Science is always changing but the Bible stays the same.
This is something i often hear about science when it contradicts a specific interpretation of the Bible and is deployed as a criticism as if it is a weakness rather than a strength.
Can someone who feels this way explain to me why it is a BAD thing to change one's position on the basis of new evidence and a GOOD thing to hold to a position despite contradictory evidence?
For starters, first of all it isn't true. The Bible changes as language changes, and its meaning is better understood as more evidence is discovered. Secondly, often science is thought to contradict the Bible when in fact it doesn't. Then there's the fact that science changes, at least in part, because it corrects itself, meaning it was wrong, often science catches up with the Bible, and finally, like in the case of your cartoon, science has no opinion on how life originated, only how it allegedly evolved.
@walabby The word pim. At 1 Samuel 13:21 the word was mistranslated prior to 1907 because no one knew what it meant. The KJV translated it into file. In 1907 the first weight stone was excavated in the ancient city of Gezer. The word was no longer used when Judah and its capital Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians in 607 BCE several centuries before Bible critics claim the book of 1 Samuel was written. So, the critics were, as is often the case, wrong.
There's a list as long as my arm of similar discoveries. Critics doubted the existence of Pontius Pilate until a stone bearing his name was discovered in 1961, Belshazzar, Nimrod, Sargon II and many others were claimed to be fictional by critics and scholars until proven to have existed through archaeological discoveries.
Science and religion can co-exist Luke 11:52 “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
Science is always IMPROVING but the Bible stays the same.
Bible critics say that the Bible always stays the same at the same time they say it's been edited and corrupted so no one knows the original. That's the illogical workings of an ideologue.
@ElwoodBlues Your phrasing was fine, my comment was directed at ideological Bible critics. It's sort of silly. The writings of Josephus, Livy, Shakespeare, Frank Herbert, Douglas Adams even Charles Darwin don't change. The written word doesn't change. Why would you expect the Bible to change? The problem they have isn't with God or the Bible, their problem is a sociopolitical frustration with the theocratic majority and tradition.
I mean, it's been a hundred years and they don't have the sense or the honesty to see that?
Science on the other hand will always make new things possible like the ability to post comments in a forum . The ability to communicate all over the world.
Which version of the Bible -- there are a number, not to mention all the various translations or each version and changes in those translations over the years.
So I don’t get the duality in changing/fixed as a deciding factor.
Well that's a maturity of belief that many theists would be wise to recognize. After all, while the Bible has not changed significantly over time, the interpretation of it certainly has.
@CopperCicada we can often distinguish between people who are on spiritual journey and people who have a specific , unchanging belief system. like saying the bible is the ultimate truth, having been told that as a child and continued to think so is more a dogmatic, static form of thinking compared to one who explores everything, who doesn't know the truth but trully wants it. if you trully want the truth you must always doubt because once you believe you know the truth, you run the risk that the truth was something else and now you will never know.
