Is the Bible scientific at all? Does it say anything that proves it has a divine source?

The purpose of the Bible is to explain how to go to heaven. Not to explain how the heavens go.

While the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook, there are many scientific truths in the Bible.

The entirety of the Bible is from God.

Yes. Modern science can now prove that the clean and unclean food and hygiene laws found in the Book of Leviticus have been based all this time on the germ theory of disease and the modern human body and a multitude of other advanced fields of science unknown to mankind at that time thousands of years before mankind invented the microscope to learn what a germ was. Mankind mistranslated these laws and regulations found in the Book of Leviticus into the unscientific religious interpretations we still think they mean today. So if this advanced scientific knowledge didn't originate from any human mind on earth at that time then whose scientific mind did it originate from? Ancient Biblical text from a multitude of different sources says it originated from the mind of our Intelligent Designer named the God of Abraham. The only way mankind could have mistranslated this advanced scientific knowledge and reasoning contained in this ancient Biblical text was if it never originated from the minds of man which is exactly what happened. I know all this because I am the one who discovered it. 

The Bible was not written to be "scientific", though it does mention some things that would be consider to be that. It is a Spiritual book, meant to be discerned though the same Holy Spirit that inspired it's writers. That in itself proves it has a divine source.

Yes, for although the Bible is not a science textbook, it is accurate when it mentions matters of science. Consider some examples showing that science and the Bible agree and that the Bible contains scientific facts that differed greatly from the beliefs of many people living at the time it was written… 

- The universe had a beginning. (Genesis 1:1) In contrast, many ancient myths describe the universe, not as being created, but as being organized from existing chaos. The Babylonians believed that the gods that gave birth to the universe came from two oceans. Other legends say that the universe came from a giant egg. 

- The universe is governed day-to-day by rational natural laws, not by the whims of deities. (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25) Myths from around the world teach that humans are helpless before the unpredictable and sometimes merciless acts of the gods. 

- The earth is suspended in empty space. (Job 26:7) Many ancient peoples believed that the world was a flat disk supported by a giant or an animal, such as a buffalo or a turtle. 

There is much more, see the following link … 

https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/sc...  

Having scientific truth would not be evidence that it is of divine origin.

It couldn't possibly be more UNscientific. The biblical “god” was VERY ignorant. 

The Bible is not, and was never intended to be, a scientific text.  As such it has little (if anything) to say on the subject.  That would be like picking up a chemistry textbook and expecting to find chapters on theology in it.  The book is not intended to have be used as theology.

When the Bible does make mentions of "science ideas", it does so in the way that people do every day today.  We talk about "sunrise" and "sunset" - even list the times in our newspapers and textbooks.  But we know that the sun does not really rise and set.  Rather the earth rotates.  The Bible also uses "sunrise and sunset".

The Bible talks about being at the top of tall mountain and seeing "all the kingdoms of world" from there.  Just as we today would talking about being able to see "the whole world" from the top of mountain.  Neither is intended to be a scientific thesis on the nature of the earth.

The Bible talks about the world having "four corners" (meaning four compass directions) just as we still do today.  Neither culture is making a scientific statement about the shape of the earth.

The Bible also has a lot of poetry in it, that has images such as the sky being like a tent over the world, or the sun a chariot that crosses the sky.  I have never seen anyone who expected poetry to be scientific.  The writes of the Bible poetry were not expressing science facts, but giving images intended to invoke emotions and reply "truths".

So if you are wanting to use science to prove (or disprove) the Bible, it is unreasonable request.  The Bible is not a science text.

If you want "proof" of the divine origin of the Bible, the place to look is Bible prophecy.  Take the book of Daniel, for example, where it gives an outline of the Medes, Persian, Greek, Roman, Byzantium, and Holy Roman Empires and their decline in the 20th century into individual nations.  All written before any but the Medes empire existed, and with surviving copies of the text that date from the time of the Greek Empire.  That is something that is not humanly possible.  And is only one of hundreds of such prophecies that are fulfilled in secular history outside of the Bible.

Two verses scientifically prove the Bible’s divine source:  Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7  

   1. Isaiah 40:22 (732 BC) shows the earth is a sphere (circle-Hebrew (and logic) shows this is 3-D). Man proved this 2000 years later.

   2. Job 26:7 (1600 BC) says “[God] stretches out the northern sky over ”empty space,” suspending the earth upon nothing.” Man didn’t prove this for another 3600 years.

There are many prophecies and fulfillments that prove a divine source, also. Later on that.

The Bible came first. Science arrived through a contemplation of the Bible inside of the first 'university' system. 

It is science that has to 'prove' itself, not the Bible. The standard of 'proof' set by scripture includes, (but is not exclusive to), the scientific method. Contemplation of sacred allegories and narratives inspires new lines of inquiry when intellectual stagnation periodically occurs and it is also capable of producing many more 'sciences.' The current 'flash-in-the-pan' one has strayed way off course and needs to be 'upgraded' or replaced. All it seems to be able to do now is destroy and its narratives make the cosmos seem hopelessly vast and untraversable, mostly lifeless, random and meaningless.