How does science disprove the Bible?

I'm one of those folk who might be classified as a Theistic Evolutionist.I am a Christian, a more than average active Christian. I believe in the Bible. I also am positive that Abiogenesis happened, that evolution happened, that so far the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have on how Evolution happened.My position is not all that unusual, you will find other Christians here that hold similar positions and there is even A Catechism of Creation on line.To give you an idea of how the issue is viewed by many Christians, Clergy and Churches, you might want to check out the Clergy Project which is an open letter currently signed by more than 10,000 US Christian Clergy.As the letter states: Science only disproves the Bible if the God that the person created is small and limited. Science only disproves the Bible if a person has made the Bible something to be worshiped.For the rest of us, Science is but a way to discover "How God did it."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Except of course, the Bible has been shown to be factually incorrect historically. There never was a world-wide flood, no conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua, no Exodus as described in the Bible. Except of course, there is no Biblical support for "The Fall" or any fallen nature.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

First we would have to determine what the first sin was. Adam and Eve didn't sin, they were incapable of sinning until after they had eaten of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.That certainly is not a Fall, rather a step up as God Himself admits.The punishments for eating the forbidden fruit were a curse on snakes that women would be afraid of them and hate them and kill them, that childbirth would be harder for humans than it seemed to be for other animals and that men would have to work for their food instead of foraging.These are all classic "Just So Stories" and were used to explain why we fear snakes, why it seemed childbirth was harder for us than the other animals and why we had to till the soil instead of living the more nomadic, foraging lifestyle.It is most likely that these are very old stories, perhaps even dating back to the transition from Nomadic culture to the more sedentary lifestyle of Village and farm life.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sorry but that is simply not supported by the Bible at all. There is no mention of separation from God in the Genesis story, in fact God continues to talk with them, makes them clothes in fact.They were put out of the Garden of Eden in the story, not for eating the forbidden fruit, but because God was afraid they would eat from the Tree of Life.Do any of you even read the Bible? Gald you enjoyed it. It is a funny fable.How are my claims unsubstantiated? I am only quoting what is literally in the story.In the story there is nothing about separation from God, nothing to imply some future need for a messiah (and I also do not see Jesus as some blood sacrifice. That makes God really stupid if true.).The stories of God interacting with man continue straight through the Bible. The idea of some separation between man and God based on the Garden of Eden story is simply nonsense and not supported at all by what the Bible actually says.Read Genesis 3: Note that all of those happened after the cursing and that there is NO indication of any "separation" from God.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

They didn't die. Sorry but that is not found anywhere in the Garden of Eden Story. Yada-Yada. I'm sorry but we are talking about the Genesis Creation myths here. The author of Romans is looking at the same source material we are, and when you look at the source, that assertion is not supported.You are also misrepresenting once again what is in the Bible. Once again, here is Genesis 3:22-24 There is nothing in there about God's Grace keeping them away from the Tree of Life or that the Tree of Life had some symbolic significance. It is not even a reasonable assumption based on the internal consistency of the myth.The Tree of Knowledge in the Myth did just what it literally was supposed to do. It was the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. When they ate from it they could finally make decisions on right or wrong.There is nothing in the story to indicate that the Tree of Life was any different. When God says "and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:" there is nothing to suggest that He does not mean literal immortality. I'm sorry but the story doesn't support your assertion. All of the things you mentioned existed before they ate from the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. The only difference between before eating and after is that after eating they were aware of a moral sense. That is certainly not a Fall, but rather a rise.And nothing in the Genesis Garden of Eden story even implies some need for "this person Called the seed of the woman that would crush the head of the serpent." I'm sorry but that is not what it literally says, it is an interpretation that YOU imposed.Look, this thread is NOT about some fanciful theology, it is about "How does science disprove the Bible?"My position is that Science does not disprove the Bible from a Theological perspective, but does disprove many of the things mentioned in the Bible on a factual basis.There was never a Garden of Eden.There was never a world-wide flood.There was not some conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.If there was an Exodus, it was nothing like what was described in the Bible.The various creation myths are factually wrong and actually mutually exclusive.That is this topic.If you want to discuss the theology of the GOE myth, start a thread on it. Sheesh. The old NARC ploy. Get serious.I don't want you to convert to anything.I am not even trying to "save you from literalism" since it is literally true that you do not read the Bible literally.I assume you can show where I deny Christ or his sacrifice? If so, please link to the post. I am a preacher of the Gospel, and unfortunately, many Christians are clueless what the Gospel really is.But that is off topic and irrelevant.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course I have said that. I happen to believe that Jesus actually existed but the message is valid even if He did not.I have also said that the Sacrifice is GOD becoming man, simply man, to live among us with all of the limitations of being simply human.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The evidence that there was never a Garden of Eden as described in th Bible is pretty much overwhelming. In particular, Genetics and discoveries such as Oetzi show that we are not all related to some original pair of Humans that lived anytime recently and that humanity was pretty much spread out and advanced within what would have been the lifetime of Adam. Here it is mostly archaeological evidence. Many of the towns that were supposedly conquered were either unoccupied at the time the Conquest of Canaan happened, or merely small villages with no walls at the time. In addition, we have quite a bit of correspondence from the period and none of the rulers of the cities throughout Canaan seemed to notice either Hebrews, Hebrew armies or any organized invasion. The logistics as described in the Bible are quite frankly, impossible. There is absolutely no evidence of any Hebrew presence in Egypt at the time. The events in the folk tale are things that definitely would have been noticed by the other Great Powers in the area, both in the North and in the South. Things like a Pharaoh being killed would have destabilized the whole area. There is absolutely no evidence of a massive replenishment effort to replace the things supposedly lost during the fable.Finally there is the Exodus story itself. It is a classic example of an epic tale, replete with cliff hangers and miraculous escapes. It's the kind of tale told around the campfires, with each nights episode ending with a situation that will leave the audience breathless waiting for next weeks installment.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please provide the support that the GOE was not on "Physical Earth." The origin being a simple sexless cell that divided. Please provide the support for that assertion. Please provide the support for that assertion. Please provide the support for that assertion.So far you have never provided any support for any of your assertions in any thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sorry but let's actually look at where the Garden of Eden was. Please show in that passage where it says it was not on physical earth. I'm sorry but that is simply more of your bullshit. There is no sex for either the original or either of the two critters after the division. I'm sorry but what the hell does that have to do with the period of the alleged Conquest of Canaan? What the hell would that have to do with evidence of Hebrews being in Egypt at the supposed time of the Exodus? I'm sorry but that is simply a collection of nonsense. Were in there is there any evidence that any of the people mentioned in the Exodus myth ever existed? Where is there any evidence that Moses existed? How about Aaron? Where is there any evidence that Abraham ever existed?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, take a look at the thread Message 1.Usher was not very smart and of course, had an enormous blind spot or he would have simply asked the nearest Rabbi what year it was. LOL Ah yes, the school of "Theology by anything I can make up".The importance of Oetzi ( see Message 1) is that there is a vast body of genetic information there where we can see just how much things have changed since the period of the GOE myth. The results are, very little. Very little in humans, animals, plants, climate, even technology.It is also the total death knell for the Flood myth.FROM THE NEXT MESSAGE That is irrelevant. We have lots of communications from the rulers of the city states in the area during the period, and they, as I said, don't even offer a hint that there was some Hebrew army or invasion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please show where there is any evidence that Eden was parted or in another realm.Are you sure you are not just simple?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Bullshit.A single celled organism is sexless. That is not negotiable. It is neither male or female. When it divides it neither of the resulting critters is male or female. I'm sorry but that too is just bullshit.There is absolute evidence from the rulers of the various City-States of the area during the period that Joshua supposedly takes place that shows that not one of them is aware of any Hebrew army or invasion. There is also positive evidence that many of the cities Joshua supposedly conquered were not even occupied at the time and that others were not walled, but only unprotected villages.And evidence from a quarter century later proves nothing about the earlier period.Read all of the Armana Tablets. So far you have not specified what stele you are talking about and so it cannot be relevant. Then present some evidence. Certainly. Huck Finn.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin and missed a closing quote

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is called "getting rid of conflicts by the Theology of anything I can make up".Look at the whole passage and show where it suggests it was limited in scope?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yup, like I said, "Theology of getting rid of conflicts by believing anything that can be made up."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

ROTFLMAO.The reasoning is as I have pointed out many times. The message is still the same whether any of the events in the Bible ever happened or not. Using the concept that is anything could conceivably explain the stuff it is not a problem is just plain silly, sophomoric.When you start making shit up to explain away the discrepancies, it just seems silly.Why not just admit they are plot devices for the story.The particular miracle and your suggested supporting material is a good example. You make it sound like moving the shadow back up the steps is something of some importance. It wasn't. It's a throw away comment, a plot device, related to a story about testing God.Second, there is nothing to suggest that the sign was local. The fact is that according to the fable, the Kings of Babylon knew about it. Something so trivial as a sign given to one man about whether or not he would get well enough is not likely something to come to the notice of the rulers of Babylon unless it was more than something limited to a courtyard or even an area like Israel.Come on.It is a plot device. Nothing more. Trying to make it more is about like pretending that Philip Nolan was tried.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion