Does the Bible say to reject science?

[dyanaprajna2011]

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Does the Bible actually give orders for believers not to trust in science? It would seem from these verses that the Bible speaks out against science, "man's wisdom", the "world's wisdom". Does the Bible seek to make believers willfully ignorant to reason and logic? If this is not the case, how do Christians understand these verse, and others like them?

 

[Student of X]

Does the Bible seek to make believers willfully ignorant to reason and logic?

Are you talking about binary logic? Or quantum logic? Because binary logic has no place in belief, and quantum logic has no place in disbelief. IMHO.

[youtube]XEZtw1yt8Kc[/youtube]
Maybe logic

 

[Quintessence]

In looking at these passages, I think we need to keep in mind that science as we know it didn't exist when the Bible was written. It makes me wonder what the word they are translating as "science" is, because it seems like a modernization to translate something written in a pre-scientific world to the word "science."

Beyond that, I'm not particularly good at Bible interpretation. The syntax of the text is not something I'm used to... which is odd because I read equally arcane syntax in more esoteric works.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

In looking at these passages, I think we need to keep in mind that science as we know it didn't exist when the Bible was written. It makes me wonder what the word they are translating as "science" is, because it seems like a modernization to translate something written in a pre-scientific world to the word "science."

Beyond that, I'm not particularly good at Bible interpretation. The syntax of the text is not something I'm used to... which is odd because I read equally arcane syntax in more esoteric works.

It's interesting you point that out. In the verse in 1 Timothy, the word translated science is "gnosis". Now, this word was generally contrasted with the Greek word episteme. Gnosis was an experiential knowledge, more mystical and esoteric, while episteme was based on observation. However, this is what Strong's has to say about gnosis:

1) knowledge signifies in general intelligence, understanding
a) the general knowledge of Christian religion
b) the deeper more perfect and enlarged knowledge of this religion, such as belongs to the more advanced
c) esp. of things lawful and unlawful for Christians
d) moral wisdom, such as is seen in right living

In the verses from 1 Corinthians, the word translated as wise, and also wisdom, is sophia. This is the same word we see in the word philosophy, meaning love (philo) of wisdom (sophia). Here's what Strong's has to say about it:

1) wisdom, broad and full of intelligence; used of the knowledge of very diverse matters
a) the wisdom which belongs to men
1) spec. the varied knowledge of things human and divine, acquired by acuteness and experience, and summed up in maxims and proverbs
2) the science and learning
3) the act of interpreting dreams and always giving the sagest advice
4) the intelligence evinced in discovering the meaning of some mysterious number or vision
5) skill in the management of affairs
6) devout and proper prudence in intercourse with men not disciples of Christ, skill and discretion in imparting Christian truth
7) the knowledge and practice of the requisites for godly and upright living
b) supreme intelligence, such as belongs to God
1) to Christ
2) the wisdom of God as evinced in forming and executing counsels in the formation and government of the world and the scriptures

Seeing as how, as you mentioned, there was no real discipline of science at the time, the knowledge of the natural world was left to the philosophers, as we can see primarily from Aristotle, who wrote many works on the natural world and how it worked. What's interesting about this, is that earlier in 1 Corinthians, Paul says that the Greeks seek after wisdom (sophia), so, it seems to me, that what these verses are here referencing to, is what is the forerunner of science.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There was no science at the time of the Bible.

 

[Skwim]

Does the Bible actually give orders for believers not to trust in science? It would seem from these verses that the Bible speaks out against science, "man's wisdom", the "world's wisdom". Does the Bible seek to make believers willfully ignorant to reason and logic? If this is not the case, how do Christians understand these verse, and others like them?

I don't really see the Bible talking about science as the word is understood today. The only place I found it used in the Bible is in 1 Timothy 6:20, and this is just a translation of the Latin gnōsis, which pretty much means knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

 

[idav]

Does the Bible actually give orders for believers not to trust in science? It would seem from these verses that the Bible speaks out against science, "man's wisdom", the "world's wisdom". Does the Bible seek to make believers willfully ignorant to reason and logic? If this is not the case, how do Christians understand these verse, and others like them?

I'm not to sure science is really concerned with wisdom though it probably should be. As for knowledge, I don't really see how mans knowledge is somehow different from gods knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge.

 

[Zadok]

I do not believe that the wisdom and knowledge of men is any more except for coming up with silly and false notions in the field of religion than with science. The one advantage of science is in the consistent use of rhetorical logic and broad interpretation of empirical evidence.



I find Jesus’ arguments strongly based in rhetorical logic and empirical evidence when confronting the Scribes and Pharisees in the Gospel of John. In essence I am saying I am seeing the beginnings of the conflict between science and religion as Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees find disagreements; Jesus employing science and his opponents holding to religious traditions and notions. To be honest I find a strange twist in the religious community convincing many scientists that rhetorical logic and empirical evidence is contrary and anti to Christ when it appears to me to be the exact opposite.

Zadok

 

[Etritonakin]

Does the Bible actually give orders for believers not to trust in science? It would seem from these verses that the Bible speaks out against science, "man's wisdom", the "world's wisdom". Does the Bible seek to make believers willfully ignorant to reason and logic? If this is not the case, how do Christians understand these verse, and others like them?

Is it not speaking against "so called" science/knowledge -knowledge and science that is falsely called such -and which is then used to argue against the truth?

As much as science leads to true knowledge, it should not be rejected.

What is known by way of science is often wrongly used to support assumptions about the existence of God.

Some assume that the story of Noah's ark could not have happened -or that the sun could not have stood still in the sky for an hour -because they have no proof of it and don't believe it possible.

It is one thing to say that such things cannot be readily shown to be true scientifically, but another to assume and accept that they can not possibly be true.

If I -or a group -experienced something which could not readily be shown to be true to anyone at any time, it does not mean the thing is not true. It simply means that it is not scientifically acceptable.

Many truths are unusual arrangements of that which can be known to all (for example... rogue waves were thought to be a myth at one time. They were always true -but not accepted as such)

Accepting things based on empirical evidence makes certain that many truths will not be accepted, because many truths are not provable by scientific method to all people at once.

It is also true that empirical evidence can make something false seem true -or something true seem false -until more evidence is gained.

For example... If one modern scientist had the experience of Moses -saw the back parts of the Lord's "glorious" body - and had all sorts of equipment which measured this and that -made a video -shared it with other scientists.......

Who would accept what?

Many would likely not accept it fully unless they had personally experienced it -and would want the actual experience to be shared by many.
However, as the experience involves a being who has a will or might not be passing that way again for a long time, that unusual arrangement of things might not be repeated.

"And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. For the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it"

When the above happens, scientists will be like .... "OK, so.... Yep, there's a big glorious being right there -doing really unusual things"

However, some might still immediately question what is actually happening.
Perhaps it's an alien who read our literature and is passing itself off as the Lord to gain control of us. Perhaps these things aren't really happening -but we are subject to an imposed mass delusion.

With common and regular experience, the truth will become known to all, but that is not yet the case. Some individuals and groups can know truths based on empirical evidence which is not shared by all -and cannot yet be shared by all.

That is what is meant by "from faith to faith"

Faith is not actually blind, it sees more and more as time passes -based on this and leading to that.

If Christ walked by and healed you -or you were present when another was healed, you would have some evidence. Now we might only have words in a book -whereas once there was personal experience and an obviously-healed person walking around.

If you had such an experience, that might be the beginning of your faith -you would have reason to consider what Christ spoke about the Father -who has never been seen.
However, faith can begin by experiencing or understanding anything related to the truth.

That which science has shown to be true has even increased my faith -my certainty of things which I cannot yet see concerning God -because I have experienced things which show "scientific" arguments against that faith to be false.

I know more than scientists are able to accept by the rules of science -I have experienced proofs that I cannot share or readily recreate.

Similarly, no scientist has ever seen the Big Bang -but they have an increasingly good idea about what happened.

It should be acceptable to say that an arrangement of what is known to all could possibly allow a being of a certain composition to have Godlike powers -but it is not scientifically acceptable to say that God exists.

"God" can have a very lengthy, complex and detailed definition -which can be different to many.

When someone rejects the idea of "God" based on the belief that the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old (it does not), they actually reject a God of a particular definition -but it is not correct to reject every idea associated with the word "God".

Similarly, science should not be rejected simply because some use it improperly.

 

[rusra02]

Does the Bible actually give orders for believers not to trust in science? It would seem from these verses that the Bible speaks out against science, "man's wisdom", the "world's wisdom". Does the Bible seek to make believers willfully ignorant to reason and logic? If this is not the case, how do Christians understand these verse, and others like them?

The Bible is not against science, IMO. The Bible urges us "To learn wisdom and discipline; To understand wise sayings; To acquire the discipline that gives insight, Righteousness, good judgment, and uprightness; To impart shrewdness to the inexperienced; To give a young man knowledge and thinking ability. A wise person listens and takes in more instruction;" (Proverbs 1:2-5)
At the same time, the Bible does warn about trusting the so-called "wisdom" of this world alienated from God, and "from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge".(1 Timothy 6:20) The unproven theory of evolution is an example of falsely called knowledge, IMO. Another example is the perverted "science" used by the Nazis as reason to exterminate innocent people. This world's "wisdom" has led to many similar atrocities.

 

[gnostic]

The Bible is not against science, IMO. The Bible urges us "To learn wisdom and discipline;

What happen with the Tower of Babel tell me otherwise.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does the Bible actually give orders for believers not to trust in science?

I suspect that you meant 'New Testament' rather than 'Bible.'

On the other hand …

"… one should accept the truth from whatever source it proceeds." - Maimonides​

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I suspect that you meant 'New Testament' rather than 'Bible.'

Hmmmm.....pedantry...the quotes are from the Bible......

.

 

[JayJayDee]

I see the issue as an either/or kind of mentality. Some think that science and the Bible clash and therefore they must takes "sides".......but, on closer investigation, they do not clash at all.
It is flawed human understanding of what the Bible teaches that is the problem.

There is a difference between theoretical science (based on conjecture and supposition, not actual evidence) and true science, (which is provable by scientific experimentation with actual documented results)

Some accept theoretical science as true science, when they are not the same at all. Evolution is in that category.
Like creation, it is unprovable by man.

We, as Christians, are grateful to branches of science that increase our understanding of the natural world or the wonders of the universe around us, but those branches of science dedicated to eliminating a Creator have become a sort of substitute "religion" to many. There is almost the same level of fanaticism seen in proponents of atheistic evolutionary science as there is in many fundamental religions.

It actually requires as much faith to accept their speculation and educated guesswork, (couched in very high sounding "scientific" jargon,) as it does to accept the simple words of the scriptures....(not written for a scientific audience.)

But when the Bible touches on matters of science, it is incredibly accurate. e.g. The creation account in Genesis tells us that life began in the oceans and that winged creatures came next. Land animals followed in an explosion of life and finally man came last on the scene.
How could Moses have known the order in which living things came into being?
How could he have known that man is created from the very elements of the earth?

In Isa 40:22 it says..."There is One who dwells above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers."

The Hebrew word translated as "circle" can also be rendered "sphere". How could Isaiah know that the earth was round or spherical? Most thought it was flat right up to relatively recent centuries.

In Job 26:7 it says...."He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing."

Again, how could an earth-bound human, without any devices to probe space, know that the earth "hangs on nothing"?

These are things to consider when comparing "science" with the Bible....after all, the Creator invented science. How ironic that man wants to use science to eliminate him.

 

[psychoslice]

No the bible doesn't say to reject science, the follows tried that, it was known as the dark-ages.

 

[outhouse]

At the same time, the Bible does warn about trusting the so-called "wisdom" of this world alienated from God, and "from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge".(1 Timothy 6:20) The unproven theory of evolution is an example of falsely called knowledge, IMO. Another example is the perverted "science" used by the Nazis as reason to exterminate innocent people. This world's "wisdom" has led to many similar atrocities.

Thank you for examples of your fanaticism and fundamentalism blinding you from credible knowledge and higher education.

Your also an example of someone who perverts interpretation to meat personal agenda as noted by your complete scientific lack of knowledge.

First, many theist are scientist, and their work not alienated from any god.

Second, you are the only one perverting science. Evolution is fact, and your refusal is more telling then anything I can say about you.

 

[outhouse]

they do not clash at all.
It is flawed human understanding of what the Bible teaches that is the problem.

This is true and I was going to like your post again until the mistakes below.

The creation account in Genesis tells us that life began in the oceans

Pretty much says god blew into dirt and made a man, does it not?

It actually requires as much faith to accept their speculation and educated guesswork,

Oh no bud your under some kind of false pretense. Evolution is fact now. It has been fact for a while.

Evolution is in that category.
Like creation, it is unprovable by man.

No this would be false my friend. It has been factually observed many times.

Creation is known mythology by all academic accounts.

Evolution however is fact, and it is used factually by so many in todays sciences, one is literally handicapped to nature to think otherwise.

Evolution is taught as fact in ever single credible university in every civilized country in the whole world. Creation is outlawed from children in science classes.


They are the opposite, not the same my friend. I like you, and with all due respect, I think your bright and its hard for me to see you go down a dead end road.

 

[JayJayDee]

This is true and I was going to like your post again until the mistakes below.

I have studied the evidence and beg to differ. Sorry.

Pretty much says god blew into dirt and made a man, does it not?

Ummmmm.......no. It says exactly what I wrote. He formed the humans as the end of his creative works. The order is clearly stated in Genesis and is the order in which science confirms that life appeared. How did Moses know?

Only when he had made man out of the elements of the earth did he activate him by putting breath in his lungs, beginning the breathing process that keeps us all alive. The ability to breathe is passed on at birth. Human babies are alive in the womb without breathing, but once they leave the womb, they must breathe independently.
This is a miracle that is so often overlooked by evolutionists. A lot of natural miracles are given the same treatment....just glossed over.

I watched a David Attenborough documentary one night where he was talking about the pollination of orchids.
One particular species lures an insect to pollinate it by growing a mimic female of that particular insect and placing it at the mouth of the flower. It even uses the pheromones of the female insect to fool the male into trying to get it on with her.

Now, evolutionists would have us believe that the plant thought up that lure all by itself and played a cruel trick on the insect by mimicking its female counterpart just to perpetuate its own species. When he said that the plant had evolved that ability, I rolled on the floor laughing. How does a mindless plant plan that, do you think? By what stretch of whose imagination can that be possible?

That is just one example...there are so many more. Design, in my book, requires a designer.....a very intelligent one.

Evolution is fact now. It has been fact for a while.

Well, that is what the scientists want you to believe. I have studied the papers and articles written by evolutionists to "prove" that evolution is true. There is just one thing wrong....they have no actual proof. What they have is evidence of adaptation within species....this is something the Bible supports because adaptation is seen clearly within most species.
Adaptation is not organic evolution however, and no amount of spin can make educated guessing and speculation anything other than that.

What is missing are the "links" or intermediate species. And I mean all of them. If evolution is true, there should be all the intermediate species between one "kind" and another. Why are the links still missing?

All I see are changes in color, shape, height, or the size and shape of a beak in birds that have changed their environment and must now also change their diet. Nowhere do we see one "kind" evolving into another completely different kind.

The writings of the scientists are peppered with phrases like...."could have" or "might have" or "leads us to believe that" or "so we have reached the conclusion by examining the evidence that...."
Now I don't know about you, but that language is not very "scientific" in my book. Either something is a fact or it is supposition. The two words do not mean the same thing.

No this would be false my friend. It has been factually observed many times.

What has been observed....that is the question? Adaptation is micro-evolution, not macro evolution. All the evidence I have read is observation of micro-evolution only. It is a giant leap to assume that macro-evolution is even remotely on the same level. You can't point to the evidence for one as if it proves the other....they are poles apart.
The flies remained flies. The fish remained fish. Animals remained animals.
Any supposed "intermediate" species could well have come from the same source as all the rest.....a direct creation with capacity within the "kind" to adapt to changing environments.

Creation is known mythology by all academic accounts.

That old chestnut!
Have you never heard of peer pressure? You think it doesn't exist in scientific circles?
Who wants to appear to be out of step with the 'religion' of science and her 'archbishops'? So many would love to question but fear ridicule from their peers. It happens in all areas of theoretical science.....obviously more than you realize.

Theory is presented as fact and who is going to challenge them except those silly uneducated Christians who don't know anything!

Evolution however is fact, and it is used factually by so many in todays sciences, one is literally handicapped to nature to think otherwise.

Evolution is taught as fact in every single credible university in every civilized country in the whole world. Creation is outlawed from children in science classes.

Funny, it used to be reversed when I was young. I am not young now obviously. But I have educated myself in all the important areas. I accepted evolution once, but it fell in a heap. The more I studied it, the more it demanded an intelligent Creator. The Bible gave me all the answers I needed to put the pieces together for an amazing "big picture".
Science does not satisfy that part of me at all. Too many unanswered questions.

The world has a habit of replacing orthodox with the new unorthodox thinking, thereby making a very clever switcheroo.
Sometimes it is warranted, when genuine research adds weight to a new finding. But I don't see that in the teaching of evolution. What I see is a desperate attempt to get rid of God. The more high sounding the jargon, the more people are dazzled by the rhetoric......but they just don't have the evidence that is required in every other branch of science.

Tell me how species can change over time to become completely different species when we have oceans full of fish which only mate within their own "kind".......in a vast ocean with vast numbers of infinite varieties of sea creatures, how do they know what species they are, and why do they only reproduce with their own "kind"?

Even land animals within a species do not normally interbreed. e. g. Man has crossed a horse with a donkey to produce a mule. This animal has features of both breeds that are useful, but mules are invariably sterile. There is a genetic roadblock that does not allow reproduction to continue, except with their own species. This would surely work against evolution, not for it.

Tigers and lions can reproduce a crossbreed, being within the same "kind"......but again most of the offspring are sterile and these would not naturally mate in the wild even if they inhabited the same area.....any more that jaguars and leopards do. No new species are produced and would not in the natural scheme of things lead to something without intervention from man.

Vast herds of land animals only reproduce replicas of themselves and have done so for thousands of years.

They are the opposite, not the same my friend. I like you, and with all due respect, I think your bright and its hard for me to see you go down a dead end road.

Well I don't claim to be an expert, but I have investigated the subject and find a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Science likes to present itself as God's equal in the eyes of those who swallow their educated guessing. But that is all it is. They have no more "proof" for evolution than I do for a Creator. It all boils down to faith....and what a person "wants" to believe.

Since science is responsible for most of the evil inventions on this planet, (along with some good,) I'll take the Creator any time.
You are free to believe whomever you wish. God doesn't force people to believe in him.

 

[rusra02]

What happen with the Tower of Babel tell me otherwise.

Oh? In what way?

 

[outhouse]

Well, that is what the scientists want you to believe.

No. It is fact. And it will always be fact. YOU factually evolved from primate ancestor's and its not up for debate.

Its only up for denial that equates to fanaticism, if you so choose to go down that road.

Sorry brother reality is that evolution is fact.