Where the Bible does prove scientifically accurate - and this is not all the time (see Waters above the skies?), what value does it have in demonstrating the Bible's inspiration?.
Ex-Christian minister John W Loftus suggests in his book, Why I Rejected Christianity: a former apologist explains, that the Bible holds no scientifically proven information that could not already have been believed by people who lived in the days when the biblical books were written.
In other words, scientifically, the Bible holds nothing that natural, non-divine humanity could not have believed without it - plus some things that science has since proven wrong.
John W Loftus's question, then, is why God, if he exists, chose not to make a single statement that would prove the Bible's inspiration by showing he knew something that only humanity's later advancement in science could prove?
One plausible answer is that the Bible is not divinely inspired but a human document.
However, if you can answer that question or think of any claims the Bible makes about the natural world that ancient people could not know but which science can now prove, feel free to comment here.
No comments:
Post a Comment