there is proof that the bible is scientificly sound

Now, in my defense to the 6 questions posed I will begin with the first objection: the miscalculation of pi. Because I believe in the infallibility of Scripture I must challenge this assumption. For starters, the cubit measurement has been well documented for centuries to be neither static nor universally accurate. As defined in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Easton's Bible Dictionary, and a host of secular resources, the cubit is the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Using my own arm for example, a cubit would equal almost 19 inches! Although the cubit is generally accepted to be roughly 17.5 inches, various Biblical scholars throughout the centuries have calculated it to be anywhere from 17 to 20 inches; that's a variation of about 15%. Since nature proves that various men have different arm lengths, the cubit could be anywhere in that 17-20 inch range. Any honest scientist or mathematician would agree that in order to get accurate calculations one must have an accurate and fixed reference point, something we do not have in the I Kings text. Using the 17-20 inch range, the diameter of the bowl could have been anywhere from 14.166 to 16.666 feet, while the circumference (using the 30 cubit measurement) could have been anywhere from 42.5 to 50 feet. Both of these calculations fall within the 15% range of variation. Interestingly enough, the variation between mathematical pi (3.1415) and pi (3) as implied in the I Kings text is only 4.7%. With those calculations in hand, if the diameter of the bowl at 10 cubits was 15 feet, mathematical pi would make the circumference 47.12 feet. Since a cubit could range anywhere from 17 to 20 inches, converting the circumference back into cubits gives us a number of 30, just as the Biblical text says. The fact remains that the cubit is neither static nor accurate, so we don't know the accurate measurements of the molten sea. Any measurements that fall within that 15% range of variation could yield a ratio of 3-to-1 while still being accurate to mathematical pi. This is enough information on it's own to prove I Kings 7:23 is not an error, but for those who desire more, let's address mathematical pi. Like the cubit measurement, mathematical pi is neither static nor universally accurate. Rather than being a static number (3.1415 ) pi is defined as the relationship or ratio between the diameter and circumference of a circle. The 3.1415 number only works in perfect plane geometry (which doesn't exist in nature) and even then it's an irrational number whose decimals go on eternally. The significance of this comes in the realization that since pi is an irrational number, it cannot be used as a reliable ratio. The more variation that exists in the measurement of diameter, the more unreliable pi becomes in determining circumference. Consider this as well: in perfect plane geometry pi is an irrational number and a close approximation at best. In spherical geometry pi is a much smaller number; in hyperbolic geometry (4-D) pi is not even constant! Finally, the Biblical text goes on to say in verse 26 that the molten sea was a "hand breadth" thick. What that measurement really was we do not know. We also don't know if the diameter and circumference measurements were both taken from either the inside or outside. Verse 23 mentions a "brim" but doesn't give us details regarding it's shape or measurements. This also could affect the diameter and circumference issue. At the end of the day we simply don't have enough information to say that the 10 and 30 cubit measurements are inaccurate. In conclusion, let's get back to the original criticism of our "problem" text in I Kings 7. I must assume the Word of God is correct unless the skeptics can prove otherwise. In order to do this, critics use Euclidean (plane) geometry as a means of dismissing the cubit measurements as incorrect. Since there is no static, fixed reference point of measurement, Euclidean geometry proves nothing in this case. Furthermore, since the cubit measurement and mathematical pi are not static or universally accurate they are meaningless to the discussion. If measurements based on Euclidean geometry constitute the entire case of the Bible critic, the trial is over and he has lost. For those who do not believe in the perfect and preserved written Word, no explanation of alleged errors and contradictions is possible. To those who do believe, the explanations can always be found with diligent and faithful study. Do not allow the Bible critics to stifle your faith my friends; God is so much bigger than that.1 In answer to the second contradiction, First, linean classification was not available when Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, nor did a specific scientific definition for what a bird was exist. The classification of animals was made by function and form. This can be seen in the definition of words used to describe animals in the Old Testament. For example, the word here that we render "fowl" comes from the Hebrew word, "owph" which means flying creatures, to include birds, winged insects, and any animal that owns a wing. It comes from a root word that means to cover or to fly. This verse could rightly be interpreted, "And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among flying creatures. .. .". The King James Version seems to call the bat a fowl, but when you understand the times in which it was written, and the meaning of the original Hebrew, it's obvious there is no error here.2 In answer to the third question posed, Once again the word translated fowl here is 'owph', which means a creature with wings. It's the same word used in verse 21 and translated flying. The reference in both cases is referring to insects. Notice the differentiation between the four feet and the "legs above their feet". The large legs on insects such as the locust, grasshopper, cricket (beetle) etc. , are considered legs, but they are different than the other legs which are called "feet" in every instance here. You can add the four feet (legs) to the legs above their feet (legs) and get 6 legs if you like, however, the Hebrews chose to differentiate between the regular legs on the insects described here and the large legs used for jumping or lifting off to take flight.2 In answer to the fourth query, I will quote directly from the bible, And God said, "Let there be light,"" and there was light. (Genesis 1:3) If you`ll notice the reference it comes BEFORE the plants (Genesis 1:12) Next, the fifth question the problem of location. How were all the herbs available if man had not discovered America and what about the poisonous ones? The command given here, to eat from every tree, was given before The Fall. There were no plants that could harm humans. There were no thorns and thistles. The author of the SAB links to Biblical Nonsense: Science to the Rescue," which appears to be a text written by someone with very little learning in Hebrew, the Bible and the sciences. On if Adam was allowed to eat from every tree: yes, all trees on the earth, except one tree specially planted in the Garden of Eden. Note that there is a restriction in this verse, Adam is not given every tree, but every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed. It is unsure if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil fit this definition, but if it did, I see no contradiction by God giving him every tree, that means every kind, on the earth, except a special one. For that conclusion to hold this verse should have added: every single tree, no exceptions. On what we should eat: this command is given before The Fall and before the flood. Very different circumstances.3 Finally, has the bible incorrectly ordered when man was created? The author of the SAB reads into these verses more than they are saying. The Hebrew does not have a past tense. I believe this story was originally written by Adam himself, possibly on a clay tablet. After the introduction explaining there was no man, the story continues in verse 7 with the creation of Adam. It then explains what went on before, i. e. why he was in the garden, and goes on to the climax, the first woman.3 Therefore, I would like to respectfully disagree with the statement, "a few examples of the hundreds to thousands of scientific and logical inaccuracies. " 1. . http://voices.yahoo.com... 2. . http://contenderministries.org... 3. . http://www.berenddeboer.net...