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]

I have dealt with the interpretative issue elsewhere 'metaphorically true means not true at all'.

Do you mean in a different thread, because all you’ve done here is say that metaphorically true means not true at all. Why does non-literal mean non-true?

[TRANSPONDER]

I have dealt with the interpretative issue elsewhere 'metaphorically true means not true at all'.

Do you mean in a different thread, because all you’ve done here is say that metaphorically true means not true at all. Why does non-literal mean non-true?

Fair question. I like to be made to think. Take Job, for instance. Is it real or a parable. I'm sure it is a parable. So, if it isn't true, did the writer intend people to think it was true (quite a few did) or is it explaining God's relationship with man which is true, through a story that isn't?

You do well to question where I dealt with this before. It probably wasn't on this thread but I often do it and I repeat my views too much already. Interpretation can mean anything from translation -shopping and the Ghost Bible to making stuff up or quite often, a thing shewn false is claimed to be true in a symbolic way. In my book 'Not true at all'. Not in the Bible.The symbolic thing requires it'sown validation as the Bible simile or poem is not evidence.

As to Genesis, I don't think I need rehash why evolution is true and Creation as in Genesis isn't, geology and palaeontology says there was no global flood or extinction if all human, animal and plant life other than what was on the schooner Wyoming. So it isn't true. So in that instance, passing it off as metaphor means (in my book)' not true at all. Because frankly I don't get what the metaphor is other than the God -character is an awful person, Genesis is a fairy - take and the Bible is not to be trusted any more than Mike Pillow's evidence that the election was stolen.

[The Tanager]

Fair question. I like to be made to think. Take Job, for instance. Is it real or a parable. I'm sure it is a parable. So, if it isn't true, did the writer intend people to think it was true (quite a few did) or is it explaining God's relationship with man which is true, through a story that isn't?

You do well to question where I dealt with this before. It probably wasn't on this thread but I often do it and I repeat my views too much already. Interpretation can mean anything from translation -shopping and the Ghost Bible to making stuff up or quite often, a thing shewn false is claimed to be true in a symbolic way. In my book 'Not true at all'. Not in the Bible.The symbolic thing requires it'sown validation as the Bible simile or poem is not evidence.

As to Genesis, I don't think I need rehash why evolution is true and Creation as in Genesis isn't, geology and palaeontology says there was no global flood or extinction if all human, animal and plant life other than what was on the schooner Wyoming. So it isn't true. So in that instance, passing it off as metaphor means (in my book)' not true at all. Because frankly I don't get what the metaphor is other than the God -character is an awful person, Genesis is a fairy - take and the Bible is not to be trusted any more than Mike Pillow's evidence that the election was stolen.

I think there is a scale of sorts. Some stories (Biblical and outside the Bible) are historical fictions meant to portray philosophical truths, like God’s character, what human motivations are, etc. There are historical claims about actual people who existed, although even then, even our historical biographies today, can be selective and usually have a philosophical agenda behind them, shaping them, and therefore, speaking to more than just a historical truth. Some stories could be based on historical events, but talked about poetically to try to engage the reader’s more, focusing more on the philosophical agenda than the actual historical details. Our modern history concerns for “just the history” are pretty recent developments.

So, concerning the beginning of Genesis, I see it as more concerned about showing that God is the creator and what the roles of humanity is meant to be, and the relationship between us, but in a relevant way to the original audience, contrasting against other writings that were circulating around. God wants to include humans in the act of reigning in his image for their good versus creating slaves because the gods want to do more leisurely activities. Stuff like that. The formation of Eve highlights (in my view, although I know there are many Christians who disagree) the equality of man and woman, whether or not there is a historical core of an original pair or not. The six days of creation in Genesis 1 (there is only 1 day in Genesis 2:4, by the way) is broken into first creating the environment, then filling it with creatures and rulers, where this seems more a literary framework to get the philosophical agenda across more than a chronological, literal note taking endeavor of what historically happened.

If that kind of interpretation is correct, it leaves open the scientific and historical questions of how life physcially arose, while focusing on deeper philosophical questions of did God create the world, what does it mean to be human, etc.

[POI]

If I'm not mistaken, <you> think the authors of Genesis did not intend for such stories to be literal, in a plain reading. In this case, of course science cannot touch them.

I guess we need to first figure out, once and for all, what the intent of Genesis IS? Meaning, literal as read, or not? Until Christians plant this flag, of course there will be many like you stating science does not debunk it.

But here's the dealio... I've debated hermeneutic scholars. Some think Genesis is literal, and then deny science. And then there's hermeneutic scholars who think more-so like you.

Can you Christians agree on anything important? Apparently not. I blame the authors, not you

Can any worldview, much less one that has so many people wanting to claim the same term, 100% agree on much, if anything? This has no rational force against the truth of a worldview.

I see what you are saying, so let's start here, using one of your past example authors. And before you answer, please be advised that questions 1) and 2) are only meant for individuals who have been involved in deep study of the two questions. As I stated prior, for question 2), only hermeneutic scholars.

1) Was Lord of the Rings meant to be a literal account?
2) Was Genesis meant to be a literal account?

I think the second part is the crux here, though. The question is whether you are rational to blame the authors instead of me. So, lay out your case why this is the author’s fault and not those trying to interpret what the author meant.

Because question 2), like question 1), is a simple (yes/no) question. Both the scholarly, as well as not, would all likely unanimously agree on the same answer, for question 1). And sure, a unanimous response is not necessarily what makes the answer to question 1) correct, but it would still present as a direct byproduct.

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

The over-arching point being, asking "if science debunks the Lord of the Rings" becomes a nonsensical question, because we all know, based upon common knowledge, that it was not meant to be literal. Was Genesis?

[TRANSPONDER]

Fair question. I like to be made to think. Take Job, for instance. Is it real or a parable. I'm sure it is a parable. So, if it isn't true, did the writer intend people to think it was true (quite a few did) or is it explaining God's relationship with man which is true, through a story that isn't?

You do well to question where I dealt with this before. It probably wasn't on this thread but I often do it and I repeat my views too much already. Interpretation can mean anything from translation -shopping and the Ghost Bible to making stuff up or quite often, a thing shewn false is claimed to be true in a symbolic way. In my book 'Not true at all'. Not in the Bible.The symbolic thing requires it'sown validation as the Bible simile or poem is not evidence.

As to Genesis, I don't think I need rehash why evolution is true and Creation as in Genesis isn't, geology and palaeontology says there was no global flood or extinction if all human, animal and plant life other than what was on the schooner Wyoming. So it isn't true. So in that instance, passing it off as metaphor means (in my book)' not true at all. Because frankly I don't get what the metaphor is other than the God -character is an awful person, Genesis is a fairy - take and the Bible is not to be trusted any more than Mike Pillow's evidence that the election was stolen.

I think there is a scale of sorts. Some stories (Biblical and outside the Bible) are historical fictions meant to portray philosophical truths, like God’s character, what human motivations are, etc. There are historical claims about actual people who existed, although even then, even our historical biographies today, can be selective and usually have a philosophical agenda behind them, shaping them, and therefore, speaking to more than just a historical truth. Some stories could be based on historical events, but talked about poetically to try to engage the reader’s more, focusing more on the philosophical agenda than the actual historical details. Our modern history concerns for “just the history” are pretty recent developments.

So, concerning the beginning of Genesis, I see it as more concerned about showing that God is the creator and what the roles of humanity is meant to be, and the relationship between us, but in a relevant way to the original audience, contrasting against other writings that were circulating around. God wants to include humans in the act of reigning in his image for their good versus creating slaves because the gods want to do more leisurely activities. Stuff like that. The formation of Eve highlights (in my view, although I know there are many Christians who disagree) the equality of man and woman, whether or not there is a historical core of an original pair or not. The six days of creation in Genesis 1 (there is only 1 day in Genesis 2:4, by the way) is broken into first creating the environment, then filling it with creatures and rulers, where this seems more a literary framework to get the philosophical agenda across more than a chronological, literal note taking endeavor of what historically happened.

If that kind of interpretation is correct, it leaves open the scientific and historical questions of how life physcially arose, while focusing on deeper philosophical questions of did God create the world, what does it mean to be human, etc.

Yes, but the starting point is - did it happen? If not, on evidence, not at all, then why should one want to credit the God -claims metaphorically?

Contrast that with the Exodus. Considered until recently (last decade) an actual event, it is now considered likely not an event though I think it may relate to the Hyksos, even though it really can't.

Similarly, the prophecy of Tyre. If it isn't true (the siege of Tyre is real but the 'never rebuilt' prophecy is not) then any metaphor about God's communication with man is fishfood. Again, the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem is undoubtedly real, confirmed in Assyrian records. But if I am right (and it's debatable) that it ended the way the Assyrians say - Hezekiah submitting and paying tribute and not as the Bible says, God smiting the Assyrians so they have to give up, then even as metaphor,the claim fails. Meaphor/symbolism, I therefore maintain means 'not true at all'. Though one can argue a metaphor out of events that really happened. Did the destruction of Herod's Temple mean that God was angry at the Jews for killing Jesus? Debatable, but not invalid because the event is true , on the evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

If I'm not mistaken, <you> think the authors of Genesis did not intend for such stories to be literal, in a plain reading. In this case, of course science cannot touch them.

I guess we need to first figure out, once and for all, what the intent of Genesis IS? Meaning, literal as read, or not? Until Christians plant this flag, of course there will be many like you stating science does not debunk it.

But here's the dealio... I've debated hermeneutic scholars. Some think Genesis is literal, and then deny science. And then there's hermeneutic scholars who think more-so like you.

Can you Christians agree on anything important? Apparently not. I blame the authors, not you

Can any worldview, much less one that has so many people wanting to claim the same term, 100% agree on much, if anything? This has no rational force against the truth of a worldview.

I see what you are saying, so let's start here, using one of your past example authors. And before you answer, please be advised that questions 1) and 2) are only meant for individuals who have been involved in deep study of the two questions. As I stated prior, for question 2), only hermeneutic scholars.

1) Was Lord of the Rings meant to be a literal account?
2) Was Genesis meant to be a literal account?

I think the second part is the crux here, though. The question is whether you are rational to blame the authors instead of me. So, lay out your case why this is the author’s fault and not those trying to interpret what the author meant.

Because question 2), like question 1), is a simple (yes/no) question. Both the scholarly, as well as not, would all likely unanimously agree on the same answer, for question 1). And sure, a unanimous response is not necessarily what makes the answer to question 1) correct, but it would still present as a direct byproduct.

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

the over-arching point being, asking "if science debunks the Lord of the Rings" becomes a nonsensical question, because we all know, based upon common knowledge, that it was meant to be literal.

Very good. but here Tolkien has true and unvalidated metaphors. We know that the 'event' that carries the metaphor about trees and woods vs wheels and machines is the ruination of scenery (as Tolkien saw it) by industry. There again Gondor is a metaphor for the fall of Constantinople, and that it fell to Islam was a lament in the late middle ages (1) , and Tolkien's fantasy of the Anglo - Saxons starting a cavalry army and riding the rescue is anachronistic as well as unlikely. Therefore the event is real but the metaphor false.

(1) Any excuse

[POI]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #186]

But we do not even need to go this deep. Was Genesis meant to be as literal as the claims to "the Exodus", and the claims surrounding Jesus, or not? Seems like such a SIMPLE question for which hermeneutic scholars cannot even reconcile?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #186]

But we do not even need to go this deep. Was Genesis meant to be as literal as the claims to "the Exodus", and the claims surrounding Jesus, or not? Seems like such a SIMPLE question for which hermeneutic scholars cannot even reconcile?

The individual must essentially decide, though hopefully considering the views of experts or those who claim to be authorities. I have read one account trying to make Eden a real place as there have been attempts to make the Red Sea crossing work or my old work pal trying to validate walking on water as 'Jesus wading through the shallows'.

The Genesis was considered factual for a long time, and still is by many, though I read the Jews (smart people that they are ) appear to consider it "Metaphor". Bottom line, I reckon ALL the Bible events (similes and parable apart) are intended as literal, when written and by many today. Whether these things - Genesis, Exodus and Jesus -claims - are true or even intended as true, is just part of the debate. But I still assert, if on evidence and reason, not true, then the metaphor founders.

[The Tanager]

I see what you are saying, so let's start here, using one of your past example authors. And before you answer, please be advised that questions 1) and 2) are only meant for individuals who have been involved in deep study of the two questions. As I stated prior, for question 2), only hermeneutic scholars.

1) Was Lord of the Rings meant to be a literal account?
2) Was Genesis meant to be a literal account?

1) No
2) No

Because question 2), like question 1), is a simple (yes/no) question. Both the scholarly, as well as not, would all likely unanimously agree on the same answer, for question 1). And sure, a unanimous response is not necessarily what makes the answer to question 1) correct, but it would still present as a direct byproduct.

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

The over-arching point being, asking "if science debunks the Lord of the Rings" becomes a nonsensical question, because we all know, based upon common knowledge, that it was not meant to be literal. Was Genesis?

There have been different genres concurrently throughout human history. The question, for each text, is what genre it fits in and how that affects our interpretation of it. Some texts are easier to see than others because we know the context it was written in, in some cases have the author answering these questions directly for us, etc. We agree on LotR. Genesis was written in a different culture, in a different context, so it’s case is completely separate from LotR. So, why do you believe the creation story is literal?

[The Tanager]

Yes, but the starting point is - did it happen? If not, on evidence, not at all, then why should one want to credit the God -claims metaphorically?

Did what happen? Are you treating the Genesis events as literal in asking that question and then saying the philosophical claim that God created the world can’t be believed because the events didn’t literally happen? The question is whether those events should be treated as literal in the first place. If not, then not literally happening isn’t a mark against the God claims.

Contrast that with the Exodus. Considered until recently (last decade) an actual event, it is now considered likely not an event though I think it may relate to the Hyksos, even though it really can't.

Similarly, the prophecy of Tyre. If it isn't true (the siege of Tyre is real but the 'never rebuilt' prophecy is not) then any metaphor about God's communication with man is fishfood. Again, the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem is undoubtedly real, confirmed in Assyrian records. But if I am right (and it's debatable) that it ended the way the Assyrians say - Hezekiah submitting and paying tribute and not as the Bible says, God smiting the Assyrians so they have to give up, then even as metaphor,the claim fails. Meaphor/symbolism, I therefore maintain means 'not true at all'. Though one can argue a metaphor out of events that really happened. Did the destruction of Herod's Temple mean that God was angry at the Jews for killing Jesus? Debatable, but not invalid because the event is true , on the evidence.

Some claims in the Bible are meant to be taken literally. It’s not all or nothing. Everything must be looked at individually. And each one needs its focus. Right now you were trying to defend the creation story. Are you dropping that and want to talk about Tyre and Assyria instead?