Science And The Bible

[DavidLeon]

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept as a philosophy would have an influence in on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle.

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

For debate, what significance does modern science bear upon an accurate understanding of the Bible? How important is science to the modern day Bible believer and where is there a conflict between the two?

[Difflugia]

No, you have missed the point.

Just saying it again doesn't add any sort of justification to your argument.

Paul in the book of Hebrews...

Paul didn't write Hebrews.

...is saying that faith itself is the evidence to the believer of things not seen.

Nope, not if you mean one's own faith. The faith of one is evidence to another, whether believer or not. Hebrews 11:4 says that Abel's faith was evidence to Cain (here, painted as an unbeliever). 11:5-6 says that Enoch's great faith was possible because he had witness borne to him by others. The faith of one is witness to the next, whether it is accepted or not.

The faith of the Christian doesn't prove the reality of God to anyone outside. Just listen to you and others on this forum. Does my faith prove to you that God and Christ and the Bible are true?

Not at all, which is why I expect there's a bit of theological harmonizing going on.

[Quantrill]

Just saying it again doesn't add any sort of justification to your argument.

Paul didn't write Hebrews.

Nope, not if you mean one's own faith. The faith of one is evidence to another, whether believer or not. Hebrews 11:4 says that Abel's faith was evidence to Cain (here, painted as an unbeliever). 11:5-6 says that Enoch's great faith was possible because he had witness borne to him by others. The faith of one is witness to the next, whether it is accepted or not.

Not at all, which is why I expect there's a bit of theological harmonizing going on.

I didn't just say it again.

I believe there is sufficient evidence that proves Paul wrote Hebrews. I see no evidence to the contrary.

Yup. I mean the faith of the believer, the Christian. His faith is the evidence to him. His faith witnesses to Him. Just as in (Heb. 11:2), "For by it the elders obtained a good report" That is not a good report from outsiders. It is a good report from God to the individuals spirit. Same with Abel. Abel obtained witness that he was righteous.

I showed you earlier the reaction of those from the outside concerning the believer. (Heb. 11:35-38) Note the mockings, tortures, and persecution listed. Then in (11:39) we are told, "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith....." So, did you see any good report in (11:35-38) Not at all. The good report was God's witness to them of their faith.

Just like I said and you agreed. My faith doesn't prove anything to you or any other non-believer.

Quantrill

[Difflugia]

I believe there is sufficient evidence that proves Paul wrote Hebrews. I see no evidence to the contrary.

I won't speculate on what evidence you do or don't see, but I will point out that even verbal inerrantists think Pauline authorship is untenable. This is from the NIV Study Bible:

The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. Though for some 1,200 years (c. A.D. 400–1600) the book was commonly called “The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews,” there was no agreement in the earliest centuries regarding its authorship. Since the Reformation it has been widely recognized that Paul could not have been the writer. There is no disharmony between the teaching of Hebrews and that of Paul’s letters, but the specific emphases and writing styles are markedly different. Contrary to Paul’s usual practice, the author of Hebrews nowhere identifies himself in the letter—except to indicate that he was a man (see note on 11:32). Moreover, the statement “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (2:3), indicates that the author had neither been with Jesus during his earthly ministry nor received special revelation directly from the risen Lord, as had Paul.

John MacArthur wrote this:

The author of Hebrews is unknown. Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Luke, Philip, Priscilla, Aquila, and Clement of Rome have been suggested by different scholars, but the epistle’s vocabulary, style, and various literary characteristics do not clearly support any particular claim. It is significant that the writer includes himself among those people who had received confirmation of Christ’s message from others (2:3). That would seem to rule out someone like Paul who claimed that he had received such confirmation directly from God and not from men (Gal. 1:12).

The closest I could find to an endorsement of Pauline authorship is an unwillingness to explicitly deny it. From the Apologetics Study Bible:

The author of Hebrews, though not named, was almost certainly known to the original recipients of this letter. In the centuries since its writing, the letter's anonymity has fueled speculation. Scholars have suggested a variety of early Christians as the author, including Paul, Luke, Apollos, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Silvanus, Philip, and Priscilla. No one, however, is sure who wrote this biblical book. Origen, an early church father, said it best: Only God knows who wrote Hebrews.

Unsurprisingly, the New Oxford Annotated Bible doesn't beat around the bush:

Hebrews is technically anonymous. Early scribes attributed the letter to Paul based on his reputation as a letter-writer and the reference to Timothy (13.23), but, as Origen and Tertullian recognized, this attribution is surely incorrect. Paul, for example, insists that he came to faith through direct divine intervention (Gal 1.11–17; 1 Cor 15.3–10; ); the author of Hebrews affirms that he came to faith through the preaching of other apostles (Heb 2.3–4). Paul intentionally avoids the kind of rhetorical ornamentation that the author of Hebrews delights in displaying (see 1 Cor 2.1–5). The author does appear, however, to be a part of a larger Pauline network, coordinating his movements with those of Timothy and to personally know the addressees, to whom he hopes to be restored (13.19). Some connection with Italy is evident from 13.24. More likely, the author sends greetings from outside Italy; possibly the addressees are located in Italy, with the author sending the greetings of “those (with him) from Italy” back home.

[Quantrill]

I won't speculate on what evidence you do or don't see, but I will point out that even verbal inerrantists think Pauline authorship is untenable. This is from the NIV Study Bible:

The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. Though for some 1,200 years (c. A.D. 400–1600) the book was commonly called “The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews,” there was no agreement in the earliest centuries regarding its authorship. Since the Reformation it has been widely recognized that Paul could not have been the writer. There is no disharmony between the teaching of Hebrews and that of Paul’s letters, but the specific emphases and writing styles are markedly different. Contrary to Paul’s usual practice, the author of Hebrews nowhere identifies himself in the letter—except to indicate that he was a man (see note on 11:32). Moreover, the statement “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him” (2:3), indicates that the author had neither been with Jesus during his earthly ministry nor received special revelation directly from the risen Lord, as had Paul.

John MacArthur wrote this:

The author of Hebrews is unknown. Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Apollos, Luke, Philip, Priscilla, Aquila, and Clement of Rome have been suggested by different scholars, but the epistle’s vocabulary, style, and various literary characteristics do not clearly support any particular claim. It is significant that the writer includes himself among those people who had received confirmation of Christ’s message from others (2:3). That would seem to rule out someone like Paul who claimed that he had received such confirmation directly from God and not from men (Gal. 1:12).

The closest I could find to an endorsement of Pauline authorship is an unwillingness to explicitly deny it. From the Apologetics Study Bible:

The author of Hebrews, though not named, was almost certainly known to the original recipients of this letter. In the centuries since its writing, the letter's anonymity has fueled speculation. Scholars have suggested a variety of early Christians as the author, including Paul, Luke, Apollos, Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Silvanus, Philip, and Priscilla. No one, however, is sure who wrote this biblical book. Origen, an early church father, said it best: Only God knows who wrote Hebrews.

Unsurprisingly, the New Oxford Annotated Bible doesn't beat around the bush:

Hebrews is technically anonymous. Early scribes attributed the letter to Paul based on his reputation as a letter-writer and the reference to Timothy (13.23), but, as Origen and Tertullian recognized, this attribution is surely incorrect. Paul, for example, insists that he came to faith through direct divine intervention (Gal 1.11–17; 1 Cor 15.3–10; ); the author of Hebrews affirms that he came to faith through the preaching of other apostles (Heb 2.3–4). Paul intentionally avoids the kind of rhetorical ornamentation that the author of Hebrews delights in displaying (see 1 Cor 2.1–5). The author does appear, however, to be a part of a larger Pauline network, coordinating his movements with those of Timothy and to personally know the addressees, to whom he hopes to be restored (13.19). Some connection with Italy is evident from 13.24. More likely, the author sends greetings from outside Italy; possibly the addressees are located in Italy, with the author sending the greetings of “those (with him) from Italy” back home.

Yes, I am aware that most do not believe Paul is the author of Hebrews. But, I have looked at their arguments against. And they really base it on one thing. And it just doesn't hold up. Because the writer didn't identify himself, then no one can be dogmatic. But, I am convinced that it was Paul.

The main reason for denying Paul as the writer, you can see in the very quotes you gave. It is based upon (Heb. 2:3)

(Heb. 2:3) "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him."

They then compare this with (Gal. 1:11-12). "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

The writer of (Hebrews) states clearly that the salvation they preach was passed on to them by those disciples of the Lord, and those that heard Christ.

Paul says, equally clearly in (Galatians), that the salvation Gospel he preaches is not from man but directly from Christ.

Thus they say, Paul in no way can be the writer of the book of Hebrews.

But, the Gospel Paul preached, (Gal. 1:12), and the Gospel that Jesus Christ preached at the first, (Heb. 2:3), are not the same Gospel. The Gospel that Christ preached at the first was the Gospel of the Kingdom. (Matt. 3:1-2) (Matt. 4:17) (Matt. 10:5-7) Jesus Christ is come as the Messiah presenting Himself to Israel in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. This salvation was directed at Paul just like any other Jew. He would come under it's requirement like any other Jew.

Paul makes this clear in (Romans 15:8) "Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers". Therefore Paul could equally say in (Heb. 2:3) "...so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." And that would not be Paul's Gospel.

And, in the book of Hebrews you are not hearing Paul's Gospel, which he obtained only from the resurrected Christ. None of the great themes and doctrines of Christianity, found in Paul's letter to the (Romans), are found in (Hebrews) and explained. . You have Jesus Christ presented to the Jews as the fulfillment of their Old Testament. Jesus Christ is presented as better than all of the Old Testament ministries, as they pointed to Christ. The writer of (Hebrews) has one goal in mind. To convince the Jewish Christians to not go back to the Mosaic economy, as they were under pressure to do. Go on with Christ.

If Paul did write (Hebrews), which I believe he did, why wouldn't he sign it? Because his name was anathema among the Jews. They constantly warned Jews everywhere of Paul's preaching. If he wanted it read by Jews, he would have to be anonymous.

Quantrill

[DavidLeon]

You can call it whatever you like but it is not evidence of anything. It is merely the expression of an opinion.

I'm very skeptical of the way in which unbelievers use and weaponize the term evidence. As if you have evidence of something it is proof of something, and faith can't consist of evidence. Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.

[DrNoGods]

You can call it whatever you like but it is not evidence of anything. It is merely the expression of an opinion.

I'm very skeptical of the way in which unbelievers use and weaponize the term evidence. As if you have evidence of something it is proof of something, and faith can't consist of evidence. Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.

The common dictionary definition of the word evidence is:

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

If you have genuine evidence of something then it is indeed proof of that particular something. Evidence could support aspects of faith, but often there is nothing that qualifies as actual evidence (eg. there is no evidence that Jesus was resurrected, or that a global flood covered the Earth some 4300 years ago, or that humans have afterlives, etc. ... only stories of such things). Scientists, or unbelievers, or any other group of people are not weaponizing the term evidence if they are using it to show that something is factual, or to show that it is not factual. Contrast your definition of evidence above:

Anything that you see, experience, read or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

with the dictionary definition:

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

In your definition, someone could read the biblical story of Noah's flood and conclude that they have evidence that it happened, if they simply believe the story. That is not evidence, but it would qualify as evidence with your definition. Genuine evidence must indicate whether something is actually true or not, which is far higher hurdle to clear.

[DavidLeon]

You can call it whatever you like but it is not evidence of anything. It is merely the expression of an opinion.

I'm very skeptical of the way in which unbelievers use and weaponize the term evidence. As if you have evidence of something it is proof of something, and faith can't consist of evidence. Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.

The common dictionary definition of the word evidence is:

ev·i·dence
/ˈevədəns/
noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

If you have genuine evidence of something then it is indeed proof of that particular something. Evidence could support aspects of faith, but often there is nothing that qualifies as actual evidence (eg. there is no evidence that Jesus was resurrected, or that a global flood covered the Earth some 4300 years ago, or that humans have afterlives, etc. ... only stories of such things). Scientists, or unbelievers, or any other group of people are not weaponizing the term evidence if they are using it to show that something is factual, or to show that it is not factual. Contrast your definition of evidence above:

Anything that you see, experience, read or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

with the dictionary definition:

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

In your definition, someone could read the biblical story of Noah's flood and conclude that they have evidence that it happened, if they simply believe the story. That is not evidence, but it would qualify as evidence with your definition. Genuine evidence must indicate whether something is actually true or not, which is far higher hurdle to clear.

Skeptics of the Bible tend to use the word evidence as confirmation that something is true. That science, unlike the Bible, must always be true and accurate, without debate or dispute, because it has evidence to support it. Seemingly as if anything false couldn't have evidence. Therefore science is true and the Bible (or religion) is false. This is not only staggeringly arrogant but also astoundingly naive and patently wrong.

By the way, the definition of evidence you gave is the same as the one I gave. Both of them mean the same thing. Both indicate that evidence is facts and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true of valid. Not confirmation. Only information for consideration as to whether something is true or not. The one I gave simply expanded upon that by listing the type of information that could be considered. Mine was from a dictionary as well.

In a court of law you present evidence for and evidence against a case. A recording of the person being charged for a crime confessing that crime may not be acceptable evidence the same as the Bible isn't acceptable to Bible skeptics as evidence for what it claims which is one reason why skeptics often have very little knowledge about that which they criticize.

[brunumb]

I'm very skeptical of the way in which unbelievers use and weaponize the term evidence. As if you have evidence of something it is proof of something, and faith can't consist of evidence. Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.

Faith is not evidence. Faith is strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. In other words, it is belief held regardless of the lack of evidence.

[DrNoGods]

That science, unlike the Bible, must always be true and accurate, without debate or dispute, because it has evidence to support it. Seemingly as if anything false couldn't have evidence. Therefore science is true and the Bible (or religion) is false. This is not only staggeringly arrogant but also astoundingly naive and patently wrong.

Science does not work that way. Hypotheses are tested extensively with experiments, measurements, observations, etc., by anyone with the relevant skill, knowledge of the subject, and equipment, and the results are analyzed and debated until there is enough support (and evidence) that the hypothesis is accepted as correct. Anyone is free to challenge experimental results and theoretical analyses and try to shoot them down, and often do. There is no place in science and the scientific method for declaring something to be true and that alone is sufficient. Contrast this with religion and acceptance of stories from the bible and other holy books. These are often simply given by the storyteller and stated as truth, and accepted without question. There is nothing arrogant about the scientific method, although many people describe science that way when it disproves a holy book story that they believe is true.

By the way, the definition of evidence you gave is the same as the one I gave. Both of them mean the same thing. Both indicate that evidence is facts and information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true of valid. Not confirmation. Only information for consideration as to whether something is true or not. The one I gave simply expanded upon that by listing the type of information that could be considered. Mine was from a dictionary as well.

But there is a big difference in the definitions when considering evidence from the scientific perspective. The one you reference suggests that evidence includes (among other things) anything that someone may read that causes them to believe something to be true, whether or not it actually is true. Scientific evidence excludes that kind of thing because it relies on the opinion of the person doing the reading, and the ambiguity in how one person may interpret what was read compared to another. Someone could believe that the Noah's flood story as told in the Christian bible is true and cite their evidence as the text in Genesis that describes it, and this would fit the definition you cited. But this is clearly not evidence in a scientific sense for the truth, or not, of the story. For that it is necessary to look at the implications the truth of the story would have in the fields of geology, archeology, biology, etc. and an analysis of whether or not there is evidence to support, or disprove, the story within all of the relevant scientific disciplines. The fact that there is no physical evidence to support the flood myth, and a large number of scenarios that (were it true) can be shown not to be compatible with the myth, we can say that scientific evidence and analysis disproves the story without any doubt. Nothing arrogant about that.

In a court of law you present evidence for and evidence against a case. A recording of the person being charged for a crime may not be acceptable evidence the same as the Bible isn't acceptable to Bible skeptics as evidence for what it claims which is one reason why skeptics often have very little knowledge about that which they criticize.

Are you suggesting that bible critics have very little knowledge about the bible? I'm sure many people might fit that description, but if you read the content of just this website you will find that there are a large number of people who question the stories and descriptions in the bible that know a tremendous amount on the subject ... at least as much, or more, than many people who are believers. Criticizing the bible does not equate to a lack of knowledge of it, although that is a very common statement by apologists.

[DavidLeon]

That science, unlike the Bible, must always be true and accurate, without debate or dispute, because it has evidence to support it. Seemingly as if anything false couldn't have evidence. Therefore science is true and the Bible (or religion) is false. This is not only staggeringly arrogant but also astoundingly naive and patently wrong.

Science does not work that way. Hypotheses are tested extensively with experiments, measurements, observations, etc., by anyone with the relevant skill, knowledge of the subject, and equipment, and the results are analyzed and debated until there is enough support (and evidence) that the hypothesis is accepted as correct. Anyone is free to challenge experimental results and theoretical analyses and try to shoot them down, and often do. There is no place in science and the scientific method for declaring something to be true and that alone is sufficient.

Agreed. David Berlinski quoted in the following video: "Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on."

Contrast this with religion and acceptance of stories from the bible and other holy books. These are often simply given by the storyteller and stated as truth, and accepted without question. There is nothing arrogant about the scientific method, although many people describe science that way when it disproves a holy book story that they believe is true.

First of all, science is often stated as truth, and accepted without question by unbelievers. Secondly, the Bible and other sacred and quasi sacred texts are there for your consideration. Like science, you are free to ignore them, be ignorant of them, misrepresent them, accept them, reject them, dissect them etc.

But there is a big difference in the definitions when considering evidence from the scientific perspective. The one you reference suggests that evidence includes (among other things) anything that someone may read that causes them to believe something to be true, whether or not it actually is true. Scientific evidence excludes that kind of thing because it relies on the opinion of the person doing the reading, and the ambiguity in how one person may interpret what was read compared to another. Someone could believe that the Noah's flood story as told in the Christian bible is true and cite their evidence as the text in Genesis that describes it, and this would fit the definition you cited. But this is clearly not evidence in a scientific sense for the truth, or not, of the story. For that it is necessary to look at the implications the truth of the story would have in the fields of geology, archeology, biology, etc. and an analysis of whether or not there is evidence to support, or disprove, the story within all of the relevant scientific disciplines. The fact that there is no physical evidence to support the flood myth, and a large number of scenarios that (were it true) can be shown not to be compatible with the myth, we can say that scientific evidence and analysis disproves the story without any doubt. Nothing arrogant about that.

Yes, there is. For example, it's common for some new scientific finding that starts out with "we used to think [insert science here] was true, but now we know [insert some other science here]." The science vs. religion debate is a dog chasing it's tail. Each side insisting that the other take their faith seriously. I don't ask you to accept my faith, don't ask me to accept yours.

Are you suggesting that bible critics have very little knowledge about the bible? I'm sure many people might fit that description, but if you read the content of just this website you will find that there are a large number of people who question the stories and descriptions in the bible that know a tremendous amount on the subject ... at least as much, or more, than many people who are believers. Criticizing the bible does not equate to a lack of knowledge of it, although that is a very common statement by apologists.

Okay. Can anyone here tell me what the discovery of pim reveals regarding the Higher Criticism that the Bible was written post-exilic?