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]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #317]

You still are just assuming your approach is a good one, without explaining why. I’ve shared why, even assuming those are actual contradictions, it wouldn’t matter for an argument for the historicity of the resurrection. You need to show that it does matter. Instead you just keep saying “yep it matters, so prove they aren’t contradictions.” No, prove it matters.

Perhaps I might cite the Law Court' boast that the resurrection would stand up in a court of law. I'm arguing that it wouldn't. The Bible apologists have put a lot of work into explaining or denying the contradictions, historically with the 2nd census argument for the nativities and more recently with the resurrections inventions (the women split up so Mary never saw Jesus) or denial - say that Luke knew the disciples went to Galilee to see Jesus after they'd seen Jesus that evening but just said nothing about it and never mind that the message was changed to Not tell them to go to Galilee.

If it matters to others so they spend tons of time and effort in countering the claimed contradictions, why does it not matter to you?

Let me make a wild guess you know you can't so you do an evasion. While writing as though you were having to instruct me . You may think it is winning for you by saying it doesn't matter that the Nativities are a pack of lies as they are 'Not Doctrinal' ( I know - not yours, but a memorable piece of dishonesty I saw once) but you are handing me a seasonal gift wrapped in pink paper with a sprig of holly in presenting to Bible believers who want to see you put up a good show for resurrection veracity in (it seems) having to resort to 'I can't show the accounts are coherent, but I win if I say i believe it anyway'. Isn't that what you are doing?

And a merry Christmas to you all. And who but Monty Python to give you that sense of awe and wonder at that fairy tale of the nativity?



The opening is still thrilling. First time i saw it in cinema it thrilled me, but the audience roared when the star put on the brakes as soon as it got to the edge of town. Mind, the joke about the balm flops. I suspect it was supposed to be misheard as 'Bomb' which is why it should be put in water but they realised the 'Up Pompei' flunk - you can't do too anachronistic or you kill the joke. So they turned it into a fierce animal which is frankly feeble. They can't all be gems.

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #317]

You still are just assuming your approach is a good one, without explaining why. I’ve shared why, even assuming those are actual contradictions, it wouldn’t matter for an argument for the historicity of the resurrection. You need to show that it does matter. Instead you just keep saying “yep it matters, so prove they aren’t contradictions.” No, prove it matters.

It likely wouldn't matter. You appear to be a 'minimal facts' Christian. Feel free to address this topic:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40714

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I have seen the 'minimal facts' ploy (and it is no more than a ploy) before. It fails in every respect. It is double standard (they would never accept it for the other side - we saw how slam dunk evidence of cetan speciation was dismissed), would not stand up in a court of law, never mind not passing the basic of science - being a credible hypothesis, oe (of course) the claim is not evidence for the claim. The resurrection claim is not evidence for the stories being true but the reason they were invented in the first place. Same with the nativity - Scripturally Christians got the notion that Jesus Ought to have been born in Bethlehem, but wasn't. So two utterly contradictory stories were invented to Correct the Bible.

Succinctly we know evasion, denial and excuses when we see them.

We know that appeal to Faith is what is being done with dismissing the contradiction. Mind, Bible critics do this, too. I had a real struggle with a snooty atheist who wanted to excuse the extended Markan story of the death of the baptist as being the 'basis' of the Matthian version (rather than - as I argued' - Mark's personal version) on the grounds of 'fatigue' - just cutting most of it out. And I left my First Forum because a critical poster I rather admired called me a liar when i argued that Paul must have known the disciples. People is still people, I guess

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #320]

The Pentateuch is not the only way one could be aware that God wants us to act in certain ways and that we need God’s help in order to do so. The 613 laws involve moral, cultural, and ritual laws (i.e., they go beyond morality) and, morally, are applications of the deeper principles that all societies seem to agree on but will sometimes have different historical outworkings of because of differences in their beliefs about facts or cultural differences. Thus, there could still be a need for Jesus if the Pentateuch isn’t from God.

[The Tanager]

If it matters to others so they spend tons of time and effort in countering the claimed contradictions, why does it not matter to you?

Because I’m addressing the historicity of the resurrection and while the truth of Biblical inspiration would support the historicity, I don’t think it’s the best approach to take here. If you want to address the historicity question in a conversation with me, then support your historical approach.

[TRANSPONDER]

If it matters to others so they spend tons of time and effort in countering the claimed contradictions, why does it not matter to you?

Because I’m addressing the historicity of the resurrection and while the truth of Biblical inspiration would support the historicity, I don’t think it’s the best approach to take here. If you want to address the historicity question in a conversation with me, then support your historical approach.

So am I. Though in fact I got the feeling you were trying to sideline it in favor of Sophistry - it was somehow to be credited for reason reason other than the accounts looking credible.

You may opt for what you call the historicity (and don't embarrass yourself by claiming 'Bible inspiration' as valid historicity) rather than 'the law court' apologetic. Ok, if you want to scrap the law court testimony in favor of historicity, I'd argue that - yes, we credit historical records out of desperation, sometimes. But there are doubts, debates and even dismissal. The Jugurthine war (Sallust) is credited, but does anyone believe the Roman army pranced about to a Numidian rain god and it duly rained? Does anyone believe the Gordian knot? Or that the Gods built Troy even if Troy and maybe the war now looks historical?

The Creation and Ark do not stack up historically and Exodus is failing even though it was once had historical credit. Why should not the Resurrections fail on historicity, as well as 'courtroom testimony' apoilogetic?

We can even look at the historical method, and see whether it gives you a loophole out of not stacking up as a coherent story.

(First page of Google search)
What is the difference between history and historicity?
'History' is the written and generally accepted form of the past. 'Historicity' is the validity of a certain individuals' appurtenance in regards to the historical past, or that of a number of said individuals.

I'd better look up 'apputinance' as i thought that was a multifunction spanner or swiss army knife. "an accessory or other item associated with a particular activity or style of living."

Doesn't help much. I suppose what a person has to support their claims about the past.

Let's try the historical method.
What are the 4 historical methods?
Historical researchers often use documentary, biographical, oral history, and archival methods, in addition to many of the methods commonly used across the social sciences.

I could have cited Heidelburg University or Georgetown college, but it looks like 'whatever method and data you have#.

[The Tanager]

So am I. Though in fact I got the feeling you were trying to sideline it in favor of Sophistry - it was somehow to be credited for reason reason other than the accounts looking credible.

The historical method is not (1) find out which details are agreed upon by all (or even a majority) of the available sources, (2) deem the larger event those details are a part of as historical. That has been your historical method assumed in your posts as to why the resurrection has been debunked. To point out that this approach isn’t what historians do is not sophistry.

You may opt for what you call the historicity (and don't embarrass yourself by claiming 'Bible inspiration' as valid historicity) rather than 'the law court' apologetic.

I didn’t claim Biblical inspiration was a valid historical approach. The reasoning was that if Biblical inspiration is true, then Jesus being resurrected is obviously true because of what Biblical inspiration means (i.e., that everything written is from God and true). I said it wasn’t the best route to take to speak to the resurrection being true.

Ok, if you want to scrap the law court testimony in favor of historicity, I'd argue that - yes, we credit historical records out of desperation, sometimes. But there are doubts, debates and even dismissal.

Who is saying to credit it as historical out of desperation? No, credit it out of the historical method.

The Jugurthine war (Sallust) is credited, but does anyone believe the Roman army pranced about to a Numidian rain god and it duly rained? Does anyone believe the Gordian knot? Or that the Gods built Troy even if Troy and maybe the war now looks historical?

People don’t believe those things because there isn’t an argument that connects the historical facts with those theories. If the case for the historicity of the resurrection fails it is because that connection fails.

The Creation and Ark do not stack up historically and Exodus is failing even though it was once had historical credit. Why should not the Resurrections fail on historicity, as well as 'courtroom testimony' apoilogetic?

To be rational, everything fails or rises on its own merit. That may be helped/hurt by connections to other claims, but you’d have to show a very tight reliance on those claims.

[TRANSPONDER]

So am I. Though in fact I got the feeling you were trying to sideline it in favor of Sophistry - it was somehow to be credited for reason reason other than the accounts looking credible.

The historical method is not (1) find out which details are agreed upon by all (or even a majority) of the available sources, (2) deem the larger event those details are a part of as historical. That has been your historical method assumed in your posts as to why the resurrection has been debunked. To point out that this approach isn’t what historians do is not sophistry.

You may opt for what you call the historicity (and don't embarrass yourself by claiming 'Bible inspiration' as valid historicity) rather than 'the law court' apologetic.

I didn’t claim Biblical inspiration was a valid historical approach. The reasoning was that if Biblical inspiration is true, then Jesus being resurrected is obviously true because of what Biblical inspiration means (i.e., that everything written is from God and true). I said it wasn’t the best route to take to speak to the resurrection being true.

Ok, if you want to scrap the law court testimony in favor of historicity, I'd argue that - yes, we credit historical records out of desperation, sometimes. But there are doubts, debates and even dismissal.

Who is saying to credit it as historical out of desperation? No, credit it out of the historical method.

The Jugurthine war (Sallust) is credited, but does anyone believe the Roman army pranced about to a Numidian rain god and it duly rained? Does anyone believe the Gordian knot? Or that the Gods built Troy even if Troy and maybe the war now looks historical?

People don’t believe those things because there isn’t an argument that connects the historical facts with those theories. If the case for the historicity of the resurrection fails it is because that connection fails.

The Creation and Ark do not stack up historically and Exodus is failing even though it was once had historical credit. Why should not the Resurrections fail on historicity, as well as 'courtroom testimony' apoilogetic?

To be rational, everything fails or rises on its own merit. That may be helped/hurt by connections to other claims, but you’d have to show a very tight reliance on those claims.

You seem to be missing the point yet again and I don't doubt because of Faith. You get the doubt about the Jugurthine miracle as an extraordinary claim, though the rest is given historical credit. But you seem to regard the resurrection differently. The record is reliable, therefore the miracle must have happened. Wasn't that it? If so, no, historical method or not, it fails on courtroom witness testimony.

If it fails there, you tell me on what historical method it becomes credible? You have tried it on quite a bit demanding I make what are normal deductive methods into whatever you are willing to accept as 'historicity' (at least you pull back from Revelation as valid history) but...let me check..Oh Jesus, man, that's faithbased garbage. If the stories are not credible, (OT or NT) then the credit given to Divine inspiration or 'Revelation' is without force. I earnestly suggest old pal, you don't push that one, as any kind of reasoning, let alone some kind of valid historical method.

What else in your lexicon is historicity other than whether the record matches what reality might have been (1) and what method do you propose for analysis and consideration of the documentary record other than the internal accounts (especially consistency) and any relevant external clues, like Pilate's character, duties and methods and the Sanhedrin trials, duties and methods? E.g, the lack of any example of the Passover release ever being tried must argue there was no such custom. The Jewish view of what was and what was not Blasphemy in respect of the messiah, suggests that the Sanhedrin charge makes no sense other than to a Christian. These are clues and hints that should throw light of the credibility of the gospel record.

p.s I need hardly pick up 'desperation' as the point seems to pass right over your head and you just nitpick it. Let me clarify: some records, particularly early ones and mythologised ones are given more credit that maybe they ought to be given, simply because historians are desperate to wring any scraps of history out of even dubious records. Obviously we have far better histories in the centuries before and after the first. But even then history can get desperate. Like the missing accounts of the Claudian invasion, or for that matter any Roman records of Jesus. We have Tacitus (which i do credit - others don't) and Josephus (which I don't credit - others do) and the other extra Biblical references which generally add little.

(1) a bit like science, which constructs the best model of whatever reality is.

[The Tanager]

You seem to be missing the point yet again and I don't doubt because of Faith. You get the doubt about the Jugurthine miracle as an extraordinary claim, though the rest is given historical credit. But you seem to regard the resurrection differently. The record is reliable, therefore the miracle must have happened. Wasn't that it? If so, no, historical method or not, it fails on courtroom witness testimony.

No, that wasn’t it at all. I’m not saying that since the Gospels are reliable, the miracle of the resurrection must have happened. I’m saying that it is a BAD historical approach to move from (1) whether details within a source about event X are reliable/unreliable to (2) therefore event X did or did not happen. It would be unreasonable to say the resurrection happened because the Gospels agree on various details. It would be just as unreasonable to say the resurrection was made up because the Gospels disagree on various details. That isn’t how historians do their work. They have no problem saying we can be sure that event X happened, but we have no idea what specific details are true or false in the conflicting accounts.

Using your example, they don't say the Jugurthine war didn't happen because the various sources disagree on specific details or it claims a miracle happened. No, they say the war happened, but specific details they aren't sure about and some they think probably did happen that way. That isn't the approach you are taking here.

[TRANSPONDER]

You seem to be missing the point yet again and I don't doubt because of Faith. You get the doubt about the Jugurthine miracle as an extraordinary claim, though the rest is given historical credit. But you seem to regard the resurrection differently. The record is reliable, therefore the miracle must have happened. Wasn't that it? If so, no, historical method or not, it fails on courtroom witness testimony.

No, that wasn’t it at all. I’m not saying that since the Gospels are reliable, the miracle of the resurrection must have happened. I’m saying that it is a BAD historical approach to move from (1) whether details within a source about event X are reliable/unreliable to (2) therefore event X did or did not happen. It would be unreasonable to say the resurrection happened because the Gospels agree on various details. It would be just as unreasonable to say the resurrection was made up because the Gospels disagree on various details. That isn’t how historians do their work. They have no problem saying we can be sure that event X happened, but we have no idea what specific details are true or false in the conflicting accounts.

Using your example, they don't say the Jugurthine war didn't happen because the various sources disagree on specific details or it claims a miracle happened. No, they say the war happened, but specific details they aren't sure about and some they think probably did happen that way. That isn't the approach you are taking here.

No it isn't. Because the Jugurthine war (like the Gallic war of Caesar) looks pretty credible, BUT miracles simply don't wash.

So why when the stories of the resurrections don't stack up as convincingly as even the crucifixion accounts do, why on earth should we credit the miracle claim of the resurrection?

What method do you think we should use on the gospels if not the deductive, scientific and historical method as well as (as can be done here and has been used by some gospel apologists) the Law Court testimony apologetic?

This talk get off to a good start in describing what is the historical method. He distinguishes it from the scientific method as it is not testable,



Yes - but some things are testable, like archaeology can test whether a people were in a particular place at a particular time or not. Historical re - enactment can be valuable in repeating antique experiences. Agincourt is being hotly debated as tests have shown arrows don't penetrate armor.