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]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #296]

Yes, there is some bad apologetics out there, for Christianity, for naturalism, for any worldview. That doesn't mean it's all bunk. And I’m not saying those things you think go unnoticed shouldn’t be raised, but there have been responses given as well.

As to your approach, it seems like you are saying that the whole resurrection event should be doubted because of some details being called into question. I’m saying that isn’t a good historical approach because even if there are many details that contradict, historians, while doubting those details are sound, will not therefore chuck out everything the accounts claim, especially the core event that is being agreed upon. On top of that, the case for the historicity of the resurrection is not usually that since the Gospels are generally reliable, we should believe the resurrection. It is a philosophical argument built off of often 3 historical details: that the tomb was empty, that the disciples had experiences of Jesus after his death, and that the Christian movement had a resurrected Jesus as its central message. I don’t see how those three things would be affected by versions of a resurrection account that disagree on some accounts (which I also think you are too loose in what counts as being a disagreement, but that isn’t important for this point).

[POI]

I never said anything about what was posted in the comments section of that video; I never read any of those comments.

Fair enough. I thought you were the one who stated the comments sections offered better arguments? My bad! I have neither the time nor the energy to see who actually said it. Since it was not you, I offer my apologies

to keep claiming that there is no evidence whatsoever pointed to shows one isn't serious about this issue.

What counts as evidence to support 'The Exodus'? Can you provide the best example? This is a debate. There is really nothing new under the sun. Of course, we can both easily search on the web or elsewhere, (scholarly or not), for debates about 'The Exodus, or any other debate quite frankly. My question still remains to you... What evidence, if any, supports the claim that 'The Exodus' took place for you? Again, the video suggests a ~500 year time-period of virtually nutt'n. This is why you, yourself, are suggesting scholars argue (paraphrased) -- 'there is two time periods to consider'. But when I ask for the time-period in question, your given time-period falls within the one already given from the video. Thus far, there is still only one time-period.

As to Genesis, scholars are not immune to bad philosophy where they don’t take proper account of the context and end up reading their culture and preconceptions into their work.

Does this go one direction, or both? Meaning, does the 'bad philosophy' or 'bad hermeneutics' or 'bad other' only apply to the ones who conclude Genesis is literal? As stated, ad nauseum, but I feel it's still worth repeating again... Scholars have had A LONG time to resolve this debate. And yet, no resolve. To the contrary, there exists no serious debate as to whether Tolkien's works were meant to be literal. Why is your believed upon God's communication vastly inferior to some humans? The reason I continue to ask, is that it points right back to the OP question. If you and I already agree that a literal Genesis would be debunked by "science", HOW are we to determine IF the author(s) of Genesis meant for this book to be a literal account, verses not? Kind of rhetorical, but I trust you get the gist.

Many people lose their faith because they don’t question that initial view they’ve held of Genesis being literal, thus reading that context into the text, when it shouldn’t be. And, then, of course they'll see some stuff that confirms their bias.

My point being, whether the reader is kind of dumb, easily influenced by others, or some other set of circumstances, if they can read, many will take away with the conclusion that Genesis is literal. If they want to validate this conclusion, using 'scholarly' platforms, they can do so. The stakes are much higher, however. Much higher than merely disagreeing with scientific theory. In THIS case, unbelief/disbelief possibly lands them in a perpetual realm of $h1+. Why would God not at least have the issue settled, at least to the same degree or even higher, versus the evidence surrounding Tolkien's works of not being literal either?

And, yet again, not knowing the author doesn’t mean we can’t know the author’s intent, while their character and mental state have nothing to do with literary analysis.

And, yet again, the scholarly debate is not resolved as to whether or not the author for Genesis meant for his claims to be literal or not. We have no such problem with Tolkien. The matter is resolved because of the reason(s) you gave, which we do not have for Genesis.

I agree that the Exodus being BS could call into question some of the other writings in the Bible,

(1) but it wouldn’t be reasonable to chuck the whole Bible away (2) (and it hasn't been definitively shown to be BS anyway).

1) Depends... Does the author of 'The Exodus" write any other books? Yes or no? If no, then maybe okay? If yes, then you might have problems.
2) While nothing can be 100% definitive, I'd say it's about 95+% definitive that the claims of the 'The Exodus' are B.S.

I'm fine with someone saying the Exodus is most reasonably BS and questioning other parts of the Bible because of that, but not all of the Bible and not claiming that the Bible or large chunks of the Bible or even the Exodus has been scientifically debunked.

Again, depends on how many other books the Exodus author wrote? If this person partook in all 5 books, then you have a lot of problems to 'apologize' away

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

[EDIT] recap:

A) God seems incapable of making it clear and known as to whether or not Genesis is a literal sequence of events. And yet, the works of Tolkien are known to be not literal, quite easily. God is inept.

B) Lack in evidence to a large claim, which should leave behind a ton of stuff, allows for the theist to shrug their shoulders and state, "well, that does not mean the Bible is nonsense." However, we still do not know how many other books "the Exodus" author contributed to alone?

C) One-time claimed ancient miracles, written by anonymous authors, likely described from secondhand accounts, and also after decades of oral tradition, is not falsifiable anyways.

In such a case, "science" cannot debunk this person's reason(s) to believe.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #295]

I never said anything about what was posted in the comments section of that video; I never read any of those comments. I didn't even think about their being comments (of course there would be, I just didn't think about it until what you just wrote). Anyone who is seriously investigating the Exodus is going to see that scholars point to evidence. You can say it isn’t good enough evidence like many scholars believe, but to keep claiming that there is no evidence whatsoever pointed to shows one isn't serious about this issue. By being unaware of the actual scholarly debate that even a quick look into will show is the only basis for lumping those who argue for an Exodus from archaeology with flat-earthers. Serious scholars believe there is evidence for the Exodus, and it's not just huge leaps, although I think it is far from slam dunks either. I shared a brief summary of some of the evidence pointed to and people like Transponder gave some summary responses against that.

As to Genesis, scholars are not immune to bad philosophy where they don’t take proper account of the context and end up reading their culture and preconceptions into their work. Many people lose their faith because they don’t question that initial view they’ve held of Genesis being literal, thus reading that context into the text, when it shouldn’t be. And, then, of course they'll see some stuff that confirms their bias.

And, yet again, not knowing the author doesn’t mean we can’t know the author’s intent, while their character and mental state have nothing to do with literary analysis.

I agree that the Exodus being BS could call into question some of the other writings in the Bible, but it wouldn’t be reasonable to chuck the whole Bible away (and it hasn't been definitively shown to be BS anyway). I'm fine with someone saying the Exodus is most reasonably BS and questioning other parts of the Bible because of that, but not all of the Bible and not claiming that the Bible or large chunks of the Bible or even the Exodus has been scientifically debunked.

Yes, that's all fine and a nice study for historians, like the character of Newton or of Darwin or their motivations, but the method and validity of their discoveries are nothing to do with that.

The thing about the Exodus not being true (as in the OT) is not so much it brings down the rest of the OT but it is a Question on its' own even after Genesis was severely questioned.

Nobody can seriously doubt the siege of Tyre or of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. Where the Bible may fail there is in the failed prophecy (which I'd say is done and dusted - it was rebuilt pretty quickly and still exists) while the Assyrian siege is of course confirmed by the Assyrians, and the only debate is whether God saved Jerusalem as the OT claims, or Hezekiah waved the white flag as the Assyrians claim. In this, the poor record of veracity of the OT would not help the miracle claim, but otherwise it's a debate on its' own historical merits, not about writing style, philosophy of context, or literary categories, which just seem like distractions to me, if not evasions of the real debate.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #296]

Yes, there is some bad apologetics out there, for Christianity, for naturalism, for any worldview. That doesn't mean it's all bunk. And I’m not saying those things you think go unnoticed shouldn’t be raised, but there have been responses given as well.

As to your approach, it seems like you are saying that the whole resurrection event should be doubted because of some details being called into question. I’m saying that isn’t a good historical approach because even if there are many details that contradict, historians, while doubting those details are sound, will not therefore chuck out everything the accounts claim, especially the core event that is being agreed upon. On top of that, the case for the historicity of the resurrection is not usually that since the Gospels are generally reliable, we should believe the resurrection. It is a philosophical argument built off of often 3 historical details: that the tomb was empty, that the disciples had experiences of Jesus after his death, and that the Christian movement had a resurrected Jesus as its central message. I don’t see how those three things would be affected by versions of a resurrection account that disagree on some accounts (which I also think you are too loose in what counts as being a disagreement, but that isn’t important for this point).

Yes some poor apologetics and some good ones. The good ones require respectful discussion. Others just fail. For example i only use the poor moral record of Christian authority where there might an attempt to claim moral high ground. Normally it isn't relevant to what's true or not (other than the problem of evil).

But yes. I don't think your attempt to relegate swingeing contradictions to 'some details' does your case any favours. That frankly calls your objectivity into question. These kinds of 'Details' in fact relegate the nativities (one at least) to the bin and the Resurrections are nearly as bad. These are not mere 'details'. I would agree they are not as well handled by the critical side as they should be, but that will change no matter the Believer side attempting to wave them away as unimportant.

At one time (to sing the old carol refrain at the this festive time and a jingling Santa hat one to all you guys, gals and whatever else, as I love interacting with you all and You -alls).

Exodus as I say was one time swallowed and ever since a monumental debate on my Other Piano (1) it has become widely debated (maybe just 'Great minds') and the clincher was the writing style dating it to the Exile - final piece of the puzzle. My crazy theory seems right - it was written in Babylon and maybe my Other Theory - Moses is Ahmose I - may be truer than I dared think.

Even 'details' can mount up to a collapse. We should already be there on the nativities. The consideration of bigger than 'details' in the resurrections have to do a job on that, too, no matter the apologists try to explain the problems away or just wave them away.


(1) As Winifred Atwell used to say 'I'm going over to my Other piano' (a nonkey tonk) where she said 'Ah'm goin ta play the Charpentier, theme and variations, for chavichord quintet, in C# minor, opus 96 ,,,Boogie".

[The Tanager]

What counts as evidence to support 'The Exodus'? Can you provide the best example? This is a debate.

I already shared a quick summary of evidence that some scholars point to in the Exodus thread, including the different time periods.

Does this go one direction, or both? Meaning, does the 'bad philosophy' or 'bad hermeneutics' or 'bad other' only apply to the ones who conclude Genesis is literal? As stated, ad nauseum, but I feel it's still worth repeating again... Scholars have had A LONG time to resolve this debate. And yet, no resolve. To the contrary, there exists no serious debate as to whether Tolkien's works were meant to be literal. Why is your believed upon God's communication vastly inferior to some humans? The reason I continue to ask, is that it points right back to the OP question. If you and I already agree that a literal Genesis would be debunked by "science", HOW are we to determine IF the author(s) of Genesis meant for this book to be a literal account, verses not? Kind of rhetorical, but I trust you get the gist.

Yes, it can go both ways. The point is that this is one reason why some issues don’t get resolved by scholars even over long periods of time. And it’s not just a religious thing, as the same thing happens in science, like with the realism vs. antirealism debate. Some issues don’t have those added complications because of things like our closeness to when Tolkien wrote and our records of him talking about why he wrote things, etc. that simply aren’t there for more ancient texts and, one day, could even conceivably go missing for Tolkien. This isn’t God’s communication being vastly inferior to some human’s. We determine the type of writing by literary analysis, taking into account the cultural context, archaeology, etc. like scholars do.

My point being, whether the reader is kind of dumb, easily influenced by others, or some other set of circumstances, if they can read, many will take away with the conclusion that Genesis is literal. If they want to validate this conclusion, using 'scholarly' platforms, they can do so. The stakes are much higher, however. Much higher than merely disagreeing with scientific theory. In THIS case, unbelief/disbelief possibly lands them in a perpetual realm of $h1+. Why would God not at least have the issue settled, at least to the same degree or even higher, versus the evidence surrounding Tolkien's works of not being literal either?

Many take away that conclusion because of the kinds of books they know and what they grew up being taught about Genesis and the like.

As to the stakes being high, are you talking about hell? If so, who says one will go to hell if they get this wrong?

1) Depends... Does the author of 'The Exodus" write any other books? Yes or no? If no, then maybe okay? If yes, then you might have problems.

I said chuck the whole Bible away. The Exodus writer would need to be the author of all the books.

2) While nothing can be 100% definitive, I'd say it's about 95+% definitive that the claims of the 'The Exodus' are B.S.

I don’t think it is that definitive at all.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #303]

I still don’t think you are showing why one should take your historical approach. You are pointing to details that surround the resurrection and discounting the resurrection because of those supposedly contradictory details. I don’t see historians working that way. They pick out which claims have support and which ones don’t. They are fine in saying X, Y, and Z can’t be known to have happened, but we can still say the main claim, the core of the story happened without the sources agreeing there. I don’t see how anything you said supports your approach instead.

[POI]

I already shared a quick summary of evidence that some scholars point to in the Exodus thread, including the different time periods.

I asked for the best example?

Yes, it can go both ways. The point is that this is one reason why some issues don’t get resolved by scholars even over long periods of time. And it’s not just a religious thing, as the same thing happens in science, like with the realism vs. antirealism debate. Some issues don’t have those added complications because of things like our closeness to when Tolkien wrote and our records of him talking about why he wrote things, etc. that simply aren’t there for more ancient texts and, one day, could even conceivably go missing for Tolkien. This isn’t God’s communication being vastly inferior to some human’s. We determine the type of writing by literary analysis, taking into account the cultural context, archaeology, etc. like scholars do.

Again, I strongly disagree. But I fear we will just perpetually go in circles here. Yet again, THE reasons we know Tolkien's works are not literal, is because of the 'matter-o-fact' reason(s) you gave many responses ago. It is not truly debatable, any longer, as to whether his works were meant to be literal or not. Since the author(s) of Genesis is unknown, we are unable to furnish those matter-o-fact reasons just-the-same in this case. Hence, the debate remains unresolved. Meaning, I have a hunch it is meant to be literal. BUT, you have an easy out, as the author is not identified, etc etc etc.

And yes, this is God's fault. God would know millions, or more, would botch his intended message, which could have instead been clarified very simply, using Tolkien as one example.

And if God was worried about such writings being destroyed, I'm sure if he even cared, he would cultivate ways to assure it remains preserved.

As to the stakes being high, are you talking about hell? If so, who says one will go to hell if they get this wrong?

Atheists go to Heaven? Maybe all the NT scripture, which stresses "belief", is not literal either As stated prior, many drop their faith, due to seeing massive incongruencies between the claims of Genesis, verses their reality. God does not seem to care. If God's word in Genesis was not meant to be literal, he did a "pi$$-poor" job in telling us so.

But wait a minute, we can just ask Him. YWHW, was Genesis meant to be literal or not? No answer? Ah shucks!

I said chuck the whole Bible away. The Exodus writer would need to be the author of all the books.

If the first 5 books are chucked away, there is no reason for Jesus to come and save/redeem you You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #306]

I feel there are two new points worth responding to from this. (1) I didn't say atheists go to heaven. We were talking about one's interpretation of Genesis being literal or not. One's eternal destiny doesn't hang on that. Those who drop their faith because they feel Genesis is literal and debunked by science are not dropping faith in God for rational reasons. (2) Even without the Pentateuch, humanity's failures to keep the moral law are apparent, thus showing a need for a Savior.

[POI]

Those who drop their faith because they feel Genesis is literal and debunked by science are not dropping faith in God for rational reasons.

Why would it not be rational to no longer believe in the Christian God, if the book which asserts the Christian God, is debunked? Are you saying to still merely remain a deist?

Even without the Pentateuch, humanity's failures to keep the moral law are apparent, thus showing a need for a Savior.

Without the Pentateuch, you no longer have 'original sin', 'the Commandments', etc. You have no more need for Jesus, as well as no 'morals' to abide by. Hence, if the author of the Pentateuch is a B.S.-er, then what?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #303]

I still don’t think you are showing why one should take your historical approach. You are pointing to details that surround the resurrection and discounting the resurrection because of those supposedly contradictory details. I don’t see historians working that way. They pick out which claims have support and which ones don’t. They are fine in saying X, Y, and Z can’t be known to have happened, but we can still say the main claim, the core of the story happened without the sources agreeing there. I don’t see how anything you said supports your approach instead.

Wasn't that what I was doing? I said that the details that give support suggest the crucifixion was real, but those 'details' that don't work throw doubt on the resurrection. With nothing else but Paul to refer to (Flavian testament itself dubious) x, y and z of the resurrection can't be known to have happened - and I alrerady said, the main claim is not the evidence for the claim, but the reason why the contradictory stories would have been invented - just like the nativities.

I'd say your argument actually supports my case and defeats yours, despite what you prefer to 'see'. I'll tell you what I see - a believer trying to wangle the evidence to support the belief. That's why you try to water down the evidence serious contradictions as 'details' plus 'supposedly' when they clearly are.

[The Tanager]

Why would it not be rational to no longer believe in the Christian God, if the book which asserts the Christian God, is debunked? Are you saying to still merely remain a deist?

Because the reason the book is believed debunked is by misinterpreting the book. It’s rejecting God because of a straw debunking.

Without the Pentateuch, you no longer have 'original sin', 'the Commandments', etc. You have no more need for Jesus, as well as no 'morals' to abide by. Hence, if the author of the Pentateuch is a B.S.-er, then what?

First, with the Pentateuch you don’t have ‘original sin’; I believe that is a misinterpretation starting with Augustine. And there are sources for objective morality other than the Pentateuch.