9 ms·

PaulKeeble appears to be making the weaker argument "the bible have been proved scientifically wrong", not the stronger claim of "truly disproved the Bible". If

• augb 10y ago
  > PaulKeeble appears to be making the weaker argument "the bible have been proved scientifically wrong", not the stronger claim of "truly disproved the Bible". That is a straw man argument. It either is proved wrong or it is not. > Only the parts which overlap with science can be proved or disproved by science. I am speaking to all of the above. I am not an archaeologist, so I will have to defer to someone else for supporting evidence. I can say, though, that a lack of corroboration does not mean something did not happen.
  • dalke 10y ago
    "It either is proved wrong or it is not." I do not understand what you mean by that. Consider an 800 page physics textbook, where on page 234 it says that glass is super-cooled liquid. This is wrong. Does that one wrong statement prove the entire book to be incorrect? Certainly not. So why would showing one thing to be incorrect in the Bible "prove" that the entire book is wrong? After all, the 'Wicked Bible' from the 1600s, which says "Thou shalt commit adultery", is obviously wrong, but that doesn't somehow prove wrong the rest of that copy of the Bible. > lack of corroboration does not mean something did not happen That is the non-scientific view held be many Christian apologists. Is there anything besides the Bible where you use that argument, even when all physical and historical evidence strongly points just the opposite? Do you also believe the ancient continent of Mu exists? Or that the Indigenous peoples of the Americas were members of some of the Lost Tribes of Israel? Or that it's possible to communicate with the spirits of dead people during a seance? If not, why not?
    • augb 10y ago
      > "It either is proved wrong or it is not." > I do not understand what you mean by that. > Consider an 800 page physics textbook, where on page 234 it says that glass is super-cooled liquid. This is wrong. Does that one wrong statement prove the entire book to be incorrect? Certainly not. The Bible is not merely a physics textbook or work of fiction, it is the very Word of God. It is on a different level. It is reasonable to expect it to be held to a higher standard. Having said that, I do not claim to be a scientist. Still, with the Bible being in English since at least the late 1300's, not to mention the dates of the original text ~1,300 years before that, there has been plenty of time to demolish the Biblical accounts. This is well before the Scientific Revolution [1]. One example is the account of the worldwide flood in Genesis 6-9 [2]. I have yet to come across anything that definitively proves this to be false. There are plenty of theories to explain things that could also be explained by a worldwide flood, such as the layers of sediment; however, these remain theories. PaulKeeble stated: "Almost everybody believed the world was flat, then they were proved wrong. So many of the objective "facts" in the bible have been proved scientifically wrong and no such inaccuracy should exist given divine input. If god exists and was on Earth then he is very vindictive desperate for destruction and violence, humanities aim should be to destroy him. Thankfully there is no evidence to say he does beyond a book with obvious flaws." He is making a positive statement that the Bible has been proven scientifically wrong without providing any supporting evidence. The flat earth argument does not hold water, in my opinion. The following article provides a modern Christian viewpoint on the flat earth vs. round earth as found in the Bible: [3]. It is not until your answer, dalke, that the whole Exodus account is brought up. In it your "proof" is that there seems to be no evidence of millions of Jewish people wandering the the desert for forty years. To which I responded: >> lack of corroboration does not mean something did not happen And your responded with: > That is the non-scientific view held be many Christian apologists. Is there anything besides the Bible where you use that argument, even when all physical and historical evidence strongly points just the opposite? This is not a "non-scientific view", it is just the truth. (One could even say it is a scientific view, since science should be objective, not making leaps of logic where it cannot be supported. Lack of evidence is not evidence, even if it is surprising.) I am just pointing out that this does not disprove anything. It may be that our techniques, abilities and approaches just aren't up to the task yet. To suggest that this is somehow "unscientific" is to paint folks in a negative light without any substantive reason to do so; it is uncharitable. > After all, the 'Wicked Bible' from the 1600s, which says "Thou shalt commit adultery", is obviously wrong, but that doesn't somehow prove wrong the rest of that copy of the Bible. I think it is disingenuous to compare the Holy Bible to the "Wicked Bible". If you are interested in continuing this conversation elsewhere, please let me know here. Otherwise, I will discontinue following this thread in the near future. I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. Thank you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution [2] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6-9&version=NASB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6-9&ver... [3] http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html