How does science disprove the Bible?

quote:

---

dan
Then ask him if he thinks bats are a kind of fowl.

---

Genesis places flying, crawling life forms as emerging following fish' appearence - allowing for in-transit species too. The texts requires wise deliberation. Don't scream Eureka! yet.

quote:

---

shilo
First, if it is Satan then it can be taken literaly.

​

Second, If it it not literal it does not necessitate against its historicity.

​

Third, there are masc. personal pronouns used in the latter part of verse 15.

---

Its not historical but metaphoric: the setting is not on a physical earthly realm, according to the texts. Serpent means more than a snake, and is a metaphor for the 'negative' force: there is no satan, and no one can account for another's good or bad deeds. All laws are prefixed 'THOU' - mening each person individually - this is accepted in all bone fide judiciary institutions:'THE SON SHALL NOT PAY FOR THE FATHER NOR THE MOTHER FOR THE DAUGHTER - ONLY THE SOUL THAT SINNETH IT SHALL PAY' (OT).The math to determine who is a sinner is awesome from a big picture view - one must account for all the impacts upon the accused, and how one would act in a similar situation. This means a greivious sinner can have greater merit than one who's sins and situation is not known: one can be sinless but only because he is untested - while one can be a harlot or murderer and come out with greater spiritual merit.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

anglard

​

So when the Bible speaks about a serpent, it is not satan, but a 'metaphorical negative force' according to you.

​

Yet when Genesis says the earth was created in six days that means all natural science, including physics, chemistry, geology, and biology is wrong because it contradicts your non-metaphorical understanding of the Bible.

​

So you are the one, according to you, to tell us mere mortals when the Bible is meant to be taken literally and when it is meant to be taken metaphorically.

---

Its to do with a more sobering premise called textual comprehension. You have disregarded that the texts itself says the adam-eve-serpent story is not an event which occured on earth: thus the metaphoric premise applies.Your other error is that the earth was created in six days, when the texts clearly mentions the earth was created in the opening first verse ('In the beginning Gd created the Heavens and the *EARTH*/V1-Gen). The subsequent days of creation are not 24-hour days, but cosmic days (epochs of time) - because the sun's luminosity occured later in the 4th cosmic day. This would have been clear to you if you checked the OT Calendar - it does not include the first six cosmic days. If your textual comprehension was correct, you would have also concluded that since the earth was already created in verse 1, the subsequent creation listed thereafter can only apply to other things created, like fish, birds, animals and luminosity.

quote:

---

dr adequate:

​

No they don't.

​

Not only do they not say that, but the very opposite is implied by Genesis 2, which relates the position of Eden to other terrestrial locations, e.g. Ethiopia and Assyria.

---

The historical references relate to earth when adam is represented as a name, outside of the paradisical garden, which is not on earth:

quote:

---

23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life.

---

Note, he drove the man out of the garden (in a different realm than earth, called Eden); placed him on the east of Eden (Eden: a spiritual realm); and barred re-entry with 'cherubim' (angelic beings not of earth); and flaming swords which turned every which way (a fastedious barring from the heavenly realm); to place man in a place where life is terminal (physical earthly realm).The term Adam applies as a 'human' (man) as well as a Pronoun (name) when the story becomes set on earth.Note also:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed.In Eden (not on earth). The term East also signifies another realm: 'Now the Lrd caused a strong easterly wind to blow..etc' (a divine force to split the sea in the Book of Exodus).Re Serpent:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.More subtle than any beast which the Lrd Gd had made: meaning different from any earthly being; even one able to talk (an attribute exclusive to humans in this physical realm).Also:
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.The shame of being naked only applies on earth's physical realm; angels wear no attire and are not able to be ashamed - because good and evil is exclusive to this physical realm.Also:
26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness;The 'US' refers to spiritual beings alreasy created in Heaven, which came before earth. The Adam of essence is created and spoken of in a heavenly realm, from which he was cast down to earth by the expulsion.Re Tigris and historical rivers mentioned:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads.The scenario is now transfered upon earth, and separated from that paradical garden in Eden, signified by the words "and from thence it was parted" (parted from its heavenly realm.Thus:11 The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.Here we find the first earthly material, namely 'gold' is mentioned - which does not exist in the non-physical realm of Eden.

quote:

---

jar:

​

The evidence that there was never a Garden of Eden as described in th Bible is pretty much overwhelming.

---

The text says this garden was not located on physical earth: it is metaphorical, and works excellently as such. It requires better textual cpmprehension.

quote:

---

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.

---

What is the alternative to the origin of all life forms to be other than from a dual-gendered specimen, as stated in Genesis? The theory of adaptation and cross-species does not cover this crucial issue. Have you attempted to estimate the odds for a first original male of any life form, encountering an exact female counterpart? I concur with Genesis' statement all original life forms emerged from a dual-gendered specimen: it is logical and scientific with no apparent alternative.

quote:

---

There was not some conquest of Canaan as described in Joshua.

​

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.

---

What is not in dispute is that the Israelites did inhabit sovereinty of this land, for the dates mentioned, and most of the stated descriptions are agreed upon. There is no document in existence that makes any historical stats for such an ancient period - and vindicated even a fraction of the reporting as in the book of Joshua. Scholars have made great errors about Israel's ancient history, in far less complex issue than canaan: many have not recovered from the debacle king david was a mythical figure - such errors must be allowed for.

quote:

---

If there was an Exodus, it was nothing like what was described in the Bible.

​

The logistics as described in the Bible are quite frankly, impossible.

---

Agreed. But there are some reportings of miracles in the OT, which you are referring to. There is no issue about the given distances from Goshen to Mount Sinai - but the miracles cannot be vindicated, nor can they be the only item which one judges the OT with. The provables have been vindicated - like no other document, even by comparison to those documents and scriptures which emerged 2000 years + later: eg - Buddhism, The NT and the Quran.

quote:

---

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.

---

There is evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt at this time - from egypt; there is no mentioned of the pharoah being killed.

quote:

---

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.

---

Have you attended a campfire where dates, names and locations are made of the period 2500 years before the Exodus event? Try it - use ficticious names and dates if you like, and let there be no errors in the calculations! Or better, try to name your ancestry even two generations removed, along with all names, dob and dods, etc? I remind you that all of the names listed in generations of various periods are accepted as authentic by archeology: there is nothing in existence to compete with the OT in this regard.

quote:

---

jar

​

The text says this garden was not located on physical earth: it is metaphorical, and works excellently as such. It requires better textual cpmprehension.

​

Please provide the support that the GOE was not on "Physical Earth."

---

I did. Here: The Aggadah of Genesis: In Conflict With Science?

quote:

---

What is the alternative to the origin of all life forms to be other than from a dual-gendered specimen, as stated in Genesis?

​

The origin being a simple sexless cell that divided.

---

There you go: 'divided' = duality. Let the sex be evidenced by the results.

quote:

---

What is not in dispute is that the Israelites did inhabit sovereinty of this land, for the dates mentioned, and most of the stated descriptions are agreed upon.

---

How can you ask such! King David, 250 years after Joshua, established Jerusalem as the capital (The Tel Dan discovery), and King Solomon built the Temple (numerous archeological finds are in the Jerusalem Museum).

quote:

---

There is evidence of the Hebrews in Egypt at this time - from egypt; there is no mentioned of the pharoah being killed.

---

I don't want to spam, but there is an Egyptian stele, more than 3000 years old, which mentions a war with Israel, and this has been addressed in this forum.

quote:

---

I remind you that all of the names listed in generations of various periods are accepted as authentic by archeology: there is nothing in existence to compete with the OT in this regard.

---

How about 'Ramases', Pithom and Goshen? 'Moses' ('Mosais'/Egypiant) is derived from the ancient Egyptian language, and means 'from water'. The first two words in the Ten Commandments are in the ancient Egyptian language ('I Am'/'Anno Chi'/Ex). Abram and Sarai are ancient Mesopotamium names circa 4000 years old; the nation of Moab has been identified as located in today's Jordan; Ruth is a Moabite name.

quote:

---

Please provide the support for that assertion.

​

So far you have never provided any support for any of your assertions in any thread.

---

I don't think so. Your enquiries for proof are less than credible.

quote:

---

jar

​

I'm sorry but let's actually look at where the Garden of Eden was.

---

I trust this is not veering from the thread subject. This misinfo of Eden has a parallel with the assumption the earth is 6000 years old. Its about correct comprehension of an exacting, technical text.Eden's setting is a non-physical realm. The 'LET "US" MAKE MAN' denotes Gd talking with angels in a realm other than earth, which was created before the earth as per V1:Genesis
"26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' "Adam, created on earth, is taken away and placed in another (different) realm, 'Eden':"8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed."'Eden' is not on earth, but a paradisical non-physical realm. Note Eden 'was parted' (separated):"10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted "In Eden, spiritual beings do not wear attire and have no shame, being incapable of free choice or sin (no commandments apply in Eden):"7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles. "Adam was cast out from Eden and placed on physical earth - 'from whence he was taken' signifies Eden is a different realm, where 'serpents' talk and wherein is the fruit of knowledge and of everlasting life:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.Re-entry to Eden was fastidiously barred, with cherubim (angelic beings) guarding the gates:24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life.Back to physical earth, where 'gold' is mentioned, a material entity not existing in the non-physical realm:"11 The name of the first is Pishon; that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold"# 'East' of Eden is also mentioned in the book of Exodus, denoting a heavenly realm: "And the Lrd caused a strong Easterly wind" - to split the sea.

quote:

---

jar:

​

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.

---

Why not pause to see a legitimate different reading of the text, even if it does not equate with your assumption of it. The first recorded scientific equation is, according to Genesis, that all life forms originated as a duality (there is no SINGULARITY in the universe):"MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM".Your rejection of the male/female aspect of this duality factor is negotiable and subject to transitory stage, at best. I say, let the results determine it - if a male/female result occurs, it prevails, and in fact over-rides your premise! The aspect of a non-duality amoeba is also incorrect: there is no singularity anyplace, and a splitting of a cell affirms that life emerges only with a duality. The duality factor applies on all levels, micro and macro, and living and inanimate entities (light/darkness, water/earth, day/night, man/woman, etc).

quote:

---

How can you ask such! King David, 250 years after Joshua, established Jerusalem as the capital (The Tel Dan discovery), and King Solomon built the Temple (numerous archeological finds are in the Jerusalem Museum).

​

I'm sorry but what the hell does that have to do with the period of the alleged Conquest of Canaan?

---

Only that Joshua represents the period of Judges, and David is the second king in the period of kings - a mere 250 years after Joshua enters canaan. I quoted you a find, Tel Dan, which Archeological scholars accepted David was a true historical figure. The conquest of canaan is recorded in the book of Joshua, and while there are minutae items of some battles which are not yet confirmed by archeology, these are insignificant instances. The conquest of canaan took 150 years.

quote:

---

I don't want to spam, but there is an Egyptian stele, more than 3000 years old, which mentions a war with Israel, and this has been addressed in this forum.

​

What the hell would that have to do with evidence of Hebrews being in Egypt at the supposed time of the Exodus?

---

The ancient egyptian stele, dated more than 3000 years old, says Egypt went to war with Israel. There is no disputation evidence from any source that the Israelites and ancient Egyptians had a historical interaction.

quote:

---

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?

---

Moses is not proven as yet, but there's loads of evidence for it. Its not a collection of nonsense because there is authentic, contemporary historical stats here: two cities are mentioned built by the Hebrews; the town of Goshen has been identified; the diets, religions and names mentioned of egypt are authentic. Perhaps you can offer another document which performs equally that way?

quote:

---

iceage

​

I don't see what you are tying to prove here at all. Yes the names of people, kingdoms, regions and cities can be found in archeology and common for the period of the writing of the various texts of the Bible... err so....

​

The same can be said of the Iliad and Odyessy - was there really a Trojan War? very likely to some extent. Did a one-eyed cyclops really exist?. My bets are no.

---

You cannot bet no: names are the most utilised mode archeologists use for their spacetime verifications; seconded by writings styles. I too used to get frustrated with the multiple page listings of names in numerous generations of biblical figures, questioning their relevence: I later saw them as pivotal factors.

quote:

---

IamJoseph: nothing you say means anything, because you are talking in a language which you made up in your head.

---

Its called the grey matter, and mine says names are a pivotal tool in archeology. What do you think was the most common name in the middle-east 4000 years ago?

quote:

---

Certainly. Huck Finn.

---

Stay where you are. lets hope your science is not founded on such understandings!

quote:

---

That is weird logic on too many levels. You not only assume the 'us' is angels,

---

So teach me - I was just going by the texts. Humans were not yet created - the heavens were: who does 'US' refer to?

quote:

---

but you also assume that God couldn't converse in one realm i.e., the supernatural, while in the process of creating the physical world.

---

How so - when I referred 'US' to the supernatural?

quote:

---

Always makes me laugh when people just 'know' what the Bible says, without realizing that all of the evidence is in their interpretation, and not the actual text.

---

The actual text says 'US' - before humans emerged. Not!?

quote:

---

Your little snipe at his expense doesn't impeach Jar's point - the mere mention of cities that are known to exist doesn't corroborate any part of the Bible. Those cities would have been known to the Bible writers, too.

---

I don't mean to impeach your statement either. Perhaps the Israelites had advanced computers which archived 1000s of names, dates and places for a period of 3000 years. And they got them all right by some clever guessmatics - then overlaid a fictional story about Abraham and Moses for dramatic effect - just as Shakespear did. The confusing part is that Shakespear had access to good historical archives - and these were not around with the Israelites! Perhaps they got some help from someone - chariots of the Gods?

quote:

---

Moderator:

​

Those inclined to ignore moderator requests and the Forum Guidelines and the goal of any rational discussion at all present a difficult challenge. I encourage everyone who cares how they are thought of to make an effort not to be perceived as falling into this category.

---

Not many here are convincing in How does science disprove the Bible?

quote:

---

Doddy

​

Well, it could be that God was talking to his angels (for example,
his assistant Larry).

---

No other alternative exists.

quote:

---

It could also be that God was conspiring with
Satan to make the earth (thus explaining all the volcanoes, earthquakes, viruses etc). It could also be that God is more than one person (i.e. the Trinity), and so when He talks to himself He has to use plural form.

---

There is no satan - nor is it mentioned. This form of oppositional force (antochrist) is a christian concept, as with the trinity, which is an absolute contradiction of the OT. There can be no oppositional force with the Creator (there is a reason why these two religions separated).

quote:

---

Lastly, and this is what I would say, He is only a single being, but is using plural as a figure of speech. As in "Let's (a contraction of 'Let us') just have some light so I can see what I'm doing....Let there be light!".

---

Your first point was right. Perhaps the other life forms created before humans are included, however, because speech is used, it relates only to the heavenly beings who also have speech.