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?

[The Tanager]

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…

I explicitly said it isn’t enough, so I don’t know why you are saying this as though I said something different.

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.

While some theists do that, not all do, and the same is true of atheists.

...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.

You continue to say you are catching something that has escaped experts in the field, but scholars have been aware of all the points you’ve made for quite some time. Some agree with you, some don’t.

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.

I don’t think you are taking a good historical approach. Historians do not chuck whole accounts out because of other books written by other authors. They also don’t chuck out whole accounts because a handful of events have disagreed upon details. We’ve got to get this disagreement straight before worrying about actual details and content. Speaking about all of those just muddies the water that we don’t have this foundation firmly established yet. Rationally support your historical approach.

[The Tanager]

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?

I remember, in the Exodus thread you invited me to, talking about how we do have instances of Egyptians trying to erase parts of previous regimes, as well as still having gaps in Egyptian sources. And if that video said there is no evidence whatsoever for the Exodus in that time period, then it’s just wrong. I haven’t done a deep dive into Exodus (as I’ve said before) and I easily ran across some basic arguments made about evidences within both suggested main periods that one needs to consider. If you are just going to keep repeating that there is no evidence, then the conversation will stop here.

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.

First, you haven’t shown the stories are full of BS. Second, I did understand your point and still have the same thing to say. It is silly to reject some writings because thousands of years later different people decided to collect them all into one collection and know you feel that they all rise or fall together.

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?

It is their own context and misunderstandings that turn them away, not the Genesis text.

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.

Copying existing stories wouldn’t change the genre, so you still have the same question of genre, which can be located without knowledge of the exact author. Insane people, liars, self-deceivers, are still writing a specific way, genres, and aren’t more or less likely to be writing literal versus nonliteral accounts.

[POI]

(1) I remember, in the Exodus thread you invited me to, talking about how we do have instances of Egyptians trying to erase parts of previous regimes, as well as still having gaps in Egyptian sources. (2) And if that video said there is no evidence whatsoever for the Exodus in that time period, then it’s just wrong. (3) I haven’t done a deep dive into Exodus (as I’ve said before) and I easily ran across some basic arguments made about evidences within both suggested main periods that one needs to consider. (4) If you are just going to keep repeating that there is no evidence, then the conversation will stop here.

1) Right. But the point there is we still know what they were trying to erase. And nothing is trying to be erased about 'The Exodus".
2) 'Nuh-huh' is not a reasonable defense. In the time period investigated, which is a large singular time period of almost 500 years, archeologists agree there is little/nothing to investigate, but do seem to agree there should be much stuff found by now.
3) Such as???????
4) If you are not going to actually produce any, after I keep repeating there is little/none, then my position still stands without contest.

** Maybe this is one of the reasons why the Bible is not seen as a historical collection of documents. It is sometimes not reliable or credible, where we can actually investigate. And where the story of Jesus is concerned, we have nothing contemporary outside the Gospels. And again, we do not know WHO wrote them? And I've already explained why this would help immensely (i.e.) Saul of Tarsus.

(1) First, you haven’t shown the stories are full of BS. (2) Second, I did understand your point and still have the same thing to say. It is silly to reject some writings because thousands of years later different people decided to collect them all into one collection and know you feel that they all rise or fall together.

1) But I have. Restated/repeated... Such a large-scale event would leave behind a lot of stuff (i.e.) 100's of years, millions of people, etc... In the 500-year time period investigated, archeologists of differing disciplines, are left with virtually nothing to explore. It's yet another convenience... But let's continue to keep our fingered crossed.
2) Exodus is the second book. And yet, it is already the first book for which we can attribute as being literal. Since it is likely false, the source for Leviticus is already tainted, (in part or more).

It is their own context and misunderstandings that turn them away, not the Genesis text.

Many fall away because they read Genesis as literal and see that reality does not comport accordingly. This would not be the case if the intent of Genesis was as straight forward as the intent of TLoR's. IF Genesis was meant to be philosophical/metaphorical, seems God did a really crappy job in making that clear. Would you agree?

Copying existing stories wouldn’t change the genre, so you still have the same question of genre, which can be located without knowledge of the exact author. Insane people, liars, self-deceivers, are still writing a specific way, genres, and aren’t more or less likely to be writing literal versus nonliteral accounts.

Without knowing who the author(s) were, you have no idea of their physical location, mentation, intent, honesty level, political motivation(s), other?

[The Tanager]

1) Right. But the point there is we still know what they were trying to erase. And nothing is trying to be erased about 'The Exodus".

The point is that even the most meticulous record keepers will still have gaps coupled with the point that there is possible evidence offered, so it’s not how you paint it (meticulous record keepers with absolutely no evidence whatsoever). If there was no evidence whatsoever, scholars wouldn’t still be split on the issue.

2) 'Nuh-huh' is not a reasonable defense. In the time period investigated, which is a large singular time period of almost 500 years, archeologists agree there is little/nothing to investigate, but do seem to agree there should be much stuff found by now.
3) Such as???????

Nuh-huh wasn’t my response. (3) was about (2) not something different. Archaeologists do not agree there is little/nothing to investigate. I gave some of it in that other thread already.

Many fall away because they read Genesis as literal and see that reality does not comport accordingly. This would not be the case if the intent of Genesis was as straight forward as the intent of TLoR's. IF Genesis was meant to be philosophical/metaphorical, seems God did a really crappy job in making that clear. Would you agree?

No, I don’t agree. They fall away because they mis-read Genesis because they read their culture and questions and mindset onto the text. That is not a good reason to say the text isn’t made clear.

Without knowing who the author(s) were, you have no idea of their physical location, mentation, intent, honesty level, political motivation(s), other?

No, the general location is usually known, the ideas in their culture and the ones around them that they were disagreeing with, including possible political motivations, and more.

[POI]

(1) The point is that even the most meticulous record keepers will still have gaps coupled with the point that there is possible evidence offered, so it’s not how you paint it (meticulous record keepers with absolutely no evidence whatsoever). (2) If there was no evidence whatsoever, scholars wouldn’t still be split on the issue.

1) "Meticulous" would logically include something about a populous of millions, for which the Egyptians "apparently" enslaved, for centuries.
2) And yet, you have still offered no evidence, which maintains "the split". Is there even a scholarly split about (evidence vs. no evidence) for an Exodus?

Nuh-huh wasn’t my response. (3) was about (2) not something different. Archaeologists do not agree there is little/nothing to investigate. I gave some of it in that other thread already.

The only thing I recall, is you stating some zingers were posted in the comments section from that video which offered a better argument than the video itself. And when I asked what these zingers are, I do not recall reading anything further from you about them? Care to enlighten me? What evidence suggests 'The Exodus" took place? Thus far, there appears to be no evidence, and then theists offer excuses as to why there is none. You know, like "we are looking in the wrong time period", even though the time period addressed spans ~500 years!

No, I don’t agree. They fall away because they mis-read Genesis because they read their culture and questions and mindset onto the text. That is not a good reason to say the text isn’t made clear.

But it isn't made clear. We've already established that it is not clear. There still exists scholarly debate on (literalism vs not), remember? Just think how many former believers have lost their faith, after scholarly study, in thinking Genesis is literal, and then realizing such claims do not comport with their reality. Which-in-turn, causes them to reject the Bible. God's inspiration failed. He is inept. Unlike Tolkien's works.

No, the general location is usually known, the ideas in their culture and the ones around them that they were disagreeing with, including possible political motivations, and more.

Yet again, unlike Saul of Tarsus, we do not know the author's intent, character, mental state, other. We can't. The author is anonymous.

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

If we are to assume the author of "The Exodus" also wrote other partial or complete books from the Pentateuch, this raises many more concerns for the believer. If it should turn out "The Exodus" account was complete B.S., which it likely was, then it's reasonable to assume other stories are too.

[TRANSPONDER]

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…

I explicitly said it isn’t enough, so I don’t know why you are saying this as though I said something different.

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.

While some theists do that, not all do, and the same is true of atheists.

...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.

You continue to say you are catching something that has escaped experts in the field, but scholars have been aware of all the points you’ve made for quite some time. Some agree with you, some don’t.

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.

I don’t think you are taking a good historical approach. Historians do not chuck whole accounts out because of other books written by other authors. They also don’t chuck out whole accounts because a handful of events have disagreed upon details. We’ve got to get this disagreement straight before worrying about actual details and content. Speaking about all of those just muddies the water that we don’t have this foundation firmly established yet. Rationally support your historical approach.

I am talking of apologetics I nave seen and apparently you have and which science undermines whether or not you and I agree that science debunks the Bible here and there or not. This is about critiquing the Bible claims,not trying to discredit you,personally.

You may be right that scholars have noticed this stuff, but I have never seen it discussed or debated. I have never seen it argued why John has no transfiguration. And even if it has been noticed, that is no reason not to raise it.

And I don't consider that I am talking about chucking anything out because of book written by others. of course we use histories and documents written earlier but as with Josephus, that is sometimes debated.

The approach here is science (debunking Bible claims) and internal consistency -contradictions undermining credibility. I am sure I've seen that as a matter of debate.

[TRANSPONDER]

(1) I remember, in the Exodus thread you invited me to, talking about how we do have instances of Egyptians trying to erase parts of previous regimes, as well as still having gaps in Egyptian sources. (2) And if that video said there is no evidence whatsoever for the Exodus in that time period, then it’s just wrong. (3) I haven’t done a deep dive into Exodus (as I’ve said before) and I easily ran across some basic arguments made about evidences within both suggested main periods that one needs to consider. (4) If you are just going to keep repeating that there is no evidence, then the conversation will stop here.

1) Right. But the point there is we still know what they were trying to erase. And nothing is trying to be erased about 'The Exodus".
2) 'Nuh-huh' is not a reasonable defense. In the time period investigated, which is a large singular time period of almost 500 years, archeologists agree there is little/nothing to investigate, but do seem to agree there should be much stuff found by now.
3) Such as???????
4) If you are not going to actually produce any, after I keep repeating there is little/none, then my position still stands without contest.

** Maybe this is one of the reasons why the Bible is not seen as a historical collection of documents. It is sometimes not reliable or credible, where we can actually investigate. And where the story of Jesus is concerned, we have nothing contemporary outside the Gospels. And again, we do not know WHO wrote them? And I've already explained why this would help immensely (i.e.) Saul of Tarsus.

(1) First, you haven’t shown the stories are full of BS. (2) Second, I did understand your point and still have the same thing to say. It is silly to reject some writings because thousands of years later different people decided to collect them all into one collection and know you feel that they all rise or fall together.

1) But I have. Restated/repeated... Such a large-scale event would leave behind a lot of stuff (i.e.) 100's of years, millions of people, etc... In the 500-year time period investigated, archeologists of differing disciplines, are left with virtually nothing to explore. It's yet another convenience... But let's continue to keep our fingered crossed.
2) Exodus is the second book. And yet, it is already the first book for which we can attribute as being literal. Since it is likely false, the source for Leviticus is already tainted, (in part or more).

It is their own context and misunderstandings that turn them away, not the Genesis text.

Many fall away because they read Genesis as literal and see that reality does not comport accordingly. This would not be the case if the intent of Genesis was as straight forward as the intent of TLoR's. IF Genesis was meant to be philosophical/metaphorical, seems God did a really crappy job in making that clear. Would you agree?

Copying existing stories wouldn’t change the genre, so you still have the same question of genre, which can be located without knowledge of the exact author. Insane people, liars, self-deceivers, are still writing a specific way, genres, and aren’t more or less likely to be writing literal versus nonliteral accounts.

Without knowing who the author(s) were, you have no idea of their physical location, mentation, intent, honesty level, political motivation(s), other?

Indeed. It has been argued that there is no validation of the Exodus outside the Bible (Josephus of course takes his cue from the Jewish Exodus story) because (first) why would there be any record, and when that failed as there ought to be Something, it was argued that the Egyptians engineered a cover -up. But still all sorts of arguments are made for evidence from Hyksos cylinder seals representing the tribes of Israel to wall paintings showing Jews arriving in Egypt. So why did the cover up not have those painted over? Bible apologists are just trying to excuse why there is not the evidence they obviously also feel there ought to be. But here context is ignored. The advocate drawn to my attention by otseng , was arguing for a Hyksos cylinder seal representing the 12 tribes and ignores that the Hyksos were ruling the delta not being enslaved in it and the wall paining (I'll check the date) (1) showing Canaanites arriving gives no indication that they were immigrating into slavery. Of course looking that painting up just now shows that Bible archaeology sources claim with no question, these are the Hebrews arriving in Egypt

(1) c 1800 BC middle kingdom. Concedo c It ould be claimed as Joseph's relatives being invited to immigrate before the enslavement started. But there we have the knock on problem that Joseph has to be later as the Hyksos wars were later and the chariots (referred to in the Joseph story) were not used by Egypt until after the Hyksos wars. This is where conditions dictate where the Exodus has to be historically, after the Hyksos wars (when the Egyptian army had chariots) and really during the only time Egypt wasn't overseeing Canaan (Amarna period).

[POI]

According to The Tanager, and also including myself, if it should turn out that Genesis is meant to be a literal account of events, as written, then yes, 'science' effectively debunks the Bible. I guess it's a good thing the scholarly debate between (literalism vs not) will never really be resolved

[TRANSPONDER]

Quite so. I don't know why this has been a struggle, but if Genesis is myth (and Exodus fudged history at best) then the debate is done. There is nothing to discuss. It is not true as per the Bible.

The debate is of course with those who reckon it is a reliable record of events not with those who don't. In that case the only database that there is (human guesswork not being too reliable) the sciences and logical reasoning is what we turn to to evaluate those claims. And I have to recite that, if you find some of the claims demonstrably unreliable, that throws doubt on the others. Indeed the principle of embarrassment must be an effective historical tool to be able persuade me that Jesus really was a Galilean and was crucified by the Romans., given how unconvincing I find the rest of it

Of course, this is all 'probability' and never forgetting alternative theories. I do not do 'Believe - or not'. I have to consider 4 - gospel unanimity a factor, though the common factor might be Christian doctrine as much as historical record. Thus, I give the Temple bust up a good (even) credibility as a damned fact', given the lengths the gospels go to to dilute and camouflage it) but the cagmag of the resurrection - accounts means that I give it very low credibility indeed. Vanishingly low, in fact.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #295]

I never said anything about what was posted in the comments section of that video; I never read any of those comments. I didn't even think about their being comments (of course there would be, I just didn't think about it until what you just wrote). Anyone who is seriously investigating the Exodus is going to see that scholars point to evidence. You can say it isn’t good enough evidence like many scholars believe, but to keep claiming that there is no evidence whatsoever pointed to shows one isn't serious about this issue. By being unaware of the actual scholarly debate that even a quick look into will show is the only basis for lumping those who argue for an Exodus from archaeology with flat-earthers. Serious scholars believe there is evidence for the Exodus, and it's not just huge leaps, although I think it is far from slam dunks either. I shared a brief summary of some of the evidence pointed to and people like Transponder gave some summary responses against that.

As to Genesis, scholars are not immune to bad philosophy where they don’t take proper account of the context and end up reading their culture and preconceptions into their work. Many people lose their faith because they don’t question that initial view they’ve held of Genesis being literal, thus reading that context into the text, when it shouldn’t be. And, then, of course they'll see some stuff that confirms their bias.

And, yet again, not knowing the author doesn’t mean we can’t know the author’s intent, while their character and mental state have nothing to do with literary analysis.

I agree that the Exodus being BS could call into question some of the other writings in the Bible, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to chuck the whole Bible away (and it hasn't been definitively shown to be BS anyway). I'm fine with someone saying the Exodus is most reasonably BS and questioning other parts of the Bible because of that, but not all of the Bible and not claiming that the Bible or large chunks of the Bible or even the Exodus has been scientifically debunked.