Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does science disprove the Bible?
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 195 of 310 (409319)
07-08-2007 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by jar
07-08-2007 10:40 AM


Re: Re-long day
All of Joshua is but folk tales. There was no Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.
You need to understand that before you can decide what it means.
I understand your postion. And I disagree with it.
I realize that there is little if any extra-biblical evidence for the conquest of Canaan (I'll try to look into this more later). But as I've said before, LACK of evidence for an event is NOT evidence that it did not occur. There may well be archaeological evidence that has not yet been unearthed.
I realize that there are conflicts between archaeological data and the most conservative biblical date of about 1410BC. As I mentioned earlier, some of these conflicts may be misdating or misidentifying of sites in Palestine. The other date for the Conquest held by some Christians is about 1250BC, which I believe avoids most of the archaeological conflicts but presents some biblical conflicts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by jar, posted 07-08-2007 10:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by jar, posted 07-08-2007 5:46 PM kbertsche has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 199 of 310 (409326)
07-08-2007 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by iceage
07-08-2007 1:01 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Genesis does not square with what science has revealed. Statement of fact. Even in general notional terms, Genesis does not match the order of appearance of life forms that scientific investigation and study has revealed. Genesis 1 is at odds with Genesis 2 because they are different myths.
Again, it is not the text itself which does not square with science, but only some interpretations of the text. There are MANY ways to interpret Gen 1-3. One which is held by inerrantists and which avoids conflict with science is the "Framework Interpretation". (I'm sure jar will say that they are "making stuff up".)
Genesis just like Joshua is what is called a myth - stories which often include religious, ethnic and political content that get handed down orally for generations and get embellished and often include insertions from myths of surrounding culture. The information is all there you just have to approach the subject with diligence and an undodging commitment to truth.
This is one possible view. And if one approaches the Bible with this presupposition, he will assume that it contains many errors (historical, geographical, scientific). He will interpret the Bible very simplisticly and will conclude that some of its data is in error.
But this is not the only possible view. If one approaches the text with the presupposition that it DOES square with reality (historical, geographical, and scientific), he will find that plausible theories exist which will accomodate all of the data (biblical as well as extra-biblical). To the critics, this will look like we are "making things up".
The topic of this thread is to present evidence where "science disproves the Bible". As long as a plausible theory can be advanced which accomodates both the biblical and scientific data, the Bible has not been disproven by science. Granted, some of these theories may be unlikely, but as long as they exist the Bible has not been disproven.
(Aside: the flat-earther would likewise probably say that modern physics is "making stuff up". His view is much simpler than modern physics, because he ignores the data which doesn't fit. Likewise here. If we ascribe error to biblical data, we can come up with nice, simple theories. If we try to incorporate all of the biblical data as true, the theories become more complex and sophisticated, and appear to the critics to be "made up".)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 1:01 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by ringo, posted 07-08-2007 6:25 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 203 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 7:09 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 204 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2007 7:51 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 206 by ReverendDG, posted 07-08-2007 8:42 PM kbertsche has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 200 of 310 (409329)
07-08-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by iceage
07-08-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Genocidal Poetry.
Let me see if I have this correct...
You have translated
"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."
to mean
"The day was dark and stormy and because of the darkness (not too dark to fight mind you) some thought that the sun hasted down which is silly of course since the sun does not hasten down as everyone knows"
Close, but too much editorial annotation. I would translate it to mean:
"So the sun stopped shining in the midst of heaven, but did not set until the end of the day."
This is only one possible interpretation. There are other possibilities as well. The text implies that the hailstorm was only in the valley (it only killed the bad guys, not the good guys who were in the process of descending to the valley from Beth-Horon). This may imply that the bad weather, thunderstorms, dark clouds, etc were only in the valley. Maybe this could fit with the sun shining over the clear eastern plain and the moon over the stormy western valley?
The point is that there are a number of possible theories for what happened which do not require stopping the earth's rotation. This biblical text is not disproven by science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 1:47 PM iceage has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 226 of 310 (409373)
07-09-2007 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by iceage
07-08-2007 7:09 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
I wrote:
If one approaches the text with the presupposition that it DOES square with reality (historical, geographical, and scientific), he will find that plausible theories exist which will accomodate all of the data (biblical as well as extra-biblical).
This is crux. I am somewhat taken back that you would actually admit to it. If you already want to believe something badly enough then with enough messaging the data, creative interpretations and unwarranted extrapolations a you can make reality whatever you want. This is madness. This is a very good way to fool yourself and mislead others.
My statement was obviously misleading, as you and Ringo have noted. This statement did not logically start as a presupposition, but was a conclusion of previous investigations and only then became a presupposition or basis for future biblical studies. And there is always a possibility that the evidence will show such presuppositions to be incorrect in the future.
So I probably should have said we approach the text with the thought that it MAY be possible to square with other extra-biblical data, then we see if we can find plausible theories which encompass all of the data.
I was trying to make an analogy with science in this statement, and it didn't come across correctly. In science we try to account for all the data when formulating our theories. We do not allow ourselves to throw out or ignore data which doesn't fit; this would be irresponsible. In theology, the primary "data" is the biblical text. But history, geography, and science are also important as secondary data. A good, responsible biblical interpretation will account for all of this data. (It is possible in either field that some of the data is bogus, and this needs to be checked. But once we are comfortable that the data is correct, we need to account for it honestly instead of ignoring it or labeling it as bogus for convenience.)
Edited by kbertsche, : added clarification
Edited by kbertsche, : more clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 7:09 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 1:30 AM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 232 of 310 (409380)
07-09-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by ringo
07-09-2007 1:30 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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?
No, of course not. (Good question, BTW.) By "primary" and "secondary" I do not imply "precedence". I meant that the main body of theological data comes from the Bible. Any good interpretation must account for ALL the data, both biblical and extra-biblical.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 1:30 AM ringo has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 249 of 310 (409477)
07-09-2007 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by iceage
07-08-2007 7:09 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
kbertsche writes:
If one approaches the text with the presupposition that it DOES square with reality (historical, geographical, and scientific), he will find that plausible theories exist which will accomodate all of the data (biblical as well as extra-biblical).
This is crux. I am somewhat taken back that you would actually admit to it. If you already want to believe something badly enough then with enough messaging the data, creative interpretations and unwarranted extrapolations a you can make reality whatever you want. This is madness. This is a very good way to fool yourself and mislead others.
Would you say the same thing about science, I wonder? Would you complain about someone who presupposes that a new piece of scientific data must square with reality? Would you say that trying to produce a theory which encompasses all of the data is "madness" and will "mislead others"? Would you subject each new piece of data to a prolonged epistemological investigation?
In biblical theology, the biblical text is the "data", analogous to scientific data. The epistemological issues have (hopefully) already been addressed and the data is trusted. From this point, biblical interpretation proceeds analogously to development of a scientific theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by iceage, posted 07-08-2007 7:09 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2007 5:44 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 07-09-2007 5:48 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 252 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2007 9:06 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 267 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 2:02 AM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 253 of 310 (409500)
07-09-2007 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by iceage
07-09-2007 2:45 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Let me underscore the concept. No scientific discovery ever originated from the Bible. So why consider it to be a scientific document?
Did someone in this thread claim that the Bible was a "scientific document"? If so, I missed it. But either way, this is orthogonal to the question of whether or not science disproves the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by iceage, posted 07-09-2007 2:45 AM iceage has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 254 of 310 (409501)
07-09-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by PaulK
07-09-2007 5:48 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
If a scientist was caught warping the data to fit theory he would be met with disapproval from his colleagues. It is quite telling that you think that such behaviour is the corrct thing to do.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by PaulK, posted 07-09-2007 5:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 10:33 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 270 by PaulK, posted 07-10-2007 2:30 AM kbertsche has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 255 of 310 (409502)
07-09-2007 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by crashfrog
07-09-2007 9:06 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
Um, precisely backwards. The issue has been settled; the Bible is no more reliable than any other historical document; due to a series of redactions, actually, it's even less reliable.
The "data" of the Bible is not trusted by anybody who isn't already ideologically committed to it being true.
This is a matter of opinion, and I completely disagree with your statements. But this is off-topic; it's history, not science. Let's get back to science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2007 9:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2007 10:12 PM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 256 of 310 (409504)
07-09-2007 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Straggler
07-09-2007 5:44 PM


Re: Prediction Again
Biblical interpretations are nothing but after the event hindsight driven wishful thinking. Not a prediction in sight and no verification as a result.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2007 5:44 PM Straggler has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 258 of 310 (409508)
07-09-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by crashfrog
07-09-2007 10:12 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2007 10:12 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by nator, posted 07-10-2007 9:22 PM kbertsche has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 260 of 310 (409510)
07-09-2007 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by ringo
07-09-2007 10:33 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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 interprtation 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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 10:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 11:08 PM kbertsche has replied
 Message 301 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2007 5:18 PM kbertsche has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 264 of 310 (409523)
07-10-2007 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by ringo
07-09-2007 11:08 PM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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.
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:
B.B. Warfield writes:
. . . it is a first principle of historical science that any solution which affords a possible method of harmonizing any two statements is preferable to the assumption of inaccuracy or error”whether those statements are found in the same of different writers. To act on any other basis, it is clearly acknowledged, is to assume, not prove, error. (Warfield, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 439)
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by ringo, posted 07-09-2007 11:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 1:28 AM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 268 of 310 (409529)
07-10-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by ringo
07-10-2007 1:28 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 1:28 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by ringo, posted 07-10-2007 2:36 AM kbertsche has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 269 of 310 (409531)
07-10-2007 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by iceage
07-10-2007 2:02 AM


Re: Genesis is a Myth
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 2:02 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by iceage, posted 07-10-2007 2:45 AM kbertsche has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024