Science And The Bible

The conflict between science and the Bible has been bitter, especially in the last 150 years. Most reasons for this hostility relate to what one perceives to be the nature and procedure of either domain. For many, the alleged conflict is resolved by separating the two spheres entirely. This is sometimes done by limiting the role of religion or the Bible to matters of faith and science to matters of fact. Specifically, some Christians in science argue that the Bible tells us “Who and Why” (God), and science deals with “How.”
However, this neat separation of the domains of science and the Bible is unsatisfactory since the Bible does not so limit itself to questions of Who and Why. It often makes assertions of fact about the scientific world. Neither does science limit itself merely to questions of How. It also deals with origins.
From a Christian perspective the relation between the Bible and Nature is the relation between two revelations of God, special revelation and general revelation. The first is found in God’s revelation in Scripture and the latter in his revelation in Nature. Between these two, when properly understood, there are no conflicts, since God is the Author of both, and he cannot contradict himself.
However, since scientific understanding is merely a fallible human understanding of Nature and since Bible scholars have only a fallible interpretation of infallible Scripture, it is understandable that there will be contradictions in these areas. The situation can be diagrammed as follows:

1. Scripture----no conflict

2. Theology----some conflict

Biblical theology involves human understanding of the biblical text. As such, it is subject to misunderstanding and error. Likewise, science is fallible human attempts at understanding the universe. So conflict is inevitable. For example, most scientists believe the universe is billions of years old. Some Bible scholars hold that it is only thousands of years old. Obviously, both cannot be right.
Principles of Reconciliation
Before areas of specific conflicts are noticed, several guidelines are useful to the nature and procedure of both disciplines.
Either Group Is Subject to Error
Informed persons from both sides, both Bible interpreters and scientists, have made mistakes. Many Bible scholars once believed the sun revolved around the earth (as did many scientists); some believed the earth to be square. But they were wrong. Likewise, the model of an eternal cosmos has been discarded in favor of the big bang model. Evolutionary theories about inheriting acquired characteristics have been overthrown.
Either Group Is Subject to Correction
Another important principle is that both areas are subject to correction by the other. For example, scientific fact has refuted the flat-earth theory. Hence, any interpretation that takes verses about the “four corners of the earth” as literal depictions of geography are wrong. Science has proven them wrong.
Likewise, scientists who insist that the universe is eternal hold a theory that has been proven false, both by science and in critiques by Christians.
Not all conflicts are so easily resolved
Very few things are proven with certainty in science. Some things are only probable or highly probable. For example, that the earth moves around the sun is not absolutely proven. This theory fits the facts as they are known and is a highly probable scientific interpretation of Nature that conflicts with a disputable interpretation of Scripture, then we should assume the latter is wrong. And vice versa. For example, macro-evolution is disputable and the creation of the universe, first life, and new life forms is highly probable. Hence, creation should be accepted as true and macro-evolution rejected.
The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook
One principle that some overzealous Christian apologists sometimes forget is that, while the Bible makes no scientific mistakes, neither is it a science textbook. It does not speak in technical scientific terms nor with precision. It uses round numbers. It employs observational, rather than astronomical, language. The Bible only affirms partial truths in the various areas of science. It does not teach much geometry, any algebra, or trigonometry. One cannot assume conflicts without taking these factors into consideration.
Science Is Constantly Changing
Science understandings change continually. That means an apologist of years ago who succeeded in reconciling the Bible to some view of science might have been absolutely wrong since there wasn’t a real conflict to reconcile. Perfect conformity may be wrong today as well, since science may change tomorrow. Given that science is a tentative and progressive discipline, never reaching a final conclusion on everything, it behooves us not to assume that there are scientific errors in the Bible unless:

1. Something is known for certain to be a scientific fact, and

2. It conflicts with an interpretation of Scripture that is beyond all doubt.

For example, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the Bible teaches that a theistic God exists. Hence, one would have to prove that it was a scientific fact beyond all uncertainty that God did not exist in order to show a real conflict. It is unlikely that real conflicts between science and the Bible will ever be demonstrated. Some apparent conflicts deserve note, along with some probable and even highly probable views of modern science that find an amazing parallel in the Bible. It is to these that we first turn.
Bible and Science Converge
Given that not much scientific information was known in Bible times, the Bible speaks with considerable scientific credibility, an evidence of its supernatural nature.
Origins, Universe had a beginning
The very first verse of the Bible proclaims that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” It was common in ancient views to consider the universe eternal, yet the Bible taught that it had a beginning. This is precisely what most scientists now believe in accepting the Big Bang theory. Agnostic astrophysicist Robert Jastrow wrote that “three lines of evidence—the motions of the galaxies, the laws of thermodynamics, and the life story of the stars—pointed to one conclusion: All indicated that the Universe had a beginning” (God and the Astronomers, 111).
Order of events
Genesis 1 also indicates a progressive creation, universe, followed by formless earth, followed by what happened to give form to the earth. This is a much more scientifically sophisticated conception than held by the common ancient creation story. The Bible affirms that God said in the beginning, “Let there be light. And there was light” (Gen. 1:3). Jastrow wrote of the parallel of this statement with modern science, “the details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commence suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy” (ibid., 14).
No new matter is being created
The Bible declared from the beginning that creation is complete. God rested from his work (Gen. 2:2) and is still at rest (Heb. 4:4f.). In short, no new matter (energy) is coming into existence. This is precisely what the First Law of Thermodynamics declares, namely, that the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.
Universe is running down
According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of useable energy. It is literally growing old. This is precisely what the Psalmist said: “In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded” (Ps. 102:25–27).
Genesis declares that life first appeared in the sea (Gen. 1:21), and only later on land (1:26–27). This accords with the view that multicellular life teamed in the Cambrian waters before it multiplied on land.
Life produces after its kind. In Genesis 1:24 God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” According to agnostic paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, “Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless” (Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” 13–14). In that fossil record, as in Genesis, human beings were the last to appear.
Humans made from the earth
Unlike ancient myths or the Qur’an, which claims that humans were made from a “clot of congealed blood” (see Sura 23:14), the Bible states that “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). Further, it adds, “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return” (Gen. 3:19). According to science, the constituent elements of the human body are the same as those found in the earth.
Earth Sciences
Water returns to its source. Scripture affirms that “All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again” (Eccles. 1:7; cf. Job 37:16). While the author may not have been aware of the exact process of evaporation, condensation, and precipitation, his description is in perfect harmony with these processes.
The earth is round
Isaiah spoke of God who “sits enthroned above the circle of the earth” (40:22). This is a remarkably accurate description for an eighth-century b.c. prophet (see Isaiah, Deuteronomy). And Solomon had given the same truth in the tenth-century b.c. (Prov. 8:27).
The earth hangs in space
In an era when it was common to believe the sky was a solid dome, the Bible accurately speaks of God spreading out the northern skies over empty space and suspending the earth over nothing (Job 26:7).
The Bible is not only compatible with true scientific findings, but it anticipated many of them. Scientific knowledge is compatible with the truths of Scripture.
Other scientific findings
Many other things discovered by modern science were stated in the Bible hundreds and even thousands of years in advance. These include the fact that: (1) the sea has paths and channels (2 Sam. 22:16; Ps. 8:8; Prov. 8:28); (2) the sea has boundaries (Prov. 8:29); (3) life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11); (4) disease can be spread by physical contact (Lev. 13).
Geisler, N. L. 1999. Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics. Baker reference library . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.

Hats off to you for trying irish , but the bible and science are not even in the same league IMO.


the facts (observable) the bible has been unable to accomplish such simple things as getting along, its had 2000 plus years to accomplish this, Take parenting children it says spare the rod spoil the child, Physcology has come to different conclusions yet religon denys this and keeps with concepts that are not only ineffective but outdated.

what about quantum phyisics, botany, quantum mechanics, ecology. evolution, conciousness, biology etc etc how about resoving conflict, compassion, emphathy, leadership what is actually means. unconditonal love, the bible speaks of conditonal love and fear, Death, the tools of creation how that happens alternate realities objective reality etc etc... the bible is in denial that death actually happens to your organism...irish it pales in comparison to religion, how about ahimsa the life lived in non violence, caring for the human body to achive maximum potetnial. what about relationship skills , the yin yang energy.....REligion is based on awareness that is infantile in its understandings claiming to be somehting its not beleiving in things that don't exist...Certainly each life is about discerning fact from fiction( each has to do that for themselves) and this is not a call to follow my truth, but as a guide its very flawed for my tastes, but by all means if it works for you great.......

You got that right

Here are a few famous scientists that would disagree with you Sheri.

Great Christian Scientists That Believed In The Bible


To many scientists have accepted the theory of evolution, which is in direct conflict with the Bible. They began to teach that science and faith were incompatible, and the many people today have been told that lie for so long, they don't consider it open to question anymore. What too many people today don't realize is that science was given to us by Christians. Here are a few of those Christian Scientist:

Sir Frances Bacon:
One of the greatest scientist in history, he was also Lord Chancellor of England and the one founder of the formation of the scientist, which stressed the experimentation and induction rather than philosophical deduction. Founder of the Royal Society of London and did great work in a variety of scientist fields. In addition he was a man of great faith in the living God and His Word. Beliefs of study included two primary areas: The Scriptures, which reveal the will of God and His Creatures, which express His Power.

Johannes Kepler:
Founder of the Physical Astronomy, built the on the foundations of Copernicus and Tycho Brahe and conclusively demonstrated the heliocentricity of the solar system. He was the first to state what was to become the motto of many scientist- that he was merely "thinking God's thoughts after Him." He was a earnest Christian who study two years in seminary and believed that astronomers are actually "priests to the highest God."

Robert Boyle:
Considered by some to be the greatest scientist of his generation. Known as the Father of Modern Chemistry, he was also one of the fathers of the Royal Society of London and a great contributor to chemistry and physics. But he was also a humble and witnessing Christian, as well as a diligent students and believer in the Bible. He wrote a number of apologetics and left money to establish the Boyle Lectures for the Proving of Christianity.

Nicolaus Steno:
Known as the father of Stratigraphy, which is the study of the strata of the earth. He believed that is clearly demonstrated the creation of God. He wrote numerous theological works and eventually became a bishop.

Sir Issac Newton:
Known to many as the greatest scientist who ever lived. He discovered the law of Universal Gravitation, formulated the 3 Laws of Motion, developed the particle theory of light, and constructed the first reflecting telescope. He was a genuine believer as Christ as his Savior and the Bible as God's living Word. He wrote many books on biblical subjects and the strong papers refuting atheism and defending creationism and the Bible.

Carolus Linnaeus:
Known as the Father of Biological Taxonomy, which systematized the naming of living things. He was a believer of the Scriptures and in Creation.

Samuel F.D. Morse:
Known as the inventor of the telegraph. He declares his faith by the first words after sent over that system: "What have God Wrought". (Numbers 23:23) He declared that his whole desire in life was to honor the Lord in all things.

James Simpson:
Known as the founder of gynecology and modern anesthesiology. He was motivated by a desire to discover how God put Adam in a deep sleep to perform ribectomy.

Louis Pasteur:
Known as the founder for the germ theory of disease. He developed vaccines to counteract great plagues and the process of pasteurization, which bares his name. He was opposed to spontaneous evolutionists who often ridiculed him. Through care research he destroyed their theory.

Henry Margenau:
Known as the former editor of the American Journal to Science. He was a professor of psychics for 40 years at Harvard, received 8 doctorate degrees, and was a visiting profession at 12 universities. When asked why there is such hostility to religion, he replied that it was common among scientists with a mild training In the field, such as high school teachers, those who have made major contributions are, in reality, religious in their beliefs.
(Dr. D. James Kennedy, Great Scientists And The Bible)

There are scientists and religious scientists..but both are different

How is that Beckys Mom? Their qualifications as men of science is well documented as well as their belief in God.

your thread is that religion and science are both equally great guides for undersatnding life correct???? did I miss something????? I have kown some awesome people that are into religion the point I thought was you are professing that religion and science are the same thing of equal merit and value... or are you just looking to preach Irish, I was exposed to catholic in my childhood so how does that fit into your topic???????I would imagine at a certain point in history everyone was 'religious ' whether they wanted to be or not.....Anyways whats the point...Religon hasn't changed one single idea since its conception , science is progressive it adjusts revises based on the evidence at hand.wheres your list of the great minds that outgrew religion Irish??????

Hmmmm ok then Irish..you have a point..

I've read this kind of argument before. Anywhere from the bible and; math, science, history, the future, are all included or relative to god's foretelling. Some imagine it to relate to every aspect of life; past, present and future. Because somehow that makes faith a little more concrete of fact, whether that fiction actually flies or not.

To each their own, despite the facts, some always say.

Irish, all but one of your scientist come from the beginning of scientific inquiry and even at that, for every scientist that you list, I can list probably 1500 that don't agree. As long as the bible states that the world sits on pillars, that rabbits chew their cud, that insects have 4 legs, etc, science and religion will not agree.

No you did not miss my point. That religion and science are both equally great guides for understanding life. And you can be both a scientist and a Christian a fact that many here disagree with. I believe there is enough evidence here to the contrary.
As for being exposed to catholic in your childhood, I to was a Catholic long before I was a Christian but I find them incompatible now in my opinion.
And why is it when I present evidence in favor or my opinion you call it preaching yet you offer evidence it’s just your opinion. So please be fair about it.
All The Best Irish

Irish with that I was offering a different perspective I don not see religion and science as the same value and merit, I would never ever say that becasue one is religous they aren't capable of brillance... i agree with Mako too the examples you provided reflected the times....we know more now and understand more now and i for one choose philosophys that reflect that I can't squeeze my awareness into religion it won't fit any more......you are a very intellegent man irish, very clever and your intellegence works to look into religion in way most don't...I said good for you Irish for trying and maybe one day religion will reflect growth and awareness at this point IMO it doesn't but I am optimistic......

Rabbits chew the cudThe Bible does say that rabbits chew the cud.24 As most people know, ruminant animals eat their food, swallow it, then regurgitate it and chew it a second time. This process is called "chewing the cud." Rabbits don't regurgitate their food, but they do eat it a second time. The process is called "coprophagy."25 The rabbit sends its food through the intestines, then produces soft fecal pellets at night that it eats. Because the process resembles that of ruminants, it has been called pseudorumination.26

Insects have four legsThere are several verses that are translated in our English Bibles to imply that insects have four legs. In reality, the Hebrew word sherets, translated as "insect" is not nearly as specific as the term "insect" would imply. The word really refers to crawling or swimming creatures that tend to swarm together. For example, in Genesis, sherets refers to swarming sea creatures,27 in the flood account (Genesis 7) sherets refers to rodents,28 and in Leviticus, sherets refers to crustaceans,29 insects,30 rodents,31 and reptiles.32 The term sherets was never intended as a biological classification system, so to say that it specifically refers to "insects" is deceptive.

What is common among all the creatures mentioned is that they have short legs and often travel together in groups. In fact, the Bible defines sherets as "crawling on its belly" and "whatever walks on all fours."33 What is common in this group of crustaceans, insects, rodents, and reptiles is that they all crawl on "all four" legs. Some from this group actually have more than four legs. However, the Hebrew idiom "on all fours" refers to any creature that crawls low to the ground on at least four legs. Were the writers of the Bible unaware that insects have six legs? This statement would seem rather silly, but atheists actually make this claim. However, one of the verses clearly indicates that these "four-legged" insects have six legs:

'Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects [sherets] which walk on all fours: those which have above their feet jointed legs with which to jump on the earth. (Leviticus 11:21)

The key part of the verse is the phrase "above their feet jointed legs." The Hebrew uses two different words to describe the "feet" (regel) and "legs" (kera). What the verse says is that these insects walk on four "feet" (their anterior four short legs), with an additional two "legs" that are used for jumping. Therefore, all six appendages are described.

Source

I was about to post the same things Irish. Thanks for clearing it up though. (About the cud chewers and whatnot).

Irish,
Since you seem to have all the answers for scientific expanations for the animals in the Bible, what is your take on the "dragons who sing praises to God" in the book of Psalms, or the Seraphim, winged creatures who attend God in Isaiah, and the exact same word is used for the fiery flying serpents who punish the Israelites until the brazen serpent is made. What is the huge beast God rides on the back of in Psalms? It is called a Cherub, but probably not a fat little baby, but also portrayed as a "dragon" in ancient Jewish art. Do all snakes have no legs, because God took the legs off the serpent in the Garden of Eden? And if so, why are there snakes without legs going back to the age of dinosaurs? If the singing dragons of Psalms are well behaved dinosaurs as some fundamentalists imagine, do you believe they survived the flood by riding in Noah's Ark? Just curious about your "answers".

You seem to quote "answers" as if it's not an answer. If this is what you believe, then can you explain why you don't see these as answers?

Irish you are doing a great job in showing the many, many misunderstandings that people have of the Bible...The key is translations and their true meanings which can twist and entire story around completely. I think science and the Bible can work together for some things- i just laugh at people that say the Bible is complete "myth and fiction" now thats fundamental...They're just too ashamed to say the Bible is at least part "truth and fact"...Le Sigh.

They're just too ashamed to say the Bible is at least part "truth and fact"...Le Sigh.
[/quote]

Ramster many have been religious and have outgrown religion sort of like you out grow a pair of shoes or a old pair of jeans, They worked and" fit' for a time but things grow actually they never cease growing , from your persepctive the view is limited ......

Interesting article, Irish. Though i have to disagree with some of the conclusions drawn between the Old Testament and science, it was an interesting read

Just a couple of quotes that struck me.....

Human argument often puts a false barrier between science and religion, like they are mutually exclusive. More to the point, the hardcore followers of their respective disciplines often use their field of expertise to either deny or ridicule the other.

Humans are fallible. No one has a perfect understanding of the world. So why not use both religion (I don't mean a religious organization) and science together!

Absolutely It never claims to be an absolute and accurate account of scientific phenomena.

Regards, PA

They are different. I wouldn't say they aren't in the same league.

Remember, it is science that brought us the Atomic bomb, hydrogen bomb, explosives, guns, highly addictive synthetic drugs, machines of war (tanks, planes etc), radiation, garbage, greenhouse effect, and a million other things I could name if I took the time.

Science is far from the innocent creature you want us to believe of it. OH, wait a minute, let me guess. It's not the fault of science, but of the people who use it.......

Regards, PA

Yah, in another thread about a week ago, someone posted something like five Bible passage concerning the term "fear". Some read "Fear God", other's said "do not fear". Those five passage used for different words that were all translated as "fear". Each with different contexts and different meanings.

Big surprise, the post was ignored

Sorry, I just needed to gripe

Regards, PA

Some People do outgrow religion and thats fine- but me having a limited perspective view isnt correct. My faith or my idea of faith is almost "freelance" its a great way in believing...Do you even know of my faith? Im not into religion but God to me is a God of all religions and of all people- and the key element is to be a good person...Simple and sweet. Yet back to the point Sherri i've always heard you utter the words that the Bible is "complete myth and fiction"...Is it really? You do understand that if theres at least one correct or "factual" thing in the Bible then your idea is incorrect.

Irish.....read the top of the page of your link......

Atheists claim that the Bible teaches many false things about the nature of our world - things that have been disproved by science. Others claim that the Bible contradicts itself. This page is a somewhat random collection of such allegations and their rebuttals. Most of the "false teachings" are based upon selected translations of the Bible (atheists love to use the KJV, since the archaic language had different meanings in the past) that are often taken out of context.

Did you happen to notice what your link used as reference?

With respect my friend.....using the Bible to prove the Bible is not a sound scientific method.

Please explain how the bible is part of truth /fact for sure???? if you know this...you are the only one that does

Ramster, The key element is you already are a good person, not a flawed person trying to get to good, you are perfect as you are. That changes ones perspective immensly and thus changes the life they experince...Its all in the way you look at things....

Please, cite 3 absolute facts from the Bible.

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/science.html

If you can't find at least one simple fact in the bible then you are truly sad. Almost every book you can think of has facts in it. I can't think of a book that is 100% mythical. If a book simply says "The Earth rotates" or then it has fact in it.

One fact would do even

You asked for evidence of facts being in the bible. I gave you a link, and you ignored it saying "One fact would do even".

Well pardon me for scrolling quickly past your link lol ok I'll look at it now

Saying that the sun rises and the earth is round is stating the obvious LOL

Obvious facts. And the Earth being round was not obvious back then, some people thought the Earth was flat. And the sun does not actualy rise by the way.

well zero,

men make observations and record them all the time.

the tales of the bible are just tales. no more signifying a "god" exists than the crocodile hunter.

what has changed is the degree of specificity we demand of observation along with accounting for coorelational factors. We are just more demanding now than 2000 years ago, which is why it was "good enough" to say a rabbit chewed its cud then, but not now. All this demonstrates is the bible is like every other book; a work of man.

Or it shows that God communicates to people in a way that they will understand.

Sigh...ok we all know the earth orbits the sun and it takes 365 days for the earth to go around the sun once...but Zero...in different parts of the world...when the sun moves from one part to another...to some it looks as though is setting (leaving) and to others their day is just beginning so it looks as though its rising BTW...everyone says it rises..thats how its always been...now for the bible to state that as a fact its stating the bleedin obvious..but now you are saying the bible is wrong also and yet ironicly..it was YOU that pasted the link okie dokie Zero

if there were such a being, it could educate the student. If they could understand "regurgitating food", and they could understand "poohing", then they could have easily understood clearly what a rabbit does.

The bible is one of the best proofs that the abrahamic god is a fictional character.

When I say I wanted at least one fact...I am not talking about stating the obvious LOL like ie -- The bible also proves we live and breath air!!!!(no sh*t sherlock) no no no that's not what I meant....I wanted to see if there where actual facts of - ie - Jesus living here on earth ect ect

My intent is simply to show that bible contains fact, because some say it is complete fictional. Does not matter how obvious the fact may be, my intent was to show you what you asked for. Read the entire link I gave you.

Everything else is up for debate and interpratation.

Ok lemme get this straight..I had another juke at the link you provided...and....


And yet going by the link you pasted it reads............The Bible speaks of the "four corners" of the earth (in Rev. 7:1), but this is only a figurative way of referring to the "four points" (basic directions) of the compass ---and this same verse speaks of the "four winds," which refers to the same thing.) now with the bible speaking of the 4 corners of the earth...any flaming wonder some believed the earth was flat back then the bible was at fault


But Zero the bible says the sun rises and you...said.....


But the link you gladly posted read................Although there are various statements in the Bible which describe some things in a "phenomenological" way (such as saying the sun "rises" and moves "across" the sky),

You're right it doesnt rise but that's how people see it

You just ignored part of the data you copied about the bible speaking of the 4 corners. It plainly says it was figurative. =P

But Zero, when people read the 4 corners they took it that the earth was indeed flat

People thought the Earth was flat before the bible was even written.

Well you can't blame them because when you look out as far as you can see...everything just looks flat, you can see as far as the horizon where the sky meets the ground, people back then didn't understand that the ability to even see a horizon, is proof that the world is not flat

Mako, if you do the research, Rabbits DO indeed chew their cud. First, you need to look up the hebrew phrase you your wires aren't crossed. Then, look into the biology of rabbits.

Now, this may seem disgusting, but rabbits eat their own droppings. Why? Because the first time around, their droppings contain alot of unused vitamins and iron. The rabbit rechews and redigests it's food, exactly as a cow does, but from the, err, "reverse" direction.

In regards to the pillars, again, I suggest you read the HEBREW so you can understand the symbolism used. Why is it that people think that the English translation is the authority, as opposed to the ORIGINAL HEBREW, the text the Bibles was first written in?

If you translate a 500 page book into a movie, do you ever get the whole story? Of course not.

And please, show me the verse that says insects have four legs. That's a new one to me. But I would be more than happy doing the leg work for that one to explain it to you, IF you can ever find it.

In 587 BC the Babylonians invaded and conquered the the Southern Kingdom of Israel (Judah). FACT.

Earlier, in 782 BC, the North was invaded by the Assyrians. FACT.

On their return to Jerusalem following Judah's exile in Babylon, the Temple was rebuilt. FACT.

More exist, but your criteria are met - three absolute facts, documented in the Bible and supported by outside sources

See above

Irish me aulde friend, you know I wouldn't let you get away with this little attempt at misdirection. A quick check with a biologist friend of mine at the University of Arizona got this response: "Rabbits are sometimes called "pseudo-ruminants"... The rhythmic cycle of coprophagy of pure cecal contents practiced by all rabbits allows utilization of microbial protein and fermentation products, as well as recycling of certain minerals. Whereas the feces commonly seen excreted by rabbits are fairly large, dry and ovoid, excreted singly, and consist of fibrous plant material, cecotrophs are about half that size, occur in moist bundles stuck together with mucus, and are very fine textured and odiferous. They are seldom seen, as the rabbit plucks them directly from the anus as they are passed and swallows them whole. Normal rabbits do not allow cecotrophs to drop to the floor or ground, and their presence there indicates a mechanical problem or illness in the rabbit. CREATIONISTS WERE MISTAKINGLY ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RABBITS AND RUMINATION, NOT RABBITS AND "CUD-CHEWING". You must have gotten this information from such a site. Where the Creationists went wrong was assuming "cud" necessarily was "a second pass of food, as in rumination." They never knew to question the rabbit (refection) merely consists of swallowing the pellet -- they erroneously assumed it chewed the pellet... but more than this, even IF the rabbit had chewed up that pellet and swallowed --that in itself would only qualify as (in a pseudo kind of way) "pseudo-ruminant", --but if the rabbit did not chew on that pellet at length, it still wasn't cud. They did not understand the definition of cud. It (cud) has nothing to do with eating or digestion.
Here are some takes from Biblica Scholars:
Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, page 525:
The OT...refers to the hare only to indicate that it is an unclean animal, but its assertion that the hare is a ruminant is contrary to fact. Probably, as in the case of the hyrax...some movements of the mouth and jaws have been erroneously interpreted as cud-chewing.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 616:
This animal is mentioned only in the lists of unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy...The hare and the coney are not ruminants, but might be supposed to be from their habit of almost continuously moving their jaws.
Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, 2000 edition, page 552:
Because it "chews the cud" but "does not have divided hoofs," the hare is classified as an unclean animal (Lev. 11:6; Deut. 14:7). Actually, it is not a ruminant but may have appeared as such to ancient obervers because of its constant chewing movements.
I saved the best for last:
THROUGH THE EYES OF ANCIENT OBSERVERS
by Edward T. Babinski
August 10, 2005
The ancients probably saw rabbits and cows eating grass and both chewed the grass for a while before swallowing it. They also probably noted the way that cows regurgitate the bolus of food from their stomachs and chewed it some more, and probably assumed that rabbits did the same. They didn't know a lot about biology or how to divide creatures. They had few names for animals in the Bible period and the very word translated as rabbit might mean rock badger as well. What I find least likely is that the same ancient Hebrews who spoke of the serpent as "eating dust" [sic] also knew about "excrement eating," i.e., "refection" in hares (and/or coneys).
Recall that when the Bible mentions excrement, even cow's excrement (that Yahweh allowed Ezekiel to use instead of human excrement to bake bread over) the mention of the "excrement" coupled with disgust is quite evident. If an ancient Hebrew had seen animals eating their own excrement they would probably have mentioned that fact rather than disquising it as merely "chewing the cud" [sic]. And likewise I doubt that the Hebrews studied hares or rock badgers/coneys so carefully and employed such a wide definition of "chewing the cud/regurgitation in the Hebrew" as to include eating one's own defecation. Odds are, as I said, they probably simply assumed that rabbits, like cows, chewed their grassy meals and "brought them up again" (isn't that the meaning of the Hebrew?) to chew them some more.
Of course the same folks who want to claim that they have discovered a modern "scientific" way to re-interpret such passages as "rabbits/coneys chew the cud" are also the same ones who spend their time trying to explain away the Bible's "heart/blood/bowel" focus on human life and behavior (without mentioning the most vital organ that holds the most vital part of one's "life" and "direction," i.e., the brain and nervous system), and they are also the same folks who spend their time trying to explain away the Bible's flat earth and geocentric assumptions concerning the cosmos and the firmament and the order of creation.

As for your attempt to explain insects having 4 legs, you are obliquely admitting that your "Holy Mythology" is indeed a work of man, not god's word!

After too! There are Amish family farms in my area. The kids attend school till 6th grade, then they go to work. And they are taught that the planets are said to be spheres by the "outsiders" is a conspiracy of lies. That the truth is they are all ....discs!


No, I am not kidding.

I use to have to go visit one farm for supplies for my animals, and so my few bumper stickers were quite the wake up call generally. They might think the planets are flat, but I'm sure they imagined this driver quite the interesting read.

Change the world, open minds.

I posted this in a different thread today and it sort of fits here also.

The Ignorant Seeker:

Many people are afraid to empty their minds lest they may plunge into the Void. They do not know that their own Mind is the void. The ignorant [seekers] eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise [seekers] eschew thought but not phenomena.
Huang Po

Contrary to the opinion of lawyers the truth is often gained by the questioning of the accused not their representative.

And since I have already concurred that “The Bible Is Not a Science Textbook” I must refer back to a previous post of mine.
One must account for the educational and intellectual level of the people that the scriptures were originally written for. There is a great fear among Christian writers as to not change the intent of the word. A fear that is instilled from the scriptures themselves.
Gal1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (PS. take note those of the Mormon faith).
It does present an oxymoron with the knowledge of today’s world. It would be much akin to you going back to those times and explaining the events of the war in Iraq for instance. How would you describe bombers, tanks, helicopters, machine guns and the like?
Or from the other perspective how would you describe tomorrow’s technological improvements to the people of today.
if I may go out on a limb for a sec, let me explain the following scripture to today’s world.
Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Remember that I am only paraphrasing as a demonstration.
So God anesthetized Adam so as he would feel no pain. And removed some cells and genetic material from his chest. This material He then cloned the first woman from Adams own body to be his companion on earth. He gave this new creation of woman the ability to replicate the physical attributes of both her and Adam without intervention from Himself.
So in concluding I would say that we are able to take scripture literally if we apply reason and knowledge as to the technical abilities of the people receiving that information.
All the Best
Irish

I will say this and then let it go for now.....

Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.