Posting only the relevant passages is cherry picking? What do you want, that I post the whole thing?
You can’t get away from the fact that time and again, scientists who just love to reject Scripture keep coming to the same conclusions that the Bible stated thousands of years before.
At one time the steady state theory was preeminent in science. The only people who believed that the universe had a beginning were those religious Bible believers.
Einstein’s equations showed that the universe indeed did have a beginning, much to his chagrin; to the point where he inserted a *cosmological constant* to make his equations fit the theory instead of adjusting the steady state theory to fit the data. Not incredibly objective of him, now was it?
He finally had to admit that he was wrong when Hubble’s observations and work with red-shift showed that Einstein’s equations were correct after all, and the the universe did have a beginning.
So what if the Bible doesn’t mention E=mc2? How is that relevant to the fact that the Bible states that the universe and the earth had a beginning and it was right when the scientists were wrong?
So what?
You leave off the full quotes from all of the passages (which contradict your interpretation) and jump from Gen 1:2 to Gen 1:20.
How is that relevant to the fact that the Bible states that the universe and the earth had a beginning and it was right when the scientists were wrong?
Most creation stories have a 'beginning'.
I'll roll with you on this. Science merely confirms the Bible.
So, where in the Bible does it tell me how to regrow adult teeth or appendages? Restore vision?
Modern science is working on all of those.
Most of the work involves ES cells, too.
This is a genuine offer.
I suspect that once medical science discovers a way to give me both, you'll find some obscure passage in the Bible and claim - a-ha! - that it was foretold in your good book and, don't ya know, those atheistic scientists are just confirming your book, again.