Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

 Science and the Bible

Does the Bible Contain Advanced Scientific Knowledge? Or Basic Science Blunders?

What if its true, as the skeptics claim, that the Bible contains basic "the earth is flat" scientific mistakes and blunders.  That would not say too much for the claim that it is the word of the one who created the universe, the one that made all the scientific laws, the one who would know far more about the universe than we ever could! 

Now what if its true, as the apologists claim, that the Bible does contain advanced scientific knowledge that would have not been known to ancient people at the time it was written?  What if, as the apologists say, the Bible teaches that the world is round when everyone else at the time believed that it was flat?  Now that WOULD be a strong indication that it indeed IS inspired by, or the word of, the universe's creator!

So which is it?  Does the Bible REALLY contain scientific foreknowledge? Or does it contain basic science blunders?  Here's a look at both sides of the issue:

Part 1: Skeptic's claims of the Bible's scientific mistakes:

Skeptics cite the following verses to show that the Bible mistakenly teaches:

The sun and moon revolve around the earth:

Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel:

       "Sun, stand still over Gibeon;
        And Moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
        So the sun stood still,
        And the moon stopped,
        Till the people had revenge
        Upon their enemies.

Is this not written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. Joshua 10:12-13

He commands the sun, and it does not rise; He seals off the stars;  Job 9:7

In them He has set a tabernacle for the sun,
Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber,
And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.
Its rising is from one end of heaven,
And its circuit to the other end
;
And there is nothing hidden from its heat.
  Psalm 19:5-6

The sun and moon stood still in their habitation;
At the light of Your arrows they went,
At the shining of Your glittering spear.
  Habakkuk 3:11

'This is the LORD's sign to you that the LORD will do what he has promised: I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.' So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down. Isaiah 38:7-8

the apologist's rebuttal The moving of the sun is from the frame of reference of the earth.  Even today, we still say that the sun/moon "rises and sets", while knowing full well that it is the earth that is rotating.
My take on it I'm with the apologists on this one.  From our point of view, it IS the sun or moon that are moving, such as when we say "the sun climbed higher in the sky". Since much of the Bible is poetic literature and not technical writing, I don't think you can necessarily take it so literally.

 

The earth is flat and has four corners

Note: the skeptics say that if something can be seen from everywhere on earth that implies the earth is flat.

He will set up a banner for the nations, And will assemble the outcasts of Israel, And gather together the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth. Isaiah 11:12

"And you, son of man, thus says the Lord GOD to the land of Israel: "An end! The end has come upon the four corners of the land. Ezekiel 7:2

The tree grew and became strong; Its height reached to the heavens, And it could be seen to the ends of all the earth. Daniel 4:11

Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. Matthew 4:8 & Luke 4:5

After these things I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree.  Revelations 7:1

the apologist's rebuttal

Again, the "ends of the earth" or the "four corners of the earth" are not literal but poetic, metaphoric expressions, and are even used to this day even though we know the earth is a sphere.  Also, the word(s) used for ends/corners can also mean an appendage or edge of land like a peninsula, and the word used for earth can also mean land.  So it can also be translated as the "edges/ends of the land", such as the Cape of Good Hope.  For something being seen by the entire earth, these again are metaphoric expressions using hyperbole.  For Jesus seeing all the kingdoms of the earth from one mountain, the known world at the time consisted only of the Roman Empire in the area of the Mediterranean, and this could have been visible from one mountain.

My take on it

I'm with the apologists on the "ends of the world/four corners of the earth" thing.  For the part about something being visible from the entire earth, that one's a bit more of a stretch, but seems pretty nit-picky anyway. Plus you could allow that it was some kind of vision in which the devil was showing Jesus all the kingdoms, but then again why would he need to take him to the top of a high mountain for that?

 

The moon gives off its own light (instead of reflecting the sun's)

For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not give their light;
The sun will be darkened in its going forth,
And the moon will not cause its light to shine.
  Isaiah 13:10

Moreover the light of the moon will be as the light of the sun,
And the light of the sun will be sevenfold.
  Isaiah 30:26

When I put out your light,
I will cover the heavens, and make its stars dark;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
And the moon shall not give her light.
  Ezekiel 32:7

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.  Matthew 24:29

the apologist's rebuttal

Yes, the moon's light is actually a reflection of the sun's.  But the text is not meant to be taken so specifically.  For Isaiah 30:26 the moon COULD be as bright as the sun since it says the sun will also be made much brighter. 

My take on it I'll give it to apologists again.  Even today, we still refer to "moonlight" or say "by the light of the moon".  Now for Isaiah 30, that's a little more of a stretch since the sun's brightness is much, much greater than 7 times that of the moon.  I guess you'd have to have some kind of miracle where the moon's reflectance would also be increased at the same time, not a problem for the true believers I suppose..

 

The earth doesn't move

The skeptics say that instead of the earth spinning about its own axis, revolving around the sun, which in turn is revolving around the center of the Milky Way galaxy, which in turn is hurtling through space, the Bible writers believed the earth was stationary:

Tremble before Him, all the earth.
The world also is firmly established,
It shall not be moved.
1 Chronicles 16:30

You who laid the foundations of the earth,
So that it should not be moved forever, 
Psalm 104:5

the apologist's rebuttal Again, from our frame of reference the earth IS stationary.
My take on it I'm with the apologists again on this one.  "Earth" or "ground" is commonly taken as the the basic non-moving frame of reference, at least for our normal, everyday existence here on earth.

 

The bat is a bird, the rabbit chews the cud, and insects have four legs

"the hare, because it chews the cud but does not have cloven hooves, is unclean to you;......."And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the kite, and the falcon after its kind; every raven after its kind, the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. "All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you. Yet these you may eat of every flying insect that creeps on all fours: those which have jointed legs above their feet with which to leap on the earth. These you may eat: the locust after its kind, the destroying locust after its kind, the cricket after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind. But all other flying insects which have four feet shall be an abomination to you.  Leviticus 11:6-23

Nevertheless, of those that chew the cud or have cloven hooves, you shall not eat, such as these: the camel, the hare..... "All clean birds you may eat. But these you shall not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, the red kite, the falcon, and the kite after their kinds; every raven after its kind; the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after their kinds; the little owl, the screech owl, the white owl, the jackdaw, the carrion vulture, the fisher owl, the stork, the heron after its kind, and the hoopoe and the bat.   Deuteronomy 14:7-18

the apologist's rebuttal

For the "bat is a bird" issue: The scientific classification system we use where bats are classified as mammals was not developed until the 17th(?) century.  So we should not expect an ancient text to use this system, as it would have confused the ancient Hebrews to whom it was addressed.  They would have grouped the bat in with the birds.  So its really a word translation issue. Though "birds" might be the closest English approximation to the Hebrew word used, to the Hebrews this word would have generally meant "flying things" (excluding insects) and would have included bats.

For the "rabbit chews the cud" issue:  While rabbits don't actually chew the cud, supposedly they do chew their fecal pellets, which (at least according to the apologist's claims) are not fully digested, so doing so gives them another chance at absorbing the nutrients.  So again, this might be a translation issue.  Though "chews the cud" might be the closest English approximation, "chews partially digested food" might be more accurate.

For the "insects have four legs" issue:  Again, its due to the limits of language translation.  "Going on all fours" is an expression used to describe something that crawls around down on the ground, and does not necessarily mean that it literally has four feet.

My take on it In my opinion, these three criticisms so often used (over-used!) by skeptics are invalid. The rebuttal for the "bat is a bird" issue makes perfect sense, as anyone who has ever seen a bat fly knows how much they look like a bird.  So I can certainly see how the ancient Hebrew word for "bird" would have included the bat.  Now for the "hare chews the cud" and "insects have four legs" issues, that's a bit more of a stretch but I'll buy it.  Everyone knows that you can't translate one language into another and have the meaning come across perfectly.  Now if you are a skeptic and don't agree, I would like to ask you one question:  If the typical modern, city-dweller today knows that bats aren't birds, rabbits don't chew the cud, and insects have more than four legs, then don't you think that these ancient, nomadic, goat herders would have known that?  Many of these people lived in the wilderness for crying out loud! They lived with nature all the time!  Such people living in primitive societies usually know more than modern people about basic nature, the behavior of different animals, which plants are edible, etc.

 

The value of pi is 3.0

Skeptics say that since the Bible says that Solomon's bath was ten cubits in diameter and the circumference was 30 cubits, this means the writer thought the value of pi (a circle's circumference divided by its diameter) is 3.0 instead of 3.14159...  If it was 10 cubits in diameter the circumference (to the nearest cubit) should have been 31 cubits. 

And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.  1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2

the apologist's rebuttal Apologists often use an argument that the diameter measurement was made on the inside of the rim and the circumference around the outside.  A less-used one: depending on the round-off, there are valid cases where you can have a 10-cubit diameter and 30-cubit circumference (rounded to the nearest cubit).  For example:  if the actually diameter was 9.6 cubits (giving 10 rounded to the nearest cubit), then the actual circumference would be 9.6 x 31.14159 = 30.16, which rounded to the nearest cubit gives 30 cubits.
My take on it This is another invalid criticism over-used by skeptics.  The measuring to the inside of the rim for diameter versus the outside for circumference argument does have some textual support since it says "10 cubits from one brim to the other".  But the round-off argument is much better.  Just how precise do we expect the measurements to be?  Its obvious that the dimensions are given to the nearest cubit.  So the dimensions are valid whenever the diameter falls between 9.5 (circumference= 29.85) and 9.708 cubits (circumference=30.5).

 

The earth has foundations/pillars

 ...For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, And He has set the world upon them. 1 Samuel 2:8

Then the channels of the sea were seen, The foundations of the world were uncovered, At the rebuke of the LORD, At the blast of the breath of His nostrils. 2 Samuel 22:16

He shakes the earth out of its place, And its pillars tremble  Job 9:6

The pillars of heaven tremble, And are astonished at His rebuke. Job 26:11

The earth and all its inhabitants are dissolved; I set up its pillars firmly. Selah Psalm 75:3

Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.  Who determined its measurements?  Surely you know!  Or who stretched the line upon it?  To what were its foundations fastened?  Or who laid its cornerstone,  Job 38:4-6

They do not know, nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are unstable. Psalm 82:5

You who laid the foundations of the earth, So that it should not be moved forever, You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters stood above the mountains Psalm 104:5-6

Thus says the LORD: "If heaven above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel For all that they have done, says the LORD. Jeremiah 31:37

Hear, O you mountains, the LORD's complaint, And you strong foundations of the earth; Micah 6:2

the apologist's rebuttal "Foundations" can be interpreted in an abstract "beginning" sense, as opposed to interpreting it in a literal, physical sense ( for example "the foundations of our nation" don't imply that the U.S. is built on a physical foundation structure).  Describing "pillars" is using poetic imagery (if the pillars of Job 26:11 are to be interpreted literally then how can they be astonished?)
My take on it Allowing the use of poetic, metaphorical imagery can counter the skeptic's criticisms, as once again they may be taking things too literally.   However, this issue is a little more problematic for the apologists, as their rebuttal falls short for a couple of reasons.  The text of Job 38:4-6 does seem to imply physical foundations, with a specific mention of fastening the foundations and laying the cornerstone, though I suppose someone could still argue a metaphorical meaning.  However 2 Samuel 22:16 and Psalm 104:5-6 indicate that the foundations are covered by the deep/seas.  This seems to show that the writers had a typical ancient's view of cosmology where the earth's land mass has pillars/foundations which are covered below by the waters of the deep (see more below).

 

The stars are small little lights/objects that can fall to earth

And it grew up to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and some of the stars to the ground, and trampled them. Daniel 8:10

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Matthew 24:29

And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. Revelations 6:13

the apologist's rebuttal The apologists say that the Greek word used (aster) could refer to any object with the appearance of a star, including meteors.  Even today in popular usage they are  called "falling stars" or "shooting stars".  So this is really saying that there will be many meteorites.
My take on it The apologist's defense might fly, then again maybe not.  Daniel 8:10 is specifically using the "hosts of heaven" and "stars" in parallel, saying they would fall to the ground.  The "hosts of heaven" refers to the stars/constellations of the sky and were seen as the angels and/or "sons of God" (in fact this is one of the verses interpreted by Christians as the fallen angles with Satan being cast from out of heaven).

 

The sky/heavens are a solid dome called "the firmament", with water above, and it rained when windows in the dome were opened

Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. Genesis 1:6-8

Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. Gen 1:16-18

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.  Genesis 7:11-12

The fountains of the deep and the windows of heaven were also stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained.  Genesis 8:2

He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; Job 9:8

With Him, have you spread out the skies, Strong as a cast metal mirror? Job 37:18

Praise Him, you heavens of heavens, And you waters above the heavens!  Psalms 148:4

So an officer on whose hand the king leaned answered the man of God and said, "Look, if the LORD would make windows in heaven, could this thing be?"  2 Kings 7:2

The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads......A voice came from above the firmament that was over their heads; whenever they stood, they let down their wings.  And above the firmament over their heads was the likeness of a throne, in appearance like a sapphire stone; on the likeness of the throne was a likeness with the appearance of a man high above it. Also from the appearance of His waist and upward I saw, as it were, the color of amber with the appearance of fire all around within it; and from the appearance of His waist and downward I saw, as it were, the appearance of fire with brightness all around....  This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.
So when I saw it, I fell on my face, and I heard a voice of One speaking.
  Ezekiel 1:22-28

the apologist's rebuttal
  • "Stretching out the heavens" is a way for the writers to express the infinity of the sky since the Hebrews like many cultures of the time lacked a word-concept for infinite physical space. 
  • The word "raqiya" translated as "firmament" in the KJ/NKJ denotes "expanse" and is a way of referring to the sky or atmosphere, not a solid structure.  
  • Regarding the waters above, the writers did not make distinctions between things like stellar matter, methane gas, asteroids, comets, etc., so this was a way of referring to those.
  • To see it as a solid dome is forcing an ancient's view into the text.
My take on it Taking a metaphorical, non-literal interpretation COULD explain some of the difficulties, and allow the firmament/expanse/heavens to refer to the sky and allow the "stretched out" text to refer to the expanse of the sky .  And saying "windows in heaven were opened" could likewise be a poetic description, as even today we say "the floodgates were opened" to describe very heavy rain.  However, I think it's quite a stretch to do so.  The text of Job 37:18 clearly shows that the firmament was envisioned as a solid dome.  And Ezekiel's vision of God clearly shows that God was envisioned as having his throne in heaven located above the firmament.  And of course the Tower of Babel story also shows that heaven was envisioned as being literally located in the sky a relatively short distance above so that it could be reached by a tall tower. 

 

If sheep see striped/spotted rods when the mate they'll give birth to striped/spotted offspring

Let me pass through all your flock today, removing from there all the speckled and spotted sheep, and all the brown ones among the lambs, and the spotted and speckled among the goats; and these shall be my wages... Now Jacob took for himself rods of green poplar and of the almond and chestnut trees, peeled white strips in them, and exposed the white which was in the rods. And the rods which he had peeled... So the flocks conceived before the rods, and the flocks brought forth streaked, speckled, and spotted... whenever the stronger livestock conceived, that Jacob placed the rods before the eyes of the livestock in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. But when the flocks were feeble, he did not put them in; so the feebler were Laban's and the stronger Jacob's. Thus the man became exceedingly prosperous, and had large flocks, female and male servants, and camels and donkeys.  Genesis 30:32-42

the apologist's rebuttal One apologist says that just because the Bible described the process doesn't mean that it endorses it as true, and although Jacob at the time thought it was his sticks that did the trick, it was really God causing the sheep to be speckled and spotted in order to even the odds against Laban for cheating him, that it says in Genesis 31 that it was revealed in a dream to Jacob: Yet your father has deceived me and changed my wages ten times, but God did not allow him to hurt me. If he said thus: "The speckled shall be your wages,' then all the flocks bore speckled. And if he said thus: "The streaked shall be your wages,' then all the flocks bore streaked. So God has taken away the livestock of your father and given them to me.  "And it happened, at the time when the flocks conceived, that I lifted my eyes and saw in a dream, and behold, the rams which leaped upon the flocks were streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted. Then the Angel of God spoke to me in a dream, saying, "Jacob.' And I said, "Here I am.' And He said, "Lift your eyes now and see, all the rams which leap on the flocks are streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you. I am the God of Bethel..."' Genesis 31:7-13
My take on it Hmmm, seems to me like the Bible is indeed attributing the birth of the speckled, spotted sheep to the sticks in chapter 30.  In chapter 31 when Jacob attributes it to God, it only seems to be as a defense/reaction when he sees that Laban is mad about it: Now Jacob heard the words of Laban's sons, saying, "Jacob has taken away all that was our father's, and from what was our father's he has acquired all this wealth." And Jacob saw the countenance of Laban, and indeed it was not favorable toward him as before.  Genesis 31:1-2  

Part 2: Apologist's claims of the Bible's advanced scientific knowledge:

Apologists claim that through divine revelation and inspiration the Bible writers amazingly knew that:

The earth floats freely in space 

The apologists say that amazingly the Hebrews knew this as opposed to sitting on a turtle's back or on Atlas's shoulders like the Hindus/Greeks believed:

He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.  Job 26:7

They also say "Astronomers have discovered that there is a great empty space in the North. It contains no moving planets and shining stars.... . By turning their telescopes to the South, the East and the West, men may behold countless millions of stars invisible to the naked eye but when the telescope is set exactly to the North there is a great empty space. For this, astronomers have been unable to account.  Another says "There is a place in the North where no stars exist , which cannot be seen with the naked eye. How did the writer of Job know this?" 

rebuttal "North" is a synonym for the heavens/firmament, so it simply means the firmament is unsupported in the middle.  There is no empty place in space. 
My take on it The earth hanging upon nothing could be the strongest argument the apologists have for scientific foreknowledge.  The only rebuttal I've seen is that this reflects the view of the ancient Babylonians that the earth's pillars were suspended or floating in some kind of void, as opposed to resting on something like the back of a turtle.  But even if we grant that this particular verse SEEMS to imply some advanced knowledge, in light of all the other verses referring to the earth as being supported by pillars, I don't think it will fly.  As far as there being an empty place in space, what a bunch of baloney! Did these guys ever hear of the North star?  Why would the area of space that happens to be aligned with the earths rotational axis not contain just as many stars and galaxies as anywhere else?  Besides, due to precession, a slight wobbling of the earth's axis, the place in space where the axis points gradually changes over time, giving rise to the different ages (like the "Age of Aquarius" see here).

 

Knowledge of the hydrological cycle

He binds up the water in His thick clouds, Yet the clouds are not broken under it.  Job 26:8

For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man.  Job 36:27-28

He who builds His layers in the sky, And has founded His strata in the earth; Who calls for the waters of the sea, And pours them out on the face of the earth-- The LORD is His name.  Amos 9:6

All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again.  Ecclesiastes 1:7

rebuttal Simple observation explains this.  
My take on it Agree with skeptics.  No advanced scientific knowledge apparent here.

 

The life is in the blood (as opposed to the now-discredited 'medical' practice of blood-letting)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood.... for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, "You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.'  Leviticus 17:11, 14

rebuttal Simple observation that when an animal's throat was cut, it's life seemed to literally drain away along with it's blood.  And besides, the life is not primarily in the blood but in the brain and nervous system.
My take on it Agree with the skeptics.  Its not really true anyway.  Yes you do need blood to live, but you also need lots of other things, like a liver, kidneys, lungs, skin, heart, intestines, etc.  Is life in the liver?  Is life in the lungs?  If you donate a pint of blood, do you lose a portion of your life? 

 

A woman has a seed (egg cell or ovum) 

Amazingly the Hebrews knew this, as opposed to the pagan beliefs of the day that only the man's sperm provided the seed and the woman was simply a vessel: 

And I will put enmity, Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel."  Genesis 3:15

rebuttal The word used for "seed" refers to descendants or offspring, and most of the Bible translations use these terms instead of seed..  One skeptic points out that in Genesis 16:10, Hagar is told "I will greatly multiply thy seed".  So if "seed" really means "ova", was the angel telling her her Ovum would be multiplied?
My take on it Agree with the skeptics.  Plus, I doubt that the ancients really thought that the woman contributed nothing to the offspring besides providing a womb as an incubator.  Wouldn't they have noticed when children would bear a striking resemblance to their mother?

 

The eight day is the best day for circumcism (the blood doesn't clot well before then)

One apologist says "Oddly enough, it is only on the 5th through the 7th days of the newborn male's life that vitamin K begins to be produced (the vitamin is normally produced by bacterial action in the intestinal tract) and it is only on day eight that the percentage of prothrombin climbs above 100% of normal!"

He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant.  Genesis 17:12

rebuttal Simple observation and trial and error.  
My take on it Agree with rebuttal.  Is it so unlikely that the ancient Hebrews would have noticed that babies circumcised earlier or later tended to die at a higher rate?

 

The earth is a sphere 

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.  Isaiah 40:22

rebuttal Circle is a 2-D object, like a flat disk.  This view is in keeping with the ancient near-eastern view of cosmology where the earth is a flat disk with the sky/firmament over it.  Besides, even if this was an unequivocal reference to the earth being a sphere, that would not be evidence of divine guidance.  The ancient Greeks knew this by the ~6th century B.C., and had even calculated the earth's diameter!
My take on it Agree with the skeptics.  If the earth's inhabitants seem like grasshoppers to God, that seems to say that he is sitting up there above the firmament.

 

The stars are too great in number to be counted 

Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."  Genesis 15:5

As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.  Jeremiah 33:22

Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude--innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.  Hebrews 11:12

rebuttal This is only making the point that Abraham/David's descendants would be great in number, like the stars in the sky or the sands on the seashore.
My take on it With the skeptics.  In a dark night-sky, without light pollution, the stars certainly do seem innumerable and uncountable, and it surely would have seemed this way to ancient man without any benefit of divine revelation.  Besides, while Abraham/David's certainly are numerous, their number is miniscule when compared to the number of stars in the universe!

 

The sun is moving through space in a huge orbit (around the Milky Way center) 

... He has set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is like a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, And rejoices like a strong man to run its race.  Its rising is from one end of heaven, And its circuit to the other end; And there is nothing hidden from its heat.  Psalm 19:4-6

rebuttal This isn't talking about the sun having an orbit around the galaxy.  This is talking about the sun traveling from its place in the east at sunrise to its place in the west at sunset.
My take on it Skeptics have it again.  

 

Atmospheric pressure/ air has weight 

To establish a weight for the wind, And apportion the waters by measure.  Job 28:25

rebuttal This isn't talking about the atmospheric pressure, its talking about the FORCE of the wind, which is apparent to anybody.
My take on it Skeptics have it again.  In fact, the NIV actually does translate it as "force" instead of "weight".

 

Ocean currents (like the Gulf Stream) and underwater springs

According to apologists" "A man by the name of Matthew Fontaine Murray discovered the sailing paths in the sea.  About this Dehoff writes “Before Matthew Fontaine Murray lived there were no sailing lanes and no charts of the sea.  One day, when he was ill, his son read to him from the eighth Psalm.  He read that God put under man ‘…the fowls of the air, the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passes through the paths of the sea.’  ‘Read that again’, he said.  Upon hearing it the second time, the venerable scientists said, ‘If the Word of God says there are paths in the sea, they must be there.  I will find them.’” (Dehoff, pg. 53).  Today, Mr. Murray is known as the Father of Oceanography.  He founded the Annapolis Academy.  Also, in Richmond, Virginia there is a statue of Mr. Murray with a Bible in one hand and the charts of the sea in the other." (See here, or here for examples)

The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas.  Psalm 8:8

Thus says the LORD, who makes a way in the sea And a path through the mighty waters,  Isaiah 43:16

Have you entered the springs of the sea? Or have you walked in search of the depths?  Job 38:16

rebuttal "Paths of the seas" is simply referring to the paths that ships/boats take, and was a common expression of the time.  There certainly have been sailing lanes for thousands of years.  And ocean currents were known as well.  Ben Franklin published a chart of the Gulf Stream 20 years before Matthew Murray was born and he certainly wasn't the first. (See here for a rebuttal).  The springs of the sea just means that the ancients thought the sea was filled by underground springs.
My take on it Wouldn't ancient seafaring people and anyone in contact with them have known about ocean currents?  I would think so. It takes a moron to believe that ocean currents weren't discovered until the 19th century!  See here or here for totally independent, non-religious history of the Gulf Stream, where Ponce de Leon is given credit for its discovery, not Matthew Murray.

 

The earth spins/turns on its axis 

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?  It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment.  Job 38:13-14 KJV

rebuttal This isn't talking about the earth spinning like clay on a potter's wheel.  This is talking about using a seal (like a stamp or mold) to give the clay shape.  "Turns" in this case means to change form. 
My take on it The rebuttal has it.  In fact, the NIV translates it as "The earth takes shape like clay under a seal", and the NKJV translates it as "It takes on form like clay under a seal"

 

The universe is expanding 

He alone spreads out the heavens, And treads on the waves of the sea; Job 9:8

The likeness of the firmament above the heads of the living creatures was like the color of an awesome crystal, stretched out over their heads.  Ezekiel 1:22

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.  Isaiah 40:22

Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk on it:  Isaiah 42:5

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: "I am the LORD, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;  Isaiah 44:24

I have made the earth, And created man on it. I--My hands--stretched out the heavens, And all their host I have commanded.  Isaiah 45:12

He has made the earth by His power, He has established the world by His wisdom, And has stretched out the heavens at His discretion.  Jeremiah 10:12

He has made the earth by His power; He has established the world by His wisdom, And stretched out the heaven by His understanding.  Jeremiah 51:15

Who cover Yourself with light as with a garment, Who stretch out the heavens like a curtain.  Psalm 104:2

The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:  Zechariah 12:1

rebuttal This is only referring to the firmament, the solid dome that the ancient Hebrews believed was the sky.  "Stretching out" the heavens/firmament refers to the way it was created, notice the comparison to them being stretched out like a curtain in Psalm 104 and Isaiah 40.  Also, saying the heavens/firmament/sky are "stretched out" is a way of referring to their apparent immenseness (see topic on firmament from Part 1 above).
My take on it The rebuttal wins.  Why can you take the "spreading out" part literally while ignoring the literal description of the sky being a solid dome?  Especially in light of Job 37:18 which describes it as being strong as a cast metal mirror?

 

Washing and quarantine to prevent spread of disease 

One apologist says "During the middle ages, garbage and sewage were thrown into the streets of Europe..... Typhoid, cholera, leprosy, and bubonic plague killed millions. Science had no solution..... finally, the church led in introducing the practice of quarantine from the Bible, and cities turned to sewage disposal as taught in the Bible, were these diseases brought under control.... In the 1840's Ignaz Semmelweis caused an international stir. He required the doctors under him to wash their hands before they examined another patient in the hospital....However, these doctors had him fired and forced out of Vienna  Today, such methods of sanitation are rigidly enforced in hospitals all over the world. Did you know that the Bible commanded such sanitation more than 3,400 years before Ignaz Semmelweis? Yes, the Bible was way ahead of human science. How could this have been?"

Also, the apologists say "how did the Hebrews know to wash a sore in RUNNING water (so it would be fresh as opposed to everyone washing in the same, stagnant pool of water which would spread the disease)?

When a man has on the skin of his body a swelling, a scab, or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his body like a leprous sore... and if the hair on the sore has turned white, and the sore appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a leprous sore... then the priest shall isolate the one who has the sore seven days. And the priest shall examine him on the seventh day; and indeed if the sore appears to be as it was, and the sore has not spread on the skin, then the priest shall isolate him another seven days.... Leviticus 13:2-5

He who is to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and wash himself in water, that he may be clean. After that he shall come into the camp, and shall stay outside his tent seven days. But on the seventh day he shall shave all the hair off his head and his beard and his eyebrows--all his hair he shall shave off. He shall wash his clothes and wash his body in water, and he shall be clean.  Leviticus 14:8-9

And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13

rebuttal The apologists focus on these parts because they just happen to have some utilitarian value, but they ignore all the parts that have no value at all and are just plain stupid.  They have gone cherry-picking, extracting out some select parts of a larger system of rituals and superstition.  Also, quarantine or the banishment of someone sick was practiced in other ancient cultures, and is nothing more than cause-and-effect observation.   
My take on it If fresh/running water was important for washing  then why did it also seem to be so important for some primitive bird-killing ritual/superstition?  Why didn't Yahweh tell his people to make sure the running water they used for washing their disease and puss-infested sores didn't happen to be a creek just up-stream of where they also took their drinking water?  If the advice to quarantine and wash was divinely guided and based on valid science, what's the valid science behind these verses?: 

"This shall be the law of the leper for the day of his cleansing: He shall be brought to the priest... shall examine him; and indeed, if the leprosy is healed in the leper, then the priest shall command to take for him who is to be cleansed two living and clean birds, cedar wood, scarlet, and hyssop. And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed in an earthen vessel over running water. As for the living bird, he shall take it, the cedar wood and the scarlet and the hyssop, and dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running water. And he shall sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy, and shall pronounce him clean, and shall let the living bird loose in the open field.  Leviticus 14:2-7

then he shall kill one of the birds in an earthen vessel over running water. Leviticus 14:50

And he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird and the running water and the living bird, with the cedar wood, the hyssop, and the scarlet. Leviticus 14:52

 

The dietary laws to prevent disease 

The apologists say that the Bible's prohibition of consumption of pork & shellfish had valid scientific reasons, to prevent the Hebrews from contracting trichinosis from pork and hepatitis and cholera from shellfish.  One apologist says "Many people suffered from fever, headache, diarrhea, and sore muscles. Not so long ago, science learned that this was caused by worms living in the muscles. These worms come from eating pork, the meat of swine, that is not cooked enough. This is called tricinosis. Now consider this. The Bible, in the Law of God to Israel, had forbidden the eating of swine more than 3,400 years ago." 

and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.  These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers--that you may eat. But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. They shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination. Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales--that shall be an abomination to you.  Leviticus 11:7-11

rebuttal Pork and shellfish are risky only if they are eaten raw or undercooked.  Lots of other animals pose a risk of disease as well if they are consumed raw or undercooked.  Poultry/fowl and eggs pose the risk of Salmonella, with beef the risk is from  E Coli.  Why didn't Yahweh just tell them to make sure their food was well cooked?  And Leviticus bans shrimp and crabs, catfish and shark, and camels and hares/rabbits as well.  What's the risk of eating those? 
My take on it Just another case of the apologists selectively picking and choosing the parts that seem to have some rational health basis, while ignoring the parts that have none and are plainly based on superstition or cultural taboos.  

Conclusions: My take on all of it

For the issue of the Bible versus science, I'll call it a draw.

Does the Bible contain basic scientific blunders, as the skeptics claim?  Well, maybe yes, maybe no.  There just don't seem to be any direct, unambiguous "the earth is flat" statements, at least not that can't REASONABLY be interpreted in a metaphorical way so that there is not a conflict with science.  But then again, the verses cited do fit perfectly well with the typical ancient Babylonian/Middle-eastern view of the cosmos, in which the earth is a flat disk with the land mass in the center and oceans or "waters of the deep" underneath and surrounding the land, and the land supported by pillars which are covered by the deep.  The sky is a solid dome in which the sun, moon, stars, and other heavenly bodies are attached, with water located above, and it rains by opening up windows in the dome of the sky.  And of course God, and heaven are located above the dome of the sky- remember that little Tower of Babel story?  However, if someone is looking for ammunition in rejecting the Bible as the word of God, then I don't think this issue makes a strong enough case, since allowance can reasonably be made for non-literal interpretations.  And besides, even if it is conceded that the Bible does contain some scientific errors, its not much of a problem for the liberal Christian, as you can take the view that it is not meant to be a science textbook, but to convey spiritual truths.  God could have allowed fallible men with the limited knowledge of their time to make such mistakes, so long as the spiritual matters were conveyed properly.  A parable can convey spiritual and moral truths without the story itself being true.  However, for the fundamentalist position it is much more of a problem, because their belief requires that the Bible be literally true in all maters.

Now does the Bible contain amazing scientific foreknowledge, not known to people of the time, this revealing its divine inspiration?  No, there is nothing to this claim at all.  The apologists try to make their case through a combination of selectivity and shoe-horning.  They use selectivity by picking and choosing certain parts that seem to have a rational basis or can in any way be interpreted as being consistent with modern scientific knowledge, but ignoring any parts that contradict with science or are obviously based on superstition.  And then they use shoe-horning in that they take an ambiguously-worded passage and force-fit a modern science view back into the text.  The same exact thing can be done to any other ancient text, as it demonstrated below in the section "The Quran has amazing Scientific Foreknowledge too!".  This is also demonstrated quite well in Do the Bible and Science Agree?, which shows that the phrases claimed as showing scientific foreknowledge, such as "the paths of the sea" were actually common expressions of the time and can be seen in other (uninspired) ancient literature (that site is written by a liberal Christian BTW, not a skeptic).

A common trick of the apologists is to say that the Bible revealed some bit of advanced knowledge, and only reference the applicable verse but not actually quote it (or quote it out of context).  But when you look at the actual text that is supposed to reveal this knowledge, you can see that its a bunch of baloney!  For example, Biblical Evidences of Science states that:

"Job 38:22 mentions the treasures of the snow. Each flake is of perfect dimensions and all are different. The snow is beneficial for nitrogen for fertilizer."

So let us look at what Job 38:22 (and verse 23) REALLY says:  

"Have you entered the treasury of snow, Or have you seen the treasury of hail, Which I have reserved for the time of trouble, For the day of battle and war?"

So instead of this verse saying that all the snowflakes are different (which is probably not true anyway, with all the innumerable snowflakes that have fallen in all the world throughout the ages wouldn't at lest SOME be identical by pure chance? Hmmm, how did I know the snowflakes are innumerable?  Maybe I was divinely inspired?).  But anyway, I'm starting to digress so to get back on track, when you look at Job 38:22 you see that instead of saying that all the snowflakes are different as the apologist claims, you see that it actually says that there is some kind of hidden treasury or storehouse for the snow and hail! (obviously located above the firmament?)  So instead of this counting as an example of advanced scientific knowledge it could actually be counted as a blunder! (though again, you could interpret it in a figurative way and say that the sky and oceans are the storehouse, but there I go again digressing!)   To look at a couple more examples from this web site, it says 

"Job 38:30 describes ice. Frozen water expands and rises. To sink would kill water life. "  

Now look at what Job 38:30 actually says:

"The waters harden like stone, And the surface of the deep is frozen." 

THAT'S advanced knowledge?  Forgive me if I'm less than impressed.  Looks like nothing more than simple observation to me.  The web site goes on:

"Job 38:31 explains the solar system. The Hebrew speaks of a pivot or hinge."

Now look at Job 38:31:  

"Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?".

I hate to tell this apologist, but the Pleiades and Orion are STARS, and they exist well outside of our solar system! The website goes on: 

"In the South-Southwest is the Pleiades, 7 stars making up the center of the solar system. Amos 5:8 states the Pleiades consists of 7 stars but it was only discovered in this last century because with  the naked eye one can see only 6."  

So is it true that only last century it was discovered that 7 stars make up the Pleiades?  Recently, a 3600 year-old disk was discovered in Germany.  The Nebra Sky Disk is some sort of bronze plate used by the ancients for tracking the heavenly bodies and the predicting the change of seasons and the equinoxes.  On this disk (dating some 300 years BEFORE the time of Moses), the Pleiades is depicted.  Look at this photograph of the disk, where you can very clearly see that SEVEN STARS are shown!  

So I don't intend to rebut every site making these types of claims, but only to show some examples of how dishonest the apologists can be.


POINT/COUNTER-POINT

Essays generally on the subject of science and the Bible.  Consider BOTH sides.  YOU decide:  

Debates

The Bible and Science by Paul H Seely, a liberal Christian who seems to think that the Bible teaches the earth is a flat disc consisting of a single continent floating on a circular sea. 

Does the Bible say the Earth is Flat?  A response to Paul H Seeley by J. P. Holding

What About Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bible? from The Skeptical Review 

Farrell Till and the Bible's Scientific Foreknowledge -- A Reply by Bill Jackson Rebuttal to Till's Scientific Foreknowledge essay (Hmmm, I wonder why he doesn't link to the essay he is rebutting?  In fact he doesn't even reference it at all!)

The Flat-Earth Belief of Bible Writers Adrian Swindler surveys the appropriate Biblical evidence to defend the claim that "the Bible teaches the earth is flat" 

A Reply to the 'Flat Earth Belief of Bible Writers' minister Jerry McDonald responds to Adrian Swindler's flat-earth article

The Flat-Earth: Still an Embarassment to Bible Inerrantists  Adrian Swindler responds back to Jerry McDonald

 

Skeptic (and some Liberal Christian) essays/commentary

Has Science Blunders

Science and the Bible by 2think.org, The Hundredth Sheep" 

Scientific Boo-Boos in the Bible from The Skeptical Review 

Cretinism or Evilution? from Talk Origins.  Good overview of the geocentrism issue.

The Flat-Earth Bible by Robert Schadewald

Tough Questions for the Christian Church by James Buckner, in part deals with the issue, see the section "Conflicts with Science"

The Heavens from "Sunday School With a Twist"

Catholic Encyclopedia entry on "Firmament" Confirmation from the Catholic Church that Biblical passages reflect that the Hebrews thought the sky was an immense dome

Is Heaven the Sky? by Reginald Finley Sr.

Do We Live on a Flat Earth with a Solid Dome Over It? By the Rev. Peter J. Wallace

Bible Biology by Farrell Till

Chew on This... Again! by Jeffrey A. Justice, dealing with the "does the rabbit chew the cud?" issue

Still Chewing: Chasing Rabbits With Dr. Geisler by Jeffrey A. Justice

Genesis, Jacob, and Genetics, the Fallacy from Mike's Page

Biblical Conception of the Universe by Robyn Banks

 

Apologists' essays/ justifications

Doesn't have science blunders

What Shape is the Earth In? An Evaluation of Biblical Cosmology by J. P. Holding

Mr. Green Genes?  Does the Bible Teach Magical Genetics? by James Patrick Holding

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH A FLAT EARTH? No, concludes geocentrincity proponent Gerardus D. Bouw, PHD

Bats aren't birds by Rational Christianity 

Rabbits don't chew the cud by Rational Christianity 

Does the Bible say the Earth is Flat?  by Rational Christianity

DOES THE BIBLE TEACH GEOCENTRICITY? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Trevor Major, M.Sc., M.A., Apologetics Press International

Does the Bible really teach a flat earth? by Answers in Genesis 

Does the Bible say pi equals 3.0? by Answers in Genesis 

Are There Mythological Elements In The Genesis Creation Account? by Net Bible Institute

WHAT WAS THE “FIRMAMENT” OF GENESIS 1?  by Bert Thompson, Ph.D., Apologetics Press International

Are There Mythological Elements In The Genesis Creation Account? from the Blue Letter Bible

 

Apologists' essays/ justifications

Contains Scientific Foreknowledge

Biblical Evidences of Science by Let Us reason

Scientific Accuracies of the Bible by Christian Apologetics & Research Ministries

Science Proves the Bible by Truth for the World

Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bible by the Young Earth Creation Club

Scientific Foreknowledge in the Bible Part I- The blood, Hygiene, and Nutrition and Part II- Hygiene from Central Church of Christ.

The Bible-- Science or Superstition? by Triumph Prophetic Ministries Church of God

Scientific Foreknowledge Chapter Nine and Foreknowledge of Medical Science in the Bible Chapter Ten From "Origin of the Cosmos and The Evidences of God" by Charles Germaine Lockwood

The Food Laws by Christian Churches of God

Accurate Science from "The Bible- God's Message to You"

Science and the Bible from Clarifying Christianity

 

Skeptic (and some liberal Christian) essays/commentary

Doesn't have Scientific Foreknowledge

Do the Bible and Science Agree? by the Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies- a liberal Christian rebuttal to the Henry Morris book entitled The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (1984).

Does the Bible Speak of the Brain? by Ed Babinski

Divine Hygiene? by Farrell Till

Kosher Baloney by Tim Gorski, M. D.- Rebutting the claims that there are valid medical reasons behind the food laws

Bible Biology by Farrell Till

 

Resources/other essays

The Official Geocentricity Website by Gerardus Dingeman Bouw, PHD.  Yes, this professor who holds a B.S. in astrophysics and a Ph.D. in astronomy has concluded that the Bible unmistakably teaches that the earth is the center of the universe, and has devoted this entire website to prove that Geocentricity is valid.

Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies An excellent and comprehensive website from a liberal Christian perspective, dealing with various aspects of Biblical studies with a focus on science, archeology, and evolution/creation. 

The Geocentricity Question by James B. Jordan- A liberal Christian look at the Bible and Science issue

Scientific Foreknowledge and the Bible by Bert Thompson PHD from the Apologetics Press- A somewhat neutral and honest look from an apologetics website rebutting some of the more dishonest claims of scientific foreknowledge, and admonishing Christians not to "employ weak or spurious arguments in our defense of God’s Word".

Christianity and science – are they contradictory? Liberal Christian Lorence G. Collins looks at the Bible and science issue and is apparently accused by fundamentalists of being anti-Christian. 

 

The Qu'ran has amazing scientific foreknowledge too!

The Qu'ran, Knowledge, and Science by A. Abd-Allah

Science in Islam from BECONVINCED.COM

EXPLORING THE SCIENTIFIC MIRACLE OF THE HOLY QUR'AN by Dr Mohammad N. Wagdi, Ph.D.

 

No it doesn't!

The Qu'ran and Science from the Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies

Does the Qur'an Have any scientific Miracles? 10 Top-most Scientific Myths about the Qur'an Part 1 and Part 2 from Freethinkers

In the Name of a Rose by Freethought Mecca, debunking Islamic apologist's claims that science has only recently discovered what the Qur'an claimed 1400 years ago: that when the universe "dies," it will look like a rose in bloom.

 

Reader Essays on the Subject

Submit your own essay! and I'll post it here. Please first see the rules for posting.

Nothing here yet...... C'mon, anyone?

 

 

 

RIC

Home

 

Note: these Bible verses (unless otherwise noted) are from the New American Standard Bible

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

Web Site Hit Counter
Web Site Hit Counters