Many people says that the BIBLE is the word of GOD but why it has so many mistakes proved by scientists?
917500
The Bible is not a science Book. What mistakes in it have scientists proved? Nothing. When the Bible touches on science it is very accurate. For example:\n\nHow is the earth is held in space? In ancient times when the Bible was being written, there was much speculation about how the earth was held in space. Some believed that the earth was supported by four elephants standing on a big sea turtle. Aristotle, a Greek philosopher and scientist of the fourth century B.C.E., taught that the earth could never hang in empty space. Instead, he taught that the heavenly bodies were fixed to the surface of solid, transparent spheres, with each sphere nested within another sphere. Supposedly the earth was on the innermost sphere, and the outermost sphere held the stars.\n\nYet, rather than reflect the fanciful, unscientific views existing at the time of its writing, the Bible simply stated (in about the year 1473 B.C.E.): "[God is] hanging the earth upon nothing." (Job 26:7) In the original Hebrew, the word for "nothing" used here means "not any thing," and this is the only time it occurs in the Bible. The picture it presents of an earth surrounded by empty space is recognized by scholars as a remarkable vision for its time. The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says: "Job 26:7 strikingly pictures the then-known world as suspended in space, thereby anticipating future scientific discovery."\n\nThe Bible's accurate statement predated Aristotle by over 1,100 years. Yet, Aristotle's views continued to be taught as fact for some 2,000 years after his death! Finally, in 1687 C.E., Sir Isaac Newton published his findings that the earth was held in space in relation to other heavenly objects by mutual attraction, that is, gravity. But that was close to 3,200 years after the Bible had stated with elegant simplicity that the earth is hanging "upon nothing."\n\nThe more people try to prove the Bible wrong, the more foolish they look.
427902
The Bible claims to be actual communication from God to humanity. Notice these biblical passages:\n\nAll Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 \n\nAbove all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 \n\nThe Bible claims to be the very Word of God (verbum Dei), indeed, the very words of God (verba Dei). But this claim often raises a number of objections. \n\nObjection #1: The Bibles we have today are nothing like the biblical books as they were originally written. \nThis is a real concern people have. The question of whether or not the Bible was God’s Word 2,000 years ago is irrelevant if the Bible we read today is substantially different from what was originally written. Until the invention of the printing press around 1450, all literature was hand-copied and scribes could make mistakes in copying. It’s hard to know if errors are present with many ancient works simply because few early hand-written copies exist. But this is not a major concern with the biblical documents: \n\n1. There are at least 24,800 surviving partial or complete manuscripts of New Testament books today. By comparison, the next largest number is for Homer’s Iliad, with only 643 surviving manuscripts. We have only 7 copies of Pliny’s History and only 10 of Caesar’s Gallic Wars―but we don’t hesitate to trust them. \n\n2. Furthermore, the New Testament has unusually early manuscripts compared with other ancient literature. Our earliest copy of Pliny’s History dates to 750 years after Pliny’s death. A lot can happen in 750 years. And the earliest copy of Gallic Wars was copied 1,000 years after Caesar’s death. By contrast, some early New Testament fragments date to within 30 years of their first writing, as with the John Rylands papyrus found in Egypt. There simply wasn’t enough time between the original writing and our earliest manuscripts to allow for much corruption. \n\n3. There are over 84,000 quotations from the New Testament (mainly from sermons) dating to the early centuries of the Church. In fact, even if we didn’t have a single manuscript of the Bible today, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. \n\n4. Similarly, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, we now have copies of the entire Old Testament from before the time of Christ―complete copies of every book except Esther.\n\nModern translations of the Bible (New International Version, New American Standard Bible, etc.) are translated directly from these earliest biblical manuscripts. \n\nObjection #2: The Bible is just a book of fairy-tales. Its account is not historically reliable. \nWhile there are letters and songs and laws and doctrinal teachings in the Bible, the most common genre within the Scripture is history. Observers point out that the Bible is an historical document in that it consistently gives accurate information on the geography, chronology, people, places, customs, nations and events recorded within it.\n\nThe Bible is therefore unusual compared to other human religious literature. The Book of Mormon, even though relatively recent, nevertheless reads like a cheap nineteenth century American gothic novel. It describes an entire pre-Columbian civilization which shows no signs of ever having existed. There simply never was a highly advanced Jewish civilization in ancient New York. There is today, but not before Columbus. Or compare the Bible with the Hindu Vedas, which explain that the moon is 150,000 miles higher than the sun and shines with its own light (like a big GE light bulb), adding that the eart
1045052
I believe that the bible is the true word of God.  In the first book of the bible, it tells how God created man. I know people will argue that the world could not have been created in 6 days and the Lord rested on the 7th.  To God, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day.  I don't believe in Darwin's theory, I believe in God's creation.
424534
No- it is NOT the word of God. Not one bit...\n"Yes because even science proved its authenicy. That gospel is indeed factual."\nTime out! They did prove it was written in the correct time frame- but that does NOT mean the words written are fact... Especially since it is not fact.\n\nGod Bless.
1169574
The bible is not to be taken literally.
613971
Nothing from the bible has been proven except obvious things (the sun rose that morning lol). There's much better explanations for nature and the workings of the universe than the bible has ever given. EVIDENCE and FACTS point towards things VERY different than those written in the bible. It's vastly outdated and filled with lies and things we should long have forgotten.
615891
The Bible was written by more than forty different authors.  I could go into the different parts and their function throughout history, but I'll just be short.  Despite the variety of the authors and the many different types of writings in the Bible, Christians believe that "All scripture is God breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), and a group of believers at one point decided which writings were part of the "canon" of scripture.\n\nMany people believe that the Bible often contradicts itself, and sometimes it seems that it might.  However, closer study and learning of the context reveals the story of the God of creation and his desire to redeem his people throughout history.  It is the written word of God, and through the preaching of the Word people can come to salvation.
1123572
Since the bible was inspired by God, and it says so in many places including the ones mentioned above, then it must be God's word.  He would not inspire the bible writers to write someone elses words.
645221
It could be said that the Bible is a book of history -- and it is. The bible describes places, people, and events in various degrees of detail.  It is essentially an historical account of the people of God throughout thousands of years.  If you open to almost any page in the Bible you will find a name of a place and/or a person.  Much of this can be verified from archaeology.  Though archaeology cannot prove that the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has the ability to prove whether or not if some events and locations described therein are true or false.  So far, however, there isn't a single archaeological discovery that disproves the Bible in any way.\n     Nevertheless, many used to think that the Bible had numerous historical errors in it such as Luke's account of Lysanias being the tetrarch of Abiline in about 27 AD (Luke 3:1).  For years scholars used this "factual error" to prove Luke was wrong because it was common knowledge that Lysanias was not a tetrarch, but the ruler of Chalcis about 50 years earlier than what Luke described.  But, an archaeological inscription was found that said Lysanias was the tetrarch in Abila near Damascus at the time that Luke said.  It turns out that there had been two people name Lysanias and Luke had accurately recorded the facts.  \n     Also, the walls of Jericho have been found, destroyed just as the Bible says.  Many critics doubted that Nazareth ever existed, yet archaeologists have found a first-century synagogue inscription at Caesarea verified its existence.  Finds have verified Herod the Great and his son Herod Antipas.  The remains of the Apostle Peter's house have been found at Capernaum.  Bones with nail scars through the wrists and feet have been uncovered as well demonstrating the actuality of crucifixion.  The High Priest Caiaphas' bones have been discovered in an ossuary (a box used to store bones).  \n     There is, of course, a host of archaeological digs that corroborate biblical records such as Bethsaida, Bethany, Caesarea Philippi, Capernaum, Cyprus, Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, Rome, etc.  For more on this see, Archaeological Evidence verifying biblical events and places.\n     \n\nAn inscribed stone was found that  refers to Pontius Pilate, named as Prefect of Judaea.’  (The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 1962.)  \nLuke 3:1, "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea..." \n"A decree of Claudius found at Delphi (Greece) describes Gallio as proconsul of Achaia in ad 51, thus giving a correlation with the ministry of Paul in Corinth (Acts 18:12)." (The New Bible Dictionary)\nActs 18:12, "But while Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews with one accord rose up against Paul and brought him before the judgment seat." \nExcavations have revealed a text naming a benefactor Erastus which may be a reference relating to  the city-treasurer of Rom. 16:23.  (The New Bible Dictionary)\nRom. 16:23, "Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother." \nAt Ephesus parts of the temple of Artemis have been uncovered as is mentioned in Acts 19:28-41. (The New Bible Dictionary)\nActs 19:28, "And when they heard this and were filled with rage, they began crying out, saying, "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians." \n"It is known that Quirinius was made governor of Syria by Augustus in AD 6. Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay discovered several inscriptions that indicated that Quirinius was governor of Syria on two occasions, the first time several years prior to this date...archaeology has provided some unexpected and supportive answers. Additionally, while supplying the background behind these events, archaeology also assists us in establishing several facts. (1) A taxation-census was a fairly
761267
Bible is the real word of God . Bible is written in cronologic order ,Ouran is not ,and there is truth in the Bible  becouse what prophets predicted in the Old Testament, became true in The New testament . Bible can be translated in all languages of the earth without loosing its meaning , ( Quran cannot be translated without loosing its meaning ) altough  muslims says there are manny versions of Bible ,all version of the Bible carry the same messages .The difference between versions are due to the translations ,are small and insignifiant ,u will not find one single Bible saying that Jesus is not Son of God . Muslims just use those small differents between different translations to attack the Bible .Quran is just a pathethic copy of Bible containing manny historical errors ,contradicting flagrant with the Bible . All prophets from the Bible got their revelations from God directly without any intermediars only Mohamed got his revelations trough an angel . Bible warned us do not trust another Evangelia even if an angel bring it !! Becouse satan can change himself into an angel of light just to deceive people !2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.\nMatthew 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. \n\nIn Matthew 24 Daniel 11:31 9:27 12:11 and Revelation 14:9 We are warned of one who will come, who will set about to deceive the whole world !!
811324
The bible is not the word of god.
939388
The verses you quoted are just one of many contridictions the Bible contains.  The most blatant one is the one that claims the Bible is the literal word of God.  If so, the Bible could not say anything which could even be the least bit ambiguous.  This of course accepts the premise that God is perfect.  Either God is imperfect, or the Bible is not God's\n literal word.
165873
Bible Accuracy Verified\n\nAlthough the Bible is a very old book, it is noteworthy that many ancient Bible manuscripts verify it. There are literally thousands of these ancient manuscripts in libraries and private collections throughout the world. They prove that today’s Bible has withstood the ravages of time and has been accurately copied and transmitted down to our day.\n\nThis can be checked out. For instance, the long-existing Institute for New Testament Textual Studies in Germany has made about 95 percent of its approximately 5,300 handwritten copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures available for scientific study, either on microfilm or in picture form. Thus the interested visitor, whether layman or scientific expert, can be shown, under expert guidance, just how exact the transmission of the Bible text down to our 20th century has been. The interval between the time the Christian Greek Scriptures were originally written and the writing of the oldest extant papyrus manuscripts is very short, not more than 25 years.
528263
The only thing that science can prove, is that the scrolls are of about the right date. No proof has been provided as to the truth of what's written on them. But then, the same can be said for all the scrolls in the bible too.
55619
No scientific research has proven the Bible wrong.  Some might scoff at this statement but what science has proven wrong is false beliefs held by some within the church,  beliefs that were not found in the Bible (i.e. the flat earth).  There is past and recent archaeological research that supports the historical accounts in Exodus and other books of the Bible.  Below are two sources for further information.
372332
The Bible is a collection of stories, that may or may not be true, that are intended not only to recollect historical accounts that were hard to understand, but to provide roll models and insight into your own decisions and their consequences. It is rather too much to base your ENTIRE life upon these stories; they should be not only taken with a grain of salt, but followed for their moral insight. Whether or not they were true are henceforth irrelevent.\n\nI already know that Creationists are going to attack this response and call me an atheist because I have Darwinist viewpoints. This is what I say to them: you are hypocrites to question the motives of God, or anything of the sort. If God is going to put a bunch of lies in a book, NOBODY can stop him. Not that I think they are lies, at least, not all of them, but any scientific arguments should carried out without any discourse over religious beliefs of ANY kind.
1082446
The bible is 99% pure, however there still exist copyist errors which you most definitely have pointed out.  The first is a numbering copyist error and the second, one of the daughters is actually Merab.  However the christian faith does not rest on tiny pieces of data like these examples.  All of the questionable material of the bible has absolutely no impact on the doctrine of Christianity--they are all very minute details such as the ones you have pointed out.  The other 'supposed' contradictions out there commit several logical fallacies such as quoting out of context and juxtaposition, and do not look at hebrew or greek colloquialisms