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]

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

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

I agree. I don't see how the beginning of Genesis (since that has been the focus of this point here) does purport to be "history or recorded events".

[The Tanager]

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

No, it doesn’t go as far as the reasons you believe Tolkien’s works are meant to be fiction because you have reasons for that: Tolkien’s own letters explicitly showing that, for instance.

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

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

…

No one is disputing that there aren’t differing interpretations or even how the majority of people interpret it, but what the interpretation should be.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

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

I agree. I don't see how the beginning of Genesis (since that has been the focus of this point here) does purport to be "history or recorded events".

Nor do I and we might discuss the implications of that, for instance, if the Flood is real or not and what that does for OT credibility, like in the Exodus, or if Eden isn't real, whence evil and how is it our fault rather than the potters, who may smash the pot but is still to blame for how it was made.

That said of course, there are those who DO argue that Genesis is history or recorded events, oractual fact. And they try to use science and reason to prove it, too. These people whom I dub 'Genesis literalists' are my natural prey.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

No, it doesn’t go as far as the reasons you believe Tolkien’s works are meant to be fiction because you have reasons for that: Tolkien’s own letters explicitly showing that, for instance.

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

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

…

No one is disputing that there aren’t differing interpretations or even how the majority of people interpret it, but what the interpretation should be.

Should be or is the most probable explanation? Should be is 'not factual'. On scientific evidence and reasoning. Give or take the literalist and inerrantist debate. What best fits what we have is, I suggest, a primitive human view of how the world was - a flat circular earth a sky dome over it. And the order of creation guesses according to Complexity, which is a natural guess but wrong, because of course one would assume Grass before fish, but strata shows sea creatures before there was plant life. It even explains the hilarious idea of God having a light on and alternating with night for some reason, and just to look pretty had the sun rise out of the deep (just as the ancients thought) just to mark the daylight, not cause it. This was aligned with the ancient 'snow dome' cosmology, so why would the Hebrews have though any different 600 BC?

[The Tanager]

Should be or is the most probable explanation? Should be is 'not factual'. On scientific evidence and reasoning. Give or take the literalist and inerrantist debate. What best fits what we have is, I suggest, a primitive human view of how the world was - a flat circular earth a sky dome over it. And the order of creation guesses according to Complexity, which is a natural guess but wrong, because of course one would assume Grass before fish, but strata shows sea creatures before there was plant life. It even explains the hilarious idea of God having a light on and alternating with night for some reason, and just to look pretty had the sun rise out of the deep (just as the ancients thought) just to mark the daylight, not cause it. This was aligned with the ancient 'snow dome' cosmology, so why would the Hebrews have though any different 6000 BC?

I was using "should be" as a way to express the most probable interpretation. Take the order, for instance. What do we have in Genesis 1? We have it being made in six days and God resting on the seventh, with the chaotic waters being talked about first and then dry ground coming to bring order. What about Genesis 2? We have everything being made in one day, the first focus being on a deserty land and then water, first by underground wells, and then rivers to where the chaotic desert is made into an ordered garden. To me it seems like two reverse ways to talk about the same thing: God providing order where there was chaos and emptiness. The author/editor couldn't believe both of these periods (6 or 1 day) or both of these orders happened, so they must have understood these as getting at a deeper truth agenda through these symbols and storyline, whatever cosmology they believed actually was true.

[TRANSPONDER]

Should be or is the most probable explanation? Should be is 'not factual'. On scientific evidence and reasoning. Give or take the literalist and inerrantist debate. What best fits what we have is, I suggest, a primitive human view of how the world was - a flat circular earth a sky dome over it. And the order of creation guesses according to Complexity, which is a natural guess but wrong, because of course one would assume Grass before fish, but strata shows sea creatures before there was plant life. It even explains the hilarious idea of God having a light on and alternating with night for some reason, and just to look pretty had the sun rise out of the deep (just as the ancients thought) just to mark the daylight, not cause it. This was aligned with the ancient 'snow dome' cosmology, so why would the Hebrews have though any different 6000 BC?

I was using "should be" as a way to express the most probable interpretation. Take the order, for instance. What do we have in Genesis 1? We have it being made in six days and God resting on the seventh, with the chaotic waters being talked about first and then dry ground coming to bring order. What about Genesis 2? We have everything being made in one day, the first focus being on a deserty land and then water, first by underground wells, and then rivers to where the chaotic desert is made into an ordered garden. To me it seems like two reverse ways to talk about the same thing: God providing order where there was chaos and emptiness. The author/editor couldn't believe both of these periods (6 or 1 day) or both of these orders happened, so they must have understood these as getting at a deeper truth agenda through these symbols and storyline, whatever cosmology they believed actually was true.

Well, exactly - if one doesn't reject science. The most probable interpretation is that it isn't true. ''Should be' on that basis is either a 'deeper interpretation' or a more science - based one that debunks it - that it it was a primitive best guess by ancient thinkers going on 'observation', or imperfect human perceptions, and coming to understandable false conclusions and a wrong cosmology and limited geology. There 'should be' no deeper interpretation than that unless one is pushed by a priori Faith to detect something poetically relevant to faith in a god.

[POI]

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

No, it doesn’t go as far as the reasons you believe Tolkien’s works are meant to be fiction because you have reasons for that: Tolkien’s own letters explicitly showing that, for instance.

Are you saying that if Tolkien never produced formal letters expressing intentional fiction, you would then be agnostic to (whether or not) his writings were meant to be literal?

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

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

…

No one is disputing that there aren’t differing interpretations or even how the majority of people interpret it, but what the interpretation should be.

What SHOULD it be? I offered 10 references expressing how Genesis is literal.

[Difflugia]

Well, exactly - if one doesn't reject science. The most probable interpretation is that it isn't true. ''Should be' on that basis is either a 'deeper interpretation' or a more science - based one that debunks it - that it it was a primitive best guess by ancient thinkers going on 'observation', or imperfect human perceptions, and coming to understandable false conclusions and a wrong cosmology and limited geology. There 'should be' no deeper interpretation than that unless one is pushed by a priori Faith to detect something poetically relevant to faith in a god.

At least on the first few chapters of Genesis, I'm with The Tanager on this one. The initial "in the beginning" bit is a warmed over version of the Babylonian creation myth that I think is intended to be recognized as such by readers/hearers. Whereas Marduk needed to battle and subdue Tiamat before shaping her form into the land and waters, Tehom (a proper name in Hebrew; "Deep" rather than "the deep") was already under the dominion of Yahweh. The author reshaped one creation story into another to make a theological point, recognizing the original as one allegory and reshaping it into another. That's not to say that all of the debunkable Genesis stories were intended to be allegorical, but I think a lot of them deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Incidentally, that argument can cut both ways. That's how I read Matthew and Luke as treating Mark.

[The Tanager]

Well, exactly - if one doesn't reject science. The most probable interpretation is that it isn't true. ''Should be' on that basis is either a 'deeper interpretation' or a more science - based one that debunks it - that it it was a primitive best guess by ancient thinkers going on 'observation', or imperfect human perceptions, and coming to understandable false conclusions and a wrong cosmology and limited geology. There 'should be' no deeper interpretation than that unless one is pushed by a priori Faith to detect something poetically relevant to faith in a god.

That what isn't true? The bit that isn't making a scientific claim about the order of creation isn't a true order of creation? Of course. Therefore, the true interpretation won't be that it isn't meant to be a true account of the order of creation, but speaking to some other truth(s).

[The Tanager]

Are you saying that if Tolkien never produced formal letters expressing intentional fiction, you would then be agnostic to (whether or not) his writings were meant to be literal?

No, I’m saying that is probably the best piece of evidence, but there are other reasons. It’s not just some vague “it’s common sense” but actual reasons that can be pointed to.

What SHOULD it be? I offered 10 references expressing how Genesis is literal.

I think it is about God as the one who brings order to chaos, God as the creator (but not scientifically explaining how), the role humans are meant to have, and stuff like that.