|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: How does science disprove the Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Preposterous! It's impossible to DISprove anything. All we can do is prove something to be something other than X. We cannot disprove Y. We cannot disprove the Earth to be 6000 years old, but we CAN prove it to be 4.5 billion years old, which gives us good reason to doubt the date of 6000, but science never says "Earth =! 6000" instead, it say "Earth = 4.5 billion"
You've got it backwards. We can never PROVE a scientific theory, but it must in principle be subject to DISproof. See "Scientific Method":quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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.
I would agree that "Science does not disprove the Bible from a Theological perspective", but would modify your second statement to say that it "does disprove many INTERPRETATIONS of the things mentioned in the Bible on a factual basis."
There was never a world-wide flood.
Agreed; but I don't think the Bible necessarily teaches that the Flood was worldwide. Science disproves a specific INTERPRETATION of the Flood account (unless LOTS of miraculous events are postulated).
The various creation myths are factually wrong and actually mutually exclusive.
I disagree; this is again an issue as to how the Bible is to be interpreted. Views such as the "Framework interpretation" are held by inerrantists and avoid conflict with science.
There was never a Garden of Eden.
Briefly, what is your scientific evidence AGAINST these things? (Lack of scientific evidence FOR something does not necessarily constitute scientific evidence AGAINST it, especially in fields such as archaeology or paleontology where much evidence remains undiscovered or has disappeared.)
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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.
I agree that it is difficult (impossible?) to figure out where it was supposed to be from the text. But I don't see how genetics or the iceman have anything to do with the existence of Eden. The iceman was about 3300 BC, which is pretty recent. (Your data does conflict with Usher's 4004BC date, but most conservative Bible scholars claim that dates before Abraham cannot be reliably ascertained from the Bible. Some inerrantists would put Adam as much as 50k-100k BC.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
There was not some conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.
I admit that at present there are conflicts between the biblical record and the archaeological record. But it is difficult to identify these tells with precision, and it is likely that some have been misidentified. Jericho is properly identified, but there are hints that its destruction may have been misdated. 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 lack of notice of Hebrews is an argument from ABSENCE of evidence. As I pointed out, archaeological data is often absent, so this should not be taken as evidence FOR any position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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.
I believe the most common interpretation is that this is the "royal we" or the "plural of majesty". This is common usage in semitic languages (check out any Hebrew or Arabic grammar text), as well as in western languages. An alternative interpretation is that this is speaking of the Trinity. '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. If the author were speaking of a true plural (multiple gods, or God and angels) the verb "create" should also be plural. But it is not; it is singular. This implies either a plural of majesty or a plural seen as a unity (e.g. the Trinity).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
My favorite has to be in Isaiah 38:8
Note that the Bible does NOT say that the earth's rotation stopped or reversed. The shadow moved--that's all. There are lots of much less invasive ways that this could occur. And the Bible suggests that this effect was limited to the land of Palestine (2 Chronicles 32:30-31):
Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down I made a point of this in another thread a long time ago and this was the response I made then. Now it appears Tom is under some illusion of what is entailed in the physics behind a god stopping the earth and reversing the rotation.Besides the fact that no other nation recorded this event,nor,I might add did they notice that the sun now came up on the horizon it used to set on.{Remember,the earth is never stated as being returned to its original spin.} And Hezekiah prospered in all that he did. Even in the matter of the envoys of the rulers of Babylon, who sent to him to inquire of the wonder that had happened in the land,
Even DeYoung and Whitcomb of ICR (i.e. they hold to young-earth, flood geology, etc.) call this a "miracle of light refraction" which was limited only to "the king's courtyard" (Our Created Moon, pp. 102-103). The cause of the shadow's motion is unexplained, but there is no conflict between science and the biblical text on this issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Look at the whole passage and show where it suggests it was limited in scope?
1) "Miraculous sign" in v. 31 is "mofet". The only other place in the near context that this noun is used is in v. 24:
30 It was Hezekiah who blocked the upper outlet of the Gihon spring and channeled the water down to the west side of the City of David. He succeeded in everything he undertook. 31 But when envoys were sent by the rulers of Babylon to ask him about the miraculous sign that had occurred in the land, God left him to test him and to know everything that was in his heart.In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill; and he prayed to the LORD, and the LORD spoke to him and gave him a sign.
We know from 2 Kings 20:8-11 and Is 38:8 that this "sign" was the shadow moving backwards. So this is apparently the "sign" that the envoys were sent to find out about in v. 31. 2) According to v. 31 this occurred in "the land" (Hebrew "'eretz"). This word is most commonly used for the "Land of Israel" or "Palestine". (The word is not ALWAYS so restrictive. But in a context of discussing a king of Israel, the Land of Israel is probably what is in mind.) Thus, the text suggests that this event was limited to the land of Israel.DeYoung and Whitcomb (who are much more literalistic than I am) actually suggest that it was limited only to Hezekiah's courtyard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Yup, like I said, "Theology of getting rid of conflicts by believing anything that can be made up."
Why don't you try to back up this accusation with some logic or evidence? When there are multiple possible explanations for a biblical event, the responsible theologian will choose the one which provides the best fit to all data (scientific as well as biblical). This is simply responsible scholarship. The irresponsible and circular approach of assuming an explanation which conflicts with science, then claiming this as support for the notion that "science disproves the Bible" is not scholarship at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Edited by kbertsche, : accidental double-post
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Why not just admit they are plot devices for the story.
I don't agree that it is only a "plot device", but I agree that not too much should be made of it. It certainly does not "disprove the Bible." At best it only disproves one very naive, unscholarly interpretation of the Bible (One which even some of the most conservative, literalistic interpreters do not hold to).
... It is a plot device. Nothing more. Trying to make it more is about like pretending that Philip Nolan was tried.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Joshua writes:
This may not be the best translation of the Hebrew.And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed "stood still" is "damam", the main meaning of which is "be silent". Expositor's Bible Commentary (a conservative evangelical commentary) says this:
quote: "stayed" is "'amad", which generally means "stand", but has a broad range of meanings. Again from EBC:
quote: Some other things to note:1) as someone already mentioned in this thread, to have the sun stand visible while the moon stands visible just a few miles away does not make sense. Joshua surely realized that this couldn't happen, no matter what his cosmogeny. 2) As EBC notes, the text is poetic. Thus it is likely to use imagery which is not intended to be taken in an overly literal manner. Conclusion: the text does not necessarily mean that the sun and moon stopped their motion across the sky. It more likely means that the sky became dark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
When was the last time you heard the Sun make a noise? Jar, slap 'im again!
You apparently ignored the fact that this is poetry. If you ignore the genre and try to interpret more literalistic than the text you will get ridiculous conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Or it could even mean stop blowing bubbles or stop singing Suwanee.
Because suns don't normally make matzoh balls. Suns normally shine. Shining is their "voice", in a poetic sense. So how would you interpret a poem asking the sun to "be silent"? What do you think the author means? I really doubt that you would interpret this as "stop making matzoh balls" or "stop blowing bubbles" or "stop singing Suwanee".... If we are just gonna make up what gets stopped, it could be anything. If it could be "Stop Shining" why not "Stop making Matzoh balls? Now one might interpret this as "stop moving", because suns do that, too. But the more characteristic activity for the sun is to shine, so "stop shining" is the most likely meaning of a poetic comment to "be silent." This really isn't complex or obscure; it should be obvious. And I'm not "making stuff up", this interpretation comes straightforwardly from a word and grammar study, and is not original with me. It's clear from your ridiculous and unscholarly response that you're not comfortable discussing original languages. You apparently already have concluded what the text means ("a plot device to make the story interesting") and you are not willing to consider facts which might conflict with your position. Sorry, but the grammar is essential to understanding what the text SAYS, and we must understand this before we can decide what it MEANS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
If you can get it to mean cloud cover then you can get any verse in the bible to mean anything you want! Quite frankly the Expositor's Bible Commentary is full of blasphemous BS.
Granted, the "cloud cover" is an inference. But it is a reasonable one based on the odd weather on this day. Look at Josh 10:11:
... You will need to work harder on your translation to get it to mean "cloud cover". No offense but I am very amazed on how far people will go to twist passages to fit to their preconceived notions. quote: You noted the phrase in v. 13:
So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
The last part of v. 12 is taken as poetry by most translators, and the first part of v. 13 is by some. I am not clear whether this last part of v. 13 is meant to be poetic or to be a narrative comment. "Stood still" is the same word as earlier, and my earlier comments apply here, too (i.e. it can also be translated "stopped shining").It might help to look at how the various translators render your KJV "and hasted not to go down about a whole day": NASB--"and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day"NIV--"and delayed going down about a full day" NET--"and did not set for about a full day" Tanakh--"and did not press on to set, for a whole day" YLT--"and hath not hasted to go in ” as a perfect day" The YLT is a literal word-for word translation of the Hebrew; I would smooth it to something like "and did not hurry to set for about a full day". But what does this mean? Doesn't the sun NORMALLY "not hurry to set for about a full day"? Yes, it normally waits till the END of the day to set. Here's my proposal for what the verse means: the sky got dark due to the freak weather and hailstorm. But though the sun appeared to stop shining, it had not yet set. The sun waited to set until the end of the day. The text is trying to tell us that the darkness was not because the sun had set early. (Yes, I'm sure our resident critics will shoot back that this is "making stuff up". But note that this interpretation is consistent with both the grammar and the context of the passage.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
me--Now one might interpret this as "stop moving", because suns do that, too.
Sorry, my wording was not clear. I meant that the sun MOVES across the sky as well as SHINES, so the poetic command to "be silent" could refer to cessation of either activity.
Coragyps--Oh? One single example, please.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024