Welcome to the Preaching the Cross Radio Podcast, featuring the radio ministry of Pastor James W.
Knox of the Bible Baptist Church of Duana, Florida.
Our prayer is that these half-hour Bible study programs will bring the lost to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and enable the saved to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Savior.
Now here's your host, Pastor James W.
Knox.
All right, very pleasant good day to each and every one of you.
I'm Brother James.
I greet you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
I like to listen to Bible preaching on the radio when I have the occasion, the opportunity.
And I was thinking just uh yesterday as I was listening to some programs that um it's probably very nice to the listener to have a beautiful orchestra, play some music, and then have a special uh announcer with a wonderful voice to introduce the speaker in the program and uh then to have some special singing and uh finally get around to the message.
And uh, you know, I was was noticing the the uh majority of the uh broadcasts uh use those type of methods and things, and uh they're very entertaining, very professional, very well done.
And so I suppose by comparison that our entertainment value is next to nothing, and our professionalism is probably uh often called into question.
But we had to make a decision many, many years ago when we first began to prepare uh broadcast, prepare programs for use on radio, and the decision that we made is this that God's people give sacrificially to purchase this radio time, and we want to use every minute of that time to preach and teach the word of God.
Now, don't get me wrong, Christian singing is wonderful.
I I enjoy hymns who praise God as much as anyone else.
Uh, someone wants to uh uh hire an announcer to present their uh material and their subject for the day, I have no problem with that.
But uh, we don't do those things.
It's not because we are not uh professional, if you wish, it's not because we uh don't want to be un-entertaining or go.
That's not that's not it at all.
We just want to be good stewards of the time and the money that God's given us, and so we always just uh start in with a quick hello, uh tell you where we're where we are, where we're going in a particular study, and then jump right in.
Now, this study is entitled The Bible as Science.
And this is the fifth radio broadcast in this series.
The Bible as Science.
Now, what we have seen so far, what we have concluded thus far in our study, is the acknowledged opinion of most of the thoughtful students of both science and the Bible.
That we do find in nature a revelation of God, and we find the Bible to be the revelation of God.
The only point of difference that now exists between the schools of philosophical opinions has to do with the matter of the harmony of these two revelations, the agreement between science and the Bible.
Many men who have the power to read the signature of deity and the works that he has wrought do not go sufficiently into the problem of inspiration to make a complete harmony of fact and record.
And because they're not sincere enough and honest enough to study the record, it's not uncommon to hear certain men who are not without standing in the scholarly world maintain that the Bible and science contradict each other.
Now, those who concede the existence of contradictions between science and the Bible always accept science as the more authoritative of the two, and they are quick to charge error to the writers of the Bible.
I have found in every case, I have never found a case yet, in all my years as a Christian, in all my years preaching and teaching the Word of God, I have yet to find a man who said science contradicts the Bible, the Bible and science contradict each other that had ever read the Bible.
I didn't say he hadn't read some verses lifted out of it, I didn't say he hadn't read some statements that may or may not have come from the pages of Scripture.
I said I have never met a man yet who said that modern science contradicts the Bible, and the Bible contradicts modern science who has ever read the Bible.
And I mean that.
That's that's the truth.
Now, this attitude of mind necessarily manifests no small egotism on the part of the objector.
The budding knowledge of man in the world of science makes no claim to infallibility.
So the controversy is really over the credibility of the two authorities.
The true student is one who approaches the problem of alleged errors and contradictions in his field of correlation in a humble attitude of mind.
Now, maybe the the mistake is not made by the writers of scripture at all.
It may be simply an error in the understanding of the reader or the student.
How often How often in your lifetime have you read of some marvelous discovery of science that was announced in screaming headlines in the morning of excitement which was alleged to refute the old things of the Christian faith?
But later in the day of investigation, when calm reason had had an opportunity to survey the alleged basis of such discoveries, doubt was cast upon the credibility of the first announcement.
And finally, when the evening edition of that same widely advertised discovery was presented in cold scientific terms, divorced from the hysteria of newspaper announcement, you found that the earlier conclusions were not predicated upon truth and so fact had become disguised under fancy.
Like the cold fishing deal that came out of the Mormons in Utah here a year or so ago.
Now, some time ago I heard an eminent theologian apologize for the Bible, and he said, with all the brilliance that his infidel skepticism could muster, of course there are scientific errors in the Bible.
However, we can excuse such mistakes on the ground that the Bible is not a textbook of science, and therefore we do not expect it to be scientifically accurate.
He's not a theologian, he's a an idiot.
I say that with all apologies to those that were born idiots rather than those who made themselves idiots by being educated out of their faith in the Word of God.
The premise of this learned man is a sound one, but his conclusion cannot be defended.
Certainly the Bible's not a textbook of science.
Anybody knows that.
If the Bible were a textbook of science, it would have to be rewritten at least once in every generation.
It doesn't have to be.
This authorized King James Version has stood the test of time for nearly 400 years now.
And all these new modern funny books and perversions that are being put out, called new versions and new translations of the Bible, they're just the oppositions of science, falsely so-called.
They're not the Word of God, never have claimed to be, and never will be.
A textbook of science, ten years of age, is obsolete.
The findings of one generation are subject to the broader research of the following generation, and scientific knowledge is in a constant state of flux.
So, when we have a book which has remained unchanged for multiplied centuries, which still retains its grip upon the heart and intelligence of the entire human family who are familiar with its contents, we recognize that we are not dealing with so temporary and fallible a work as would be a textbook of science.
Dr.
R.
Milliken was director of the Norman Bridges Laboratory, the California Institute of Technology, and he said this the purpose of science is to develop, without prejudice or preconception of any kind, a knowledge of the facts, the laws, and the processes of nature.
The even more important task of religion, on the other hand, is to develop the consciences, the ideals, and the aspirations of mankind.
Now, how few textbooks of science are composed entirely of facts, written without prejudice or preconception of any kind.
How few of the laws and processes of nature have been absolutely mastered in their entirety by the inquiring mind of man.
The Bible, however, not evolving from the gradual accumulation of human wisdom, but being an involution of the mind of God into the thinking of men, is free from this constant correction and change.
Regardless of the purpose of the Bible, it is the Word of God.
This being so, errors of any kind would be inexcusable.
In a book that owed its origin and authority to the perfect knowledge of God, no error of any kind could be admissible.
So when the New International Version has the Apostle Paul teaching doctrines of devils in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, you know it's not the Word of God.
When the New American Standard Version calls Joseph the father of Jesus Christ, the biological father of Jesus Christ, you know that it's not the Word of God.
Those are blatant errors.
But regardless of the reason for writing, Almighty God knew the facts in all cases.
And therefore, if errors of science were to be found in the King James Bible, its claims to inspiration would be proved false, and its divine authority would be disproved.
Now let me remind you, only a science that is free from error will agree with a true and accurate rendition of the Bible.
Years ago, the Research Science Bureau offered a sum of money to anyone who could demonstrate an unquestioned contradiction between a fact of science and a statement of the Bible.
Into the files of that body of eminent scientists poured an amazing number of queries and applications from those who fancied they had found a scientific mistake in the old book.
Upon analysis, however, every one of these so-called mistakes of the Bible turned out to be based upon the ignorance of the contender.
As we said, these people that criticize the Bible don't read it.
These people that find fault with the Word of God have never studied its pages, they're just repeating what the devil told them.
Let me give you an illustration.
One young lady living in Detroit was a graduate of the University of Michigan.
She wrote and said that she would like the sum of money because she could prove a scientific mistake in the Holy Bible, and she s she said this.
It is inferred in the scripture that the Garden of Eden was in the land of Mesopotamia.
Science has recently demonstrated that apples will not grow in the climate of Mesopotamia, but the Bible states that Adam and Eve were put out of the Garden of Eden for eating an apple in a climate where science has now proved that apples will not grow.
And on the basis of that brilliant discovery, she wanted to claim the money.
Now all these scientists had to do was ask her to show the portion of scripture that stated that Adam ever ate an apple.
Of course, the Bible nowhere uses the word apple in connection with Adam's fall.
The text in Genesis simply says fruit, and there are many varieties of fruit that grow in Mesopotamia.
Well, after a considerable lapse of time, the young lady wrote back with all the brilliance of her college education.
I cannot find the verse in Genesis that says it was an apple, but I am positive it was an apple because my Sunday school teacher told me so.
Well, that may be what your Sunday school teacher told you, but that's not very scientific.
The proposition is clear, simple, sincere, and explicit.
Wherever there is a clear statement of fact in the scripture, not something someone told you was in the scripture, the ultimate conclusions of science will demonstrate that fact, that fact that's stated in the Bible beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Some years ago, Dr.
E.
Slauson, one of the outstanding men of science in his generation, wrote an interesting little book entitled The Sermons of a Chemist.
In the forward of his book, Dr.
Slaussen said, Science is molting.
Right now it looks funny.
But I wish that we could get the world to realize that this changing phase of science is an evidence of growth and not decay.
Now that's a thought-provoking statement, isn't it?
Sometime later, Dr.
Slossom was asked about this sentence from the introduction of his book, and he smiled and said, I still feel that way.
Science is growing.
But in the language of just a plain Southern fella, science may be growing.
But the Bible is grown.
Now when you when you say that to a scientist like Dr.
Slaussen, he he wants to know what that means.
But isn't it strange that for a growing science to criticize a fully grown revelation is a lot like the audacity of a seven-year-old boy telling a 70-year-old man to grow up.
It just isn't done that way.
By every technique that is acceptable, we test the lesser by the greater.
This modern craze to test scripture by science would reverse the natural order.
When science has grown up and achieved its maturity and has demonstrated its own infallibility, then and only then will we test the Bible by science.
At the present time, this proceeding is entirely wrong.
You've got to reverse the technique.
We have to come to that place in our thinking.
After twenty centuries of the New Testament church, after nearly 4,500 years of God's written revelation, you've got to admit that where science and the Bible are in utter agreement, that agreement establishes the certainty of the science, not the Bible.
Now you g you you can't forget there are errors in scientific thought.
The opinions of scientists change so rapidly that in the Library of the Louvre in Paris, there are three and one-half miles of bookshelves holding volumes of science that have become obsolete in the last 50 years.
There was once a list, a famous list, of 51 scientific facts.
This was published by the French Academy of Science in 1861, all of which contradicted some statement of the Scripture.
And this was a big deal, you know, the French Revolution and rationalism and free thought and advanced enlightenment and so forth.
So the French Academy of Science in 1861 put out a list of 51 scientific facts which disprove the Bible.
Now, 100 years later, not one word of the Bible has been changed.
The knowledge of science is so vastly increased, however, there is not a living man of science today who would hold one of those 51 so-called facts that were at one time advanced in refutation of the inspiration of Scripture.
There is not a scientist today that would hold one of those 51 facts to be true.
It was just a great big pile of lies, which represented the advancement of science, which was nothing more than hot air.
Now I'm sure that a careful review of of the 30 years, give or take a few, since that time, since 1961.
If you examine the scientific opinion of that last generation, you'd see that a fiercer battle is raged between schools of scientific interpretation than has ever existed between the diverse camps of varying denominational beliefs.
And I'm certain that it would be easy to establish the agreement of science and scripture.
In four simple but clear propositions, we are going to summarize a great deal of evidence, which if given in detail would fill a set of encyclopedias, probably.
We'll take the first of these on the program today and try and get through it.
Number one, our first proposition is this.
Some time ago I heard about a man, a very learned man, who repudiated the fact of the scientific accuracy of the Bible.
He based his entire attitude of mind upon the fact that the Bible does not contain the language of science.
Therefore, he concluded the book could not be scientifically reliable.
Now I'll admit the fact the Bible doesn't contain the language of science, and I'm glad it doesn't.
For the expression of human thought, language is a vehicle which is invented and changed to meet the needs of every passing generation.
The language of modern science is as modern as science is recent.
Its appearance in a book 4,000 years old, what constitutes so glaring an evidence of anachrism is to rob the Bible of any authority or value whatever.
Now suppose you picked up a book that's claimed to be ancient, claimed to be written in the 15th century before Christ, parts of it, and you found references there to modern mechanical parts, carburetor, magento, or magneto, uh differential, transmission, etc.
You'd throw the book away and laugh.
You'd say it couldn't possibly have been written at the time it was supposed to have been.
So the Bible speaks of engines of war in David's time.
No details, just the facts.
An application of this objection.
The language of science was produced to meet the needs of a generation centuries after the writing of the Bible was completed.
Let me say it again.
If the Bible were written in the peculiar vocabulary of modern science, it would be beyond the understanding and use of the common man.
You know, the language of science is not only wonderful, but it's sometimes weird.
I always used to like to make fun of them.
I was in school, they'd put these multi-syllable words out there, and there may have been a practical and reasonable basis for all those technical expressions, but I think it was just a smokescreen to make you think they knew something you didn't know.
One scientist wrote this, and this is kind of interesting.
He said, years ago we were sitting around a campfire where we were engaged in excavating relics of antiquity from burial heaps where they had been buried centuries before.
And one night while they were relaxing, a young doctor, who was one of the party, came up with a game.
He gave each one, a con each contestant that was there, wanted to play the game, a line from a famous, familiar old nursery song.
This old song was called There was an Old, and I'll put the word Hamite in there, and his name was Ned, and he died long, long ago.
Now the rule of the game demanded that each man should reduce the line in his possession to the best scientific language at his command.
The man who won the prize had for his sentence, he had no hair on the top of his head in the place where the hair ought to grow.
Now you understand that, don't you?
Well, this ingenious young fellow had put his sentence into the finest scientific diction, and it read as follows.
He possessed no follicle appendages on the cutaneous apex of his cranial structure, anterior to the sagittal suture, and posterior to the lambdotial structure, where said follicle appendages habitually germinate.
That's the language of science.
That's why the Bible's not a textbook on science.
Who would want to read junk like that?
He had no hair on the top of his head in the place where the hair ought to grow.
You can get that, can't you?
Now, what a way to say that the man was bald.
Would anybody seriously consider studying a Bible that was written in language like that?
The illustration may sound ridiculous, but it serves to show the folly of such criticism directed against the scripture.
Certainly the Bible does not contain the language of science, but it does contain the scientific fact.
This absence of technical language, however, has no reverse bearing on the question of inspiration.
It takes an unusual type of wisdom and ability to be able to express the deep and marvelous things of science in language so simple that a child can read and comprehend.
As long as scientific fact may clearly be discerned in the Bible, it matters not in what sort of language those expressions of fact may be couched, and that the Bible does contain the facts of science will be clearly demonstrated before we're through with these studies.
Thanks for tuning in today.
Join us every weekday for another episode of the Preaching of the Cross Radio Podcast.
For hundreds of hours of in-depth expository Bible teaching, please visit our YouTube channel, James W.
Knox Sermons, our sermon audio page, Bible Baptist Land, or our website, Bible Baptistteland.com.
Until next time and throughout eternity, may Jesus Christ be praised.