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.

[H.sapiens]

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

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... ?

Again, I will state the point that the question under discussion is not whether the bible is wrong or not; the question under discussion is which interpretation should one favor. Even if the bible was entirely fictional and inaccurate, one is still faced with the question of interpretation of that fiction, and the possible choice between fiction that agrees with what we know to be true (whatever that might be) and fiction that does not.

Once it is shown that it is fiction there is no need to do aught but treat it as such. That means treating it as though everything in it is false, unless it is confirmed by reliable sources.

[Justin108]

Again, I will state the point that the question under discussion is not whether the bible is wrong or not; the question under discussion is which interpretation should one favor.

As the one who posed the question, I assure you that the question is not which interpretation one should favor but which interpretation is most accurate and in accordance with the intentions of the author.

Genesis 1. Can you give me any evidence to suggest that the intention of the author was to suggest that volcanic gasses obscured the sun, moon and stars until day 4?

In short, when it comes to intrepreation, one is often faced with a choice: "Read things in a way that is exactly opposite with all available data " (which is generally the option taken by every atheist I have ever encountered) or favor that which harmonizes with any proven realities as we understand them.

Do you acknowledge the possibility that the author of Genesis may not have known how the universe was created? Do you acknowledge the possibility that the author of Genesis was simply wrong?

In short, when it comes to intrepreation, one is often faced with a choice: "Read things in a way that is exactly opposite with all available data "

The author of Genesis did not have the available data to know how the universe came to be, so why should we assume that he did? Why should we assume that the author of Genesis' depiction of creation is accurate?

The available data is that the author of Genesis existed thousands of years before modern science. The available data is that ancient man often came up with various creation myths. Based on that data, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the author of Genesis had no idea what he was talking about when he claimed that plants were made before the existence of the sun, moon and stars. Based on that data, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that Genesis 1 is just another creation myth. What available data is there to suggest that t he author of Genesis would know anything about the universe?

[JehovahsWitness]

Again, I will state the point that the question under discussion is not whether the bible is wrong or not; the question under discussion is [b]which interpretation should one favor.[/b]

As the one who posed the question, I assure you that the question is not which interpretation one should favor but which interpretation is most accurate and in accordance with the intentions of the author.

Fair enough, well on that we can but guess. I have outlined why I favor the interpretation that guesses at that which conforms to the best of my knowledge with the proven realities around me.

Anything else?

JW

[Justin108]

Again, I will state the point that the question under discussion is not whether the bible is wrong or not; the question under discussion is [b]which interpretation should one favor.[/b]

As the one who posed the question, I assure you that the question is not which interpretation one should favor but which interpretation is most accurate and in accordance with the intentions of the author.

Fair enough, well on that we can but guess. I have outlined why I favor the interpretation that guesses at that which conforms to the best of my knowledge with the proven realities around me.

Yes, you favor an interpretation that assumes the authors of the Bible are always right. You favor presupposition, conformation bias and circular reasoning.

Anything else?

Yes. If you read post 42 again, you will notice several other things you have not bothered to address. Or is "anything else" just a witty, empty courtesy to end your post on?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 43 by JehovahsWitness]

Wow, that was a very interesting thread for you to suddenly cop out on, as well.
I would have liked something other than omission and generalities to answer these very interesting and wholly reasonable questions and premises.

You'll notice science and observation gives very good answer to these questions, I guess you will have to look there:

Even though logic, the scientific method and observation contradict the Good Book.
Perhaps you can reform the religion to include modern science?

It is not like it hasn't been done before.
You can write a new version of the Bible mitigating these errors!

What exciting times are ahead for Christianity - and a new sect!!!!

[evilsorcerer1]

Yes, when a Bible is laying there wherever it may be, and doesn't spontaneously combust, it's an unexplainable phenomenon that breaks the boundaries of all logical reason.

[KenRU]

Science is about spending taxpayer's money and fraud, lots of fraud, especially in medical research.

Except when you use your computer, or need penicillin, or a heart transplant, or when you want to watch satellite TV, or use your smartphone.

Then, suddenly, science is just A-OK. Then it works just fine.

[evilsorcerer1]

Yeah, I think there are a couple places. Let me think. Oh yeah I remember. It starts where it says holy bible on the front cover and ends where it's blank on the back cover.

[Monta]

Science is about spending taxpayer's money and fraud, lots of fraud, especially in medical research.

Except when you use your computer, or need penicillin, or a heart transplant, or when you want to watch satellite TV, or use your smartphone.

Then, suddenly, science is just A-OK. Then it works just fine.

Science is just fine but better still to retain your original attributes at birth
of hearing, seeing, feeling, walking, healthy brain, heart etc. in which
science was no involved.

[rikuoamero]

Science is about spending taxpayer's money and fraud, lots of fraud, especially in medical research.

Except when you use your computer, or need penicillin, or a heart transplant, or when you want to watch satellite TV, or use your smartphone.

Then, suddenly, science is just A-OK. Then it works just fine.

Science is just fine but better still to retain your original attributes at birth
of hearing, seeing, feeling, walking, healthy brain, heart etc. in which
science was no involved.

Science is an application of these senses. What is it you think is happening in a lab with a scientist? The scientist sees or hears whatever it is he is working on.