Does Science Debunk The Bible?

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

[TRANSPONDER]

Certainly, if any part of the Bible is not considered literal, but metaphorical, then science does not need to debunk it, though of course the thing it is supposed to be a metaphor of (morals for instance) raises it's own questions. Thus, Genesis if not considered literally an historical event, is debunked without science having to get out of the bed is shares with philosophy.

How is Genesis debunked in this way?

The order of creation is wrong. The sun was not made after the earth, the grass before the fish (it was a fair guess, but science debunks it) and Geology does not support a global flood - ever. Only evasions and science -denial can say otherwise.

Wait, you said above that even if Genesis is not considered literal, it’s still debunked. But the reason you gave here is to treat Genesis as being literal. I’m asking why, if the order of creation or that it was a global flood, is not meant literally, why it would still be debunked.

read it again.I said if not considered literal it doesn't need to be debunked, though the claim the metaphor is based on might need attention. Debunking only relates to claims that are supposed to be a factual claim.If not, science doesn't need to debunk it - though atheists do as the believers will still try to pass off a 'metaphorical' passage as somehow true.

Can't take our eyes off these scammers for a minute.

I did read it again. I bolded the part where you said Genesis is still debunked. I’m asking you to show that debunking, not through science, but through whatever you think debunks it.

Ok you read it but did not comprehend it. I repeat, if it is not considered real, not an actual event, not historical, not actual, not true, but a metaphor, then science does not have to debunk a fairy tale. Though It may have to consider what the metaphor is supposed to be a metaphor of.

[The Tanager]

Ok you read it but did not comprehend it. I repeat, if it is not considered real, not an actual event, not historical, not actual, not true, but a metaphor, then science does not have to debunk a fairy tale. Though It may have to consider what the metaphor is supposed to be a metaphor of.

Okay, sorry for my misunderstandings.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok you read it but did not comprehend it. I repeat, if it is not considered real, not an actual event, not historical, not actual, not true, but a metaphor, then science does not have to debunk a fairy tale. Though It may have to consider what the metaphor is supposed to be a metaphor of.

Okay, sorry for my misunderstandings.

No prob. Now just where have we got to in debunking the Bible? Without Science - denial, plus evidence, history, reason and deductive analysis, debunks will obtain. Of course there is a sliding scale of debunk. Without science - denial, the order of creation is gone. The exodus and conquest is more debatable, but all the time, doubts grow. We are not at a debunk just yet, but the doubts are increasing apace. One can also say that the Nativities are pretty well debunked. In the 80's - 90's it was contested with the '2nd census' argument But by 2000 I had plugged the gap for the final excuse - the empty governorship. It was argued that Quirinus had a secretive spell as governor and thus conducted a census in Herod's time (just before he died in about 1 AD - except that Cassius Dio's yearbook seems to endorse the history that the reigns of his sons from 4 BC was because Herod was dead, not a 'co - rule').

But Josephus makes it clear that Varus' term was left to run (he was in Judea putting down revolts while Archelaus was in Rome) and so there was no empty governorship and no case for a previous census of Quirinus.

Done, dusted and debunked, six ways from Sunday, and the nativities, like the creation, are the touchstone debunk that makes more arguable ones like the apologetics for resurrection and death of Judas look less the smart option even if the apologetics were more credible rather than any excuse will do.

There's just so much to doubt and question. The lack of any sign of a Passover release custom and the absurdity of the Blasphemy charge (and the fact that John doesn't have it) makes the Sanhedrin trial look well on the way to debunk, as with doubts whether there was a need for a trial at all. Problems, contradictions and nonsense (e.g David and the Shewbread) all through the gospels means that debunks apply to the NT as much as the old.

Believers may deny everything, Interpret the text to mean something else (Like God guaranteeing to answer prayer means 'When I feel like it') invent stuff (like the Marys splitting up) or go translation -shopping (like to make the claim that passages saying that Jesus will return in their lifetimes means up to 2000 years or more later).

We know that Bible apologists will never admit being wrong, so the intent of a debunk, disproof or discombubulation is not to persuade the believer (who operates on Faith in their own Rightness - not necessarily what the Bible actually says, mind ) but to put the debunks out there, for a well - honed debunk never goeth amiss.

[POI]

I can't believe I still have to spend more time on this. But here it goes... It is pure (common sense / common knowledge) that all books I encounter are either meant to be fiction or non-fiction. When I address the Rig Veda, the Quran, the Bible, the book of Scientology, or any other intended holy book, they are not meant to be works of fiction. So, if you wish to compartmentalize a part (i.e. Genesis), for which you believe is not meant to be literal, from each of these books, please demonstrate how you know. Otherwise, when addressing a non-functional book, the default is that the said event(s) is meant to be literal.

If all you are going to continue to do is claim your view is the default because you say it is and shift the burden, then you don’t need to spend any more time on it.

The burden is only 'shifted' if you believe the Bible was meant to be a work of fiction. In which case, conversation over. If it is instead to be a work of non-fiction, like an issued history book, science book, other holy book, or other, then the default is it is filled with literal factual claims. The suggestion to the contrary requires caveats in each and every said claim, for which you instead claim otherwise. Like in Genesis for example.... But a plain reading of Genesis suggests no such caveat(s), does it?

"Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded"

[TRANSPONDER]

Absolutely. I have seen some Bible critics do it wrong and appear to make a special case for dismissing the Bible like it was a god - claim, instead of treating it like a book of facts - which the Bible apologists claim more or less.

Thus it should be treated as we treat any other book, but evaluating the contents using whatever evidence and deductive reasoning we can apply to it.

Burden of proof on those raising doubts and questions about it. And like a number of the old works, some things we can accept, others not.

The other night I watched a video on Herodotus' records of Pharaoh Sesostris. Conquered a huge empire up into Scythia and Europe and across to Arabia. Apparently Herodotus got this from Egyptian priests in Memphis (On the Nile, not Tennessee). Referred to monuments put up all over and said he'd seen one. But Egyptology knows of no such Pharaoh nor of an Egyptian empire of such an extent. Sesostris might be Senusret (three kings of that name) but none did anything like that.

The clue came when the monument was identified in West Anatolia. A king with Heiroglyphs - but Pre Hittite glyphs as is the king. Herodotus' reading of the inscription is surely his own guess at what it said.

He was doing his best but making mistakes. The supposition is that this king is credited with an Empire as great as that of Persia.

So a long discussion but eventually ruling out Fact or history. That is how it is done, not believe it or not dismissal like a faith - claim or everything in it is true, because it is in it.

We use evidence and reason, and the Bible fails as much as Sesostris.

[The Tanager]

The burden is only 'shifted' if you believe the Bible was meant to be a work of fiction. In which case, conversation over. If it is instead to be a work of non-fiction, like an issued history book, science book, other holy book, or other, then the default is it is filled with literal factual claims. The suggestion to the contrary requires caveats in each and every said claim, for which you instead claim otherwise. Like in Genesis for example.... But a plain reading of Genesis suggests no such caveat(s), does it?

The default is agnosticism about whether the Bible is a work of fiction/non-fiction/a mixture of the two (if one uses that categorization) or whether the Bible is history/science/etc. or a mixture of various genres (if one uses that categorization). If you claim it is one or the other, then the burden is on you to support it. You have claimed it is meant one way and you have the burden, yet instead of carrying that you shift the burden, acting like yours is the clear default.

I think the Bible is clearly a mix, whichever categorization you want to use. This does require one to deal with each case. That’s rational. There is no “plain reading” unless that is simply a synonym for “literal reading” which then is simply another way to claim one’s view is the default and shift the burden.

[POI]

The burden is only 'shifted' if you believe the Bible was meant to be a work of fiction. In which case, conversation over. If it is instead to be a work of non-fiction, like an issued history book, science book, other holy book, or other, then the default is it is filled with literal factual claims. The suggestion to the contrary requires caveats in each and every said claim, for which you instead claim otherwise. Like in Genesis for example.... But a plain reading of Genesis suggests no such caveat(s), does it?

The default is agnosticism about whether the Bible is a work of fiction/non-fiction/a mixture of the two (if one uses that categorization) or whether the Bible is history/science/etc. or a mixture of various genres (if one uses that categorization). If you claim it is one or the other, then the burden is on you to support it. You have claimed it is meant one way and you have the burden, yet instead of carrying that you shift the burden, acting like yours is the clear default.

I think the Bible is clearly a mix, whichever categorization you want to use. This does require one to deal with each case. That’s rational. There is no “plain reading” unless that is simply a synonym for “literal reading” which then is simply another way to claim one’s view is the default and shift the burden.

Tell this to the Catholics of the day:

"Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded"

Catholics inferred Genesis was literal. They did so until they had no choice but to 'augment' their argument to taste. Like they now do with Genesis and evolutionary theory. This is exactly what I see you doing here. It is you, who is shifting the burden.

"Science" is the reason you folks now have to augment to taste.

[The Tanager]

Tell this to the Catholics of the day:

"Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded"

Catholics inferred Genesis was literal. They did so until they had no choice but to 'augment' their argument to taste. Like they now do with Genesis and evolutionary theory. This is exactly what I see you doing here. It is you, who is shifting the burden.

"Science" is the reason you folks now have to augment to taste.

Many Christians (including myself) do no such thing. Literary and historical analysis is why we read Genesis the way we do; it has nothing to do with science. They are different kinds of things. And it isn't stuff like: it's a plain reading, it's the default, it's common sense, it's the majority view, etc. To say I'm shifting the burden is plainly wrong; there are actual reasons.

[TRANSPONDER]

Reading the Bible (or any other religious book) as literature is well enough, but it's like referring to'Gods' as anything valued, like a past political great, or a baseball team or an antique car. They are just irrelevant in this discussion and as it is supernatural beings (and particularly those that interact with us) that are relevant, the Bible as a book of claimed reliable facts or history is what is the 'default' here.

It is understood that some may have to be considered as metaphor or poetry or a parable (like maybe,Job) and dealt with accordingly. Those that purport to be history or recorded events, are treated in that way,.

[POI]

Tell this to the Catholics of the day:

"Galileo was ordered to turn himself in to the Holy Office to begin trial for holding the belief that the Earth revolves around the sun, which was deemed heretical by the Catholic Church. Standard practice demanded that the accused be imprisoned and secluded"

Catholics inferred Genesis was literal. They did so until they had no choice but to 'augment' their argument to taste. Like they now do with Genesis and evolutionary theory. This is exactly what I see you doing here. It is you, who is shifting the burden.

"Science" is the reason you folks now have to augment to taste.

Many Christians (including myself) do no such thing. Literary and historical analysis is why we read Genesis the way we do; it has nothing to do with science. They are different kinds of things. And it isn't stuff like: it's a plain reading, it's the default, it's common sense, it's the majority view, etc. To say I'm shifting the burden is plainly wrong; there are actual reasons.

Well then... Many Christians do such a thing. Literary and historical analysis is why Christians read Genesis the way Christians do.

Further, my reasoning for Genesis being meant to be literal goes no further, as necessary, than my response for why I know Tolken's works are meant to be fiction.

***************************************

We return to the question which forms the title of this article. Should Genesis be taken literally?

Answer: If we apply the normal principles of biblical exegesis (ignoring pressure to make the text conform to the evolutionary prejudices of our age), it is overwhelmingly obvious that Genesis was meant to be taken in a straightforward, obvious sense as an authentic, literal, historical record of what actually happened.

See Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2.

The seminal author on the colophon concepts was P.J. Wiseman, Creation Revealed in Six Days, Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London, 1948, pp. 45–53. For an excellent evaluation of this by a evangelical linguist see The Oldest Science Book in the World, by Dr Charles V. Taylor, Assembly Press, Queensland, 1984, pp. 21–23, 73, 121.

This discussion of Hebrew poetry was adapted from J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book, Vol. 1, pp. 13-16.

Aramaic paraphrases of the OT originating in the last few centuries BC, and committed to writing about AD 500. See F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments, (Westwood: Fleming H. Revell Co., Rev. Ed. 1963), p. 133.

A.G. Fruchtenbaum, Apologia 2(3):54–58, 1993.

The use of the third person is no problem. Moses wrote the long account of his own life in Exodus to Deuteronomy in the third person, and many classical authors like Julius Caesar also wrote in the third person.

Adam and Eve knew how to sew fig-leaf ‘aprons’ for themselves (Genesis 3:7). Within a few generations, Adam’s descendants founded a city (Genesis 4:17), were tent-makers, cattle farmers, musicians with the ability to make both stringed and wind instruments, and metallurgists with the ability to smelt the ores of copper, tin and iron and then to forge all kinds of bronze and iron tools (Genesis 4:20–24). Dr Henry M. Morris comments in The Genesis Record (Baker Book house, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 146–147):
‘It is significant to note that the elements which anthropologists identify as the attributes of the emergence of evolving men from the stone age into true civilization—urbanization, agriculture, animal domestication, and metallurgy—were all accomplished quickly by the early descendants of Adam and did not take hundreds of thousands of years.’

Morris, H., The Genesis Record, p. 97.

Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984. Copy held by the author. Note that Prof. Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is historically true; he is just telling us what, in his opinion, the language was meant to convey. Return to text.

Adapted from J. Sidlow Baxter, Explore the Book, Vol. 1, pp. 27–29.