Is the Bible 100% scientifically correct?

[Pink Spider]

Greetings!

I have a question:

Is the Bible 100% scientifically correct from the
beginning to the end?

Please (...and I don't mean to insult your intelligence)
think carefully before you answer with 'yes'.

 

[hedrick]

Surely you know enough about Christianity to realize that there are two camps, one committed to answering yes, and the other not.

 

[Pink Spider]

Surely you know enough about Christianity to realize that there are two camps, one committed to answering yes, and the other not.

Hello hedrick! Hope you are doing well!

Yes I am aware of that fact - and quite honestly
I hope that someone from the first camp will also
reply...

But of course I'll highly appreciate any answer and
have 'done my homework' - using the Bible and only
the Bible.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Greetings!

I have a question:

Is the Bible 100% scientifically correct from the
beginning to the end?

Please (...and I don't mean to insult your intelligence)
think carefully before you answer with 'yes'.

No. But it's not 100% historically accurate when it comes to the history of Australia either.

But it's not supposed to be a book on biology, cosmology, or astrophysics. Just like it's not a history book of Australia.

If I want to know about the natural processes of evolution, or how stars form, or the mating habits of orangutans, I would look at the relevant material about these things. The Bible doesn't talk about these things, so I wouldn't go to it to answer these things for me.

But I do go to the Bible to learn about God, about what God wants from me, and how I should live life as a faithful follower of Jesus Christ--that's what it's there to do: bear witness to the God who has called me to faith and life in Jesus. That's why it is the inspired word of God.

"The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go." - Galileo Galilei

-CryptoLutheran

 

[dandymandy]

Oh dear!

I think the question is flawed. As both a Christian and a scientist, I am dismayed with so-called scientific proofs that either support or disavow religion. Bad science; even worse religion.

Both Darwin and Genesis are correct--it is simply a matter of each answering different questions. For example, the medical book "Grey's Anatomy" has every explanation you might ask about a woman's body from a scientific aspect. However, "The Song of Solomon" answers a whole different set of questions.

I hope this is helpful.

God Bless

 

[ChristianT]

No.
Hello Pink Spider

 

[Hestha]

Greetings!

I have a question:

Is the Bible 100% scientifically correct from the
beginning to the end?

Please (...and I don't mean to insult your intelligence)
think carefully before you answer with 'yes'.

The Bible is not a science book.

 

[Sketcher]

It contains poetry with metaphor. I doubt that anything containing poetry with metaphor would qualify. This of course isn't to say that it's not 100% true. How truth is told and described simply doesn't fit the definition you asked for.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Let's see. Scientifically incorrect = spiritually incorrect= no need to love fellowman according to scripture. Yeah, that works (we've got the prisons, nuthouses, and graveyards to prove it).

 

[ViaCrucis]

How does the Bible not being a scientific text book make it unreliable on matters of faith and morals?

Scripture isn't there to teach us about the judicial system of medieval France, or the mating habits of orangutans, or how to calculate the trajectory to reach a trans-Neptunian object from earth. It's there to tell us about the God who has made Himself present to us and for us in history, most specifically in and through the Person of Jesus Christ. Many of the great Confessions that came out of the Protestant Reformation, for example, state along the lines of,

"Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation" - The 39 Articles (Anglican), Article VI

Scripture provides us with all the wealth of the Gospel, that is its purpose, that is what it is there for, on our behalf.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How does the Bible not being a scientific text book make it unreliable on matters of faith and morals?

Scripture isn't there to teach us about the judicial system of medieval France, or the mating habits of orangutans, or how to calculate the trajectory to reach a trans-Neptunian object from earth. It's there to tell us about the God who has made Himself present to us and for us in history, most specifically in and through the Person of Jesus Christ. Many of the great Confessions that came out of the Protestant Reformation, for example, state along the lines of,

"Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation" - The 39 Articles (Anglican), Article VI

Scripture provides us with all the wealth of the Gospel, that is its purpose, that is what it is there for, on our behalf.

-CryptoLutheran

It was a tongue-in-cheek response to the OP. Being scientifically incorrect is all that is needed to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Pink Spider]

It was a tongue-in-cheek response to the OP. Being scientifically incorrect is all that is needed to toss the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes! If the word of 'god' doesn't even satisfy the
most elementary laws of science and logic - then:
What makes him omniscient and
all-mighty?

...and I bet that most of you know very well which
parts of the bible constitute blatant violations of
scientific laws...


No disrespect or offense intended.

 

[Pink Spider]

No. But it's not 100% historically accurate when it comes to the history of Australia either.

But it's not supposed to be a book on biology, cosmology, or astrophysics. Just like it's not a history book of Australia.

If I want to know about the natural processes of evolution, or how stars form, or the mating habits of orangutans, I would look at the relevant material about these things. The Bible doesn't talk about these things, so I wouldn't go to it to answer these things for me.

But I do go to the Bible to learn about God, about what God wants from me, and how I should live life as a faithful follower of Jesus Christ--that's what it's there to do: bear witness to the God who has called me to faith and life in Jesus. That's why it is the inspired word of God.

"The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heavens go." - Galileo Galilei

-CryptoLutheran

There are historical inaccuracies in the bible
as well...

 

[Pink Spider]

Oh dear!

I think the question is flawed. As both a Christian and a scientist, I am dismayed with so-called scientific proofs that either support or disavow religion. Bad science; even worse religion.

Why is the question flawed?

Why do you add 'so-called' to scientific proofs? The
misleading in your [...]so called scientific proofs[...]
is that it should read scientific theories.

I am aware that (outside formal systems like
mathematics) there is no such thing as a 'proof'.

Scientific models that 'fit the bill' are usually called
theories. (Theory of gravitation, Theory of Relativity,
Theory of evolution etc.)


Sadly enough - most people, when they hear the
word 'theory' think it's only something theoretical
and opposed to praxis.

Both Darwin and Genesis are correct--[...]

Please excuse me - but I strongly disagree.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There are historical inaccuracies in the bible
as well...

That doesn't exactly change my point. Even assuming historical incongruities, inaccuracies, etc; that doesn't change the purpose of the texts to convey the Story of God as fulfilled in the Person of Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

Yes! If the word of 'god' doesn't even satisfy the
most elementary laws of science and logic - then:
What makes him omniscient and
all-mighty?

...and I bet that most of you know very well which
parts of the bible constitute blatant violations of
scientific laws...


No disrespect or offense intended.

Question for you: What color is the hair of the person in your avatar--as seen by me?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes! If the word of 'god' doesn't even satisfy the
most elementary laws of science and logic - then:
What makes him omniscient and
all-mighty?

...and I bet that most of you know very well which
parts of the bible constitute blatant violations of
scientific laws...


No disrespect or offense intended.

If one believes the Bible is supposed to be about the "elementary laws of science", then that may be problematic. But it's not.

God didn't get the science wrong; after all He's the Author of the science which scientists study. God doesn't communicate science through His word, that's the point.

For example, Genesis 1 isn't there to give us a play-by-play of how the universe came into existence, but to declare the authority and power of Yahweh as the Creator God. That's how Genesis and Darwin can both be right.

The ocean can be both wet and blue.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[pgp_protector]

Is the Bible 100% scientifically correct? No.

 

[RDKirk]

The ocean can be both wet and blue.

Nowhere in scripture is the ocean described as blue.

But this is even more interesting: There is no ancient writing known that describes the ocean as blue. In fact, there are some primitive peoples today who still would not describe the sky as blue.

This says something about our ability to evaluate how people 2000 and more years ago viewed anything in particular.

Why Isn't the Sky Blue? - Radiolab

And then add that to the incomprehensibility of a being who isn't even human.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes! If the word of 'god' doesn't even satisfy the
most elementary laws of science and logic - then:
What makes him omniscient and
all-mighty?

God created the laws that govern everything, including logic. That makes him almighty.

...and I bet that most of you know very well which
parts of the bible constitute blatant violations of
scientific laws...

What secular science considers 'natural' is really supernatural. Life, anywhere in the universe, has to be considered the most unnatural phenomenon imaginable by any rational thought. The same actually could be said about the universe as well. Even science admits that at one time the material universe didn't exist. That it exists at all blows my mind (that I exist blows my mind).