ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

The Bible Versus Science

Should Christians believe the Bible where it appears to conflict with modern science?

Join Our Christian Dating and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---jerry6593 on 5/14/10
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog

Jerry believe whatever you want to believe, you will anyway.
---atheist on 5/21/10

atheist we don't have to ask others how Jesus would have us live our lives. It's there plainly, for all to see, in His word.

I am not interested in your 'speculation' but am interested in what you have written, as you are on a Christian site claiming (in our case) that following Jesus teachings has negative consequences for society. It is clear that your refusal to answer means you made a generalization which you cannot support, in this case!

You made no implication, but a clear statement.

If in mature hindsight you wish to remove Christianity from your religions generalization, feel free to be honest.
---Warwick on 5/21/10

Obviously science, reason, skepticism, inquiry will always be trumped by mythology, irrationality, and ignorance.

See even an atheist can learn something here...
---atheist on 5/21/10

Id rather believe God. I dont think Ill be around for the next 2000-3000 years for man to figure everything out.
---JackB on 5/21/10

Believe scientist over God? What do you think? Believe man rather than God? Come on.
---catherine on 5/21/10

Athiest: You're "obviously" convinced you are right & the Bible is wrong. Therein lies your problem, i.e., you seem to think you know it all -- just like "God". I don't envy your stiff neck & hardness of heart towards God's truth (Isaiah 55:6-11). Like me, you're merely a creature who is solely dependent upon his Creator for sustained life & enlightenment (elucidation, explanation).
---Leon on 5/21/10


The animal husbandry method listed in G30:37-42 is obviously superstitious nonsense, children do not look like whatever their parents are looking at during the act of conception. But Warwick, who always takes the literal interpretation of the bible will probably contest this given his strong scientific bent. I am sure he can provide the necessary scientific references disproving my disbelief.
---atheist on 5/21/10

WARWICK:".... idle speculation which cannot be proved ...does not convince me."


"The What are the negative outcomes for others if we live as Jesus commands us...?"

Why would you be interested in my speculation on this question? I have no idea and I don't believe you could find more than a handful of people who could agree on how Jesus would want us to live our lives.

And:"You are on a Christian site implying that following Jesus has negative consequences for others."

I cannot control what you chose to infer from what I have not implied.

My comments stress the damage caused by belief in 'god' and 'religion'. Infer and misrepresent my comments as you will.
---atheist on 5/21/10

Atheist: So, you in fact don't know for certain if God's word is wrong. Yet, you "obviously" suppose the referenced Bible account is wrong based upon what you rationalize & determine is right. By doing so, in your mind only, you make yourself equal to (if not superior to) God. Foolishness!
---Leon on 5/21/10

Francis anyone can understand and write about science. And carry out scientific experiments.

Likewise no one needs to be a theologian to expound Scripture. Obviously.

As regards snake and spider venom the lack of a current answer does not mean there is no answer. It is quite possible the venom had a very different purpose pre-fall. Scripture does tell us the whole of creation was changed by Adam's rebellion and the consequent curse.

The evolutionary belief is often taught by people as fact and used to 'prove' that the Bible is wrong. I have had first and second hand experience of this. The very search for life on Mars is aimed at proving life is not some special creation on earth.
---Warwick on 5/21/10

Atheist: you hhad posted '"Scientific facts" are only the ones that do not threaten your personal beliefs. The rest of course are unfounded speculation. '

While some people will try to say that some piece of data obtained by science is not really science, that is not the main problem

The problem with science is NOT the observation - that we can all agree that the observed facts are real

The difficulty is how we interpret those observed facts. One that side, you, I and others may have different ways of interpreting, or even deciding where measurement stops and interpretation starts.

But I think you overstated a little
---peter3594 on 5/21/10

atheist you are correct, idle speculation which cannot be proved is inadmissable in court and likewise does not convince me.

That which can be established by the testable, repeatable, observable scientific method is conversely worth trusting. This is the scientific method which has given us all the medical and technological wonders which we enjoy. The technology of the internet works upon the principles of the scientific method. It is not about speculation, philosophy, nor untestable beliefs about the past. It rests upon 'hard science.'

Nonetheless I am interested in keeping up with current scientific speculation. But I know the difference between these opinions and proven fact. You don't appear to!
---Warwick on 5/20/10

atheist I am involved in car racing where development proceeds via the testable, repeatable, observable scientific method.

Our car had an understeer problem. We theorized we could solve this problem by adjusting tyre pressures, or different compound tyres, or a change of front wheel toe-in or camber. Or maybe a change in anti-roll-bar settings. Or maybe a combination of all or some of the above.

We then tested, and retested the above ideas, observing the results, adopting only those changes which were proven to help, and lowered our lap times significantly.

This is the application of real science. Conversely microbe-to-man evolution is an unproven belief about the past. Just a story.
---Warwick on 5/20/10


You took the first words defining science from a wikipedia entry and then made up the rest to suit yourself. I have nothing to explain.

That is the same source I used for my whole entry on the definition.


Obviously if it were true the science of animal husbandry would have taken a whole other direction---we would have rat farms with rats mating in front of pictures of cattle...


"Scientific facts" are only the ones that do not threaten your personal beliefs. The rest of course are unfounded speculation. Nothing that can be argued about here.
---atheist on 5/20/10

I have a problem with christians with no scientific background making scientofic commentaries.

If you do not have the background in science, then you may not be able to truely comprehend the depth of science.

If your major contribution is with macro evolution, then OK, but then how do you explain snake venom, and spider venom.

What purpose would such a deadly liquid serve in Eden?

The goal of science has never been to locate, define, or assess whether or not there is a God / god(s)

Scientist generally report their finding without regard to God. It is mainly ignorance on the part of some christians that they wrongly evaluate these findings to be contrary to the Bible.
---francis on 5/20/10

Atheist: Regarding G30:37-42, how do you know God's word is wrong? Have you personally used the scientific method & disproved it or perhaps you know, by name, others who have?
---Leon on 5/20/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements

Science is not "knowledge".---atheist on 5/19/10
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge---atheist on 5/19/10
Make up your mind please.
---micha9344 on 5/20/10

There are of course "people who reject God's eyewitness account" per Genesis 30:37-42. "God's word" here does describe something that the Bible said happened in the past and is testable, repeatable, observable using the scientific method. In this the bible is just flat out wrong.
---atheist on 5/20/10

atheist "As no testable, repeatable, observable science contradicts Scripture I will stick with it, as written." Results of the scientific method have never contradicted Scripture. So why should anyone doubt Scripture? I 'go' with what it says. Hypotheticel exercises are irrelevant!

Regarding the past all are in the same situation, as it cannot be tested/proved. What you call science is but the best guess about the past by people who reject God's eyewitness account.

I prefer His account to anyone's best guess.

Being involved in science I do 'pay attention' to scientific ideas but know the difference between scientific fact and best guess. As do my numerous scientist friends.
---Warwick on 5/19/10

atheist the English 'science' comes from the Latin for knowledge.

But the testable, repeatable, observable scientific method which has given us the amazing scientific advances of the past century or so, is far more than just knowledge or philosophy.

If something cannot be subjected to the regimen of the scientific method it cannot be claimed as fact. Microbe-to-man evolutiuon which is claimed to have happened in the past is therefore a belief or even a religion to some. Not Scientific fact. If it were otherwise the 'facts' of evolution would be public knowledge. But they aren't, for obvious reasons. Dawkins, despite his rudeness, arrogance and bluster has never been able to provide proof. Nothing like it.
---Warwick on 5/19/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. As knowledge has increased, some methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the scientific method is the standard for science. It includes the use of careful observation, experiment, measurement, mathematics, and replication to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers.

Micha, did you stop reading the Wikipedia definition after 7 words? And then make up the rest?
---atheist on 5/19/10

Of course, what an easy question.
Only a moron would expect the creature to explain, judge and justify his own creator.

God bless Jerry.
---larry on 5/19/10

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")
Science in it's truest form is knowledge, all else requires faith, hence religion.
Believing or having faith there is no God, or how life came to be is a religion just as any other belief.
---micha9344 on 5/19/10

Oh yes God did include the other planets and other life forms other than humans,

astronomers star of Bethlehem, those that watch the stars It pays to read the bible.

Psa 8:5
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Gen 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.

Cherubims Seraphim :Ezekiel, Rev, Lev, Num 7:39
---Carla on 5/19/10

Send a Free St Patrick's Day Ecard


Science is not "knowledge". It is a method which strives to find better and better explanations for what is observed. Those explanations, called theories can arguablly be defined as tentative since some observation that does not fit the theory may occur. Also some theories work part of the time, and are close enough for government work, like Newton's theory of gravity, but are not at all correct at other times, such as at the atomic level.
---atheist on 5/19/10

It amazes me how people use the words predictions,probably,almost,theory, etc and call it science, science being knowledge and these words being guesses.
Why would a person listen to such hypocrisy of science?
---micha9344 on 5/19/10

Why is god so reticent about letting the pride of creation know more about the whole of it?

Why should He? He's given us the ability to discover a great deal for ourselves. And He has many more important things to say in His Word.
---Donna66 on 5/18/10

Donna66, I don't really care to be honest, I was just sharing my thoughts. but how it does matter to me is how we swallow everything in the name of science only to find out that it was a hoax.

When I was a kid in the 70s, there was just one gravitationally challenged boy or girl in school. Now that they have taken our salt and fat away and given us artificial sweeteners and other 'beneficial' additives, there are very few young people who are not overweight. Diabetes in children? If you take away fat (which does not create fat), you have to add something to make up for lost taste. High fructose corn syrup. Oh, diabetes in overweight children.

Does it matter? ... to some yes, to others no.
---aka_joseph on 5/19/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

'atheist': "Why is god so reticent about letting the pride of creation know more about the whole of it?"

Isa 55:8,9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Neh 9:6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone, thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all, and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
---jerry6593 on 5/19/10

Warwick: "As no testable, repeatable, observable science contradicts Scripture I will stick with it, as written. "

So then I take it if Genesis said that Creation took 8 days and god rested on the ninth and some mention of this occuring six million years ago, you would go with that?

What does science need to do, observed the process of creation as it is going on, making predictions about what will occur in the future, and describe what probably happened in the past, and tie it all together in one almost complete, cohesive, and credible theory before you are going to pay attention? Oh, guess not, it has already done that...
---atheist on 5/19/10

atheist God's word was not written to tell us what the moon or planets are like or their distance from the earth. Its purpose is to show us what we are like and the distance we place between ourselves and Him.

His word guides any humble person to forgiveness, and eternal life. I am confident He is able and willing to answer our unimportant questions, when we meet Him, in eternity.

Remember this God of which you speak is the God of the Bible, who has no interest in doing what we think is right. Not a God of anyone's imagination.

God is not reticent nor willing that any should perish.
---Warwick on 5/18/10

Peter, I believe the RCC did not get its view from Scripture but from prevailing, incorrect scientific beliefs. Galileo's observations showed they were wrong. They had compromised God's word because of incorrect 'science.' Being arrogant he got them offside and the battle raged. The RCC self-exalted bureaucracy did not appreciate a mere man saying they were WRONG!!!

Today much of the church is again compromising, interpreting Scripture through prevailing, unproven, changing scientific beliefs. These beliefs are constantly changing so where does that leave compromisers when the prevailing scientific philosophy totally changes?

As no testable, repeatable, observable science contradicts Scripture I will stick with it, as written.
---Warwick on 5/18/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training

"Genesis made no attempt to account for other planets or extra-terrestrial life."

But if Genesis is the word of god, then god certainly was aware of the rest of his creation and could have made a small effort to clue us in regarding creation beyond what we could easily see.

Why is god so reticent about letting the pride of creation know more about the whole of it?
---atheist on 5/18/10

aka joseph -- I believe the camera remained attached to the lunar modular. But even if they set it outside first, NOBODY had stepped on the moon before. First, second or third step...what's the difference?

James-- it's not just Genesis that speaks as if the earth was the center of the universe. Don't we ALL act as if the earth is the center of the universe? We know better.
But we still say "what on earth?", "That's the best (or worst) thing under the sun"

Genesis made no attempt to account for other planets or extra-terrestrial life.
And why should it? God's creation of and interaction with OUR world, has been the main concern of men since Adam and Eve. Again, the Bible is not a science book.
---Donna66 on 5/18/10

How can we tell where the center of the universe is if we haven't found the edges yet?
---micha9344 on 5/18/10

Looking at the questions and responses, I thought that this blog site was the center!?!?
---aka_joseph on 5/18/10

How can we tell where the center of the universe is if we haven't found the edges yet?
---micha9344 on 5/18/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Software

2. In the industrial age, a black moth was found that was historically a white species. Science said it had changed to adapt to the current environment. Upon further review, they found it changed bcause someone painted a white moth black.

Those science guys are so crazy!

Since science is driven by ego and available funds, I will take my extra large, growth hormone eggs that are 'totally harmless' according to scientists with a grain of Salt.
---aka_joseph on 5/18/10

1. This morning I was contemplating the first moon walk. Who placed the camera outside the lunar module to record the first step?

In some circles, the geocentric model (Ptolemaic system) of the universe is still held. Could this be why the sun stopped for a day in the OT?

Sunrise, sunset
Sunrise, sunset
Swiftly fly the years
One season following another
Laden with happiness and tears...
---aka_joseph on 5/18/10

Warwick: I have also read that - the church felt that because Genesis 1 says so much about the earth and the waters, then longically the earth must be the centre of the universe

It is a mistake very easy to make, but can cause very awkward problems later

I just hope there are no places where we are making similar mistakes - it is, I think, an easy-to-make error
---James on 5/18/10

Warwick: Exactly so! (about the view of the church at the time)

The RCC church had its fixed view of what the Bible (which is always correct) says, but its VIEW was not infallible

So far, I have not seen any scientific evidence that cannot be held together with Biblical views - though many people try to demonstrate that, but it's not correct - you can hold both
---peter3594 on 5/18/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

Excellent comments!

Some good points brought out:

(1) Most Christians don't understand the "science" they claim trumps the Bible.

(2) What is believed is "expert" opinion of science - not real science.

(3) Science requires observation and experimentation. Many don't realize that many attempts at demonstrating key elements of Evolution have been made - and all have failed.

(4) If science "appears" to conflict with the Bible, then the interpretation of one or the other is in error.

(5) God is the author of science as well as the Bible.
---jerry6593 on 5/18/10

James if I remember correctly the problem between Galileo and the Roman Catholic Church wasn't over what Scripture says, but that the Church had accepted the philosophical 'science' of the day, as their world view. And interpreted the Bible via this. Along came Galileo with observations which disagreed and battle ensued. Galileo's documented arrogance didn't help either.

My point is that the RCC's view wasn't Biblical but based upon human opinions, which change. We face the same danger today where many Christians also accept the unproven science of the day,(Neo-Darwinism) reinterpreting Scripture through these changing views.

Where do they go when Neo-Darwinism is rejected in favour of a new very different idea of origins?
---Warwick on 5/17/10

There is no conflict between the Bible and science... unless you misintepret one or the other. If science seems to be at fault, question the information you are receiving.
If the Bible seems in error, question the one who is interpreting it.
---Donna66 on 5/17/10

believe science,which is limited by physical reality,and the laws that govern them,or Believe God who created those laws and can suspend them as he wishes? oh my thats a tough one.da.
---tom2 on 5/17/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

Francis: good comment!!!!!

Many people try to use science to disprove the Bible, but, as Peter commented, it is usually people who either do not know enough about science or (which he did not mention) do not know enough about what the Bible actually says

There have been some cases (remember Gallileo and Copernicus) where the church had gotten stuck in a view that disagreed with science, but that was an error of the church, neither of the Bible nor of science

As a result, we must look at new scentific discoveries carefully, not rejecting the view because it disagres with OUR interpretation of the Bible, nor lookng at comments form non-scientists about what it means about the Bible
---James on 5/17/10

I would like to know where is the bible and science in opposition?
---francis on 5/17/10

Warwick: I'll second your comments, most of all the part that science is about observations

The observations we have in science do not dispute the Bible - it is only the theories we create AFTER making the observations that go against the Bible

So, we can continue making the observations, and only argue with science when some scientist gets a theory which disptes the Bible

Finally: My observations (on the internet) about science disproving the Bible are generally NOT from scientists, they are from someone who read some scientific theory and decided it disproved the Bible - most often from someone who in fact was unable to understand the scientific observations

We have ontihng to fear from real 'observation' science
---peter3594 on 5/16/10

I think Mark Eaton is correct. Often when people talk about 'science' they mean scientific opinions, which constantly change.

As Mark says hard science is about what can be observed, tested and retested-the scientific method, sometimes called empirical science. Scientists regularly come up with ideas (e.g. cold fusion) however their idea is rejected unless it can be demonstrated (by experiment) to be a fact. Cold fusion failed scientific testing and disappeared from sight!

Microbe to man evolution is an idea which cannot be proved by the scientific method.

I do not know of one proven scientific fact which contradicts Scripture. Why would it, God invented science. We have a lot to learn while God has nothing to learn.
---Warwick on 5/16/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages

jesus healed people who were blind from birth,jesus raised people from the dead,including lazarus who was dead 3 days,jesus walked on water,jesus was dead and was himself raised by God as witnessed by the apostles.all were and are scientifically impossible,so who am I to believe? seems apparent to me that God controls science,and reality,and time and space,yea,everything,
---tom2 on 5/16/10

knowledge of God,and the only truth that matters is what is important,following christ.while knowledge of physical surroundings might be important,especially if your lost in the woods in alaska with a brown bear chasing you,with an empty rifle you dont know how to load,or stranded in the middle of the saraha desert with no water,knowing where the next water hole is just might be important,but knowing how the universe was formed,or how bacteria came to be,well the answer is GOD MADE EVERYTHING.
---tom2 on 5/16/10

There is an Italian proverb: The Bible does not tell how the heavens go, but how to go to Heaven.

(Eloy, I think the word you're looking for is "eons", not "ions.")
---Cluny on 5/15/10

I don't find the Bible to be contrary to Science at all. It may not stand in agreement with men who springboard off each other's speculations for the sake of their careers, but from the first words of Genesis 1:1, it is amazingly scientific. Check out the book of Job, sometime. It is more scientifically correct than most realize.
---Elaine on 5/15/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

Science is merely man's attempt to understand how God created life and how He maintains it. Its something man will never perfect with limited intellect.

Imagine the surprise the first scientist that discovered microorganisms felt after being clueless about them for a millennium. Yet they are sure there is no God based on their evidence, when the Bible clearly states "heaven and the heavens cannot contain thee". We look for someone the size of a man and limited to mans abilites, when He's larger than the known universe.

Dont put faith in science. They change their "facts" every 10 years.

Gods truth stays the same decade after decade.
---JackB on 5/15/10

I admit I was terrible in science, but wasn't it all about observation? If there is no observation, there is no science.

It is where science turns from observation to theory that it turns from the truth to mere conjecture. This kind of "science" has not, cannot, and will not, ever align itself with the Bible, because unregenerate mankind will never align themselves with the Bible.
---Mark_Eaton on 5/15/10

life is in God,in his truth.mans limited knowledge is feeble.God is eternal,all powerful,all knowing,and to compare mans intellect with Gods is not only funny,but in my opinion is the worlds way of explaining existance,science is mans rather limited perception of that existance,so what you are really asking is should we as believers believe God ,or the world?wow thaTS A HARD ONE TO ANSWER.
---tom2 on 5/15/10

Cluny- it depends how one defines what it means to 'chew the cud'. It simply means to digest food a 'second time'.

A British scientist report in 'Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London', 1940, Vol. 110, pp. 159-163, stated the rabbit deliberately passes food through 'a second time'.

Dr.Waldo L.Schmitt, Head Curator, Dept.of Zoology of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington,D.C., in commenting on these findings, wrote: 'There seems to be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the reports of various workers that rabbits customarily store semi-digested food in the caecum and that this is later reingested and passes a second time through the digestive tract.'

Sorry to disappoint, but the Bible is accurate (Lev.11:4).
---David8318 on 5/15/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

There is nothing modern about old and thrice-dead science, antiGod and antiChrist science has been spouting off similar foolishness for ions, throughout time they merely use different words in saying it.
---Eloy on 5/15/10

Well, there are people who claim to be scientific, but they can not cure depression or paranoia, etc., even though they say these problems are organic. But the Bible says, "the peace of God which surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." (in Philippians 4:6-7) So, the Bible says we have "minds" which His peace can *guard*. This shows me that our minds are *spiritual*, and not only physical. Also, see how Paul says, "and be renewed in the spirit of your mind," (Ephesians 4:23) Yet, we have even certain "professional" "Christian" counselors who claim depression etc. can not possibly be a spiritual problem. It looks as though the Bible contradicts this.
---Bill_bila5659 on 5/15/10

-- 1st Cliff :

Shawn MT,Nothing wrong with my eyes, where else do you find (alleged) God's word except in the bible?? --1st Cliff

Brother, Maybe it's not your eyes that need to be checked : Maybe you just need to learn that "there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." John 21:25

..... So the Bible isn't the only place you'll allegedly find God's Word : But you would have known this if you had eyes(Matt.18:9) to see the Word of God being shared with you !!!

Grace Unto You & Peace Be Multiplied
---ShawnM.T. on 5/15/10

Excellent Shawn.M.T. re Cliff's gaff (noisiness). :) Yes, God's word is indeed INFALLIBLE (exact, inerrable, perfect -- TRUTH)!!!
---Leon on 5/15/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

What you're describing, David, is not what is meant by chewing cud.
---Cluny on 5/15/10

Shawn MT,Nothing wrong with my eyes, where else do you find (alleged) God's word except in the bible??
Fundamentalists believe every word in the bible is "God breathed"!
---1st_cliff on 5/15/10

Where does the Bible say pi = 3 (Cluny 5/14/10)?

Is Cluny referring to 'the molten sea' at 1Kings 7:23 and 2Chronicles 4:2? Should they have used 3.14? Did they use decimal points in those days?

Persons who insist on scrupulous accuracy and consider the Bible to be in error would do well to realize that, to be more accurate themselves, it would be appropriate to carry pi to at least eight decimal places, which would be 3.14159265,

At 1Kings 7:23 and 2Chronicles 4:2, 'the molten sea' was ten cubits, or fifteen feet, in diameter and it took a line of thirty cubits, or forty-five feet, to encompass it. That is a ratio of one to three, which, for practical purposes, was adequate for the sake of a record.
---David8318 on 5/15/10

Are rabbits chewers of the cud (Cluny 5/14/10)? Concerning the hare and rabbit, naturalist Ivan T.Sanderson remarked:

'One of the most extraordinary [habits], to our way of thinking, is their method of digestion. This is not unique to Leporids [hares, rabbits] and is now known to occur in many Rodents. When fresh green food, as opposed to desiccated [dried] winter forage, is available, the animals gobble it up voraciously and then excrete it around their home lairs in a semi-digested form. After some time this is then re-eaten, and the process may be repeated more than once. In the Common Rabbit, it appears that only the fully grown adults indulge this practice.'

Living Mammals of the World, 1955, p. 114.
---David8318 on 5/14/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage

-- 1st Cliff :

Shawn MT, just defined the bible as an "idol" (infallible)with powers beyond humans! Really??

Brother, You need to recheck your Belief system as to what is the definition of an 'idol', and while you're at it, get your eyes check as well b/c nowhere did I ever mention the word "Bible"(John 21:25). You presume a lot and that is your down fall b/c the Truth is "God's Word is Infallible"(Mark 10:27) with Powers beyond that of men !!!!

Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but with God All Things Are Possible(Mark 10:27) : My Word be that goeth forth out of My Mouth: It shall not return unto Me Void, but it shall Accomplish that which I Please. Isa.55:11
---Shawn.M.T. on 5/14/10

The Bible is not a science book. It has no intent of teaching people the truth about natural phenomena. God's intent, in His Word, is to teach SPIRITUAL truth.

The Bible uses many literary devices to make a point. We ALSO speak of the sun "rising" or "going down"... even when we know that scientific facts don't support this.
It would be a bit awkward to talk about the beauty of the sky when..." our part of the globe rotates into the earth's shadow from the sun." If we aren't scientists, we don't speak this way about a "sunset".

Where the Bible appears to conflict with science, we should look at God's purpose in that particular passage, rather than analyze it's scientific accuracy.
---Donna66 on 5/14/10

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
---micha9344 on 5/14/10

let see,believe God,or believe man. believe spiritual truth,or physical truth,my faith is in God,my Reason belongs to faith in a God who created everything,not in mans feeble attempts to explain physical reality,when in fact God can at any time suspend,change,or end it all.
---tom2 on 5/14/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

part 2
Another Biblical truth we learn from scientific fact:
-Without the light of God, we abide in darkness and the fears that come with the dark.
There are many lessons that God put into the creation and as alluded to earlier by others in this blog, God is not under the authority of our human understanding of science because that type of understanding rises up and goes down day by day. It moves. It starts dark and get brighter then gets dark again. Yet God remains the same day by day.
Neither is God's truth under the authority of the human religious understanding of christians(me and you)by the way! Because all of it comes from the human perspective which is not all-seeing.

By the way... Praise the Name of the LORD!
---Legends on 5/14/10

Leslie and Leon Shawn MT, have just defined the bible as an "idol" (infallible)with powers beyond that of humans! Really??
---1st_cliff on 5/14/10

Interesting question!
Put me on record as saying God's Word is truth.
Nevertheless, our interpretations of His Word are not always truth. That's the problem. For instance:
"From the rising of the sun to it's going down, the Lord's Name is to be praised." Psalm113:3
Numerous Bible passages speak of the sun's rising and going down. Scientific fact says the sun doesn't rise nor go down. We revolve around it despite the scripture and the appearance of it's rising and setting.
Yet true scientific fact regarding the sun agrees with many biblical principles that reveals Biblical attributes about God.
-God is the source of light.
-Human life as well as all life cannot exist without Him.
-God never changes
---Legends on 5/14/10

The Bible is based on God's mind of TRUTH. Science is based on man's mind of limits. So therefore, we should ALWAYS go with the Bible. Anything outside of that is a LIE. Everything MUST line up with the Bible, NOT the Bible lining up with it - or it is a LIE. The Bible is our plumbline and roadmap for EVERYTHING. If it is not, this is how people get decieved.
---Leslie on 5/14/10

Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing

To Whosoever Has An Ear To Hear?

Brethren, Walking by Faith and not by sight, we are confident/willing rather to be absent from the body(whatever appears to conflict with God's Word), so as to be present with the Lord !!!!
---Shawn.M.T on 5/14/10

Always and at all times, for God's words are always proven to be true, and man's experiments or playings in science are many times proven to be false. It would benefit science to learn from the holy scriptures of truth, then to foolishly play with the unknown and then make stupid and false conclusions. Science says you came from apes which came from fish which cme from amoebic and protozoan sludge in the water- lie upon lie upon lie. None of my ancestors are proven to have come from any of these lies. Then they make up the "big bang" starting it all: the stupidness of man never ceases to amaze me, and these children in adult bodies even have years of studies in universities and many degrees but still have yet to learn the truth.
---Eloy on 5/14/10

Jerry: The truth of the matter is modern science is often in conflict with what the Bible says. Not, as you say, the other way around. Christians, by faith in God, should always believe what God (the Creator) gives us to understand in His recorded word (the Bible) over what scientist (the creature) say.
---Leon on 5/14/10

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.