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]

Hmm. So "the Exodus" may have happened? Please tell me why you believe so, aside from the Bible's say-so?

No. Stop shifting the burden. You think science shows it didn’t happen, so support it instead of making a claim and then expecting people to prove you wrong.

What I find silly, is your response. The 'nuances' dictate that 'The Lord of the Rings" is fiction. I doubt we need to dispute this claim. On the other hand, is the Bible fiction, and/or intended to speak of imaginary events?

I agree LoTR is fiction. Because genre matters in interpreting a text. The Bible is full of various texts of various genres. If you think science debunks the Bible, pick out the parts of the texts you think have been debunked, support your interpretation of that text beyond merely claiming “that’s what it says” and then give your scientific case for it being not true.

[The Tanager]

I'd guess the illogic is in thinking the 'Exodus' is historically valid unless one can definitely show it didn't happen.

While some Christians do seem to think this way, I don’t. I do not believe it is historically valid unless one can show it didn’t happen. The default is agnosticism. Historical and philosophical reasoning may then move people away from agnosticism.

I also find very odd the comparison of for sure fiction like LoR with the Bible, which is supposed to record actual events. I already argued that 'Metaphorically true' is Theist -speak for 'Not true at all'.

You keep saying it’s supposed to record only actual, historical events with the only support being “that’s how they read” without taking any account of their genres. The comparison to sure fiction is exactly on point because many of those books would be deemed true by your principle, one saying “that’s how they read”. You are simply special pleading for your interpretation of the Bible. Genre and context doesn’t matter there, but it does in other works like LoTR.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'd guess the illogic is in thinking the 'Exodus' is historically valid unless one can definitely show it didn't happen.

While some Christians do seem to think this way, I don’t. I do not believe it is historically valid unless one can show it didn’t happen. The default is agnosticism. Historical and philosophical reasoning may then move people away from agnosticism.

I also find very odd the comparison of for sure fiction like LoR with the Bible, which is supposed to record actual events. I already argued that 'Metaphorically true' is Theist -speak for 'Not true at all'.

You keep saying it’s supposed to record only actual, historical events with the only support being “that’s how they read” without taking any account of their genres. The comparison to sure fiction is exactly on point because many of those books would be deemed true by your principle, one saying “that’s how they read”. You are simply special pleading for your interpretation of the Bible. Genre and context doesn’t matter there, but it does in other works like LoTR.

Agnosticism is only partially a default. There is a sliding scale of credibility depending on the evidence for or against or the lack of it. This applies to everything from the god - (name your own) claim to abiogenesis...oh yes. Or from historical claims to Biblical claims. Genesis and Flood is rather a done deal unless one is a Bible-based science denialist. Exodus was credited as long as I can remember. It is only recently that it is being seriously doubted. Negative evidence does count in known parameters. There is no decent evidence for Israel in Egypt. Canaanites, yes; plenty of that. But the thinking now is that Israel did not exist or only as a small mountain tribe if at all at that time, before the expulsion of the Hyksos, who are on evidence Not the Hebrews nor contained them as a demographic that could be enslaved as the Bible has it. Now evidence against the Exodus being credible is piling up and, while agnosticism (not being 100% sure) is still a factor, credibility is dwindling so the agnostic default is swinging from crediting the event to not crediting it.

As to genres, I think it is clear - either the Bible content is fact or not. LoR is unarguable. It is fiction. The Bible - like a lot of history in fact is debatable as to what is reliable and what is not. As I say, Genesis and Flood is gone, unless one is into science -denial, in which case the claim is Faithbased and denialist. Job is surely fiction; a parable in fact. Daniel was thought to be factual as a reliable prophecy. The evidence is strong - I might even say sound - that it is retrospective history cast as a prophecy and fails about 160 BC or around then, just before the Maccabean revolt.

The Assyrian siege of Jerusalem is fact. The Assyrians confirm it. The debate is whether the Bible account is right or the Assyrian one is. The Assyrian one actually makes more sense. Tyre is a failed prophecy - it was rebuilt and quickly, too, and still exists.

In the NT the genre is supposed to be factual - a reliable record of Jesus' doings and sayings. I argue (and I think unarguably ) I argue that the nativities are false, invented and refuted by John. Demonstrably. I think the crucifixion is true, though spun as much as the Biblical version of Senaccherib's siege of Jerusalem. The sermons (on the mount and Luke's on a 'level place' are material ferried in and used by Matthew and Luke is different ways. Though apologists could argue 'Jesus could have said these things twice in different places', the Lord'sprayer in the sermon in Matthew (at the start of the mission) and towards the end, before setting out for Jerusalem in Luke - and both apparently taught for the first time, is a solid clue that it is added material used in different ways.

Finally the genre of total invention and that's the four contradictory resurrections; and Acts is a biographical fantasy invented by the Luke writer loosely based on Paul's letters and using bits of Josephus. I think that covers the matter of genre in the Bible. It is a mix of different ones and none reliable as witness or record, and quite a bit demonstrably false.

[POI]

No. Stop shifting the burden. You think science shows it didn’t happen, so support it instead of making a claim and then expecting people to prove you wrong.

I am not shifting the burden. Here is what you stated in post 34:

I do believe Exodus was probably a literal, historical event.

And so I rightfully ask, again: Aside from the Bible's say-so alone, why do you believe this?

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

As for me, my question to you implies my position. Meaning, aside from the Bible's say-so, there is really nothing else to substantiate a claim in which would/should leave behind mounds of evidence. Remember the 8-minute video in the Exodus thread. Such a claim would leave behind almost as much evidence as claims about the Egyptians, for which there is mounds of evidence.

I agree LoTR is fiction. Because genre matters in interpreting a text. The Bible is full of various texts of various genres. If you think science debunks the Bible, pick out the parts of the texts you think have been debunked, support your interpretation of that text beyond merely claiming “that’s what it says” and then give your scientific case for it being not true.

Remember what I stated prior. I'm ultimately interested in what the authors thought. It would be silly to suspect the author of 'the Hobbit' or "LotR" was intending for his publications to be literal, and not imaginary. And further, if I was to look for these 2 books in the library, would I look in the fiction (or) non-fiction section? Your response is silly because it's quite obvious the author for these 2 works was intentionally writing imaginary tales. He was a famous fantasy writer. I sincerely doubt this was the case for the Bible writers, in writing about 'Adam and Eve', 'the flood', and/or 'the Exodus'.

Further, I remember recently catching the 'History channel". The series called 'The Bible" was on, and a disclaimer came up stating (paraphrased) - "the stories told are based upon actual events." The default is to assume all stories told are intended to be literal, unless specified otherwise in the story itself.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #39]

Myself, demons causing illness, healing on the spot with magical power, and the claims of God and Holy spirit is non - physical, but I could see how that could be argued about, and i don't care.

It appears those making the claim do not care either.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #39]

Myself, demons causing illness, healing on the spot with magical power, and the claims of God and Holy spirit is non - physical, but I could see how that could be argued about, and i don't care.

It appears those making the claim do not care either.

Well evidently they do. Not the ones who originally made the claim because they are kicking up the daisies by now, but the Bible apologists who whinny like startled stallions when I (or we) point out that demons do not cause illness, nor are they cured by a messiah commanding them to depart, nor by scamming stage - hucksters flailing his tuxedo at them.

They may want to argue that Demons translates microscopic beasties causing disease, in which case (aside they sometimes have shouted exchanges with Jesus, which art microbes today seem to have lost) I respond that they still aren't cured by prayer or the Bubonic plague, Smallpox and Cholera would not have happened given the amount of praying that was going on. The more resolute of the Bible - apologists might then argue that Jesus' cures were the particular miracles of a divine being and ...er....the disciples after that, and thereafter, like the Incredible Disappearing God, became less evident as time went on, until today medical science is more relied on excerpt in Oregon.

Which is where I don't care.

[William]

Myself, demons causing illness, healing on the spot with magical power, and the claims of God and Holy spirit is non - physical, but I could see how that could be argued about, and i don't care.

It appears those making the claim do not care either.

Well evidently they do. Not the ones who originally made the claim because they are kicking up the daisies by now, but the Bible apologists ...

I was referring to the alive one which made the claim here in this thread...

...who whinny like startled stallions when I (or we) point out that demons do not cause illness, nor are they cured by a messiah commanding them to depart, nor by scamming stage - hucksters flailing his tuxedo at them.

They may want to argue that Demons translates microscopic beasties causing disease, in which case (aside they sometimes have shouted exchanges with Jesus, which art microbes today seem to have lost) I respond that they still aren't cured by prayer or the Bubonic plague, Smallpox and Cholera would not have happened given the amount of praying that was going on. The more resolute of the Bible - apologists might then argue that Jesus' cures were the particular miracles of a divine being and ...er....the disciples after that, and thereafter, like the Incredible Disappearing God, became less evident as time went on, until today medical science is more relied on excerpt in Oregon.

Which is where I don't care.

Whereas I myself don't even go along with agreeing that the mind is "non-physical" - something I have observed both materialists and theists claiming... (for different reasons perhaps, but claims is claims) so that you "don't care" - while somewhat interesting - isn't that all-revealing...unless you yourself would argue as well that the mind is "non-physical", in which case would reveal that you do "care" - at least on that point...

Perhaps there is a problem in conflating "invisible" with "non-physical"?

[The Tanager]

Agnosticism is only partially a default. There is a sliding scale of credibility depending on the evidence for or against or the lack of it. This applies to everything from the god - (name your own) claim to abiogenesis...oh yes. Or from historical claims to Biblical claims. Genesis and Flood is rather a done deal unless one is a Bible-based science denialist. Exodus was credited as long as I can remember. It is only recently that it is being seriously doubted. Negative evidence does count in known parameters. There is no decent evidence for Israel in Egypt. Canaanites, yes; plenty of that. But the thinking now is that Israel did not exist or only as a small mountain tribe if at all at that time, before the expulsion of the Hyksos, who are on evidence Not the Hebrews nor contained them as a demographic that could be enslaved as the Bible has it. Now evidence against the Exodus being credible is piling up and, while agnosticism (not being 100% sure) is still a factor, credibility is dwindling so the agnostic default is swinging from crediting the event to not crediting it.

The Exodus is still debated by scholars. Part of that is due to the very nature of archaeology. It is very difficult to debunk something through archaeology. You've got a big task to show archaeological findings debunk the Exodus.

As to genres, I think it is clear - either the Bible content is fact or not. LoR is unarguable. It is fiction. The Bible - like a lot of history in fact is debatable as to what is reliable and what is not. As I say, Genesis and Flood is gone, unless one is into science -denial, in which case the claim is Faithbased and denialist. Job is surely fiction; a parable in fact. Daniel was thought to be factual as a reliable prophecy. The evidence is strong - I might even say sound - that it is retrospective history cast as a prophecy and fails about 160 BC or around then, just before the Maccabean revolt.

Why do you believe Job is a parable? That’s not “how it reads”. Why does that principle work for Genesis 1 but not Job? Let’s stay there and analyze your thoughts more closely and then we can get to the rest of your claims of science debunking the Bible.

[The Tanager]

I am not shifting the burden. Here is what you stated in post 34:

The Tanager wrote: ↑
Sun Nov 19, 2023 5:25 pm
I do believe Exodus was probably a literal, historical event.

And so I rightfully ask, again: Aside from the Bible's say-so alone, why do you believe this?

Why does it matter why I believe that? I haven’t made a claim using this belief as a premise.

As for me, my question to you implies my position. Meaning, aside from the Bible's say-so, there is really nothing else to substantiate a claim in which would/should leave behind mounds of evidence. Remember the 8-minute video in the Exodus thread. Such a claim would leave behind almost as much evidence as claims about the Egyptians, for which there is mounds of evidence.

This thread is about science debunking the Bible. You think it does. You’ve narrowed, in part, on the Exodus story. In that thread, I raised some scholars questioning that there is silence on the Exodus events but even if there is silence, an argument from silence (especially within a field like archaeology) is far from debunking anything.

Remember what I stated prior. I'm ultimately interested in what the authors thought. It would be silly to suspect the author of 'the Hobbit' or "LotR" was intending for his publications to be literal, and not imaginary. And further, if I was to look for these 2 books in the library, would I look in the fiction (or) non-fiction section? Your response is silly because it's quite obvious the author for these 2 works was intentionally writing imaginary tales. He was a famous fantasy writer. I sincerely doubt this was the case for the Bible writers, in writing about 'Adam and Eve', 'the flood', and/or 'the Exodus'.

You easily give reasons to think Tolkien’s works are fiction. I agree with them and I think they are fiction for the same kinds of reasons. Why can’t you give reasons to think the Bible writers, in writing about Adam and Eve, the flood, or the Exodus meant these to be taken in a hyper literal, historical, scientific kind of way? “I sincerely doubt” isn’t reason for someone to agree with you.

Further, I remember recently catching the 'History channel". The series called 'The Bible" was on, and a disclaimer came up stating (paraphrased) - "the stories told are based upon actual events.”

Assuming they relied on actual scholars in the field, those scholars have reasons to believe they were actual events. Share those.

The default is to assume all stories told are intended to be literal, unless specified otherwise in the story itself.

Why is the default genre literal history if not specified otherwise?

[TRANSPONDER]

Agnosticism is only partially a default. There is a sliding scale of credibility depending on the evidence for or against or the lack of it. This applies to everything from the god - (name your own) claim to abiogenesis...oh yes. Or from historical claims to Biblical claims. Genesis and Flood is rather a done deal unless one is a Bible-based science denialist. Exodus was credited as long as I can remember. It is only recently that it is being seriously doubted. Negative evidence does count in known parameters. There is no decent evidence for Israel in Egypt. Canaanites, yes; plenty of that. But the thinking now is that Israel did not exist or only as a small mountain tribe if at all at that time, before the expulsion of the Hyksos, who are on evidence Not the Hebrews nor contained them as a demographic that could be enslaved as the Bible has it. Now evidence against the Exodus being credible is piling up and, while agnosticism (not being 100% sure) is still a factor, credibility is dwindling so the agnostic default is swinging from crediting the event to not crediting it.

The Exodus is still debated by scholars. Part of that is due to the very nature of archaeology. It is very difficult to debunk something through archaeology. You've got a big task to show archaeological findings debunk the Exodus.

As to genres, I think it is clear - either the Bible content is fact or not. LoR is unarguable. It is fiction. The Bible - like a lot of history in fact is debatable as to what is reliable and what is not. As I say, Genesis and Flood is gone, unless one is into science -denial, in which case the claim is Faithbased and denialist. Job is surely fiction; a parable in fact. Daniel was thought to be factual as a reliable prophecy. The evidence is strong - I might even say sound - that it is retrospective history cast as a prophecy and fails about 160 BC or around then, just before the Maccabean revolt.

Why do you believe Job is a parable? That’s not “how it reads”. Why does that principle work for Genesis 1 but not Job? Let’s stay there and analyze your thoughts more closely and then we can get to the rest of your claims of science debunking the Bible.

Yes, I have said (I recall) that Exodus is being debated, but the evidence is piling up that debunks the 'evidence for' that was claimed and raises more and more reasons to doubt it ever happened, at least as shown in the Bible. I rather think you know this as you are trying the old 'we can be sure of nothjing' trick. I already explained how agnosticism is conditioned by the weight of credible evidence. And it is piling up against Exodus. There is already enough reason to NOT credit the Bible claim unless the believers come up with more than evasion and denial.

Well I'm just saying that Job reads like a parable - not intended to be a real event. I could explain why (e.g who overheard the discussion between God and Lucifer? It looks like a storytelling device) but it's a personal feeling. I don't mind if you want to claim it was a s real as Genesis. They are both ludicrous and they both stink.