You have it 100% wrong. The scientific method gives us a way to test the Bible so we can have a proper understanding of the message that the Bible has for our generation today.
-_- no, even if the scientific method had been designed specifically to test the bible, the very nature of the scientific method demands that conclusions not be presupposed. That is, if you are testing the bible scientifically while assuming the bible is right, you aren't using science correctly.
Again we have to go where the evidence takes us. We can not rewrite the Bible, the Bible remains the same for well over 3500 years now.
This is simply not true. Since the various books of the bible were originally stories told orally, it is inevitable that even by the time they were written down that the stories changed. Heck, the reason why the story of Saul and David is so strange is because of the fact that various groups of people had different versions to tell, and they all wanted it represented, even at the cost of impacting the quality of the story. We don't even have original versions of the written bible to compare modern ones too, and yet we can still tell there have been various changes to it throughout history based on the oldest examples we have. Heck, in 1684, Christian religious leaders got together and removed more than 10 books from the bible in the process of standardizing it, because they got tired of different churches preaching different things. And no change in 3500 years? I guess you don't consider the addition of the entire New Testament to be "change".
We can not change the scientific evidence that we have. For example if we go to the ancient city of Jericho we have to work with what we find using the modern method of archaeology. In this case archaeology agrees with the Bible.
From what I was able to find, the archaeology is largely inconclusive, due to the limited amount of remains. However, the bible doesn't always agree with history. For example, the wandering of Moses with so many people in tow would have had to have left behind evidence, yet we find none and the numbers reported by the bible are ridiculously high. Myths are known to utilize real places and events from time to time, so having referenced some real events doesn't excuse the fact that the bible is not particularly accurate about history.
In fact for over 100 years they have used archaeology to verify that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.
Except when the bible entirely flops at representing history... and culture, for that matter. It completely botches Egyptian culture.
Today we get to use DNA to verify that the Bible is 100% accurate and true.
-_- not sure what you are talking about, since the only way in which DNA is relevant to the contents of the bible that I can think of is how it conflicts with the Noah's ark story. That is, that organisms on this planet are too genetically diverse for it to be an accurate representation of an event.
The Bible is FILLED with genealogies and the DNA evidence shows us how accurate the genealogies in the Bible are. All the Hebrews and all the Muslims have Abraham for their patriarch just like the Bible says.
Pfft, the bible doesn't even mention Muslims, which aren't a race, by the way. Furthermore, we'd need Abraham's DNA to confirm that, and we don't have it.
The Muslims also have Hagar the Egyptian women for their Patriarch. The DNA and the Bible agree again.
The term is matriarch when it's a woman, and again, we don't have her DNA, so we can't confirm that. Furthermore, I looked up genetic studies done in the Middle East, and the groups there actually have differing genetic heritages. So, all Hebrew people don't share the same patriarch at all, etc.
If you are a skeptic, scoffer or infidel then your job is to show us where the Bible is NOT accurate and true.
Not really my job, that makes it sound like I am actually obligated to participate in these debates.
Falsify the Bible using science. Show us where the Bible is not 100% accurate and true.
The bible makes a multitude of claims, so to act as if I can or need to falsify the whole thing is rather silly. But, the easiest way to demonstrate that the bible not only isn't 100% accurate and true, but that it's actually impossible for it to be 100% accurate and true, is the multitude of contradictions in it.
GE 11:12 Arpachshad [Arphaxad] was the father of Shelah.
LK 3:35-36 Cainan was the father of Shelah. Arpachshad was the grandfather of Shelah.
GE 11:26 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
GE 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
GE 12:4,
AC 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had lived 135 years.
GE 12:7,
17:1,
18:1,
26:2,
32:30,
EX 3:16,
6:2-3,
24:9-11,
33:11,
NU 12:7-8,
14:14,
JB 42:5,
AM 7:7-8,
9:1 God is seen.
EX 33:20,
JN 1:18,
1JN 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.
GE 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
GE 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz.
1CH 1:35-36 Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek
GE 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite.
AC 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem bought from the sons of Hamor.
EX 3:1 Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses.
NU 10:29,
JG 4:11 (KJV) Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses.
Indisputably, the bible is terrible with numbers and keeping track of lineages. It's just not easy to notice it when its different books of the bible conflicting with each other and when it is a matter of details most people wouldn't dedicate to memory.
Problem is you can not do that. No one can. You only sing the song of you can not prove it is true. Even if you were right you can not prove that the Bible is NOT accurate and true. That means it could be.
Again, you are treating the bible as if it is just 1 claim and not a multitude of them. Does getting how many kids such and such had incorrectly mean your god can't exist?
Some people like to say so what if the Bible is an accurate History book.
It sincerely isn't. I would actually be very impressed if there were a collection of texts that got so much ancient history correct, and would not be dismissive of it.
The Bible is all history, the thing is we learn from the stories truth that we fan apply to our lives. We learn how to live and what God expects from us by our study of the History of the people that went before us in past generation. If you do not learn the lesson of history they you are destine to repeat their mistakes.
I highly doubt I am going to accidentally break up a fight between my fiance and some other guy, and accidentally grab the other guy's penis. Lots of the situations in the bible are extremely specific and unrealistic.
