How does science disprove the Bible?

You've got it backwards. We can never PROVE a scientific theory, but it must in principle be subject to DISproof. See "Scientific Method":

quote:

---

All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof.

---

I would agree that "Science does not disprove the Bible from a Theological perspective", but would modify your second statement to say that it "does disprove many INTERPRETATIONS of the things mentioned in the Bible on a factual basis." Agreed; but I don't think the Bible necessarily teaches that the Flood was worldwide. Science disproves a specific INTERPRETATION of the Flood account (unless LOTS of miraculous events are postulated). I disagree; this is again an issue as to how the Bible is to be interpreted. Views such as the "Framework interpretation" are held by inerrantists and avoid conflict with science. Briefly, what is your scientific evidence AGAINST these things? (Lack of scientific evidence FOR something does not necessarily constitute scientific evidence AGAINST it, especially in fields such as archaeology or paleontology where much evidence remains undiscovered or has disappeared.)

I agree that it is difficult (impossible?) to figure out where it was supposed to be from the text. But I don't see how genetics or the iceman have anything to do with the existence of Eden. The iceman was about 3300 BC, which is pretty recent.(Your data does conflict with Usher's 4004BC date, but most conservative Bible scholars claim that dates before Abraham cannot be reliably ascertained from the Bible. Some inerrantists would put Adam as much as 50k-100k BC.)

I admit that at present there are conflicts between the biblical record and the archaeological record. But it is difficult to identify these tells with precision, and it is likely that some have been misidentified. Jericho is properly identified, but there are hints that its destruction may have been misdated.The lack of notice of Hebrews is an argument from ABSENCE of evidence. As I pointed out, archaeological data is often absent, so this should not be taken as evidence FOR any position.

I believe the most common interpretation is that this is the "royal we" or the "plural of majesty". This is common usage in semitic languages (check out any Hebrew or Arabic grammar text), as well as in western languages. An alternative interpretation is that this is speaking of the Trinity.If the author were speaking of a true plural (multiple gods, or God and angels) the verb "create" should also be plural. But it is not; it is singular. This implies either a plural of majesty or a plural seen as a unity (e.g. the Trinity).

Note that the Bible does NOT say that the earth's rotation stopped or reversed. The shadow moved--that's all. There are lots of much less invasive ways that this could occur. And the Bible suggests that this effect was limited to the land of Palestine (2 Chronicles 32:30-31): Even DeYoung and Whitcomb of ICR (i.e. they hold to young-earth, flood geology, etc.) call this a "miracle of light refraction" which was limited only to "the king's courtyard" (Our Created Moon, pp. 102-103).The cause of the shadow's motion is unexplained, but there is no conflict between science and the biblical text on this issue.

1) "Miraculous sign" in v. 31 is "mofet". The only other place in the near context that this noun is used is in v. 24: We know from 2 Kings 20:8-11 and Is 38:8 that this "sign" was the shadow moving backwards. So this is apparently the "sign" that the envoys were sent to find out about in v. 31.2) According to v. 31 this occurred in "the land" (Hebrew "'eretz"). This word is most commonly used for the "Land of Israel" or "Palestine". (The word is not ALWAYS so restrictive. But in a context of discussing a king of Israel, the Land of Israel is probably what is in mind.)Thus, the text suggests that this event was limited to the land of Israel.
DeYoung and Whitcomb (who are much more literalistic than I am) actually suggest that it was limited only to Hezekiah's courtyard.

Why don't you try to back up this accusation with some logic or evidence?When there are multiple possible explanations for a biblical event, the responsible theologian will choose the one which provides the best fit to all data (scientific as well as biblical). This is simply responsible scholarship. The irresponsible and circular approach of assuming an explanation which conflicts with science, then claiming this as support for the notion that "science disproves the Bible" is not scholarship at all.

Edited by kbertsche, : accidental double-post

I don't agree that it is only a "plot device", but I agree that not too much should be made of it. It certainly does not "disprove the Bible." At best it only disproves one very naive, unscholarly interpretation of the Bible (One which even some of the most conservative, literalistic interpreters do not hold to).

This may not be the best translation of the Hebrew."stood still" is "damam", the main meaning of which is "be silent". Expositor's Bible Commentary (a conservative evangelical commentary) says this:

quote:

---

The word translated “stand still” is often translated “be silent.” Joshua may have been requesting that the sun not shine with its normal brightness and heat. Cloud cover could have been a by-product of the hail storm (v.11). Joshua desired favorable conditions so as to be able to make the most of the victory. After an all-night march, the sun’s heat would have sapped the strength of the weary Israelites; and relief from that heat would have helped just as much as extended daylight.

---

"stayed" is "'amad", which generally means "stand", but has a broad range of meanings. Again from EBC:

quote:

---

The Hebrew word ”amad (“stand,” “stand still,” or “stop”) is used for the moon in parallel with damam for the sun. The word ”amad was used in 3:16 to say that the waters of the Jordan “stopped flowing.” In a poetic passage like this, it could mean “stop moving” or even “stop shining.”

---

Some other things to note:
1) as someone already mentioned in this thread, to have the sun stand visible while the moon stands visible just a few miles away does not make sense. Joshua surely realized that this couldn't happen, no matter what his cosmogeny.
2) As EBC notes, the text is poetic. Thus it is likely to use imagery which is not intended to be taken in an overly literal manner.Conclusion: the text does not necessarily mean that the sun and moon stopped their motion across the sky. It more likely means that the sky became dark.

You apparently ignored the fact that this is poetry. If you ignore the genre and try to interpret more literalistic than the text you will get ridiculous conclusions.

Because suns don't normally make matzoh balls. Suns normally shine. Shining is their "voice", in a poetic sense. So how would you interpret a poem asking the sun to "be silent"? What do you think the author means? I really doubt that you would interpret this as "stop making matzoh balls" or "stop blowing bubbles" or "stop singing Suwanee".Now one might interpret this as "stop moving", because suns do that, too. But the more characteristic activity for the sun is to shine, so "stop shining" is the most likely meaning of a poetic comment to "be silent."This really isn't complex or obscure; it should be obvious. And I'm not "making stuff up", this interpretation comes straightforwardly from a word and grammar study, and is not original with me.It's clear from your ridiculous and unscholarly response that you're not comfortable discussing original languages. You apparently already have concluded what the text means ("a plot device to make the story interesting") and you are not willing to consider facts which might conflict with your position. Sorry, but the grammar is essential to understanding what the text SAYS, and we must understand this before we can decide what it MEANS.

Granted, the "cloud cover" is an inference. But it is a reasonable one based on the odd weather on this day. Look at Josh 10:11:

quote:

---

As they fled from before Israel, while they were at the descent of Beth-horon, the LORD threw large stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died from the hailstones than those whom the sons of Israel killed with the sword.

---

You noted the phrase in v. 13: The last part of v. 12 is taken as poetry by most translators, and the first part of v. 13 is by some. I am not clear whether this last part of v. 13 is meant to be poetic or to be a narrative comment."Stood still" is the same word as earlier, and my earlier comments apply here, too (i.e. it can also be translated "stopped shining").
It might help to look at how the various translators render your KJV "and hasted not to go down about a whole day":NASB--"and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day"
NIV--"and delayed going down about a full day"
NET--"and did not set for about a full day"
Tanakh--"and did not press on to set, for a whole day"
YLT--"and hath not hasted to go in ” as a perfect day"
The YLT is a literal word-for word translation of the Hebrew; I would smooth it to something like "and did not hurry to set for about a full day".But what does this mean? Doesn't the sun NORMALLY "not hurry to set for about a full day"? Yes, it normally waits till the END of the day to set. Here's my proposal for what the verse means: the sky got dark due to the freak weather and hailstorm. But though the sun appeared to stop shining, it had not yet set. The sun waited to set until the end of the day. The text is trying to tell us that the darkness was not because the sun had set early.(Yes, I'm sure our resident critics will shoot back that this is "making stuff up". But note that this interpretation is consistent with both the grammar and the context of the passage.)

Sorry, my wording was not clear. I meant that the sun MOVES across the sky as well as SHINES, so the poetic command to "be silent" could refer to cessation of either activity.