What findings of science contradict the Bible?

I may not be popular with my belief, but I am not alone in it. I think that science and religion can coexist.



It has been claimed that the findings of science contradict the Bible. Which findings are those specifically?What findings of science contradict the Bible?
I agree and feel that science only confirms and helps us to understand what God has done as long as the quest of science is to search for the truth and not prove some hidden agenda.
Virgin birth seems to be a problem area. Evolution places many animals' and human's origin in doubt, and is a likely contradiction. Noah's Ark seems to be a great scientific challenge, and the gathering of animals is seen as nearly impossible. I don't think that science likes the total flood either, with the extinction of most of the Earth's population. Most people don't think that water can be changed to wine, and then in the end, resurrection is not approved of or denied by science, per se.What findings of science contradict the Bible?
It depends heavily on how you read the bible. Potentially there could be no contradictions, or the other extreme would be every conceivable contradiction. One scientist said something like the universe is a 3D object, and to be viewed correctly it must be looked at through the windows of both science and religion.



www.godandscience.org



Check out that site, they have a ton of articles and papers (with cited sources) about exactly what your asking. The goal of the site is to reconcile religion and science, and IMO it is very well done.What findings of science contradict the Bible?
That will entirely depend on interpretation of the Bible, and different Christians have different ideas about that nowadays as well as through history.



Notable is the original regarding of mathematics and trigonmetry as 'magic' or 'witchcraft', resulting in the murder of the pagan scientist and philosopher Hypatia of Alexadria, credited with inventing the astrolabe, heralding the Dark Ages. Galileo was tried for heresy for showing that the Biblical claim of geocentrism was wrong, by providing evidence of Jupiter's moons.



More recently there is much opposition to the evolution of species, quantum physics (uncaused events, formation of matter from nothing), and stem cell research is often opposed. Creationists oppose aspects of geology and palaeontology (e.g dinosaurs), astrophysics (speed of light, age of universe), and a plethora of other aspects of science.



So, it depends who you ask...
I don't think there is anything in the finding of science that would contradict the Bible, the Bible shows the order of things, and anytime a discovery is made, one can go to the Bible and see why things are they way they are.



The only thing that contradicts the Bible is when man comes up with his own "why" and "how" such things work.
The exodus of Moses and Jews from Egypt. Recent discoveries show that the pyramid builders weren't slaves and the location of the parting of the sea, while the event is possible, is debatable.
Much of that has to do with the Old Testament, the process of fossilization takes millions of years (or we could duplicate it) yet the Bible says the world was created in seven days. Also if it was created just thousands of years ago we would not be able to see the most distant stars and galaxies as the light takes millions of years to travel to us and in fact many of the stars we see at night are probably already extinct. As far as the New Testament the whole thing with the Resurrection can't be reconciled scientifically, not saying it didn't happen, but it is again something only a non-scientific source could produce. We can revive people who have been dead for up to perhaps five minutes, but not three days.
Well - I noticed no legitimate claims in the existing answers (though some I "downed" for errors before completely reading)



It's reasonable to claim that the creation of plants - presumably all plants, including flowering plants - before any animals is contrary to well-accepted scientific theory. The Bible teaches us that plants (including trees) were created before the first animals (Genesis 1). Science, of course, has not *proved* that such plants did not exist prior to the first animals - but the evidence is pretty persuasive. The only solution (for Bible-believers such as myself) is to say that it has not been proved and to present reasonable alternatives (such as scientifically rational possibilities based on the theory of panspermia: e.g. perhaps the first trees did not evolve on Earth, but instead evolved long ago on another planet and the most simple plant life from that planet is the source of plant life on Earth. In such a hypothesis, trees did, indeed, exist before animals.)



It's also reasonable to claim that the Earth was formed after the Sun (though there is most definitely room for scientific dispute regarding that theory). Eg.: it's possible that the Sun did not exist in its current form (emitting visible radiation) until after the Earth was formed. See above for one of many reasonable explanations for plants existing before the formation of the Sun.



English Bibles (not the original Hebrew texts!) classify bats as a type of bird. It is irrelevant if the Hebrews thought of bats as birds - the translation is into English, not into Hebrew, and in English bats are never considered birds. A more precise translation of the Hebrew into English would be "flight-capable animals" (instead of "birds") - but such technical jargon will never be employed in any English translation of the Bible. Therefore, English Bibles contain a scientific error in that passage.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea鈥?/a>



Many claim in the same chapter that the mention of insects that walk on four limbs is a scientific error - but, of course, it is not, as there are very many variety of insects that do walk (frequently) on 4 limbs rather than on all 6, and even the ones that walk only on all 6 are undeniably walking on 4. This is the most common type of pseudo-error claimed for the Bible by those either not educated in science or not willing to employ logic (rational thinking).



Like the "bat" thing, English translations citing rabbits as animals that chew cud is scientifically inaccurate. The Hebrew word translated into English as "cud" has a much more inclusive - and technical - meaning that is addressed here:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/04102.htm





That's it, as far as I know. In my experience most people who claim scientific error in the Bible are inaccurate in their claims but are so emotionally attached to the idea that they refuse to admit that they are wrong. Such people almost always lack - or more likely refuse to employ! - the necessary reasoning skills to accept that they are mistaken. The same can be said for those who insist that there are no scientific errors in the Bible - though in fact they are very few, and the disagreement is only with well-accepted scientific theory or only found in translation.



Jim, http://www.bible-reviews.com/
there are Non that I know of...only theories and opinion...actually science has Proved the History of the Bible..locations, events and time lines...even the solar system and the dates of the events in the Solar system were proven.



http://www.bethlehemstar.net/



you can watch the whole series on you tube..."the star of bethlehem"
Well the bible said that the earth was around 6000 years old, and the fact that the earth was made exactly the way it is now (people made at the start)
Unfortunately, the bible doesn't match up with reality.

As we saw from the past, religions will all turn to mythological legends.
The classic example is the great flood.

Very simple geology (looking at sediment stratification) by itself shows the story to be bogus.
Dinosaur extinction is blamed on the discovery that dinosaurs turned homosexual. The Bible agrees.
Evolution.



There are many, take your pick.
i also think they can coexist

the bible just doesn't explain it the way science does
Well, the finding of science about the cosmos contradict the biblical view of the cosmos.



Let's see. According to Ecclesiastes 1:5 the sun actually goes around the earth--as, of course, it must, since, according to Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and 1 Chr 16:30, the earth does not move. And the earth cannot move because, according to 1 Samuel 2:8 and Ps 75:3, it is placed on pillars. And because it is placed on pillars, it has an underside and an upper side, as confirmed by Isaiah 40:22 which indicates that the earth is a flat disk.



(If earth were a sphere it would not have an under side and an upper side. The Hebrew word translated as "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg, which means "circle" not "sphere." Strong's Concordance: "circle"..."describe a circle." Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: "Circle...the earth conceived as a disc, Is 40:22." Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: "draw round, make a circle." If a sphere were meant, the Hebrew word duwr would have been used.)



Since the biblical earth is flat, it has an underside and under the earth is the abyss, which is referred to several times in the Bible. That is also what is being referred to in Job 26:7 when it says that the earth hangs over nothing. Job 26:7 implies that the earth has an upper side and an underside, which the actual earth does not have. (The original Hebrew word translated as "upon" in that passage in the KJV also means "over.") The actual sphere of the earth in space is not "suspended' or "hanging" "over" or "upon" nothing. It is orbiting the sun at 66,700 miles per hour.



There are several other verses in the Bible indicating the earth is flat. Nebuchadnezzar's vision in Dan 4:10-11 clearly indicates the earth is flat (if it were not flat the tree could not be seen from all the earth), and Dan 2:28 states that the visions of Nebuchadnezzar are from God. If the biblical god says the biblical earth is flat, it must be flat.



The original Hebrew word translated as firmament is raqiya. That is a noun derived from the Hebrew word raqa, which is a verb meaning "to beat out." That term is used in the bible in reference to beating out metal into plates or expanses of the metal (as in Exodus 39:3). So raqiya, as a noun, would literally mean "that which is beaten out."



The idea is that the firmament, or sky, is a solid, beaten out expanse or vault set on the rim of the flat disk of the earth. The firmament holds back the waters that are above the firmament, as stated in Genesis. If the firmament were not solid, it could not hold back the waters.



This understanding is confirmed in Job 37:18, which states:



"Can you beat out the vault of the skies as he does,

hard as a mirror of cast metal?" (New English Bible. .)



There, the Hebrew word translated as "beat out" (or "spread out" in other versions) is, as noted above, raqa.



The idea that the vault of heaven is resting on the rim of the flat disk of the earth is implied in verses such as Deut 4:32 (the "ends of heaven" would be the base of the vault of heaven where it rests on the rim of the disk of the earth):



"Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?"



Also, the stars in the biblical cosmos are just lights set in the firmament. As mere lights in the sky, they will fall to the earth in the Last Days (Matt 24:29), something that is ridiculous considering the actual stars are other suns and many times larger than the earth.



Some might say that the language of such things is just poetic allusion. If that is so, how does one determine what is allusion and what is not? Even if it is poetry, that does not mean that it cannot reflect what the writers of the Bible actually believed. And if the Bible is the word of god and god does not lie, would he make statements that are not factual even if they are in the form of poetry?



That this is the correct view of the biblical cosmos is shown by the fact that it describes a structure with parts that are fully consistent with each other. It is not a mish-mash of parts that do not structurally relate to each other. Even though it was constructed from numerous different passages in the Bible, that structural consistency indicates that it accurately represents the cosmos as conceived by the ancient Hebrews and as its writers incorporated that view in the Bible. Therefore, it accurately represents the biblical cosmos even though that cosmos is nothing like the cosmos that we know.



So, if one fully accepts the modern, present-day view of the cosmos as factual, then one would have to conclude that the Bible is not the word of god.



Added:



And don't forget. Bible believers burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for saying in contradiction to the Bible that the earth moves, and they would have done the same to Galileo if he had not recanted.



Added:



And here's another. This is a quote by Jesus in Matthew 24:31 to go along with the one from Matthew 24:29, referred to above:



"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."



The elect are those on the earth who will be saved in the last days. Jesus is saying there that the angels would gather the elect from all over the earth, from one end of heaven to the other.



That conforms to the idea that the solid vault of heaven is resting on the disk of the flat earth (which I described above). The idea of the passage in Matthew 24:31 is that the elect would be gathered from the whole earth, all the way from where the vault of the heaven rests on one end of the earth at the east to the other end of the vault of heaven where it rests on the other side of the flat earth at the west, and likewise from the north to the south.