Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

[McCulloch]

[The Bible] is historically and scientifically accurate.

The Bible contains at least one of each a historical and a scientific inaccuracy.

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

[McCulloch]

I am willing to concede that the burden of proof lies with the ones denying the historical and scientific accuracy of the Bible.

[ChristShepherd]

Mark 6:17 (New American Standard Bible)
17For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her.

This is not correct.
Herod had another brother named Herod who had been Herodias' husband.
Phillip married Salome the daughter of Herodias.

[Flail]

[The Bible] is historically and scientifically accurate.

The Bible contains at least one of each a historical and a scientific inaccuracy.

Is the Bible historically and scientifically accurate?

So far as I can determine, walking on water, returning to life after three days dead, making bread multiply, and being born from a god impregnated virgin are all scientifically impossible and historically implausible.

[McCulloch]

So far as I can determine, walking on water, returning to life after three days dead, making bread multiply, and being born from a god impregnated virgin are all scientifically impossible and historically implausible.

Yes, but the writers of the Bible agree. That is why such things are called miracles.

Some scientifically and historical inaccuracies in the Bible

• Demons cause disease. Faith cures disease.
• There was a global flood during human history and that an olive tree could survive such a flood.
• Birds created prior to land animals.
• Plants created prior to the sun moon and stars.
• Bats are birds.
• Insects have four feet.
• Snakes eat dust.
• Humans could live literally hundreds of years.
• There were once giant humans 100 meters tall.
• Judah and Israel had a total of 1,570,000 fighting men (1 Chr.21:5 ). According to Wikipedia the United States currently has 1,477,896 active personnel in their armed forces.
• Leprosy in inheritable (2 Kings 5:27)
• Human thoughts are processed in their hearts. We now know that it is the brain that produces thoughts.
• Ostriches in the wild are cruel.
• Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under.
• Mustard is the smallest seed.
• Life can exist and thrive without death, in the garden of Eden.
• Only dead seeds will germinate.

[JehovahsWitness]

Plants created prior to the sun moon and stars.

Does the bible say plants were create before the sun?

Were the plants Created before the sun

Gen 1:14-19 ==> 1:11 No by the time the plants were created previously existing light (from the sun) had merely became strong enough through a previously dense atmosphere to drive their photosynthetic processes.

Day 1
When God pronounced: Let light come to be. -- " -- This "light" came in a gradual process, extending over a long period of time, not instantaneously as when you turn on an electric light bulb. The Hebrew word there used for light (on day 1) is ohr, meaning light in a general sense; the SOURCES of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer because of the cloud layers still enveloping the earth. To illustrate: Have you ever tried to find the sun on a day when the sky was completely overcast? You know the sun is THERE (it's not dark, there is light) but you cannot see where the light is coming from because of the clouds. This is similar to the situation from days 1 through 3 in Genesis.

DAY 3
By the close of this third creative period, however, the diffused light would have become quite strong, ample for the process of photosynthesis so vital to green plants. Thus the creation of the three broad categories of land plants.

DAY 4
On the fourth day, the Hebrew word changes to ma-ohr, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on Luminaries in the Emphasised Bible, says that the Hebrew word ma-ohr used in verse 14 means something affording light. So on this fourth day, things changed. Had there been an earthly observer, by day four he would have been able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. (Genesis 1:14).

So the atmosphere had cleared enough for the SOURCE of light to be clearly distinguishable. Thus Genesis does NOT indicate that plants were created before the sun.

Further reading
http://nephesh-chaiyah.blogspot.com/200 ... hayah.html

[*]Bats are birds.

Does the bible say "bats are birds"?

No the Mosaic Law classified them as "flying creatures"

Leviticus 11 v 19 says "these are what YOU will loathe among the flying creatures. [...] the stork, the heron according to its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat...."


Deuteronomy 14v 18 reads: Any clean bird you may eat. 12 But these are the ones* of which YOU must not eat:[...]the stork and the heron according to its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat. 19 And every winged swarming creature is unclean for YOU. They should not be eaten. 20 Any clean flying creature YOU may eat.

Remembering that Hebrew is not written with punctuation, if you take out all the full stops (periods) and capital letters you are left with a list that obviously refers to BOTH birds and "winged/flying creatures"

[*]Insects have four feet.

It is unreasonable to think that the Bible writer did not know that insects with wings have six legs (even in "primitive times" people could count). Leviticus 11:20, 21 actually refers to insects "that have leaper legs above their feet".

A Jewish commentary explanations: The words probably refer to their method of locomotion ... there are winged insects, such as bees and flies and wasps, that walk along like the quadrupeds that go on all four. Of these, there are some with leaper legs that literally have four feet that they crawl with, the other two being for leaping.

The Bible is written in the colorful language of the common people, and we must allow for picturesque or descriptive expressions that are not always strictly literal

[*]Humans could live literally hundreds of years.

Could humans live for hundreds of years?

Biologist Jared Diamond noted: "We replace the cells lining our intestine once every few days, those lining the urinary bladder once every two months, and our red blood cells once every four months. .. Nature is taking us apart and putting us back together every day"

What does that actually mean? It means that regardless of how many years we might live, whether 8, 80, or even 800 our physical body remains on a cellular level, very young. It has been estimated that in a year approximately 98 percent of the atoms in us now will be replaced by other atoms that we take in in our air, food, and drink. Based on the design of our physical bodies, an authority on aging said: It is not obvious why aging should occur. Professors Robert M. Sapolsky and Caleb E. Finch state , Indeed it appears that nonsenescence [not aging] was the original state of living things on earth.

If you bought a car that renewed its body and engine every 2 years, how long, logically, would you assume the designer originally expected the car to be in use?

While what mechanism causes the aging process is a mystery (one mankind has been seeking to find and conquer as long as we have been aging) the fact remains the way the the human body functions testifies that biologically, humans could, in theory, live forever. As Dr. Leonard Hayflick, microbiologist of the Bruce Lyon Memorial Research Laboratory, Oakland, California acknowledged in his book How and Why We Age, "After performing the miracles that take us from conception to birth and then to sexual maturation and adulthood, nature chose not to devise what would seem to be a more elementary mechanism to simply maintain those miracles forever. This insight has puzzled biogerontologists for decades."

So, while indeed for whatever the reason, the DNA blueprint in humans is not now programmed to sustain cells in perfect balance, our design and makeup indicates that we were created to be able to live, as the bible says, forever.




Does Genesis 6:3 mean humans were decreed to live no longer than 120 years?
viewtopic.php?p=1056497#p1056497

What does the bible mean by "forever" when it speaks of the righteous living on earth ?
viewtopic.php?p=1075557#p1075557

[*]There were once giant humans 100 meters tall.

Strawman = there is nothing in the bible that even remotely suggests this measurement.


NOTE: I would appreciate a source for this one "only dead seeds will germinate"

[McCulloch]

I'll concede the bats and insects.

Plants created prior to the sun moon and stars.

You cannot see where the light is coming from because of the clouds. This is similar to the situation from days 1 through 3 in Genesis.

Is there anything in the text that hints at this cloud covering? Is there any scientific evidence for an almost impervious atmosphere existing prior to the advent of humanity?

On the fourth day, the Hebrew word changes to ma-ohr, which means the source of the light. Rotherham, in a footnote on Luminaries in the Emphasised Bible, says that the Hebrew word ma-ohr used in verse 14 means something affording light. So on this fourth day, things changed. Had there been an earthly observer, by day four he would have been able to discern the sun, moon and stars, which would serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years. (Genesis 1:14).

The question remains as to whether this is a historically or scientifically accurate portrayal of events. Did plants evolve in a dimly lit planet, before the sun, moon and stars would have been visible? Science says no. The other question is whether this view of the text is a valid one or whether this interpretation has been forced on the text in light of subsequent discoveries.

Humans could live literally hundreds of years.

Could humans live for hundreds of years?

Biologist Jared Diamond noted: We replace the cells lining our intestine once every few days, those lining the urinary bladder once every two months, and our red blood cells once every four months. .. Nature is taking us apart and putting us back together every day.

I like Jared Diamond. I am quite sure that he would be surprised to see his work used to support biblical literalism.

What does that actually mean? It means that regardless of how many years we might live"whether 8, 80, or even 800"our physical body remains on a cellular level, very young.

This neglects, among other things, that not all of our cells (germ cells and keratinocyte stem cells) get replaced.

A scientist once estimated: In a year approximately 98 percent of the atoms in us now will be replaced by other atoms that we take in in our air, food, and drink. Based on the design of our physical bodies, an authority on aging said: It is not obvious why aging should occur. Professors Robert M. Sapolsky and Caleb E. Finch state , Indeed it appears that nonsenescence [not aging] was the original state of living things on earth.

What you neglect is that such living things are either microscopic or lower forms such as hydra or jellyfish. There is no evidence that humans ever naturally had lifespans over 150 years.

There were once giant humans 100 meters tall.

Strawman = there is nothing in the bible that even remotely suggests this measurement.

A literal reading of Numbers 13:33, "And there we saw the giants ... And we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. " yields that number.
However, discounting this as an hyperbole, we still have Goliath at six cubits and a span (3 meters) and Og king of Bashan, who needed a bed nine cubits (over four meters)

I would appreciate a source for this one "only dead seeds will germinate"

Paul shows his ignorance of Botany in

But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?"
You fool! That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies; and that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or of something else.

Actually, a seed must be alive to germinate. He also shows his ignorance of Jesus commandment in Matt 5:22, but then again, there is nothing in Paul's writings that indicates any familiarity with the events and teachings of Jesus' life.

[nogods]

We could start with the talking snake. Snakes have no vocal cords and it they did, I doubt if they would be speaking perfect Hebrew.

[scanini]

We could start with the talking snake. Snakes have no vocal cords and it they did, I doubt if they would be speaking perfect Hebrew.

I once had a christian tell me that the snake had perfect diction.

[ChristShepherd]

We could start with the talking snake. Snakes have no vocal cords and it they did, I doubt if they would be speaking perfect Hebrew.

I once had a christian tell me that the snake had perfect diction.

It's true. But they have a verrrrry deep voice. They bring the sound up from their stomach.