I've met a few people who have come across certain Biblical passages that appear to contradict modern science. I'm not talking about Biblical miracles, but passages which seem to disagree with scientific knowledge of the day.

On the other hand, if you know passages that state scientific fact as know today, which the Bible presents ahead of established scientific knowledge of the day, I'd like to hear that too.

do you have any specific passages in mind?

The Field of Medicine

1)The correlation between the mind and body for example.

Proverbs 17:22 (New International Version)
A cheerful heart is good medicine,
but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.

The psychosomatic principles have just recently been recognized by modern medicine, yet here King Solomon makes note of it almost 3,000 years before Ziggy (Sigmund Freud) and 5 centuries before "Father of Medicine" himself.



2) Quarantine

Persons suspected of having a communicable disease was quarantined, or separated and kept away from the rest of the population. Leviticus Ch. 13 and 14:38-39 deals with Leprosy, Numbers 19:11-13 deals with the touching of a copse.

Modern Medicine credits the Hebrews as the first to use implore this method of disease control.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1rCt7IABs...5GleSEbM_IT-7hU
----------------------- As I've said before... the Bible is not a scientific or medical book, yet whenever it touches these subjects, it is ALWAYS correct.

Still no takers... alright. Here's a couple more.

Writing of the Bible began with Moses in the 16th century B.C.E. and the last book was finished just shortly before the end of the first century C.E. Writing when the Egyptians were at the peak of their power, Moses mentions NONE of their erroneous scientific views. Assyria, Babylon, the Meede's and Persians, Greece and Roma all had their dynasties and sometimes conquered the Israelites, yet never did these religious an political entities influence any of their erroneous views on science to penetrate the pages of the Bible. That's one line of reasoning no one has ever been able to dispute.

Names and Titles used in the Bible

Many non Israelite rulers or officials of other governments are named in the Bible. Yet the Bible NEVER uses an erroneous title. Granted, many of those mentioned have not been identified outside the Bible, yet when archeology finds reference to people mentioned in the Bible. Their Titles are always accurate.

Just recently some of Jeremiah's contemporaries were named on artifacts found in a Jerusalem archaeological dig.(New York Times Article)

The Water Cycle

Ecclesiastes 1:7, The New English Bible.
“All streams run into the sea, yet the sea never overflows; back to the place from which the streams ran they return to run again.”

And one of my favorite passages

Isaiah 55:10 (New International Version)
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,

Both these verses show an insight that only modern science has fully understood.

Let there be light



It only says that they were created "together" is if you add the word "together" to that verser. What is actually says is that... when considering the CHRONOLOGICAL order of how life came to exist on earth, God created "HEAVEN AND EARTH" before he began preparing the earth for human habitation. In Gen 1:1, there is nothing to indicate a time for the creation of the earth or heaven in relation to each other, only in relation to "heaven and earth" in relation to "the preparation of the earth for inhabitation by humans"

Let there be light



Yes, I will deny that Genesis 1:3 says anything about Sun and Stars. It says "light" but speaks nothing of "luminaries".

Vs. 3 says that from an earthly observers point of view, light began to penetrate to the surface of the earth, it doesn't say you could see the luminaries themselves. That didn't happen until the Fourth Day, because in the Third Day, the plants were created, they began using the Carbon Dioxide that was in the air and began converting it into Oxygen (which would be needed for the animal live to be created next).

The plant life sets up the FIRST reference to SUN AND STARS in vs. 14 - 18. As the atmosphere becomes clear as a result of the activity of Day Three, stars become visible, the SOURCES of light become visible. Not that they are created but that they become visible from the earth for the first time during the Fourth Day not the First Day!

For anyone who is interested, the Hebrew word used in vs 3 is "ohr" (owr) which refers to light in a general sense or light diffused. In vs. 16 the word is "ma'ohr" (ma'owr) which means "luminaries" in reference to something "affording light". (Rotherham's Emphasised Bible as well as W.Watts A Distinctive Translation of Genesis show the details here that help get the full meaning of this account.)

This post has been edited by CrazyDwarf: Oct 17 2007, 01:00 AM

If one were to do a comparative study of advances in medicine and disease prevention/control, I don't doubt that other cultures (such as the Chinese, for instance) made the same discoveries, although the time-line may not be the same, independently. It may be written about in the bible, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the advance were made only by those people that that particular book is concerned with. Such advances may have come to the Middle East, since the more evidence that is uncovered by researchers, the more that evidence points to the very beginnings of human civilization being in an area that covers parts of what are now India and Pakistan. We'll probably never know exactly where and when homo sapiens evolved, but we may be able to find out where he first started civilization. And it's beginning to look like it was much farther east than has been supposed 'til now. And the rough trek across uninviting land to Mesopotamia could account for the tale of a fort year journey across a desert. Deserts don't necessarily have to be hot and sandy. Granite and scrub brush isn't all that great, either.

I'm not saying it was recorded in the Bible first (though that source I referenced about Quarantine credits the Hebrews with the first ones to use it), I'm just saying that whenever the Bible writers recorded something that touches on science, it's always right. Might be simplified, or described in very basic terms, but correct and scientifically accurate none the less.

"I'm just saying that whenever the Bible writers recorded something that touches on science, it's always right. Might be simplified, or described in very basic terms, but correct and scientifically accurate none the less."

Much the same could be said for many other ancient texts. Democritus, as I remember, propounded the atomic theory.
Again, folk wisdom accumulated and tested through the centuries, is often consonant with modern scientific theories granted some generous interpretations of the originals, since both successfully interpret the same nature. Yet modern medicine makes leper colonies unneeded, and one would not go to the Bible to find a cure for polio.

And one is reminded that for many years, the existence of Troy was disputed by modern historians, until it was discovered by following the information provided by Homer. Yet one would not spend one's life searching for the remains of Circe or the Cyclops.

Z

All they had to do was ask me. I was brought up in and now live in Troy.

That explains why Michigan (?) has a lot of horses.
Z

Troy, New Hampshire

Guessed wrong.
Z

Well, one you'd heard of. The other is 95% forest, and the wildlife far outnumbers the human population.

Troy, NH, is my hometown. Didn't I mention that I grew up in the woods? Thought I had.

For the most part, I think you could be right, CrazyDwarf - health/science in the Bible seems to be pretty accurate, although I believe too it was China that got a literally head start on much of what we use today.

There is one area where the Bible seems to be a tad 'off' though ... women and the impression of 'uncleanliness' during certain times and following childbirth. (And although it's a tad 'off topic' here perhaps, isn't it odd that it says to avoid a woman far longer after she's given birth to a girl than to a boy).

Without mincing words here...

I find it "humorous" (not "haha" funny just odd and on the funny side of odd) that a woman would find a God given command to a husband to be mindful of his wife, and that he was not to have sexual relations with her during this time as 'a tad "off" '.

As a woman, do you find yourself at the best time of the month when menstruating. Do you have more energy or less. Is your sex drive on overdrive (as it was the week prior to the menstruation) or would "look at me and I'll kill you with my pinky" more accurately reflect your feeling of how sexy feel at that time.

The ability of a woman to bear children, in God's eyes anyways is a sacred thing, not to be mocked, abused of taken lightly, yet on the other hand, husbands were clearly told that they needed to respect their wife's cycles.

Interestingly enough both she AND her husband were considered unclean until the evening if they had sexual relations together. And the woman was unclean for seven days when her menstrual cycle began. If it began while engaging in intercourse with her husband the HE was unclean for 7 days just like her.(Leviticus 15:24)

Some wonder why a married couple would be considered unclean when in the beginning God had commanded them to have children and fill the whole earth. God's view on life is that it's precious. When Adam and Eve were given that command, they were perfect but buy the time the Mosaic law was written, all men were sinners. Because Adam and Eve threw away the opportunity to have perfect children, they were passing on sin and death to each child conceived after their rebellion from God. This uncleanness on the part of potential parents showed that it was not possible for humans to use their procreative powers to produce a perfect human. Any child conceived even by the most Godly of human couples, would produce sinful offspring. Declaring them unclean was a reminder for the couple of their shortcomings toward God in this way.

7 days vs. 14 days
When it comes to the difference between the length of time a woman was considered unclean after birthing a boy (7 days + 33 not permitted in temple) and a girls (14 days + 66 days not permitted in temple) the answer is simple, though many don't like it (Leviticus 12:1-8). It goes back to the headship principle. The difference is a reminder of a woman's subordinate position. Though it must be noted that when this period of uncleanness is over, the sacrifice that was to be offered after giving birth was the same weather it was a boy or girl (vs. 7).