Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

The Bible. But much of science has been validated by the Bible. It depends what truth you want though. You wouldn't go to the Bible for a map of your DNA.

 

I think this is oversimplification. Science and The Bible address different realms. Salvation and relationship with God is outside the scope of science. The Bible is not a science textbook, and is open to varying interpretation. If I am seeking salvation, I'll go with The Bible. If I am seeking immunization against disease, I'll take science over faith healers.

 

The Bible may not be a science TEXTBOOK, but the science it does present shows it knows what it is talking about! The Bible gives us the parameters within which the truth may be found where interpretations of scientific data may be found. So it is a science guide book, certainly.

Science itself is not evil. But it always involves men's abilities to collect and interpret data and therefore VERY prone to mistakes.

The Bible is not so inclined.

 

The proper question is: Which is more reliable, science or theology?

Neither science or theology (or even the Bible) is a who.

Whom should I trust? The answer can be answered by a three year old…God!

God made both the heavens and the earth, and also has communicated to us in His Word.
Both are communications from God.

Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

Science is man’s attempt to interpret and understand the creation of God.
Theology is man’s attempt to interpret and understand the Word of God (simply speaking).

Both are only as reliable as the men doing the interpreting.

Rob

 

For discovering God's specific revelation to mankind, the is no better authority than the bible. For discovering God's general revelation of creation, science is the best that we have currently.

 

Well stated, but when there is a conflict between the two, and you have to make a choice as to which you'll believe, which path do you choose?

Personally, I'll choose God's word EVERYTIME over man's.

Obviously there are others on the BB that choose otherwise!

 

Well stated, but when there is a conflict between the two, and you have to make a choice as to which you'll believe, which path do you choose?

Personally, I'll choose God's word EVERYTIME over man's.

Obviously there are others on the BB that choose otherwise! </font>[/QUOTE]I choose God's word EVERYTIME too.

God's general revelation and specific revelation should never conflict. Any apparent conflict between them is either 1) man's misunderstanding of God's general revelation or 2) man's misunderstanding of God's specific revelation.

We don't have to choose between the bible and nature because both are God's revelation.

 

The proper thing to pair against God's revelation through His word would be His revelation through His creation.

Bible / Universe both can be trusted.

The other things to pair would be man's interpretations of these things.

Theology / Science

Proper pairing makes it clear where to put one's trust. Unfortunately, every one of us sees through the filter of our own theology/science instead of directly percieving the truth.

That's life and that's what keeps discussion forums from becoming to boring

 

I place more faith in the Bible than my own interpretation of the Bible.

I place mroe faith in my own inerpretations of the Bible than my own interpretations of science.

I place more faith in the Bible than science.

I place more faith in science than my own interpretation of the Bible.

 

Paul (first) ... I find myself liking that logic ...

John (second)

 

Johnv, you just earned yourself another vote in our annual "best of Board" election.

WoW, made me think!

Rob

 

As a Christian, I have absolute, unwavering faith in God's inerrant word. But I don't have absolute unwavering faith in my ability to interpret the Bible.
Charles Hodge makes an excellent point along these lines in his Systematic Theology. He points out that, in the case of Galileo, Christians really blew it. They said that the Copernican model of the solar system couldn't be correct because the Bible taught otherwise.
Today, I know of no Christians who believe that the earth is the center of the solar system. Christians had to be corrected by science in their interpretation of the Bible.

 

My trust belongs to what cannot be wrong. I am betting my eternal soul that the Bible is right. I wouldn't even bet a plug nickel that H20 = water. Science is a practical enough tool to navigate through this world but pales in significance, reliability, and trustworthiness when it comes to comparing the two. The worst of the Bible is more reliable than the best of science. God did not and does not and will not use science in his interaction with mankind. He established natural laws at His pleasure and they have no bearing whatsoever on His actions, revelations, thoughts, or truths. You cannot take God out of the equation. You cannot place God beside the equation. God is not part of the equation. God IS the equation.

 

AAAAAAAAAAMEN, Brother!!!

Romans 1:25 says, "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

The most foolish moment spent by God---is wiser the wisest moment of man!!! God's weakest attribute is stronger than man's strongest attribute!!

 

Bible: 100% reliable.

Hard Sciences (fully testable): 98% reliable.

Soft Sciences and untestable theories: less reliable.

 

David,

Could you tell me where Hodge said that?

In Him

Wayne

 

That example actually proves that Christians should be wary of adopting secular science as part of their faith.

The science of Ptolemy (geocentric view) was not based on the Bible but on the ideas of Aristotle. During early Christian times the geocentric view of the universe was established secular science.

No doubt some tried to prove Ptolomey by way of the Scriptures. But that is a little like trying to prove Darwin from Genesis.

Bible believers don't hold the geocentric viewpoint now because the Bible simply doesn't teach it. It never did.

A.F.

 

AF

A little like? Or a lot like?

G

Trying