How does science disprove the Bible?

But isn't there an interpretive analog to science in biblical interpretation? If the biblical accounts are true, shouldn't we find more and more evidence to this effect in other fields (archaeology in particular)?This unfortunately has practical problems, as we've seen in this thread. "IAmJoseph" has posted a list of archaeological verifications. And "jar" has mentioned a number of conflicts. Unfortunately, the archaeological data can be interpreted subjectively so that each side thinks it is in their favor.

I don't see what opinion has to do with it. Either the Bible is an objectively verified source of factual historical information, or its not. And it's not.I don't see what possibility for discussion there is on this issue. There's no evidence that the Bible has any greater veracity than any other document for which we don't have the originals.

This is your subjective opinion (shared by many, BTW). But I claim that the Bible IS "an objectively verified source of factual historical information". (Check out the archaeological investigations of Sir William Ramsay, for example.)But further discussion of this does not belong in this thread. This is not a discussion of HISTORY, but SCIENCE. Do you have any supposed scientific disproofs of the Bible to put forth?Edited by kbertsche, : added wikipedia link

That's not the point of the thread though. What we're doing here is comparing real-world (scientific) observations and conclusions with the "Biblical data".You can interpret the Biblical data all you want, but you're still obligated to interpret it independently of the real-world data. Where you've been accused of "making stuff up" it's because you are clearly warping your Biblical interpretation to fit the real-world data.Come up with the best interpretation of the text based on the text and then see if it squares with the real world. Don't start with the preconceived notion that it will square.Edited by Ringo, : Spellinge.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Thanks for the clarification, now I see where you are coming from. I generally don't agree with your position, but in some ways it can be a useful approach (as in the "Framework interpretation").There are at least three possible interpretive approaches:
1) interpret the text in isolation, then compare it with extra-biblical data (your approach)
2) interpret the text in harmony with extra-biblical data (my approach)
3) read modern understandings into the text (e.g. find predictions of modern scientific discoveries in the text). This is "eisegesis", and is rejected by any good biblical scholar. (You may have assumed that I fall into this category, but I don't. The original authors did not have some supernatural understanding of modern science.)If the Bible is truly inspired by God, the things which it asserts should be in harmony with the rest of God's revelation, even though they are not expressed in modern scientific language. So biblical scholars generally try to include ALL of the data in doing biblical interpretation, both biblical and extra-biblical data.

That's the problem with your approach - presupposing where the harmony "should" be.The honest scientific approach, as I have said, is to see if there is harmony. Only if the predicted harmony is really there can we conclude that it's "truly inspired by God". You can't just assume that the harmony is there.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

anastasia
That's the problem with your approach - presupposing where the harmony "should" be.

​

The honest scientific approach, as I have said, is to see if there is harmony. Only if the predicted harmony is really there can we conclude that it's "truly inspired by God".

---

The preamble is, without question, the text is aligned with creationism, and that this is an 'intergrated' document. This does not infer any presupposing - it is blatant with no other readings possible.The issue of aligning with science, math and history thus will only be vindicated on this basis - and it has to, and it does. The problem is, not that it does not align with science, but that many view it first as a science in contradiction with creationism, and deem this encumbent. Many do not read it that way.Creationism is not a myth but a legitimate non-disproven premise, and science does not contradict it. Science applies post-creation, as does math and history, and these are not applicable pre-creation, same as geography: what 'lands' will we measure here as evidence? The latter is not factored in. IOW, science, maths and history can only be vindicated post creation - and Genesis does not contradict these faculties of reasoning and evidence, on a post-creation premise.One of the issues here is whether cross-specie or within-specia evolution is correct. Here, genesis is correct: the variance in the two is narrower than realised. Genesis uses the term 'kind' instead of species - which allows a far wider margin of life forms in a grouping than does darwin's species.Consider that 'Everything that creepeth upon the earth', which measures 1000s of species as per darwin, become one sub-sector of a 'kind'; consider that all the animals too are one kind - namely canine, feline, etc does not apply, nor does any prototype of speech endowed humans. Genesis is thus mis-understood: it does not have to fit darwin's mode of categorising, but requires the reverse! We have to view from the lens of what Genesis is saying - the category is much larger when seen as all life forms divided into 5 groups, better four because mammals are a transitory sub-group, and a clear indication that cross-specie within these groups are 'allowed'!Now consider genesis' very logical and intelligent mode of categorising: why would a big picture view allocate speech humans with animals, birds, amoeba and particles in a swamp millions of years ago? The latter does not cater to the fulcrum and unique difference of modern humans, nor do we see ourselves as one of millions of life forms without a unique distinquishing attribute: Genesis is thus far more insightful, and more correct. This does not mean darwin's categories are wrong or not useful, but they do not apply here, and genesis''kind' categories are more applicable in a creationism view: we are not discussing zoology or botany here!The bottom line is, cross-speecies appear condoned by genesis when limited to the categories of 'kind' as per genesis, but not outside it. It is a narrow but critical difference, but it vindicates genesis why we do not see other life forms acquiring speech - a factor which contradicts darwin's adaptation.

quote:

---

kbertsche writes:
If the biblical data does not support a biblical interpretation, the INTERPRETATION must be modified.

​

That's not the point of the thread though. What we're doing here is comparing real-world (scientific) observations and conclusions with the "Biblical data".

---

Modified may be a misplaced requirement here. Better, we consider that at one time, the earth was deemed flat, and this was not a wrong determination at the time. Science is subject to its status at any given time, and numerously altered, eg: Einstein upon Newton. Darwin's cross-species is not a fact - nor evidenced to any satisfactory levels - that is why it is a theory.

Theological (and historical) studies are in many ways analogous to science, but also have important differences. They use different data and deal with data it in a different way. I'm sure you will disagree with him, but here's the view of a famous theologian:
Warfield expresses this more clearly than I have been doing. Most (or all?) of the attempts in this thread to show how science disproves the Bible do exactly what Warfield said; they ASSUME error rather than PROVE error.Edited by kbertsche, : added wiki link

If we're going to discuss the scientific validity of the Bible, we have to use the stringent rules of science. (That's a given in the science forums, by the way.) Your - and Warfield's - idea of finding harmony in all things just won't wash here.So, enough of this nonsense about "any apologetic pulled out of a hat will do". Okay?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

IamJoseph,Could you learn to do quotes properly, please? Your gibberish is hard enough to follow without your attributing my quotes to the wrong people.Put more time into your posts (and possibly some thought, too).Edited by Ringo, : Punktuations?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

kbertsche the very premise of science is that data and observation squares with reality.You seem to think that the data must square with a theory - this is backwards and bad science and a poor method to discover truth. You are using the term "data" very loosely. If you tried to produce a theory that encompasses astrology and astronomy that is indeed folly. Yes, yes and yes again. I work in a scientific environment and quantifying, calibrating and qualifying data is the primary concern.Invalid data leads to invalid conclusions.The quality of the Data is key. Myths and legends are not data (except from a historical or cultural perspective). Noah's flood story is not geological data nor is the description of the cyclopes in the Odyssey a zoological report. Do you afford the holy Koran the same legitimacy? is the text of the Koran "data"? If not why not. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

But your approach simply doesn't work here. The OP asked about scientific disproofs of the Bible. But the Bible makes no scientific claims on its own; its statements are subject to interpretation. And this interpretive methodology is what we've been arguing about. The "stringent rules of science" cannot tell us how to interpret the Bible; this is not its area of expertise. So if we must be restricted to "the stringent rules of science" in this forum, we are stuck. Maybe this thread should be in a different forum?The necessary sequence is:
1) interpret the biblical text (not using "the stringent rules of science")
2) subject this interpretation to "the stringent rules of science".You insist on interpretations which ASSUME scientific error in the Bible. This is disingenuous and circular, and does not PROVE error. The more scientific approach is to assume the opposite (no error in the Bible) and see if this can be made consistent or if it leads to a contradiction. Or in non-scientific language, assume the Bible innocent until proven guilty.

Of course. But at some point you have the system calibrated and develop confidence in the data generation. From this point onward you do not subject each single data point to rigorous scrutiny as to its validity.

quote:

---

You completely misread what I wrote! I violently agree with you that this is NOT the correct thing to do. If scientific data does not fit a scientific theory, the THEORY must be modified. If the biblical data does not support a biblical interpretation, the INTERPRETATION must be modified. In either case, the data must not be warped.

---

In that case you'e going to admit that the Bible has contradictions and therefore is not entirely reliable, are you ? And admit that the Book of Joshua does speak of the sun stopping in the sky ? Or is it the case that I read you correctly and that you really do want to warp the "data" to fit the "theory" proposed by theologians ?