If the Bible was myth...

[Kylie]

There's a way of proving things called "Proof by contradiction". Basically, the idea is that you suspect that a particular thing is true. So, to see if it is true, you assume that it's false and see how things would work. If you are lead to something impossible or a contradiction, then you know that this idea can't be false, so it is strong evidence that it is true. Wikipedia has an article about it if you want to know more.

SO let's try applying this to the Bible, specifically it's account of how the world was created. Let's assume for the purposes of this thread that the Biblical account is wrong and it never happened. Is there anything in reality that would become impossible? Something in reality that we can say, "This particular thing is impossible if the Biblical account is wrong"?

And please, provide evidence to support your answer.

 

[Davian]

 

[Euler]

Crickets....................

 

[Kylie]

Surely it can't be this hard.

"If the Bible was wrong, we couldn't see X because of <<reason>>. Since we see X, we can take it as evidence that the Bible is true in that regard."

I could do it for lots of things, but the trouble is that anything represented by X is something that doesn't exist in the real world.

For example:

"If the Bible was wrong, we couldn't see true believers drinking poison and yet living, because Mark 16:17&#8211;18 clearly states that drinking poison without dying is a sign of a believer. Since we see that believers can indeed drink any poison and not die, we can take it as true that the Bible is true in that regard."

Unfortunately, this argument falls apart because belief is not enough to make someone immune to poison. But surely, if the Bible is true in at least SOME regards, then there must be some condition that will satisfy my request!

 

[SkyWriting]

"If the Bible was wrong...

then Christianity doesn't exist.

 

[Kylie]

then Christianity doesn't exist.

Would you care to show me how Christianity can ONLY exist if the Bible is correct?

Do you also believe that if the Koran wasn't correct, then Islam couldn't exist?

Let me put it this way: Is the following an example of rational argument or not?

If Holy Text X is not correct, then we wouldn't have Religious Belief based on Holy Text X.

Is that a rational argument?

 

[sfs]

If the Bible were false, there would be no ruins of the ancient city of Jerusalem to excavate, Sennacherib's Prism would not describe the invasion of Judah, we wouldn't see the sun rise in the morning or birds flying in the sky, since the Bible describes all of these things. I'm really not seeing the point of this line of argument.

 

[sfs]

For example:

"If the Bible was wrong, we couldn't see true believers drinking poison and yet living, because Mark 16:17–18 clearly states that drinking poison without dying is a sign of a believer. Since we see that believers can indeed drink any poison and not die, we can take it as true that the Bible is true in that regard."

Mark 16:17-18 isn't in the Bible, just so you know. (Well, it's in AV's Bible, but that's not my problem.)

 

[sfs]

Would you care to show me how Christianity can ONLY exist if the Bible is correct?

Do you also believe that if the Koran wasn't correct, then Islam couldn't exist?

Let me put it this way: Is the following an example of rational argument or not?

If Holy Text X is not correct, then we wouldn't have Religious Belief based on Holy Text X.

Is that a rational argument?

Of course it's not a rational argument. But that's precisely the kind of argument you're trying to make in this thread, which is I why I'm having trouble understanding your point.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If the Bible were false, there would be no ruins of the ancient city of Jerusalem to excavate, Sennacherib's Prism would not describe the invasion of Judah, we wouldn't see the sun rise in the morning or birds flying in the sky, since the Bible describes all of these things. I'm really not seeing the point of this line of argument.

It is difficult to apply, since 'the Bible' is not a single proposition (how a reductio ad absurdum usually works).

If 'assuming the Bible is false' means that every statement in it is false, then your response is quite correct. Birds fly, so therefore not every statement in the bible is false.

This might work better if we take a particular proposition, and use the contradiction method on it. Something like:

#1: The Bible is literally true from beginning to end.

Then assuming the opposite: The Bible is NOT literally true from beginning to end, would only imply that there's at least one statement in there that isn't literally true. That would take a long time to check. So maybe we could try...

#2: The Story of Genesis is an accurate account of the early history of the earth.

Then our hypothetical assumption would be "The Story of Genesis is NOT an accurate account of the early history of the earth."

Lots of interesting things might flow from that. Just as an example:

IF Genesis is NOT an accurate account, then men and women would have the same number of ribs, because (*) we know God removed one of Adam's ribs to fashion Eve.
Then you check an anatomy text and discover that men and women *do* have the same number of ribs. Hmmm, that's consistent with the Bible being wrong.

Of course, if we think more closely about (*), we see that Genesis does not actually say anything about the number of ribs of men and women. So perhaps the Bible is safe after all. But I have personally seen people make the argument that men have fewer ribs than women.
So this method could be a good way for Christians to understand Genesis better. They might learn something and discard 'urban myths' like those about the number of ribs in men and women.

For the next test of #2, we might try...

IF Genesis is NOT an accurate account, then Noah's Flood didn't happen. What would we see or not see if there was no Noachian Flood?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

then Christianity doesn't exist.

Christianity exists not because someone wrote about it, but because the sheer force of one life so motivated by love has spread to people and continues to do so even to our time. (ever read Chasing the Dragon -- about Jackie Pullinger? -- there are so many stories of people who encounter God, some without even understanding what the other person was saying -- that is the power of this) It's about one life that was so huge that even secular historians could not help but record it -- care to read the list?

Anados

 

[Willtor]

It is difficult to apply, since 'the Bible' is not a single proposition (how a reductio ad absurdum usually works).

If 'assuming the Bible is false' means that every statement in it is false, then your response is quite correct. Birds fly, so therefore not every statement in the bible is false.

This might work better if we take a particular proposition, and use the contradiction method on it. Something like:

#1: The Bible is literally true from beginning to end.

Then assuming the opposite: The Bible is NOT literally true from beginning to end, would only imply that there's at least one statement in there that isn't literally true. That would take a long time to check. So maybe we could try...

#2: The Story of Genesis is an accurate account of the early history of the earth.

Then our hypothetical assumption would be "The Story of Genesis is NOT an accurate account of the early history of the earth."

This is a much better formulation. But even that is a bit ambiguous. Compare YECism with traditional literal interpretations of Genesis: they aren't very similar, so the exact claims of the creation account, when read literally, are hard to measure in an objective way. It's worth observing, then, that the predictive power of Genesis-as-literal-history is very weak. But that's an argument that fundamentally undermines any formulation of "what would we otherwise expect to find?"

Lots of interesting things might flow from that. Just as an example:

IF Genesis is NOT an accurate account, then men and women would have the same number of ribs, because (*) we know God removed one of Adam's ribs to fashion Eve.
Then you check an anatomy text and discover that men and women *do* have the same number of ribs. Hmmm, that's consistent with the Bible being wrong.

Of course, if we think more closely about (*), we see that Genesis does not actually say anything about the number of ribs of men and women. So perhaps the Bible is safe after all. But I have personally seen people make the argument that men have fewer ribs than women.
So this method could be a good way for Christians to understand Genesis better. They might learn something and discard 'urban myths' like those about the number of ribs in men and women.

This, also, is hard. Insofar as we understand inheritance, even if the account of the creation of Eve from the side of Adam is historical, nothing can be inferred from having the same number of ribs.

For the next test of #2, we might try...

IF Genesis is NOT an accurate account, then Noah's Flood didn't happen. What would we see or not see if there was no Noachian Flood?

_That's_ the ticket. Even though many people (myself included) think that there is an historical, regional flood that the story intends to recapitulate, there is no literal reading that does not make it a story about the preservation of life through a world-destroying catastrophe -- even if that world is local. So, if the story is historical, blow-by-blow, one expects common genetic bottlenecks in a whole range of species. That is falsifiable.

 

[sfs]

IF Genesis is NOT an accurate account, then Noah's Flood didn't happen. What would we see or not see if there was no Noachian Flood?

But that's not a valid argument. It's identical in form to, "If Gone With the Wind is not an accurate account, than the burning of Atlanta didn't happen", which is obviously wrong. You can make a valid positive argument, e.g. "If Genesis is an accurate account, then we should see genetic bottlenecks", but for some reason that's not what the OP is trying to do.

 

[essentialsaltes]

But that's not a valid argument. It's identical in form to, "If Gone With the Wind is not an accurate account, than the burning of Atlanta didn't happen", which is obviously wrong.

Well, you're correct, and it's the same problem as 'birds flying'. Oops.

 

[SkyWriting]

What would we see or not see if there was no Noachian Flood?

There are no details on the forces involved in the flood. Others have noted that a Tsunami has a destructive impact in some areas and is just a gentile "rising of the tide" in others. Watching a few Tsunami video's, I see the same disparity.
We would have to make too many assumptions. I leave that to scientists. They are experts at grand assumptions about the past.

What Makes Good Science Fiction?

 

[SkyWriting]

So, if the story is historical, blow-by-blow, one expects common genetic bottlenecks in a whole range of species. That is falsifiable.

Unless the flood is local, as you suggest.

 

[juvenissun]

There's a way of proving things called "Proof by contradiction". Basically, the idea is that you suspect that a particular thing is true. So, to see if it is true, you assume that it's false and see how things would work. If you are lead to something impossible or a contradiction, then you know that this idea can't be false, so it is strong evidence that it is true. Wikipedia has an article about it if you want to know more.

SO let's try applying this to the Bible, specifically it's account of how the world was created. Let's assume for the purposes of this thread that the Biblical account is wrong and it never happened. Is there anything in reality that would become impossible? Something in reality that we can say, "This particular thing is impossible if the Biblical account is wrong"?

And please, provide evidence to support your answer.

Christian is impossible if the Biblical account is wrong.

 

[juvenissun]

would we see or not see if there was no Noachian Flood?

A Mars or a Venus.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A Mars or a Venus.

Could you spell that out more? Are you saying we wouldn't see Mars or Venus in the sky, or that the Earth would look like Mars or Venus? Or something else?

Christian[ity] is impossible if the Biblical account is wrong.

That can't be right. You think the account in the Vedas is wrong, but that doesn't make Hinduism impossible.

 

[sfs]

That can't be right. You think the account in the Vedas is wrong, but that doesn't make Hinduism impossible.

No, no. The account in the Vedas is wrong, and Hinduism is impossible. But Hinduism exists, which is prima facie evidence for the supernatural origin of Hinduism. (Which may mean that the Vedas are right after all . . .)