Thank you for the discussion on how one can prove that the Bible is not fiction, “J.K. Rowling (for arguments sake) wrote Harry Potter & made billions through penning her gift of imagination. The Bible was wrote by humans. Why do people believe Its the word of God. How can we prove its not fiction?“
The issue of whether the Bible is fiction or fact is debated. As one knows, many people cite that Genesis 1 is fictional since cosmologists, geologists, paleontologist date the Universe and Earth billions of years while the Bible asserts that it was made in six days. For anyone to continue to hold to the Biblical position seems absurd in light of our modern, scientific age.
I like to ask readers to pause for a moment and re-examine the text in light of the scientists. Is there any evidence that Genesis 1 is factual? May I suggest for one’s consideration based on my readings. I have attempted to cite non-Christian source to avoid bias in the viewpoint.
1. The Bible asserts that in the formation of the earth, it was empty and void of life (Gen. 1:2.).
Nearly everyone would agree that in the formation of the earth, there was no biological life on earth in the early formation of the planet. There is no disagreement.
2. The Bible asserts that the landmass was once submerged beneath the ocean waters (Gen. 1:9).
I cite this source for one’s consideration in a summary, ““About a billion years ago, the continents emerged relatively suddenly from an ocean that covered 95 percent of the Earth’s surface, according to a new theory by Eldridge Moores, a geologist at the University of California, Davis. The appearance of large masses of dry land would have caused more extreme weather, changes in ocean currents and the emergence of proper seasons. In turn, these environmental changes may have led to rise in atmospheric oxygen that enabled the explosion of new life forms around 500 million years ago.” Published in the January issue of the Geological Society of America Bulletin.
The central point is that many geologists think/postulate that the earth was once beneath the ocean floor which is in alignment of the Biblical assertion.
3. The Bible asserts that the landmass rose out of the sea floor (Gen. 1:9).
Geologists know with near certainty that tectonic shifts caused the landmass to rise out of the ocean floor as to the Himalayan with the clashing of the two plates.
The Britannica says this about tectonic shifts, “The theory of plate tectonics is based on a broad synthesis of geologic and geophysical data. It is now almost universally accepted, and its adoption represents a true scientific revolution, analogous in its consequences to quantum mechanics in physics or the discovery of the genetic code in biology. Incorporating the much older idea of continental drift, as well as the concept of seafloor spreading, the theory of plate tectonics has provided an overarching framework in which to describe the past geography of continents and oceans, the processes controlling creation and destruction of landforms, and the evolution of Earth’s crust, atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and climates. During the late 20th and early 21st centuries, it became apparent that plate-tectonic processes profoundly influence the composition of Earth’s atmosphere and oceans, serve as a prime cause of long-term climate change, and make significant contributions to the chemical and physical environment in which life evolves.”
The central point is that geologists know that tectonic shifts caused the landmass to rise out of the ocean floor which the Bible asserts that it rose out of the ocean.
4. The Bible asserts that there was water encompassing the earth (Gen. 1:6).
There are four views on how water was formed on earth:
There are four main theories:
1. Asteroids brought ice to the earth which melted over time.
2. The earth had ice already when the earth was formed.
3. Volcanic eruption from the earth’s magma with radiation caused the earth to develop water and atmosphere.
4. Combination of asteroids and earth’s volcanic eruptions.
The Scripture is silent on the method of how water came onto the earth, but the presence of water is there and early in the formation of the planet. On a personal note, I tend to lean toward theory 3 which seems more reasonable to me.
5. The Bible asserts that there was a body of water causing the earth to be a tropical planet (Gen. 1:2, 6).
Geologists and paleontologist are nearly quite certain that the earth was once a tropical planet as tropical roots were found in Antarctica and in Alaska.
It is reported according to Live Science, ”Remains of 90 million-year-old rainforest discovered under Antarctic ice.”
“About 90 million years ago, West Antarctica was home to a thriving temperate rainforest, according to fossil roots, pollen and spores recently discovered there, a new study finds.
The world was a different place back then. During the middle of the Cretaceous period (145 million to 65 million years ago), dinosaurs roamed Earth and sea levels were 558 feet (170 meters) higher than they are today. Sea-surface temperatures in the tropics were as hot as 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35 degrees Celsius). This scorching climate allowed a rainforest — similar to those seen in New Zealand today — to take root in Antarctica, the researchers said.”
6. The Bible asserts that the landmass was one and later divided (Gen. 10:25).
Geologists are also quite certain that the continents were once one continent that divided through tectonic shifts which the Scriptures affirmed. The difference is the timeline of when it happened.
The National Geographic under Continental Drift in its summary states this, “Pangaea existed about 240 million years ago. By about 200 million years ago, this supercontinent began breaking up. Over millions of years, Pangaea separated into pieces that moved away from one another. These pieces slowly assumed their positions as the continent we recognize today.”
I can go on but the point is that there is truth to the assertions that the Biblical description of the early formation of earth is within the geologists framework. The DIFFERENCE is the reconciliation of the dating between billions of years and the days as described in the Bible.
When God said, “Let there be light” the wavelengths of light traveled outward from God to the “ends” of the Universe. The command took only “seconds” if I may use term, while the light wave itself being detected by us took light years.
If I may use an imperfect analogy that a man with his bull dozer dug a hole and moved a huge mound of dirt a mile away in less than an hour, let’s say. An ant comes along and discovers this mound of dirt and was able to determine that it came from the hole in the ground a mile away. As an ant, he may calculate in ant time how long it would it an ant or ants to dig out that dirt and move it. For the man, it tool an hour but for the ant it took a lifetime and more.
In my perspective, Genesis 1 was made in an infinite time in the past while Genesis 1:2–31 is the reformatting of the earth so that it is inhabitable by humans. Is it literal 24 hour days or a figurative 24 hour days?
It is interesting to note that when God declared let there be light, he called the light, “day” and the darkness, he called night. This light is not light from the sun which was created later. Can it be that the “day” and “night” is from God’s perspective of time and not human perspective of a 24 hour day? God is calling his activity as “day.” That’s just a thought.
Is it persuasive that there are some truth to the assertions by the Bible? If the statements of the Bible are fictional, the likelihood of coincidental citation by a writer would be incredible.
SUMMARY: Is it possible or likely that the Biblical narrative of Genesis 1 is more fact than fiction? The reader has to decide, but I suggest it warrants further due diligence on the matter.
For additional perspectives and insight: