Foreknowledge or Science?

One common atheist claim is that science and the Bible are at odds with one another. I disagree completely. However, if the atheist refuses to allow that science and religion are in fact complimentary, <a href="http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm#TWO">as Albert Einstein claimed, what they are forced to admit is even more interesting.

Some of the claims of the Bible are demonstrably in line with mainstream science. Examples include the existence of a finite beginning of time, the spherical shape of the planet, the hyrdologic cycle and others. See the following video for those and more, including scripture references:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4hbDWkwVWI&w=420&h=315]

If Biblical writers didn't use use observation, theory and verification, but still managed to make true statements this actually gives the Bible huge credibility! The source of the information, under the assumptions we have made, must never have been a source which ultimately derived its information from observation. It must have been the kind of being that simply had information, correct information, without ever needing to obtain it to being with.

This implies a clear case of divine revelation! The information source described is necessarily an omnipotent being and able to reveal information to people. Therefore saying the Bible is incompatible with science gives it much more credibility, not less.

If, on the other hand, you think that the true statements in Bible aren't based on divine revelation, but are rather based on observation, hypothesis, testing and conclusion, you are clearly claiming that the writers of the Bible used science in its very creation which would make it fully compatible with science.

So which is it atheist? Is the Bible compatible with science or an even greater source of divine revelation than we Christians already thought?