Science and History Have Already Proven the Bible to be Inaccurate!

+ > ??

Let's back up a little bit ...

This is one of those seemingly unending discussions, because scientists and historians keep coming up with new things that add fuel to this debate's fire. For example, the evolution/creation debate alone has an infinite number of facets to it (do creatures evolve or adapt, what is the relationship between apes and humans, how old is the earth, etc.); there is not a library big enough to cover every issue that could be discussed.

There are, of course, many good scientists and historians who do believe the Bible to be absolutely true, and they can debate about this all day long, because they are experts in their field (I'll give you some of their web links later). However, I am not one of those experts. I know a little bit, though, and that's where I'll start.

I do know what science is, because I looked it up. The Miriam-Webster dictionary defines it as "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." In other words, you first do tests and studies to get some facts, and from there you interpret the facts in order to try to learn exactly how things work.

History is "a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events." Here again, you start by getting historical records (facts), but then you need to explain (interpret) them.

All scientists or historians, Bible-believing or not, pretty much do the same thing. The procedure for fact-finding is the same on both sides; you collect and examine things, like plants, old books, ancient ruins, astronomical data, etc. But now the next obvious question is ...

How do you interpret the facts?

Here's a hypothetical example. If two expert scientists are studying chameleons, they will both probably understand the chemical changes that take place in the chameleon's skin, and how colored light brings about those changes. But after all the data has been collected and studied, one expert scientist might conclude:

"Originally, only certain chameleons could change color, and for this reason they were able to more easily evade their predators. Others that could not change color were more easily killed. The color-changing chameleons were more free to reproduce, while the others eventually died out. At this point in time, they can all change color. The existence of the chameleon clearly demonstrates the process of natural selection."

Another expert scientist, looking at the same facts, might conclude:

"Random events do not produce organization, and they could not have brought about the chameleon. The complexity and effectiveness of its color-changing process obviously point to an intelligent Creator. The existence of the chameleon clearly demonstrates God's hand in creation."

Now like I said, this is not an actual interaction between two scientists; I just made this up. But my point is this: A person's interpretation of the facts always arises out that person's original world view. Someone who does not believe the Bible to be trustworthy will always interpret facts from an unbiblical perspective. Someone who fully believes the Bible to be the absolute, ultimate truth will always interpret facts from a Biblical view.

Of course all this assumes that the facts are accurate in the first place. A dishonest scientist or historian may actually lie about the facts in order to support their world view. This abuse has perhaps happened on both sides of the debate; people will often go to any lengths to prove that their view is the correct one.

So the first thing to determine in these kinds of debates is, What exactly are the facts? That in itself can be a very difficult task. The next thing to determine is, How should we interpret the facts? That's where the real arguing begins.

And the point is ...

The reason I went through all this explanation is to show that science and history alone do not prove or disprove the Bible's truthfulness. The facts are bare, objective data (hopefully), but the facts are always either interpreted in the light of scripture, or in the light of some other religious or secular world view.

The basic question in all this is, What's your world view? Do you believe God created the universe (biblical), or do you believe it just happened on its own (unbiblical)? Do you believe human misery is the result of sin (biblical), or do you believe there is no such thing as sin (unbiblical)? Do you believe there was a universally important reason for the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (biblical), or do you believe Jesus never was resurrected, or perhaps that he never even existed (unbiblical)? You will inevitably interpret all of life through your basic belief system (and don't say you don't believe anything; everyone believes something about life!).

It all comes back to whether or not you believe that the Bible is the ultimate truth, so go back to this page if you haven't been there already.

Oh, and I promised you some relevant links:

Check these out if you are interested in a more detailed study of these kinds of issues --

Top of Page Return