Limbo

That would put an end to the debate. Can't they just show how inaccurate the bible is in terms of a) historical accuracy b) prophecy accuracy c) flaws in consistancy and d) flaws in the 'science' in the bible.

Many of you probably feel they HAVE done so, but what I mean is a MASSIVE (decade long) INTERNATIONAL research project/think tank which opperates in an unbiased manner observable/testable by the public.

A parallel project, designed to clearly answer questions reguarding evolution could be done. It could also address ID.

It's not enough to just 'dis-prove' the bible if people doubt the motives/agenda/goals of the people who make the claim. It has to be done in the open, for all the world to see.

HaysooChreesto!

It has been done many times over by many people over many decades. You can lead a horse to water...

show_no_mercy

Because to even think of doing such a thing is blasphemy, and a lot of the public wouldn't stand for it, let alone send their tax money/grant money to support it.

IvanJames

I think you might have something there, and perhaps an opportunity has come along in the form of ID. We science-minded folk have naively assumed that the truth will ALLWAYS eventually win. But lately, I wonder.

I think that a concerted effort on all fronts of combatting the religious right is necessary. The other side has been consolidating their position for decades, and we're seeing the results now. We had better do the same very soon...Gently at first, in a logical, non-threatening, non-anti-religious way.

---Ivan James

Limbo

Good point. I hadn't thought of the tax dollars which would fund it. Maybe it could be privatly funded.

Im not sure that the public wouldnt stand for it though. Maybe believers in the bible would see it as an opportunity to have their belief validated. Were they to deny the opportunity, it could be seen by others as fear.

Limbo

Care must be taken so that it doesn't seem like its one side versus the other. The body that does it HAS to be unbiased, and interested in only the truth.

And it has to be real, not just politically correct posturing.

Autonemesis

If they set out to disprove the Bible, it's very biased. If they set out to ascertain the historical, physical or prophetic accuracy of the Bible, that is an unbiased approach, and it has been done many times.

Bubba

The problem is that Christian apologists often can explain away about anything. Besides, 99 percent of Christians only use about 5 percent of the good book anyways...

Bubba

Limbo

Yes, that is what I meant.

And it has been done before. But i mean doing it in a way which consolidates all the worlds experts (pro and con), consolidates all the arguements and objections, and the evidence for each side...so it can ALL be taken into account step-by-step in front of the whole world.

Flint

The Bible certainly contains a good deal of ostensibly historical material (much of which does seem to accord with at least some interpretations of archaeological results), but this is ancillary. The Bible is a moral text, and the history is simply included as an illustration of the power and intent of the God of Abraham, whose agency is illustrated by all of the rest of the material. In a very direct sense, ALL of the OT material, at the very least, is (in Darwin's phrase) all one long argument. The argument is that God is (a) good, (b) powerful, (c)vengeful if you screw up, (d) beneficent beyond imagination if you are righteous, and (e) omnipresent (and eternal) so you can't hide, not even your thoughts.

And none of this long argument is accessible to the scientific method. Even with a working time machine, used to demonstrate beyond doubt that none of the depicted events happened, we could not defuse the true power of the Bible. Your goal is worse than impossible -- it is irrelevant.