Is Bible concurrent or no concurrent with modern science?

Question

Insects with four feet?
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:21-23
Just for the record, insects have six feet and arachnids have eight. You'd think the ancient Israelites might have picked up on this little detail, what with eating locusts and beetles and all.


Bats identified as "birds"?
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13-19
An almost identical passage occurs in Deuteronomy 14:11-18. The bat is of course a flying mammal, not a bird.

Rabbits claimed to chew their cud?

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
Leviticus 11:6
To chew the cud means to eat grasses, swallow, then regurgitate later for further chewing. Rabbits simply do not do this. However, rabbits do eat their own poo, in order to absorb certain nutrients that passed through unabsorbed the first time. This is similar to human urine drinking.

Answer 1

I guess if you carefully review the bible you find hundreds and more hundreds of contradictions and errors. Remember, it was written by people who were not space scientists.

Answer 2

Fundamentalists tie themselves up in knots trying to reconcile factual errors in the Bible with the evidence of their own eyes. They make the mistake of taking their scripture literally and cause untold trouble because of it. This doubly amusing (or tragic) when you realize they accept the *parables* of Jesus as being only symbolic.

The Bible only contradicts science if you insist on taking it literally.
Genesis and the creation stories - both of them - only say that "God created the heavens and the earth," but it doesn't say *how*, and that leaves plenty of room for evolution. As poetry or history, the Bible is sometimes good and sometimes not so good, but so what if you're a believer? Take what you can from it, and leave the over-pious to fret over the details.

Btw, I'm an atheist.

Answer 3

listen.... you have to understand that it was written by man edited by man and put together by man. god didn't instruct on the construction of the bible. at the time there was no talk of stem cell or cloning or evolution for that matter. or weather pluto was a planet, or black holes are in the centers or galaxies. or weather we could have evolved from monkeys or archaebacteria. or how old the earth was. it was presented on the principles of good the best way known at the time. no one knows what god is except that he/she has a knowledge and power so far beyond us that we couldn't possibly know what he meant. remember... even as the bible goes he created science. and the beginning... we still can't, as good as science is, recreate the first millisecons of the big bang or possess the knowledge to understand the universe we live in, much less any others he may have created. don't doubt god. just doubt what others before you have told you as fact. they really don't know. no one does. god says we cannot understand his plan; anyone who says they do has stopped their real faith. we are minute beings and here on this tiny planet for a short while.... how can we be so arrogant to think we can understand the mind of the creator?

Answer 4

Why does the Bible might desire to be in stay overall performance with technological understanding? they are kit for various applications. The bible is a non secular rfile explaining a particular faith. might you attempt to make the Bible line up with Hindu texts? might desire to Einstein address Noah's Ark in offering his concept of Relativity? faith and technological understanding are actually not opposites, even with the numerous tries with the aid of some human beings to make it so. factor merchandise: i think it would additionally remember what translation of the Bible you're employing. there is documented data that some issues have replaced between variations/translators/copyists, and so on. Likewise, medical concepts replace too - particularly as new techniques are examined and previous techniques are the two shown or disproven.

Answer 5

The big back legs on the locust, etc. were not counted as "legs" in the same sense as the other legs.
Now note the differentiation in Leviticus above -- referring to "legs above the feet" for leaping. The "feet" are being differentiated from the "legs above the feet" because of their difference in function.

Answer 6

I recognized by the time I was eight years old that the biblical tales could not be conformed with science, and since science is obviously right (it works!), religion had to go. The specifics had to do with the earth's creation, where the biblical tales obviously had nothing in common with the truth. Since then, I have learned a lot more; so can you by reading:

Answer 7

Please.

Revelation verses science. God reveals, man observes.

If 3500 years ago they thought a bat is a bird and not a mammal, why would you think a modern naming convention changes anything.

Here is an example, "heaping fiery coals on your head". What does that mean? It means a warm feeling. So stop talking about hell etc.

And 3500 years ago, what was evolution?

Enough said.

Answer: Before claiming something is wrong or inconsistent, learn the language and the culture.

Answer 8

The passages you mentioned have very little to do with the scientific validity of the bible, however...

This depends on your reading of the bible. If you read the bible strictly literally, it is full of innaccuracies and is far from concurrent with modern science. However, a looser reading (as many suggest was intended by its authours) will find that it rarely contradicts science, and often supports current thinking.

Answer 9

First off, anyone who follows OT laws and customs, and calls themselves a Christian, is not only mistaken but disobeying a fundamental tenent of their beliefs.

Secondly, cultural traditions do not have to absolutely follow scientific fact. A belief in Santa Claus is not grounds for dismissal for entry to Harvard Law School or Medical School. One simply cannot use the basis of one's belief in Santa Claus when performing one's duties (unless it is Santa Claus who happens to be on your operating table or in your court room, then hopefully one can reconcile one's beliefs with one's actions to promote a healthy outcome.)

That's like trying to follow a 17th century textbook as being of 'proper science'. What was 'proper' may no longer be considered so, but it does not dismiss the relevancy of when it was applied. In all things, the measure to which they are apply.

Answer 10

The current way of identifying groups of animals is by their apparent relatedness, but this is not the only way to create a taxonomy of animals.