Jump to content

Scientific Insight of the Bible


Recommended Posts

When I was a strong Christian, I was convinced that the Bible was literally the Word if God: Perfect in all ways. Sure the Bible claimed to be inspired, but how did we prove that? Well, any Holy Book claims to be the word of a god, so how they back up that lofty claim?


One of my go-to moves was to prove that the earth was only ~6000 years old, and that evolution could not have happened. At that point, all you might have is a Deistic God, and are no closer in determining whether it could be any other god. It could even be a god that started things spinning, but just kinda walked away without interacting with humans.


At this point, I would now point that the Bible absolutely has to be the one true Word of God because of these two things: 1. Amazing scientific insight and 2. Fulfilled prophecy. Of course, the resurrection was always throw in there, but that will be addressed in another section in the future, as well as prophecy.


When I would hear a message about the scientific insights in the Bible, it always interested me so much because I have always had an affinity towards scientific things. Although I was convinced this lent credibility to the Bible, in the back of my mind, I knew that if I read this passages on my own and was not looking for those things, I never would have interpreted those verses as scientific miracles.


These things were at the forefront of my apologetics, and worked great to reinforce my existing beliefs. After all, how else could have the Bible Authors known about these things unless God was in on it?


However (as is typical with anyone that only surrounds themselves with those who agree with him), as I began to interact with Muslims and Mormons, they began to show me their “scientific miracles” out of their own texts! It was a little confusing for this reason: on one hand, I could easily try to find a reason why the people of the day could know the things in the Quran; I also found that many of these proposed scientific findings seemed to consist of the reader stretching the text to try and make it say something it really isn’t.

But on the other hand, it seemed that the science in the Quran had the same ‘caliber’ as the Bible. For this reason, I wanted to study the scientific claims of the Bible and prove their superiority to the Quran.


As is studied the Quran and Book of Mormon’s scientific claims, I asked myself this question: “Is God writing this the only plausible explanation for this passage?”

After reading the claims, it appears that Muslim and Mormon claims fell into 1 out of 2 categories.


1.) The proposed scientific miracles were not miracles at all: they were something that the people of the day would have been able to observe.

  • For example in the Quran, it mentions that an early fetus resembled chewed gum. How else could have Muhammad have known unless Allah told him! However, we know that farmers and people living in those days could have easily seen miscarriages and known the general appearance of an unborn child.

2.) The alleged scientific miracles are some verses about cosmology or another principle that is somewhat vague, but they take one arbitrary statement, and blow it completely out of proportion, list pages of scientific facts about the thing they think it is, then proclaim there is no way that the people of the time could have known about that!

  • For example in Quran 41:11 reads: "Then He turned to the heaven when it was smoke and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth."

Muslims will wax eloquently for pages on facts about solar system formation and how solar dust was the initial matter in space prior to planetary formation. They will throw all kinds of math equations in. After their rant, they will proclaim: “How could have the Prophet known that gravitational force acts on interstellar dust (or “smoke”) to form discs around stars which eventually formed the planets?!?”

We would think: You got all that from a statement about smoke? It doesn’t appear the Quran is trying to say all those things after all; if that’s what it was trying to say, that’s what it would have said!

It would be more impressive if the Quran made more specific claims like the exact temperature of the sun, or how a black hole works.


You see this kind of thinking just as rampant among Mormons.

Science and Mormonism




You don’t have to read all these claims to see that they fall under one of the two categories as well.


The striking thing is this: Apologists of many Holy texts will state how many scientific facts their book contains, even though the ones they do have are clearly not marked as scientific facts, but are exaggerated to seem as though they are. However, in the same exact Holy Text, there are obvious scientific falsities are waived off as symbolism of the day.


Muslims and Mormons are pros at this. A passage that clearly states that the sun sets in a muddy spring at night is waived off as symbolism and a metaphor. A passage claiming horses were in America before they actually were is explained by redefining a horse.


So here we have apologists applying vague statements from their scripture to whatever scientific fact we have today, while dismissing statements that are clearly false scientifically just as “symbols.”


You will probably look at the scientific claims made by other religions, and you will immediately begin evaluating the claims on why a deity is not necessary to explain these claims. You can likely evaluate these claims objectively because you don’t have any duty to defend the Quran or Book of Mormon. You might see that the adherents to those religions can’t clearly evaluate these statements because they have an extreme bias towards their holy texts.


It is no secret that Christians are biased toward the Bible in one degree or another. When I realized this, I recognized that I seldom analyzed the Bible critically. I searched for whatever reasons I could find to prove the Bible to be true without ever stopping to think, “Are these good reasons?”


At this point I realized that my philosophy was no different than other religions - in that I felt the need to accept any evidence toward the Bible, and reject any evidence against the Bible without much thought.


I began to reason that if the Bible was the absolute, objective truth, then surely it wouldn’t mind a little critical examination. If anything, it would just strengthen my faith.


At this point I began to study all kinds of apologetics, dive into scripture and prayer, and seek to find out what the Bible really meant. In order to be consistent, I had to apply the same criteria to the Bible as I did with the other holy texts.


  1. Is a God absolutely necessary to explain the proposed scientific miracles?
  2. Could the authors have observed the science in that day?
  3. Was the author even trying to make a scientific statement?
  4. Are we “milking” a vague passage to get more out of it than is really there?


After investigating thoroughly, I came to this unwanted conclusion: There is not one single line of the Bible that could not have been written by a first century merchant or a Bronze Age scribe.


Allow us to explore some the proposed scientific miracles in the Bible, and see if it lends credence to the hypothesis that a deity wrote it. I will try to pick the ones that were very convincing to me at the time.


  1. Job 28:25 KJV [25] To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure.

The claim is that the Bible says that air weighs something. How could the Bible authors have know that at the time?

Evaluation: Could only a God have written this? It does not appear so. In the first place it doesn’t seem the author is trying to describe that air has weight. If one is to remain consistent, they have to look at the previous verse to see if they will apply a literal interpretation to it as well.

Job 28:24 KJV

[24] For he looketh to the ends of the earth, and seeth under the whole heaven;


Are we to infer that the earth has “ends” like in the flat earth model? If you try to explain it away as a metaphor, than you would be hard pressed to claim verse 25 is meant to be taken literally as well. At any rate, anyone who has been in the middle of a windstorm could claim that wind has weight.


Okay well that is only one; there are plenty more. True, let’s take a look at a few more.


  1. Leviticus 17:11 KJV [11] For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul

The claim is that modern scientific knowledge has discovered how important blood is to life. But is this something that only a God could have known?

It would have been very easy for someone of the day to observe. They could have see someone in battle get cut so bad, that they die once all their blood drains out of their body.

  • Side note: What’s up with the concept of sacrifice anyways? A cursory study of ancient history will show that many cultures prior to the Jews sacrificed animals to their gods. Not only that, things like the Jewish Law and tradition has many nearly identical principles as the neighboring kingdoms, especially the Canaanites. If animal sacrifice really did atone for ones sin for Yahweh, and was revealed by God himself as how God forgave sins, why did other cultures that predate Judaism do the same exact things with their gods as well?
  • Challenge: If the New Testament was proven to be false today, would you still accept the Old Testament Judaism? If I were to see ancient Judaism in practice with no prior knowledge of them, I would dub them as just another barbaric religion of the Bronze Age.
  • It seems as though Christians spend most of their time proving how we don’t follow the Old Testament any more, but seldom sit and think, “Is this something and All-knowing God would write?”


  1. Ocean currents: Psalm 8:8 KJV 8] The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.


The claim is that in the 1800s, a man named Matthew Maury read this verse in Psalms, determined there must be ocean currents, went to find them because the Bible said they would be there, then found them, hence proving the scientific foreknowledge of the Bible.


This was one of my favorite ones at the time! However, much to my disappointment, a number of Christian apologetic websites said that this argument does not work because the story is a bit embellished. Although Maury is considered the father of oceanography, It turns out that ocean currents were already discovered before Matthew's time. Although he had a fondness for that verse, he didn’t use it to discover ocean currents.


In addition, are the paths of the seas exclusive to ocean currents? It could mean the paths that the fish swim in, the layout of the smaller seas, or local fisherman could feel the pull of the ocean as they stood in the water to name a couple other options.


  1. The water cycle. Job 36:27-28 KJV

[27] For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof: [28] Which the clouds do drop and distil upon man abundantly.




Ecclesiastes 1:7 KJV

[7] All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.


Not trying to be cynical here, but how does the Job passage relate to the water cycle at all? Any observation can connect rain to vapor. If you read the whole passage, it more closely resembles the ancient view of the earth with a canopy in which God lives; he forms each rain drop, causes lightning and thunder, and decides when it rains or not. But of course that part is metaphorical.


The Ecclesiastes passage is one in which we could actually derive some sort of thought about the water cycle. However, is the only way they could have written this verse is if a God gave them special scientific knowledge? I would say that this is not the case. Once again, as with most other proposed scientific miracles, they could easily be explained by the observer in that time period.


This observation was recorded by Greek philosophers who had no contact with Judaism or Christianity: Hmm, so much water flowing into the ocean, but the sea level never rises. The water must go somewhere, and the rivers seem to keep flowing; therefore there must be some way water gets from the ocean back to the river’s source again.


The Ecclesiastes verse does nothing to describe how that happens (which would actually be impressive). In addition, there is strong evidence the authors of these passages had poor understanding of how science works. For example, in the same passage and context it says

Ecclesiastes 1:5 KJV

[5] The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.


Christians have two hats with these kinds of passages: a “literal interpretation” hat, and a “metaphor” hat. When they read verse 5, the metaphor hat quickly comes on, but a few verses later in verse 7, the literal interpretation hat comes on. You don’t get to do that with the same passage and context; it is classic cherry picking. The passage is either all metaphor or all literal. If the passage could be in agreement with modern science, the literal hat comes on; if it disagrees with modern science, the metaphor hat comes on. We also can’t write in our own meaning to ambiguous verses to make it seem like the Bible is really saying what you want it to say.


For example: Psalm 104:5 KJV

[5] Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.


We know that there are no foundations of the earth and the earth definitely does move....Metaphor!!


Matthew 4:8 KJV

[8] Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;


How do they see all the kingdoms of the world on a spherical earth? If they just had “spiritual vision” to see them, why did they go to a high mountain?..... metaphor!!


So, what’s stopping me from going

Genesis 1:1 KJV

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

... Metaphor!!!!


Lastly, there are other verses that indicate the Bible is wrong about the water cycle. For example:


Isaiah 55:10 KJV

[10] For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:


It specifically says that the water in the snow or rain does not go back up in the sky, which goes against the understanding of the water cycle.



  1. A round earth. Isaiah 40:22 KJV

[22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,


This was also one of my favorites, until I looked a little deeper into it. The verse says “circle” and not sphere. Perhaps that is too picky, but reading the rest of the verse for context yields the thought that is consistent with the ancient view of how the earth looked.


The ancient view of the earth was that it was a flat, circular disk (like a cookie), had a solid crystal dome in which the heavens were inside. The sun, moon, and stars were in the heavens, underneath the firmament (the crystal dome), which covered the earth completely. It was also thought that there was water above the dome (which would explain the blue sky), and that there were windows that would let in the water. It was also thought that there was water that extended from the oceans and went underneath the earth, which was called The Deep, and that pillars kept the earth afloat. God resides toward the top of the dome, or The North- the Third Heaven.

If you re-read genesis 1, as well as the flood story, this clears up a lot of confusion as you don’t have to reconcile it with modern cosmology.

It clears up the Tower of Babel where God says that man really could have built a tower that reached to heaven. It clears up the statement that everyone will see Jesus when he returns. It clears up what the firmament is, and the constant references to God looking down on us, Jesus ascending to heaven in the clouds, and us going “up” to be with God. It would clear up how God smelled the burnt offerings, and how stars could fall from heaven and be trampled on. It clears up many other things as well.



Let’s look at the rest of the verse.


Isaiah 40:21-22 KJV

[21] Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? [22] It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:


It is apparent that these verses are more consistent with the archaic Jewish view of the earth than with modern science. The tent image would make a lot more sense in this regard. There is nothing scientifically miraculous about this passage.


There are many claims that the Bible is advanced in its hygiene. There are verses about washing people and clothes on which the fluid from an abscess touches. They say that washing hands for sanitation is something that was recently discovered. I would readily disagree. Even a raccoon washes its hands, and it would not be a stretch for people of the day to wash the dirt and feces off their hands before eating and touching their mouths.


The passage that is often brought up to promote Biblical hygiene is the first section of Leviticus 15 which describes the washing rituals. However, there is a good reason why you will never catch an apologist reading you the last half of the chapter! Read and you will find out.


What you see is a multitude of things that people have to wash themselves for: semen on the ground, women’s periods, and a few other things. If you keep reading, you notice that you need a SIN offering if you have an open sore, have a semen emission, or if a woman has a period. Then they have to be in isolation 7 days after. Does this sound more like scientific miracle? Or ignorant superstition?

Not only that, but when Jesus was asked why he did not wash his hands, he did NOT reply with “You are right! Hand washing prevents bacteria from getting in your food!” He replied with a statement that diminished hand washing. It is clear that it was a ritual for most people.


The more you study this topic, the more bizarre it becomes! You constantly see God assigning punishments for natural bodily functions, and classifying them as a “sin.” Why in the world would a God create humans with certain bodily functions, then punish them when they naturally happen? It is claimed that God made each of us, and knows the number of hairs on our head, and has a purpose for each of us; if this is the case, why does God not let people into his congregation if they were born with certain defects that he supposedly ordained them to have?

Deuteronomy 23:1-4 KJV

[1] He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord. [2] A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord ; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. [3] An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord ; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the Lord for ever: [4] Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor of Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse thee.

-Seems God is the world champion grudge-holder.




Leviticus 21:17-20 KJV

[17] Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. [18] For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, [19] Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, [20] Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;


So God can’t stand the sight of the defects in the people that he supposedly made?? So now God DOES look on the outward appearance?


It is painfully obvious that it was superstitious men who wrote the Bible: these men were clueless and freaked out by women’s periods, and assigned them as sins. And what is God's obsession with male junk anyhow?? He loves it when just the tip is cut off in circumcision, but the whole thing? Or injured balls? Hell no! He cannot stand the very sight of it.


You see this throughout the OT. In Leviticus 20:18 KJV it reads

[18] And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.


Banishment?! For sleeping with your wife during her period? Forgive me if I don’t believe your claims that the Bible is so advanced scientifically and morally.


That may sound a bit harsh, but it is true.


In conclusion, it does not appear that the Bible stands apart from any other religious text with its scientific foreknowledge and accuracy. A last ditch apologetic is to claim that Satan imitates “the Truth,” Which is the reason that Christianity and Judaism are so similar to other religions. This is just a baseless assertion that can’t be true. If the Devil truly wrote those books, then he would not have been so stupid as to include barbaric and inaccurate science as well. The devil would have included accurate cosmology as Satan would have a complete understanding of these things. What is really interesting is that if you think about it, Satan could write better scientific facts down in a text if he were to write one. The observation that NO ancient Holy Text contains clear and obvious scientific miracles is fully consistent with the idea that humans were the authors of these texts.


All Christianity would have to do is state something clear such as: describing what cancer is and how to cure it; predict smartphones and describe how to build an Apple IPhone, explain that diseases happen because of things called bacteria and viruses; or predict the exact temperature of the sun.

These statements would all be ACTUAL scientific miracles, and would make us seriously consider whatever ancient text we were reading.


Refuting the claimed scientific miracles in the Bible does not necessarily disprove the Bible. All it does is prove that these arguments should not be used to infer Devine origins.


The inaccurate scientific claims, however, should give us pause and cause us to ponder if God, in fact, would write such things.


  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for adding to my list of inconsistant and ridicilous things found in the bible.  You really dug deep and put a lot of work into it.  It is obvious they were going with the knowledge that existed at the time they lived.


Another thing that really caused an "ah-ha" moment with me was when I realized that the only thing that made the bible the holy word of God, was human beings saying it was so.  Humans wrote all the books and letters that went into it, and then after years of arguing over it, decided which writings would become "holy".   And as you mentioned, the same thing was true for all religions.  Humans decided what was holy. And if you tell the stories long enough, people decide they "KNOW" it is the truth.  Hitler used the same technique to get people to follow him.  It is really sad that so many people can be so gullible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

What strikes me is that jesus, this so-called "great physician," quite obviously did not understand the Germ Theory of disease.  He went about curing leprosy on a case-by-case basis rather than promoting the use of natural antibiotics, such as salt, and basic hygiene.  You'd think, if he really was the omniscient god who created Adam from dust, he'd know a thing or two about Mycobacterium leprae.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

What strikes me is that jesus, this so-called "great physician," quite obviously did not understand the Germ Theory of disease.  He went about curing leprosy on a case-by-case basis rather than promoting the use of natural antibiotics, such as salt, and basic hygiene.  You'd think, if he really was the omniscient god who created Adam from dust, he'd know a thing or two about Mycobacterium leprae.


Isn't this the same Jesus who said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.  So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” ?


Thereby acknowledging the six day creation and god's rest on the seventh?


And yet our telescopes tell us that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and was not created in 144 hours.


You'd think that if Jesus really was the creator through whom all things were made, he'd know how old the universe is?





  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my studies of religions in the past I saw nothing that I thought could be interpreted as scientific insight within the scriptures. The fact that half the scientists of the world claim to be religious or spiritual, I believe these are mostly the folks that have sometimes claimed to have found ideas of science within the writings  of their Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2022 at 3:55 PM, austinrohm said:


..........When I would hear a message about the scientific insights in the Bible, it always interested me so much because I have always had an affinity towards scientific things. Although I was convinced this lent credibility to the Bible, in the back of my mind, I knew that if I read this passages on my own and was not looking for those things, I never would have interpreted those verses as scientific miracles.


...........The inaccurate scientific claims, however, should give us pause and cause us to ponder if God, in fact, would write such things.......................


....Or whether the God of the Bible exists at all.


Only two postings so far austinrohm, Welcome to Ex-Christ. Hope you like it here and become a part of our forum.


cheers, pantheory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
On 9/30/2022 at 11:20 AM, walterpthefirst said:


You'd think that if Jesus really was the creator through whom all things were made, he'd know how old the universe is?

One might also assume that jesus would have understood the reproduction cycle of deciduous fruit trees; but his interaction with the fig tree proved otherwise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator
On 9/28/2022 at 6:55 PM, austinrohm said:

Refuting the claimed scientific miracles in the Bible does not necessarily disprove the Bible. All it does is prove that these arguments should not be used to infer Devine origins.


The inaccurate scientific claims, however, should give us pause and cause us to ponder if God, in fact, would write such things.


All very good insights, Austin. 


The logic is sound. Refuting in and of itself doesn't disprove the bible, or the existence of god. But it does reveal the man made, errant, and un-insightful nature of the biblical writers. An all-knowing god would know all. The claims of the bible therefore don't hold up. And it's justifiable to dismiss the claims on those grounds. If there were such a thing as an all-knowing god, it certainly hasn't spoken through the biblical writers. Or else the contradictions, errors, inconsistencies, and lack of future insight wouldn't be there evident for all to see. 


The main thrust among this community in the majority sense, are agnostic atheist views. Over the years the consensus has condensed on that as the most popular or common. Although there's no rule that suggests that's the only way. It's where logic naturally tends to lead of its own accord...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.