Does the Bible ever contradict scientific observation?

[McCulloch]

The Bible will never contradict scientific observation, maybe confuse it with a miracle or two, … .

Is this a true statement? If you disagree, please be specific as to where the writers of the Bible contradict scientific observation. Show that the passage was not intended metaphorically and that the event was not explainable by miraculous divine intervention.

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 17 by Justin108]

Truth doesn't contradict truth

That is a logical inevitability.

Odd you would appeal to logic and then in the very next breath, appeal to a logical fallacy.

... you are starting with the a priori assumption that the Bible is absolute truth.

Yes because that is what I believe. That is the position from which I start when deciding between two possible interpretations.

JW

So you admit that your entire belief is based on the logical fallacy of circular reasoning? I could have sworn you once said your belief is based on reason... I must be mistaken then. Oh well.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 21 by Justin108]

See edit. There have been changes to the above answer,

Thanks.

JW

[Justin108]

Not necessarily; One can just as well say, *if* the bible is true, and the above is a logical inevitability, then when faced with between two possible interpretations, the best one would be that which agrees with what we know to be true scientifically.

Right. So *if* you begin with the a priori assumption that the Bible cannot be wrong, then logically the Bible cannot be wrong... But why would you start with this assumption?

Using this exact line of reasoning...
*if* you begin with the a priori assumption that the Quran cannot be wrong, then logically the Quran cannot be wrong...
*if* you begin with the a priori assumption that the Book of Mormon cannot be wrong, then logically the Book of Mormon cannot be wrong...
*if* you begin with the a priori assumption that the Vedas cannot be wrong, then logically the Vedas cannot be wrong...

How is this a useful method of determining truth? You're stating the obvious. If X cannot be wrong, then X cannot be wrong.

The question was how does one decides which of two choices to settle upon, this seems as good a rationale as any.

How is using circular logic a good rationale?

[McCulloch]

No the bible never contradicts scientific observation.

Thank you for begging the question. Even though numerous examples can easily be found, let's start with a bold denial of what is apparently true.

Of course the bible isn't a scientific journal and is written in a way open to interpretation (as indeed is a lot of science which amounts to scientists presenting hypotheses based on observable data), but those that interpret the bible correctly will never find any of its statements contradict proven scientific fact.

Is this because if you do find a statement in the Bible that contradicts facts, you must, by definition, be interpreting the Bible incorrectly?
Of course the qu'ran isn't a scientific journal and is written in a way open to interpretation, but those that interpret the qu'ran correctly will never find any of its statements contradict proven scientific fact.
Of course the Urantia Book isn't a scientific journal and is written in a way open to interpretation, but those that interpret the Urantia Book correctly will never find any of its statements contradict proven scientific fact.
Of course the Guru Granth Sahib isn't a scientific journal and is written in a way open to interpretation, but those that interpret the Guru Granth Sahib correctly will never find any of its statements contradict proven scientific fact.

[La Mystica]

The account of creation in Genesis gets many things completely wrong, but in my mind, the quickest snap argument against Biblical creation is the assertion that God created light before he created the sun.

And that is exactly what happened according to science! The first light in the Universe occurred a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. This is a relatively short time after the BB, and it occurred more than nine billion years before the Sun began to exist, according to science. Thus the Bible is correct, and in this instance it gives scientific information which scientists only discovered in the twentieth century.

[La Mystica]

How do you know Moses did not literally believe the earth was created in 6 days? How do you know Moses did not literally believe that plant life existed before the creation of the sun?

Nobody knows what Moses literally or not literally believed about the creation of the Earth. Moses didn't write Genesis 1, or, for that matter, the Pentateuch. Moses lived several centuries before Genesis 1 was written.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by La Mystica]

Well, it's great, except in creation, the Earth preceded the Big Bang and stars.
A problem is that God can't be shown to exist much before the Earth, so can't be pointed at as the creator of the universe, except in allegory.

[Justin108]

The account of creation in Genesis gets many things completely wrong, but in my mind, the quickest snap argument against Biblical creation is the assertion that God created light before he created the sun.

And that is exactly what happened according to science! The first light in the Universe occurred a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. This is a relatively short time after the BB, and it occurred more than nine billion years before the Sun began to exist, according to science. Thus the Bible is correct, and in this instance it gives scientific information which scientists only discovered in the twentieth century.

According to Genesis, God made plant life before he made the sun and stars. Care to explain that?

[Justin108]

How do you know Moses did not literally believe the earth was created in 6 days? How do you know Moses did not literally believe that plant life existed before the creation of the sun?

Nobody knows what Moses literally or not literally believed about the creation of the Earth. Moses didn't write Genesis 1, or, for that matter, the Pentateuch. Moses lived several centuries before Genesis 1 was written.

I was giving Christians the benefit of the doubt. Most assume Moses wrote Genesis. Frankly, it's irrelevant who wrote it to me. What I am asking is what the author, whoever it was, meant in his account of Genesis?

[McCulloch]

The account of creation in Genesis gets many things completely wrong, but in my mind, the quickest snap argument against Biblical creation is the assertion that God created light before he created the sun.

And that is exactly what happened according to science! The first light in the Universe occurred a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. This is a relatively short time after the BB, and it occurred more than nine billion years before the Sun began to exist, according to science. Thus the Bible is correct, and in this instance it gives scientific information which scientists only discovered in the twentieth century.

And that is exactly what happened according to science! The first light in the Universe occurred a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. This is a relatively short time after the BB, and it occurred more than nine billion years before the Sun began to exist, according to science. Thus the Bible is correct, and in this instance it gives scientific information which scientists only discovered in the twentieth century.

Genesis:

1. Earth & Water
2. Light
3. Day & Night
4. Sun

Science:

1. Light
2. Sun
3. Earth, Day & Night
4. Water on Earth

Not even close!