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

Welcome Issabee,Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.Please direct any questions or comments you may have to the Moderation Thread.Again, welcome and fruitful debating.

---

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

---

Reminder that the originator (Message 1) is looking for examples of instances where science disproves parts of the Bible. Please keep on track.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you

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:

quote:

---

As they fled from before Israel, while they were at the descent of Beth-horon, the LORD threw large stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died from the hailstones than those whom the sons of Israel killed with the sword.

---

You noted the phrase in v. 13: 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.)

Yup. I think you got it.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.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. Consider to what end these miracles are. God halts the earth from spinning, the moon in its orbit just so that his chosen race can kill their enemies (women and children included) using crude implements of war. It is absurd and outrageous.However very keeping with the times - every read Iliad or Odyssey. These are stories of the same quality and flavor of other mythology of the era, only a child could believe these things actually happened.Doesn't it sound like a small vision of the God with phrasing like "the LORD fought for Israel" or the "Lord is a Man of war" or the "The Lord grew angry". For crying out loud, these depictions shrink God down to a human superhero at best. The God that created galaxies is not going to cheer from some heavenly mezzanine hurling large hailstones in a struggle for some infinitesimal small chunk of land against a people that he also supposedly created in his own image?And after all this mythic superhero trash talk we are left with the overall moral message that we should pay evil with evil. You make religion sound like some Gullibility Game show. Somebody point this out recently - http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php - it is very funny because it crystallizes the reward/punishment for belief notion in a familiar but more objective framework.Do really believe that God is recruiting only those who can deceive themselves for primarily selfish reasons? Oh and BTW, you think you have the winning ticket, but if you are not Muslim,Catholic, Mormon, etc. you are going to their version of the lake of fire.

None of your articles had any experimental evidence.If you want to know about coral, I recommend: Coral - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Corals are highly sensitive to environmental changes. Scientists have predicted that over 50% of the coral reefs in the world may be destroyed by the year 2030[15]; as a result they are generally protected through environmental laws. A coral reef can easily be swamped in algae if there are too many nutrients in the water. Coral will also die if the water temperature changes by more than a degree or two beyond its normal range or if the salinity of the water drops. In an early symptom of environmental stress, corals expel their zooxanthellae; without their symbiotic unicellular algae, coral tissues become colorless as they reveal the white of their calcium carbonate skeletons, an event known as coral bleaching.

---

A massive influx of fresh water - from precipitation - would definitely lower the salinity of ocean water. It's abundantly obvious that he's not saying what you said he said. I don't see any part of your quoted material - nor is there any such text in the book - where he rejects the geocentricity of the universe simply on aesthetic grounds.As I stated previously the mass concentration of the universe is sufficient to reject geocentricity. It's ludicrous to assert that the sun, which is 99.8% of the mass of the entire Solar System, somehow revolves around the Earth. Because I can read statements in plain English. What's your problem?

The whole context of the chapter is the need for more daylight to finish off the battle. The cloud cover is not an inference, but a corruption of the text. Looks like the bible needs a Poetry markup

Mythical unbelievable stuff here

I quoted this only because it is a shinning example of religious intellectual extrapolation of meaning in order to superimpose a prior preconception belief.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"ICANT are you reading this above - I am beginning to like your idea of God providing his loving light to illuminate genocide.And aside but on topic, kbertsche, do you believe Genesis is poetry?

Hi, I. No, what we want to do is to use the very plain evidence in front of us to determine whether the alleged miracle did occur.Suppose, for example, that we all know that Joe Blow died at 5:07 pm on 5 July. Now suppose that someone makes the claim that, through a miracle, Joe was resurrected and still lives. What would be the evidence for the claim? Well, for starters, I would expect to see Joe walking around alive. Now, if he is walking around, we could still argue whether he was truly dead to begin with, but at the very least if I check and Joe is still dead, then I have reason to doubt that the claimed miracle ever occurred. Sure, maybe Joe was resurrected but died all over again, but if I see no evidence that at any point after 5 July Joe was ever alive, and if all indications are that Joe has been lying in the morgue since 5 July, I think it would be a safe bet to assume that the claims of a miracle were in error to begin with.For instance, it is granted that an omnipotent god could have created the universe all at once (or during a seven day time period) only 6000 years ago. But what would such a created universe look like? Well, for starters, since this god could have just snapped her fingers and created all the rocks all at once, I would expect that radiometric dating would consistently give dates less than 6000 years for all the rocks. Instead, we see dating that is so consistent that we can reconstruct a four and a half billion year history of the earth. Creationists try to argue about "changing rates of radioactive decay", but this really makes no sense -- why would a god, who can do anything, so such a complicated, non-intuitive manner, especially since this very method, our omniscient god knows, will mislead people into coming to an incorrect conclusion?The same with this sun business. An omnipotent god could have arranged for the shadow on the sun dial to turn back 10 degrees. For the movement of the sun, 10 degrees is a pretty large amount; there were civilizations at this time that would have noticed this, and the fact that it wasn't noticed gives us reason to doubt it.Unless this is yet another miracle that the omnipotent god arranged in such a way so as to leave no evidence of it occurring. Maybe it was some sort of local phenomenon -- and the fact that the claim has been made that it only occurred in the courtyard is interesting. What makes someone think that it wasn't some sort of magic sleight-of-hand trick arranged by the prophet to fool Hezekiah? What makes someone think that this isn't just a legend that came into being sometime after the alleged occurrence?This is the problem with trying to argue away the lack of evidence of a supposed miracle. Why would someone just accept such a miraculous occurrence without evidence when there are more mundane explanations for the phenomenon? I think that the fact that someone continues to insist that Joe Blow was actually resurrected by god despite the fact that Joe is still lying in the morgue and there is no sign that he's moved since the 5th tells us more about the believer than about the alleged miracle.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

That is the big problem everybody cannot be right. Sounds like there is only one way and you had better find the right one. iceage if you or anyone else on this site has any proof that Genesis 1:1 is false please present it now.There is absolutely no proof Genesis 1:1 is not true.It has nothing to do with plants, animals, fowl, fishes or man.It states: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."You declared it to be false now, prove it to be scientifically false. God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. God sent two angels to Sodom and Gomorrah to get Lot out so He could destroy it.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

These are words in book - not anything more. This claim is of the same quality as all the other claims of exclusivity.There are also words in the Koran and Book of Mormon.Also these are words in a book chock full of contradictions, mythic stories and inconsistencies with much evidence of merging, editions and additions.The bible is not the inspired word of God. The evidence is there for anyone who approaches the subject from an objective unbiased position. You have to have an unwaveringly and stubborn desire for the truth and not some desperate need for self-preservation with a low price special. Can you proof the Norse creation myth as false?I can prove that the details of Genesis are not true. The details such as plants, animals and fowls are important. If the text has the details wrong it demonstrates no inspiration, beyond say the Navaho or Norse creation myth. Just what is your point? The OT God spends most of his time destroying things - yes so did Zeus. You are supporting the position that the vision of God of the OT is not much different then other visions of God at the time.The point which you missed or I didn't do a good job conveying it that it is *incongruous* and *inconsistent* that a being capable of creating galaxies and the intricacies of life would also become involved in regional partisan fights and even depicted as hurling stones on the enemy. God in the OT is viewed primarily as a military commander and a commander that is even sometimes outmatched. In Judges 1 God the military commander could not defeat some enemies... This is a vision of a superhero warrior God that can be matched by technology. You mentioned earlier about making God small - these petty depictions make god look small.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Hi Chiroptera. I will try and break this paragraph down, as far as Joe I am not interested. This is what I believed happened as stated in Genesis 1:1. I have never claimed the earth to be young and never will.
I believe the earth to be much older than that. I even think it to possibly be much older than science can prove it to be today.Genesis 1:1 simply says "in the beginning", whenever that was. I am a creationist and that would be a stupid argument.Let me propose a hypothetical: and put it as a question.If Genesis 1:1 took place 13.7 billion years ago.
Then 5 billion years ago the earth melted with fervent heat. (everything became molten lava)
The earth then cooled over a period of time.
Would there be any trace of what happened on earth before the meltdown and would it be possible to date the rock past the meltdown? Ask God that one when you see Him. It is easy for me to believe in miracles, because I believe Genesis 1:1 to be a fact. You say but there is no proof.You believe magic (singularity from nowhere out of nothing, big bang) universe comes into existence. I say but there is no proof.We both have the same evidence.The universe exists.
Earth exists.
It did happen.
We just disagree on how it did happen.
One of us is right, the other is wrong.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Your post doesn't seem to address the point I was trying to make; but since I may not have been very careful in reading the previous portions of the thread, it is possible that my post wasn't quite on the point that was being discussed.I will say this, though: I would be very careful about making assumptions about what I believe. I have discussed my opinions on Big Bang and the origins of the universe before, but it is possible that you haven't read those threads. But those threads would be far more appropriate for this topic.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

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.

You know my stand on Genesis 1:2-2:3. It did not happen in the same timeframe as Gensis 1:1. It was a much later date.So then if you can prove the details of the account in Genesis 2:4-4:26 are not true I would like to see the proof. That God did not have to make the day longer.
He could have sent an angel or fire and brimstone. I read previous verses and I could not find where Judah was supposed to conquer the valley. In fact I could not find where he was supposed to be there at all.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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.