Science and the Bible

3/16/2014

I think one of the biggest problems we face in biblical scholarship today is the pressure to conform to the consensus opinion of the mainstream scientific community. Many biblical scholars interpret Genesis 6-9 as teaching a local or regional flood because the scientific establishment has “proven” that the global flood did not take place and that the fossil record demonstrates millions of years of evolution instead of evidence of a worldwide flood. Many of these same scholars impose a theory of long ages on the days of Genesis 1 because the scientific establishment has convinced them that the earth is billions of years old. Some, like Peter Enns, say that the Apostle Paul erroneously believed that Adam was an historical person. Enns thinks Paul was wrong because the scientific establishment persuaded him that man is the product of a long process of evolution. The mistake Enns makes is putting his faith in the majority of the scientific community rather than interpreting the Old Testament as Jesus and the Apostles interpreted it.

Jesus never challenged the history of the Bible. Jesus accepted all the people and events of the OT as actually historical. He mentions them in his teaching and sometimes the point of his reference to them depended on the historical validity of the accounts. For example: Matthew 12:41 -- “Ninevah repented at Jonah’s preaching, but one greater than Jonah is here.” or Matthew 24:37 – “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the time of the second coming.” or Matthew 11:23-24 – “If the miracles done here had been done in Sodom, it would have repented. It will be more bearable for Sodom in the judgment.”

It is obvious from Romans 5 that Paul understood Adam as an historical person. Peter took the flood as literal, and global (II Peter 3). We are not permitted by Jesus and the apostles to understand the first few chapters of Genesis as non-literal literature.

If we resist the pressure from the scientific establishment (the new “ultimate authority” in our society) and interpret science in light of Scripture rather than the other way around, we will see less conflict between the Bible and science, and have fewer alleged discrepancies to try to explain.

50 Comments

Mikah

3/25/2014 01:21:00 am

I think this is a very crucial issue in our day and age. One question that I have concerning this is how far we should go to defend what we believe the Bible is saying. The background of this question is that back in the day, people believed that the earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun thus revolved around the earth. When it was discovered that the earth in fact revolved around the sun, many in the church were appalled and were not willing to change their views of science because of their view of Scripture. So my question is, how do we know when our interpretation of the Bible is incorrect? How much evidence do we need scientifically before we change how we interpret certain passages of Scripture (not to make them false, just to reconcile them with science)?

Daniel Becerra

12/11/2020 01:58:21 pm

The verses that might show a geocentric view are poetic or in the perspective of the author. In Joshua 10:13, we see Joshua observing that the sun and moon stopped in the sky, he makes no comment on the sun revolving around the earth. In Ecclesiastes and Psalms we see the author making observations about the sun or earth, but no where do they say the universe is earth-centric. Philosophers and Scientists made those assumptions and the church thought that Scripture confirmed it when it did not. Some would like to do that today with Scripture saying that a day in Genesis' creation account is an epoch of time (possibly millions of year per day) instead of a literal 24 hour day as the Scripture states. Genesis 1:5 tells us exactly what is meant by a day: "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day." An evening and morning, 24 hours. Now, some say this cannot be because God had yet to create the sun, but as we see in Revelation 21:23, God does not need the Sun to light the day, "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." God made the Sun to give us light and that we could mark time, but the day was already defined without it. When people read into Scripture their own ideals, finding out the ideas they read into Scripture are incorrect does not invalidate Scripture.

Rich

3/25/2014 12:43:51 pm

Archaeology is one of the best scientific supports for Scriptural truth and consistency. As archaeology continues to unearth evidence of truths concerning places and people, the bible becomes more and more scientifically reliable. By this standard we can generally build principles of belief concerning scientific data that is mentioned in the Bible.

Dwight Crosley

5/3/2014 01:00:43 am

I recently had a short conversation with a man at work. He said it is nearly impossible to believe in a God because of modern science. I didn't have much time to discuss the matter because we were at work. I want to have another conversation with the man and ask him if he has ever actually studied the science for himself. Then I want to show him some proof through science that there is actually a God. I was reminded by this situation that we as Christians always need to have an answer to give to unbelievers in every area we possibly can.

Michael Nelson

9/8/2014 06:14:24 am

Dr. said: "If we resist the pressure from the scientific establishment (the new “ultimate authority” in our society) and interpret science in light of Scripture rather than the other way around, we will see less conflict between the Bible and science, and have fewer alleged discrepancies to try to explain." Yes, I agree with this. Sometimes a claim is made by some source that seems to render some part of Scripture invalid. For example, I remember years ago when an article in some newspaper or magazine stated that they had found a transitional life form (a fossil of a half bird, half dinosaur). There was even a picture of it included along with the article. This really disturbed me, to say the least. One or two weeks later, this same media source published another article retracting the earlier article, saying that they had made a mistake--the fossil turned out to be nothing more than a dinosaur and bird that happened to die right next to each other and it only initially appeared as if they were a single animal. My point being: We should never be shaken by anything being reported from the scientific community that contradicts the Bible. We must have a strong foundation (the Word), else we are left adrift in man's understanding.

Luke

11/3/2014 11:21:16 pm

I think one of the biggest disputes of our day and age is that the bible and science cannot compliment each other or even coexist in a harmonious way. This especially has been brought to life through recent theological debates, however my response is that science and the bible can be used together to find answers, however it must be the word of God that comes first in the process, and then science can be used to back it up, instead of some type of inverse of the process. It's a dangerous area when you begin to second-guess and over-analyze the word of God, especially in regards to the order of creation, so it is important to make sure that the bible is the final authority on bother theological and scientific arguments.

Mark Stieby link

4/24/2020 07:19:26 pm

I find that you are correct that a lot of people think science and religion cannot work one with the other. Answers that we do not know, we still can know by reading the word of God himself, the Bible. I believe the two disciplines merge quite well together.

Prilia

11/6/2014 08:04:28 am

First of all, I am talking from my country's perspective. Many Christians there don't even realize that the secular scientist are trying to confuse them about the existence of God. All the public schools and Christian schools teach them about Darwin's Theory, Big Bang Theory, and other evolution theory. Many Christians just accept it because they think that the scientists are smarter than them. The confusion just make them choose to not blend science and God, even though the Bible is actually teaching about the science from God's, the universe's Creator's perspective.

James Powers

11/6/2014 12:59:46 pm

Modern science has seemingly been at war with the Bible for decades. What both parties in the struggle seem to overlook is the difference in foundation. The Bible is based largely in a historical foundation. Science is based on observations through experimentations. These two do not have to be at war; however, many forsake what they truly observe for a useless theory. We should give more credibility to a historical account than to theories that are in direct violation of logic and observations. Ultimately what a man believes will determine how he sees all evidence; therefore, we should place the Bible as the primary authority. It comes from an infallible witness, not a man who defies logic.

Elijah Lloyd

12/8/2014 12:23:47 am

Yes, when we take science as the "new ultimate authority", the natural result is that we try to make the Bible work with our other authority, science, and we end up coming up with many strange interpretations of scripture that are not what the writer intended at all. I think that the most amazing thing is that science is not trustworthy. All throughout history, the scientists have been changing their interpretations of the world to fit new research, while the Bible has not changed and has been completely true to life throughout that same period of time. Even within the past thirty years, scientists have made mistakes. Just 20-30 years ago, scientists were worried about the effects of fires on forests. They thought that human-started fires destroyed all surrounding life and inhibited growth. Today, scientists realize the benefit of fires on forest health and realize that it is a natural, even helpful thing to have happen. Some scientists even start and carefully control fires of their own on purpose, now!
Scientists are usually right. But I don't really trust science.
I trust the Word of God, that is right every time.

Ken Bladen

12/16/2014 08:01:55 pm

I just finished reading a few chapters in A. W. Tozwer's Knowledge of the Holy.in one of the chapters he mentions that science cannot answer the question "What?" One quick question comes to my mind is "What is life?" Science can tell us when it happens, and even then they want to debate the issue when it interferes with their preconceptions and/or lifestyle,, but I have never heard or read anything that tells me what it is. I will keep as my final authority the Word of God that doesn't change.

Mark

12/30/2014 06:23:20 am

I would say that Science is not complete at all without God's Word. It may start to answer some questions but it can by no means answer them completely, not even "What is life?"

Ken Bladen

5/5/2015 09:27:13 pm

I liked what you said about interpreting science in light of the Bible instead of interpreting the Bible in the light of science. The Bible does not change but science seems to change daily. It would seem logical to me to use that which is unchanging to help in understanding the changeable. Then as you stated above we would get closer to a more complete answer.

Chad DeWitt

12/20/2014 04:23:02 am

This is a great reminder that the Christian should maintain the Bible as his/her authority. When we attempt to make the Bible say what secular science says we make a grave mistake. Many Christian leaders have fallen into this trap over the years by trying to fit millions of years into the Bible as evidenced by the Gap theory, local flood view, day-age theory, theistic evolution, and others.

Eric

12/26/2014 01:26:15 am

I am reminded once again to maintain the Bible as my authority in all that I teach and do. If I venture away from what the Bible teaches and begin to teach things that I think it is saying I will err. By God's grace I will do my best to teach the Bible.

Sarah

3/24/2015 01:50:41 pm

I agree that modern Christians are too easily swayed by the scientific community. What most people tend to forget is that science has always been about creating theories from interpreting evidence. Even the Laws of science are technically theories. The preaching of scientific "discoveries" as fact as unfortunately resulted in the wide acceptance of erroneous ideas for which most people have not taken the time to consider the evidence. The field of science is always changing with the discovery of new evidence, observations, or finds. A lot of archaeological finds support the stories of the Bible. The discovery of fish fossils on tops of mountains support the theory of a world-wide flood. It really all depends on how you view the evidence. I believe that the blame for the wide acceptance of erroneous theories should be split between our public education systems and our churches--public education for indoctrinating our children and not teaching them how to critically think about science and our churches for being silent and also not teaching our children how to think critically.

Eric

4/28/2015 07:47:46 am

Having a Biblical understanding the events throughout history and then being able to prove those account through archeology is one of the best things we have as Christian to prove the validity of the Bible.

Chuck

5/4/2015 11:48:11 pm

"The mistake Enns makes is putting his faith in the majority of the scientific community rather than interpreting the Old Testament as Jesus and the Apostles interpreted it." I couldn't agree more!!! Society today seems to treat Scientific theory as Fact. I also like when you pointed out that "the scientific establishment is the new ultimate authority in our society." This seems to be the norm, and it is very sad :(

Elijah Lloyd

5/5/2015 11:55:16 pm

Yes, that's true. Scientific theories are usually up for debate, but it seems that when it comes to ultimate matters, the prevailing scientific voices always go, and the rest are drowned out and ignored. We should always believe the Bible first on ultimate matters.

Joey

11/3/2015 03:52:37 pm

I agree! The Bible should be the ultimate authority, and not whatever the latest "scientific" evidence is pointing out.

Amit

5/21/2018 05:44:12 pm

I agree with you, Joey. In my lifetime according to the scientific discovery, egg was good for your health. And then egg yolk was high in cholesterol and bad for you. And then I saw recently that once again, natural farm eggs are one of the best things you can incorporate in your diet. I am okay with scientists changing their minds about the nutritional value of eggs; however, once they start with an authoritative statement about the creation of the world everything becomes relative. Unless we believe in what you said, there cannot be any absolutes.

Chris

11/3/2015 06:50:58 pm

Archeology and secular history supports the bible. Any good creation scientist can easily refute the theory of evolution. There are those who believe that we cannot believe in science and believe in God. However, God created all things including science and gave man the knowledge to discover and use science. However, when we throw out the bible we get into trouble. There is tremendous evidence for a global flood. The skeletons of large fish have been found in places where oceans are hundreds of miles away.

matthew potter

11/15/2015 07:35:04 pm

i do believe that this article is spot on. i think we must interpret science through what scripture says, not the other way around, mostly when it comes to historical events such as the flood or evolution. i think too many people want to please everyone to make christianity sound better or make more scientific sense. i think there is no need to do so since we know the bible is always right!

Logan Sankey

5/7/2020 10:54:18 am

I like what you said and how you said it, Matt! I might just use that.

Ruthu Katikala

12/6/2015 08:52:23 pm

This is very common issue for most people. Most people believe in both Creation and evaluation. Because, it is hard for them to understand. I like this post. It has a main point on Believing in Historical Adam. The Historical Adam never support Evaluation. I do believe Bible gives most of the information about Historical Adam and all other religious books also supports on historical Adam. There are some questions are never answered by science, how the life and sin came to the World. The Evaluation never able to understand but Bible has a answers for all.

Kevin S

5/16/2016 12:59:50 pm

I find it fascinating how much the science lines up perfectly with the Bible. Which that is the way it should be. I believe that creation trumps evolution hands down whether we are arguing for a young earth or the involving of kinds. Great article.

Nathan M.

11/10/2016 05:00:17 pm

The more I look into the scientific community's positions and teachings, the more I trust God's word over their consensus. Science is being dreadfully misused in today's societies and schools. Science was never meant to be its own deciding force. Science began with men who compared their scientific findings with those of others and changed based on logic and proof. Too many of the theories today are taught as fact without near enough support from actual facts. Scripture has never been disproved as to its accuracy and reliability, unlike modern science.

David Martinez

11/10/2016 09:08:41 pm

Science, properly studied will never contradict the Bible. What we are seeing in the "modern scientific community" is not so much the contradiction of science against the Bible, but the fight between two different worldviews: the naturalistic worldview and the Christian worldview. Most of the scientific community has decided to "believe and put their faith" in theories that lack every requirement necessary for a proper and correct study under the scientific method. They have opted for the naturalistic worldview.

But It is interesting that as science progresses, the evidence for the existence of God increases. An example of this is that now we know that the universe had a beginning, it is not eternal as the naturalistic scientific community used to teach. If we keep studying science without naturalistic presuppositions, we will find out more about God and His creation. Science is good, God wants us to know more about the universe in which we live. Science has never and will never contradict the Bible since both of them study the work of God in this creation. As Christians we have to resist the conformation of our minds to the worldview that this world has to offer. We have to study the Bible in light of the Bible and not in light of biased naturalistic ideas.

James Raisch

11/11/2016 05:49:16 am

Many different people in the secular and even some parts of Christianity have started to embrace the ideas that so called science has "proven". They go with the fact that some smart men who study science believe a certain way and they must be right. But when you look at Gods word and you put science up to it,Science makes much more sense in the light of scripture. Science in its true form is literally knowledge, and God wants us to know about his universe and the man mysteries that the universe hides, but what corrupt an has done i go and take this and added humanistic ideology in the place of God. I believe the fact if the matter is that in many schools they teach evolution as fact though you never teach Myths in History as facts or things that cant be proven as fact. I think instead what they should do in schools is give both sides of the story both creation as in God created the earth i six literal days and also give them the theory of evolution Let the students actually do critical thinking in public schools and decide for themselves through evidence instead of just ramming something down there throats and not letting them think for themselves

Amit

4/30/2018 05:15:06 pm

I agree with the author that this last century has seen a hostility where science is pitted against theology. Unless we look at creation through the eye of a creator, we can never understand the origins of the design. The Bible gives a concise and complete description of creation - not only from the point of view from the Creator, but as if the Creator was explaining it to a child.

Jonathan Slagenweit

5/6/2018 01:34:10 pm

Good article! I really appreciated your remarks concerning that we need to interpret science based on the Bible, and not the other way around. If God is the creator of all things, then surely He knows how it should all fit together and operate. I find it interesting that scientific principles (currents, round earth, etc.) are written in scripture...long before the scientific community discovered these truths. As for the flood being local, how do they defend rock formations in the western part of the US and fossils found on mountains, thousands of miles away from what they would call a local flood? Like the article!

Amit

5/21/2018 05:41:25 pm

Recently I heard Pope Francis in his biographical interview say that the first few chapters in Genesis are allegorical poetry. This is a man who is heading millions of Roman Catholics. When he believes that God would lead people astray by making them believe that the world was not His creation but came just by chance, then what else does the Bible say that is an allegorical expression? It is great to have a Pope call himself Francis after the Saint Francis who is the saint associated with patronage of animals and the natural environment. The Bible teaches us to be good stewards of nature which is God's creation, but when we equate ourself to nature itself then we devalue the image of God in us. It has to be the foundational belief of every scholarship that God created earth and He is the Creator of everything.

Nick

12/3/2018 05:21:40 pm

I think that it is sad that most people believe that if you agree with what the Bible says, than you have to disagree with science, and vice versa. Science has been trying to keep up with the Bible for a very long time.

Samuel Cramer

12/3/2018 08:18:03 pm

I think that you made an excellent point when you pointed out that we should interpret science in the Light of Scripture rather than the other way around. So often people lose their Biblical world view when they go into the field of science. I think this is a very sad thing as real science helps to affirm the Bible, rather than provide alternate solutions.

NATHAN BLACKWELL

12/11/2018 06:39:49 pm

I agree. The Bible, as the Word of God, is self-attesting - that is, ultimately there must be no higher source of criticism or judgement on it's validity or trustfulness lest we make something else (like science, reason, or history) the final standard

Matthew

12/29/2018 08:27:17 pm

I think that this is by far one of the most pressing issues that we face today. If we can not lean on the word of God as the most truthful literature in every way then we will have a hard time defending the standard of truth we live and teach by, the Bible becomes a nice helpful book instead of that which we bas our faith and trust is.

Jonathan Rice

5/2/2019 09:18:21 am

I find it interesting that much of what Christian believe comes from a scientific method that contradicts their own view. I understand and agree that as Christian our final authority it God, and his word. That means that when science and the Bible do not match up we do mot have the needed information to interpret the outcome. Or do not understand the science just yet.

Lal Levi

5/9/2019 04:01:07 pm

It was short and simple. However, well said!
I wouldn't consider a person as a Biblical Christian if he/she believe O.T differently than what Jesus said.

Jarod

5/14/2019 10:51:44 am

I think this is extremely important today. A lot of people try to make the Bible work with science instead of making science work the Bible. Now, the Bible is not a science book, but it does have some history. If Jesus could accept the OT as true, then we can too. We need to believe what the word says.

Cale

6/30/2019 08:08:20 pm

I get very disappointed in many Christians today who consider themselves evangelicals, and yet admit they see contradictions between science and the Bible. In my opinion, they give superiority to secular scientists' theories rather than the Bible's account.

I am no scientist, but I believe the Bible is inerrant, and will view the world through that lens. Any apparent contradiction is a misunderstanding, I appreciate articles like these, the material of Ken Ham, and others who have a high view of Scripture.

Megan Whittaker

7/25/2019 03:55:57 pm

It is always very sad to see people fall into the trap of believing what the world has to say over what God has to say. I think that one of the biggest problems in doing so, is that it says that (in a sense) God doesn't know what He's talking about in this area, and in the long run that will eventually lead to discrediting what He has to say in others. It is a very slippery slope to play on. I for one, want to always make sure to do my best to stand on God's Word as the final authority in all matters of life.

Donovan C

12/7/2019 08:08:10 am

I agree with what you said. Many Christians today, especially in some evangelical circles, accept the "scientific" consensus that the universe is billions of years old. However, from Exodus 20:11, we see that the days in the Genesis creation account are to be taken as literal 24-hour days. Therefore, the "scientific" consensus and the book of Genesis cannot be unified together. In regard to the global flood, it is quite clear that many rock formations and fossils were caused by a past cataclysmic event. Well preserved fossils have been discovered that cannot be millions of years old. For instance, some trilobite fossils have their eyes and shell bodies still beautifully intact. Since Jesus regarded the Bible as God's truthful Word (John 17:17), it is best that we do too.

Aaron Gillespie

2/3/2020 12:19:30 pm

While I wholeheartedly agree that a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is correct, I would also argue that an inordinate amount of unnecessary time is spent discussing and debating a non-salvation issue.

Logan Sankey

5/7/2020 10:53:12 am

I 100% agree with this! Especially the notion that if we would rather look at science through a Biblical perspective, we would find answers upon answers for the questions the scientific community has concerning the Bible. So many times, we let the scientific community shape our thinking when instead, we should be looking to the infallible Word for the answers to our questions.

Should we still study science? Absolutely! But always through the lens of Scripture.

Ryan Wilson

1/23/2022 12:31:38 pm

What an excellent blog. Most people, even some Christians, believe that Science and Christianity are not compatible. This is not true. As pointed out in the blog, the problem is that we have been programmed through all our life to take science as absolute truth due to all the "proof" and theoretical "evidence." Growing up as a non-Christian in our everyday secularized society, I believed evolution to be fact, not the theory that it truly is. But that's because it wasn't taught as a theory, but as an accepted fact by the average person. When I became a Christian, I learned the truth, the ABSOLUTE truth of the Bible, so I learned the truth of our creation as well. This, as well as all science, needs to be viewed in the light of the truth from the Word of God first and foremost. Then and only then will we see that science and Christianity can actually coexist and not be at the total opposite ends of the spectrum.

Zane H

5/14/2022 01:02:56 pm

I believe that science is very good at establishing specific facts but less good at establishing history. History cannot be tested in a lab the way that other facts can be. I realize that facts can be used to help establish models but at large scale I believe that scientists are much less effective at establishing history than they would believe.

Carl Rogers

5/6/2023 09:59:49 pm

Modern science has limitations and should not be relied upon for truth. Problems of scientific research typically involve the parameters used for studies. Take Cognitive Behavioral Theory for example. This theory teaches that people's emotions, thoughts, behavior, and bodily sensations are all linked to each other and that whatever a person thinks or does will affect their feelings. Changes in one area will affect the others.

CBT teaches that these changes are triggered by situations in life, so if a person wishes to change their mental process, then they need to change their situations. One can immediately see that this is a form of determinism; people are nothing more than the product of their environment.

Herein lies the problem, studies done to support this idea are almost exclusively performed on sinners. CBT fails to take into account the biblical doctrine of "having the mind of Christ." A mind that is focused on the kingdom of God and walks in the spirit. Since CBT studies are on sinners who's minds are in the flesh, it is only natural that a sinner would be influenced by his situations in life.

Thankfully the Bible teaches that God's grace breaks the control of sin and delivers a person from the bondage of materialism. Having a heavenly focus reshapes the mind; bringing restoration and healing.

George Rynearson

7/2/2023 06:27:22 pm

Just because a place or an event, that has been recorded in Scripture, cannot be proven or explained using science does not mean that place or event did not exist in history.

Lauren

12/7/2023 09:34:31 am

This topic is a favorite of mine and I've been passionate about teaching it to youth and children since fully understanding the weight it carries! We must teach that the Bible can be trusted, from start to finish, if we want to see confident Christians rising up winning the next generations to Christ. I love how archeology and science can be shown to actually support the Bible, instead of going against it. It is amazing, that even though the Word is so specific, in times, word usage, including genealogies, numbers of years lived, etc, that we would then think it made it all up for no reason. Why would we want to trust in a Bible that isn't accurate? Why would we believe in a Jesus that then supported inaccuracies, rather knowingly (which would place a question on his character) or unknowingly (which would place a question on his Deity)?

Chris Stamper

12/8/2023 07:32:04 pm

Yes, we do need to interpret science in light of scripture. I like this statement due to some of the beliefs going around about creation and scripture.

Science and the Bible

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

Categories