When History and Science Appear to Disagree

A. When watching one of the cable channels such as The History Channel or The Discovery Channel, one can see stories that attempt to investigate the Bible from a scientific or historical perspective. While one can learn that a good amount of information from some shows, many serve to create doubt in the accuracy of the Bible record. Many historians and scientists, especially those who produce such shows, have a bias against the miraculous events of the Bible and the idea of a God-inspired revelation. What should the Christian do when faced with apparent disagreement between the Bible and scientific or historical records? Should we ignore the Bible and listen to the scientists or should be ignore the scientists and listen to the Bible?

I. Science

A. When comparing the Bible and science, one should be impressed with the scientific accuracy of the Bible. There are facts revealed in the scripture for which the science behind them was unknown for thousands of years. For example, myths and legends taught that the earth rested on the backs of animals or on the shoulders of Atlas. However, in the book of Job we read that God hung the earth upon nothing, Job 26:7. Job also noted that the earth turned, though the rotation of the Earth was unknown at the time, Job 38:14. In the New Testament, Paul said that God made all men from one blood, Acts 17:26. Though many though that the races were distinct species, our recent knowledge of blood has confirmed that all races have one blood.

B. One of the most impressive examples of the Bible accurate record of scientific facts before men discovered the truth is the example of Matthew Fontaine Maury, the father of Oceanography. Maury was a student of the Bible and the sea. Upon hearing a passage in the Psalm 8 about “paths of the seas,” he determined to find the paths. Within a few years he charted the principal sea paths, or lanes, that are used today, De Hoff Why we believe the Bible, page 53.

C. Psalm 102:26 and Hebrews 1:10-11 speaks of the Earth becoming old and wearing out. Since the late 1800’s we have begun to understand the laws of thermodynamics. These laws state that since energy cannot be created or destroyed, but that the energy is decreasing, eventually the universe would run down, or run out of energy.

II. History

A. Historical opponents have often opposed the Biblical record only to realize that it was, in fact, correct. The Bible recorded individuals, political titles, and even whole nations before historians and archaeologists were able to rediscover them. For a long time the Hittite nation was considered a myth for the only record of their existence was Biblical. However, modern archaeologists have discovered a vast wealth of information about the Hittite Empire. In the New Testament, many doubted Luke’s record of the census at the time of Jesus’ birth. However, archaeological discoveries proved that the Romans conducted a regular census for tax purposes, Evidence That Demands A Verdict. Josh Mc Dowell. Campus Crusade for Christ, San Bernadino, CA: 1972. 73. Sir William Ramsey wanted to prove that the book of Acts was historically incorrect. However, after detailed archaeological investigation he determined that it was, in fact, extremely trustworthy and that Luke was a “historian of the first rank,” Evidence 73. Luke uses political titles such as Publius, the first man of the island, and calls the civil authorities of Thessalonica politarchs, Acts 17:3. Though historians doubted the accuracy of these titles, recent archaeological evidence has confirmed that Luke was correct, Evidence 75.

B. Why is there disagreement between science and history? Much of the difference comes not from research or facts, but from the philosophy or worldview of the scientists. If one does not believe that miracles could occur, then one must explain away historical eyewitness testimony of miracles such as we read about in the Bible. If one does not believe in a God who created the universe, then one must find another explanation for how all came into being. The problem is not with the facts of the Bible but rather prejudice against the Bible. In comparison to other ancient texts, linguists have repeatedly proven the Bible’s accuracy. The textual support for the accuracy of the Bible is with out peer. Many theologians, influenced by the German liberal schools, believed that there were no miracles and that belief in Jesus did not depend upon miracles. If we take away the miracles, we do not have Jesus. The miracles are an integral part of the Biblical record.

C. When we consider historical and scientific conflict with the Biblical record, we must remember that both are recent disciplines. Both scientists and historians have learned much, yet there is much more to learn. Today’s cherished theories can be abandoned tomorrow if conflicting research or discoveries contradict them. Historians and scientists have been proven wrong by the Bible enough that one should give the Bible the benefit of the doubt, not recent popular theories.

D. We cannot ignore the discoveries of science and history but we must remember that both rely on human interpretation. The facts do not say anything; scholars use the facts to develop theories. Historians, especially, rely on not only their interpretation of historic events but, because they often use eyewitness accounts, depend on the interpretation of the people who recorded their observations. We cannot relive historical events so we must rely on documents that might be biased. For example, consider the fact of the Civil War. Southerners, with a knowing grin, call it the “war of Northern aggression” whereas Northerners refer to it as “the war to save the Union.” Battlefield observers can describe the same events but based on their prejudice, physical point of view, and other background knowledge give accounts that seem to conflict. Historians who were not alive during the events must then read these biased accounts and interpret the events to give their interpretation of the events. At best, they reach “a truth” of what happened but not “the truth.” We can know what happened and theorize on why an event happened; but both will be subject to our interpretation.

E. We must be careful not to force Biblical interpretation on scientific observations. The Catholic Church opposed Galileo, who was scientifically accurate, based on misinterpretation of the Biblical account. We must remember that the Bible is neither a history nor a scientific book. It is a book to develop faith and teach us how to please God in worship and everyday life. When the Bible speaks about historical and scientific matters, it speaks correctly though the current conclusions may oppose it.