how would you respond to tis "The Bible is not scientifically accurate"?

Answer 1

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Answer 2

I'd definitely read the book just to see what it might have to offer, but I could never see myself basing my entire lifestyle on one text. I don't think such a book would be popularized to "Bible" proportions because secular reasoning, documented history and hard science because the common man probably wouldn't be capable of understanding it or even interested in reading it. It would have to extremely dumbed down to be a bestseller, just like most mainstream media.

Answer 3

Many people who did up old cities like in that area use biblical text as a reference to where the battles and stuff took place because its so accurate

Answer 4

I would very agreeably agree. The bible is not a science book, except as a social science, under the banner: "Theology", a study, literally, of "God", using not only the bible as a source, but also several other apocryphal materials along with tested eye-witness accounts of several saints.

Answer 5

People throughout time have said that the Bible was wrong about this or that, to only later be proven wrong themselves. People have been trying to prove the Bible wrong for centuries and yet it still stands. The Word of God has endured through all the ages and it will endure the present attacks on it from all sides. As Jesus said"The gates of hell shall not prevail against His church."

Answer 6

Uh, no crap.

That's like saying the Ghostbusters know how to knit a Hello Kitty blanket.

Answer 7

The Bible is not a Science book. It is a book on salvation history.

Answer 8

I would say that people who believe that pick and choose what they want to see in the Bible. In my beliefs, the Bible is the living Word of God. People see in it what they want to see. If they want to find contradictions, they will. If they want to believe it, they will find basis for that as well.

Answer 9

I’d say, so what? The purpose is not to teach science.

If I were you, I’d be far more concerned that science texts used in our local schools contained so many inaccuracies.

Answer 10

To an Unbeliever it is a closed Book; To a Believer it is Power to meet any need;stands alone.