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?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.