I'm not interested in that religious stuff! More important things to worry about.

Most of that is willfully misinterprited for the sake of the video. And I love the intro, that people didn't have common sense back in the biblical era. They knew how to boil water if you do that inside a tent you get humidity, which then recondenses when the sun goes down. Wow, cycle of water. Layed bare to the naked eye. And I love how science didn't discover underwater currents until the 1800's but anyone that's ever stood out in the ocean can feel the undertoe. That video is crap.

That someone was trying just a little too hard.

------ (ADDED 2: I found another link for the video) ---------- 1) I found a working link for that video (I am not 100% sure that it is exactly the same video, but it seems quite similar): http://medjes.multiply.com/video/item/134/_Scientific_Miracles_of_the_Bible 2) This is what I could find about the original video: - "Scientific Miracles of the Bible" "This video has been removed by the user." (YouTube) http://www.buzzshed.com/browse.php?id=Scientific_Miracles_of_the_Bible&flag=show - Various replies to that video: "Re: Scientific Miracles of the Bible": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Kc4V9E2yI "Re: Scientific Miracles of the Bible (Part 1)": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jx9vmChsXo - "Scientific Miracles of the Bible Describers scientific foreknowledge in the Holy Bible. Enjoy the music and don't forget to subscribe! http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism " http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/technology/watch/v16568386awRAaQjJ - "This video has been flagged as inappropriate." http://www.buzzshed.com/browse.php?id=Scientific_Miracles_of_the_Bible&flag=flag - "It tells that leprosy is contagious, and not hereditary as science believed until 200 years ago. It instructs for victims to be purified in water, quarantined for seven days, and have their clothes burned." http://www.buzzshed.com/browse.php?id=Scientific_Miracles_of_the_Bible&flag=show ------ (ADDED 1: after removal of the video to which the question was referring)-------------- Actually, after the removal of the referred video, this question does not make any sense. This is the problem when a question does not make sense in itself, but rely on a posted video or link to make sense: when the video or the link is removed, the question does not make sense any more. For this reason, it would be better to give a hint to the content of the video in the question, or to give the title of the video of of the linked page, to permit at least to keep some sense to the question in such a case. As far as I remember, this was a propaganda video issued by some Christian fundamentalist group, and the idea was to prove that everything that has been discovered by modern science is already to be found in some form in the Bible, and that everything that the Bible says is true. In my answer, I quoted a comment made by a viewer of the video on YouTube, because I found it was an appropriate remark. I also put this kind of propaganda in parallel with similar ideas often presented by fundamentalist Muslims. -------- (from here on: original answer) ------------------- 1) "All these things can be observed at any time even by children. Does that mean a child who is talking about "things which are unseen" knows about atoms ? No. The same with the bible, the quotes are vague and people automatically choose their own interpretation from that we know today. Unseen things ? Allright that must be atoms, viruses, bacteria, impacts of gravity, anything that fits here." Source and further information: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-qa_Pgs3qw 2) There are similar view in Islam: "Scientific exegesis of the Qur'an is the assumption that all sorts of findings of the modern natural sciences have been anticipated in the Qur'an and that many unambiguous references to them can be discovered in its verses. Many Islamic authors, classical and modern, believe that all the sciences were contained in the Qur'an. The practise of tafsir 'ilmi, or scientific exegesis, which was "almost forgotten, has been revived in modern times; the classical attempt to incorporate all streams of human knowledge into the Qur'an has been updated with a special focus on the natural sciences. This method of scientific interpretation did not find general approval among Muslim authors. Many classical Muslim commentators and scientists, notably al-Biruni, assigned to the Qur'an a separate and autonomous realm of its own and held that the Qur'an "does not interfere in the business of science nor does it infringe on the realm of science." These medieval scholars argued for the possibility of multiple scientific explanation of the natural phenomena, and refused to subordinate the Qur'an to an ever-changing science. Author Rotraud Wielandt summarizes the arguments of the modern Muslim commentators such as Mahmud Shaltut and Sayyid Qutb who reject a scientific method of interpretation of the Qur'an as follows: 1. It is lexicographically untenable, since it falsely attributes modern meanings to the quranic vocabulary. 2. It neglects the contexts of words or phrases within the quranic text, and also the occasions of revelation where these are transmitted. 3. It ignores the fact that, for the Quran to be comprehensible for its first audience, the words of the Qurʾān had to conform to the language and the intellectual horizon of the ancient Arabs at the Prophet's time — an argument already used by the Andalusian Mālikite scholar al-ShāṭibÄ« (d. 790/1388) against the scientific exegesis of his time. 4. It does not take notice of the fact that scientific knowledge and scientific theories are always incomplete and provisory by their very nature; therefore, the derivation of scientific knowledge and scientific theories in qurʾānic verses is actually tantamount to limiting the validity of these verses to the time for which the results of the science in question are accepted. 5. Most importantly, it fails to comprehend that the Qur'an is not a scientific book, but a religious one designed to guide human beings by imparting to them a creed and a set of moral values." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an_and_Science

...dern it...comment, just comment. (I hate it when I oopsy answer.