I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

How has the bible "been proven scientifically unsound" and what does it even mean?

Are you serious?

Yes, I was serious.

Beginning (ahem) with Genesis: EG That every species on earth could fit in to a carft the size of the arc as described the bible.

Well, it is not a scientific claim, it is a story. If you hadn't noticed, (many parts of the) Old Testament really consists of stories, and uses them to teach many truths which you can't really understand it's theological framework without. It was no coincidence that the mode of Jesus teaching was parables: this was the way God had chosen to reveal the truth. And it was the right way.

I would say without reluctance that the story is true. And not in any one narrow sense. Whether it is true in the sense of "accurate in depicting a historical event representative of the whole world", I don't know. You'd have to ask someone more opinionated on the subject than me, because I don't even speculate to this length. I simply accept the story and try to understand it's significance with what it's trying to tell us.

For the stories recorded in scripture were not reveled to us just to make a bunch of claims about the world for scientific validation. If that was the case, God could have given us a book full of random truths not pertaining to anyone in any humane sense. But that's not what we got, and every revelation we have there is a reason for, which is obviously a reason not of teaching science or philosophy (there was plenty of that in the ancient world, wholly apart from establishing a connection to God or the gods) but of communicating Gods perspective on things to humans, by means of accommodation.

Before you go dismissing Genesis as allegorical please remember that Jesus himself stated The Torah is literally true.

Where did he say that it is "literally true"?

Not that I disagree with the statement. I just don't recall it off the top of my head.

He certainly never said that is has to interpreted according to the protestant/evangelical "literalist" approach, if that's what you mean.

In terms of 'scientific accuracy" (ie verifiable by evidence) I can't actyually think of any "scientific claims (cosmology and geography for example) which are actually correct.

Well, I don't know. I don't think it's making scientific claims. I consider it quite perverse to take it in some scientific sense it wasn't (realistically speaking) intended for. What do you think is the point of the stories in the Old Testament? Science? Clearly that isn't so. Clearly the point is the wisdom and truth communicated in the story.

The bible is also notoriously inaccurate as history.

Well, you are welcome to hold that opinion. I can respect that you hold the opinion, but from reading viewpoints from both extremes when it comes to how much we know about, for instance, the New Testaments historical reliability, I think you are very clearly exaggerating.

EG:

Not only do Christians have no idea of the actual dates of Jesus' birth and death,there is in fact no evidence at all,of his existence.

That is not true. It's easy to make such claims, but you are just going to that extreme saying that Jesus is a myth who we have no evidence of. And we clearly have historical evidence that he existed. Both the New Testament, which is historical narratives and many parts of which are written within 15 years after his death, and clearly within the lifetime of those who knew him, and historical references outside the New Testament, such as Josephus (now, one of Josephus' reference to Jesus is disputed; the other is not...), but also others. Many have said that we have more historical references to Jesus and closer in time to his lifetime than we do to Tiberius, the Roman Emperor of the time he lived - indeed, it seems like special pleading to dispute Jesus existence.

To say the bible is is unscientific is a redundant phrase.

The Bible is not a scientific text, and so, I find it really bizarre to call it "proven to be scientifically unsound".

The Torah is the Mythology of a bronze tribe of goat herders and their nasty little mountain god "El". It was not written down until the first century BCE.The Gospels the mythology of a poor little rabbi,and founder of a minor Jewish sect who may may not have existed.

You are clearly taking the most pessimistic and and negative views possible, due to your antipathos. You are welcome to do that, but you can find plenty of historians who are more realistic and not still riding on the temporary epinephrenic overenthusiasm of the eruption of "higher" literary criticism. Meaning that the actually higher one has perhaps started to come about.