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]

Obvious case here is the resurrection. Bible apologetics and Christianity rests entirely on the Gospels as reliable record.

Why does the case for the historicity of the resurrection rest on the Gospels being entirely reliable?

Even if the resurrection account could be given as much credibility as (say) the crucifixion, a mundane of natural explanation takes precedence over a miracle because 'miracles don't happen' as they say.

It is the burden of the believer to show that a miracle happened because of our normal experience of reality, yes. Void of any other evidence, one should believe Jesus didn’t resurrect. But there is other evidence and that argument can, theoretically, be defeated.

Now now I said a reliable record, not 'entirely reliable'. That might not have been a deliberate attempt to play the '100%' card (1). But reliable enough is the point. On balance and probability. On evidence. I credit the crucifixion, not only because - apart from divergences here and there - all four more or less agree on that, but that it looks like a 'damned fact' - an unwelcome truth they have had to explain away. I credit the idea that if the gospels had been totally invented, they would have had Jesus convicted for blasphemy and stoned, Pilate being involved merely to ok their decision (Yes, the Sanhedrin could carry out executions, or so I understand) and there would be no Roman execution that somehow had to be blamed on the Jews.

And Society girls in their little black cocktail numbers could wear a rock around their neck instead on a little silver man being tortured to death.

But the resurrections (like the exodus) under more consideration had looked less credible all the time. The 'weaving together' fudge has bamboozled us all; it had bamboozled me into thinking it had a reliable basis. The same way the nativities have been fudged into the wise men and shepherds kneeling together in front of a cowshed with a star hovering overhead. I hate to keep saying this, but for over 1000 years, Bible experts have allowed that lie to be sold on a Christmas card to all of the people, all of the time, and the resurrection is another lie.

The resurrection contradictions are almost as bad as the nativities, and that ought to be enough to get it slung out of court. 'Entirely reliable' was never the issue. Even so, I have even doubts about the empty tomb, so it may not be reliable in anything.

It is generous of you to see the burden of proof falling on the miracle claim. I have put forward myself an argument at least that the burden of proof falls rather on the disputant to show that a unique one -off miracle - event did not happen. As indeed in the case with the whole Bible 'treated like any other book'. Where we have to decide whether it is true, given it is not obvious fiction.

What more? Oh yes. Other evidence. I Cor I suppose? That in fact is more of a debunk of the resurrection as in the gospels. Yes, I am sure Paul believed in Jesus' resurrection and that the disciples passed that idea onto him (though he implies it was God who told him, not men, but Paul was a bit of a misleader), but this is a different and contradictory story from the gospels. Only Luke (evidence is that he knew and used Paul's letters and Josephus' writings, too) tries to bring the original story in line with the 1 Cor account. Notably, changing the angel's message so the disciples stay in Jerusalem and don't go to Galilee, and inserting an appearance to Simon that none of the other accounts have.

If you were on a jury and the barrister pointed out four discrepant witnesses, would you accept or reject? Honestly now?

(1) a common and basic theist fallacy where a far less probable explanation is presented as valid because it can't be 100% disproven. It is essentially the Faithbased starting point for theist apologetics.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #261]

Can you more clearly lay out what a "reliable record" consists of? No contradictions between the accounts? A few contradictions in supporting details are okay? Something else?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #261]

Can you more clearly lay out what a "reliable record" consists of? No contradictions between the accounts? A few contradictions in supporting details are okay? Something else?

That is of course too tricky a subject to be defined simply. Is the battle of Kadesh a reliable record? It was credibly an event, despite the obvious Spin even before the Hittite confirmation was found. Is Caesar's Gallic war reliable (spin aside). It is considered 'Probably' reliable, even though we only have a copied version of his supposed book. Is Josephus reliable? Even what he wrote about himself is spin, yet the Battle of Jotapa is surely true, while other events are arguable and his ancient history is based on dubious stories like identifying the Hyksos with the hebrews.

It is not simple and historical debate goes on.

That's why assessing the gospels for reliability is like a mix of historical research and court cases. Not 'believe or not'. Accept it or not, witness error only goes so far. We might accept one angel because a witness forgot the 2nd one, but you cannot excuse the synoptics having an angel parked by the empty tomb to explain everything but John has no such thing. Conclusion - originally there was no angel at the empty tomb, and the angel exegesis was invented to make sure everyone got the same take away.

That's not the end of it and every bit yields its' own clue - if the questions are asked, which all the past Bible experts seemed to have declined to do. So it's a time a few skeptics did.

[POI]

why can’t we reasonably form a belief the genre/intentions if we don’t know the exact author?

Well, this leads us back to a comment I've made twice now. Bible scholars have had a long time to figure out if Genesis is literal or not. And yet, here we are.... I don't think you would have this problem if we (a) knew the author, (b) had Tolken's attestation, and also (c) had documentation of others who helped Tolken.

Again, without the author, we do not have much of a starting point. Why? Again:

1) Maybe the author just borrowed from other stories already floating around.
2) Maybe the author was a madman.
3) Maybe the author wrote about what he thought, and thought God inspired him, but really did not.

Who knows. It's not like we can start to know, like we can somewhat evaluate with Saul/Paul for instance.

You now have carte blanche to 'speculate' that all the claims in Genesis, which do not appear to align with 'science', are instead purposefully metaphorical/philosophical/other. Which is, again, one of the (3) reasons 'science' could never debunk the Bible for you.

Flat earthers are not a part of the scholarly community. Both realists and anti-realists are part of the scholarly community. Both Bible literalists and non-literalists are part of the scholarly community. Your question has no force behind it for this discussion because of that very key difference.

My point being is that you and I know the earth is not a flat round disc. So, for us, it's not a serious debate. Hence, for you at least, such Bible verses must be metaphorical/philosophical/other. And yet, the debate continues as to whether the Bible is literal or not, and where exactly is it literal versus not... Seems quite convenient you seem to know the answer to this seemingly straight forward question, when 'science' disputes the verse in question of literalism or not. But, where 'science' does not dispute, who really knows -- (it's debatable)? Again, protect the Bible at all costs.

I don’t agree that the Bible is non-fiction. It is a mix of fiction and non-fiction, literal events and non-literal events (both those possibly based on actual events as well as those not based on actual events).

Right. The ones in which 'science' would debunk, if otherwise meant to be literal, must not be literal. Got it. This, again, is reason #1 why the Bible is protected. Followed by reasons #2 and #3, as mentioned prior:

#2 - Not enough information to assess the literal claim. But, let's somehow still consider the claim, because it says so in the Bible.
#3 - One-time claimed miracles, from ions ago, cannot be falsified.

For these (3) reasons, you are safe from having your beliefs disputed/challenged.

Is the standard 100% or just what is reasonable? If the former, then it can’t be disproven, but that standard is silly. If the latter, then the burden is on the one claiming the miracle to show that it is the most reasonable position to take. All the other side needs to do is defeat those arguments.

I think the problem remains... By WHAT standard is an argument defeated?

[TRANSPONDER]

For me, knowing the author doesn't always help. Josephus seems to come in three or perhaps four categories - his own story (like his part in the Jewish war) the records of Herod's times (thought to be borrowed from Nicholaus of Damascus) and the old legends related from a Biblical view. Plus stuff thought to be spurious, at least in part - the Flavian Testament.

Of course Biblical authorship (apart from Paul - at least the first few letters) is just not to be credited. Neither the OT nor the new. I don't credit the gospels as accounts of eyewitnesses, no more than the claim that Genesis and Exodus were written my Moses or Daniel by Daniel.

[The Tanager]

That is of course too tricky a subject to be defined simply.

It still must be done, since you are saying a rational person will reject the resurrection for that reason (i.e., the gospels are not reliable records on this account). Is an angel invention, alone, enough? If so, why? If not, how many (or what kind of) instances are enough and why?

[The Tanager]

Well, this leads us back to a comment I've made twice now. Bible scholars have had a long time to figure out if Genesis is literal or not. And yet, here we are.... I don't think you would have this problem if we (a) knew the author, (b) had Tolken's attestation, and also (c) had documentation of others who helped Tolken.

Which leads us back to the same comment I’ve made in response each time. So what? There is long, historical debates over all sorts of things. Yes, if we had those other things it wouldn’t be a debate (like with Tolkien), but we don’t. And we don’t have consensus on a whole slew of things, including things like the realism/anti-realism debate in science, but that doesn’t mean scientists shouldn’t be listened to in their fields.

Again, without the author, we do not have much of a starting point. Why? Again:

1) Maybe the author just borrowed from other stories already floating around.
2) Maybe the author was a madman.
3) Maybe the author wrote about what he thought, and thought God inspired him, but really did not.

Who knows. It's not like we can start to know, like we can somewhat evaluate with Saul/Paul for instance.

Again, knowing the author could be helpful (I agree with Transponder that it isn’t always), but why is it necessary? If it’s not necessary, then why do you keep bringing it up as though that settles the issue?

My point being is that you and I know the earth is not a flat round disc. So, for us, it's not a serious debate. Hence, for you at least, such Bible verses must be metaphorical/philosophical/other. And yet, the debate continues as to whether the Bible is literal or not, and where exactly is it literal versus not... Seems quite convenient you seem to know the answer to this seemingly straight forward question, when 'science' disputes the verse in question of literalism or not. But, where 'science' does not dispute, who really knows -- (it's debatable)? Again, protect the Bible at all costs.

You keep claiming that I’m re-interpreting Genesis because of my scientific beliefs and I keep telling you I’m not. Have a conversation with me, not what you want me to be doing. I think at some Biblical authors probably thought the earth was flat and used that language to speak about philosophical truths. The point is that those texts aren’t scientific treatises, even if the author thought that was scientifically true, because the point of those specific texts are philosophical, not scientific. But, more to the point of Genesis, I interpret it the way I do because of literary analysis. To continue to insist that you know better, the real reason I’m doing something is irrational nonsense; deal with my actual thoughts and reasons.

I think the problem remains... By WHAT standard is an argument defeated?

The standard should be what is most reasonable to believe given all of the evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is of course too tricky a subject to be defined simply.

It still must be done, since you are saying a rational person will reject the resurrection for that reason (i.e., the gospels are not reliable records on this account). Is an angel invention, alone, enough? If so, why? If not, how many (or what kind of) instances are enough and why?

Of course. But it's an ongoing process, apologetic by apologetic and evidence by evidence - just as History and archaeology progresses. I did explain the reason why I can't give a simpler argument than that.

It is why, as I said, one angel or two is not enough. But John having no angel at all, is a Problem, or ought to be. It ought not to be a rummaging around for excuses, but of course, it is. The 'Mary's split up'apologetic was an attempt to get over that and pointing out that Luke says that Mary (Magdalene) saw these things is just ignored.

Which ought to mean conceding the point but rather means they are right and never mind what i say.

And what I say is that is just one thing. Luke not knowing that the Marys ran into Jesus is another. Again the excuses - e.g. Womens' testimony doesn't count - but Luke says they saw an angel telling that Jesus was risen - but not that they actually met Jesus. As I recall the response was silence. What's yours? Luke saying the eleven (minus Judas of course) were there Sunday night but John has Thomas absent, which Luke says nothing about. Plus Matthew has them troop off to Galilee but Luke has them stay in Jerusalem - and alters the angelic message so they don't get told to go to Galilee.

Because Luke knew Paul's letters - which is also why he invents Jesus appearing to Simon (to fit with 1 Corinthians) but because that's all paul says, Luke sends us off to Emmaeus so Jesus can appear to Simon without his having to describe it. This is just one of many,many contradictions in the Resurrection which (under the legal clean hands' rule affects the credibility of more arguable vcases, if one can call the death of Judas arguable. When you have compelling evidence (or so it should be) that Matthew and Luke wrote contradictory stories in isolation to put meat on the bones of "The tomb was empty - Jesus resurrected!" Then the excuses, evasions and making stuff up do not deserve benefit of doubt.

Do you see how how the case builds up? It is like a complicated court case. It is not "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I have faith that my client is telling the truth. Do you believe it or not?"

Of course, I just gave the tip of the iceberg that sank the Biblical Titanic, even though half the US swears it is still afloat. There is so much more from No Transfiguration to the Lord'sprayer not being in the Bible originally.

Shall we go through the Nativity debunk? I always enjoy that, and it's the perfect season for it.

[POI]

Well, this leads us back to a comment I've made twice now. Bible scholars have had a long time to figure out if Genesis is literal or not. And yet, here we are.... I don't think you would have this problem if we (a) knew the author, (b) had Tolken's attestation, and also (c) had documentation of others who helped Tolken.

Which leads us back to the same comment I’ve made in response each time. So what? There is long, historical debates over all sorts of things. Yes, if we had those other things it wouldn’t be a debate (like with Tolkien), but we don’t. And we don’t have consensus on a whole slew of things, including things like the realism/anti-realism debate in science, but that doesn’t mean scientists shouldn’t be listened to in their fields.

So what? This is likely, at least in part, why hermeneutic scholars will never resolve the 'debate'.

As stated ad nauseum... Bible scholars have had centuries, or more, to interpret the Bible. If it hasn't happened by now, it ain't. The correct tool for the job to solve such matters would likely be hermeneutics. And yet, no resolve. Do you think your believed upon God is pleased with this results, (i.e.) in not knowing if the flood was literal or not or if Adam and Eve were literal or not?

Again, knowing the author could be helpful (I agree with Transponder that it isn’t always), but why is it necessary? If it’s not necessary, then why do you keep bringing it up as though that settles the issue?

Because then you would only have the 'unscholarly' fringe group arguing a position in which the scholarly group would not address or even entertain. Otherwise, my prior points still stand unattested. (i.e.) a) plagiarism, b) madman, c) delusional, d) other

You keep claiming that I’m re-interpreting Genesis because of my scientific beliefs and I keep telling you I’m not. Have a conversation with me, not what you want me to be doing. I think at some Biblical authors probably thought the earth was flat and used that language to speak about philosophical truths. The point is that those texts aren’t scientific treatises, even if the author thought that was scientifically true, because the point of those specific texts are philosophical, not scientific. But, more to the point of Genesis, I interpret it the way I do because of literary analysis. To continue to insist that you know better, the real reason I’m doing something is irrational nonsense; deal with my actual thoughts and reasons.

I just find it quite convenient that every claim, which would get knocked down by "science", has to be philosophical/metaphorical. Or in the case for Exodus, 'we have little evidence for or against', even though such an event would leave behind a ton of evdidence. Etc., as already expressed with the NT.

I think the problem remains... By WHAT standard is an argument defeated?

The standard should be what is most reasonable to believe given all of the evidence.

You merely side-stepped. What position(s) is/are most "reasonable"...? Genesis is literal or not? The Exodus did, or did not, happen? Jesus rose, or he didn't?

[Diogenes]

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

Easy question to answer, at least from the point of view that virtually nothing the Bible references about the universe, the Earth, the solar system does not reflect 1st and 2d millennia BCE understanding of nature. If an omniscient 'God' had written the Bible we would expect many descriptions of nature that seemed wrong or mysterious when written, but turned out to be accurate according to modern science.

Instead we were told the Earth and universe were created in six days and in a different order than reality.
We are given a description of a flat Earth, that does not move, and is the center of the universe with our Sun orbiting it.
The Bible attributes forces of nature to acts of its God, not with understanding of natural phenomena.
The Bible is littered with absurd 'miracles' that simply could not happen, fiery chariots, talking animals, demonic spirits that invade people and other animals.
There is simply no example, not a single one, where the Bible tells us some secret of nature in contrast to ancient understanding congruent with the time and culture in which it was written. And there are examples where Greeks and others understood nature (spherical Earth, for example) better than Biblical authors.

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