Scientific Validity of the Bible

What can we deduce logically with regards to how life in general, and man in particular have gotten here? Remember that man has free will and that entails certain ramifications necessary to prevent undue influence of that free will.
If the six days of restoration were literal, then evidence of man would suddenly appear in the fossil record starting in 4004 B.C. Any supernatural creation per se would leave unmistakable evidence of its occurrence, thus interfering with free will. We should expect that God used a “natural,” progressive means of forming man.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two.
Now, in the inspired description or what took place in the beginning, the heaven and earth are not said to have been molded, fashioned, or made out of material, but to have been created (bara). For, whatever may have been the original meaning of the word bara, it seems certain that in this and similar passages it is used for calling into being without the aid of preexisting material. 142
As we have seen, the Scriptural account that God created the heavens out of nothing﷓ that at a certain point time and space began whereas they had previously not existed- has been substantiated by the “big bang” theory, which has been verified by concrete, scientific evidence.
Lastly, the Hebrew verb used in the account of the six days of restoration means to fashion or prepare out of already existing matter. Such a means implies a process, unlike that of Genesis 1:1. Is this process, illustrated in the account of the six days, an evolutionary one?
Perhaps the tale of the Garden of Eden is not mythological in origin; perhaps it is an allegorical rendition of an actual occurrence, a natural, evolutionary phenomenon.145
The biblical authors had of course no formalized notion of evolution. Unmistakably, however, their description is, in its way, an essentially evolutionary development. 146
And Jehovah God formed man of the dust (Hebrew: clay) of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (spirit) of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen. 2:7)
Firstly, God formed the physical body of man from the dust (specifically clay) of the ground. Throughout the Scriptures, the physical body of man is likened to clay, not just the vague dust of the ground, so that we should expect clay to have played an important part in the evolutionary process that culminated in man.
What does the scientific record say?
The evolution of life presents a similar problem, and may have followed the same kind of sequence, beginning with the existence of a suitable crystal, probably a very small one, relatively insoluble in water. A colloidal mineral would be ideal, and none is in fact more common, or better suited to the needs of a primitive gene, or more appropriate in a biblical sense, than clay.149
And the name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Gen. 2:14 NASB)
Probably some lines of … man died out, but it seems likely that a line in the Middle East went on directly to us, Homo sapiens. 162
Again, scientific evidence and Scripture concur!
What is the significance of God breathing into a single man the breath (Hebrew﷓spirit) of life and the consequent result of that man then becoming a living soul?
God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24 NASB)
In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath (spirit) of mankind? (Job 12:10)
But there is a spirit in man, And the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding. (Job 32:8)

  1. According to the scriptures, all living things have a soul, but only man has a spirit.
  2. The Hebrew word translated ‘breath’ may equally be (and is in some other verses) translated as spirit.
    What I am leading up to is this: man the physical creature evolved, and at a certain point in his evolution he was given a spirit directly by and from God with which he could express God and have the likeness of God. Adam was the first man as we his descendants are, being the first creature to reach the stage of evolution at which God gave him a spirit. This also seems confirmed by the thought of other Scripture (l Cor. 15:45, 47): … “The first man Adam became a living soul… The first man is of the earth, earthy:"…
    What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls﷓ what difference is there between man’s soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions).
    Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you ﷓have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153
    The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain﷓to﷓body ratio and a high level of “adaptive capacity” neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.
    It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167
    The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?
    It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man’s intellectual powers gave him a free will.
    This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre﷓Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam’s immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the “first man” of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.
    How did God solve this problem?
    The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X﷓chromosome and the Y-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X﷓chromosome and 1 Y﷓chromosome; normal females have 2 X﷓chromosomes. 178
    And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him… And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21﷓23)
    It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam’s offspring.
    The sixty﷓four dollar question: Who was Cain’s wife?
    It is clear from the order of these verses that Cain’s wife was not a member of his immediate family (which would be a direct violation of the Mosaic laws against incest) ﷓ something that would necessarily be the case if Adam and Eve were the literal, abracadabra style of first man and woman. Who, then, was she?
    Cain’s wife was one of the offspring of Adam’s heterozygous contemporaries.
    If Adam and Eve were in a literal sense the instant (bara) solitary couple who were the progenitors of the human race, then why didn’t God save only Noah and his wife (especially since Noah was the only one of his generation whom God stated that He had found righteous) and start again with just one couple? The answer is that this would provide too small a genetic pool, just as Adam and Eve were not the first man and woman per se but the first man and woman as we their descendants today are: with free will and a human spirit.
    A Message for thr Human Race
If the Bible is the Word of God...
And we know its not. Its a work of a unknown number of scribers who copied, rewrote and "adjusted" parts of this book. Also there is no way for you to KNOW or BELIEVE its like that - because there are suppossedly different books (such as Quran) which are allegedly inspired by God, but you are clearly not taking it seriously, right?

What if God regards the Bible as unscientific and illogical?
Oh yeah, She won’t tell.

When you skeptics witness the following you will not be so self-confident.
Many authors have written books involving the interpretation of prophecy, primarily on the books of Daniel and Revelation. The first thing that must be realized concerning this subject is that the prophetic symbology of Revelation cannot be correctly understood or interpreted by using the analytical ability of the mind. Few of the popular authors in this field have exhibited more than a small amount of spiritual insight, with the result that the fruits of their labor are equally capable of attainment by an unbeliever who, of course, would be incapable of any true spiritual enlightenment.
Also, the popular authors tend to interpret only those portions of Scripture that would appeal to their reading audience and to avoid portions that might be offensive and thus endanger the appeal of their books.
Finally, some authors have deliberately demanded acceptance by their readers of unjustified interpretations of specific verses, even telling their readers that a certain specific word should actually be a different specific word, as a necessity to support erroneous conclusions on their part. Such a demand by them is not interpretation; it is changing the words of the Bible.
No verse of the Bible is subject to private interpretation, i.e., that of interpretation out of context, the Word of God is a whole entity. In this chapter, as in this entire book, what I have to say concerning Scripture and Scriptural matters should be evaluated with the whole Bible as a yardstick, for such is the true determination of accuracy.
So Christ also having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation. (Heb. 9:28)
But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only. (Matt. 24:36)
Anyone who sets a precise date for the ending of this age- regardless of source or reasoning- is wrong!
Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh; even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. (Matt. 24:32﷓34)
It has been realized by students of the Bible for more than a hundred years that the parable of the fig tree meant that Israel would become a nation again.
Israel became a nation again on May 14, 1948.
It is clear from the correlation between these verses that the great earthquake of the sixth seal occurs shortly before the last three and a half years of this age.
Although this earthquake will be of supernatural magnitude, unlike the subsequent calamities of the great Tribulation, it will have natural causes. Can we thus determine approximately when this earthquake is likeliest to occur?
And there shall be signs in sun and moon and stars; …for the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. (Luke 21:25-26)
Notice that Luke 21:25﷓26 is a description of outward signs also occurring at this timeWhat are the only signs in the sun that are visible to the naked eye? Sunspots! The word translated as ‘stars’ in Luke 21:25 may equally be in reference to the planets. Is there a connection between the cause of this great earthquake and these other, simultaneously occurring outward signs?
According to Wood, the next two sunspot cycles will peak in 1982 & 1993…307
Now, to the surprise of many scientists, there has come evidence that the alignments of the planets can, for sound scientific reasons, affect the behavior of the earth. But one of these occasions﷓ an alignment of the planets which occurs only once every 179 years﷓ is due in 1982. … 309
The most likely time for the triggering of the earthquake is the time midway between the spring and fall of 1982. Thus, the focal point of likeliest time is the day of August 5, 1982, midway between spring and fall.
Almost certainly this was the star that the Wise﷓men followed, and it was the tail of Halley’s comet that was used by God to point their way.
The next appearance of Halley’s comet will be in 1986 … it will appear brightest in February of 1986 . . 318
Coincidence or fulfillment of prophecy?
The alignment of the planets converges with a sunspot peak only once every 1,969 years. Due to the mortality of short﷓period comets, this will almost certainly be the only time that such a convergence is followed at the appropriate time by an appearance of Haley’s Comet. In this situation, we have the precise concurrence of a series of events that is unique, with a single event (Israel) that is likewise unique, all of which was prophesied nineteen centuries ago. Mathematically, there is no chance whatsoever that these events are merely coincidental.
…as modern chronologers have demonstrated, that the date of the Christian era, or of the birth of Christ Himself, was moved FOUR YEARS from the true time. …but there seems to be no doubt of the fact, that the birth of the Lord Jesus was made full four years later than the truth. 314
What is the significance of the six days of the restoration and the seventh day of rest spoken of in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2?
The thousand﷓year (to us) period of the millennial kingdom will not only be the wedding day of Christ and His bride but will also be the (seventh) day of rest for God, …the six days of the restoration must also correspond to the period of time from the forming of the spirit in man to the beginning of the millennial kingdom.
Deduction based on various statements in the Bible; however, place the date of creation only a few thousand years in the past. The precise date usually found in the headings of the King James Bible is 4004 B.C., this date having been worked out by the Irish theologian James Ussher (1581﷓1656). 319
…with the Lord one day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day. (2 Peter 3:8)
This date of 4004 B.C. is a date indicated by the Scriptures.
As we have seen previously, Christ was actually born in the year that we record as 4 B.C. Thus, it was four of the Lord’s days (exactly 4,000 of our years) from the indicted date of “creation” to the birth of Christ. Using the same reckoning, the time of the Lord’s return (which will be at the beginning of the seventh day, the millennium) should be the year 1996. If He has not returned by this time, then He has tarried because the bride still hasn’t made herself ready.
I think that the following conclusions are both accurate and appropriate:

  1. Before midnight Israeli time August 4﷓5, 1982 the last 3 1/2 years before the physical return of Christ (the Great Tribulation) could not begin. Now it can begin anytime.
  2. We still see through a glass darkly what the 3 1/2 years before (the first half of the last week of years) that will transpire as.
  3. In His mercy, the Lord has tarried. He probably should have been back no later than 1996.
    A Message for the Human Race

pgardner2358: please do not make multiple identical postings of the same material on this forum since it is against the rules. I have gone ahead and deleted identical postings. Further rule violations may lead to banning. Thanks.

I think that the following conclusions are both accurate and appropriate: 1. Before midnight Israeli time August 4﷓5, 1982 the last 3 1/2 years before the physical return of Christ (the Great Tribulation) could not begin. Now it can begin anytime. 2. We still see through a glass darkly what the 3 1/2 years before (the first half of the last week of years) that will transpire as. 3. In His mercy, the Lord has tarried. He probably should have been back no later than 1996. A Message for the Human Race
Who are you to presume to speak for God Almighty? >:-( What do you know about deep-time? What you got besides words in a so-called "Holy Book" peddled by men with brass balls - intent on power and control? That's not God, that's EGO talking lil buddy ! :long: Have i got a message for you:
Faith-based thinking demands a rejection of serious science along with hostility towards learning from down to Earth evidence. This attitude is enabled and reinforced by a constant flow of contrived high pitched fear-mongering and paranoid machinations towards “the other" be it different people or ideas. Why have we allowed their religion and God a free pass? When these people despise us and want to crush us? Look at what they broadcast, it’s no secret. The powers behind this movement are absolutists, and they do literally want to crush us and the governmental agencies and regulations that strive to protect our health and well-being, and they’re playing for keeps! Why not challenge people to realize no human has ever been born capable of understanding the true “God Almighty of Light and Time, Creation and Love" ? We are ALL self-absorbed with our own day to day struggles to survive and thrive, while all we see and hear and experience gets interpreted though our individual preconceptions, egos, insecurities and desires. How can anyone of us presume to grasp something as aged and all encompassing as God? Remind evangelicals that even their Bible, in the Book of Job spells out that God is beyond human understanding. It makes sense. After all, God’s Universe is over 13 billion years old, our planet Earth is about a 1/3rd of that. Try to imagine the breadth of creation, the infinite folds within folds of cumulative harmonic complexity unfolding one day at a time. That is what God embodies. Can you imagine that? The true God Almighty can only be guessed at. Which is why humans have created countless ingenious religious and philosophical shadow plays, since the dawn of man. Ask yourself and others: How could such an entity be impressed with our petty repetitive, yet ultimately self-serving, worship? Wouldn’t such a God of Creation and Love be paying more attention to how we are nurturing our brothers and sisters along with this Earth we all depend on? There have been way too many decades of placid acquiescence to self-certain fantasy thinking which has allowed these people to completely unhinge themselves for our physical reality here on Earth, the one we depend on for our survival. God and religion may be a human need, but that doesn’t mean we can master it. God belongs inside our hearts and is reflected in our behavior, but instead its been hijacked by greed driven interests who demand denial of geophysical and humanistic realities. Which is okay when confined to the privacy of home and church, but making it the basis for public policy is lunatic. I’m not attacking God, I’m attacking the misuse of God’s name! I’m asking for realistic humility, and a recognition that God is too big for personal relationships with humans who are already totally preoccupied with their own wants and needs during their short walk across Earth’s stage. Then comes Jesus. Why not put Jesus and his story into a more realistic light? The Passion of Jesus, is beautiful, meaningful, and an endlessly useful parable for countless people. But, he is not the ticket to an idyllic after-life. Jesus is a guide for this life. To help us through our own times of trials and tribulations here on Earth, during our lives. Consider that in the course of many lives comes a time we must face our own mortal sins and failures. Doing so successfully requires going through stages of personal crisis, reflection, pain and transformation that Jesus outlined for us and that his teachings and love can guide many through. The process culminates with an annihilation of the self, a death on a cross of our own making. Time passes, if one has been honest there is a morning after, as we awake renewed. Different, better than before, ready to continue living with a transformed appreciation and perspective, a reborn spirit. But, it’s not only our self-created crosses that Jesus speaks to. Sometimes life deals out sudden overwhelming losses, Jesus can be there to comfort, guide and support some through the loss and darkness and back to another day and the sunlight. All this is beautiful and necessary and this is what has given Christianity it’s staying power, Jesus as hope in suffering and an example to live by. As for Jesus as the one and only way to Heaven, that’s the stuff of fairytales and con-men seeking control over others. Think about it in some depth. What are we but a union between body and spirit? Without your body, healthy or frail, liked or hated, who are you, what are you? What can be experienced once we die and our bodies fall away? The spirit and energy our bodily vessel held and nurtured through a lifetime, of growing and experiencing is released and absorbed by the living world you’ve just departed. There’s much beauty and peace to be found in that reality, but it takes deep understanding of Earth and time. It can seem harsh,though from my personal experience I know truly substantive spiritual strength comes through deeper appreciation of Earth’s Evolution and its intimate connection with who and what I am. This is what provides me with a spiritual foundation and peace of mind in the face of death, that no preacher or Bible or words can come close to matching. Today avaricious pick-pocket evangelical personalities,have turned Christianity away from such purity and morphed it into a powerful business/political weapon of brainwashing and mind control for acquiring unheard of power and profits, tax free.
When you skeptics witness the following you will not be so self-confident.
Well, you based your first post on "if" proposition about contents of a book. 1. We know that books are made by humans. It requires language, then it requires a writing system, later it requires printing. We dont know how language came around, but we know that writing systems are man-made, and we even know who and when created printing press. 2. Could be someone inspired by God? I cannot know that. But since books are made by mere humans... I am exact opposite of self-confidence, because I make only those statements which I know are true and can be proven. It needs a lot more self-confidence to make claims based on "what if"...
It needs a lot more self-confidence to make claims based on "what if"...
I'd suggest it's something other than self-confidence, hubris comes to mind.

The OP is probably just another public posterbator getting his or her rocks off for jesus. I’m pretty sure jesus would be ashamed.

Don’t forget to explain how God created Eve from Adam’s rib

How one “scientifically validate” a piece of literature that contains no science in it to begin with?

Genesis 1:1–2 can be translated into English in at least three ways:

As a statement that the cosmos had an absolute beginning (In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth).

As a statement describing the condition of the world when God began creating (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was untamed and shapeless).

Taking all of Genesis 1:2 as background information (When in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, the earth being untamed and shapeless, God said, Let there be light!).[3] (WIKI)

That’s not science.

Science would look a little more like this:

Pope Francis’s comments on the Big Bang are not revolutionary.
Catholic teaching has long professed the likelihood of human evolution
Patrick Cusworth 31 October, 2014

Perhaps it was inevitable that Pope Francis’ comments on the Church’s
position on scientific theories such as the Big Bang and evolution would
cause a stir. In his address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
the Pope cautioned against the image of God the creator as “a magician,
with a magic wand”, arguing that belief in both theories around the beginnings
of the universe and the birth of humankind are consistent with the Catholic faith.
“The Big Bang, which is today posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict
t the divine act of creation; rather, it requires it”, he stated. Similarly, he argued,
“evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because
evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which evolve.”

socrat44: "Similarly, he argued, “evolution of nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation because evolution pre-supposes the creation of beings which evolve.”"
No. It does not.
  • Evolution needs three basic things:
    • a process by which things reproduce and pass on similar traits to their descendants,
    • inherited variations amongst the members of the population, and
    • selective forces (something in the environment that makes some variations found in the population more likely have more offspring.
Here's a blurb about molecular precursors to living things from
"Self-replication opened the door for natural selection. Once a self-replicating molecule formed, some variants of these early replicators would have done a better job of copying themselves than others, producing more "offspring." These super-replicators would have become more common — that is, until one of them was accidentally built in a way that allowed it to be a super-super-replicator — and then, that variant would take over. Through this process of continuous natural selection, small changes in replicating molecules eventually accumulated until a stable, efficient replicating system evolved. "
[If you have a few minutes (or a few weeks), I'd suggest checking that web site out- it's a one-stop-shop for your biological science needs. That's the kind of place I can happily get lost in for hours.]

Making the mistake of assuming life has to be created, is cured by learning what scientists have to say. Popes don’t get their ideas on biology cited in many scientific journals, but actual scientists do all the time.

that is Pope Francis’ comments on the Church’s position on scientific theories.
All accusations to the Pope

He also said that capitalism was the shit of the devil

Sounds about right, Player.