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?

[Data]

The power of the mythic symbols of the Bible were utterly destroyed by a simple photograph.

The primary flaw in your argument is ignorance, both of science and the Bible. Most of what you said is untrue, and the rest of it isn't possible to explain by science.

1. What was written during the period of the Bible probably did seem mysterious and wrong when written compared to the "science" of the day.
2. The Bible doesn't teach that God is omniscient but having created the universe he knows more about it than science or protoscience, if you will.
3. The Bible doesn't say the Earth and universe was created in six literal days. Not that science necessarily knows the order, but the Bible doesn't state that either.
4. The Bible doesn't describe the Earth as flat, not moving or the center of the universe with our Sun orbiting it. All of that comes from science later than the Bible. The Bible got it right, the science got it wrong.
5. If the Bible attributes forces of nature in general to acts of its God it's because God created nature. If you are referring to specific acts then it's somewhat more complicated in that the possible literal or figurative or even linguistic considerations would have to be taken into account. For example the earthquake at the tomb is the literal quaking sensation felt at the removal of the stone, not an earthquake.
6. Chariots can literally burn, other references were visual metaphors, animals don't talk in the Bible, and spirit beings are outside of the realm of science so no one can say, from a scientific perspective, that they do or do not exist.
7. The last two points you made about ancient understanding and symbols of the Bible are laughable.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #276]

Yes, you gave a position argued by some scholars. I didn’t just waive that away as opinion, I noted that other scholars disagree. Why are you referencing those that agree with your conclusion versus those that disagree? You could have just as easily culled together 10 references from scholars that disagree with your position. The conclusion one should draw from this is that we’ve got to go beyond referencing one side of the debate and get into the actual reasons that are given.

I've given those reasons for my conclusion. I've also stated the reasons you do not agree.

You also continue to just claim this topic should be easily resolvable, when I’ve responded with why it shouldn’t be.

Yes, it should be easily resolvable as to whether or not Genesis was literal. There IS NO scholarly debate about who wrote "TLoR's" or "The Hobbit" and there IS ALSO NO scholarly debate as to whether or not his works were meant to be taken literally or not. Why is the God you believe in, so inept, that He is unable to inspire a collection of writings which tell the reader if what was given was meant to be a literal account of events, or not?.?.?.?.? God must understand that, because of mistranslation alone, countless people have lost faith. If God's objective is to bring people to him, why inspire a book of endless debate and confusion, which causes many to fall away due to perceived inaccuracies?

You also continue to just claim we need to know who wrote Genesis and have no other means to resolve the matter, which isn’t an oft-used point (if one at all) by scholars in the field, including those arguing for the literal interpretation.

And yet, scholars have not resolved the matter after centuries. If we knew the source, we would have something to go on... But, as it stands, we cannot rule out all the points I mentioned prior, for which you have not discredited in the least. (i.e.):

a) Plagiarism and/or borrowing pre-existing stories
b) self-deception
c) Lying/madman/making things up
d) other

You also continue to pop-psychologize about why I really believe the way I do, not for the reasons I’m offering but to simply protect the Bible.

I've considered your responses. However, there exists too much convenience to exclude my conclusion.

It looks like you’ve nothing new to add to this discussion

Some of my points have not been addressed. (i.e.) Why continue to consider "The Exodus" just because an ancient book claims it? A claim in which would leave behind all sorts of stuff, as per the video's point(s)?

Further, I trust you and I might agree that IF Genesis IS meant to be a literal account of events, 'science' debunks it?

[TRANSPONDER]

I thought I'd explained the matter as clearly as i could, with several examples.

What isn’t clear is what the amount/type of inconsistencies is allowed before one chucks out the central piece of the text. All four texts agree there was a resurrection. If we have four witnesses of an ancient event that disagree on some specific side details, historians may chuck out the various details, but not the central event being discussed.

That's not the problem.The problem is, why would an omniscient god misinform Moses about the order of creation, including day and hight created before the sun was, rather than give the right order that wouldn't look wrong when humans knew better?

This is why the more probable explanation is that it was written as a guess at creation by humans who really didn't know better.

Because it isn’t about the scientific order of creation and, even if someone took it as such, that's not going to get in the way of the truths God is trying to get across.

I wouldn't presume to say where the cut off point is. It depends on the person looking at the evidence. How much they dearly want to believe in a book of faithclaims, for instance. For some "No amount of evidence would convince me" as Ken Ham said. I'd propose avoiding an insistence that there must be a designated and agreed cut off point where everyone should say 'That's it, I'm out'. It's too much like the ploy of picking a particular Thing that is presented as the pivot of the argument and try to make it something that is not doable (Moths to mammoths in a Lab. is an example) and so renders the argument priced out of the market. I'm sure you don't want to do that, but do want some sure credible guidelines.

I'd say that's why the nativities are the touchstone. They are as undeniable (to any reasonable person) a contradiction as could be asked and (after explanation) to refuse to accept that as established fact, one has to be in faithbased denial. The claim has been made 'they all agree on the Bethlehem birth' just as you argue: 'They all agree on the (solid body) resurrection'. Of course they do That is why they were invented. As was ably argued elsewhere A claim is not evidence for the claim. You require other evidence for that claim (a walking talking resurrection - as the Pauline one describes a spiritual [read imaginary] resurrection, I'd argue) and with contradictory witness statements, the evidence fails. Just as it does with the nativities, the death of Judas, the Lucan divergencies, the Great omission, the Transfiguration (oh yes) the walking on water, the Q (sermon) material....'and most of the rest of the Book'.

The apologetics after that smack of faithbased denial. With which I am familiar and after all the usual apologetics (e.g, 2nd census and Egyptian tax form), we get the frantic ones like a Galilean Bethlehem or denial of Josephus as well as evasions, like one I saw where it was argued that the Nativities didn't alter doctrine (1). But they do show that contradictions are real reasons to doubt the veracity, reliability and credibility of the Gospels. Where the nativities fall, they drag down the resurrections with them, and the resurrection is where doctrine does lie. Terminally.

And maybe that is the cut off you ask for If the Resurrection accounts go, it all goes. Apart from faithbased denial, of which as Flashman said of active service in India during the Raj 'There is a lot of it around'.

There are of course the cafeteria Christianity ploys with which I sympathise, like with someone who can still feel their amputated leg. Notably the 'we need it, true or not' crowd. Which what you are doing in your "truths God is trying to get across." But that is a different debate.

(1) in fact they may do as they serve to establish divinity from conception rather than conferred at the baptism. But in any case, the point is not whether it debunks Doctrine, but whether it establishes that there are real and undeniable contradiction showing that some stories in the gospels have to be made up stuff, not eyewitness accounts.

[The Tanager]

Some of my points have not been addressed. (i.e.) Why continue to consider "The Exodus" just because an ancient book claims it? A claim in which would leave behind all sorts of stuff, as per the video's point(s)?

Further, I trust you and I might agree that IF Genesis IS meant to be a literal account of events, 'science' debunks it?

I did address that. Scholars claim there is stuff left behind, but is in a different time period than those who say it must have been in this period. So, there is archeaological uncertainty. That uncertainty is not enough to discount the rest of the reasons one holds the worldview they do (such as theism being more rational than atheism, the case for the historicity of the resurrection, etc.), but one should still hold that belief about Exodus tentatively because of that uncertainty and not claim the Exodus proves Christianity or anything like that.

And, yes, if the beginning of Genesis is meant to be a scientifically literal account of events, then science would effectively debunk it. I say 'effectively' because there is always the logical possibility of some version of the 5-minute old earth, but I don't think one should believe that is the rational position to take and I wouldn't take it to save some belief.

[POI]

Scholars claim there is stuff left behind, but is in a different time period than those who say it must have been in this period. So, there is archeaological uncertainty.

The video addresses a pretty wide singular time period where virtually nothing exists to suggest the story of "The Exodus". What <other> time period are you referring to exactly, which would not already include the one large time period where there is basically nothing?

That uncertainty is not enough to discount the rest of the reasons one holds the worldview they do (such as theism being more rational than atheism, the case for the historicity of the resurrection, etc.),

If 'science' debunks even a single Biblical story, which was meant to be a literal event, it is then both reasonable and rational to deem the Bible untrustworthy. But sure, one could reasonably still remain a deist and explore other claims and options -- (outside that of the Bible).

but one should still hold that belief about Exodus tentatively because of that uncertainty and not claim the Exodus proves Christianity or anything like that.

No. One should NOT still hold to the tentative conclusion that "The Exodus" is true, if all we have is the claim itself. Especially since such an event would leave behind a lot of stuff. The Exodus is a large claim. If it is false, then what else is false, which is still in debate? To remain in belief, a believer then needs to spin "The Exodus" to where the author had good reason(s) for being completely wrong.

And, yes, if the beginning of Genesis is meant to be a scientifically literal account of events, then science would effectively debunk it.

Great. I guess this is why many believers think Genesis must be philosophical/metaphorical And since we do not have the source, the world will never really know, which is why this topic will be debated perpetually.

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

Skipped:

Yes, it should be easily resolvable as to whether or not Genesis was literal. There IS NO scholarly debate about who wrote "TLoR's" or "The Hobbit" and there IS ALSO NO scholarly debate as to whether or not his works were meant to be taken literally or not. Why is the God you believe in, so inept, that He is unable to inspire a collection of writings which tell the reader if what was given was meant to be a literal account of events, or not?.?.?.?.? God must understand that, because of mistranslation alone, countless people have lost faith. If God's objective is to bring people to him, why inspire a book of endless debate and confusion, which causes many to fall away due to perceived inaccuracies?

Also skipped:

Scholars have not resolved the matter after centuries. If we knew the source, we would have something to go on... But, as it stands, we cannot rule out all the points I mentioned prior, for which you have not discredited in the least. (i.e.):

a) Plagiarism and/or borrowing pre-existing stories
b) self-deception
c) Lying/madman/making things up
d) other

[The Tanager]

I wouldn't presume to say where the cut off point is. It depends on the person looking at the evidence. How much they dearly want to believe in a book of faithclaims, for instance. For some "No amount of evidence would convince me" as Ken Ham said. I'd propose avoiding an insistence that there must be a designated and agreed cut off point where everyone should say 'That's it, I'm out'. It's too much like the ploy of picking a particular Thing that is presented as the pivot of the argument and try to make it something that is not doable (Moths to mammoths in a Lab. is an example) and so renders the argument priced out of the market. I'm sure you don't want to do that, but do want some sure credible guidelines.

The rational cut off doesn’t depend on the person looking at the evidence. Yes, you will always have the Ken Hams of the world, but one need not take that kind of approach. I am wanting sure, credible guidelines that one should rationally follow, otherwise it leaves too much gray area where it becomes more about one’s subjective threshold, which leaves room for added emotional elements or hidden motives. I’m not saying one detail is the pivot, I’m not even thinking it should be something like “5 contradictions are okay, but six isn’t.” I think historians often will pick out a few details and chuck the rest as contradictions or not established well enough to consider part of the historical core. You seem to be arguing differently, that getting a handful of details wrong would lead to not trusting anything about a historical core.

[The Tanager]

The video addresses a pretty wide singular time period where virtually nothing exists to suggest the story of "The Exodus". What <other> time period are you referring to exactly, which would not already include the one large time period where there is basically nothing?

The main two ones are an early date in the middle of the 15th century and a later one towards the end of the 13th century, I believe. I believe there are other minority position dates as well.

If 'science' debunks even a single Biblical story, which was meant to be a literal event, it is then both reasonable and rational to deem the Bible untrustworthy. But sure, one could reasonably still remain a deist and explore other claims and options -- (outside that of the Bible).

The Bible is a collection of books by many different authors, during different time periods, in different genres. Why would people collecting them into one group mean that if one has an error, then all of them are untrustworthy?

No. One should NOT still hold to the tentative conclusion that "The Exodus" is true, if all we have is the claim itself. Especially since such an event would leave behind a lot of stuff. The Exodus is a large claim. If it is false, then what else is false, which is still in debate? To remain in belief, a believer then needs to spin "The Exodus" to where the author had good reason(s) for being completely wrong.

I didn’t say hold it as true with only the claim it is true. To restate what I said differently, it involves one uncertain archaeological position (perhaps the stronger one) coupled with a weaker wider worldview backing it up versus another uncertain archaeological position coupled with a stronger wider worldview backing it up. I think the latter of these two options is the way to go, but one must hold it tentatively if the archaeological uncertainty is done away with.

As to the things you’ve said I’ve skipped, I’ve already responded to those multiple times.

[TRANSPONDER]

Some of my points have not been addressed. (i.e.) Why continue to consider "The Exodus" just because an ancient book claims it? A claim in which would leave behind all sorts of stuff, as per the video's point(s)?

Further, I trust you and I might agree that IF Genesis IS meant to be a literal account of events, 'science' debunks it?

I did address that. Scholars claim there is stuff left behind, but is in a different time period than those who say it must have been in this period. So, there is archeaological uncertainty. That uncertainty is not enough to discount the rest of the reasons one holds the worldview they do (such as theism being more rational than atheism, the case for the historicity of the resurrection, etc.), but one should still hold that belief about Exodus tentatively because of that uncertainty and not claim the Exodus proves Christianity or anything like that.

And, yes, if the beginning of Genesis is meant to be a scientifically literal account of events, then science would effectively debunk it. I say 'effectively' because there is always the logical possibility of some version of the 5-minute old earth, but I don't think one should believe that is the rational position to take and I wouldn't take it to save some belief.

Yep. You get the 'archaeological uncertainly' point. Also that it is not enough to discount the certainties, or near. The remote possibility of a 5 minute old earth or one being in a space -alien game or my mind or yours is not a reason to discount the way things look, as described by science, and the far - fetched undisprovables are no more than curious ideas and can neither debunk science nor make some kind of theism the more probable let alone logically viable claim, no more than ongoing uncertainties about the bronze age collapse can make (with chronology denial) the Hyksos the Exodus or even credibly containing it. More and more Exodus is joining Genesis - creation and Noah's Flood as just not credible history. Even if one did cling to belief in Exodus, it has to be accepted that such is not the valid or logical way to do it. I know that Believers think in terms of Faith but rationaists and scientists (and not even me) does it that way (or should not) but will have a sliding scale of probability.

I'm not sure how to parse this: "That uncertainty is not enough to discount the rest of the reasons one holds the worldview they do (such as theism being more rational than atheism, the case for the historicity of the resurrection, etc.)," but however it was meant, theism is not more rational than atheism as it constantly reveals that Faith is the basis and not the evidence. Clinging to far fetched undisprovables rather than not believing them or even holding them up as viable alternative hypotheses gives theist apologetics away. They cannot help bu do it.

This manifests in many ways, from reasonable debate about the historicity of Exodus and Conquest which is or was as debatable as the Sea peoples or the Trojan war as related to Hittite records. But the more the evidence against a particular hypothesis (the Sea Peoples were a seaborne invasion armada and everything in Bronze age economy was fine until they showed up) mounts up, the less valid an alternative becomes.

With the order of creation, there is no way to fiddle it - one either does science denial or not. Quite apart from age of cosmos divided by 7 = a Biblical day denies what the Bible says, too, and that is a greater order of denial (found in the slavery debate, too) than just denying science. But it is found in the resurrection where what is clearly shown in comparison (aside the "It does not say 'The following account was made up for delusion purposes' means that everything else should be ignored, like John just having Mary Magdalene on her own, no angel (till later) and no idea what happened to Jesus. Thus to any reasonable person, throwing doubt on the Synoptic version.

Just to do a bit of literary criticism, which is more likely? That John had the angel saying that Jesus had risen and reporting that claim back to the disciples (who apparently doubted it) but decided to make it just MM by herself, delete the angel and have her with no clue what became of Jesus. No. More likely John reflects a more simple original and the explanatory angel is a narrative device. Just as the excuse that Mark knew the story about Jesus appearing but chose not write it, despite being the supposedly first version. No, the more likely explanation is that originally the John version of Mary going to the tomb (for no particular reason) and finding it open and empty and no more was heard or said about it (which is what Mark effectively says) is all there originally was. And the versions of the resurrection appearances were added because they felt they were needed. They were written in isolation with a common agenda, and thus they are 'witness that even then did not agree' as Mark says of the False Witnesses. That I'd argue is the simplest explanation (aside conspiracy theories like Rome inventing the gospels to discredit Judaism) that explain those dammned facts that seem to have escaped so much expert notice.

[TRANSPONDER]

I wouldn't presume to say where the cut off point is. It depends on the person looking at the evidence. How much they dearly want to believe in a book of faithclaims, for instance. For some "No amount of evidence would convince me" as Ken Ham said. I'd propose avoiding an insistence that there must be a designated and agreed cut off point where everyone should say 'That's it, I'm out'. It's too much like the ploy of picking a particular Thing that is presented as the pivot of the argument and try to make it something that is not doable (Moths to mammoths in a Lab. is an example) and so renders the argument priced out of the market. I'm sure you don't want to do that, but do want some sure credible guidelines.

The rational cut off doesn’t depend on the person looking at the evidence. Yes, you will always have the Ken Hams of the world, but one need not take that kind of approach. I am wanting sure, credible guidelines that one should rationally follow, otherwise it leaves too much gray area where it becomes more about one’s subjective threshold, which leaves room for added emotional elements or hidden motives. I’m not saying one detail is the pivot, I’m not even thinking it should be something like “5 contradictions are okay, but six isn’t.” I think historians often will pick out a few details and chuck the rest as contradictions or not established well enough to consider part of the historical core. You seem to be arguing differently, that getting a handful of details wrong would lead to not trusting anything about a historical core.

Come on now, get a grip I agree that one Ought to prefer a rational evidence - based approach, but the point is, people have different degrees of rationality from denial of what the Bible says, not just science, to those who grudgingly agree the Bible is not fact but conveys metaphorical truths. That said, I gave what I see as the cut off point - science debunk and terminal contradictions. And the strongest ones are the ones that count, not explaining away the defeat of Assyria (which Assyrians imply was not the case) as perhaps mice chewed through the tent ropes. or one angel or two.

The debunk of the order of creation or the nativities chips the credibility of the Flood and the resurrection (not that they have much cred. in my view) and thus the rest also slide down the well, Daniel, death of Judas, Tyre, the declaration at Nazareth, the sun standing still, and Antipas involved in the trial and Exodus, both of which could be argued, but the previous debunks have got to undermine the argument that both could be explained. Quite simply, a witness found fibbing has no business demanding credibility for anything else. Unless, like the crucifixion, Galilean birth and Donkey ride, I think there are clues independent of the gospels and in fact argued away by the gospels, I see evidence FOR something in the Bible even if the Bible tries to get rid of it. That's why I credit the Crucifixion, if not the resurrection.

[POI]

The main two ones are an early date in the middle of the 15th century and a later one towards the end of the 13th century, I believe. I believe there are other minority position dates as well.

The Jews were said to be in Egypt for 100's of years. The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers. And yet, the Egyptians do not mention a Jewish populous, in any capacity, at all?

Further, the large singular time frame covered for investigation, in which I mentioned, is (1550 - 1070 BCE). So far, we are still only talking about one time frame. Your rebuttal then fails so far. Got anything else?

The Bible is a collection of books by many different authors, during different time periods, in different genres. Why would people collecting them into one group mean that if one has an error, then all of them are untrustworthy?

I'm completely aware the Bible has at least 40 authors, over 66 books, and spans over many centuries, depending on who you ask. But you have missed my point.

Genesis is debatable as to it being literal or figurative. If we should find out that any of the confirmed literal Bible stories are full of B.S., then why continue to consider the rest, which is still in question? Just reject the canon and move on to another collection of claims, from another set of claims to the supernatural. If Bible claims do not comport with reality, then it is false. Just move on. Further, "The Exodus" is a large claimed event. The Bible devotes an entire book to this claimed event. And because of this literal event, many successive events are said to then happen thereafter. If "The Exodus" is B.S., then the origin to other claims, thereafter, are also full of B.S.

As to the things you’ve said I’ve skipped, I’ve already responded to those multiple times.

Then please recap your responses, because I either do not remember, or I did not agree at the time of such exchange. I'll condense, for sake in brevity:

1. If God's objective is to gain recruits, why instead inspire a book which turns many away, due to thinking Genesis is literal when it was not supposed to be literal?

2. Since the source of Genesis is unknown, who are you to rule out some dude merely copying existing stories, or is insane, or is lying, or is in honest self-deception? At least with Saul, we have a starting point... We know stuff about the author (Saul/Paul) to make reasonable inferences, assumptions, and/or conclusion(s) there-after.