I don't say that the presumption about the prophecy is the only evidence used, and I have already said that it is not an accusation about the presumption.
You are the one claiming I am making personal attacks. The burden of proof is upon you.
The presumption is what they do. Are you saying that there is proof that the gospels were written after 70AD apart from that?
I have heard a couple of things mentioned along those lines but I don't think it is proof.
No it is the fault of science which told us that a world wide flood is untenable. So a different interpretation was needed or saying that it was just a moral parable. But the alternative legitimate translation just enabled us to say that the translators had made a mistake when there was no...
Well Peter wrote or dictated epistles. (and dictation does not mean that it was not a witness testimony)
The accounts of Matthew (an apostle) and John (an apostle) have these people as witnesses. That is hearsay but hearsay maybe but it is witnesses saying who was there and is a high standard...
That many historians presume that the prophecy of the temple destruction in the synoptics is not true is just something admitted by those historians. That is just part of the method they use, it is not an accusation.
God is not the one who did the translations and there was no reason to translate it any other way in an age where the possibility of a world wide flood was there.
We don't know that they did not have someone to write down what they said. iow that is no problem.
And what is 60 years after the crucifixion all about unless you want to date the gospels after 70AD on the presumption that they are not true. Without that presumption Matthew was written maybe...
That is fine, maybe God wanted just that. "All" in other parts of the OT does not mean absolutely "all".
Another alternative is that floods happened all over the world at the same time and wiped out most of humanity.
Yes I guess it can be peripheral things like the existence of Satan that can be the straw that breaks the camels back in terms of belief in a religion.
I have spoken to Trailblazer on a number of topics and we don't seem to agree on much about the meanings in the Bible. The existence of Satan is...
It is calculated to have been maybe 15,000 square miles.
What would have been accomplished is killing all the animals and people in the area.
That is what the story can be read to mean.
It is a faith after all, so objective verifiability is not applicable.
It is the same for belief in the truth of the resurrection and that the apostles were witnesses and their witness is seen in the writings of the New Testament.