Is there anything in the bible that is scientifically inaccurate?

[secularhermit]

I don't believe I implied that any and all men and women of science are "gross unbelievers." I hope you don't think I did.



Am I on trial?

My point was that others would argue these things as allegorical instead of being up to scientific debate. I, wasn't asserting that ANY of them are allegorical. All I said is that others might argue the point between what's scientifically disputable and what's a tall tale with a moral behind it. The latter could be rejected as irrelevant in a scientific discussion.

I´m sorry! I misunderstood you and see that well (I test no one, because I don´t like to be tested).

 

[Tintin]

I'm not comparing the two.

I'm just saying someone who wrote something with knowledge of a particlar place at the time... And then finding out that place exists at a later point in the future isnt really exciting.

All it proves is that the person who wrote the story, whatever the scenario, was aware of that particular place. Nothing else.

Plus, there are over 900 million Hindus in the world too.. And nearly 1.6 billion Muslims... among whom are countless scholars from every imaginable field of study...Does that any weight to the validity of their claims?

No, it doesn't give any weight to the validity of their claims, because they don't believe on and trust in the one true God and the Word He's given to us. Theirs are religions of demonic bondage and hopelessness. Look, why are you trying to use God-given reason (a Judeo/Christian belief system) to argue something against God? We wouldn't even have much of modern science without biblical creationists. But oh, that fact is conveniently 'forgotten' by society at large.

 

[weakness]

I have known alot of scientist and most of the Spirit shown in some of these answers is way less christian than alot of scientist. I really have seen this for along time. Almost a phobia or something.There are some very anti religious scientist,(and others). Honestly I have seen more arguing here over different doctrines and denominational pettiness than I have seen in science. As far as scientist thinking they know it all and how often they turn out to be wrong or change there view, this called the scientific method of evaluating new evidence as it comes up. Or as new though and insight into something changes. I think this is a good point rather than bad. But many things could be said about science that sets it apart from christianity and is destructive and opposed to it. I would be carefull thinking you know alot more than you do about any subject ,but in this case,science. I could write many books on bad ,unloving hypocritical christians now and throughout the ages ,but probably only a few on science.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

As others have said, since the Bible isn't a "scientific" book science could say that the Bible is inaccurate. But it is quite interesting that the more "scientific" our world gets the more proof there is about the Bibles accuracy.

Listening to a talk the other day I was quite amazed at how many scientists "out to prove the Bible false" have actually become Christian because the Bible proved itself true. Especially on the lines of creation.

So is the Bible scientifically inaccurate? It keeps proving itself accurate so um...nope

Amazing how the living Word of God speaks isn't it

There was a time when I dug fossils upon any opportunity, collected them, was an "evolutionist". Was. Without intact esophageal tissues in a fossil there is no observable proof a dinosaur or "snake", actually more properly defined as a serpent on the "dragon" side that obviously walked upright early in Genesis, wasn't originally capable of speech a human could understand. If something is unobservable today because the subject organism is missing or radically changed long ago, that isn't a valid reason to assert it wasn't possible to have had a different set of abilities. The best any scientist can assume is he "doubts" that.

 

[Kerry]

The one thing evolutionist and scientist will not talk about. well it's actually two things. First, population of humans. Why because what science proposes and what mathematicians show, are at odds. Second, why we are the only animals that wear clothes.

The known common factor of population growth is 2.5% per annum, accepted in all scientific circles. By evolution theories is impossible. However, if you take 8 people at 4,500 BC and apply the 2.5% annual growth rate the product is very close to Earth's current population. If you further back say 10,000 BC, the population number is astronomical, I'm talking numbers that must be expressed in scientific notation.

Their best answer to wearing clothes is that we moved to a warm climate and no longer needed the fur and then moved to a colder climate and had to kill animals for clothes to stay warm.

 

[elf3]

As others have said, since the Bible isn't a "scientific" book science could say that the Bible is inaccurate. But it is quite interesting that the more "scientific" our world gets the more proof there is about the Bibles accuracy.

Listening to a talk the other day I was quite amazed at how many scientists "out to prove the Bible false" have actually become Christian because the Bible proved itself true. Especially on the lines of creation.

So is the Bible scientifically inaccurate? It keeps proving itself accurate so um...nope

Amazing how the living Word of God speaks isn't it

Sorry I don't really like "bouncing" off my own post but thought of this.

Since God created everything it only makes sense that the Bible keeps proving itself scientifically accurate. It is God's Word after all

 

[OwenHeidenreich]

Jesus said

“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.” (Matt. 13:31; see also Mark 4:30; Luke 13:19).


"Smaller than all other seeds".

 

[Kerry]

Look up a discovery channel special from years ago, I think it was called "Gods and Kings" (not sure). But this guy was an archaeologist and he states that he did start to disprove or prove God. but the more stuff he found and comparing to the biblical history records. He became convinced.

This has happened to many scientist.

 

[Kerry]

Jesus said

“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.” (Matt. 13:31; see also Mark 4:30; Luke 13:19).


"Smaller than all other seeds".

The smallest seed used in cooking at the time. not spores.

 

[posthuman]

Jesus said

“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field; and this is smaller than all other seeds; but when it is full grown, it is larger than the garden plants, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.” (Matt. 13:31; see also Mark 4:30; Luke 13:19).


"Smaller than all other seeds".

here's an interesting botanical discussion about what exact species of tree Christ is referring to (keep in mind that "mustard" isn't a Hebrew or Greek word of 1st century AD describing any kind of tree -- what Christ actually said was either "σινάπεως" or an Hebrew equivalent.)

link -- Plants of the Bible

quoting the article:

The seed of both black and white mustard is similar in size, about 1.0 to 3.0 mm (1/8 inch) so it is not the smallest seed but it is the smallest seed of those which "you plant in the ground" clearly indicating that the Lord was not comparing the mustard seed to all plants but only to those which were commonly grown. There would be numerous plants familiar to His audience with smaller seeds, of which the best example would be the seed of the black orchid. But there are few plants which grow so large in one season as a mustard, and few plants would be characterized by such rapid germination of the seed. Mustard planted one day could begin growing the next.

not "smallest seed of all seeds" but the smallest among "garden plants" that would be generally grown by a man who "sowed in his field."

mmmmm dat context

 

[Kerry]

The one thing evolutionist and scientist will not talk about. well it's actually two things. First, population of humans. Why because what science proposes and what mathematicians show, are at odds. Second, why we are the only animals that wear clothes.

The known common factor of population growth is 2.5% per annum, accepted in all scientific circles. By evolution theories is impossible. However, if you take 8 people at 4,500 BC and apply the 2.5% annual growth rate the product is very close to Earth's current population. If you further back say 10,000 BC, the population number is astronomical, I'm talking numbers that must be expressed in scientific notation.

Their best answer to wearing clothes is that we moved to a warm climate and no longer needed the fur and then moved to a colder climate and had to kill animals for clothes to stay warm.

Told you they wouldn't touch it. Unless they are studying at this point.

 

[Kerry]

This is the brilliance of science. They found methane gas on mars and their best reasoning for this, is somebody farted.

 

[4enlightment]

No, I dont believe this at all

Well, that is why no one doesn't put there trust in the Lord. Back then this was witnessed by a small group of people during service and which the priest had thought that he was a witch just like how the pharisees had thought of Jesus being Beelzebub. He use to go into a trances and which they had thought that he was ill in the mind. So he wasn't even accepted by his own, he was treated as an outcast all of his life; and so he has picked up his cross and followed into the same footstep of Christ. And so there weren't any reason for him to have conjured up this hoax at the time because everyone in those days was very fearful of witchcraft and if they'd thought that if you are a witch, they'll nailed or burned them on the stake.

 

[WordGaurdian]

It depends on your point of view. You see scientifically speaking means that something is proven, reproofed and witnesses with 5 of the senses of the human in a 3 dimensional overview of space and time. In reality scientist have proven that there are more than 3 dimensions in the Universe. God created the Universe in more dimensions than we experience every day. So if one, as a scientist is open to perceive the Universe and its entirety above that of our senses and that the human spirit is more than just an idea but a means to this other dimensions than I suppose the Bible is completely 100% accurate scientifically speaking. But if as a scientists you believe only in 5 of your senses excluding that of your spirit and you perceive only in a 3 dimensional understanding of the Universe than the Bible would be completely Illogical, for example the things that David perceived in the psalms is impossible for a human being to perceive without a some form of advance satellite to take photos of space. The same with Job. Yet with today's technology what they perceived is vividly accurate. However the fact that they perceived it, is still impossible given only the normal 5 senses in a 3 dimensional world perspective.

 

[psalm6819]

There is NOTHING is in the Bible that is scientifically inaccurrate, only areas in which OUR knowledge is flawed. In Job oceanography (paths of the oceans), study of winds, astronomy (mention of the Pleiades and Orion only stars that have gravitational pull) Length, depth, breatheth and hieght) in the Psalms references to streching the heavens (read up on characteristics of space and time as a dimension) Jesus resurrected body and study of the microcosism with regards to quarks, also an interesting juxtaposition of quarks loss of locality and God's omnipotence (the least being the greatest..) and His invidivisbility. If you know science it confirms God's Word.

 

[psalm6819]

10 dimensions, 7 are unknowable because they are microcosim, subatomic particles like molecules, atoms, nuetrons,,,,

 

[JimmieD]

Just wondering.. (Excluding miracles) thanks!

It's anachronistic to expect the bible to utilize scientific methodology. The bible is, in large part, stories from, to, and about specific people, groups, and events along with poetry, proverbs, prophetic material, etc.. None of it is laid out like a lab experiment. None of it claims to be based on repeated observation that can be quantified and generalized by statistical methods.

 

[Tintin]

It's anachronistic to expect the bible to utilize scientific methodology. The bible is, in large part, historical stories from, to, and about specific people, groups, and events along with poetry, proverbs, prophetic material, etc.. None of it is laid out like a lab experiment. None of it claims to be based on repeated observation that can be quantified and generalized by statistical methods.

Fixed your post for you.

 

[elf3]

Fixed your post for you.

Haha!!! good catch tintin.

 

[posthuman]

Jesus resurrected body

thanks for mentioning this!!

one thing i learned from quantum mechanics is that there is actually no known physical law broken when Jesus appeared in the upper room. however astronomically unlikely, there is a finite non-zero probability associated with His whole body quantum tunneling through space without going through any door or window.
the plain science is that this 'miracle' is a 'miracle' not because it is impossible but because it is so unfathomably improbable and if done purposefully, would physically require an amount of energy and intimate control so inexpressibly beyond human comprehension that it challenges belief. 'one would have to be a god to command such power' you might say - and so men dismiss it.

this Jesus did things that require power and proficiency on the orders of magnitude necessary to create a universe and set the earth in its course around her sol.
who is like Him?

'but with God, all things are possible'