytheism, has, in reality, been a worship of angels (or "gods"), especially those angels who have followed Satan in his great rebellion against the true God (note II Kings 17:16; Colossians 2:18; 1 Corinthians 10:20, etc.). It seems possible, at least, that this frequent identification of stars and angels is more than mere poetic imagery; possibly angels, who are mighty spiritual beings created by the "Lord of hosts," have their primary sphere of operations in the heavens, in the stars. The Bible says, "(He) maketh His angels spirits and His ministers a flaming fire" (Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:7), and it also says there is "an innumerable company of angels" (Hebrews 12:22) that "do His commandments" (Psalm 103:20).
Thus, although it is all but certain that no other man-like creatures inhabit other worlds, it is true that in God's universe, and possibly on the stars themselves, there exists a vast host of intelligent and powerful beings, the angels of God. Though it is futile to try to establish contact with them by such devices as space-ships and radio telescopes, we can communicate with God Himself through prayer and through His Word, by faith, and the angels then are "sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14).
The Bible Has the Answer.
The fact is, however, that true science has always confirmed the Bible! It is not science but scientism (that is, the extension of scientific theories to a supposedly complete philosophy of life and meaning) that has attacked the Bible.
"Science" means "knowledge" and therefore includes only that which we actually know, by direct observation and experience. It is the organized body of factual knowledge and relationships. The "scientific method" necessarily involves experimental reproducibility and verification. Thus science, in its proper sense, can deal only with the processes of the world as they now exist. It can tell us nothing for certain about prehistoric events and processes, nor can it predict future events and processes with certainty.
Many scientists (not science as such, but scientists—men who are just as biased, fallible, sinful and human as any other men) have assumed that these present processes are eternal processes, and therefore that they can explain everything that ever has been or ever will be in terms of what exists now! This is the philosophy of "uniformitarianism" and is the ruling philosophy in the modern scientific establishment. It necessarily leads to "evolutionism," which seeks to explain the origin and development of all things in terms of present natural processes.
But this assumption itself violates the two most fundamental laws of science, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics! These laws deal with the all-embracing entity known as "energy," which includes all the phenomena of the physical universe. All processes are basically interchanges of energy—even matter itself is fundamentally a type of energy, which can, under the right circumstances, be converted into other forms. The First Law is the Law of Energy Conservation, which states that nothing is now being created or destroyed. The Second Law is the Law of Energy Decay, which states that in all real processes there is a net loss of energy available for further work. All natural processes, without any exception whatever, operate within the framework of the Two Laws.
Thus all processes are conservative and disintegrative, not creative and integrative.
The Bible, instead of being discredited by science, has actually anticipated modern science. The Two Laws were stated in the pages of the Scriptures thousands of years before their recognition by nineteenth-century scientists. In fact, the institution of the First Law by God is commemorated every Sabbath Day. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day" (Exodus 20:11). All of His "works were finished from the foundation of the world" (Hebrews 4:3). He is now "upholding all things by the Word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3). Thus, He is not now creating anything, but neither is He allowing anything to be annihilated.
The Second Law expresses in a formal way the fact that something is intrinsically wrong with the world. Everything gets old, wears out, runs down, and finally dies. In all processes, some energy becomes degraded to low-level heat energy and can no longer be used. Every ordered system, left to itself, tends to become disorganized. Complex structures tend to break up and become simpler. The "entropy" (that is, the disorder, or randomness) of a system tends to increase, and this tendency can only be superseded, locally and temporarily, if there is an excess supply of ordering energy brought in from outside the system.
In the Bible, this Law is called the "bondage of corruption" (literally, "decay") under which the "whole creation is groaning" (Romans 8:21, 22). It is nothing less than God's primeval Curse on man and his entire dominion (Genesis 3:17), which God invoked when man first brought sin into God's originally perfect creation.
This Second Law teaches that, unless God Himself intervenes, the universe is proceeding inexorably toward an ultimate "heat death," when all available energy will have been degraded to low-level heat and no more work can be done. Since this state has not yet been reached, the universe is not infinitely old and thus must have had a definite beginning!
The First Law states that, since all present processes are conservative, not creative, the beginning of all things required by the Second Law must have been accomplished by means of creative processes which are not now in existence. Therefore, they are inaccessible to science, and anything we are ever to learn about them must come by revelation from the Creator Himself.
Thus the basic framework of science, confirmed by Biblical revelation, leads us inexorably and irrefutably to the first words ever written and the most profoundly important truth ever comprehended: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
2. Question: "Do miracles such as we read about in the Bible still occur today?" Answer: The standard belief of the scientific establishment today is that miracles are impossible and that genuine miracles have never occurred, either in Biblical days or in our own day. It is usually claimed that supposed miracles can always be explained in terms of natural laws in one of the following ways: (a) the witnesses, under the excitement of the moment, may have been mistaken in what they claimed to have seen; (b) with the advance of scientific knowledge, more and more phenomena, once thought to be supernatural, are found to have a purely naturalistic explanation; (c) every natural process is known to vary statistically about some typical method and rate of operation, and thus a supposed miracle may really be only a rare, but not impossible, variation in the particular process.
Undoubtedly many so-called miracles can actually be explained by such means. God is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, and His laws are exceedingly reliable. If it were not so, our world would be a chaos, and science and technology would be impossible.
On the other hand, since He established the laws, He is also able to change them if He so wills. To say that miracles are impossible is actually to deny that God exists. The question, therefore, is not whether miracles can happen, but whether they do happen. And this depends merely upon whether God has adequate reason for superseding His ordinary laws or not, and also upon whether there is adequate evidence that He has done so.
These two conditions are abundantly satisfied with respect to all the Biblical miracles, and we are quite justified in believing that they really happened and that they were really miracles. Here it will be helpful if we note that there may actually be two different kinds of miracles.
The first type is what we might call a miracle of creation. This involves actual creative activity on the part of God Himself. We know scientifically that there are just two basic laws controlling all natural phenomena, as discussed in the preceding section. The First Law is the Law of Energy Conservation, and this law states that nothing is now being created in the physical universe so far as science can tell. The Second Law is the Law of Energy Degradation, and this law states that everything is moving toward a state of disorder and ultimate death. Every natural process—that is, everything that happens in the known universe—obeys these two basic laws.
Therefore, if a particular event involves a new act of creation—of matter, or energy, or order—then it is a genuine miracle which only the power of God Himself can accomplish, since He alone is the Creator. Such miracles are exceedingly rare, but they have occurred. For example, the great "signs" recorded in the Gospel of John, such as the turning of water into wine, the feeding of the five thousand, and the raising of Lazarus from the dead, were all creative miracles, and thus unite in their testimony that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that, believing, ye might have life through His name" (John 20:31).
One special miracle of creation is actually very common, even today. This is the miracle of regeneration, whereby, "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creation; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17). When a person truly believes on the Lord Jesus, he is "born again," receiving assurance of forgiveness and everlasting life, and a transformed attitude, with purpose and meaning in his life as never experienced before. This is a true miracle in the fullest sense of the word.
The second type of miracle is a miracle of providence. This does not involve a divine intervention in the two basic laws, but rather a special ordering of the manner or time of occurrence of a particular process.
Such a miracle was the Philippian earthquake (Acts 16:26), the 3½ year drought of Elijah (1 Kings 17), and many other Biblical miracles. Often God uses his angels to accomplish miracles of this kind (note Daniel 6:22; Psalm 34:7; Hebrews 1:14, etc.).
Providential miracles still occur today. Every believing and practicing Christian knows from personal experience that God does answer prayer, often in unlikely and remarkable ways. True answers to Christian prayer, in the providential ordering of circumstances, will, of course, always be in conformity with Biblical revelation and will honor the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Question: "How could Moses have written Genesis when writing was unknown in his day?" Answer: This is an ancient criticism which is still voiced frequently today. The answer is, first, that writing was known and widely used long before Moses' time and, second, that he quite possibly compiled and edited the book of Genesis, rather than writing it himself.
There is no doubt whatever that writing was practiced long before Moses was born. For example, archeologists have unearthed an ancient library in the city of Ur containing thousands of stone "books." It will be recalled that Ur of the Chaldees was Abraham's home before he migrated to Canaan, and these stone books were written even before Abraham's day. Many of them constituted records of a most mundane sort, which indicates that not only scholars but also ordinary tradesmen could read and write.
Whether writing was invented by the Sumerians, as many scholars believe, or by still earlier peoples, it is quite certain that Moses, educated in the palace of the Egyptian emperor as he was, was fully competent to write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). It is significant that Christ Himself accepted and confirmed the universal belief of the Jews that Moses was responsible for these books, frequently quoting from them as of Mosaic authority. In fact, He taught that belief in the divine authority of Moses' writings was prerequisite to recognition of His own authority. "If ye believe not (Moses') writing," said He, "how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:47). Those who profess allegiance to Christ, while denying the reliability and historicity of the book of Genesis, for example, would do well to ponder such statements as these.
But now an interesting fact appears. Although the New Testament writers quoted from Genesis at least 60 times and include it under the general category of the Mosaic writings, they never cite any of these quotations as of specific Mosaic authorship. Moses is referred to at least 80 times, however, in connection with references or quotations from the other four books of the Pentateuch.
This circumstance is best explained by the assumption that Moses edited the writings that now constitute the book of Genesis, rather than authoring them himself. He then brought them together in a collection with his own writings (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) to formulate the Torah, the "Law" of God. This explanation is also consistent with the fact that the events in Genesis all took place before Moses was born, whereas those in the other four books start with his birth and end with his death (the last chapter of Deuteronomy, describing Moses' death, was probably written by Joshua, although Moses, could have written it prophetically).
The question then arises as to who originally wrote the book of Genesis. By far the most plausible answer to this is that many different men wrote it, each narrating those events which he himself had seen or investigated. This type of origin is implicit in the very structure of Genesis, which breaks down most naturally into the ten divisions marked off by the recurring phrase: "These are the generations of...."
It has been noted by archaeologists that ancient records, especially in Babylonia, were kept on stone tablets, which were commonly identified by the author's name as a subscript at the end of the narrative on the tablet.
This fact provides an exciting key to the probable origin of the original documents of Genesis. Each division can be understood as terminating with the subscript of its author. "These are the generations (that is, 'records of the generations') of (author's name)." It is significant to note that the actual events thus recorded in each division occurred within the lifetime of the individual so named, and thus were directly accessible to his observation or interrogation. The importance of this recurring formula is indicated by the fact that the very name "Genesis" was derived from the Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word for "generations" in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament.
Thus, the division from Genesis 2:4b to Genesis 5:1 ends with the statement: "This is the book of the generations of Adam." (Note that it was a "book," therefore it refers to an actual written document of some kind.) This division narrates those events with which Adam, and only Adam, could have been familiar—the description of the garden of Eden, the manner of his own creation, as well as that of Eve, the temptation and fall, God's curse on him and his dominion, the expulsion from Eden, and the history of Cain and Abel.
A similar analysis could be made of each of the other divisions. All of this leads to the significant conclusion that the events of the very earliest ages of the history of man and his world were written by eyewitnesses of the events! We are not at all dependent upon age-long traditions, handed down with continuing embellishment by word-of-mouth, but rather on direct, firsthand observations and reliable records, recorded originally on stone tablets by the ancient patriarchs themselves. These were transmitted down through the line of patriarchs from Adam to Noah, then to Shem, Abraham, and finally to Moses. The latter then brought them all together with appropriate editorial transitions and explanations into the book of Genesis as we now have it. And, of course, assuring the absolute accuracy and integrity of the entire work was the guiding inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
It is noteworthy that the very first of the divisions, Genesis 1:1-2:3, describing the work of the six days of creation, does not name a human author in its subscript. Instead it says: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created" (Genesis 2:4a). Obviously no human writer, not even Adam, was present to observe most of the great events of the six days. This record could only have come by direct revelation from God Himself, who was the only one there. Perhaps it was even written on stone by the very "finger of God," as was later true with the Ten Commandments (Exodus 31:18). In either case, this marvelous first chapter of the Bible was written in a more direct way by God Himself than probably any other portion of Scripture. It is thus absolutely true in its facts and clear in its meaning, and men who reject it or "explain" it away, or ignore it, are presumptuous in the highest degree before God.
4. Question: "How does the Bible explain the origin of different races?" Answer: The concept of "race" is biological, not Biblical. There is no mention of different races, as such, in the Bible, nor even of the very concept of a "race." Evidently, there is no Biblical or theological meaning to the term, and we must conclude, therefore, that races are purely arbitrary entities invented by man for his own convenience in biological and anthropological studies.
Biologically a race is generally thought of as a variety, or subspecies, within a given species. In terms of evolutionary philosophy, it may represent a stage in the evolution of a new species. Thus different subspecies within a species may vary in their respective degrees of evolutionary advance over the ancestral species, depending upon the relative efficiencies with which the postulated evolutionary mechanisms of mutation, segregation, natural selection, etc., have been functioning in each case.
This leads to the observation that racism, in the sense of struggle between races and the conviction that one race is superior to others, must be based on evolutionism, not on theism. Evolutionary scientists may not all be "racist" in their personal or political philosophies. Nevertheless, the various philosophies that have promoted racism have, quite understandably, used the supposed universal evolutionary process as their intellectual framework for such a position. Nazism and Marxism are two notable examples.
The testimony of the Bible, however, is that all men who have ever lived in the world are descendants of Adam and, therefore, are of essentially the same race—the human race. "God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26). Furthermore, all men in the present world are also descendants of Noah, after the great Flood. Before the Flood, God had said: "The end of all flesh is come before me; ...behold, I will destroy them with the earth" (Genesis 6:13). Then, later the Bible says: "All flesh died that moved upon the earth... and every man" (Genesis 7:21). After the Flood, "God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth" (Genesis 9:1). Finally the Bible says: "And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the Ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth... and of them was the whole earth overspread" (Genesis 9:18, 19).
Now although the Scriptures do not mention races, they do have a great deal to say about nations and languages. These distinctions are even noted in heaven. In Revelation 7:9, the vision of the heavenly throng was given as of "a great multitude, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues." The description of the eternal city includes this remarkable statement: "And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it" (Revelation 21:24). Thus, in some sense, national identities are to be retained, even in the ages to come.
The most distinctive characteristic, and the most divisive, possessed by various groups among men, is not skin color or physical size, or some other physical trait, but language. Communication is of paramount importance for understanding and harmony, and language is certainly the most basic element in communication.
The origin of human language, and especially of the tremendous diversity of human languages, is as yet quite inexplicable to the evolutionist. There is nothing even remotely comparable to such an ability among the higher animals. That human speech and language are divine creations is by far the most reasonable explanation. Furthermore, the fact that the great variety of languages reflects a divine judgment on early man, as the Bible teaches, is also the most reasonable explanation we have.
After the Flood, when "the whole earth was one language and one speech" (Genesis 11:1), men disobeyed God's command to scatter and fill the earth, preferring to remain together and erect a single great world empire, with its capital at the first Babylon, and centered in the worship of the "host of heaven." For this purpose they erected a gigantic temple tower, or ziggurat, at whose apex was a shrine dedicated "unto heaven," undoubtedly inscribed with the signs of the Zodiac and other astrological emblems. The "host of heaven," frequently mentioned in the Bible, refers both to the stars and to the angelic and demonic hosts identified with the heavenly bodies. The great Tower of Babel, therefore (part of which may still be standing in or near the ruins of Babylon), was essentially a temple dedicated to Satan worship and evolutionary pantheism.
God's judgment on this great rebellion was to "scatter them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth," through "confounding their language, that they may not understand one another's speech" (Genesis 11:7, 8). This must have been some kind of physiologic miracle, an instant change in those centers of the brain controlling speech, so that each family suddenly found itself identifying various objects and actions with different words and tones than other families used. The confusion and incoherent arguments which resulted finally led each family to go its own way and eventually to establish its own national and linguistic identity.
Since physiologic changes were necessarily involved in this sudden confusion of tongues, it may well have been that still other physiologic changes were also induced by God at the same time, in order to hasten the establishment of each group as a distinct national entity. Whether or not this is the case, it is certainly true that the development of specific national, or even what we call "racial" traits, could not take place as long as men lived together and inter-married freely. A certain amount of isolation and national inbreeding is genetically essential for the establishment of particular characteristics in a nation or race. Thus, these could not have developed until after mankind was dispersed from its first postdiluvian home in Babylon.
Even apart from the miraculous changes suggested above, such characteristics could have developed quite rapidly, assuming that the different genetic factors (for skin color, stature, hair texture, and the like) were present in the ancestral stock, and that isolation and selection pressures of some kind—whether climatic or social or others—operated in favor of certain characteristics in each tribe. These, however, are all basically superficial and could never result in a new "kind" of man.
All nations are alike before God in that all are in need of a Savior, and in that all can come to the Savior if they will. "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).
5. Question: "Was the long day of Joshua a fact of history or only a legend?" Answer: The account of the "long day," as found in the tenth chapter of Joshua is certainly one of the most remarkable records in the Bible. That a day could actually have been extended, even through the length of another whole day, as indicated in Joshua, seems impossible and unbelievable.
And yet it is found in the Word of God! Furthermore, it is found in the context of the other events in Israel's conquest of Canaan, the general outline of which has been remarkably confirmed by archaeological discoveries in recent years. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern Palestinian archaeologist, President of the Hebrew Union College, has written: "As a matter of fact, it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible."
According to the narrative, God caused the day to be lengthened in order that the army of Israel could complete the conquest of the Amorite forces before they could escape and re-group under cover of darkness. This was a key battle in the Canaanite campaign, and its outcome would determine whether or not Israel could win the promised land.
Thus the integrity of God's promises was at stake here, as well as the vindication of His moral law. He had, at one time, delayed the occupation of the land by Abraham's descendants, because, as He said, "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full" (Genesis 15:16). But by Joshua's time, their wickedness and degeneracy were so pervasive and irreversible (a fact increasingly being confirmed by archaeological research into their cultures) that considerations of mercy, for their neighbors and even for their descendants, dictated their removal.
There was thus adequate reason for God to intervene in any way appropriate to accomplish His purposes—first, in the destruction of Amorite power and influence, and second, in the fulfillment of His promises to the seed of Jacob. The reason for using the sun in such an unusual way to do this, quite possibly, was because the Amorites were sun-worshippers. For the chief object of their worship to be used as an agent in their defeat must have implied that the God of Israel was the true God, not only to the Amorites themselves but also to the other peoples of the region who had been intimidated by them.
It is noteworthy that the Bible is not the only ancient record of the long day. As a matter of fact, traditions of a long day (or of a long night, among the American Indians and the South Sea Islanders) are quite common among early nations and tribes. Immanuel Velikovsky, in his book Worlds in Collision, gives abundant documentation of this fact, as have many other writers. It is difficult to account for the widespread incidence of such an unlikely narrative unless it is based on an actual fact of early human history. Whatever the cause, the event itself seems really to have occurred.
One common criticism of the Biblical record of the long day is that its language is unscientific. It says, for example, that "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" (Joshua 10:13). Critics say that the earth, rather than the sun, would have to "stand still" for the day to be prolonged, since normally its axial rotation controls the length of the day.
But such a criticism itself is unscientific! All motion is relative motion, and the sun is moving as well as the earth. No one knows where in the universe there may be a fixed point of zero motion. That being so, all velocities must necessarily be measured with respect to some arbitrarily assumed fixed reference point. The proper point to choose is normally the one which is most convenient to the observer. In the case of the relative motion of the sun and the earth to each other, it is almost always most convenient (and therefore most "scientific") to consider the earth as fixed and the sun as moving around it. Joshua's language, therefore, is perfectly modern and correct.
As a matter of fact, since the account says that the moon also stood still (Joshua 10:13), it may be that the entire solar system stopped in its tracks for a day, with all relative positions and motions simply suspended. This seems no more difficult to believe than that only the earth stopped rotating.
The natural reaction to the idea of a "long day" is one of incredulity, of course. It would certainly constitute an amazing miracle. The Bible itself says "there was no day like that before it or after it" (Joshua 10:14).
But to deny the possibility of the miraculous (and, after all, how do we measure the dynamics of one miracle as against another?) is to deny the existence of God. That the earth should stop rotating on its axis for a time is no more inexplicable than that it should start rotating in the beginning. The Creator who started it could also stop it if He so desired. The question is not whether an alleged miracle could occur, but whether it did occur. The testimony of Scripture, as well as the many supporting traditions, confirms that it did.
There was presumably a gradual deceleration of the motions, rather than instantaneous, so that no catastrophic geologic or geographic changes need have been caused by the long day. However, the circulation of the atmosphere and the hydrologic cycle are both controlled to some extent by the earth's rotation, so that such an event would undoubtedly disturb the atmosphere to a profound degree. This is indirectly confirmed by the devastating hailstorm which accompanied the long day as recorded in the Bible (Joshua 10:11) and by the many evidences of atmospheric violence noted by Velikovsky in his collection of ancient traditions of the miracle.
Although no amount of evidence could prove a miracle to someone who does not want to believe they can occur, there is certainly adequate reason for the Bible-believing Christian to accept Joshua's long day as a real fact of history.
6. Question: "How could Jonah survive three days and three nights in the belly of a whale?" Answer: This is one of the Bible stories most ridiculed by people who consider themselves sophisticated and intellectual. Skeptics say that no whale could swallow a man in the first place, and, even if he did, the man would certainly never survive three days and three nights in his belly, as the Bible claims.
"Christian liberals" have attempted to avoid this problem by saying that the story of Jonah was only an allegory and was never meant to be understood as actual history. However, whenever the Bible writers used allegories or parables or other symbolic stories, they always either said so or else made it evident in the context. The book of Jonah is certainly written as though it were actual history. Jonah was a real prophet who is mentioned also in II Kings 14:25. None of the ancient Jews or early Christians ever doubted the authenticity and historicity of the book of Jonah and its story.
Most importantly, the Lord Jesus Christ accepted the account as true. He said that the people of Nineveh repented of their sins as a consequence of his preaching (Matthew 12:41). He even said: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40). Thus Christ actually compared Jonah's experience to His own coming death and resurrection, pointing out the miraculous nature of both. One cannot deny the factuality of Jonah's experience, therefore, without charging the Lord Jesus Christ with either deception or ignorance, either of which is equivalent to denying His deity.
There is little question that the event was a miracle, but this fact certainly does not disprove it! The account, in fact, says as much: "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17). Later it says: "And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land" (Jonah 2:10). God was certainly able to accomplish this if He wished; to deny the possibility of miracles is atheism. The actual occurrence of this particular miracle is adequately attested by the very fact of its record in the Holy Scriptures, and is doubly confirmed by the testimony of Christ.
The "great fish" may have been either a whale or a shark or even a fish specially prepared by the Lord for this purpose. (The Hebrew and Greek words that are used merely mean "a great aquatic animal.") Some species of whales and some species of sharks are quite capable of swallowing a man whole. Among these are the sperm whale, the white shark, and the whale shark, all of which have been found with whole animals as large or larger than a man in their stomachs.
As a matter of fact, there are some cases recorded in whaling history even of men swallowed whole by these great animals! In at least two well-documented cases, the men were later rescued and survived.
As to whether a man could survive "three days and three nights" under such conditions, there are three possible answers that could be suggested in defense of the Biblical narrative. In the first place, it has been well established that the phrase "three days and three nights" in ancient Hebrew usage was an idiomatic expression meaning simply "three days," and was applicable even if the beginning and ending days of the period were only partial days. Thus it could refer to a period as short as about 38 hours. At least one man in modern times (James Bartley, in 1895) is known to have survived a day and a half inside a whale before being rescued. There is always some air in the whale's stomach, and, as long as the animal it has swallowed is still alive, digestive activity will not begin. Thus, Jonah's experience could possibly have happened entirely with the framework of natural law.
It is much more likely, however, that the event involved a divine miracle, as the Scripture strongly implies. The "great fish" was prepared and sent by God, as was the intense storm that threatened the ship on which Jonah was traveling. The storm ceased as soon as Jonah was cast overboard (Jonah 1:4, 15). In like manner, it was quite probable that God preserved Jonah's life miraculously all through the horrifying experience.
A third possibility is that Jonah actually suffocated and died in the great fish and then God later brought him back from the dead. There are at least eight other such "resuscitations" recorded in the Bible, as well as the glorious bodily resurrection of Christ—of which Jonah's experience in particular was said by Christ to be a prophetic sign.
This is implied also by Jonah's prayer, when he said: "... out of the belly of hell (i.e., "sheol," the place of departed spirits) cried I, and thou heardest my voice" (Jonah 2:2). In any case, it was a mighty experience, evidently well known and certified in his day, probably contributing in significant degree to the fact that all the people of Nineveh repented and turned to God (Jonah 3:5) when Jonah returned "from the dead," as it were, to preach to them.
Even in Jesus' day, it was so well known that He could use it as a "sign" of His own impending death and resurrection, which were to constitute God's crowning proof of the deity of His Son and the great work of salvation which He would accomplish on the cross for all who would receive Him. "God now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead" (Acts 17:30, 31).
7. Question: "Are there intelligent beings on other planets?" Answer: It is impossible to prove a universal negative, but there is not as yet even the slightest evidence, either Biblical or scientific, that there are men like us inhabiting other planets or star systems. There is an abundance of pseudo-scientific speculation of this sort, but the hard evidence is against it.
Life, at least such as we know it, requires a very complex combination of environmental factors to be possible, and only this planet, so far as is known, provides this combination. Water must be abundant, for example. Little if any water exists on the moon, or Mars, or Venus, or the other planets, and certainly not in liquid form. The temperatures on all the other known planets are either too cold or too hot for life in any higher form comparable to the earth's human life.
In addition, many complex chemicals must be present in abundance in order to support life processes. An atmosphere essentially like our own would also have to be present. In general, life in any form comparable to human life would require a planet essentially the same as our own planet in every respect. There is no evidence, however, other than speculation, that such a planet exists anywhere else in the universe.
The main reason that men keep wishfully searching for evidence of extraterrestrial life is that this would give support to their evolutionary philosophy. That is, if life is just a product of natural chemical developments here on the earth, as the leaders of evolutionary thought insist, then the same chance developments should also have taken place in other places in the universe, they feel, in view of the almost infinite number of other stars. Nevertheless, the actual evidence remains massively negative.
As far as the Scriptures are concerned, they teach unequivocally that the earth is uniquely the abode of man. "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's, but the earth hath He given to the children of men" (Psalm 115:16). "God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:20).
It was to this earth, alone among all the uncounted billions of heavenly bodies, that God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, came down to suffer and die for man's salvation. "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven" (John 3:13). The earth may not be the center of the universe (though no one knows, of course, where such a center might be), but it is certainly the center of interest of the universe! "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him" (1 John 4:9). It seems grotesque and blasphemous to suggest that the tragedy of Calvary's cross should be repeated on millions of other planets, for the benefit of other unknown and hypothetical members of God's creation.
The earth, as the astronauts observed, is uniquely beautiful and uniquely equipped as man's home. Though it is small, it is of infinitely more complex organization and variety than even the largest stars, composed as they are mostly of the simplest elements, hydrogen and helium.
Since the sun and moon were made specifically to "give light upon the earth" (Genesis 1:15), it may be possible that the moon, and even the solar system, were within the "dominion" which man was commissioned by God ultimately to "subdue," by his science and technology (Genesis 1:28). This is uncertain, but it is at least clear that the other stars, the nearest of which is four light-years away, are well beyond man's power ever to explore directly, or to control, in the present order of things.
Why, then, did God create them? What is the purpose, in God's wisdom, for the tremendous number and variety of stars, and perhaps a still greater number of planets (though the existence of these is speculative, based only on analogy with the solar system) throughout the vast universe?
We can only give tentative suggestions, of course, but it is well to remember that God is still the Creator, and there are endless ages of eternity ahead of us. Even though, for the moment, the only obvious function of the stellar heavens is to reflect the infinite power and grandeur of their Creator, it may well be that they are awaiting more specific uses by Him in the ages to come, after the completion of His redemptive program for the earth and men.
It is also possible that, even now, they have some relationship to the angels of God. This may be implied by the fact that angels are often called "stars" in Scriptures (e.g., Job 38:7; Isaiah 14:12, 13; Revelation 12:4, 9; 9:1; etc.) and that the phrase "host of heaven" is applied both to the stars and to the angelic hosts (e.g., Jeremiah 33:22; II Chronicles 18:18). The worship of the stars, which has always been a characteristic of polytheism, has, in reality, been a worship of angels (or "gods"), especially those angels who have followed Satan in his great rebellion against the true God (note II Kings 17:16; Colossians 2:18; 1 Corinthians 10:20, etc.). It seems possible, at least, that this frequent identification of stars and angels is more than mere poetic imagery; possibly angels, who are mighty spiritual beings created by the "Lord of hosts," have their primary sphere of operations in the heavens, in the stars. The Bible says, "(He) maketh His angels spirits and His ministers a flaming fire" (Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:7), and it also says there is "an innumerable company of angels" (Hebrews 12:22) that "do His commandments" (Psalm 103:20).
Thus, although it is all but certain that no other man-like creatures inhabit other worlds, it is true that in God's universe, and possibly on the stars themselves, there exists a vast host of intelligent and powerful beings, the angels of God. Though it is futile to try to establish contact with them by such devices as space-ships and radio telescopes, we can communicate with God Himself through prayer and through His Word, by faith, and the angels then are "sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation" (Hebrews 1:14).
The Bible Has the Answer.