Is the Bible a Science Textbook?

Answering the challenge of modern science and the authority of Scripture.

NatKlas

The Bible is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. While, to be more technical, we are focused on the prophetic and inspired nature of the documents in the Bible, rather than the typically leatherbound, scritta-leafed, printed book first organized centuries after Christ,¹ all the same the text within those documents are considered records of God’s redemptive work through history, through the world and Israel and culminating in the ultimate prophet Christ.² People who exercise unceasing faith in the centrality of Scripture to their life are absolutely correct. I’ve heard many stories of people with Bibles jampacked with comments, sticky notes, underlines, and other annotations, all with extremely worn binding from decades of rigorous use. Such stories are heartwarming. As the old saying goes, “A Bible that is falling apart usually belongs to someone whose life isn’t.”

Now, while one of the primary uses of Scripture is for moral and spiritual instruction and discipline, there are many who use it for additional purposes. I am, in particular, thinking of those who see the Bible as possessing scientific foreknowledge and insights. Usually, this belief is held by creationists and fundamentalists who see the Bible as revealing scientific confirmation of their beliefs or as being confirmed as true because it contains such insights. This understanding of Scripture is known as concordism, as proponents of it point out or seek to find concordances between science and Scripture. They are, as some Christians are, well-meaning, but are they correct? Concordism falls apart under four points of scrutiny. 

First, there is no scriptural basis for concordism. Recently I saw an article from Answers In Genesis (the world’s leading Young Earth creationist/concordist organization) where Andrew Snelling stated, “The Bible never claims to be a science textbook.” Still, what Snelling does argue is that the Bible is true in all it says, and uses Psalm 119:160 to back that. If we take the verse to refer to, as it does in most translations, instructions or commandments, then verse 160 doesn’t mean Scripture is scientifically true but is rather, as is the common understanding, morally true. Indeed, the most famous verse describing the nature of Scripture, 2 Timothy 3:16, says as much: 

Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

Not in everything, or in all matters, but in righteousness. Scripture is focused on moral and spiritual instruction, science being completely unrelated to this. You do not need to know how gravity works, how the rain cycle works, what makes the wind blow, or any other fact of natural science to know that Christ is the Son of God Who was sent out of God’s love for mankind to save us from our sins by dying on the Cross so that through faith and obedience we might become His children. 

Second, concordism is weak because there are undeniably unscientific beliefs in Scripture. My go-to example can be found in scriptures such as Jeremiah 17:10:

I, Yahweh, examine the mind, I test the heart, and give to each one according to his way, according to the fruit of his deeds.

In English parlance, mind and heart are terms used for the seats of consciousness and emotion. The latter we understand as mere metaphor because of the undeniable scientific fact that the heart is simply an organ that pumps blood around the body, emotions being seated in the mind/brain. In Hebrew, the word for heart is actually not the word for heart or mind (leb, לֵב), but rather it’s kilyah (כִּלְיָה), the word for kidney. In ancient Israelite physiology the kidneys, not the brain, were seen as where emotional responses, thought, and ethical reasoning came from.³ Numerous other verses, when read in Hebrew, affirm this premodern physiology (Jer. 11:20, 20:12; Ps. 16:7, 17:3; Prov. 23:16). In light of this the concordist only has two possible recourses. The first is to maintain that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and that science will eventually discover neurological activity in the kidneys. It’s hard to imagine how, when the brain is literally an organ entirely made of synapses, neurons, gray matter, and possesses structures indisputably connected to basic neurological functions (processing visual stimuli, releasing neurochemicals, regulating emotions, etc.). Sticking to concordism no matter what can only drive a Christian deeper and deeper into quackery and radicalism, bringing them to the point of rebuking all science as a Satanic conspiracy against the Bible and as covering up evidence. The second, more balanced, recourse is to argue that the seat of consciousness is in the kidneys, while thinking occurs in the brain (consciousness being ethical/logical reflection/introspection, thinking being the processing of neural stimuli). However, this would be at odds with the majority of scholars of consciousness and dualism. J.P. Moreland, for example, has explicitly stated that consciousness is not divisible or local, that if you lose 50% of your body you don’t lose 50% of your consciousness,⁴ and neither can you point to a specific part of your body and say, “Here am I/is my consciousness!”⁵ Much more infamous than the kidney issue is that of biblical cosmology. Like most of the ancient world, the Israelites believed in a flat Earth domed by a solid firmament surrounded by primordial chaos waters (which at times leaked through the firmament to cause rainstorms), and supported by mountains which went deep under the Earth, anchored in the chaos waters, and soaring high over the Earth, supporting the domed sky.⁶ While some have endeavored to address the texts that use flat-Earth terminology and parallel ancient cosmology,⁷ it just cannot be denied. It is unmistakably stated in Job, for example, that the skies are “hard as a molten glass,” (37:18; cf. Prov. 8:27);⁸ “hard” here was translated using the Latin word firmus in the Vulgate, whence came the actual word firmament. Similarly, Psalm 104 says, “He established the earth on her foundations, so that it will not be moved forever and ever,” (v. 5) demonstrating a belief in the the Earth as being a surface firmly placed atop solid foundations rather than a globe orbiting a supermassive black hole in a great void. There are plenty of unscientific errors and beliefs in Scripture, crippling the concordist position.

Third, we must address that science is dynamic and always changing as empirical studies are subjected to the scientific method of testing and retesting, evaluation and revaluation. 500 years ago science believed that the Earth was at the center of the solar system,⁹ now we know the heliocentric model is correct. A few decades ago Pluto was a planet, now it’s a planetoid. Electrons don’t orbit nuclei like planets do the Sun such as in the Bohr model, but rather the matter is more complex thanks to quantum mechanical discoveries. Hence the objection of many anti-concordists: what level of scientific understanding should God have revealed? 21^st century science could be in many ways as obsolete as 16^th century science is in 500 years, and, as all the foregoing examples serve to show, modern science isn’t entirely set in stone.¹⁰ While scientific truths can change, moral truths, especially those of the eternal and unchanging God, do not, will not, and cannot change. It will always be better to give than to receive, it will always be good to love your neighbor, and it will especially always be good to love the Lord your God.¹¹

Fourth and finally, concordism compromises the integrity of Scripture by messily excising the supernatural elements of Scripture.¹² The fact that there are supernatural, nonscientific concepts in Scripture cannot be ignored. God Himself is a supernatural, nonscientific¹³ being and cannot be isolated, observed, or found in a beaker. His interactions in the physical world can be identified, such as His cosmic handiwork or miraculous deeds, but these are not Him Himself. Ignoring or minimizing these supernatural elements does nothing more than compromise Scripture by imposing modernistic and naturalistic worldviews on it.¹⁴ In fact, the unscientific biblical concepts are tied up in this supernatural worldview. The chaos waters that surround the flat Earth are held back by the solid firmament which was established by God. In ancient mythology gods battled against the primordial chaos to establish Creation, but in biblical theology God alone triumphed over the tehom and banished it. Hence we get passages like Habakkuk 3:8-15 (esp. vv. 8, 10, 15):

Was the anger of Yahweh against the rivers? Was your wrath against the rivers, or your fury against the sea, when you mounted upon your horses, upon your victory chariot? … When the mountains saw you they writhed; a torrent of waters swept by; the deep gave its voice; it raised its hands on high. … You trampled upon the sea with your horses, the churning of many waters.

And Job 38:8-11:

Or who shut the sea in with doors at its bursting, when it went out of the womb, at My making the clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling band, and I prescribed My rule for it, and I set bars and doors, and I said, “You shall come up to here, but you shall not go further, and here it will set a boundary for your proud surging waves”?

The cosmology of the Bible buttresses the supernatural worldview and the theology of the Bible. At the core of the cosmology is not the science but the theology, and the theology is of God as the God of gods, supreme over all Creation, more powerful than the ancient and primordial beings that terrorized the mythologies of the ancients. Concordism cannot account for this because science cannot account for this; biblical supernaturalism creates unresolvable discrepancies between revelation and science, undermining concordism.

Concordism, then, is impossible to give credence to. While I understand the fundamental impetus for it (trying to bridge the gap with scientistic naturalists and bring them the Gospel) no method of handling Scripture or spreading the Word can succeed if it compromises Scripture. What is left from the rubble of concordism is still the issue of how we should treat Science and Scripture. If we shouldn’t seek scientific foreknowledge in Scripture,¹⁵ but there are unscientific errors in Scripture, and science is obviously true (to an extent), but science cannot support Scripture, what do we say and do? We first do what I’ve said already, realize the theological messaging that is more central than the mythology. The Bible, to borrow from thinkers like Lewis and Tolkien, is the true myth, embodying the glories and feats of ancient gods and heroes, epic struggles and journeys, mystical places and beings, splendid storytelling and poetry, and other elements of ancient mythmaking with the added benefit of being the true word of the true God.

There is no incompatibility between science and Scripture because the two aren’t trying to do the same thing. Scripture/theology is the study of the supernatural world, and science is the study of the natural world.¹⁶ Another thing we must do is note that science has become radically overexaggerated and overused because of the rise of scientism, the belief that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge that is true. However, scientism is inherently flawed, fueled primarily by secular and antireligious biases, ignoring that logical, historical, and moral truths cannot be isolated in the laboratory.¹⁷ Belief in the supernatural is absolutely reasonable even in the post-Enlightenment world,¹⁸ and, in fact, the theology of Christianity never restricted science but actually contributed to its rise historically.¹⁹ All the more valid is the supernatural when we consider the existence of God, Who certainly has the power to create other invisible beings, their invisible realms, and their invisible laws.

When our kids sit in a biology class and are taught of the sophisticated and complex organic machinery that make up the human body they can take this science and independently remember the words of David, “I praise You, because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it well” (Ps. 139:14).

1. See my sola apostolorum article.

2. See my Hebrews 1:1 article.

3. J. D. Kopple, “The Biblical View of the Kidneys.”

4. You will, of course, lose 100% of it when you bleed out and die.

5. Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, pp. 323-24.

6. Michael Heiser provides an overview of ancient/biblical cosmology in his lecture “Genesis and Creation.”

7. Mike Winger’s attempt is the most in-depth and not strictly concordist one that I know of

8. Winger’s response (just to show how hard it is to get around these verses) is simply “I don’t know, I haven’t looked into this.” He also relies a lot on asking “Is this really how this should be translated?” plus misinterpreting verses and doubting the validity of ancient Near Eastern parallels. As another example of his strained argumentation, consider how he addresses the deep waters (תְּהוֹם, tehom) beneath the earth (e.g., Ps. 136:6; Ex. 20:4; Gen. 7:1). He begins with Psalm 136:6 (“To Him Who spread out the earth above the waters…”), states how this makes people believe the Bible is talking about a mythological cosmic ocean, and then goes to Exodus 20:4 (another tehom text, mind you!) and says, “This is just the ocean, people just want the Bible to be weird!” Right, Mike, because a primordial ocean full of demons and monsters is weirder than an infinite God that somehow took finite human form, and Who is three persons in one being but not three gods and they are all equal but the one called the Son is subordinate to the Father. The Bible is weird, and that’s good, because this weirdness is the source of some of its theological depth (keep reading!).

9. Which was not based on religious superstition, as the Galileo myth has misled us to believe.

10. Indeed, let me momentarily address another weakness of modern science: its warping by politics.

11. One might object on the grounds that the moral laws of the Bible have clearly “changed.” On the relationship between Christ’s ultimate revelation and the fragmented revelations of the prophets see Gregory Boyd, The Crucifixion of the Warrior God, 2 vols.; see also my article on Hebrews 1:1.

12. My go-to reading list on the supernatural worldview of the Bible is Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm; Greg Boyd, God At War; Brian Godawa, When Giants Were Upon the Earth and God Against the Gods; T.J. Steadman, Answers to Giant Questions.

13. Nonscientific is different from unscientific, unscientific meaning contrary to or disproved by science, nonscientific meaning not part of the realm of science, i.e., not accessible to empirical and physical observations. God, angels, and the whole supernatural realm are invisible and spiritual, thus being nonscientific.

14. On the theological and hermeneutical issues of imposing naturalism on Scripture see Heiser, The Unseen Realm, ch. 2; John Walton, Lost World of Genesis One, ch. 1.

15. What if we do find legitimate examples of scientific foreknowledge in Scripture? For example, many aspects of the dietary law are accurate, and prohibit foods that are in fact dangerous to eat or hard to make safe. Pork, for example, is prone to worms. This is not an instance of foreknowledge, per se, but rather of the ancients not being utter idiots and realizing that people who ate these foods had a greater chance of getting sick. Any other examples can similarly be taken as the ancients getting something right, but not necessarily a special revelation concerning science.

16. On science and Scripture see Richard Carlson, Science & Christianity.

17. On the limits of science and scientism see J.P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism; John Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything?

18. See C.S. Lewis, Miracles; R. Douglass Geivett and Gary Habermas, In Defense of Miracles; J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City.

19. See X; X; Stephen Meyer, Return of the God Hypothesis, pt. 1.