[b]The SYSTEM of Science verses the SYSTEM of the scriptures, in regards to gainning knowledge of the truth[/b].

I would contend that there is no room for the authority and claims of the scriptures in the professed authority system of empirical science. But there is room for limited empirical science in the system of the ultimate authority of the scriptures.

If you start with empirical science as your foundation, you end up begging the question of the existence of the invisable God. (Because empiricism teaches you can only know what you can touch, taste, see, and smell). Upon the foundational assumptions of empirical science, there is no room for the claims or the authority of the scriptures.

But if you start with the God of the bible, empirical science now has a foundation that is not faulty, which you can build upon. Now science has a proper means of interpreting all of the data which it comes across. The foundation of interpreting the data being the scriptures. (All facts and data will be interpretted by someone, and who better then God?). This is what we call "Christian science". When all "facts" found through the means of empirical science are interpretted by the scriptures.

True Science (knowledge) must be founded and guided by God and His Word to be accurate and authoratative. If it is founded and guided by man (in his self professed autonomous reasoning, and understanding, independant of God) the result will be a sinfully-biased, inacurate interpretation of data. (Since sinners are sinful, not neutral, looking for any justification to run from God).

Our disagreements with the world, regarding the nature and origin of all things, is not a mere differing of interpretation regarding one single fact, or one single discovery, but is ultimately a fundamental disagreement between two recognized authorities which are colliding. Those two recognized authorities being God and His Word verses Man and his self professed autonomous mind. Since all facts are interpretted by the fundamental recognition of an established authority, either the one established by God (the scriptures) or the one established by man (empirical science).

In the Christian world-view, true knowledge must come from the One who created knowledge. God is the source of knowledge. in the non-Christian world-view, man and his reasoning, understanding, and experience, is the source of knowledge. (But even his reasoning, understanding, and experience is dependant upon God and is not autonomous).

It is God and His Word, as the ultimate source of knowledge through natural and supernatural revelation verses man and his understanding, through empiricism, as the ultimate source of knowledge. Undeniably empiricism is a source of knowledge, given to us by God, but it is a limited source, not the ultimate source, and is only accurate and true when it is guided and controlled by God and the scriptures.

The limited must be subjected to the supreme ultimate for their to be any sort of accuracy.

So the apologetic battle is not and cannot be over each specific interpretation of a single fact, because we are ultimately and overall dealing with two entirely different systems of thought. So each system must be internally examined, to see if it stands upon it's own terms, because externally all seperate systems of though are contrary.

So the question, "can you prove the bible without using the bible" is just as absurd as saying, "can you prove science without using science." Because one recognizes the scriptures (Word of God) as the ultimate source of proof, while the other recognizes science (Understanding of man) as the ultimate source of proof. So the Christian proof would never be proof to the non-believer.

You are not to see if the scriptures (an entire system of thought) fits into science (an entirely different system of thought) because these two systems are fundementally and foundationally contrary.

Rather you are to see if each system or world-view is consistent with itself, or if at some point it cancels itself out. You either proof or disprove the Christian world-view, by the Christian world-view. ANd you either proof or disprove the non-Christian world-view, by the non-Christian world-view. You must see if the bible meets it's own criteria. And you must see if science meets it's own criteria.

For example, if all knowledge comes through empirical science, (empiricism being the essence of naturalistic science), where did the concept of empiricism come from? If all knowledge comes from empiricism, then the empiricism concept must have come through empiricism. But you cannot empirically prove the concept of empiricism. Why? Because it's a concept.

Empiricism was their starting point. Empiricism was their presupposition. In other words, they assumed it. They didn't first prove it, because it cannot be prove, even on their own terms.

So their foundation excludes their own foundation (not only the Christian foundation - Genesis 1:1). Their starting point cancels out their own starting point.

So you must internally prove or disprove all world-views. To say "prove the bible without using the bible" or "prove science without using science" is non-sense. (By "bible" and by "science" I do not mean one selected, individual teaching or discovery, but rather their entire system of thought as a whole).

If you claim the bible as the ultimate source of knowledge, and then appeal to science to prove the ultimacy of the bible, you are actually showing that you recognize science as the ultimate source of knowledge, because that is what you appealed to. If the bible is the ultimate source of knowledge, there is not adequate source of knowledge that you can appeal to at all. So each belief must be internally examined to see if it cancels itself out, or if it is entirely consistent.