I saw this post on the blog "Seeing God's Breath" and had to post. I would have posted this as a comment on the blog, but I felt it would have taken to much space. Rather than take over the comments section I figured it would be better to just put my reply here.


The gist of the post is that the Bible contains knowledge (specifically scientific knowledge in this case) which was unknown at the time it was written and not discovered until later times. Fine, I can get behind that, but it needs proof to convince me.


In this case I think a reasonable person would expect enough of a preponderance of evidence as to be able to say that these things are not coincidence. One would also expect that these things indeed are "foreknowledge" and not something that is just obvious or could have been figured out another way besides through the rigor of science. Also, these things need to comply with rigorous biblical interpretation. In other words, interpreting the language to mean something that it obviously does not.


Obviously the Bible uses metaphorical and poetic language so there will be problems figuring out the things that are metaphorical and those that were meant as fact and thus could be considered forknowledge. Scott goes to lengths to seperate three categories. We can argue all we want about metaphorical language and meaning but we'll just run in circles. If a preponderance of evidence can't be found in the list of "Explicit foreknowledge" then I think most people would find it difficult to accept arguments for poetic language.


I'll say at the outset that I am setting out to disprove his hypothesis. I read the post and so many glaring mistakes were visible I had to post a reply. I realize that for some a preponderance of evidence would consist of one item, for others it would be higher. I charge you to set your own level of evidence and examine my arguments with your own sources, I am stating up front that I have not been convinced. I'm sure you will see why as I continue. I will list his examples of explicit foreknowledge in order with my arguments beneath them.




"Scientific foreknowledge is the knowledge in the Bible regarding the
facts and practices that were not known until centuries after the Bible was
written thus going to prove the existence of God and that the Bible is God’s
Revelation." From Seeing God's Breath Blog



#1 The earth is round (Prov. 8:27).

None of the trasnlations I can find reference a globe, all refer to a circle, circuit or compass which could be the horizon or, more probably the circuit of the sun through the sky. Only Wesley's Notes mention a globe, without explanation. Check out the Online Parallel Bible page.

#2 Blood is essential to the life of the flesh of man and animals (Lev. 17:11-14, Gen. 9:4-6).

Anyone who has ever slit the throat of a lamb upon an altar knows how essential blood is. You don't need science to prove this. People in that time lived intimately with death, you were lucky if you lived to 40. They knew well before the Bible was written how important blood is to life.

#3 A seed must die to produce a plant (1 Cor. 15:36-38, John 12:24)

A seed does not die to produce a plant, what science book are you reading? The radicle grows out of the embryo to form a root, then a shoot at which point the energy reserves in the cotyledons are used to further the growth. The seed is alive the whole time it just becomes a plant. Would you say a mayfly larva dies in order to produce a mayfly? A seed only dies poetically, not scientifically, when a plant sprouts.

#4 How to make antibacterial antiviral soap (Num. 19).

I can only assume that he is tlaking about the claims of this article at Apologetics Press describing the antibacterial effects of Hyssop. You notice however that the verse does not say why this concoction is used (presumably becuase it helps cleans germs). People learned very early and in multiple cultures about the medicinal properties of plants such as hyssopm, neem, or licorice plant. Many cultures in Africa still use licorice plant twigs as toothbrushes for this reason as do many people in India use Neem sticks. People aren't dumb, they see an effect of a substance and continue ot use it to reproduce the effect, whether it is getting nice smelling breath or realizing that those who wash with a certain nice smelling hyssop soap didn't get sick after handling the dead. Also, the AP article says that pioneers invented lye soap, not so, it dates to thousands of years 2200 BC. This is when a recipe was written, in one of the first writing systems no less. There is no reason to think it wasn't invented earlier.

#5 Sanitation by one digging a hole for their excrement outside of the camp (Deut. 23:12-13).

How many hours do you think it would take the average human to figure out that it wasn't pleasant to shit in his tent? About as long as it would take him to get slapped by his wife! C'mon, this is ridiculous. You think it took Moses to figure this one out? Dogs even get this one.

#6 Eating the blood of animals is forbidden (Lev. 17:12-14, Gen. 9:4-5).

You'll have to explain to me why this pohibition is proven by science? Let's see, I can think of Blood Pudding from Ireland ( Mmm! Oh, and they are Christian too) and Coq a vin from France (Mmm! Christian again). There are tribes in Africa that use blood from their living cows to mix with their milk for added nutrients. This is a really poor example of foreknowledge since it isn't even knowledge, it's a taboo not proven by science or objective observation of eating blood hurting anyone.

#7 Eating an animal that has died naturally and is decaying is forbidden (Ex. 22:31, Lev. 17:15, 22:8).

Had you mentioned animals that died naturally without the decay part I might have had a hint of believing you. Just like pooping in your tent it doesn't take a genius to figure out that rotting meat doesn't do well on the stomach of humans. It also doesn't take long to figure out that animals that die of disease can give you the same disease if you eat them. I expected more of a challenge in disproving these! You don't think people long before Exodus or Leviticus figured this one out? This is so common sense I can't even figure out a citation to prove it. I don't think it deserves one.

#8 Quarantining those having certain diseases (Lev. 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4).

So, people before Leviticus never figured out that you catch disease from other people? Science may have upheld the practice but it obviously dates back longer than the Bible assuming people weren't completely stupid. Did we need Linus Pauling or Louis Pasteur to tell us that we catch polio, the common cold, or leprosy from other people. People are smart enough to figure out that leprosy was incurable and gross and thus you should quarantine them. Incidentally it was science that figured out how to cure leprosy and also that has shown that it is very hard to catch leprosy, thus lifting the rule of quarantining lepers. If you get leprosy your doctor will give you antibiotics and you can go home that day (before the antibiotics even take effect). We only quarantine highly infectious diseases with no cure. So in this case science actually went against your "foreknowledge".

#9 Practicing principles of hygiene (Lev. 15:19-33).

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you get zits when you don't wash your face. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that people living in squalid desert camps get boils and sores if they don't follow hygiene. It didn't take Moses to figure out that it's hard to stand the smell of others who don't bathe. We still have to remind teenagers of this today, I think this was the point of this rule, not that they figured out bacteria. Science confirmed the why, it didn't discover the how of being healthy. If people are as stupid as you make them sound I'm flumoxed. How did we end up creating science in the first place.

#10 Diagnosis of leprosy (Lev. 13).

How is it that you need science to figure out that leprosy is bad, gross, and unhealty. How is it that you need science to tell you what is looks like or how to name it? Do you think the word leprosy didn't have a meaning before science figured out it was caused by tuberculine bacteria? Of course people figured this out way back then, it isn't "foreknowlege", it's common sense to name symptoms that you see, especially nasty peeling skin lesions. This is ridiculous, please explain your reason for stating this as I don't even see an argument here.

#11 The ideal ratio for a seaworthy barge (Gen. 6:15)

Ahh, now we have something to talk about. Hmmm...well did God also give the plans for said barge to be built? No? Then don't you think that people figured out how to build it with trial and error and would thus have figured out how to load it? It doesn't talk about all the barges that sank because they loaded them too light or too heavy for the waves. Again, I don't see how people needed to wait for science to explain this too them. Did God tell them how to build a wheel? An axle? A box? People are smart enough to learn by trial and error.

#12 The Water Cycle (Eccl. 1:7, Job 36:27-28, Amos 9:6)

So, it takes a genius to figure out that rivers flow to the sea and keep flowing (Eccl 1:7)? Noone figured out before science came along that water distills from mist (Job 36:27-28)? Everyone who has ever been camping in the fog can see that the water distills into droplets on everything. The Amos 9:6 passage is pure peotic speach, he's talking about the earth rising and falling and being melted by gods touch just before this. I don't buy your interpretation. Also, notice that these are scattered throughout the Bible. I would be convinced if all of them were in one passage but they aren't. Thus, nobody understood the whole water cycle until the Roman's figured it out and the Chinese knew about it in 500 B.C. This is about the closest you've come to "foreknowledge" but it doesn't convince me.

#13 The stars cannot be numbered (Jer. 33:22).

'As the host of heaven cannot be counted and the sand of the sea cannot be measured, so I will multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.' (Jer. 33:22) This has been a figure of speach since time imemorial. This is a metaphorical statement not a factual one. You don't think that people tried to count and couldn't and thus created this phraseaology? Again, you make humans look totally stupid. Also, physics has decided that the universe does have bounds and will not expand forever so theoretically science could count all the stars, they are finite. Unfortunately, just as in the days of the Bible, we don't have the tools to do it. Science contradicts your assertion of foreknowledge again.

#14 Wind has currents and a regular course (Eccl. 1:6).

Except that wind doesn't travel around parrallel to the earth, science shows that it drops down and then rises back up according to temperature. The round and round thing from this verse attempts to explain wind in terms of a circle, which makes sense if you don't understand how it works scientifically. As for a regular couse, it doesn't take a genius to relize that wind comes from the same general direction most days.

#15 There once existed animals with tails as thick as cedar trees (Job 40:15-24).

Well, I'll be danged. You got me there. You can have this one as a freebie if you want. However, it sure seems like pretty symbolic language to me being that he's talking to god and all.



Please all you readers. Show me the error of my ways. I'm interested. Let the discussion begin.