==Does it devalue scripture to use science for science and Scripture for Scripture?
If it conflicts with the Bible, yes it does. For instance, science says that turning water into vintage wine in an instant is scientifically impossible. And yet, the Bible records that that is precisely what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did at the wedding feast. This is a historical, eyewitness account, and therefore takes priority over science. The same goes for the eye-witness creation account in Genesis. It was written by God Himself, and takes priority over man-made, fallible science.
For instance, science says that turning water into vintage wine in an instant is scientifically impossible. And yet, the Bible records that that is precisely what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did at the wedding feast. This is a historical, eyewitness account,
___________
So this story was written down at the exact time it happened by whom? Who specifically was the eyewitness who recorded this event?
Since when are eyewitnesses infallible?
Given the methods available that I'm familiar with, it is. But then all that means is the method hasn't been found yet and it does not fit the current scientific model of material reality.
But then if it did fit the model, it would instantaneously no longer be a miracle. Some people ceased seeing the miracle of birth and stars and lightning when they fit into a scientific model.
Anyway, assume that if you ask science "Based on your current best models and experiments, is this possible?," the answer is "No."
Has your whole belief in God been destroyed?
Science is never finished, never claims perfection - it can change almost on a dime.
If you require science to prove your faith, then you allow science to disprove it. Our faith is perfected by God, not science.
This is a historical, eyewitness account, and therefore takes priority over science.
Historical analysis has it's tools and evidence and conclusions. And it's own limitations similar to sciences. But, the question is "what would it take for historic "proof?"
You list "eyewitness testimony" and that's good, but compare with the eyewitness testimony you have in LDS, with a shorter history and more documentation. And then there's proof battles over that.
So what would it take to historical "prove" the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ? to the majority of competent historians?
And if they find against you, has your faith left you?
Faith is informed by history, by science, by experience. But if it gives power over itself to any of these, it's no longer faith. And we're no longer lead by God.
Thanks for your reply.