The Bible is the most accurate science textbook ever written, why isn't it being taught in schools?

Obviously it's a scientific fact that everything in the Bible can be proven, no one denies that. But why isn't it used in science classes?

18 Answers

Relevance
  • Favourite answer

    Well, in that case, the following should be taught in science class.

    According to Ecclesiastes 1:5 the sun actually goes around the earth--as, of course, it must, since, according to Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and 1 Chr 16:30, the earth does not move. And the earth cannot move because, according to 1 Samuel 2:8 and Ps 75:3, it is placed on pillars. And because it is placed on pillars, it has an underside and an upper side, as confirmed by Isaiah 40:22 which indicates that the earth is a flat disk.

    (The Hebrew word translated as "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg, which means "circle" not "sphere." Strong's Concordance: "circle"..."describe a circle." Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament: "Circle...the earth conceived as a disc, Is 40:22." Hebrew-Aramaic and English Lexicon of the Old Testament: "draw round, make a circle." If a sphere were meant, the Hebrew word duwr would have been used. The ancient Hebrews would have gotten the idea of a circular earth by viewing the horizon from the top of a mountain.)

    Since the biblical earth is flat, it has an underside and under the earth is the abyss, which is referred to several times in the Bible. That is also what is being referred to in Job 26:7 when it says that the earth hangs over nothing. (The original Hebrew word translated as "upon" in that passage in the KJV also means "over.") The actual sphere of the earth in space is not "suspended' or "hanging" "over" or "upon" nothing. It is orbiting the sun at 66,700 miles per hour.

    There are several other verses in the Bible indicating the earth is flat, such as Nebuchadnezzar's vision in Dan 4:10-11 (if it were not flat the tree could not be seen from all the earth), and Dan 2:28 states that the visions of Nebuchadnezzar are from God. If the biblical god says the biblical earth is flat, it must be flat.

    The original Hebrew word translated as firmament is raqiya, which is a noun derived from the Hebrew word raqa. That word is a verb meaning "to beat out," and is used in the bible in reference to beating out metal into plates or expanses of the metal (as in Exodus 39:3). So raqiya, as a noun, would literally mean "that which is beaten out."

    The idea is that the firmament, or sky, is a solid, beaten out expanse or vault set on the rim of the flat disk of the earth. This understanding is confirmed in Job 37:18, which states:

    "Can you beat out the vault of the skies as he does,

    hard as a mirror of cast metal?" (New English Bible. .)

    There, the Hebrew word translated as "beat out" (or "spread out" in other versions) is, as noted above, raqa.

    That idea is also implied in verses such as Deut 4:32:

    "Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?" See also Ps 19:1-6, Isaiah 13:4-5, and Matt 24:31.

    The "ends of heaven" would be the base of the vault of heaven where it rests on the rim of the disk of the earth.

    Also, the stars in the biblical cosmos are just lights set in the firmament. As mere lights in the sky, they will fall to the earth in the Last Days (Matt 24:29), something that is ridiculous considering the actual stars are other suns and many times larger than the earth.

    So, according to the Bible the earth is a flat, immovable disk, supported by pillars and covered with a solid vault of heaven, the rim of which is is resting on the perimeter of the disk of the earth, and the stars are just lights set in the vault of heaven.

    That this is the correct view of the biblical cosmos is shown by the fact that it describes a structure with parts that are fully consistent with each other. That structural consistency indicates that it accurately represents the cosmos as conceived by the ancient Hebrews and as its writers incorporated that view in the Bible.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I had a Catholic ex-girlfriend who told me, "The Bible isn't a science book. It's not really a history book either."

    Also note that we've learned a thing or two since Biblical times. Invention of the microscope has let us see God's work in finer detail. The Bible had a limited length and couldn't cover absolutely everything, y'know.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Bible is the book of life and I believe in Bible, but it can not be taught in schools, because it is a religious book, at school there are many students with different religious views, so that if they start teaching The Bible in schools, students' attitude to it will be different from each other, and it might cause controversy and profanity

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Of course people deny it. It's not a science textbook at all, it's a bunch of stories written by monks.

    It was taught in schools, actually, at one time, it was called Religious studies. However, now so many different children go to school and they belong to so many different religions with differing beliefs, it just wouldn't be democratic. Anyone can read the bible at any time, if they really want to. Personally, I don't. And I'm glad it's not taught in schools any more.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Because schools cannot force religion upon students, as it is students who are most vulnerable to brain washing. Students have to make their own mind up as to what they want to believe and no, nothing in the bible can be scientifically proven which is also why it isn't taught in schools.

    Source(s): Common sense
    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Accurate about what?

    What lesson could you take from the bible that has been tested by the "scientific method" of repeated and repeatable experimentation or observation followed by peer review?

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Fungus
    Lv 4
    8 years ago

    Talking snakes can be proven? How? Among animals, only humans can talk.

    Could you walk over the sea?

    Could you transform blood into wine and meat into bread?

    Have you ever seen any person being resuscitated?

    A woman who gets pregnant without having sex? (so the child has no dad, 50% of his DNA came from nothing!).

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    It's religion not science and not everybody believes in the stuff said in the bible

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    The bible is retarted. Being gay isn't a sin. Snakes don't talk. Slavery is not okay. And to awnser your question is because not everyone believes in the bible. And most of it can't be proven. I believe in god. Not the bible.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Duh! The Bible is taught Bible classes. historic past books are taught historic past classes. English books are taught in English classes. technological knowledge books are taught in technological knowledge classes. What i opt for to entice close is why math books are not used to practice Spanish. by the way, the Bible is about conception, no longer information. Proofs are taught in geometry classes. technological knowledge is about hypotheses that look actual looking from pondering contemporary information.,No declare of absolute reality there.

    • Commenter avatarLog in to reply to the answers
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.