The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[charter.rights]

It's not a cop out. If one says something to be true, and scientifically true, one needs to back that up. If you don't, then we can't and really are not doing any science at all.

Huh?

[GostHacked]

Ok GH, here we go (briefly). With apologies to the reductionists among us. ;

First, the content: according to recent scholarship, the Gospel of John was written some 80-100 years after the events it describes. There is a strong likelihood that this story originated in oral form, but there is no real consensus as to its first origin or the contents of that original(s) oral version.

I hope I am understanding this. We are talking about an original document (that we do not have and can't compare against) that has been handed down and revised over time, people and cultures, through oral means.

This transfer from oral to written could have resulted in data loss and revisioning. There is some indication that there has been revisioning and parts added at the time of it being written down or later revisions.

And now that we have a written account of it, but only after so many oral revisions. How can we be sure of the accuracy of the new document compared to an oral story handed down through generations with modifications.

So we can deduce that in one form or another there has been contamination of the original oral version of the story whether through data loss or revisions/additions.

So the account is no longer accurate, and can't really be taken at face value anymore.

In addition, there are several current versions of the story in different textual format, some use different words and different setup schemes.

The story has evolved over time and some time ago, several groups decided to continue the document independantly of each other.Correct? Maybe I am off here?

For the purposes of assessing the validity of the claim that Biblical reports can be compatible with scientific explanations, let's use this version for the KISS principle:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/john-kjv.html

Specifically, John section 11 lines 38-44. It is this 'shard' we want to take a look at and see if the reporting in this passage can be 'true' with a scientific perspective or a test of logic if you prefer.

Agree?

OK, this is line 38 to 44.

[38] Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?

[39] He saith unto them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about the tenth hour.

[40] One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother.

[41] He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

[42] And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

[43] The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

[44] Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

Explain to me what this means?

[Shwa]

John 11, lines 38-44:

[38] Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave. It was a cave, and a stone lay upon it.

[39] Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days.

[40] Jesus saith unto her, Said I not unto thee, that, if thou wouldest believe, thou shouldest see the glory of God?

[41] Then they took away the stone from the place where the dead was laid. And Jesus lifted up his eyes, and said, Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me.

[42] And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me.

[43] And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

[44] And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Yes, so for the purposes of this investigation, we have to accept that the original oral tradition may have come to us in a modified form either through data loss or revision. Sort of like finding a very old pottery shard on top of the ground that shows signs of burning.

What we want to do is look at the 'shard' of the story (lines 38-44) that concerns Lazarus' death and resurrection and see if that report is compatible with a scientific view. Do you follow?

[GostHacked]

Yes, so for the purposes of this investigation, we have to accept that the original oral tradition may have come to us in a modified form either through data loss or revision. Sort of like finding a very old pottery shard on top of the ground that shows signs of burning.

So you can't be more than sure that the modified account is accurate and true.

What we want to do is look at the 'shard' of the story (lines 38-44) that concerns Lazarus' death and resurrection and see if that report is compatible with a scientific view. Do you follow?

Now what we need to do is scientifically reproduce a ressurection, with technology avaiable during biblical times. Once we validate ressurection, then we can begin to validate Lazarus and the rest of the story.

[Shwa]

So you can't be more than sure that the modified account is accurate and true.

Not quite. The important thing is to acknowledge that the original oral report has undergone some contamination of some sort. This might be important later.

Now what we need to do is scientifically reproduce a ressurection, with technology avaiable during biblical times. Once we validate ressurection, then we can begin to validate Lazarus and the rest of the story.

Ah, now it is going to go over to you. When we look at the report, it could be a fatal mistake - especially from an anthropological view - to assign our values to the actions or concepts of reports from the distant past or cultures. Actually, it is a mistake to do this in modern times too, but that is beside the point. What we need to determine is what the meaning of those report elements are to the culture that described them. The first way we can do this is to break the account down into essential elements (I am not going into linguistics, but Levi-Strauss called them 'mythemes') and then see how they are structured. Once we have a rough idea of the structure of the account we can test other accounts to see if this same sort of structure exists.

So let's start with the beginning of the account. What elements do you observe and can you list them in a rough chronological pattern? I am most certain that there are other elements that preceed the 'resurrection' element. What are they?

Edited November 20, 2009 by Shwa

[GostHacked]

Not quite. The important thing is to acknowledge that the original oral report has undergone some contamination of some sort. This might be important later.

It might.

Ah, now it is going to go over to you. When we look at the report, it could be a fatal mistake - especially from an anthropological view - to assign our values to the actions or concepts of reports from the distant past or cultures. Actually, it is a mistake to do this in modern times too, but that is beside the point.

It is exactly the point. If you can't ressurect someone now, how do you do it back then? And if you have so many varied reports, how can you determine which one is actual truth?

What we need to determine is what the meaning of those report elements are to the culture that described them.

This is a history lesson so far. I see nothing scientific going on here.

The first way we can do this is to break the account down into essential elements (I am not going into linguistics, but Levi-Strauss called them 'mythemes') and then see how they are structured. Once we have a rough idea of the structure of the account we can test other accounts for this same sort of structure exists.

Someone died. Someone ressurected him. Validate ressurection and then we can work with the rest. It seems that ressurection is a key focus here to support your claim about the rest. If ressurection is impossible, then we can't go any further.

So let's start with the beginning of the account. What elements do you observe and can you list them in a rough chronological pattern? I am most certain that there are other elements that preceed the 'resurrection' element. What are they?

Well, go ahead provide the evidence. Remember how science works? You do the work, then us peers will review it to validate it.

So far you have not made any real kind of hypothesis for me to work with.

[charter.rights]

It is exactly the point. If you can't ressurect someone now, how do you do it back then? And if you have so many varied reports, how can you determine which one is actual truth?

As I mentioned earlier, one needs to consider the scientific definition of death back then. It wasn't unusual for people who had all the signs of death, to be buried alive, just 150 years ago. We would need to have some other reference for that period to confirm it, but I suspect the death concept was less exact then.

Someone died. Someone ressurected him. Validate ressurection and then we can work with the rest. It seems that ressurection is a key focus here to support your claim about the rest. If ressurection is impossible, then we can't go any further.

Ah but, resurrection is possible today and there could be a scientific explanation for it.

Well, go ahead provide the evidence. Remember how science works? You do the work, then us peers will review it to validate it.

I don't know about Shwa, but I wouldn't consider you a scientific peer...unless you have some proof of your credentials. This is a discussion not a critical review of hypothesis.

Edited November 20, 2009 by charter.rights

[GostHacked]

As I mentioned earlier, one needs to consider the scientific definition of death back then.

What was the scientific definition back then? And with modern knowledge can we really use the approach of an ancient definition of death?

It wasn't unusual for people who had all the signs of death, to be buried alive, just 150 years ago. We would need to have some other reference for that period to confirm it, but I suspect the death concept was less exact then.

Correct. Being buried alive means that you are not dead. So if you rescue someone burried alive, then you have not performed a ressurection. You just saved a living person.

Ah but, resurrection is possible today and there could be a scientific explanation for it.

Possible. And how is that done?

I don't know about Shwa, but I wouldn't consider you a scientific peer...unless you have some proof of your credentials. This is a discussion not a critical review of hypothesis.

Well, you don't need to consider me a peer. I don't have credentials. I'll admit Shwa is using Anthropology as a base. But we should also be able to use other aspects of science to prove that someone can come back from the dead. And you should not even consider me a scholar of the bible, or biblican times. I don't believe what is written in there is actual fact or truth.

[Shwa]

As I mentioned earlier, one needs to consider the scientific definition of death back then.

Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! C.H gets two points for this! Congratulations.

What was the scientific definition back then? And with modern knowledge can we really use the approach of an ancient definition of death?

Of course we can GH. Remember, the report is TRUE to the REPORTER. We are not trying to determine if the report is TRUE to YOU, but to see if a scientific validation can be applied so that from the reporter's perspective, they reported TRULY what THEY observed.

So I'll skip the structuralists listing of the elements and get to the point. Which is a bit of a shame because I believe your ability to snap judge from a skeptical point of view can provide unnecessary limitations to your understanding of how science works.

One of actors says that,

the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh

So she has indicated a scientific fact about death. She knows. They know. We know.

So then it is reported

And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

There is no report of any smell. No report of any rot. No report that any skin was sloughing off of Lazarus. The only thing reported was that Lazuras was clad in the typical funerary clothes of the day - which is likely accurate.

So now, casting aside your religious bias and your extreme skepticism, what can we conclude from this? And can that conclusion be supported by science?

[GostHacked]

Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! C.H gets two points for this! Congratulations.

You both loose points. It's like saying, well, lets take into context that at the time everyone also thought the world was flat. Which we now know different and really can't use it anymore to define the past. They THOUGHT this at one time, but now we know different, so that could not have really happened back then.

Of course we can GH. Remember, the report is TRUE to the REPORTER. We are not trying to determine if the report is TRUE to YOU, but to see if a scientific validation can be applied so that from the reporter's perspective, they reported TRULY what THEY observed.

So, I gotta see this through someone elses eyes? That's not how this works either.

So I'll skip the structuralists listing of the elements and get to the point. Which is a bit of a shame because I believe your ability to snap judge from a skeptical point of view can provide unnecessary limitations to your understanding of how science works.

Well, start showing some evidence, and we can start.

There is no report of any smell. No report of any rot. No report that any skin was sloughing off of Lazarus. The only thing reported was that Lazuras was clad in the typical funerary clothes of the day - which is likely accurate.

He was not dead. Dead people decay. The living don't. Can't ressurect what is not dead.

So now, casting aside your religious bias and your extreme skepticism, what can we conclude from this? And can that conclusion be supported by science?

No. Ressurection is not possible.

[GostHacked]

http://www.fukung.net/v/14314/science-vs-religion.jpg

Just a reminder what we are trying to accomplish here.

[charter.rights]

You both loose points. It's like saying, well, lets take into context that at the time everyone also thought the world was flat. Which we now know different and really can't use it anymore to define the past. They THOUGHT this at one time, but now we know different, so that could not have really happened back then.

Nah. You are minus ten before you even start.

In order to test the resurrection ~theory~ we have to look at the death ~theory~. Here we have a story about someone who died and was brought back to life. In order to understand how that might apply today we have to look at the science of the day...and determine if under the right circumstances it might have some application today. Your dismissal without even considering it takes you out of the scientific and puts you into the quasi-religious camp. You are going simply on your belief the something is not possible because you have already formed a dogmatic opinion about it.

So, I gotta see this through someone elses eyes? That's not how this works either.

No science stands on its own. Every theory and scientific postulation has come of the result of someone else's discovery. So yes unless you understand - through someone's else's eyes - the premise / thinking behind the theory you will never understand it enough to formulate new theories, using the former as the jumping off point.

Well, start showing some evidence, and we can start.

The story itself is evidence of a strange occurrence. It would be up to us to take it further and see if we can find more evidence either in support of or against it. You seem to prefer your religion over doing the exploration.

Once we understand the evidence from the point and mindset it was discovered, then we might be able to test it. But we have to be able to recognize evidence first.

So I would suggest doing some research to see if there are more modern examples of resurrection.

He was not dead. Dead people decay. The living don't. Can't ressurect what is not dead.

There is your dogma again. He was dead according to the tests they had to work with during that day and time. And you must be really religious if you believe that living people don't decay. We have all kinds of cases where living tissue decays and stinks - necrotizing fasciitis, gangrene, frost bite and dead skin on burn victims.

No. Ressurection is not possible.

Better be careful with a statement like that you might just start believing it...because you are only basing it on a limited definition of what death constitutes today...

This little guy changes the thinking, a bit.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/05.html

[Guest TrueMetis]

Ok I'm tired of this, doctors and scientists aren't able to figure out if someone is dead now. There have been cases of people "dying" and coming back to life the longest event of this happening is 4 months. So was jesus actually dead? Well if he came back to life, which I doubt, then he probably wasn't actually dead, remember people have been being buried alive accidentlly for a long ass time.

So if he did come back he wasn't actually dead.

[Shwa]

Well, start showing some evidence, and we can start.

I already pointed out the evidence.

The problem is GH is that you are using the same literal translation of the words as the religious people are and simply drawing different conclusions. You might feel safe with that way of looking at this, but you certainly cannot make any honest claims on the behalf of science while you reject the methods and thinking. You are a hanger-on. A science groupie as it were.

The prospect for any scientist is that a great deal of time their theories are wrong and they will have to re-visit, re-visit, re-visit, etc. Why do you think they call it "WD40?" Because the formula was wrong the previous 39 times. In your case you are not even willing to take a look at formula version 1. This would indicate to me that you have so much invested in hiding your shortcomings, that you pretend you are providing some form of peer-review when all you are really doing is backing into your literal-translation-corner over and over.

Not too worry, the world is full of science groupies and hangers-on as much as there are religious supplicants and congregants. The common thread is that y'all think the same.

Moving on now...

Edited November 21, 2009 by Shwa

[Oleg Bach]

There is no doubt that you cant prove that God does not exist or vice versa, but which interpretation from the many religions is right? Now, Myself I think i see God more from Albert Einstein point of view - "About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws."

Very good...rule of law - nature - God rewards those that perpetuate life and more of it - He rewards them with a prolonged and more fulfilling existance - It's physics ...you do this and that will happen..you do something that is negative and darkness (evil) will eventually take place down stream. Cause and effect - I have always hated the term "evil genious" as if evil people are clever - not once in history has an evil mans life ended well. Evil is stupidity - goodness or Godness is intelligence - intelligent life in the universe is God - sub-intelligence or inferour mind is evil - maybe being evil is simply being lazy?

[GostHacked]

The problem is GH is that you are using the same literal translation of the words as the religious people are and simply drawing different conclusions. You might feel safe with that way of looking at this, but you certainly cannot make any honest claims on the behalf of science while you reject the methods and thinking. You are a hanger-on. A science groupie as it were.

Is your theory based on ressurection? Bringing someone back to life after death?

Edited November 22, 2009 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

So I would suggest doing some research to see if there are more modern examples of resurrection.

I'd like to see one.

Better be careful with a statement like that you might just start believing it...because you are only basing it on a limited definition of what death constitutes today...

This little guy changes the thinking, a bit.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/05.html

OH, this is called hybernation. There is something here that science can explain. It goes into hybernation. A state of suspended animation, hardly dead. Even the guy in the video says the frog is nearly dead.. but not dead. Can't ressurect what is not dead. By definition. Frogs have also been doing this for millenia. Actually many amphibians living in cold environments are able to go into a suspended animation state like frogs. They produce some antifreeze to keep the cells from freezing (which would kill it) but the body fluids do freeze. So, technically the frog is not dead.

[charter.rights]

I'd like to see one.

OH, this is called hybernation. There is something here that science can explain. It goes into hybernation. A state of suspended animation, hardly dead. Even the guy in the video says the frog is nearly dead.. but not dead. Can't ressurect what is not dead. By definition. Frogs have also been doing this for millenia. Actually many amphibians living in cold environments are able to go into a suspended animation state like frogs. They produce some antifreeze to keep the cells from freezing (which would kill it) but the body fluids do freeze. So, technically the frog is not dead.

You missed the point.

The common belief held by biologists is that cells cannot be frozen and freezing would result in death of the cells i.e. frost bite is a condition where cells freeze and die. The fact that the NA Tree Frog can actually freeze as hard as an ice cube, opens the door to cryogenics.

Not all frogs can do this, apparently. It seems only the NA Tree Frog and some frog in Australia have been noted to be able to do this. Based on the current definition of death, these frogs are dead as a block of ice. No brain activity, no respiration, no cardiac activity. Dead.

So what is wrong with this picture? Are the frogs really dead(within the current meaning) or is there something wrong with the current definition of death? And perhaps all those bodies that were frozen and eventually buried, weren't really dead? It opens a whole new door....

Edited November 22, 2009 by charter.rights

[Guest TrueMetis]

There is no real definition of death. Biologist can't decide on a proper definition.

Edited November 22, 2009 by TrueMetis

[charter.rights]

But...define what "life" is....

[Guest TrueMetis]

But...define what "life" is....

Can't do that either.

[GostHacked]

You missed the point.

The common belief held by biologists is that cells cannot be frozen and freezing would result in death of the cells i.e. frost bite is a condition where cells freeze and die. The fact that the NA Tree Frog can actually freeze as hard as an ice cube, opens the door to cryogenics.

This one frog is a master of it already. Producing that antifreeze to keep the cells alive. I am getting this information from your link.

Not all frogs can do this, apparently. It seems only the NA Tree Frog and some frog in Australia have been noted to be able to do this. Based on the current definition of death, these frogs are dead as a block of ice. No brain activity, no respiration, no cardiac activity. Dead.

No the guy in your video says they are not dead. Close , but not dead.

So what is wrong with this picture? Are the frogs really dead(within the current meaning) or is there something wrong with the current definition of death? And perhaps all those bodies that were frozen and eventually buried, weren't really dead? It opens a whole new door....

You are missing the whole antifreeze point. The one frog produces the antifreeze to keep the cells from freezing. Which would kill it. But that keeps it alive. It is amazing it can produce this antifreeze.

[Shwa]

Is your theory based on ressurection? Bringing someone back to life after death?

My "theory" is based upon observation of the words and phrases in the passages cited and coming to a conclusion that is testable. I have actually stated my hypothesis several pages ago - did you miss it? Again?

GH, you have amply demonstrated that you only wish to divert the discussion to focus on your personal beliefs. Your "faith" as it were. Your dogma. Little real science can be conducted under such conditions.

[GostHacked]

View PostToadBrother, on 19 November 2009 - 11:45 AM, said:

John Chapter 11.

Yes, Lazarus was dead three days and then raised by Jesus.

Ok so now apply the science. It is very easy. Let's say the report is true and accurate. How can it be scientifically true and factually true from the Biblical report as well?

Any ideas?

So based on your replay, you are trying to validate the story of his ressurection by Jesus. I know I am zoneing in on this one point. But it is where we started. You are assuming the report of Lazarus' ressurection as true and accurate. Now since we have no way of validating ressurection, which would be key to support this arugment, the theory about the account being true or accurate now comes into question. If you could actually ressurect someone from the dead, then you have something to go with.

You are not the one using science, or else you would have seen the flaw in your logic.

You and charter.rights have both not answered the question: Is ressurection possible? Because this would then validate the account of Jesus ressurecting Lasarus. Was the ressurection just a metaphor? Or was it pure symbolism?

I have seen an exampl of a frog that goes into a unique state of hybernation due to the sugars it generates inside itself to prevent the cells from freeze damage. This is not ressurection, simply because the frog is not dead.

Now your last reply was

My "theory" is based upon observation of the words and phrases in the passages cited and coming to a conclusion that is testable. I have actually stated my hypothesis several pages ago - did you miss it? Again?

No, but it seems that you missed my replies.

GH, you have amply demonstrated that you only wish to divert the discussion to focus on your personal beliefs. Your "faith" as it were. Your dogma. Little real science can be conducted under such conditions.

Let me ask you this. Would validating ressurection support your account that Jesus was able to ressurect Lasarus? This would validate the story as true and accurate.If you don't want to answer this question, then I have no more replies.

Edited November 23, 2009 by GostHacked

[Shwa]

So based on your replay, you are trying to validate the story of his ressurection by Jesus.

Yes. I am trying to validate the story.

I know I am zoneing in on this one point. But it is where we started.

Nope. This is where you started.

You are assuming the report of Lazarus' ressurection as true and accurate.

Nope. I am assuming that the report of Lazarus' ressurection is true and accurate to the reporter.

Now since we have no way of validating ressurection, which would be key to support this arugment, the theory about the account being true or accurate now comes into question. If you could actually ressurect someone from the dead, then you have something to go with.

Invalid conclusion based upon false premise. I am not trying to validate ressurection. I am trying to valid the story. See above.

You are not the one using science, or else you would have seen the flaw in your logic.

Invalid conclusion based upon false premise. I see no flaw in my logic therefore I must be using "science."

You and charter.rights have both not answered the question: Is ressurection possible? Because this would then validate the account of Jesus ressurecting Lasarus. Was the ressurection just a metaphor? Or was it pure symbolism?

Invalid conclusions based on false premise and irrelevant questions to the enquiry.

I have seen an exampl of a frog that goes into a unique state of hybernation due to the sugars it generates inside itself to prevent the cells from freeze damage. This is not ressurection, simply because the frog is not dead.

Irrelevant commentary.

No, but it seems that you missed my replies.

Not so. I used your replies as input into the conclusion of your personal bias and circular reasoning technique.

Let me ask you this. Would validating ressurection support your account that Jesus was able to ressurect Lasarus?

Irrelevant question to the enquiry.

This would validate the story as true and accurate.If you don't want to answer this question, then I have no more replies.

I don't want to answer irrelevant questions to the enquiry and I doubt either could find fault with that.