Science has made great strides in modern times. As a result, old theories have given way to new ones. What was once accepted as fact may now be seen as myth. Science textbooks often need revision.
THE Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say.
Free of unscientific views. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some practices that were ineffective at best, lethal at worst. But not once in its more than 1,100 chapters does the Bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices.
Scientifically sound statements. Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to “the circle [or, sphere] of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern?
Written about 1500 B.C.E., the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.—Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.
Partly as a result of turning powerful telescopes toward the heavens, scientists have concluded that the universe had a sudden “birth.” Not all scientists like the implications of this explanation. One professor noted: “A universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?” Yet, long before telescopes, the very first verse of the Bible plainly stated: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.
Even though it is an ancient book and touches on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies.
Does not such a book merit, at the very least, our consideration?
No comments:
Post a Comment