If the Bible is man made and fallible?

Question

and Science is man made and fallible?
why do Atheists argue they are "more right".
If this is how they think (without faith).
Many scientists have a theory one day and prove it to be wrong the next it has taken Science forever to the end result of fact whereas, facts change all the time as scientists grow in knowledge but faith and biblical fact and prophecy keeps presenting itself although has been written in black and white for all to tap into if they so choose to really learn it, and it takes some research but can be compared scripture to scientist and eventually (even in many Atheists and Scientists) to co-exist with each other. Science does support biblical truths, does it not?

John F.
I was not spouting off, sorry you see it that way I am curious and I was asking a question.

My2 Sorry dear? I believe the bible to be infallible I was asking since this is the way that Atheists think. Try reading my profile.

X-Theist you have certainly shown your intellegence. I must bow to your better knowledge that the bible does not make computers! LOL

Eleventy - Astrology has never changed?
Sure about that?

I Adore..... (and so do I) but I do not know what you were trying to correlate with this scripture to this question.

pot smeller- I respect your answer, although can agree to disagree I have studied both and believe the bible to be infallible in its truth, I do respect your answer however and your belief and truth that you have said in regard to it.

Thanks to all for all of your answers! Agree to disagree on some etc... but they are all good the ones that are just answering without insulting that is! Answers without insults are the bomb!

Answer 1

The books of the bible were written by men under the inspiration of God and was correct as given. Translations of the original text are fallible since they're obviously based on the knowledge of the original language by the translator. There are some less than ideal translated words but the meaning of the text has not been altered.

Answer 2

"Science does support biblical truths, does it not?"

I am afraid that it does not. The Bible cannot be used as a guide to science, and science does not support the picture of the "universe" presented in the Bible. Science does not support the dietary suggestions implied by the Old Testament. Science does not help very much if at all with the moral principles articulated in the Bible where these are subject to scientific test.

I am not sure it is wise for Atheists and other secularists to say that they, as individuals, are "more right" than anyone else--Christians or other believers. As individuals, we are all about in the same boat as to our puzzlement about the meaning of life.

Having said that: Science, as a cultural institution, is a constantly self correcting endeavor. It is subject to practical tests; any scientific proposition to gain support must be subject to and pass a test that had the potential of refuting the proposition. And yes. Science changes through time. And what was acceptable theory one day, can become obsolete the next. But obsolete theories are not all equal. Some represent blind paths down which research met a dead end. Some represent the stepping stone on which successor theories built. Newtonian gravity is obsolete, but Einstein and all others that follow build on Newtonian gravity.

When we secularists insist that the Bible is fallible, we are rebutting exaggerated claims made on the Bible's behalf. What we secularists should not say, probably, is that the Bible is useless. It is not useful for some of the purposes that Christians have tried to put it (it cannot guide or limit scientific research). I think the Bible is very important for documenting the history of ideas, especially in the West. I think it is very important for understanding many contemporary individuals and societies for which the Bible has been a sacred text.

Obviously, we secularists envision a day when certain forms of religious belief will be out of fashion and discredited. However, I think that the purpose that secularist should pursue in conversation with religious believers is a mode of life where we all can get along in a free society.

Answer 3

The Bible is man made and fallible: True.
Science is also an invention of man and capable of being faillible: True.

It's basically a matter of which fallible, man made creation (science or religion) you, as an individual, find to be more logial. For me as an atheist, I find science to be more logical. To a Christian, the Bible makes more sense. *Shrugs*

You state that Biblical fact and prophecy keeps presenting itself. It is easy to read into signs and interpret them in order to conform to a preconceived notion. It's all about perception.

You also state that the Bible is unchanging and science is not. Consider the fact that the way the Bible is interpreted now is completely different than the way it was interpreted even only decades ago. Right now there is a major debate in our country regarding the legalization of gay marriage. A couple decades ago the same debate was going on regarding interracial marriage. Christians were using the same arguments from the Bible against interracial marriage. Another example is slavery. I imagine that there were also Christians during Civil War times that argued that slavery should be legal because the Bible allows it. Modern Christians interpret it differently. Again this is all a matter of perception and how something (wether it be a sign, a prophecy, or a text) is interpreted.

So yes, science does change in a sense. Science changes because we make more discoveries and uncover more truths. Theories are proven wrong and theories are proven right. This is why they are called theories - because they are ideas that have not yet been proven. Scientists and atheists alike also have the ability and humilty to admit that we do not know everything and the curiousity and inquisitiveness to continue searching.

Answer 4

What biblical truths does science support?
pi = 3? Nope
The world was completely covered by a flood and only some dude in a boat saving 2 or 7 of each animal and his family survived? Nope
The world was created in 6 days by a divine creature? Nope
Heaven and Hell exist? Nope
People can walk on water and part seas through faith? Nope
People can be dead for three days and arise from death? Nope
People can be assumed bodily into the sky? Nope
Pigs, shellfish and women menstruating are unclean? Nope
It's ok to have sex with your mother or sister? Nope

You see, science is based in observable, testable, consistent reality. The bible is a work of fiction, a collection of fairy tales interspersed with bad song writing, biased historical accounts and loads of abhorrent behaviour.

Facts don't change. New facts are learned, some things that were thought to be fact (like the earth being flat, or being the centre of the universe) are disproven. They are disproven, and the correct facts corroborated by science, not by the bible.

You commit the basic error of confusing scientific hypothesis with theory. Theories are supported by evidence. the bible is not. Hypotheses are things that need to be tested to see if they are correct.

Atheists are more right because they not only have the evidence for the things science has discovered, but they continue to explore and question. Those with faith remain trapped withing their lovely, cosy, delusional closed system, and cannot discover more because they just need to "believe".

Answer 5

The primary difference in fallibility is that science keeps asking "what if we're wrong?" Science doesn't assume it has the answers and so stops looking.

Look at it this way: Suppose "science" had stopped looking for the truth 2000 years ago because they had written a document that contained the "whole truth", and nothing more need be found? What sort of state would science be in? Science grows, admits its errors (eventually) and moves on. Faith doesn't do that.

That said, I have my own beliefs--I just refuse to base them on scriptures which may or may not have any relevance.

The Bible is a document of some historical (and anthropological) significance, but it is little more.

Answer 6

Two words. Scientific method. We can test our assumptions and when proven wrong modify them. That is the major difference between science and religion. In the search for truth the religious just ascribe it to magic and stop searching while science strives to move further down the path of truth.

I have put the Bible to the test and it has been found wanting. One would think the major miracles, parting of the red sea, raising the dead, etc. would have been verified by an outside source. The Egyptians would have recorded the fact that millions of Hebrew slaves built cities to their greatness. One of the records would have referred to Moses but there is no record of any of it. Science not only does not support Biblical "truths" but specifically contradicts them. The concept of the creation, many of the recorded miracles, the flood, and even the origin of man (Adam and Eve) are all shot down by science. Next time, think about the question before just setting up a straw man.

Answer 7

The cult asserts that the Holy Spirit directs the popular-day Governing physique interior the comparable way that it directed Jehovah's employer interior the previous. "The holy spirit is the lively tension of the residing God, which he sends out via his Son, Christ Jesus, and which operates in direction of Jehovah's human beings, enlightening and directing his theocratic employer on earth at present because it did interior the days of the apostles." Watchtower 1959 Apr. a million p.219 even nevertheless, the Society claims to no longer be stimulated or infallible. "The Governing physique incorporates a team of anointed Christian adult males …those preside over the worldwide events of Jehovah's Witnesses. they do no longer seem to be stimulated with the help of God and as a result are no longer infallible, yet they place self assurance in God's infallible observe because of the fact the optimal authority in the international." Jehovah's Witnesses - Unitedly Doing God's Will worldwide p.26 The Governing physique makes solid claims that Holy Spirit publications it to interpret the Bible wisely and to appoint adult males. In entire contradiction, the Governing physique says Holy Spirit does no longer direct the employer to have infallible interpretation of scripture. Accuracy is now no longer mandatory for God! blunders make it obvious Holy Spirit does no longer instruction manual Watchtower doctrine any extra so than it has in the different faith.

Answer 8

No, science does not support bibilical truths. Do not know which science textbooks you have been reading.

There have been some vague passages in the bible that have turned out to be scientifically plausible, and correct.

But there have been way more passages (that are not so vague), that have absolutely no scientific merit at all.

That is the beauty of science it is not dogmatic, and encourages new research and adaptations to theories. But the theories presented are what we "know" now. Scientists don't pretend that will be all there is to "know" in the future.

I don't think science is more "right", I simply think it is more accurate.

Answer 9

Your comments on science are more or less totally wrong.

It does not change in the way you suggest - it evolves and improves. Ideas that work are rarely if ever overturned, but they are extended and completed.

But most improtantly, all ideas in science are subject to test all the time, and must always agree with what is observed. They are corrected or discarded once they fail to do so.

Relisiong ideas are set in stone and based on dogma not fact.

Far from supporting biblical turths, science pretty much disproves huge numbers of them.

Answer 10

"Many scientists have a theory one day and prove it to be wrong the next"

That's the beauty of science. When they learn something is wrong they admit it and search for what is right. If only religion would do the same.