Is the Christian Bible imperfect/flawed?

Throughout time it has been established that human beings are flawed/imperfect. From my knowledge and understanding, the christian bible was written by followers of Jesus Christ more importantly, human beings. If that is the case does that not mean the bible is flawed/imperfect and that you can never truly guarantee that what the bible says is "the right thing to do".

I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ. This question is mainly aimed at the christian society. The reason for this question is gain more insight on Christianity, the bible, etc, in order to challenge my faith and see where i stand.

Anything that does not hold up to modern science, reason, logic and rationality is flawed. Thereby a religious scripture that is interpreted literally is by definition flawed.

Throughout time it has been established that human beings are flawed/imperfect. From my knowledge and understanding, the christian bible was written by followers of Jesus Christ, human beings. If that is the case does that not mean the bible is flawed/imperfect and that you can never truly guarantee that what the bible says is "the right thing to do".

I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ. This question is mainly aimed at the christian society. The reason for this question is gain more insight on Christianity, the bible, etc, in order to challenge my faith and see where i stand.

Well i don't think the bible contradicts modern science. I don't have enough knowledge on this so please correct me if I'm wrong. The bible says the world was created in 6 days by God, but it is never made explicit on how long a day was. With that ambiguity, how do we know that the bible does not hold up to modern science

If you believe in both God and modern science then you have to believe that he waited 9 billion years to create earth,4 billion years to create humans and then he only decided to reveal himself 2 thousand years ago through a book that can be interpreted in many different ways and consistently contradicts itself.All while billions of other species go extinct.Science and religion are not compatable, religion says that it knows the nature of reality.Science says we might never know but through experimentation and logic we can figure parts of it out.They're just two completely different methodologies.

Throughout time it has been established that human beings are flawed/imperfect. From my knowledge and understanding, the christian bible was written by followers of Jesus Christ, human beings. If that is the case does that not mean the bible is flawed/imperfect and that you can never truly guarantee that what the bible says is "the right thing to do".

I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ. This question is mainly aimed at the christian society. The reason for this question is gain more insight on Christianity, the bible, etc, in order to challenge my faith and see where i stand.

This is so confused I'm actually struggling where to begin! As though the time frame of history contradicts anything? Let alone the dubious link between waiting and being eternal, the only specific mention of a contradiction is a vague description of the bible - but what does that have to do with modern science? The only point approaching friction between science and religion is comparing the two methodologies, but being different doesn't in any way mean a contradiction in the same way science and ethics use two different methodologies but don't contradict at all!

Throughout time it has been established that human beings are flawed/imperfect. From my knowledge and understanding, the christian bible was written by followers of Jesus Christ, human beings. If that is the case does that not mean the bible is flawed/imperfect and that you can never truly guarantee that what the bible says is "the right thing to do".

I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ. This question is mainly aimed at the christian society. The reason for this question is gain more insight on Christianity, the bible, etc, in order to challenge my faith and see where i stand.

The bible may have once been the true word from God but over time it has been heavily altered by humans.

It does kind of follow that he created a lot of animals simply to go extinct.There were five mass extinctions in the earths history.Why would you create life only to kill the majority of it off 5 times?It seems like an unnessecarily long-winded way of doing it if his objective was to create humans..

It also suggests incompetence on the part of the creator,he couldnt get it right first time so had to try again 5 times.There are flaws in the human body which could be better designed.For example there are blood vessels around the eye directly in front of light sensitive cells.An intelligent designer would place those not in front of those cells so that more light can get through.

I would dispute that other animals dont have conciousness, a lot of them clearly do.I would also dispute that the majority of humans lived after Jesus thats not true.Although I suppose it depends on your definition of human.
.

Religion and science aren't compatible because when it comes down to it science isnt just a collection of facts its a way of thinking, a methodology.Religion says it knows why we're here.It claims to know the answer to life and we just have to take that on faith.Science is a way of thinking that demands evidence and is always prepared to admit its wrong.When a religous idea is shown to be wrong religous leaders will say that its supposed to be interpreted metaphorically science will discard the idea completely.And thats where the contradiction truly lies.Science regards itself as always wrong.There is always stuff we dont know and any answer we obtain is only partial.Religion is always right.It knows the answer and it knows the mind of God.

The issue is, you haven't described religion faithfully, but where you have, there's been no contradiction but just differences.

Firstly, religion argues there is such as question as why we are here and offers an answer to the question . . . . And how exactly is that incompatible with the methodology of science? It's different, but not incompatible. I've already explained that just because so,ethimg is different doesn't make it a contradiction or incompatible.

Even then, you've begrudgingly admitted that when a religious idea is shown to be wrong, it is rejected. Most importantly, I hope you aren't alluding to Genesis which has had countless people arguing for a poetic reading long before evolution was on the scene, in fact some Christians were already offering ideas like evolution before Darwin! It was not a case of reinterpreting Genesis to be wrong after evolution showed the ultra literal reading to be wrong, but Christians already had reasons to read it poetically prior.

Your main point is that the contradiction is when 'Science regards itself as always wrong.There is always stuff we dont know and any answer we obtain is only partial.Religion is always right.It knows the answer and it knows the mind of God'. This is confused - why should different methodologies be considered a contradiction? (I'm just granting your description of religion, I don't agree with it).

You realise a contradiction is when two things cannot simultaneously be true, right? Can the scientific methodology of requiring evidence to support a conclusion to a high degree of probability, work simultaneous with the methodology of arguing that God has provided answers to questions science cannot answer by definition? Of course they can! Both methodologies can exist simultaneously, there is no contradiction.

What you are arguing is that you see no good reason to think any particular religion is true, but that is nothing to do with whether science and religion are compatible.

How havent I described religion faithfully?You're wrong here.They're complete opposites.Both religion and science try to offer answers to the question why are we here.The contradiction is that religion thinks it knows the answer and asks you to take it on faith.Science asks for evidence for claims about the universe.And thats where they contradict because religion offers no evidence.It just asks you to accept it.They're not just different methods of doing the same thing,they oppose each other like light and dark.Its hard to explain.If you accept religions claims you're being incompatible with scientific thinking because you're just accepting it without evidence.If you were being scientific you'd demand evidence.So they're two completely opposite ways of answering questions.As different as the truth is from lies.

Evoloution and the belief that God guided it cant coexist.Natural selection holds that random mutations caused some species to to have advantages over others.These mutations allowed some species to survive as they were better adapted to their environments.The problem with guided evoloution is that if its guided then mutations cannot be random.If its guided then its not random at all.This completely contradicts a biologists view of evoloution. If evoloution is guided then it has a purpose to it but modern science holds that evoloution has no purpose.No animal can be said to be more evolved than another.If you believe in guided evoloution then you have to believe that the purpose was to create humans which does contradict a scientists view of evoloution.

When a religous idea is wrong its not really rejected in the same way as a scientific idea.Religous leaders just come out with statements saying that it wasnt ever meant to be taken literally that it was always metaphorical.But they only do this when the truth can no longer be denied any longer.They cling onto their beleifs as long as possible.For example when copernicus showed that the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.It was centuries before the catholic church admitted they were wrong and only because they were faced with incontavertible evidence.Thats the contradiction.Religion stubbornly clings to its beliefs in the face of opposing evidence but science rejects those beliefs which contradict the evidence.They're directly opposing ways of doing the same thing and answering the same questions.They can't both be right.