Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[Muffled]

And in Judaism, there are many observant Jews who believe much the same, which was taught by the great Jewish sage Maimonides many centuries ago.

I believe I can't imagine what would be the basis for that.

 

[Muffled]

I don't expect "true believers" to ever give in to evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. Their whole world is built around certain beliefs and interpretations. If those are shown to be false, what are they left with?

What's interesting is how true believers in any religion try and argue against the evidence that goes against the things they believe are true.

I believe I have never seen any evidence that goes against my beliefs.

 

[metis]

I believe I can't imagine what would be the basis for that.

Probably because some of it defies logic.

 

[CG Didymus]

I believe I have never seen any evidence that goes against my beliefs.

Do you believe in a six-day creation a few thousand years ago, or that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old. Either way, there is evidence against it. Do you believe Jesus was the Messiah and was born of a virgin and rose physically from the dead, or that it was all a hoax? I'm sure you can find people that will provide evidence against either one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I have never seen any evidence that goes against my beliefs.

You might believe that, but you are demonstrably wrong. You have seen evidence against your beliefs, but you simply do not understand the concept of evidence at best.


The question is are you brave enough to learn what is and what is not evidence? Almost all creationists are cowards when it comes to the concept of evidence. Are you brave enough to learn?

 

[Thrillobyte]

There is a lot of talk on this forum about evidence and what is and what is not evidence,,,,,,,,,,,,,, especially by atheists and skeptics. It is possible to get so tangled up in what they say and their demand for what they call good evidence that you can start believing they are right and that it is only their sort of evidence that is valid and anything else is not evidence but are claims that need evidence. But that is the road they have gone down and I would not be surprised if it was chosen because they know from the start that it does not lead to faith in God.
For believers faith in God is what is important, it is up there with hope and love. It is good to have rational reasons and evidence for our faith but it is not absolutely necessary. We are people of faith.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
That does not mean that we should believe when it has been shown to us that our beliefs are wrong.
We usually do struggle to hold on to our beliefs and not just give them up lightly.
It is amazing how God can supply us with answers we need to keep believing if we keep seeking even as a believer over the years.
Anyway here is an interesting video by Jordan Peterson about how he sees the Bible. It is hard to follow but I think it is worth it to stick with it to the end.

Why exactly do you think the doctrine of "Believe by faith and not by evidence" came about, Brian? The reason clearly is because churchmen had no evidence Jesus was real. Without evidence for Jesus they had to convince people to follow Jesus for some reason--ANY reason. So they hit on the doctrine of "Believe in Jesus by faith only without the need for evidence. THIS PLEASES GOD!" You see? Just put in there: "I am a churchman. I know God better than you do, you dumb pagan. And I say that God tells me that he is please when you believe in Jesus without evidence, just faith."

This "Believe by faith and not by evidence" doctrine is such an obvious glaring con-job Christianity pulls on dumb gullible people that it's shocking that intelligent people actually fall for it.

 

[Muffled]

Do you believe in a six-day creation a few thousand years ago, or that the Earth and Universe are billions of years old. Either way, there is evidence against it. Do you believe Jesus was the Messiah and was born of a virgin and rose physically from the dead, or that it was all a hoax? I'm sure you can find people that will provide evidence against either one.

I believe I do not. I believe there are two creation stories of two creations separated by a lot of time. The first one is indeterminate since no timeline is given. The second was around 5,000 years ago and is not the original six day creation.

I believe herein lies a problem Scientists think time is linear but God views it as circular. We could be doing the same 50,000 years over and over.

I believe so, just as God has said.

I believe there is no evidence for that.

I believe people think they have evidence but I haven't seen any.

 

[Muffled]

You might believe that, but you are demonstrably wrong. You have seen evidence against your beliefs, but you simply do not understand the concept of evidence at best.


The question is are you brave enough to learn what is and what is not evidence? Almost all creationists are cowards when it comes to the concept of evidence. Are you brave enough to learn?

I believe, I believe in a lot more evidence than you do.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why exactly do you think the doctrine of "Believe by faith and not by evidence" came about, Brian? The reason clearly is because churchmen had no evidence Jesus was real. Without evidence for Jesus they had to convince people to follow Jesus for some reason--ANY reason. So they hit on the doctrine of "Believe in Jesus by faith only without the need for evidence. THIS PLEASES GOD!" You see? Just put in there: "I am a churchman. I know God better than you do, you dumb pagan. And I say that God tells me that he is please when you believe in Jesus without evidence, just faith."

This "Believe by faith and not by evidence" doctrine is such an obvious glaring con-job Christianity pulls on dumb gullible people that it's shocking that intelligent people actually fall for it.

What kind of evidence for Jesus do you think there should be? Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that a historical human Jesus existed.
What nobody knows is if the claims that Christians make about Jesus are true. The only evidence we have is the New Testament, but that is not verifiable evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe, I believe in a lot more evidence than you do.

Now you are just making nonsensical claims. You do not even understand the concept of evidence. Are you brave enough to learn?

 

[metis]

I believe herein lies a problem Scientists think time is linear but God views it as circular.

Not with the Abrahamic religions as they are linear as well. However, what does happen in the Jewish & Christian scriptures is the use of what could be called "comparative flashback", correlating later events and sometimes people with earlier ones.

 

[joelr]

That is not evidence it is opinion. The flood story is similar but if the flood is true then that is what you would expect. Evidence for the flood (large local) in writing from more than one culture and you can't see it. All you can see is that it shows the story was plagiarized.

The story wasn't plagiarized. It was written as a reaction to Mesopotamian creation and flood stories. The evidence from intertextuality is far too solid to hand wave off.
There may have been a local floos the story was based on originally. The story is a world flood, there are 2 versions in scripture and it's a re-working of the Epic of Gilamesh and other Mesopotamian flood stories.
There may have been a local flood that inspired a world flood fiction but not Gods telling one family to gather animals and build a boat because the God is going to destroy mankind. That is mythology.

The Bible story of early Israelites is shown by archaeology to be possibly true. The archaeology agrees with the story.
There are different opinions concerning the archaeology and what it shows.
When the archaeology shows the historical record is true, the archaeology confirms the record and the record confirms that view of the archaeology.

No the Bible says they all came from Egypt, as slaves. Not what happened, not what archaeologists are saying. We go back and forth, yet the evidence never changes.
Q: What have archeologists learned from these settlements about the early Israelites? Are there signs that the Israelites came in conquest, taking over the land from Canaanites?

Dever: The settlements were founded not on the ruins of destroyed Canaanite towns but rather on bedrock or on virgin soil. There was no evidence of armed conflict in most of these sites. Archeologists also have discovered that most of the large Canaanite towns that were supposedly destroyed by invading Israelites were either not destroyed at all or destroyed by "Sea People"—Philistines, or others.

So gradually the old conquest model [based on the accounts of Joshua's conquests in the Bible] began to lose favor amongst scholars. Many scholars now think that most of the early Israelites were originally Canaanites, displaced Canaanites, displaced from the lowlands, from the river valleys, displaced geographically and then displaced ideologically.

So what we are dealing with is a movement of peoples but not an invasion of an armed corps from the outside. A social and economic revolution, if you will, rather than a military revolution. And it begins a slow process in which the Israelites distinguish themselves from their Canaanite ancestors, particularly in religion—with a new deity, new religious laws and customs, new ethnic markers, as we would call them today.

The Carrier lecture has historical facts but the conclusions are opinion. Baptism and communal meals etc are just common religious practice in that time and that is the fact.

They were not in Judaism. They are known to be in Hellenistic religions and then Christianity.


Hellenistic religion


Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in the ancient world that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Greek culture.


"The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the 2nd century AD, and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into or became progressively the Koiné-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its traditions, such as the Melkite Catholic Church, and the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch."


only in Hellenistic times (after c. 330 BCE) did Jews begin to adopt the Greek idea that it would be a place of punishment for misdeeds, and that the righteous would enjoy an afterlife in heaven.[8] In this period too the older three-level cosmology in large measure gave way to the Greek concept of a spherical earth suspended in space at the center of a number of concentric heavens.[9]"

Anything beyond that is opinion, and in the case of Carrier it is based on the idea that Jesus did not exist and so the gospels were made up and was copied from other religions. That, after all, is what happened in religions and no religion is actually true.

Completely wrong. Everything beyond that is based on more facts and evidence. Carriers work is based on all of the evidence. Not a supposition. He evaluates ALL of the evidence in a 750pg monograph and uses that as a conclusion.

Mark uses Hellenistic theology and mythology, mythic literary devices, Pauls letters, and other fiction narratives. Hellenism, which was a trend is where salvation, heaven, savior demigods come from.

The dying and rising saviours are so different in other religions as to be ridiculous to say the gospels were copied from them.

"Every dying-and-rising god is different. Every death is different. Every resurrection is different. All irrelevant. The commonality is that there is a death and a resurrection. Everything else is a mixture of syncretized ideas from the borrowing and borrowed cultures, to produce a new and unique god and myth.
Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else. Only the West, from Mesopotamia to North Africa and Europe. There was a very common and popular mytheme that had arisen in the Hellenistic period—from at least the death of Alexander the Great in the 300s B.C. through the Roman period, until at least Constantine in the 300s A.D. Nearly every culture created and popularized one: the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. The Jews were actually late to the party in building one of their own, in the form of Jesus Christ. It just didn’t become popular among the Jews, and thus ended up a Gentile religion. But if any erudite religious scholar in 1 B.C. had been asked “If the Jews invented one of these gods, what would it look like?” they would have described the entire Christian religion to a T. Before it even existed. That can’t be a coincidence.

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).
• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.

This is sounding even more like Christianity, isn’t it? Odd that. Just mix in the culturally distinct features of Judaism that it was syncretized with, such as messianism, apocalypticism, scripturalism, and the particularly Jewish ideas about resurrection—as well as Jewish soteriology, cosmology, and rituals, and other things peculiar to Judaism, such as an abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice—and you literally have Christianity fully spelled out.

The gospels can be found prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures usually before the other religions came up with similar things.

There is a messianic prophecy AFTER Persia was already occupying Israel. They has virgin born world saviors, God vs devil, freewill, Isaiah is influenced by Persian theology. So is David.

Why not say the other religions copied from the Hebrew scriptures? Hmmm, good question.

Because Persian already had their religion fully in place by the time they occupied Israel. Judaism then (over several centuries) adopted Persian myths. In 167 BC they were then exposed to Hellenism and Christianity was then born.

The Mesopotamian myths are 1000 years older than Genesis.

Ahh, I know, because the scriptures are said to be written hundreds of years after the Bible tells us.

The Bible doesn't tell us. The first canon was the Marcionite canon, now unknown. The current Gospels were chosen in the 3rd century.
Mark is written 70-90 CE. John is around 110 CE.

One error, built on another error, built on another error.

Yes, everything you have said above is completely wrong. But I corrected you.

This is your evidence.

The actual evidence is not "mine" but historical evidence NT scholars all agree on. You can study it by reading Carrier, Litwa, Lataster, Price, Purvoe. Goodacre, Ehrman,

The Soleb inscription and it's dating is evidence for the early, Biblical, conquest dating and shows Israel being in Canaan and worshipping Yahweh around 1400 BC.

They do not know if it is the Biblical Yahweh. It isn't strange that Israel adopted a deity from Egypt to make their main deity, mythology works like this.

Yhwʒ of Shasu-Land (Chapter 2) - Yahweh before Israel

Yahweh before Israel - December 2020

www.cambridge.org

 

[joelr]

If you assume a different origin of Israel (iow deny the Bible and make up a scenario)

Archaeological evidence doesn't support the Bible. It's a mythology and not literal.

then the inscription can be fitted into your made up story.
It is around the 10th century that the Temple to Yahweh was built and it was not long before idol worship was happening also, as it had happened in the time of the Judges when God repeatedly allowed the surrounding nations to punish Israel and then saved them.
Most of what you just posted above is seen in the Bible and shows the Bible to be true.

Among all of the historical errors they must get a few things correct? We don't know if that is Yahweh from that religion. All religion is syncretic so they may have chosen an Egyptian deity to worship. If only Yahweh worship was desired when scripture was written and people were worshipping idols or goddesses then that would be true. YEs. So what? They report the leaders wanted one God and the people worshipped several, that does not mean any of the Gods are real? It means they finally recorded something accurate.

All you need to do is type Bible Maximalism and Minimalism into google search and you will be educated about it.

I know about it. It's used with archaeology. There are archaeologists who cannot accept their religion is myth and like apologists have to tap dance around evidence. As I sourced, Joel Baden explaining the consensus opinion, from DNA and from historical evidence Israel came from Canaan.

Maybe you are right, but I could say something similar about Carrier.

You cannot because he has a peer-reviewed 750 pg monograph, full of sources and footnotes, his work has been checked by peers in the field.


His review of the evidence has not been challenged by any qualified historians either. All I see are apologists attacking his character with ad-hom and reviews from theologians who literally didn't read the book. I can show you.

The article is about an interview with Israel Finkelstein, so what do you expect.
But actually Dever is mentioned in the article as someone who disagrees strongly with Finkelstein's approach to the Bible.
So there is a spectrum of views on the Exodus and these days it seems that most say that Israel came from Canaan, locals who took over eventually.
But the whole thing revolves around a view of the Bible and a view of the archaeological evidence for the Conquest, which is there and shows the Exodus story to be true in about 1400 BC as the Bible tells us.

There is no evidence for Exodus ever. Not in any century. Archaeologists could see signs of forced invasion just as clear in older centuries. They do not.

Again you are basing things on non-peer-reviewed crank.

 

[joelr]

The Ipuwer Papyrus from Egypt mentions something like the plagues.
The Egyptians would not write of that defeat by slaves and their God.
Archaeologists however who have been convinced by the wrong archaeology of the conquest (Jericho in particular) and the timing of the Conquest are embarrassed that their religion has been found to be BS.
But really it is not BS, the archaeology and scientific opinions of many archaeologists is BS.

Again with Rohl, he's a crank and basing a worldview on this, I already know you don't care so....

The Admonitions of Ipuwer

The Admonitions of Ipuwer (also known as The Papyrus Ipuwer and The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage) is a literary text dated to the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040-1782 BCE). The only extant copy of...

www.worldhistory.org

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION OF THE ADMONITIONS


The text received its first interpretation and publication by Egyptologist A.H. Gardiner in 1909 CE. This was a very interesting time for archaeology in that, beginning in the mid-19th century CE, more and more European archaeologists were working in the Near East at the behest of institutions looking for historical, physical evidence to corroborate the stories of the Bible.






What these scholars found instead was the complete opposite of what they had expected. Prior to this time, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world comprised of wholly original literature. The work done by scholars c. 1840 - c. 1900 CE brought to light the literature of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt and changed the way the Bible and world history were understood.






The narratives of the Bible, so long thought to have been penned by God or God-inspired scribes, were now understood to have precedent in earlier works of other cultures. The story of the Fall of Man, the Great Flood, the existential observations of Ecclesiastes, the concept of a dying and reviving god whose resurrection brings life to the world, all of these were recorded before the Hebrew scribes began writing the books which would eventually become the Bible. Even so, Egyptology and Near East studies still had a long way to go before it matured and many texts were misinterpreted by these early scholars.


C. 1900 CE, when Gardiner was working with Admonitions, the literature of the Middle Kingdom, describing the time of the preceding the First Intermediate Period of Egypt was interpreted as historically accurate. The First Intermediate Period was commonly understood as a time of lawless chaos following the collapse of the Old Kingdom. Actually, the First Intermediate Period was a time of great cultural progress and individual growth of the various regions of Egypt; it simply was lacking a strong central government.






To the scribes of the Middle Kingdom, however, this was a serious problem which they needed to warn their countrymen against. According to traditional belief, the king was the mediator between the gods and the people and a country without a strong king was a land cut off from the deities which nourished and gave it life. The Prophecies of Neferti explicitly bases its entire premise on this belief while the Complaints only suggests it and the Admonitions shouts it loudly.






Scholars working on these texts in the 19th and 20th centuries CE were operating from the old paradigm of the Bible-as-history, and so, except in cases of texts concerning obvious mythological themes and characters, literary works were taken as historical. According to Lichtheim, it was not until 1929 CE that The Admonitions of Ipuwer was first recognized as literature by the scholar S. Luria who "pointed out the fictional, mythologic-messianic nature of these works and fixed cliches through which the theme of 'social chaos' was expressed" (150). Although, again according to Lichtheim, Luria's work did not receive a great deal of attention at the time, other scholars later came to the same conclusion that the Admonitions is Middle Kingdom literature, not history.






This understanding of the text as genre literature was not widely known by those outside the field of Egyptology; Gardiner's early work, however, had received considerable attention from academics and non-academics alike. The Admonitions of Ipuwer was again, wrongly, interpreted as history most notably by the independent scholar Velikovsky in the 1950's/1960's CE, who used the text as support for his claim of planetary influence causing catastrophic events in world history. Velikovsky's theories have been repeatedly debunked and refuted by scholars in a number of different fields, but this has done little to correct the misunderstanding in the popular imagination.






As recently as 2014 CE, the documentary Patterns of Evidence: Exodus claimed The Admonitions of Ipuwer was historical reportage, an Egyptian view of the events given in the biblical Book of Exodus, proving that work historically accurate. The companion book of the same name reasserts these claims as does the work by David Rohl, whose theories infuse and support the film and book, Exodus: Myth or History? which perpetuates the misunderstanding. However well-meaning these works may - or may not - be, they are intellectually and historically dishonest in how they represent the evidence they claim to be presenting impartially. Those who represent opposing views are dismissed as either atheists or blinded by 'mainstream' scholarship while literary and physical evidence is manipulated to prove the claims of the producers/writers.






Through the popularity of Rohl's works, this misunderstanding of the nature of the Egyptian text is presently perpetuated, even though there is no sound basis for it in the work itself. One can only accept The Admonitions of Ipuwer as history if one has little or no knowledge of Egyptian history and literature. As Rohl is an Egyptologist, one might wonder why he would advocate for an understanding of the work so completely at odds with accepted scholarship. The answer becomes fairly obvious if one is aware of Rohl's repeated calls for a revision of Egyptian chronology, his 'fringe' status among accepted scholars, and his insistence on the historical truth of biblical narratives such as the Book of Exodus; his perpetuation of a misinterpretation of the text supports the claims he makes in books which have sold well and have conferred on him a degree of celebrity.

 

[joelr]

That is not really true. Using the Bible as a source in archaeology has helped in finding correct sites and in showing the correct time frame to check for evidence.

Q: The Bible describes it as a glorious kingdom stretching from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Does archeology back up these descriptions?

Dever: The stories of Solomon are larger than life. According to the stories, Solomon imported 100,000 workers from what is now Lebanon. Well, the whole population of Israel probably wasn't 100,000 in the 10th century. Everything Solomon touched turned to gold. In the minds of the biblical writers, of course, David and Solomon are ideal kings chosen by Yahweh. So they glorify them.

Now, archeology can't either prove or disprove the stories. But I think most archeologists today would argue that the United Monarchy was not much more than a kind of hill-country chiefdom. It was very small-scale.

Q: Does archeology in Jerusalem itself reveal anything about the Kingdom of David and Solomon?

Dever: We haven't had much of an opportunity to excavate in Jerusalem. It's a living city, not an archeological site. But we have a growing collection of evidence—monumental buildings that most of us would date to the 10th century, including the new so-called Palace of David. Having seen it with the excavator, it is certainly monumental. Whether it's a palace or an administrative center or a combination of both or a kind of citadel remains to be seen.

Secular scholars have their beliefs also, anthropological ideas and social development of religion ideas, the prophecies are not true, etc.
It is these things which have led to their having to make up the story, a story that disproves the Bible.

The scholars I follow look at the evidence, not at stories. The Bible disproves itself because the theology is syncretic, no supernatural anything has been shown to be true, all nations had a mythology with a God or Gods. This is exactly the same. We see Mesopotamian and Egyptian influence and then Persian and Greek influence. Only in this region. It's part of religious trends in the region. This is 100% certain.

BS in, BS out. Circular reasoning.
The maximalists otoh say that the Bible is pretty much true until shown to be inaccurate by the evidence.

No Gods are true until they have been demonstrated. Yahweh is a typical Near eastern deity, Genesis is syncretic, Proverbs is Egyptian wisdom, world floods, and other myths are absurd, ancient stories. The only thing true is some of the people.

Yes the secular beliefs lead to the Bible being untrue and written after the Bible tells us it was written and that Israel came from Canaanites and rose up to overcome them.

No that would be evidence.

The DNA evidence does not prove anything however because Israel and the nations of Canaan are related biologically according to the Bible and did intermarry also according to the Bible.
The DNA evidence confirms the Biblical record.

Archaeology confirms Israelites emerged out of Canaan into the hill regions. Moses is a literary creation, using Egyptian myth, Exodus is a national foundation myth. Yahweh is a Near Eastern deity, complete fiction. Later changed to a Platonic omni-type being, all Platonic make-believe.

Yes a story was made up because the archaeologists made mistakes in the interpretation of the Bible and in archaeology and so needed another story to account for the evidence.
Israelite culture did no doubt start to blossom when the monarchy came along and the Canaanites and Philistines were defeated more thoroughly, but Israel turned back to the worship of idols as well as Yahweh all the way till the Exiles both of Israel and Judah.

The evidence shows the Israelite folk religion was always in place. Thousands of figurines at all temple sites have been found. Scripture was likely a version of how elites wanted Judaism to be.
"
And as the previous inscriptions demonstrate, worship of deities other than Yahweh seems to have been a regular part of life for people. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, it suggests that Yahweh has always been the deity that people should worship. Based on these inscriptions, Psalms, Kings, Deuteronomy, and other unmentioned evidence, though, we know this is not the case; rather, henotheism was likely the norm for ancient Israelites and Judeans."

You keep saying stories were made up and different beliefs made archaeologists think this and that.........you seem to forget. Yahweh is as fictional as Zeus. There is no evidence. The words are human created, borrowed in many places from older cultures, not one single mention of something actually not known. Like "everything is made of atoms".
Instead it's complete fiction, floods, tower of Babel, plagues delivered by a angel of Yahweh. God smashing mountains, fighting sea monsters, It isn't real. The Persians just waltzed in. Then Greeks, then Romans. Were the Persian Gods real? No. There are no Gods here. It is fiction.

 

[joelr]

I can't and don't want to continue to post varying opinions of scholars.



There was no reason until recently to think that the flood was not global. All the translations showed that. That does not mean that the alternative translation is wrong however.
" ALL LIVING SUBSTANCES WERE BLOTTED OFF EARTH" or "off the land".
What land, the land under the heavens where Noah was.
People in other parts of the earth could have been killed by other floods at the time, the end of the ice age, but the Bible is talking about the land where Noah lived imo.
BUT yes I do look for ways to interpret the Bible so that it can fit in with the science if I can do that.
That is not a fail, it is showing that the Bible can be shown to be true even when science finds things that seem to contradict it.

Genesis was written in 600 BC. A reaction to Mesopotamian myth. No flood happened, it's a story. Noah is fiction.

These are all peer-reviewed university PhD textbooks/monographs,

John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.

2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”

The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”

God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”

THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”

The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

 

[joelr]

I believe, I believe in a lot more evidence than you do.

There is no evidence in the Bible, just stories. There is evidence many of the stories are taken from older stories.

 

[Brian2]

Why exactly do you think the doctrine of "Believe by faith and not by evidence" came about, Brian? The reason clearly is because churchmen had no evidence Jesus was real. Without evidence for Jesus they had to convince people to follow Jesus for some reason--ANY reason. So they hit on the doctrine of "Believe in Jesus by faith only without the need for evidence. THIS PLEASES GOD!" You see? Just put in there: "I am a churchman. I know God better than you do, you dumb pagan. And I say that God tells me that he is please when you believe in Jesus without evidence, just faith."

This "Believe by faith and not by evidence" doctrine is such an obvious glaring con-job Christianity pulls on dumb gullible people that it's shocking that intelligent people actually fall for it.

And you believe that little story by faith or evidence?
The evidence says that story is not true.
But I can understand you making that up as someone who sees the gospel as rubbish.
The meaning of "gospel" is "good news" and it truly is good news that God loves us and we don't have to show how good we are to gain eternal life.
If Jesus was just anyone else the story would be, be good enough, like everyone else says.
But God understands us and knows we can't be good.
But it is not that easy to have faith and be a disciple of Jesus.

 

[CG Didymus]

And you believe that little story by faith or evidence?
The evidence says that story is not true.
But I can understand you making that up as someone who sees the gospel as rubbish.
The meaning of "gospel" is "good news" and it truly is good news that God loves us and we don't have to show how good we are to gain eternal life.
If Jesus was just anyone else the story would be, be good enough, like everyone else says.
But God understands us and knows we can't be good.
But it is not that easy to have faith and be a disciple of Jesus.

If the claims made in the Gospels are true, then it is well worth for everybody to give it a try or at least prove it to themselves that it's not true. Some have given it a try, and it wasn't all that good for them or believable. Some believed and proved it true to themselves. Lots just grew up with God and Christianity and just assume it's true and do very little about trying to live it.

Then there's people, I think you might be one of them, that try to learn it and make arguments supporting it, but most importantly, sound like they really try and live it.

 

[Thrillobyte]

And you believe that little story by faith or evidence?
The evidence says that story is not true.
But I can understand you making that up as someone who sees the gospel as rubbish.
The meaning of "gospel" is "good news" and it truly is good news that God loves us and we don't have to show how good we are to gain eternal life.
If Jesus was just anyone else the story would be, be good enough, like everyone else says.
But God understands us and knows we can't be good.
But it is not that easy to have faith and be a disciple of Jesus.

Brian, show me a single secular historian in the 1st century who wrote about Jesus' ministry, his miracles, his crucifixion or his resurrection.