Today we will look at a few quotes taken from the following resource:
Gerstner, J. H. (2014). Reasons for Faith (pp. 116–124). Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing.
The quotes bring to bear important details that need to be discussed so that believers can see that scientific analysis is not as authoritative as scientists and their supporters claim.We are not attacking or criticizing Mr. Gerstner, nor arguing against him but merely using his words as the launching pad to provide our explanations to the point he has touched upon.
#1.Yes, the Bible is a historical book, and it is willing to be subjected to any legitimate test of historical accuracy. No doubt the science most able to do that is the science of archaeology, and so we turn our attention to the verdict of this science about the historicity of the Christian faith. We do not expect it to be able to test every historical utterance in the entire Bible, but we are interested to hear what it has to say about those it has been able to test.
Yes, while the first sentence is true there is a factor that no one talks about when using these ‘legitimate tests’. In order to declare someone or the Bible wrong, one must possess the truth or have access to it. There is no way that anyone can say that the Bible is wrong if they or their tests do not uncover the actual truth which contradicts what believers and the Bible say.
Now as has been told me many times over the years by very scientific people, science is not about finding the truth. They say that science can prove something wrong but what they ignore is that science cannot prove anyone or anything wrong unless it has the truth.If science is not about finding the truth, and we should include the word answers here, then it is incapable of proving anyone or anything wrong and can merely present an alternative.
Constructing an alternative does not make what the scientist oppose wrong. All it means is that the scientist has rejected the explanation and sought to bring their own ideas into the discussion. Providing an alternative also does not mean that the alternative is true. That determination comes later. Science is merely a tool of investigation, far too limited to be the authority people want in order to get their answers. That field does not possess omniscience thus it is working from the dark and in the dark thus it needs light shone on its work. That light can only come from Jesus, the possessor of truth. Science has to learn what truth is thus it cannot be the authority that declares what is true or which came first and so on.
Then while people will use science to examine the Bible, science is not superior to God’s word and has no authority over it for the above reasons. Science does not possess the objective and ultimate truth thus it cannot declare anything the Bible records as false or in error.
#2. There has, of course, been no “dig” of the Garden of Eden although the site has been generally agreed upon. About all that archaeology can do for the early chapters of Genesis is show whether they have the flavor of authenticity
Though some professionals agree where the Garden of Eden once stood, they cannot verify that conclusion. Since the pre-flood world was destroyed, there is no hope in discovering its exact location. Without the ability to verify biblical locations and events, science really cannot ‘show the flavor of authenticity’. We do know that science has been used to say that the flood never took lace, even after it has been shown the evidence and had a chance to examine it.
We cannot really trust science to be honest and accurate in its study of biblical things not only because of the limitations of that field but also because science, for the most part, follows the lead and is under the deceptive influence of evil. The foundation of science is not in what is true, honest, holy and so on but in the lies of evil which seeks to hide the truth from mankind.
Our ‘flavor of authenticity’ comes from believing God and having faith that he has not lied to us.
#3.There are also many indications of indirect Egyptian influence on Mosaic thought and life …” The Code of Hammurabi, the Sumerian Code of Lipit-Ishtar, and the Code of Eshnunna among some others “furnish us extraordinary insight into the background of the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 21–23) and other Mosaic jurisprudence.”
This is not correct. Similarities do not indicate who had influence over whom. Science is limited and cannot determine which came first. This is why its analysis of the fossil record is off the mark and mistake filled. It assumes a chronology but cannot determine the actual order of events. Thought Mosaic law seems to follow Hammurabi, the Sumerians and other law codes, we must remember that God came before those people and established his rules long before the secular rulers wrote theirs. The mere fact that Noah came before those people, and the fact that Noah was a righteous man who knew God’s rules, tells us that those people were influenced by God and his righteous people when constructing their law codes.
The existence of similar law codes also do not remove the divine aspect or source of the Mosaic code nor proves that ‘God copied’ the blind, deceived secular world. Science fails in its conclusions about these law codes because their criteria for establishing which was influenced by which source lies with assumption and not fact. The secular scientist uses science’s ideas as to establishing which came first, for example their own dating methods (which eliminates the idea of objectivity right there), but their dating systems cannot date oral transmission or material codes long eroded or rotted away.
They can only date extant materials which means that we cannot know if those law codes dated are the actual first ones or not. Their dating systems cannot prove that other earlier copies did not exist and that Hammurabi , the Sumerians and other law writers did not copy from those earlier works. Science may be able to determine the age of those secular law codes but it cannot determine the full and true story nor account for the thoughts and actions of man.
#4. A great many Hebrew poems employ poetic forms and stylistic devices characteristic of Canaanite poems composed before the fourteenth century B.C. … Moreover, the Psalter includes many archaic psalms (29, 68, etc.) which contain much phraseology of Canaanite origin and which must therefore go back to before the ninth century B.C.
Science may be able to identify similar terminology and style with secular works but what scientists and unbelievers also ignore is that the rules of written work, whether they be poems, novels, blogs…, apply to both the believer and the unbeliever. Both parties use the same language and by language we mean their native tongue as believers and unbelievers comprise society and speak the same mother tongue; both parties use the same rules for writing. For poems there are only so many different styles available and neither group has a monopoly on their use.
We cannot say the secular influenced the divine because of these limitations. Secular origins of words does not imply nor prove influence. It proves that both believers and unbelievers use the same language in different ways and styles of writing for different purposes. It also demonstrates a lack of options available for writers of poems and other written media.
Science can do lots of things but while its purpose is not placed upon a solid foundation it will always be an inferior source of information and a very misleading one. We cannot rely upon science to present to us an accurate picture of what took place in the past . Its ideas will always be influenced by its limitations, lack of data, the subjective opinions of scientists and the evil they follow and rules over that field of investigation.