How does science disprove the Bible?

That's a good example of how the hare-brained (apologetic) approach to Bible interpretation often leads to nonsensical conclusions.The context is pretty clear that the Israelites were chasing their enemies, trying to kill the stragglers before they could escape under cover of darkness. The clear implication of the "long day" is that it gave them more daylight to accomplish that purpose.What possible reason could there be for giving them less daylight?It's interesting that you recognize the passage as poetry but you ignore the fairly obvious cinematic possibilities.The scene could have been directed by an ancestor of Sam Peckinpah: everything is in slow motion for the good guys. They can kill bad guy A and have time to turn around and kill bad guy B before he can react.What's the difference between poetry and plot devices or production values?

---

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

That's a profoundly dishonest approach.You wouldn't approach The Lord of the Rings or Animal Farm or Gulliver's Travels with "the presupposition that it DOES square with reality", would you?The honest approach is to determine whether it DOES square with reality first, not to make up any wacky fairy tale you can think of to "explain" the difficulties.

---

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

Precedence of data isn't really good science, is it? Does the Biblical text - or any "plausible" theory based on it - trump all history, geography and science?

---

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

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

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

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

Not at all. I insist on the most straightforward interpretation, the most likely interpretation, the most parsimonious interpretation, the most logical interpretation.You have said flat out that an interpretation is acceptable to you if it is "plausible". You might as well say that geocentrism is plausible because epicycles are an acceptable interpretation of the data.Barely plausible it may be, but the best explanation of the data it is not. That too is a given. In the science forums, an irrational approach automatically fails.

---

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