both explain the big bang ie everything comes into being in a flash of light

just don't use the same words ie god said let there be light and there was light, another flash of light

creation of earth

science earth condenced out of a cloud

bible and the earth was with out form

a cloud has shape but not form

Actually, the big bang theory is actually a set of theories. Some dont even know if light was possible at the time being(no stars), or that any energy was given off at all(most likely this did happen), plus what kind of force would be required to push so much stuff out in so many different directions and keep it going for so long.

the last theory i heard is that there wasn't any light for 100,000 years and then there was nothing but light for a length of time

Speaking on the topic of how accurate the bible is, personally i think it is very significant that it has passed this age of scientific knowledge fairly unscathed.

I think it is almost miraculous that it hasn't turned into some funny fairytale full of funny errors of science born of an era ignorant of science.

There are some small errors in the bible, but errors which could be seen by the eyes of men in any age.

I do wonder though, are there any errors in the bible which were only revealed by modern science?

non that i know of

Yea, no great religious figures in the bible say anything like 'the world is flat' or anything like that. Not that i would blame them for saying it if they did, although if Jesus had said it then i guess that would be a problem!

good thing he was more worried about the soul than the world

This thread continues to astonish me with its longevity. So I have decided to stir the pot a bit and see what happens.

the big bang

the big bang theory is actually a set of theories.

there is actually scientific recording and proofs

Hate to say it, but a theory is just that... a theory. Our best guess. There is no "definitive proof" (so called smoking gun) to say the Big Bang "theory" actually happened the way astronomers / theologians / scientists say it did and their definitely isn't any scientific recordings of the event.

And it has more truth than the Bible in my opinion

Does it? How can you be so sure without definitive proof in either case? I mean, according to what you all are saying, parts of the Bible have been around for 3000 years. That is a long, long time. This "Big Bang" theory has been around for what? 40? 100? Max? It really boils down to a matter of Faith. Your faith in Science and / or your faith in God.

I think it is almost miraculous that it hasn't turned into some funny fairytale full of funny errors of science born of an era ignorant of science.

You sir, must have Faith. There are many who would debate you on this very premise. The Bible is not fallible, it was written by the hand of man after all. Over the course of centuries many believe things were taken out and added, be it for political reasons or translation errors. Also there are many people who believe that there are so many more books to the Bible and that it is an incomplete work. I give you the Gospel of Judas as an example, however, the Dead Sea Scrolls are a better known example.

  

you are correct

but the message is still there

and

becouse of your statement that is why i also believe in the truth of the book of morman

which if you listen to the na sayers on that one was written by an 18 year how never got out of 8th grade

Hate to say it, but a theory is just that... a theory.

In the common language sense, e.g. "my theory about who the murderer is," this is basically correct. But saying that gravity is "just a theory" does nothing to contradict the fact that when you lift an object from the ground and then let go, it falls (unless you're playing games with compressed air, magnetism, stage magician's gear).

Most scientists are very serious when they call something a "theory," and the collection of theories presented to us layfolk as "the big bang" are based on both astrophysical evidence (estimates of the size, mass, and age of the visible universe) and the very best math available (quantuum physics, astrophysics, & friends).

There is no known physical evidence of the Bible's god. It is, as others have aptly said here, a matter of pure faith. While I believe that everyone operates on a set of assumptions that include "things taken on faith," I also believe that good scientists work to minimize the role of faith in their analyses in order to maximize the core goal of science: learning through reproducible tests of formal hypotheses.

p.s. That's just my theory

I agree with you on how seriously scientists take their theories, however, I must point out a word you used that does pertain significantly to said theories...

estimates

Which brings me back to...... Our best guess.

You sir, must have Faith. There are many who would debate you on this very premise. The Bible is not fallible, it was written by the hand of man after all. Over the course of centuries many believe things were taken out and added, be it for political reasons or translation errors. Also there are many people who believe that there are so many more books to the Bible and that it is an incomplete work. I give you the Gospel of Judas as an example, however, the Dead Sea Scrolls are a better known example

oh dear, oh me, oh my. I was actually talking about biblical errors which are visible as a result of science. What you are talking about are things which could be seen by the eyes of men in any age.

does anyone remember the story where Jesus heals a dude with symptoms fitting somone with epilepsy?

Certainly to people in that age, if anything was going to look like demon possesion, that would be it!

But really, what is the difference between somone who is borne with epilepsy and somone who is borne with an arm missing? arn't they both biological problems, not demonic? Not that i really know that much about epilepsy anyway.

or was it a deman mimicking epilepsy

or was it a deman mimicking epilepsy

Why would a Demon mimick epilepsy? There is no reason i can think of why a Demon would mimick somthing that already looks like Demon possesion?

That is like saying you will go and rob a bank and then wear a disguise that looks exactly like you!