The only translation (if I am correct) that uses the word “science” is the KJV in Daniel 1:4 and 1 Timothy 6:20. Here is 1 Timothy 6:20 “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called”. The Greek word is gnosis, which means knowledge, and that is how it is translated in most translations except the KJV. In the NASB 1 Timothy 6:²⁰ Timothy, protect what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly, empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called “knowledge”. Even the NKJV translates it as “knowledge”. So why would the KJV translators translate it as “science”? “The KJV translators were heavily influenced by the Latin Vulgate, which used the Latin word “scientia” (related to “knowledge”) to translate “gnosis”. In the early 17th century, “science” in English encompassed a broader range of knowledge than it does today. It could refer to any kind of learning or knowledge, not just what we now call scientific fields.” (AI) So even in 1611 AD the word “science” in the KJV did not refer to science as we know it today, science based on empirical evidence through the scientific method.

So what is the “knowledge falsely so called” in 1 Timothy 6:20? It referred to some kind of “knowledge” that wasn’t Biblical based knowledge or Spirit inspired truth from inspired writers like Paul and the apostles. It would include “worldly, empty chatter and opposing arguments” to the truth. It would include “myths and endless genealogies and speculation” (1 Timothy 1:4). It would include “forbidding marriage and advocating abstaining from certain foods” (1 Timothy 4:3). It would include “worthless stories typical of old women” (1 Timothy 4:7). It would include “controversial questions and disputes about words” (1 Timothy 6:4). Paul had already condemned all these false teachings in his letter to Timothy, so the context would say that is the “knowledge false called science” in 6:20.

Many commentators think that Paul is refuting “gnosticism” in 6:20, especially since gnosticism comes from the word gnosis. From AI: “Elements of Gnostic thought can be traced back to pre-Christian Jewish mysticism and Hellenistic philosophy, particularly Middle Platonism. Gnosticism developed alongside early Christianity, with some scholars suggesting it arose from within Christian communities while others propose it entered Christianity from other sources. Gnostic ideas and writings became prominent in the Mediterranean world during the 2nd century CE. Early Church Fathers denounced Gnosticism as heresy, and efforts to suppress it were largely successful, leading to the loss of much Gnostic literature.” For example, “A key figure (Irenaeus, 130-202 AD) in combating Gnosticism, he is known for his work “Against Heresies,” which systematically dismantled Gnostic teachings. He emphasized the importance of apostolic tradition and the physical resurrection of Christ, both of which were denied by Gnostics.” (AI)

What was “gnosticism”? “Gnosticism was a diverse set of religious and philosophical beliefs that originated before Christianity, with roots in Greek philosophy and various other traditions. It emphasized the concept of “gnosis,” a kind of esoteric knowledge that was believed to be essential for salvation and liberation from the flawed material world. Gnostics believed the material world was created by a lesser, flawed deity (the demiurge) rather than the ultimate, unknowable God.” (AI) “Interest in Gnosticism was revived in the 20th century with the discovery of Gnostic texts in Egypt, such as the Nag Hammadi library.” The Nag Hammadi library contains 52 texts, primarily Gnostic gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth. These texts, discovered in 1945 near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, offer insights into early Christian and Gnostic thought, often differing from mainstream Christian beliefs.” (AI) The Gospel of Thomas is secret sayings of Jesus given only to Thomas he apostle. The opening lines: “These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded. And [Jesus] said, ‘Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death.'” “Notice that the emphasis is immediately on discovering an interpretation and on increasing knowledge as a way to eternal life. It contains nothing about salvation coming through one’s relationship with God or even about living a godly life. In this Gnostic gospel, eternal life comes from the secret knowledge that will explain the obscure sayings”. (theberean.org) The Gospel of Thomas is generally believed to have been written in the mid-second century CE, specifically between 100-180 CE. No one really believes that it was written by the apostle Thomas.

Another widely discussed gnostic gospel is the Gospel of Judas which was found in 1978 near El Minya, Egypt, and is part of the Codex Tchacos. “The opening line of the Gospel of Judas demonstrates this secret knowledge: “The secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover.” This so-called gospel gives a quite different view of the relationship between Jesus Christ and Judas, and its defenders say that it offers “new insights” into Jesus’ betrayal, and the nature and character of Judas. “New insights” is another common theme of Gnosticism.” (theberean.org) The Gospel of Judas makes Judas a hero who is helping Jesus fulfill his destiny to die for the sins of the world instead of “the son of perdition” (Jesus called him that in John 17:12), the betrayer of Jesus who sold out his master for 30 pieces of siilver.

It doesn’t appear that gnosticism proper had been well formed by 62 AD when Paul wrote 1 Timothy, although some roots of it may have come from Jewish mysticism (which 1 Timothy mentions that) and Gentile philosophy. So we probably need to stick with the context of 1 Timothy, as stated above, to define the “knowledge false called science”.

I must admit, however, the temptation to make this a discussion of science today, especially as it relates to certain evolutionary theories that are taught as “knowledge” and facts which really are not scientific facts. So indulge me, please. I certainly think my logic could apply to that error today. Science is based on empirical knowledge that can be tested and proven by the scientific method. True science doesn’t contradict the Bible. But then modern science teaches several things that it calls “scientific facts” such as living matter coming from non-living matter (spontaneous generation). Spontaneous generation was believed to be possible until Pasteur and Redi disproved it in scientific experiments. But atheistic evolutionists still have to maintain that it did happen at some time in the past for their evolution to occur. Modern science teaches that the universe had a beginning, and that it had to come from nothing. But that contradicts their own 1st law of thermodynamics, which says that if there ever was nothing then there would still be nothing (my paraphrase of it). Modern science teaches that man (and every living creature) evolved from a single cell, and that there was “macro” evolution of species evolving to totally different species, such as reptiles evolving from amphibians and mammals evolving from reptiles. There is much adaptation within each species (which is called micro evolution) but there is no proof of species evolving into totally different species. Science claims several fossil proofs of that, but those are inconclusive. There should be millions of transitional fossils as animals went from one species to a totally different species, but that is not found in the fossil evidence. What science teaches is jus unfounded theory but it is taught as proven facts. Modern science teaches that the earth is at least 5 billion years old based on radiometric dating methods. That is pretty much taught as proven fact, but that dating method is based on assumptions that can’t be proved. The original amount of “mother” and “daughter” radioactive element that were in a sample found today must be known to be able to accurately use the radiometric dating method, and that cannot be known. So if science assumes that the original sample had 100% mother and 0% daughter, then that is an assumption that can’t be proven and that could totally disprove the reliability of that method of dating the earth. The Bible genealogical records say that the earth is about 6,000 years old and there are many proofs for a “young earth” such as the decay of the earth’s magnetic field, carbon-14 in diamonds, soft tissue found in dinosaur fossils, polystrate fossils found in multiple sediment layers, and erosion rates of canyons. God created everything full grown, so things would look old immediately after creation (this is called “apparent age”). Adam and Eve would have looked as young adults immediately after God created them. There were precious gems in the Garden of Eden immediately after creation that did not take thousands of years to form. Again, science is teaching things as facts that cannot be proven and can actually be disproven.

In spite of all that, science books continue to teach atheistic evolutionary theories as facts. In a video, “God vs Evolution” (you can watch it on youtube), college students and professors are asked if they believe in macro evolution. All interviewed say yes they do. But when asked why they believe it, they usually just say that they believe it b/c their teachers and science books and science teachers have taught them that such is basically proven facts. When asked to give examples of reptiles evolving from amphibians or other such macro evolution examples, they can’t give a single one.

Thanks for indulging me. I am currently teaching Christian evidences in my Bible classes and we will be studying evolution so what I have written is currently on my mind. It is extremely important that we apply what Paul told Timothy to do, i.e. to refute any “knowledge falsely called science”. If our children buy into atheistic macro evolution, then they will inevitably believe that we are nothing but evolved animals with no absolute morals. They will probably reject the Genesis account of creation in six 24 hour days and start thinking that the Genesis account is just myth. Their false confidence is science might get them to reject all the miracles of the Bible since since says that, for example, no one can walk on water or turn water to wine. Eventually they might lose faith in the Bible as God’s word, and if they do, they might then reject the whole idea of Jesus dying for our sins which is the central message of the Bible.

Thanks for reading.