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]

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.

I’m saying that historians would still believe in the crucifixion even if there were the same kinds of contradictory details that you believe exist for the resurrection because historians use a more complex approach than “agreed upon details x, y, and z between multiple sources = A probably happened” and “contradictory details x, y, and z between multiple sources = A didn’t happen”.

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

I think the case for the resurrection reasonably relies on 3 main facts: an empty tomb, the disciples’ experiences of Jesus post-crucifixion, and the central message of the Christian movement being a resurrection claim.

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.

And I’ll tell you what I see. You not being able to support your historical approach rationally. Yes, you think I’m watering it down and these contradictions “clearly are” enough for your position. If they are, then show why; don't just state it with empty rhetoric.

[POI]

Because the reason the book is believed debunked is by misinterpreting the book.

Of course, you would say that. You have to. IF Genesis is meant to be literal, this alone delivers quite the blow. So of course, it is not literal. If 'The Exodus' did not actually happen, this again delivers a crushing blow. So of course, the jury is still out as to whether or not this event happened. After all of our exchange, I still smell or detect Bible protection. Sorry!

It is argued that the same individual partook, in part or in full, writing the first 5 books of the Bible. I have raised a reasonable case that this author is full of beans using "The Exodus" alone. If this author also partook in writing Genesis, then regardless of if this author meant for Genesis to be literal or not, why is Genesis not also full of beans; either literally or metaphorically? (Maybe a rhetorical question, see directly below)...

I would ask for you to actually demonstrate your assertion, but I'm afraid you might (again) reply with "burden shifting". Thus, I guess the ones who reject the Bible God, due to such claims not comporting with their reality, are just doing so based upon a false premise. The Bible cannot be wrong in reality!

First, with the Pentateuch you don’t have ‘original sin’;

You don't? Why not? Please then (correctly interpret) Genesis 3.

(1) there are sources for objective morality (2) other than the Pentateuch.

1) "Objective morality" exists? Do tell?

2) Then why does Jesus himself refer to the commandments listed in the Pentateuch, when asked about what to do and what not to do?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I’m saying that historians would still believe in the crucifixion even if there were the same kinds of contradictory details that you believe exist for the resurrection because historians use a more complex approach than “agreed upon details x, y, and z between multiple sources = A probably happened” and “contradictory details x, y, and z between multiple sources = A didn’t happen”.

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

I think the case for the resurrection reasonably relies on 3 main facts: an empty tomb, the disciples’ experiences of Jesus post-crucifixion, and the central message of the Christian movement being a resurrection claim.

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.

And I’ll tell you what I see. You not being able to support your historical approach rationally. Yes, you think I’m watering it down and these contradictions “clearly are” enough for your position. If they are, then show why; don't just state it with empty rhetoric.

I have already stated the reasons why science debunks some of the bible and logical reasoning debunks others. I have not heard yyou say anything to show how those contradictions are really not contradictions.

Let me give you a few to tackle

Nativity -
Jesus born before 1 BC in Matthew but 6/7 AD in Luke - with the rule of Archelaus in between.
Joseph lives in Galilee in Luke but in Judea in matthew and proposed to go to his home there after return from Egypt.

Resurrection -
No angelic message in John. Mary (Magdalene) doesn't know what has happened to Jesus. Matthew and Luke (Luke specifically) says that she does,
Luke changes the angelic message and has no idea that Jesus appears to Mary, but does know that he appeared to Simon, which none of the others know of.

A few others. John knows nothing of the transfiguration. The rejection at Nazareth has a messianic declaration and attempted assassination in Luke, which nobody else has heard of. The magical haul of fish in Luke's calling of disciples is not found in the others (though Matthew uses it as a sort of parable or simile) but John, who has it after the resurrection. John has no Sanhedrin trial (but a private grilling) and Luke has Antipas involved in the trial, unknown to anyone else.

There are others that might be explained away, like the penitent thief excused with the miserable excuse that those who heard the malefactors abuse Jesus didn't hear one remonstrate with the other and get saved. But I'd like to see how you dismiss these others.

Hint you won't of course try the diversion of whether the penitent robber was 'saved' or not. You are smarter than that

P.s the idea is that, if the biggies slide down the chute, then the others like Judas' death, no trip to Galilee to see Jesus, the Lord'sprayer in the wrong place, Anointing, Blind Bartimaeus and Palsied man, missing/misplaced, no Temple cleansing in John, no walking on water in Luke and..oh yes, no resurrection appearances at all, in Mark, do the following...and why not treat myself



and a happy new year to all.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #312]

First, I will not reply to “bible protection” pop-psychology assertions; deal with the actual reasons offered.

Second, you think you provided a reasonable case that the author of Exodus was full of beans; I don’t think you have.

Third, you’ve shifted the burden again. You claimed that the Pentateuch teaches original sin to support your claim that without the Pentateuch, there’d be no reason for Jesus. I disagree and now I’m supposed to prove you wrong instead of you supporting your original claim?

Fourth, you’ve made a subtle shift that leads to another shifting of the burden. You claimed that without the Pentateuch, there is no need for Jesus. My counter was that if there are other sources for objective morality than the Pentateuch, this could be used to point to a need for Jesus. That’s not an argument for objective morality (although I do believe there is a good argument for that); it’s disagreeing with your assertion that the only connection could be through the Pentateuch. Are you honestly saying the only way you are aware of people arguing for objective morality is through appeal to the Pentateuch? You’ve never heard of a moral argument for God’s existence? Or known people other than Jews and Christians being objectivists about morality?

Fifth, Jesus refers to those commandments because of his culture and the culture of those he is talking to.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #313]

You haven’t heard me show how those contradictions are really not contradictions because I’m critiquing your thought in a different way. I’m saying that even if those are contradictions, you’d still have a problem in your conclusion. You may want to deal with a different critique, but that’s the one I’m giving. Do you have a reasonable answer to it?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #312]

First, I will not reply to “bible protection” pop-psychology assertions; deal with the actual reasons offered.

You don't need to response here. However, it does not take a rocket scientist to read your responses and discern severe bias, in favor of the Bible's claims.

Second, you think you provided a reasonable case that the author of Exodus was full of beans; I don’t think you have.

Oh, but I have provided more than sufficient reason to suggest the author of 'The Exodus' is full of beans. And you have given little to no rebuttal, except to state (paraphrased) "it's not good enough". I would list all the pertinent points again, but why bother? You will merely hand-wave them away, while offering little to no counter for why you still believe "The Exodus" took place.

You claimed that the Pentateuch teaches original sin to support your claim that without the Pentateuch, there’d be no reason for Jesus. I disagree and now I’m supposed to prove you wrong instead of you supporting your original claim?

Oh, that's right. You Christians don't hardly agree about anything. Since there exists many many many denominations, I should have first clarified. My bad.

The problem still remains though. Did the author of 'The Exodus" also partake in writing parts of Genesis? If so, then 'Houstin, we've got bigger fish to fry." Meaning, it would be like arguing debated points about TLoR's. It's a great exercise, but not something to take too seriously.

(1) You claimed that without the Pentateuch, there is no need for Jesus. (2) My counter was that if there are other sources for objective morality than the Pentateuch, this could be used to point to a need for Jesus. (3) That’s not an argument for objective morality (although I do believe there is a good argument for that); it’s disagreeing with your assertion that the only connection could be through the Pentateuch. (4) Are you honestly saying the only way you are aware of people arguing for objective morality is through appeal to the Pentateuch? (5) You’ve never heard of a moral argument for God’s existence? (6) Or known people other than Jews and Christians being objectivists about morality?

1) Well, you have apparently adopted some unconventional doctrine. That's the beauty of this religion. I speak to countless Christians, and very few of them agree. And yet, they are all somehow right.
2) The OT mentions many. Are there "objective morals" outside of the many in which the OT mentions? If so, what are they? If you are saying we do not need the Pentateuch to define "morals", then mentioning them in the Pentateuch is unnecessary.
3) Don't worry. I won't ask you to demonstrate your many assertions.
4) No. But if such a 'moral' is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, for which there is apparently 613 of them (of varying context), why did God not add them to the list?
5) Oh, yes I have, plenty. Which is why I asked if you could define and demonstrate an 'objective moral'.
6) Yes.

Fifth, Jesus refers to those commandments because of his culture and the culture of those he is talking to.

These are the ones in which God apparently cares about. But, as stated prior, if the same author who wrote 'The Exodus" wrote other parts of the Pentateuch, then maybe Jesus is referring to some author's opinion about "morals" rather than his believed daddy's "morals"? Which would make sense, since many of 'God's instruction', in the Pentateuch, do not look to align with a 'loving' God anyways.

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

The bottom line, repeated a few times now, 'science' cannot and will not debunk the Bible for you. Why?

A) Science cannot debunk philosophical/metaphorical stuff.
B) Even though we should find mounds of evidence for the claim to millions of people enslaved in a region, for 100's of years, apparently, the jury is still out.
C) 'Science' cannot falsify ancient claimed one-time miracles.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #313]

You haven’t heard me show how those contradictions are really not contradictions because I’m critiquing your thought in a different way. I’m saying that even if those are contradictions, you’d still have a problem in your conclusion. You may want to deal with a different critique, but that’s the one I’m giving. Do you have a reasonable answer to it?

I'd say so.Either the story is credible or it isn't.If the contradictions undermine the story, it undermines the credibility.

I thought I'd set out what the problems were, do you want further clarification or can you explain how they aren't contradictions? I see no reason to approach the matter with a different critique. Why should I?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to POI in post #316]

There was one new thing to respond to there. If you’ve heard of moral arguments for God’s existence and realize there are objectivists who don’t believe in the Pentateuch (which you just admitted), then you are aware of a route to objective morality that doesn’t involve the Pentateuch. If there is a route to objective morality that doesn't involve the Pentateuch, then there is a route to the need for Jesus' forgiveness even though he talked about the Pentateuch with the people around him. Yet you had said that there'd be no route to Jesus without the Pentateuch. Thus, your earlier claim is clearly debunked.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #317]

You still are just assuming your approach is a good one, without explaining why. I’ve shared why, even assuming those are actual contradictions, it wouldn’t matter for an argument for the historicity of the resurrection. You need to show that it does matter. Instead you just keep saying “yep it matters, so prove they aren’t contradictions.” No, prove it matters.

[POI]

That was a pretty nice strawman given below. Bravo. Congratulations, you have also successfully evaded/avoided your own given assertions in this exchange, by using one tactic or another. That takes some skill, I guess. Now to respond to what you stated below.

[Replying to POI in post #316]

There was one new thing to respond to there. (1) If you’ve heard of moral arguments for God’s existence and realize there are objectivists who don’t believe in the Pentateuch (which you just admitted), then you are aware of a route to objective morality that doesn’t involve the Pentateuch. (2) If there is a route to objective morality that doesn't involve the Pentateuch, then there is a route to the need for Jesus' forgiveness even though he talked about the Pentateuch with the people around him. Yet you had said that there'd be no route to Jesus without the Pentateuch. Thus, your earlier claim is clearly debunked.

1) The Pentateuch gives 613 (rules/instructions/morals/laws). These are apparently YWHW's (rules/instructions/morals/laws). If you take them away, then you do not know what (rules/instructions/morals/laws) to follow. When Jesus is later asked of what to do and what not to do, Jesus states to "keep the Commandments", which is apparently a list of what to do and what not to do -- given by the God in which Jesus thinks is his "dad" from the Pentateuch. Without the OT, you do not have these 613 commandments. You are now no longer aware of what God wants and does not want. Jesus merely comes along and rubberstamps his 'seal of approval'.

2) To my knowledge, the only 'objective morality' which mattered to Jesus is the (rules/instructions/morals/laws) Jesus's 'dad' made. One may argue that Jesus came up with one new one, in the 'golden rule', but that pronouncement was already mentioned in the OT too. Just maybe not emphasized to the same degree.... There would be no reason for Jesus to come without the OT. Jesus needed to come to 'fulfill OT prophecy', atone for original sin (as expressed in Genesis 3 in which you never contested), tell folks to keep the OT commandments, etc...

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

I will again ask the same question, unanswered (3) times now. DID "The Exodus" author touch any of the other books in the Pentateuch? There's a good chance "The Exodus" is a complete B.S. story. If the same author involved himself in the other 4 books, then it is completely reasonable to conclude we are merely arguing the correct plot translation of a Spiderman comic.