How does science disprove the Bible?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. No, they didn't have computers.Yes, they were meticulous record keepers. It's widely believed by historians that the ancient Hebrews invented two-column accounting - a practice standard to this day. Er, wait, what? Why don't you think the Isrealites had historic records?

No, because magic man (aka God) performed it as a miracle, so Newton's laws of motion did not apply. If they did apply, it wouldn't be a miracle.This is why science can't disprove the Bible, because the Bible appeals to the supernatural - a topic on which science can't make comments.

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Well, it could be that God was talking to his angels (for example, his assistant Larry). It could also be that God was conspiring with Satan to make the earth (thus explaining all the volcanoes, earthquakes, viruses etc). It could also be that God is more than one person (i.e. the Trinity), and so when He talks to himself He has to use plural form.Lastly, and this is what I would say, He is only a single being, but is using plural as a figure of speech. As in "Let's (a contraction of 'Let us') just have some light so I can see what I'm doing....Let there be light!".Edited by Doddy, : capitalise pronouns for magic man

---

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today! Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy, Metabolism, Promoter, Invertebrate, Meiosis, DNA, Transcription, Chromosome, Tetrapod, Phenotype, Messenger RNA, Mammals, Appendix , Variation, Selection, Gene, Gametogenesis, Homo erectus and others.

​

Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Doddy, the best idea so far is the one arach presented in another thread. It is the one most consistant with the Hebrew wording. At any rate, I like it the best.'US' is simply a left-over from the time when it was common to believe in more than one God. Very quickly in Genesis, the 'us' disappears. Still, the Jews would not change the places where it did appear, because they were sticklers on detail.I think it is time to find that thread.

quote:

---

Doddy

​

Well, it could be that God was talking to his angels (for example,
his assistant Larry).

---

No other alternative exists.

quote:

---

It could also be that God was conspiring with
Satan to make the earth (thus explaining all the volcanoes, earthquakes, viruses etc). It could also be that God is more than one person (i.e. the Trinity), and so when He talks to himself He has to use plural form.

---

There is no satan - nor is it mentioned. This form of oppositional force (antochrist) is a christian concept, as with the trinity, which is an absolute contradiction of the OT. There can be no oppositional force with the Creator (there is a reason why these two religions separated).

quote:

---

Lastly, and this is what I would say, He is only a single being, but is using plural as a figure of speech. As in "Let's (a contraction of 'Let us') just have some light so I can see what I'm doing....Let there be light!".

---

Your first point was right. Perhaps the other life forms created before humans are included, however, because speech is used, it relates only to the heavenly beings who also have speech.

quote:

---

sidelined

​

This is planetary destruction unlike anything ever described before.

---

The planet was not destroyed. However, it is best to deal with non-miracles to validate or challenge the OT veracity. And there are 100s of 1000s of non-miracle historical, mathematical and scientific stats in the OT's verses and para's.

quote:

---

RG

​

Er, wait, what? Why don't you think the Isrealites had historic records?

---

The OT is the first alphabetical book: what records are you talking about? There were no archive libraries at the relevant time - not for a 1000 years later. Even today, we could not record or recall the vast data of 3000 years ago - which is what the OT does. Think about what you are saying?

quote:

---

doddy

​

This is why science can't disprove the Bible, because the Bible appeals to the supernatural - a topic on which science can't make comments.

---

I don't think so. Disproving the OT has nothing to do with FX miracles: these are appropriately given as miracles, in the context of a Creator, which science cannot apply to. Fact is, science has not been able to prove anything it says which contradicts the OT - because Creationism is a scientifically validated premise, with no alternative.

quote:

---

anas
I think it is time to find that thread.

---

I cannot imagine what it would relate to.

No it doesn't. The facts. Whereas the book of Genesis has been shown to be false, them's the breaks.By the way, you might want a look at the Sumerian King List. Much of it has been verified. But the early part, where people live hundreds of years and there's a magic flood --- well, that bit's a myth. Links please? And I would remind you that this is a totally fictitious statement which you've made up. Some names, yes. All of them? No.

Unless you believe that pesky lying Bible:And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1)Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. (Job 1:6)And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? (Zechariah 3:2)

I'm sure that saying this makes you feel better, but doesn't it worry you that it's completely untrue? Science has not validated your premise; if it has, scientists would have noticed. Also, if this validation existed, you would be able to point it out to me, 'cos it would be written down somewhere.

quote:

---

dr
I'm sure that saying this makes you feel better, but doesn't it worry you that it's completely untrue? Science has not validated your premise; if it has, scientists would have noticed. Also, if this validation existed, you would be able to point it out to me, 'cos it would be written down somewhere.

---

Of coz miracles is a problematic issue, and not accepting them is not a negative impression of anyone; the foremost factor is honesty and humans have not been shown any miracles for 1000s of years, and are science inclined today. I don't believe the miracles reported in a host of scriptures outside the OT, which may sound hipocritical, but my minimum requirement is that there is credibility surrounding and outside of miracle reports. When there is credibility such as historical authenticity, wondrous maths and moral/ethical concepts which are today what humanity lives by - there is much to appreciate and harken to here.The OT would be a better document without those miracles, and stands tall even without them. But science has its limits and borders too - it is not applicable in any pre-universe scenario, same as math - these would have no usage where the universe structures do not exist, being only applicable THIS side of creation. Also, the ancient world WAS different than the modern world.The issue of miracles are reported by all nations, independently and in un-connected areas. This means they were all steeped in myth, reporting lies or were stupid - without exceptions. I don't think so. I think they operated at optimum levels and used every available knowledge possible, and were just as involved as we are in understanding the universe and life's purpose. We know this by their inspired output of writings and what their quest was.If we look at science as knowledge, and that this knowledge descends upon us from nowhere, and is without accounting, and only when it is required - this can be the same with miracles in the ancient world: they got some assistance. We could not survive without science today - and the ancient world could not survive without nature-bending knowledge. But obviously both miracles and science are not required together - they negate each other, and thus replaced each other. The easiest thing is to claim there are no miracles: this is not a brilliant observation. With regard miracles such as a sea splitting, I would never accept this if it were reported on its own. And if there is evidence that the entire report of the Israelites being in Egypt is proven false - then its goodbye OT. But this has not occured yet - and its lack of evidencing is an anomoly. There is just as much magic in science as in the ancient world: our assumption of gravity, for instance, says that behind the equations, there is only magic: because we have no explaination who or what devised these wondrous equations and gravity. That it just happened of and by itself, is perhaps the greatest anti-science possible. So we are also believing in magic - but without using that word.

quote:

---

Unless you believe that pesky lying Bible:

​

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1)

​

Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present

---

Not in the Mosaic five books. In the later prophetic writings, this term emerged, but its application as an opposing force of the Creator is outside of all OT writings. Satan, devil, etc refers only to the negative force alongside the positive force, both being created for a purpose.

Doddy Not so, in this case, because the supposed event was not recorded by any other contemporary civilization anywhere else in the world. Therefore we can assert that the event cannot have happened since the event was tied to a global phenomena.
This is further evidence that the likelihood of the event is better explained by embellishment from the writers than a miracle.When you hear the sound of hoofbeats think horses before zebras.