Discussion:
7 ways science debunks the bible
(too old to reply)
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-11 08:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://m.news24.com/MyNews24/7-ways-God-is-debunked-by-the-sciences-20130826

) The science of Philology first did this when it was learned that texts could be dated based on grammar, vocabulary, and dialect. Lorenzo Valla (c.1406-1457) used it to show the Donation of Constantine decree was a forgery. In this forged decree the Emperor Constantine transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. From the science of philology we've learned there are many forgeries in the canonized Bible (2nd Isaiah, Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, and so on) and that that certain other books in the Bible reveal an evolutionary history. That's science, baby, kick against the goads all you want to.

An even bigger hit from Biology, specifically but not limited to Darwinian evolution. The Catholic Church learned from the debacle in Galileo's day and learned to embrace evolution as a fact. Evangelicals still denounce it, even though it is slowly winning over the best and the brightest among them. But with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins, and since that's the case why must anyone think there is any divine mind behind the writings in the Bible at all? They shouldn't. There is no need of that god-hypothesis, as Pierre-Simon La Place (1749–1827) first informed us.
v***@gmail.com
2018-03-12 03:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://m.news24.com/MyNews24/7-ways-God-is-debunked-by-the-sciences-20130826
) The science of Philology first did this when it was learned that texts could be dated based on grammar, vocabulary, and dialect. Lorenzo Valla (c.1406-1457) used it to show the Donation of Constantine decree was a forgery. In this forged decree the Emperor Constantine transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. From the science of philology we've learned there are many forgeries in the canonized Bible (2nd Isaiah, Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, and so on) and that that certain other books in the Bible reveal an evolutionary history. That's science, baby, kick against the goads all you want to.
An even bigger hit from Biology, specifically but not limited to Darwinian evolution. The Catholic Church learned from the debacle in Galileo's day and learned to embrace evolution as a fact. Evangelicals still denounce it, even though it is slowly winning over the best and the brightest among them. But with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins, and since that's the case why must anyone think there is any divine mind behind the writings in the Bible at all? They shouldn't. There is no need of that god-hypothesis, as Pierre-Simon La Place (1749–1827) first informed us.
HORSEDUNG

http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-12 03:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
HORSEDUNG.
__________

Like all arguments for God.

Science explained why God can't exist as portrayed in the bible.

Science also shows us that the "revealed word" is mostly nonsense filled with fiction and fictional people and events.

When theists claim an omnipotent, omniscient God mistakes and contradictions are big clues that what is written is not from such an entity.

Without evidence that God's nature as described in the Bible is possible, then there's no reason to trust such an entity COULD exist.

It's simply a process of elimination. Once you eliminate ANY part of the bible as true the the whole concept revealed words is shot to hell.

Again, nobody cares what you believe, but you believing it doesn't make it true.

The difference between atheists and theists is we are fully prepared for the possibility that new information may be discovered that will force a new understanding of reality. Theists like you and the fundies are not willing to even entertain such a notion.
Yap Honghor
2018-03-12 07:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
HORSEDUNG.
__________
Like all arguments for God.
Science explained why God can't exist as portrayed in the bible.
Science also shows us that the "revealed word" is mostly nonsense filled with fiction and fictional people and events.
When theists claim an omnipotent, omniscient God mistakes and contradictions are big clues that what is written is not from such an entity.
Without evidence that God's nature as described in the Bible is possible, then there's no reason to trust such an entity COULD exist.
It's simply a process of elimination. Once you eliminate ANY part of the bible as true the the whole concept revealed words is shot to hell.
Again, nobody cares what you believe, but you believing it doesn't make it true.
The difference between atheists and theists is we are fully prepared for the possibility that new information may be discovered that will force a new understanding of reality. Theists like you and the fundies are not willing to even entertain such a notion.
The whole thing is.....if there is a pixie, you don't need the con story book called bible!!!!
duke
2018-03-13 12:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:25:33 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
HORSEDUNG.
__________
Like all arguments for God.
Science explained why God can't exist as portrayed in the bible.
There's no picture of God in the bible. IN fact, no man has ever seen God.
Better luck next time, gobbler.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Ted
2018-03-13 17:09:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:25:33 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
HORSEDUNG.
__________
Like all arguments for God.
Science explained why God can't exist as portrayed in the bible.
There's no picture of God in the bible. IN fact, no man has ever seen God.
Better luck next time, gobbler.
the dukester, American-American
ArtyJoe would likely agree with your interpretation of Cloud's statement.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-13 18:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
ArtyJoe would likely agree with your interpretation of Cloud's statement.
____________


Tweedle dum and Tweedle dummer.
duke
2018-03-14 17:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by duke
On Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:25:33 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
HORSEDUNG.
__________
Like all arguments for God.
Science explained why God can't exist as portrayed in the bible.
There's no picture of God in the bible. IN fact, no man has ever seen God.
Better luck next time, gobbler.
ArtyJoe would likely agree with your interpretation of Cloud's statement.
Of course he would.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Purpose of scripture is not to inform,
but to form, not to teach but to live.

*****
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-14 18:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
ArtyJoe would likely agree with your interpretation of Cloud's statement.

Of course he would.
- show quoted text -

WHOOSH
Street
2018-03-14 20:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
ArtyJoe would likely agree with your interpretation of Cloud's statement.
Of course he would.
- show quoted text -
WHOOSH
Duke and ArtyJoe. Siamese twins attached at the whoosh.
Yap Honghor
2018-03-12 07:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://m.news24.com/MyNews24/7-ways-God-is-debunked-by-the-sciences-20130826
) The science of Philology first did this when it was learned that texts could be dated based on grammar, vocabulary, and dialect. Lorenzo Valla (c.1406-1457) used it to show the Donation of Constantine decree was a forgery. In this forged decree the Emperor Constantine transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. From the science of philology we've learned there are many forgeries in the canonized Bible (2nd Isaiah, Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, and so on) and that that certain other books in the Bible reveal an evolutionary history. That's science, baby, kick against the goads all you want to.
An even bigger hit from Biology, specifically but not limited to Darwinian evolution. The Catholic Church learned from the debacle in Galileo's day and learned to embrace evolution as a fact. Evangelicals still denounce it, even though it is slowly winning over the best and the brightest among them. But with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins, and since that's the case why must anyone think there is any divine mind behind the writings in the Bible at all? They shouldn't. There is no need of that god-hypothesis, as Pierre-Simon La Place (1749–1827) first informed us.
HORSEDUNG
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
Did you even notice that the Time piece was opinion and faith (in Red) which has no basis or facts at all (according to your own definition!!!)?????
Tim
2018-03-12 09:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://m.news24.com/MyNews24/7-ways-God-is-debunked-by-the-sciences-20130826
) The science of Philology first did this when it was learned that texts could be dated based on grammar, vocabulary, and dialect. Lorenzo Valla (c.1406-1457) used it to show the Donation of Constantine decree was a forgery. In this forged decree the Emperor Constantine transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. From the science of philology we've learned there are many forgeries in the canonized Bible (2nd Isaiah, Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, and so on) and that that certain other books in the Bible reveal an evolutionary history. That's science, baby, kick against the goads all you want to.
An even bigger hit from Biology, specifically but not limited to Darwinian evolution. The Catholic Church learned from the debacle in Galileo's day and learned to embrace evolution as a fact. Evangelicals still denounce it, even though it is slowly winning over the best and the brightest among them. But with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins, and since that's the case why must anyone think there is any divine mind behind the writings in the Bible at all? They shouldn't. There is no need of that god-hypothesis, as Pierre-Simon La Place (1749–1827) first informed us.
HORSEDUNG
http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/
This article doesn't address the issue of the thread. Your article equates God with creator of the universe as understood by Big-Bang cosmology. But it goes no further than that. It does not address the issue that God with a capital G is typically assumed to refer to the Christian conception of God. And that that conception of God includes the Earth as a flat object at the center of the universe, created in seven days, etc. The fact is that science has thoroughly debunked the idea that the Earth is flat, the center of the universe, and experienced a global flood.
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-12 09:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The fact is that science has thoroughly debunked the idea that the Earth is flat, the center of the universe, and experienced a global flood.
_________________
Did you ever read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.

Do you recall where the opposite end of the universe was?

Sometimes things just pop into my head like that for no reason.

Center of the universe.
That's what brought that out.

Ok, go back to your regularly scheduled discussion.

😀
teresita
2018-03-12 11:42:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Did you ever read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.
Do you recall where the opposite end of the universe was?
That answer that satisfied was that you follow the rim of the galaxy all
the way back home. The answer that was true was that all stars end at
Trantor.
--
https://twitter.com/LinuxGal
Kevrob
2018-03-13 14:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by teresita
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Did you ever read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.
Do you recall where the opposite end of the universe was?
That's "galaxy," not universe, BTW.
Post by teresita
That answer that satisfied was that you follow the rim of the galaxy all
the way back home. The answer that was true was that all stars end at
Trantor.
Terminus and Trantor are at "other ends" in a social sense, and
Seldon was a social scientist, not an astrophysicist.

Could we get Jesper to chant this?:

"Harry Seldon,
Harry Seldon,
Harry, Harry Seldon!"

Kevin R
Ted
2018-03-13 17:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Kevrob
Post by teresita
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Did you ever read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.
Do you recall where the opposite end of the universe was?
That's "galaxy," not universe, BTW.
Post by teresita
That answer that satisfied was that you follow the rim of the galaxy all
the way back home. The answer that was true was that all stars end at
Trantor.
Terminus and Trantor are at "other ends" in a social sense, and
Seldon was a social scientist, not an astrophysicist.
"Harry Seldon,
Harry Seldon,
Harry, Harry Seldon!"
Kevin R
True, Seldon was a social scientist, but his social science was as rock
solid as physics. It may get there, eventually, but only if it's based
on evolution. If you haven't yet heard of evolutionary psychology or
anthropology, google it. :)
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-13 18:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That's "galaxy," not universe, BTW.


My bad. It's been about 30 years since I read it.
Smiler
2018-03-12 21:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tim
The fact is that science has thoroughly debunked the idea that the Earth
is flat, the center of the universe, and experienced a global flood.
_________________
Did you ever read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy.
Do you recall where the opposite end of the universe was?
Nope, but I do know that's where Milliways have their restaurant.
Post by Tim
Sometimes things just pop into my head like that for no reason.
Center of the universe.
That's what brought that out.
Ok, go back to your regularly scheduled discussion.
😀
--
Smiler, The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made
to exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Brian E. Clark
2018-03-16 23:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <d1379a17-60be-4817-b5f7-fbb0e5029d94
@googlegroups.com>, ***@gmail.com says...
Post by Cloud Hobbit
Do you recall where the opposite end of the universe was?
Well, I know where to find the opposite end of Usenet: "All
roads lead to Tandy, and that is where all threads end."
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-13 20:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
) An even bigger hit from Biology, specifically but not limited to Darwinian evolution. The Catholic Church learned from the debacle in Galileo's day and learned to embrace evolution as a fact. Evangelicals still denounce it, even though it is slowly winning over the best and the brightest among them. But with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins, and since that's the case why must anyone think there is any divine mind behind the writings in the Bible at all? They shouldn't. There is no need of that god-hypothesis, as Pierre-Simon La Place (1749–1827) first informed us.

Everything after this was a forgone conclusion. The Bible was nothing more than a human product. There was no need of looking for a divine mind behind the human authors. If God revealed himself to human beings he did so in ways that are indistinguishable from him not revealing himself at all.

Other sciences came into play as well.

4) Archaeology has debunked many stories in the Bible. Archeologists have discovered several ancient Mesopotamian texts that predate the ones in the Bible and tell similar superstitious stories of the origins of the universe. It has also shown us there was no Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt.

5) Psychology shows us we are largely products of our environment, that we think illogically many times, that we believe what we prefer to be true, that human beings are not evil so much as ill largely because of their social environment. Psychology shows us there can be no wrathful God who will punish us forever because of what we believe.

6) Anthropology has shown us from the fact that there are many different cultures around the globe and with it a great deal of religious diversity, that there are many rational ways to understand our place in this world. Human beings get along just fine living in these so-called difference universes. As a result many people are embracing multiculturalism. This is contrary to any given located cultural expression of Christianity which equates their Christianity with the absolute standard for cultures as a whole. Such a parochial limited notion is absolute hogwash.

7) Neurology shows us there is a extremely close relationship between our beliefs and neuron firings, which can be drug induced, or even surgically removed. There is therefore no need for the supernatural explanation of the soul.

In fact, these and other sciences have repeatedly pummelled religion for centuries. The fact that there are still believers is a testament to the stubbornness of belief and an almost wilful ignorance to believe despite what they teach us because of the psychological need to believe. This need to believe is most clearly seen in the mind of the believer when we consider the massive amount of ubiquitous world-wide suffering and the lack of any satisfactory theodicy explaining why a good omnipotent God allows it. The only explanation that can account for continued belief in the presence of this suffering is wish fulfilment.

God is dead. We do not need him. It's time to give up childish things and think as an adult. Become scientifically literate. Become informed. Grow out of religious belief just as you did with the belief in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
v***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 19:54:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://m.news24.com/MyNews24/7-ways-God-is-debunked-by-the-sciences-20130826
) The science of Philology first did this when it was learned that texts could be dated based on grammar, vocabulary, and dialect. Lorenzo Valla (c.1406-1457) used it to show the Donation of Constantine decree was a forgery. In this forged decree the Emperor Constantine transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. From the science of philology we've learned there are many forgeries in the canonized Bible (2nd Isaiah, Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, and so on) and that that certain other books in the Bible reveal an evolutionary history. That's science, baby, kick against the goads all you want to.
An even bigger hit from Biology, specifically but not limited to Darwinian evolution. The Catholic Church learned from the debacle in Galileo's day and learned to embrace evolution as a fact. Evangelicals still denounce it, even though it is slowly winning over the best and the brightest among them. But with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins, and since that's the case why must anyone think there is any divine mind behind the writings in the Bible at all? They shouldn't. There is no need of that god-hypothesis, as Pierre-Simon La Place (1749–1827) first informed us.
If science debunks the bible, why were Galileo, Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, Faraday and Rene Des Cartes, believers in God?
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-13 20:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If science debunks the bible, why were Galileo, Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, Faraday and Rene Des Cartes, believers in God?
______________

It may come as a surprise to you but science has advanced since the days when the people you cite were alive.

There was also the problem of letting people know that one did not believe in the Christian myths. It could be deadly.

We've been over this many times.
Absent minded much?
v***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 20:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
If science debunks the bible, why were Galileo, Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, Faraday and Rene Des Cartes, believers in God?
______________
It may come as a surprise to you but science has advanced since the days when the people you cite were alive.
So what?What scientific discoveries since they died have
debunked the bible?
Post by v***@gmail.com
There was also the problem of letting people know that one did not believe in the Christian myths. It could be deadly.
Blah, blah, blah.How about some specifics?
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-13 21:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
If science debunks the bible, why were Galileo, Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, Faraday and Rene Des Cartes, believers in God?
______________
It may come as a surprise to you but science has advanced since the days when the people you cite were alive.
So what?What scientific discoveries since they died have
debunked the bible?
Post by v***@gmail.com
There was also the problem of letting people know that one did not believe in the Christian myths. It could be deadly.
Blah, blah, blah.How about some specifics?
Geology debunks the flood of Noah.
Archaeology debunks Moses and the Exodus.


First scientific fact, we have billions of stars being divined in the Bible. The Bible doesn't actually use the term "billions." It just says that there are a lot of stars or it uses the stars as a basis of saying "a fuck-ton." Second scientific fact, we have that the earth freely floats in space. This was not a divine fact from God, it was postulated well before Job was written. Most of these facts originate in the 6th Century BC which is when a lot of these books were written. That indicates to me that it wasn't divine as much as it was just stolen from others. The idea that the earth didn't float freely in space was more of a Mesopotamian, as well as other people groups, idea. It was not a scientific consensus. Third scientific fact, we have that the earth is round. The earth is an Oblate Spheroid which is not round. It's more like a sphere but the bible says round. That indicates a flat earth. There are many other passages in the bible, even in the New Testament, that speak of the earth as being flat rather than a sphere. The fourth scientific fact is that blood is the source of life which isn't consistent with reality. There are plenty of lively creatures that do not have blood. Blood also comes in a myriad of flavors that all look different. The fifth scientific fact is that creation is made up of atoms. He says this was divined like 3K years ago but was actually written down many centuries after the atomic theory had been postulated by Democritus in the 400 BC time frame.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/02/question-of-the-week-disproving-biblical-historical-claims-2/

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible
Science Confirms the Bible (bear in mind that the Bible is 2000-3000 years old!)
The Bible Science now Science then
The Earth is a ROUND sphere (Isaiah 40:22) The Earth is a sphere The Earth is a flat disk
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22) Incalculable number of stars Only 1100 stars
Free float of Earth in space (Job 26:7) Free float of Earth in space Earth sat on a large animal
Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3) Creation made of invisible elements (atoms) Science is mostly ignorant on the subject
Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41) Each star is different All stars were the same
Light moves (Job 38:19,20) Light moves Light was fixed in place
Air has weight (Job 28:25) Air has weight Air was weightless
Winds blow in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6) Winds blow in cyclones Winds blew straight
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11) Blood is the source of life and health Sick people must be bled
Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6) Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains The ocean floor was flat
Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16) Ocean contains springs Ocean fed only by rivers and rain
When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Leviticus 15:13) When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water Hands washed in still water

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

The Bible and science

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, the universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, Isaiah 40:22, 1 Chron. 16:30, Matthew 4:8, Rev. 7:1).[46]

Joshua 10:12 On the day that the Lord gave up the Amorites to the Israelites, Joshua stood before all the people of Israel and said to the Lord: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon. Moon, stand still over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped until the people defeated their enemies.

Eccles. 1:5 The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.

Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

1 Chron. 16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Rev. 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE. Many modern Christians and Jews assert that these passages are written as metaphorical or phenomenological descriptions and not meant to be taken literally.[47] This response is intuitive given the modern prevalence of the expression "the sun rises" despite that it is common knowledge in the English speaking world that the sun does not, in fact, rise.

Another common point of criticism regards the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology.[48] For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.[49] Moreover, 10,000 years is not enough time to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans. If all humans were descended from two individuals that lived less than 10,000 years ago, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to reach humanity's current level of genetic diversity.[50]

The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to characterize the ideas of their opponents.
— Bully for Brontosaurus by Stephen Jay Gould

Science-faith think tanks such as the Biologos foundation and Reasons to Believe have sought to reconcile these scientific challenges with the Christian faith.
Archaeology
Main article: Biblical archaeology

According to one of the world's leading biblical archaeologists, William G. Dever,

"Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so."[51] From the beginnings of what we call biblical archeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people.[52]

Dever also wrote:

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence....[53] I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information...[54]

According to Dever, the scholarly consensus is that the figure of Moses is legendary, and not historical.[55] However, he states that a "Moses-like figure" may have existed somewhere in the southern Transjordan in the mid-13th century BC.[56]

Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[57][58]

Professor Finkelstein, who is known as "the father of biblical archaeology", told the Jerusalem Post that Jewish archaeologists have found no historical or archaeological evidence to back the biblical narrative on the Exodus, the Jews' wandering in Sinai or Joshua's conquest of Canaan. On the alleged Temple of Solomon, Finkelstein said that there is no archaeological evidence to prove it really existed.[59] Professor Yoni Mizrahi, an independent archaeologist who has worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, agreed with Israel Finkelstein.[59]

Regarding the Exodus of Israelites from Egypt, Egyptian archaeologist Zahi Hawass said:

“Really, it’s a myth,”... “This is my career as an archaeologist. I should tell them the truth. If the people are upset, that is not my problem.”[60]

Prophecies
See also: Bible prophecy

The alleged fulfillment of biblical prophecies is a popular argument used as evidence by Christian apologists to support the claimed divine inspiration of the Bible. They see the fulfillment of prophecies as proof of God's direct involvement in the writing of the Bible.[61]
Messianic prophecies
See also: Jesus and messianic prophecy and Judaism's view of Jesus

According to Christian apologists, the alleged fulfillment of the messianic prophecies in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus proves the accuracy of the Bible. However, according to Jewish scholars, Christian claims that Jesus is the messiah of the Hebrew Bible are based on mistranslations[62][63][64] and Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.

An example of this is Isaiah 7:14. Christians read Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic prediction of Jesus' birth from a virgin, while Jews read it as referring to the birth of Ahaz's son, Hezekiah.[65][66] They also point out that the word Almah, used in Isaiah 7:14, is part of the Hebrew phrase ha-almah hara, meaning "the almah is pregnant." Since the present tense is used, they maintain that the young woman was already pregnant and hence not a virgin. This being the case, they claim the verse cannot be cited as a prediction of the future.[66][67]
Prophecies after the event
Main articles: Postdiction and Vaticinium ex eventu

An example of an alleged after-the-fact prophecy is the Little Apocalypse recorded in the Olivet Discourse of the Gospel of Mark. It predicts the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish Temple at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD. Most mainstream New Testament scholars consider this to be an ex eventu (foretelling after the event), as are many of the prophecies in the Old Testament such those of Daniel 11.[68][69][70][71][72][73][74]

Another example is Isaiah's prophecy about Cyrus the Great. Traditionally, the entire book of Isaiah is believed to pre-date the rule of Cyrus by about 120 years. These particular passages (Isaiah 40-55, often referred to as Deutero-Isaiah) are believed by most modern critical scholars to have been added by another author toward the end of the Babylonian exile (ca. 536 BC).[75] Whereas Isaiah 1-39 (referred to as Proto-Isaiah) saw the destruction of Israel as imminent, and the restoration in the future, Deutero-Isaiah speaks of the destruction in the past (Isa 42:24-25), and the restoration as imminent (Isiah 42:1-9). Notice, for example, the change in temporal perspective from (Isiah 39:6-7), where the Babylonian Captivity is cast far in the future, to (Isaiah 43:14), where the Israelites are spoken of as already in Babylon.[76]
The success of Joshua

The Book of Joshua describes the Israelite conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the son of one of the aides to Moses. After Moses' death, God tells Joshua to conquer Canaan and makes predictions of his success.[77] Amongst other things, Joshua was to be given a vast dominion that included all of the Hittite land, and the advantage of facing no one who could stand up to him.

While the Book of Joshua delineates many successful conquerings, the Canaanites were not amongst those conquered and the Israelites did suffer defeat. Judah, a leader of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, is unable to dislodge the Jebusites from Jerusalem and was forced to cohabit,[78] while the Manassites, another of the twelve tribes, lack the strength to occupy several Canaan towns.[79] Other bastions of resistance dot the landscape.[80][81] Even after Joshua's death, the land is only partially conquered with the Canaanites remaining a significant external threat.[82][83][84] Critics argue that Joshua never lives to see the full territory God promises him and that the substantial resistance put up by the indigenous population violates God's promise of battles in which no enemy was his equal.
The destruction of Tyre
Tyre harbour

Ezekiel predicts that the ancient city of Tyre will be utterly destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and "made a bare rock" that will "never be rebuilt" (Ezekiel 26:1, 26:7-14). However, Tyre withstood Nebuchadrezzar's siege for 13 years, ending in a compromise in which the royal family was taken into exile but the city survived intact.

Apologists cite the text as saying that the prophecy states that "many nations" would accomplish the destruction of Tyre, and claim that this refers to later conquerors (Ezekiel 26:3), but skeptics[85][86] counter that this was a reference to the "many nations" of Nebuchadrezzar's multinational force (Nebuchadrezzar was described by Ezekiel as "king of kings", i.e., an overking, a ruler over many nations), and that subsequent conquerors didn't permanently destroy Tyre either (it is now the fourth-largest city in Lebanon). Ezekiel himself admitted later that Nebuchadnezzar could not defeat Tyre (Ezekiel 29:18).

Ezekiel said Egypt would be made an uninhabited wasteland for forty years (Ezekiel 29:10-14), and Nebuchadnezzar would be allowed to plunder it (Ezekiel 29:19-20) as compensation for his earlier failure to plunder Tyre (see above). However, the armies of Pharaoh Amasis II defeated the Babylonians. History records that this Pharaoh (also known as Ahmose II) went on to enjoy a long and prosperous reign; Herodotus writes that:

It is said that it was during the reign of Ahmose II that Egypt attained its highest level of prosperity both in respect of what the river gave the land and in respect of what the land yielded to men and that the number of inhabited cities at that time reached in total 20,000.[87]

The prophecy in chapter 29 dates in December 588—January 587. 20 years later, in the year 568, Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt.[88] F.F. Bruce writes still more exactly that the Babylonian king invaded Egypt already after the siege of Tyre 585—573 BC and replaced the Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) by Amasis:

The siege of Tyre was followed by operations against Egypt itself. Hophra was defeated, deposed and replaced by Amasis, an Egyptian general. But in 568 BC Amasis revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, who then invaded and occupied part of the Egyptian frontier lands.[89]

Flavius Josephus even writes in his Antiquities, citing the 4th century Greek writer Megasthenes that Nebuchadnezzar had control of all northern Africa unto present day Spain:

Megasthenes also, in his fourth book of his Accounts of India, makes mention of these things, and thereby endeavours to show that this king (Nebuchadnezzar) exceeded Hercules in fortitude, and in the greatness of his actions; for he saith that he conquered a great part of Libya and Iberia.[90]

On the other hand, Nebuchadnezzar makes no mention of this campaign against Egypt in his inscriptions, at least that are currently known. It is too simple to argue with Herodotus, especially because his credibility was ever since contested.[91] The forty years are not to understand as an exact number. This figure became a significant period of chastisement to the Hebrews remembering the forty years in the desert after the exodus from Egypt.[92]
The protection of the King of Judah

Isaiah spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), yet according to 2 Chronicles, the king of Aram and Israel did conquer Judah (2 Chronicles 28:1-6).

In Isaiah (Isaiah 7:9) the prophet says clearly that a prerequisite for the fulfillment of the prophecy is that Ahaz stands firm in his faith. F.F. Bruce claims that this means Ahaz should trust God and not seek military help in the Assyrians, which Ahaz did.[93]
The death of the king of Judah

In predicting Jerusalem's fall to Babylon, Jeremiah prophesied that Zedekiah, the king of Judah, would "die in peace" (Jeremiah 34:2-5). However, according to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 52:9-11), he was put in prison until the day of his death.

Apologists maintain that Zedekiah did not suffer the same terrible death as all the other nobles of Judah did when Nebuchadnezzar killed them in Riblah. Jeremiah also told Zedekiah in his prophecy that he would have to go to Babylon, which the Apologists claim implies that he will be imprisoned. There are no historical records of what happened with Zedekiah in Babylon[94] and a peaceful death is not ruled out.[citation needed]
The death of Josiah

Prophetess Huldah prophesied that Josiah would die in peace (2 Kings 22:18-20), but rather than dying in peace, as the prophetess predicted, Josiah was probably killed at Megiddo in a battle with the Egyptian army (2 Chronicles 35:20-24).[95]

Apologists allege that the prophecy of Huldah was partially fulfilled because Josiah did not see all the disaster the Babylonians brought over Jerusalem and Judah. The prophetess clearly stated that because of Josiah's repentance, he will be buried in peace. But the king did not keep his humble attitude. As mentioned in 2 Chronicles (2 Chronicles 35:22), he did not listen to God's command and fought against the Egyptian pharaoh Necho. It is quite possible that he did this "opposing the faithful prophetic party".[96] Prophecy in the biblical sense is except in some very few cases never a foretelling of future events but it wants to induce the hearers to repent, to admonish and to encourage respectively; biblical prophecy includes almost always a conditional element.[97]
Map showing the borders of the Promised Land, based on God's promise to Abraham in Genesis 15:18-21: In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
The land promised to Abraham
Main article: Promised Land

According to Genesis and Deuteronomy (Genesis 15:18, 17:8 and Deuteronomy 1:7-8), Abraham and his descendants, the Israelites will unconditionally (Deuteronomy 9:3-7) own all the land between the Nile River and the Euphrates River for an everlasting possession. This never happened.[98]

An apologist's counter-claim would be that a reading of Davidic conquests tells of the Israelite occupation of all the promised lands. F.F. Bruce writes:

David's sphere of influence now extended from the Egyptian frontier on the Wadi el-Arish (the "brook of Egypt") to the Euphrates; and these limits remained the ideal boundaries of Israel's dominion long after David's empire had disappeared.[99]

Acts 7:5 and Hebrews 11:13 are taken out of context if used as evidence against the fulfillment of these prophecies. Stephen does not state in Acts that the prophecy was not fulfilled. Moreover, it does not seem any problem for him to mention side by side the promise to Abraham himself and that Abraham did not get even a foot of ground. This becomes understandable with the concept of corporate personality. Jews are familiar with identifying individuals with the group they belong to. H. Wheeler Robinson writes that

Corporate personality is the important Semitic complex of thought in which there is a constant oscillation between the individual and the group—family, tribe, or nation—to which he belongs, so that the king or some other representative figure may be said to embody the group, or the group may be said to sum up the host of individuals.[100]

The letter to the Hebrews speaks about the promise of the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:13-16).
The fate of Damascus

According to Isaiah 17:1, "Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins", but in fact Damascus is considered among the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world.

An apologist's response to this statement is that this verse refers to the destruction of Damascus as a strong capital of Syria. This was fulfilled during the Syro-Ephraimite War.

The prophecy perhaps dates from about 735 BC, when Damascus and Israel were allied against Judah (Isaiah 7:1). Damascus was taken by Tiglath-Pileser in 732, and Samaria by Sargon in 721.[101]

The passage is consistent with 2 Kings 16:9, which states that Assyria defeated the city and exiled the civilians to Kir.
The fate of Jews who stay in Egypt
Main article: history of the Jews in Egypt

According to Jeremiah 42:17, Jews who choose to live in Egypt will all die and leave no remnant. But history shows that Jews continued to live there for centuries, and for a time the Hellenistic Jewish cultural center at Alexandria was the largest urban Jewish community in the world. While declining greatly due to conflict and conversion, Egypt's Jews numbered some 75000 as recently as the 1940s.

According to apologists, the surrounding text suggests that Jeremiah is stating that no refugees who flee to Egypt would return to Israel except for few fugitives. Jeremiah 42-44 had relevance mainly to the group of exiles who fled to Egypt. It emphasizes that the future hopes of a restored Israel lay elsewhere than with the exiles to Egypt.[102]
The return of Jewish prisoners of war

Isaiah and Jeremiah (Isaiah 27:12-13, Jeremiah 3:18, Jeremiah 31:1-23, and Jeremiah 33:7) predicted the return of the exiles taken from Israel by the Assyrians in 722 BC. It never happened. Following the conquest of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 721 BC, the 10 tribes were gradually assimilated by other peoples and thus disappeared from history.[103] Unlike the Kingdom of Judah, which was able to return from its Babylonian Captivity in 537 BC, the 10 tribes of the Kingdom of Israel never had a foreign edict granting permission to return and rebuild their homeland. Assyria has long since vanished, its capital, Nineveh, destroyed in 612 BC.

Apologists, however, charge that Luke 2:36 states that Anna the Prophetess, daughter of Phanuel of the tribe of Asher, was living as a widow in the sanctuary ministering to God with and fastings and petitions night and day. Thus, at least some (tiny) portion of Israel returned, since it was unlikely that a lone female would return to the land of Israel unaccompanied by kinsmen as safe escort.

Although the exiled Israelites from the Northern kingdom did not return from Assyria, apologists state that it must be considered that these passages also contain the expectation of the messianic days. Theologians point out that in Isaiah 27:12-13 Euphrates and the Wadi of Egypt represent the northern and southern borders of the Promised Land in its widest extent (Genesis 15:18) and thus they refer these verses to the return of the Israelites to Jerusalem in the last days, in the messianic time. Israelites will be gathered from wherever they have been expelled from the north, Assyria, to the south, Egypt.[104] Jeremiah's prophecy of Israel's and Judah's return from the north in Jeremiah 3:18 is preceded by the request of Yahweh to the Israelites to come back (verse 14). After fulfilling this condition God will increase their number and none will miss the ark of the covenant (verse 16). All nations will then honour the Lord (verse 17). Consequently, Christian scholars refer verse 18 to messianic times when there will be a kingdom united as in the days of David and Solomon.[105] Jeremiah 31 should be seen in context with chapter 30. Some scholars argue that these chapters were written early in Jeremiah's ministry and refer to Northern Israel. Later these poems were updated and referred to Judah as well, probably by Jeremiah himself, when it was realized that Judah had passed through similar experiences to those of Israel.[106] The Book of Consolation (Jeremiah 30:1—31:40) reaches his final, messianic scope in the establishment of a New Covenant between Yahweh and the House of Israel and the House of Judah.[107]
The strength of Judah

Isaiah 19:17 predicted that "the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt". Assuming that the 'terror' implied was a large-scale military attack of Egypt, it never happened.

According to theologians, the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt, but a circumlocution for the place where God lives; it is God and his plans that will terrify Egypt. Verse 17 has to be understood in its context. The second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt, which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19-21). The last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23-25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.[108][109]
The identity of the conquerors of Babylon

Isaiah 13:17, Isaiah 21:2, Jeremiah 51:11, and Jeremiah 51:27-28 predicted that Babylon would be destroyed by the Medes, Ararat, Minni and Ashkenaz and Elamites. The Persians under Cyrus the Great captured Babylon in 539 BC. Daniel 5:31 incorrectly stated that it was Darius the Mede who captured Babylon.

Christian apologists state that the prophecy in Isaiah 13:21 could possibly have been directed originally against Assyria, whose capital Ninive was defeated 612 BC by a combined onslaught of the Medes and Babylonians. According to this explanation the prophecy was later updated and referred to Babylon[110] not recognizing the rising power of Persia. On the other hand, it can be mentioned that the Persian king Cyrus after overthrowing Media in 550 BC did not treat the Medes as a subject nation.

Instead of treating the Medes as a beaten foe and a subject nation, he had himself installed as king of Media and governed Media and Persia as a dual monarchy, each part of which enjoyed equal rights.[111]

Jeremiah prophesied at the height of the Median empire's power, and thus he was probably influenced to see the Medes as the nation that will conquer Babylon. Several proposals were brought forth for "Darius the Mede" out of which one says that Cyrus the Great is meant in Daniel 5:31.
Jehoiakim prophecies

The prophet Daniel states that in the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah (Daniel 1:1-2). The third year of Jehoiakim's reign was 605 BC, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was in 597 BC that Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, by then Jehoiakim had died.

Apologists respond that this is not a prophecy but a statement. Daniel 1:1 is a problem of dating. But already F.F. Bruce solved this problem explaining that when Nebuchadnezzar, son of king Nabopolassar, was put in charge over a part of his forces, he defeated Necho in the battle of Carchemish 605 BC. In this situation his father Nabopolassar died. Before Nebuchadnezzar as heir apparent returned to Babylon he settled the affairs in the Asiatic countries bordering the Egyptian frontier, which means also Judah, and took captives from several countries as, for example, also from the Jews.[112]

Jeremiah prophesied that the body of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, would be desecrated after his death (Jeremiah 22:18-19, Jeremiah 36:30-31). However, his death was recorded in 2 Kings 24:6 where it says that "Jehoiakim slept with his fathers". This is a familiar Bible expression that was used to denote a peaceful death and respectful burial. David slept with his fathers (1 Kings 2:10) and so did Solomon (1 Kings 11:43). On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 states that Nebuchadnezzar came against Jehoiakim, bound him in fetters, and carried him to Babylon. Judging from the treatment Zedekiah was accorded when the Babylonians bound him and carried him away to Babylon (Jeremiah 52:9-11), one might justifiably argue that his body probably was desecrated after his death. Jeremiah, however, predicted that Jehoiakim's own people would be his desecraters, that his own people would not accord him lamentations appropriate for a king, that his own people would cast his body "out beyond the gates of Jerusalem".

Apologists proposal for a partial solution:

In the 7th year of his reign, in the month of Kislev (December/January 598/97), Nebuchadnezzar himself left Babylon and undertook the subjection of rebellious Judah. In that same month, King Jehoiakim died in Jerusalem. (On the basis of a comparison with 2 Kings 24:6,8,10ff, with the Babylonian Chronicle, Wiseman 73, lines 11-13, Kislev is the ninth month. In the twelfth month, Adar, Jerusalem was taken. Jehoiachin's reign falls in these three months.) It is not impossible that he was murdered by a political faction who thereby sought more mild treatment for their country. His 18-year-old son Jehoiachin was raised to the throne (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later Jerusalem was entirely surrounded by Babylonians. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to the city of Judah (al-ya-ahu-du), and on the second day of the month of Adar he comquered the city and took its king prisoner.[113]

Also F.F. Bruce writes that Jehoiakim died in Juda before the siege of Jerusalem began.[114] This would mean that Jehoiakim was desecrated after his death and in this way the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled. The passage in 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 does not speak explicitly about Jehoiakim's death. Thus, it can be seen as a parallel to Daniel 1:1-2[115] which speaks about an event in the lifetime of the king of Judah (see paragraph above). 2 Kings 24:6, nevertheless, remains unclear.

Part of the desecration prophecy was that Jehoiakim would "have no one to sit upon the throne of David" (Jeremiah 36:30), but this too was proven false. Upon Jehoiakim's death, his son Jehoiachin "reigned in his stead" for a period of three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:8-9, 2 Kings 24:6-8). Also, there are biblical genealogies that purport to show Jehoiakim as a direct ancestor of Jesus (1 Chronicles 3:16-17, Matthew 1:11-12).[95]

Apologists say that if Jehoiakim had not been killed by his own people, on the condition that this supposition is true (see preceding paragraph), in all likelihood, Jehoiakim would have been put to death by the Babylonians. The Israelites anticipated what Nebuchadnezzar intended to do. In this case, most probable, Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin would not have become king and Jeremiah's prophecy would have been fulfilled in its full sense. Jehoiachin's successor, Zedekiah, was no descendant of Jehoiakim, but his brother.

The double reckoning of Jehoiachin in Matthew 1:11-12 is made possible by the fact that the same Greek name can translate the two similar Hebrew names Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin.[116] In this way in verse 11 Jehoiakim and in verse 12 Jehoiachin is meant. The verse Jeremiah 36:30 says that Jehoiakim's descendants will not be kings in Judah anymore. This does not mean that he cannot be an ancestor of the Messiah.
New Testament
The Wailing Wall by night

According to Luke 19:41-44:

As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.

It may be argued that the utterance that "no stone" would be left upon another (Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44; Luke 21:6) was intended as hyperbole. However, the prophecy did not eventuate in the literal sense, as the wailing wall (a remnant of the Second Temple courtyard wall) still remains. In reply, John Robinson writes:

it was the temple that perished by fire while the walls of the city were thrown down.[117]

The imminence of the second coming
See also: Second coming

Jesus prophesied that the second coming would occur during the lifetime of his followers and Caiphas, and immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE (referred to as abomination of desolation in Matt 24:15).

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28)

"When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes." (Matthew 10:23)

..Again the high priest (Caiphas) asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?""I am", said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62)

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us", they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now-and never to be equaled again. Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24)

(see also Mark 13:1-30, Luke 21:5-35, Mark 13:30-31, Mark 9:1, Luke 9:27, John 21:22, Matthew 26:62-64, Mark 14:62)

It may be argued that Jesus was not speaking of the second coming in Matthew 16:28 but instead referred to a demonstration of his or God's might; a viewpoint which allows the fulfillment of the prophesy through a variety of traumatic events, notably, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 AD. The temple's destruction is held by proponents to demonstrate that God was on the side of the Christian people rather than that of the Jews. However, at that time only some of Jesus' disciples still lived.[118] In the same way Matthew 10:23 should be understood.[119] Note, however, that this view (referred to as Preterism) is not the majority view among American denominations, especially by denominations that espouse Dispensationalism.[120][121][122] Furthermore, it is a misunderstanding that Jesus meant Caiphas in Mark 14:62. The word "you will see" is in Greek "ὄψεσθε" [opsesthe, from the infinitive optomai],[123] which is plural and not singular. Jesus meant that the Jews, and not just the high priest, will see his coming.

This prophecy is also seen in the Revelation of Jesus to John.

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,... Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen. (Revelation 1:1,7)

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book. ... Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done." ... He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:7,12,20)

Despite the strongly repeated promises to the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 1:4,11) in the 1st century CE, Jesus has not come quickly or shortly according to critics.

Apologists respond that the word "soon" (other translations use "shortly" or "quickly") does not have to be understood in the sense of close future. The Norwegian scholar Thorleif Boman explained that the Israelites, unlike Europeans or people in the West, did not understand time as something measurable or calculable according to Hebrew thinking but as something qualitative.

We have examined the ideas underlying the expression of calculable time and more than once have found that the Israelites understood time as something qualitative, because for them time is determined by its content.[124]

...the Semitic concept of time is closely coincident with that of its content without which time would be quite impossible. The quantity of duration completely recedes behind the characteristic feature that enters with time or advances in it. Johannes Pedersen comes to the same conclusion when he distinguishes sharply between the Semitic understanding of time and ours. According to him, time is for us an abstraction since we distinguish time from the events that occur in time. The ancient Semites did not do this; for them time is determined by its content.[125]

In this way expressions of time, such as "soon", do not mean that the denoted event will take place in close future but that it will be the next significant event.[126]

The Apostle Paul also predicted that the second coming would be within his own lifetime, 1 Thessalonians 4:17:

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

[127]

The philosopher Porphyry (232-305 CE), in his Kata Christianon (Against the Christians), a book burned and banned by the church in 448 CE writes of Paul:

Another of his astonishingly silly comments needs to be examined: I mean that wise saying of his, to the effect that, We who are alive and persevere shall not precede those who are asleep when the lord comes—for the lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout... and the trumpet of god shall sound, and those who have died in Christ shall rise first- then we who are alive shall be caught up together with them in a cloud to meet the lord in the air... Indeed—there is something here that reaches up to heaven: the magnitude of this lie. When told to dumb bears, to silly frogs and geese—they bellow or croak or quack with delight to hear of the bodies of men flying through the air like birds or being carried about on the clouds. This belief is quackery of the first rate.

The apologists answer for the passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is that Paul speaks about his own presence at the last day only hypothetically. He identifies himself with those Christians who will still live in the time of Jesus' return but does not want to express that he himself will still experience this.[128] That becomes fully clear some verses later in which he says that the Day of the Lord comes like a thief (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2). The comparison of the Day of the Lord with a thief is a word of Jesus himself (Matthew 24:43-44), which expresses the impossibility to say anything about the date of his second coming (Matthew 24:36).


https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/feb/06/22-answers-creationism-evolution-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate
Does not the second law of thermodynamics disprove evolution?
Sign up for Lab Notes - the Guardian's weekly science update
Read more

Yes it does not. I mean, it doesn’t. Your weird grammar is bewitching. But your grasp of physics is not. The Second Law of Thermodynamics roughly states that energy can only flow from a hot body to a cold one in a closed system and that the measure of this is called entropy, which only ever increases. You’re parroting the argument that a living cell appears to contradict this, by maintaining order in their cellular innards. Alas living things are not closed systems. You’re using one thing you don’t understand to explain another. Your problem here is really with physics. Can you take it up with those guys.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/DebunkingChristians/Page9.htm

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/genesis.html
Street
2018-03-17 01:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by v***@gmail.com
Post by v***@gmail.com
If science debunks the bible, why were Galileo, Newton, Leonardo Da
Vinci, Faraday and Rene Des Cartes, believers in God?
______________
It may come as a surprise to you but science has advanced since the days
when the people you cite were alive.
So what?What scientific discoveries since they died have
debunked the bible?
Post by v***@gmail.com
There was also the problem of letting people know that one did not
believe in the Christian myths. It could be deadly.
Blah, blah, blah.How about some specifics?
STFU, you stupid asshole.

v***@gmail.com
2018-03-13 19:58:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cloud Hobbit
https://m.news24.com/MyNews24/7-ways-God-is-debunked-by-the-sciences-20130826
) The science of Philology first did this when it was learned that texts could be dated based on grammar, vocabulary, and dialect. Lorenzo Valla (c.1406-1457) used it to show the Donation of Constantine decree was a forgery. In this forged decree the Emperor Constantine transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the pope. From the science of philology we've learned there are many forgeries in the canonized Bible (2nd Isaiah, Pastoral Epistles, II Peter, and so on) and that that certain other books in the Bible reveal an evolutionary history. That's science, baby, kick against the goads all you want to.
An even bigger hit from Biology, specifically but not limited to Darwinian evolution. The Catholic Church learned from the debacle in Galileo's day and learned to embrace evolution as a fact. Evangelicals still denounce it, even though it is slowly winning over the best and the brightest among them. But with evolution we no longer need a creator, for there is nothing left to explain by means of the supernatural hypothesis. Completely obliterated is the literal Genesis account of origins, and since that's the case why must anyone think there is any divine mind behind the writings in the Bible at all? They shouldn't. There is no need of that god-hypothesis, as Pierre-Simon La Place (1749–1827) first informed us.
If science debunks the bible, how do you account for him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
Cloud Hobbit
2018-03-13 20:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
If science debunks the bible, how do you account for him:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
____________

What's to account for?
Mendel did experiments and his results were published.

The fact that he was a monk didn't change the validity of his research although there is the matter of of the Mendelian paradox.

There have been and continues to be scientists who are religious.
Their conclusions usually have nothing to do with religion.

One of the reasons peer review exists is to confirm or deny the results of all science to check for accuracy irrespective of the religion or nonbelief of the scientists.

That Mendel did some decent science has nothing to do with God.
Loading...