Board index ‹ Bible

[Toxic Fool]

> Genesis 1. We know the cosmos had a beginning. Big Bang theory and all that stuff.

No, we don't. Big Bang seems to be the most viable creation model. It's far from known though. There are several promising models that don't require a beginning. Also, Genesis is a pretty inaccurate description how the universe formed. It only vaguely resembles what we do know of how the universe we see today formed.

> I don't believe in a global flood, but there are flood stories from all over the globe, ironically enough. But there flood epics from the ancient
Near East that would lead one to believe something drastic happened at one time.

These flood stories don't coincide with each other. They come from many different regions and time periods. Historians believe that these floods were big but, local. There was never a global flood.

> Many of the nations and ethnic groups are actually traceable, showing remarkable reliability of the account.

Yeah, it's not surprising the the authors of The Bible were aware of various other groups of people. Not at all remarkable.

> the episode of the Tower of Babel can be reliably placed towards the end of the 3red millennium BC.

Citation needed.

> The account of the raids and war bear an uncanny accuracy to what we know of history.

Citation needed.

> The cultural elements of the story are accurate to the locale and the era.

Unsurprising.

> There is scientific evidence of an airburst in this region in the timeframe of the story that would create the devastation described.

Citation needed.

>Do we need to continue this?

Yes. You've made a claim. Substantiate it. The Bible is already wrong on at least two accounts.

> You are wrong to claim "you simply cannot demonstrate the truth of your claims."

No, I'm not. In the event that every historically verifiable event described by The Bible is historically verified as being true you still cannot demonstrate the truth of the supernatural claims. Honestly though, even if you were able to verify every single claim The Bible makes minus the supernatural elements the supernatural elements still wouldn't be believable.

> Actually, the woolly bear caterpillar (Pyrrharctia Isabella; the Isabella Tiger moth), in the Arctic tundra, freezes solid in the winter and ceases to function. It thaws out and comes to life in the spring.

Ha. This isn't resurrection. There is no death involved. It didn't come back to life. It was alive the whole time.

> Classical science gives neither proof nor evidence that the universe is a closed system (only natural, with no possibility of supernatural beings). It is not part of classical science to assert that the material universe is causally closed. The laws of nature offer no threat to special divine action. Miracles are often thought to be problematic in that God, if he were to perform a miracle, would be involved in breaking, going contrary to, abrogating, suspending a natural law. But given this conception of law, if God were to perform a miracle, it wouldn’t at all involve contravening a natural law. That is because, obviously, any occasion on which God performs a miracle is an occasion when the universe is not causally closed; and the laws say nothing about what happens when the universe is not causally closed. For that matter, from this standpoint it isn’t even possible that God break a law of nature, because to break a law, he would have to act specially in the world; yet any time at which he acted specially in the world would be a time at which the universe is not causally closed; hence no law applies to the circumstance in question and hence no law gets broken.

This paragraph is irrelevant. God can do miracles. Okay. Now prove that he exists.

> Of course miracles are possible. The only question is did they occur.

According to everything we know miracles aren't possible. Despite your paragraphs there is still no reason to assume that miracles are possible or that they have happened. We need a solid example of this extraordinarily inconsistent event happening in our extremely consistent world.

[jimwalton]

> Also, Genesis is a pretty inaccurate description how the universe formed

Genesis is not a description of how the universe formed, but of how it functions: light and dark function to bring us time; the "waters above" and the "waters below" function to give us weather systems; the earth functions to bring forth vegetation; the sun moon and stars function to regulate time and seasons. Accurate description of function. Order. Purpose.

> There was never a global flood.

I said the same. So we agree.

> Yeah, it's not surprising the the authors of The Bible were aware of various other groups of people. Not at all remarkable.

Then accurate.

> Tower of Babel citation.

Walton, Matthews, & Chavalas: "Many of the features of this account point to the end of the 4th millennium as the setting of the narrative. This is the period when receding water allowed settlement of the southern Tigris-Euphrates basin. Many settlements on native soil show that the occupants brought the northern Mesopotamian culture with them. It is likewise in the period known as the Late Uruk phase (toward the end of the 4th millennium) that the culture and technology known from these settlements in southern Mesopotamia suddenly starts showing up in settlements throughout the ANE. Thus both the migration referred to in v. 2 and the dispersion of v. 9 find points of contact in the settlement pattern identified by archaeologists for the end of the 4th millennium. Urbanization, ziggurat prototypes and experimentation with kiln-baked brick also fit this time period."

Paul Penley: "According to Sumerian chronology, the Sumerian dynasty at Ur III in about 2110-2000 BC (±50) saw its demise and transition to the first Babylonian dynasty right in this exact time frame. The Ur III period was one of great prosperity, with a booming economy allowing great construction programs. Archaeologically speaking, the most significant feature of the Ur III period is the magnificent monumental architecture."

> Genesis 14: raids and war citation.

Speiser: "Many elements of this chapter suggest a non-Israelite source, but with uncanny accuracy to what we know of history. The geographic detail and the cities listed give credibility to the narrative. Even Melchizedek merits a measure of confidence in his own right. He invokes an authentic Canaanite deity as a good Canaanite priest would be expected to do. Since Abraham is cited here, and if this was written by non-Israelites, it necessarily follows that Abraham was not a nebulous literary figure but a real person who is attested in contemporary sources. Short of a non-Israelites text mentioning an Abram son of Terah, of an Isaac son of Abram, this is as close as we can as yet come to a direct epigraphic witness of the patriarch. The narrative itself has all the ingredients of historicity."

> Unsurprising.

Then accurate.

> Airburst citation.

Steven Collins: "We continue to find significant evidence that some kind of 'airburst' (of cosmic origin) occurred over the kikkar sometime between 1750-1650 BC. The magnitude of the event was somewhere between the Tunguska, Siberia airburst of 1908 and the one in 2013 that exploded over southern Russia. All of the phenomenological language of destruction preserved in Gn. 19 is consistent with this kind of cosmic impact. The evidence on the ground also supports such a cataclysmic, targeted destruction.
Based on the hard evidence at and around Tell el-Hammam, we believe that the disintegration of a cosmic body (comet fragment or small asteroid?) put an end to the sophisticated Bronze Age civilization of the Jordan Disk (kikkar) between 1750-1650. (We’re still working with the diagnostic ceramics and other dating methods.) According to laboratory analysis, the heat index required to produce desert glass and melt the surface of fired pottery in the manner we’re observing exceeds 8,000 degrees Kelvin, or about 14,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This is commensurate with that of cosmic airbursts."

> Yes. You've made a claim. Substantiate it. The Bible is already wrong on at least two accounts.

There. I've made it and substantiated it. Nothing the Bible has said is proved inaccurate.

> you still cannot demonstrate the truth of the supernatural claims

Yhat is not the question at hand, which is the accuracy of the Bible. I cannot demonstrate the truth of the supernatural claims, and no one, including you, can demonstrate the untruth of them, so there is no substantiation of inaccuracy. This one's a stalemate, so i can still stand on my claim.

> There is no death involved. It didn't come back to life. It was alive the whole time.

I guess it depends how you define life. Heartbeat? No. Brain activity? No. Respiration? No. Intake and output? No.

> Now prove that [God] exists

That's not the question at hand. The question at hand is the accuracy of the Bible

> According to everything we know miracles aren't possible.

The operative phrase here is "according to everything we know." Since science doesn't rule out the possibility, either in a classical sense or a quantum sense, and since history can't rule them out either, you have not substantiated your assertion that miracles have not or cannot happen.

I think I've got the stronger case here, from what you've given me. I still assert that the Bible is accurate. You haven't given a single instance to prove that it is not.

[Sure Breeze]

> science can't go backwards and verify a miracle in the past

What can verify a miracle?

> No supernatural event has been proved untrue

This is a silly thing to say.

> people assume supernatural claims are impossible

If you assume - pardon the term - supernaturalism, then exactly what is impossible? Why isn't Last Thursdayism unreasonable? It can certainly happen.

> There is nothing in science that proves they are impossible

If you assume the event happened which goes contrary to what we know about the universe then there are no limits to this. Absolutely all stories from all religions could be true because they're not impossible.

> there is none that contradicts it

There are lots that contradict it. There are no records, the logistics of the operation are unreasonable, the timeframe is too long, etc. There are others that contradict other stories, such as Adam/Eve, Noah, etc.

> it is verifiably true that the stories of a large population of foreigners working as slaves for the Egyptians accords well with everything we know about Egyptian culture during the mid-second millennium BC

Not Jews and they didn't leave en masse nor were they slaves building the pyramids.

> everything about the possibility of an Israelite presence in Egypt, with one of them in power, and an escape route into the wilderness is historically and geographically plausible

It's not impossible as far as you could have groups of people escape slavery en masse. However, everything we have does not say it ever happened.

> There is nothing in the story told in the Bible that is questionable; there is no evidence against any written there

If you accept that any event cannot be proven untrue and is hand-waived as a miracle then the Bible is simply unfalsifiable. This has no relation to reality, however. If you believe, it's true. Fine. But don't claim that it is indeed true simply because you believe that miracles with no proof of them ever happening is enough to explain everything.

> Research bears out that when Egyptologists write about connections between Egypt and the Old Testament, they have generally accepted the Bible's claims.

Historians don't, and they say the opposite. No Jewish in Egypt as described and no mass exodus of the population.

HOWEVER, I will gladly accept that there was an error which pertains to the scale. Instead of 600,000 men + women/children, it could have been 600 families or 600 people.

> Every element of the Bible story is compatible with what we know of the history and geography of the time.

Explain Genesis and Noah to me as far as how creation - which is literal fiction - and Noah's global flood - another literal fiction - is compatible with what we know. The mistakes in the Bible could simply be boiled down to problems of scale. Rather than first man and woman, it could be founders of the Jewish tribe. Rather than a global flood as described, it could be a local one. Rather than 600k+ people, it could be 600.

> That's how it all started.

The Biblical interpreration of all Christian denominations is the same?

> the people of Israel survived when other ancient civilizations didn't

This is proof of something?

> You have to admit some at least low-level evidence that something was going on.

Yes, a senile old man needed to win a bridge battle. Through luck, he did, converted, and through this influence, the government changed the official religion (and outlawing the opposition), the people converted. But it's OK, it happened again, in England, with Henry VIII. An entire denomination sprung up to global prominence because one man wanted a divorce so he could have sex with a another woman who could give birth to a male child. An entire country, which grew to be one of the largest empires in history, converted to this brand of religion only because of this one request of this one man.

[jimwalton]

> What can verify a miracle?

Great question. Not much, looking backward. Miracles, so it seems, are only observable, not confirmable. Science can't confirm them, neither can history, nor is eye-witness testimony particularly game here. The only possible verification of miracles is if they somehow leave behind physical evidence, but even that gets to be a stretch unless one saw it. Our senses and minds can deceive, though, so this gets REEEEEAL tricky.

> There are lots that contradict [the Exodus].

Really? Now that would be fascinating evidence to see.

> There are no records.

That's not evidence. It's silence.

> The logistics of the operation are unreasonable.

Only if you go with the traditional (but wrong) interpretation that there were 2.3 million of them. There were actually about 25,000, which puts the whole thing in a new light.

> the timeframe is too long

??

> If you accept that any event cannot be proven untrue and is hand-waived as a miracle then the Bible is simply unfalsifiable.

No, what I'm saying is that the things that have corroborating evidence are accurate. There's much that there's just no evidence one way or the other. I'm not cheaply waiving stuff by as miracles, but saying the Bible is substantiatably accurate.

> Historians don't and they say the opposite.

I quoted you from Grimal and Williams. There's also Hoffmeier.

> Not Jews and they didn't leave en masse nor were they slaves building the pyramids.

There were Semites in Egypt, yes. They didn't leave en masse? What evidence do you have? Slaves built the pyramids, yes. Can you give evidence that it wasn't Semitic slaves?

> However, everything we have does not say it ever happened.

That's the problem: We don't have anything. I can't prove it did; you can't prove it didn't. The Bible could still be accurate there, we just can't verify it.

> Explain Genesis and Noah to me as far as how creation - which is literal fiction - and Noah's global flood - another literal fiction - is compatible with what we know.

Genesis is not a description of how the universe formed, but of how it functions: light and dark function to bring us time; the "waters above" and the "waters below" function to give us weather systems; the earth functions to bring forth vegetation; the sun moon and stars function to regulate time and seasons. Accurate description of function. Order. Purpose.

The Flood? Here are some of my notes, just for your perusal, that I've collected over the years. (Hopefully it's not too long)—as to how a massive local flood could be literally true.

What caused the flood?
1. Recent climate changes make it likely that the time will come when heavy rains will last for days and maybe even weeks. The heavy rains of Genesis are not so exceptional (BAR, Nov/Dec 2007 p. 74).

2. In a theory proposed by Glenn Morton, a variety of geological data show that until 5.5 million years ago the Mediterranean was not a sea at all. Morton’s evidence suggests a fairly sudden collapse, causing a break more than 3000 feet deep and 15 miles wide, filling the Mediterranean Basin in less than 9 months. The Straight of Gibraltar, which was once a solid dam holding back the Atlantic Ocean, was broken, and the ocean water inundated the entire continental region. “As the water rushed in, the first phenomenon which would occur is that the air would begin to rise as it was replaced by the fluid filling the basic. The air would pick up moisture via evaporation from the flood water as it continued to pour in to the Mediterranean. As the air rose, adiabatic cooling would take place. As the air cools, the moisture contained in the air condenses to form clouds which eventually will produce rain. Since the air over an area of 964,000 square miles was moving upward simultaneously, the rains from this mechanism would be torrential.”

3. The geology of the Black Sea suggests a flooding that occurred when the then-small lake in the center of the Sea rapidly became a large sea. This happened when waters from the Mediterranean found a pathway to the much lower Black Sea area. This change in the lake has been known since the 1920s. Since then, it has become clear that the flooding occurred about 7500 years ago (5500 BC) and that about 60,000 square miles (more than 100,000 square km) of the coastal areas of the lake became part of the sea in a relatively short time. Human settlements were destroyed. (BAR, Nov/Dec 2007 p. 74).

4. Recent disclosures concerning the geological background of Lower Mesopotamia claim that not very long ago, as geological ages are reckoned, waters from the Persian Gulf submerged a large coastland area, owing probably to a sudden rise in the sea level. If that rise was precipitated by extraordinary undersea eruption, the same phenomenon could also have brought on extremely heave raise, the whole leaving an indelible impression on the survivors. (Speiser, Genesis, the Anchor Bible, Vol. 1 p. 56)

5. In the Pacific, the Cascadia subduction zone is tight like a spring waiting to pop. When it does, it will result in a cataclysmic tsunamic flood—a 700-mile-long liquid wall—in both Japan and the Pacific northwest region of the US and Canada. The destruction will result in the unrecognizability of Seattle, Tacoma, Portland, Eugene, Salem, Olympia. Some 7 million people will probably die. (Kathryn Schulz, “The Really Big One,” The New Yorker, July 20, 2015). Is it possible that the flood was the result of tectonic activity of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge?