Is the Bible the true word of God?

**Descensus** · 03-06-2011 05:10 AM

Since Xaqaria was so nice to up and delete our discussion in the other thread, we'll continue it here.

MrBlonde claims that the Bible is the true word of God because he believes it is. If he finds issue with that summation, he may clarify.

My reply to him was that since he effectively threw the faith card, we cannot take him seriously. His reply was rather cryptic and I didn't follow his point.

So, let's continue. MrBlonde, what was your point?

**Maria92** · 03-06-2011 06:31 AM

Is the Bible the true word of God?

**Nevik** · 03-06-2011 07:12 AM

Having faith that something exists does not make that thing exist. It's pretty simple.

**Zhaylin** · 03-06-2011 07:13 AM

Do an honest study of Bible History.
Jehovah's Witnesses would be MORE than happy, lol, to provide you with all the reading material you can handle. With everything from Bible tracts, brochures and books you could do an in depth study of the subject.
"The Bible- God's Word or Man's", books on Daniel's and Isaiah's prophecy's as well as the book of Revelation and everything in between.
If you promise to read the books, they leave them free of charge, though a donation is always appreciated (it goes toward producing more books, not into the pocket of the Witnesses).

Faith doesn't have to be blind.

**LikesToTrip** · 03-06-2011 07:16 AM

Believing in something supernatural because somebody else wrote a book on it could still be considered blind faith. The blind leading the blind.

**Descensus** · 03-06-2011 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Do an honest study of Bible History.
Jehovah's Witnesses would be MORE than happy, lol, to provide you with all the reading material you can handle. With everything from Bible tracts, brochures and books you could do an in depth study of the subject.
"The Bible- God's Word or Man's", books on Daniel's and Isaiah's prophecy's as well as the book of Revelation and everything in between.
If you promise to read the books, they leave them free of charge, though a donation is always appreciated (it goes toward producing more books, not into the pocket of the Witnesses).

Do such resources show that everything written in the Bible was either written by God or dictated to man by God?

Faith doesn't have to be blind.

Faith is blind by definition. If you believe in something with valid reasons (which validity may be questioned), based on real evidence, then it isn't faith.

**mikeac** · 03-06-2011 07:22 AM

The Bible was written by man, and then translated, passed down through word, and written down several times over generations to create the book we have today.

Faith is blind. Having faith is believing without total knowledge of what you are believing in. Skepticism is also blind in a similar way, except with disbelief or an unsure attitude toward the subject.

**LikesToTrip** · 03-06-2011 07:28 AM

Skepticism is also blind in a similar way

Being skeptical means you don't believe anything until it can be proven. How is that blind?

**Nevik** · 03-06-2011 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Do an honest study of Bible History.
Jehovah's Witnesses would be MORE than happy, lol, to provide you with all the reading material you can handle. With everything from Bible tracts, brochures and books you could do an in depth study of the subject.

"The Bible- God's Word or Man's", books on Daniel's and Isaiah's prophecy's as well as the book of Revelation and everything in between.

If you promise to read the books, they leave them free of charge, though a donation is always appreciated (it goes toward producing more books, not into the pocket of the Witnesses).

Faith doesn't have to be blind.

Why do you assume our study of Biblical history is dishonest? Is it because we've arrived at a different conclusion then you, a conclusion that you can't accept as valid due to your beliefs? Furthermore, why would I have to read your specific denomination's literature to conduct an "honest" study of the Bible and it's history? It seems to me that you shouldn't go around telling others that "faith doesn't have to be blind" when it is so painfully obvious that your on faith is just that.

**Zhaylin** · 03-06-2011 07:35 AM

When the Bible says X, Y, and Z happened and people scoffed and rolled their eyes, then architects validated the info, my faith is validated.
So while I say "the Bible is the true word of God", that's a leap of faith. When I study history in connection with the Bible, the faith has been proven and is no longer "blind". But yeah, I rely on the work of others to inform me about the science and the religion.

In my humble opinion, if science hasn't proven certain things in connection with the Bible, it doesn't mean it will never be proven or unprovable. I have faith it will be.

I never fit in with mainstream religions because I want too many answers. Jehovah's Witnesses encourage people to study for themselves and they're just there to nudge and guide you like a teacher. Not like stereotypical preachers who say "it's a mystery" or "who are we to question God?"
Having questions isn't the same as questioning God.

**EDIT**
Posted at the same time as you Nevik.
Study any denomination you prefer. Personally, I recommend the Witnesses so highly because I was one of them. But before them, I studied countless religions and the beliefs of the Witnesses are the only ones, thus far, which I've found to compliment (instead of contradict) the Bible. They also have a lot in depth reading material that draws on various sources. I've found them invaluable study aides. I hold the Bible as the ultimate authority. If a religion teaches something I find not to be in harmony with the Bible, I move on.
I am no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses though, because I can't "walk the walk". They practice what they preach to an extreme I couldn't emulate.

***EDIT***
Oh yeah... if someone STUDIES the Bible, their search is honest. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. When I used to preach from house to house, though, 95% of everyone I met downed the Bible because of things others did in the name of religion or they just parroted what they heard in church without checking for themselves. When I say make an honest study of the Bible, I mean, do the work. Don't rely on others or bad experiences to jade your vision without even trying.

**LikesToTrip** · 03-06-2011 07:43 AM

Of course the Bible would include real events in order to be more believable. However, there are no texts outside the bible that mention Jesus. Christians will argue Tacitus, along with others, mention Jesus, but none of these claims can be validated. And most of them are written 50years or more after Jesus was said to have died.

**Descensus** · 03-06-2011 07:45 AM

When the Bible says X, Y, and Z happened and people scoffed and rolled their eyes, then architects validated the info, my faith is validated.
So while I say "the Bible is the true word of God", that's a leap of faith. When I study history in connection with the Bible, the faith has been proven and is no longer "blind". But yeah, I rely on the work of others to inform me about the science and the religion.

In my humble opinion, if science hasn't proven certain things in connection with the Bible, it doesn't mean it will never be proven or unprovable. I have faith it will be.

I never fit in with mainstream religions because I want too many answers. Jehovah's Witnesses encourage people to study for themselves and they're just there to nudge and guide you like a teacher. Not like stereotypical preachers who say "it's a mystery" or "who are we to question God?"
Having questions isn't the same as questioning God.

If this is a reply to me, how have they validated the Bible as the word of God?

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

But before them, I studied countless religions and the beliefs of the Witnesses are the only ones, thus far, which I've found to compliment (instead of contradict) the Bible. They also have a lot in depth reading material that draws on various sources. I've found them invaluable study aides. I hold the Bible as the ultimate authority. If a religion teaches something I find not to be in harmony with the Bible, I move on.

As a curious digression, what if science teaches something you find not to be in harmony with the Bible?

**Zhaylin** · 03-06-2011 07:49 AM

Good point, I had to look it up:

"The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, see Luke 3:1, 2,*21-23.
The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63,*64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.
Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived during the latter part of the first century*C.E., wrote: “Christus [Latin for “Christ”], from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus.”—The Complete Works of Tacitus (New York, 1942), “The Annals,” Book 15, par. 44.
With reference to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopædia Britannica states: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”—(1976), Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145."

-- taken from Reasoning from the Scriptures, published by Jehovah's Witnesses.

**Nevik** · 03-06-2011 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

When the Bible says X, Y, and Z happened and people scoffed and rolled their eyes, then architects validated the info, my faith is validated.
So while I say "the Bible is the true word of God", that's a leap of faith.

When I study history in connection with the Bible, the faith has been proven and is no longer "blind". But yeah, I rely on the work of others to inform me about the science and the religion.

Ok, we have a problem here. If there is some historical accuracy in a text that does not mean a text is divinely authored.

You also contradict yourself here. You claim that your believe in the divine authorship of the Bible is "a leap of faith" but you also say that your faith is "validated and "no longer 'blind'" when you study history and apply it to the Bible. So which is it: blind faith or a belief backed up by facts?

In my humble opinion, if science hasn't proven certain things in connection with the Bible, it doesn't mean it will never be proven or unprovable. I have faith it will be.

Until something has been proven you have no reason to believe it. Take out the word "Bible" and replace it with "Bigfoot" or some other nonsense and you'll see how silly you sound.

I never fit in with mainstream religions because I want too many answers. Jehovah's Witnesses encourage people to study for themselves and they're just there to nudge and guide you like a teacher. Not like stereotypical preachers who say "it's a mystery" or "who are we to question God?"

Having questions isn't the same as questioning God.

Yeah, your religion is different. If I had a dollar every time I heard that...

**Zhaylin** · 03-06-2011 07:55 AM

BlueLine... I forget, lol. No, seriously. My brain refuses to remember facts and figures. Once I learn something historical or mathematical, I very quickly forget it

If science teaches something not in accord with the Bible, then science needs to revise itself. And I say that seriously as well.
Ancient Egyptians used to treat wounds with fecal matter and urine. It made perfect scientific sense to them. But God's law, even back then, kept the Israelites clean from diseases by banning such practices.
Just 10 years ago, science says get a blood transfusion if you need one. The Bible says Nu-uh. Now-a-days, science is making leaps and bounds in the practice of bloodless surgery and such. Sometimes you have to wait on science to catch up.

**Nevik** · 03-06-2011 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Just 10 years ago, science says get a blood transfusion if you need one. The Bible says Nu-uh. Now-a-days, science is making leaps and bounds in the practice of bloodless surgery and such. Sometimes you have to wait on science to catch up.

I'm pretty certain that blood transfusions are standard today.

**Zhaylin** · 03-06-2011 08:04 AM

lol Nevik. You, my friend, sound very jaded (with regard to: "If I had a dollar...")

I guess I'm pretty different from most people here. I keep an open mind about most anything. Instead I say: "Prove to me Bigfoot DOESN'T exist"

I wonder if that's a major difference between atheists and those spiritually inclined. I wonder if some people are geared skeptical while others are more nieve (SP!!) or trusting?

To clarify, I guess I believe faith begins blind, but you strengthen your faith through study. I guess a scientist could say the same: you start with a theory and build on it to support the original idea.

**Descensus** · 03-06-2011 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

BlueLine... I forget, lol. No, seriously. My brain refuses to remember facts and figures. Once I learn something historical or mathematical, I very quickly forget it

If you have the habit of forgetting facts and figures, then how can you say with certainty that your resources have validated the Bible as the word of God?

If science teaches something not in accord with the Bible, then science needs to revise itself. And I say that seriously as well.

Is something like evolution in accord with the Bible?

Ancient Egyptians used to treat wounds with fecal matter and urine. It made perfect scientific sense to them. But God's law, even back then, kept the Israelites clean from diseases by banning such practices.
Just 10 years ago, science says get a blood transfusion if you need one. The Bible says Nu-uh. Now-a-days, science is making leaps and bounds in the practice of bloodless surgery and such. Sometimes you have to wait on science to catch up.

I challenged the validity of the first two examples (Egyptians treating wounds with fecal matter/urine, and getting a blood transfusion on a whim). If you could provide sources, I would appreciate it. I would also like to see the Bible passages, in full, that told people to wash their hands and not get blood transfusions.

**Zhaylin** · 03-06-2011 08:11 AM

Ugh... you would say that, wouldn't you Blue?

That's going to require some research. I'll be back in a bit.

As for the history bit... I remember as long as I need to. I have a eureka moment, everything makes sense, then it slips from mind. If it's not info I use every day, I don't retain it. I see your point though.
That's one reason I tell everyone about the books I mentioned earlier. I would much rather you found the info yourself

**Maria92** · 03-06-2011 09:00 AM

This thread is full of facepalm.

Zhaylin, a few historical facts in a work of fiction does not automatically mean the entire book is true...or the work of a deity. When you have scientists making observations, statements, and conclusions based on thousands of years of technological advancements that contradict the bible, especially in regards to the medical field where lives are put on the line on a minute-to-minute basis, clinging to religious beliefs is not only foolish, but an endangerment to innocent lives. This book is no longer relevant in regards to medical advice. Blood transfusions have saved countless people. Our technological progress as a result of science means we may ultimately be able to move away from the need for blood transfusions, but such a day is far in the future.

And the problem with going "prove x DOESN'T exist" essentially means that you're saying "I will believe any x until shown otherwise." This fault in standard logic can likewise be an endangerment to health and well-being. Pretend you've just been hit by a car. A woman approaches carrying a vial full of white stuff. She tells you it is a magic powder that will instantly heal your wounds. Do you allow this complete stranger to sprinkle an unknown substance into your wounds? You could argue that faith isn't a life-or-death situation, but far too often, it is. Perhaps you'll recall this case. And you'll find thousands of others who will flock to alternative medicines that have been proven to not work instead of seeking real treatment at the hands of a professional. What drives them? Faith. Religious belief, the belief in whatever crackpot alternative therapy they're seeking will work. Some die a preventable death from this faith. All of it is inexcusable.

**Zhaylin** · 03-06-2011 11:46 AM

Here is some of what you requested BlueLine:
"Ancient Egyptian knowledge of medicine has often been presented as quite scientific and advanced. While some knowledge of anatomy is evident and certain simple surgical methods were developed and cataloged, much ignorance is also revealed. Thus, while an Egyptian papyrus text speaks of the heart as being connected by vessels to every part of the body, the same text presents the vessels as carrying, not blood, but air, water, semen, and mucus. Not only was there a fundamental misunderstanding of the functions of the living body, but the medical texts are heavily dosed with magic and superstition; magical spells and incantations make up a major portion of the information. Remedies not only included beneficial herbs and plants but also prescribed such ingredients as the blood of mice, urine, or the excrement of flies, which, together with the spells, were “calculated to drive the possessing demon out of the man’s body in sheer disgust.” (History of Mankind, by J.*Hawkes and Sir Leonard Woolley, 1963, Vol. I, p. 695) Such lack of understanding may have contributed to some of the ‘fearsome diseases of Egypt,’ likely including elephantiasis, dysentery, smallpox, bubonic plague, ophthalmia, and other ailments; Israel could gain protection from them by faithful obedience. (De 7:15; compare De 28:27, 58-60; Am 4:10.) The hygienic measures imposed on the Israelites following the Exodus are in dramatic contrast to many of the practices described in the Egyptian texts.—Le 11:32-40; see DISEASES AND TREATMENT."

Concerning blood, the Bible says:
"In the Bible, the soul is said to be in the blood because blood is so intimately involved in the life processes. God’s Word says: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.” (Le 17:11) For like reason, but making the connection even more direct, the Bible says: “The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.” (Le 17:14) Clearly, God’s Word treats both life and blood as sacred."....
"Under the Christian arrangement...: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Ac 15:22, 28,*29) The prohibition included flesh with the blood in it (“things strangled”).
This decree rests, ultimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind. In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): “This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication.”—Italics his."

Bold text indicates outside sources.
Taken from Insight on the Scriptures by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Everyone always wants to argue: "eating blood is not the same as transfusions!" But if a doctor said one more drink of alcohol would kill you, would you pump it through your veins via an IV? It's meaning is the same.

Evolution as I understand it is NOT in accord with Biblical teaching (i.e. slime didn't ultimately become people), but adaptation would be acceptable IMO.
BUT- no one knows the mind of God. When he said things would produce in "kind" (dog produces dog, cat produces cat etc), what is HIS understanding of "kind". If the DNA was present for dinosaurs/reptiles to become prehistoric birds which in turn became the birds we know today, who am I to argue. God's mind is so much greater than ours, so I try to stay away from scientific arguments. The Bible doesn't specify certain things and I'm not willing to jump to conclusions and ostracize my religious or scientific brethren.
I write it off as one of those "I simply don't care" because there's no way for me to know things.

Mario,
Good points. Your intelligence surpasses mine, by far, so I shan't even try to argue. Your logic is sound.
That's why I encourage people to study for themselves. I may be trusting, but even that has a point. I would not trust a stranger. I have not studied her claims. Some alternative medicine is beneficial. Some modern science and treatments are beneficial. I want to see data before making any decisions though. It's the same approach I've taken with religion.

**Nevik** · 03-06-2011 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

lol Nevik. You, my friend, sound very jaded (with regard to: "If I had a dollar...")

Jaded, no. I've just grown tired of people using the same tired, old argument ("But my religion is different!").

I guess I'm pretty different from most people here. I keep an open mind about most anything. Instead I say: "Prove to me Bigfoot DOESN'T exist"

I recommend that you watch this.

I wonder if that's a major difference between atheists and those spiritually inclined. I wonder if some people are geared skeptical while others are more nieve (SP!!) or trusting?

I wouldn't say that believers are more prone to being trusting and naive. There are many theists I know who are skeptical about many things, they just didn't apply their skepticism to their own religious beliefs.

**mikeac** · 03-06-2011 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

Being skeptical means you don't believe anything until it can be proven. How is that blind?

Skepticism is between being unsure and totally denying and not beliving something. Being skeptical means you are questioning something that may or may not exist in the first place, and most of those things cannot be easily proven, such as the existence of God.

**Descensus** · 03-07-2011 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

Here is some of what you requested BlueLine:
"Ancient Egyptian knowledge of medicine has often been presented as quite scientific and advanced. While some knowledge of anatomy is evident and certain simple surgical methods were developed and cataloged, much ignorance is also revealed. Thus, while an Egyptian papyrus text speaks of the heart as being connected by vessels to every part of the body, the same text presents the vessels as carrying, not blood, but air, water, semen, and mucus. Not only was there a fundamental misunderstanding of the functions of the living body, but the medical texts are heavily dosed with magic and superstition; magical spells and incantations make up a major portion of the information. Remedies not only included beneficial herbs and plants but also prescribed such ingredients as the blood of mice, urine, or the excrement of flies, which, together with the spells, were “calculated to drive the possessing demon out of the man’s body in sheer disgust.” (History of Mankind, by J.*Hawkes and Sir Leonard Woolley, 1963, Vol. I, p. 695) Such lack of understanding may have contributed to some of the ‘fearsome diseases of Egypt,’ likely including elephantiasis, dysentery, smallpox, bubonic plague, ophthalmia, and other ailments; Israel could gain protection from them by faithful obedience. (De 7:15; compare De 28:27, 58-60; Am 4:10.) The hygienic measures imposed on the Israelites following the Exodus are in dramatic contrast to many of the practices described in the Egyptian texts.—Le 11:32-40; see DISEASES AND TREATMENT."

Concerning blood, the Bible says:
"In the Bible, the soul is said to be in the blood because blood is so intimately involved in the life processes. God’s Word says: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.” (Le 17:11) For like reason, but making the connection even more direct, the Bible says: “The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.” (Le 17:14) Clearly, God’s Word treats both life and blood as sacred."....
"Under the Christian arrangement...: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Ac 15:22, 28,*29) The prohibition included flesh with the blood in it (“things strangled”).
This decree rests, ultimately, on God’s command not to eat blood, as given to Noah and his sons and, therefore, to all mankind. In this regard, the following is found in The Chronology of Antient Kingdoms Amended, by Sir Isaac Newton (Dublin, 1728, p. 184): “This law [of abstaining from blood] was ancienter than the days of Moses, being given to Noah and his sons, long before the days of Abraham: and therefore when the Apostles and Elders in the Council at Jerusalem declared that the Gentiles were not obliged to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, they excepted this law of abstaining from blood, and things strangled, as being an earlier law of God, imposed not on the sons of Abraham only, but on all nations, while they lived together in Shinar under the dominion of Noah: and of the same kind is the law of abstaining from meats offered to Idols or false Gods, and from fornication.”—Italics his."

Bold text indicates outside sources.
Taken from Insight on the Scriptures by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Everyone always wants to argue: "eating blood is not the same as transfusions!" But if a doctor said one more drink of alcohol would kill you, would you pump it through your veins via an IV? It's meaning is the same.

Why is it that, after reading the biblical citations you provided, I get the sense that one has to do a fair amount of cherrypicking in order to find some semblance of scientific truth? Its not so much that the Bible says "don't do this because you'll get sick and stuff," it says "do this because God says so." It's not so much that the Bible was scientifically advanced because God said "alright, you generally want to not do this because it mucks up the wound, makes it unclean, you know," but rather "do all of this because I'm God and I say so."

So I challenge the entire notion that the Bible is somehow more advanced and that we have to wait for real science to catch up. If the Bible had provided real scientific reasoning, something akin to "don't do this, not because I'm God and I say so, but because you'll actually get sick," then I might reconsider. All I read was "it will be unclean...it will be unclean...it will be unclean" with no reason why, other than "follow all of these rules just because." It sort of echoes what Mario said earlier. Even IF there are the occasional suggestions that modern-day humans can agree with, it doesn't follow that every suggestion is true, or that it should be the scientific standard, or that regular science should revise itself. Basically, what I'm saying is, for the Bible to be considered a standard for science, it must provide scientific reasoning for its claims. "God says so" is not sufficient.

Evolution as I understand it is NOT in accord with Biblical teaching (i.e. slime didn't ultimately become people), but adaptation would be acceptable IMO.

So in the case of evolution, which is more or less a fact, the fact that it isn't in accord with the Bible means it should be revised? I understand that you generally don't care about these things because you claim there's no way to know certain things. If so, you should be careful to not make claims like "if it's not in accord with the bible, it should revise itself," because there's a very high chance you will be challenged.

But the only way to truly KNOW things is to use science. Whether or not one can make a case for certain medical suggestions within the Bible is irrelevant. Science has brought us more understanding of the natural world than the Bible has.

**cedward1** · 03-07-2011 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

So in the case of evolution, which is more or less a fact, the fact that it isn't in accord with the Bible means it should be revised?...

...But the only way to truly KNOW things is to use science. Whether or not one can make a case for certain medical suggestions within the Bible is irrelevant. Science has brought us more understanding of the natural world than the Bible has.

This may be a little off topic from the original theme of this thread, but I have to disagree with two things you stated here. As someone with a background in biology, I can tell you that macroevolution (the idea that everything evolved from inorganic material) is far from fact. Actually, it is widely debated, and there has been little evidence to support it. Microevolution (the idea that species evolve to adapt to existing conditions) is what is more or less "fact". More accurately, since it is still a theory, it is scientific concensus rather than fact. There is support for the idea that many species may have a common ancestor, though there are many "missing links". So the traditional Biblical view of creation is not in conflict with what we currently know about nature. Science just has shown that it is possible (though in my opinion unlikely) that things got to how they are today without divine intervention.

The second is that the only way to "truly know things is to use science". In support of that statement, I would invite you to show me something we truly know, 100% with no uncertainty that science has proven. Science is a process to gather data in our pursuit of knowledge, but it can never prove something 100%. Nothing can do that, which is why some things require faith - such as whether or not to have a certain operation, or whether or not to trust your eternal well-being to Jesus. All we can do is to gather evidence to help guide us in decision making.

And yes, science has brought us more understanding of the natural world than the Bible has. But none of that is helpful in the last moments of your life, or at the funeral of a loved one.