Does Science Agree With the Bible?

[Subduction Zone]

This statement always seems to be followed by a strawman argument which is exactly what you did.

Where was his strawman argument?

 

[bhsmte]

This statement always seems to be followed by a strawman argument which is exactly what you did.

Let us know when that strawman appears.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But one does not need to prove that he does not exist. One only has to explain that there is no reliable or reasonable reason to believe in such an entity. Belief should follow evidence, not the other way around.

Which is a strawman argument when you define what you do not believe in. I also do not believe in the things you do not believe in. I associate God with all of the known laws of science. You also I assume believe in all the known laws of science. You just do not associate them with God the way I do. So we both agree on the effect we just do not agree on the cause. For you the cause is unknown.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Let us know when that strawman appears.

It has something to do with an "invisible alien". I believe that we do live in a living universe. But to date science has not found any sort of aliens invisible otherwise. That would mean his point was based on his belief that the Bible is not testable. When in fact the Bible is the most testable book that ever existed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No, you don't. We know what the Bible says, but the Bible is not the most reliable of books.

That's the point! The Bible is not the most reliable of books, and certainly when discussing miracles, must be taken with a grain of salt.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but whether or not Jericho existed, and whether or not there was a battle there which the Israelites won, is hardly an extraordinary claim.

It's entirely plausible that such a battle did occur, and even though it was won through mundane means (a double agent on the inside), the OT authors dressed it up to give credit to their God.

There is a historical/mythological parallel -- the Trojan War. That a battle between the Greeks and Trojans happened is all but accepted, but no divine intervention a la Homer is necessary.

That what this thread is about anyway. I am not saying that it could not have happened the way that the Bible says it does. In comparison look how little time it took for stories to grow about the U.S. revolution, and that was with most of the populace being literate.

Precisely! Only the political/religious leaders of the Jews of the era were expected to be literate and have access to the necessary resources to copy and preserve this story -- so naturally, their version of the events gave credit to their God.

And yet, they couldn't leave out the clues about what may have actually happened that day...

 

[bhsmte]

It has something to do with an "invisible alien". I believe that we do live in a living universe. But to date science has not found any sort of aliens invisible otherwise. That would mean his point was based on his belief that the Bible is not testable. When in fact the Bible is the most testable book that ever existed.

Ok, test the bible, in a scientific way.

Ready, go.

 

[Murby]

Ok, test the bible, in a scientific way.

Ready, go.

It's been done over and over and over and over and over and over.. it failed.
The only logical corner you're left with is to say "I believe, its my faith".. That's all you have left, and its a fine argument to make.. Invalidated by logic and reason, but an inarguable point none the less.

Trying to fight out of that logical checkmate just makes one look ridiculous.. You have to know how to pick your fights and trying to fight logic and reasoning from a biblical point is silly.

If you can't come to terms with that, then I suggest you start looking within yourself to figure out why.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Ok, test the bible, in a scientific way.

Ready, go.

They have spent over 100 years using archaeology to test the Bible for historical accuracy. Even the story of the ancient city Troy from Homers book has been found, using information in his book. In the same way the ancient cities in the Bible have been found and the Bible has been shown to be accurate in this regard. Look at the very first word in the Bible: "beginning". Atheist use to argue that there was no beginning. Now science does believe their is a beginning that has been called the Big Bang. What is your objection anyways. If there are parts of the Bible that you do not want to follow or believe why do you feel a need to reject science and what science can verify? Why does your atheism go to the extreme of rejecting scientific facts? Why can you not be content to just reject what science can not verify? Why do you have to go to the extreme of trying to claim that NONE of it is true? Agnostics do not reject what we have scientific evidence for. In fact they do not even reject what we do not have evidence for. They simply do not accept what can not be scientifically proven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is a strawman argument when you define what you do not believe in. I also do not believe in the things you do not believe in. I associate God with all of the known laws of science. You also I assume believe in all the known laws of science. You just do not associate them with God the way I do. So we both agree on the effect we just do not agree on the cause. For you the cause is unknown.

No, that is not the definition of a strawman argument. I suggest that you look it up rather than rely on me. Or if you want I could give you a link to a definition.

Also you saying that God is responsible for the laws of science does not give you a cause. That is only a weak claim that has no evidence behind it on your part.

 

[TLK Valentine]

They have spent over 100 years using archaeology to test the Bible for historical accuracy. Even the story of the ancient city Troy from Homers book has been found, using information in his book. In the same way the ancient cities in the Bible have been found and the Bible has been shown to be accurate in this regard.

Kansas exists. The Wizard of Oz has been shown to be accurate in this regard.

Look at the very first word in the Bible: "beginning". Atheist use to argue that there was no beginning.

False.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They have spent over 100 years using archaeology to test the Bible for historical accuracy. Even the story of the ancient city Troy from Homers book has been found, using information in his book. In the same way the ancient cities in the Bible have been found and the Bible has been shown to be accurate in this regard. Look at the very first word in the Bible: "beginning". Atheist use to argue that there was no beginning. Now science does believe their is a beginning that has been called the Big Bang. What is your objection anyways. If there are parts of the Bible that you do not want to follow or believe why do you feel a need to reject science and what science can verify? Why does your atheism go to the extreme of rejecting scientific facts? Why can you not be content to just reject what science can not verify? Why do you have to go to the extreme of trying to claim that NONE of it is true? Agnostics do not reject what we have scientific evidence for. In fact they do not even reject what we do not have evidence for. They simply do not accept what can not be scientifically proven.

There is no doubt that some events in the Bible were inspired by real events. Many religions can make that claim. It does not make the Bible an accurate source at all. And what "scientific facts" has anyone rejected on the atheist side?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kansas exists. The Wizard of Oz has been shown to be accurate in this regard.

And King's Cross Station is real so there must be a platform 9 3/4.

False.

What creationists will never grasp is the concept that the universe may have existed forever and had a beginning.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And King's Cross Station is real so there must be a platform 9 3/4.

There is.... and it's a popular spot for photo ops:

What creationists will never grasp is the concept that the universe may have existed forever and had a beginning.

...or that even though the Bible says "beginning," it actually begins in medias res -- all the parts of the story (including God) are already there from the get-go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is.... and it's a popular spot for photo ops:

...or that even though the Bible says "beginning," it actually begins in medias res -- all the parts of the story (including God) are already there from the get-go.

I just saw that for myself. I started a thread with an Aron Ra video and that led me to looking up Aron Ra's facebook page. Just after, not before, I mention platform 9 3/4 I saw this photo on his page:

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[joshua 1 9]

There is no doubt that some events in the Bible were inspired by real events. Many religions can make that claim. It does not make the Bible an accurate source at all. And what "scientific facts" has anyone rejected on the atheist side?

So now you have gone from nothing is true to some of it is true. I have never found anything in the Bible that is not true. This is something that everyone has to determine for themselves. You have do decide what works for you and I decide what works for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So now you have gone from nothing is true to some of it is true. I have never found anything in the Bible that is not true. This is something that everyone has to determine for themselves. You have do decide what works for you and I decide what works for me.

Where did I ever say that none of it is true? You seem to have trouble just reading the posts of others. And you need to study the Bible more. Clearly the first two books are myth and exaggeration. There may have been a small population of some of the ancestors of Hebrews that live in Egypt. The rest of Exodus simply did not happen. And please, don't even bring up Genesis.

 

[TLK Valentine]

So now you have gone from nothing is true to some of it is true.

When did he ever say nothing is true? Are you even paying attention to the conversation?

 

[Hoghead1]

Your claims, Joshua 19, about archaeology are not accurate. Kenyon spent years at Jericho and concluded it existed and then collapsed way before Joshua came along. No one has yet found one trace of teh Exodus; and many biblical archaeologists are biblical minimalists here, believing it never really happened. The Troy example is a cliché, true. However, it will not help you a bit. In point of actual fact, Schliemann never really did find Troy. He recklessly dug through and looted circa twenty cities. What one was Troy? He arbitrarily said he was in the vicinity Troy. But who really knows? He claimed he had "gazed upon the face of Agamemnon, but there is absolutely no supporting evidence for that. The concept of teh Big Bang really doesn't help much, as it took place about 13.5 billion years ago and so definitely not in 4004BC.

 

[AV1611VET]

Kenyon spent years at Jericho and concluded it existed and then collapsed way before Joshua came along.

The Bible says ...

Hebrews 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

So if Kenyon is correct, then Joshua attacked a rebuilt Jericho.

After all, it was rebuilt after Joshua destroyed it as well.

Luke 19:1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.

 

[lesliedellow]

The Bible says ...

Hebrews 11:30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

So if Kenyon is correct, then Joshua attacked a rebuilt Jericho.

After all, it was rebuilt after Joshua destroyed it as well.

Luke 19:1 And Jesus entered and passed through Jericho.

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Kings 16:34 - Authorized (King James) Version