The Bible - Why Trust It

[sojourner]

Evidence is objective to whom?
You still haven't told me what is evidence. I get the impression that some here are equating evidence with proof of something.

For example...
Something tugs at my shirt.
I see nothing, but it's evidence of something. I have evidence... of something. I don't have to know what that something is. Do I?.
So do I not have evidence?

Right. Evidence and proof are two different things. Evidence is objective. That is, it’s some quantifiable something that can be corroborated by third party observation. There is no such evidence for God. Something tugging at your shirt cannot be corroborated by a third party, because you’re the only one who senses it. You don’t have evidence. You have a sense of something.

 

[nPeace]

Right. Evidence and proof are two different things. Evidence is objective. That is, it’s some quantifiable something that can be corroborated by third party observation. There is no such evidence for God. Something tugging at your shirt cannot be corroborated by a third party, because you’re the only one who senses it. You don’t have evidence. You have a sense of something.

Are you serious?
Wind can't be corroborated by third party?
I need third party to tell me I am hungry?

Now here is evidence, I must be in

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't need faith. You have evidence. !!!!!!!!!!!???

Yes.
When you have evidence, you have no need for faith.

May Jehovah bless you and safeguard you.
May Jehovah make his face shine upon you, and may he favor you. May Jehovah lift up his face toward you and grant you peace.
Thank you Jehovah.

Preaching, does not address the point

TagliatelliMonster, what is evidence?

Evidence are those data points from empirical reality which fit into a particular model, hypothesis, theory, claim, idea... which can be independently verified and evaluated by third parties.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia

I need to take a breather before looking at your next post.

Yes, it can be kind of confronting, I imagine...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you serious?
Wind can't be corroborated by third party?
I need third party to tell me I am hungry?

Did you even read the post you are replying to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you were physically blind, would you know that the sun rises and sets? You might say, you can feel it.

But we aren't physically blind.

But to make your, rather ridiculous, analogy more generic: sure, if you don't have the means to detect X, you couldn't tell if X is there.

What if your sense of sensation was not working correctly? Worst yet, what if it were totally insensitive - dead?

yes, if you are dead, then you wouldn't be able to detect X either.

You might just have to accept what is told to you - knowledge others gained.

Well, if you're dead, there's no much accepting going on....

What if you are spiritually blind?
What is you are spiritually dead?

What if you actually defined what "spiritually" means first?

Oh wait...
There is no such thing as spiritual... Right?

I don't know. Is there?
First you'll have to define what it is.
Then you'll have to come up with evidence to support the idea that it exists.

Can you?

 

[sojourner]

Are you serious?
Wind can't be corroborated by third party?
I need third party to tell me I am hungry?

Now here is evidence, I must be in

<patiently, as if to a child>
Yes, wind can be corroborated by a third party. There is evidence for the wind; it’s measurable and tangible.

You may feel hungry, but there is no evidence that you’re hungry. Feelings and evidence aren’t the same thing. There’s nothing to put out there for others to perceive; no third party corroboration.

There is nothing to put out there for others to see where God is concerned. No third party corroboration of your experience.

Wind isn’t an interior intuition. It’s a thing.

 

[Goodman John]

At least you agree the killer is God. That's good

So do you associated the word kill, or destroy, in those verses, to mean something other than kill or destroy? Why?
The first use of the word kill in literal, as you agreed, so why now would one make the second use figurative? Are they not the same word?
.

I did use the KJV for reference; if there is another version of the Bible you had in mind I was not aware of it.

Luke 12:4-5 King James Version (KJV)
4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

12:4 - "Them that kill the body..." is obviously not in reference to a single person or God himself, so I would assume it's in reference to other persons. And who would kill another? An oppressor of some sort, in this case most likely those opposed to Jesus' followers.

12:5 - "Fear him, which after he hath killed..." I take as a reference to God, for reasons indicated in my precious post.

I take the reference to 'he' in "...he hath killed..." to indicate the killer himself (perhaps one of 'them' referenced in 12:4), not God. If one wants to interpret it to mean God kills and then tosses people into the fire, then that's their prerogative; I don't believe God involves himself in such mundane, sordid goings-on.

But then, as noted below, I'm no authoritative source on anything so I'm always open to new ideas and opinions.

 

[nPeace]

I did use the KJV for reference; if there is another version of the Bible you had in mind I was not aware of it.

Luke 12:4-5 King James Version (KJV)
4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

12:4 - "Them that kill the body..." is obviously not in reference to a single person or God himself, so I would assume it's in reference to other persons. And who would kill another? An oppressor of some sort, in this case most likely those opposed to Jesus' followers.

12:5 - "Fear him, which after he hath killed..." I take as a reference to God, for reasons indicated in my precious post.

I take the reference to 'he' in "...he hath killed..." to indicate the killer himself (perhaps one of 'them' referenced in 12:4), not God. If one wants to interpret it to mean God kills and then tosses people into the fire, then that's their prerogative; I don't believe God involves himself in such mundane, sordid goings-on.

@TagliatelliMonster @sojourner be with you guys later.

So this is how you read this text...
Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him
...is read...
Fear God, which after the person that kills hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear God

I really do marvel at how different persons read texts in the Bible.
I guess it takes a lot of deep thinking to see a text in light of what one may believe.
I really never saw it that way.
I see your view of it. Thanks.

So in your mind, when Moses opened and closed the red sea, you don't see it as God killing, but Moses? Or do you view it as the Egyptians killing themselves? Or do you think that is just a story that does not reflect God? Oh, I forgot. Or, would you say Satan fooled Moses into thinking God was supporting him?
Similarly the flood?

 

[Goodman John]

So in your mind, when Moses opened and closed the red sea, you don't see it as God killing, but Moses? Or do you view it as the Egyptians killing themselves? Or do you think that is just a story that does not reflect God? Oh, I forgot. Or, would you say Satan fooled Moses into thinking God was supporting him?
Similarly the flood?

In the first place, I don't believe there was any 'opening of the Red Sea'- if one traces the route of the Hebrews as given in the bible, one finds the crossing actually taking place some distance north of the Red Sea proper, at a place called the 'Sea of Reeds'. At this part of the waterway it is quite passable on foot when the tide is out; Moses, being a smart guy- and possibly guided by locals- would have known this and simply forded the waters when they were favorably low. Likewise, the Pharaoh, in his haste to catch up to the Hebrews likely found his armored men and heavy chariots mired in the mud and many could have perished as a result.

So no, I don't necessarily see the 'Red Sea Incident' as having any divine implications, be it God or Satan involved.

As for the Flood, I'm of two minds on this- on the one hand, we could have a local flood that got blown out of proportion (and the take of Noah and the Ark as well), but on the other hand we could have a wholesale shoplifting of the entire story from earlier religious traditions with the identities of the actors updated to make the story 'different enough' to fly with the intended audience.

A third possibility is that there was indeed a flood that wiped out everything on earth (aside from the required SS Minnow and crew); if this were the case I'd just as soon attribute it to Satan having another one of his hissy fits. Given his other actions in the OT, it's certainly not out of character.

 

[nPeace]

In the first place, I don't believe there was any 'opening of the Red Sea'- if one traces the route of the Hebrews as given in the bible, one finds the crossing actually taking place some distance north of the Red Sea proper, at a place called the 'Sea of Reeds'. At this part of the waterway it is quite passable on foot when the tide is out; Moses, being a smart guy- and possibly guided by locals- would have known this and simply forded the waters when they were favorably low. Likewise, the Pharaoh, in his haste to catch up to the Hebrews likely found his armored men and heavy chariots mired in the mud and many could have perished as a result.

So no, I don't necessarily see the 'Red Sea Incident' as having any divine implications, be it God or Satan involved.

As for the Flood, I'm of two minds on this- on the one hand, we could have a local flood that got blown out of proportion (and the take of Noah and the Ark as well), but on the other hand we could have a wholesale shoplifting of the entire story from earlier religious traditions with the identities of the actors updated to make the story 'different enough' to fly with the intended audience.

A third possibility is that there was indeed a flood that wiped out everything on earth (aside from the required SS Minnow and crew); if this were the case I'd just as soon attribute it to Satan having another one of his hissy fits. Given his other actions in the OT, it's certainly not out of character.

Okay, so your view (based on what I get from reading this... Pardon me if I misunderstood) is that the account of Moses parting the red sea, is not true, but a fabricated story by the author (to entertain, the reader, as they do in Hollywood? ). So in your view, there are made up fanciful stories added to the accounts about real people and events.

So when the prophets, Jesus and his apostles referred to these accounts, they were either misled into believing that the "stories" were real, or they knew these were made up stories, but related to them, nonetheless. ... and all the people were in agreement because they knew no better.
Is this how you view it?

Spoiler: Red Sea. Not ‘sea of reeds'

*** it-1 p. 780 Exodus ***
Route of the Exodus. The Israelites must have been in various locations when they started the march out of Egypt, not all initially in one compact body. Some may have merged with the main body of marchers as they went along. Rameses, either the city or a district of that name, was the starting point, the first lap of the journey being to Succoth. (Ex 12:37) Some scholars suggest that, while Moses began the march from Rameses, the Israelites came from all over the land of Goshen and met at Succoth as a rendezvous.—MAP, Vol. 1, p. 536.
............
The exact route followed by the Israelites from Rameses to the Red Sea cannot be traced with certainty today, since the sites mentioned in the account cannot be definitely located. Most reference works prefer to show them as crossing through what is known as the Wadi Tumilat in the Delta region of Egypt. This route, however, is predicated principally on the identification of Rameses with a site in the NE corner of the Delta region. But as Professor of Egyptology John A. Wilson states: “Unfortunately, scholars do not agree upon the precise location of Rameses. The Pharaohs named Ramses, particularly Ramses II, were generous in naming towns after themselves. Further, references to this city have been excavated in Delta towns which can make no serious claim to being the location.”—The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by G. Buttrick, 1962, Vol. 4, p. 9.
...........
Various places have been suggested, have held popularity for a time, and then have been rejected in favor of another possibility.
...........
The route through the Wadi Tumilat has also been favored because of the popular modern theory that the crossing of the Red Sea did not actually take place at the Red Sea but at a site to the N thereof. Some scholars even advocated a crossing at or near Lake Serbonis along the Mediterranean shore, so that after exiting from the Wadi Tumilat the Israelites turned N in the direction of the coast. This view directly contradicts the specific statement in the Bible that God himself led the Israelites away from the route that would go to the land of the Philistines. (Ex 13:17, 18) Others also favor a route through the Wadi Tumilat but argue for a “sea” crossing in the Bitter Lakes region N of Suez.

Red Sea, not ‘sea of reeds.’ This latter view is based on the argument that the Hebrew yam-suphʹ (translated “Red Sea”) literally means “sea of rushes, or, reeds, bulrushes,” and that therefore the Israelites crossed, not the arm of the Red Sea known as the Gulf of Suez, but a sea of reeds, a swampy place such as the Bitter Lakes region. In so holding, however, they do not agree with the translators of the ancient Greek Septuagint, who translated yam-suphʹ with the Greek name e·ry·thraʹ thaʹlas·sa, meaning, literally, “Red Sea.” But, far more important, both Luke, who was the writer of Acts (quoting Stephen), and the apostle Paul used this same Greek name when relating the events of the Exodus.—Ac 7:36; Heb 11:29; see RED SEA.

Furthermore, there would have been no great miracle if a mere marsh had been crossed, and the Egyptians could not have been “swallowed up” in the Red Sea as “the surging waters proceeded to cover them” so that they went down “into the depths like a stone.” (Heb 11:29; Ex 15:5) Not only was this stupendous miracle referred to later on by Moses and Joshua but the apostle Paul said that the Israelites got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and the sea. That indicated that they were completely surrounded by water, the sea being on both sides and the cloud above and behind them. (1Co 10:1, 2) This would indicate, too, that the body of water was much deeper than anything that could be waded in.

The route of the Exodus depends largely on two factors: where the Egyptian capital was at the time, and the identification of the body of water where the crossing occurred. Since the inspired Christian Greek Scriptures use the expression “Red Sea,” there is every reason to believe that it was that body of water that Israel crossed. As for the Egyptian capital, the most likely site is Memphis, the principal seat of government during most of Egypt’s history. (See MEMPHIS.) If this was the case, then the starting point of the Exodus march must have been sufficiently near Memphis for Moses to have been called before Pharaoh after midnight on Passover night and then to have reached Rameses in time to begin the march toward Succoth before the 14th day of Nisan ended. (Ex 12:29-31, 37, 41, 42) The oldest Jewish tradition, recorded by Josephus, is to the effect that the march began a short distance N of Memphis.—Jewish Antiquities, II, 315 (xv, 1).

A route through the Wadi Tumilat would be so far to the N of Memphis as to make the above circumstances impracticable. For this reason, many earlier commentators have suggested one of the well-known “pilgrim” routes through Egypt, such as the el Haj route leading from Cairo across to Suez (ancient Clysma, later Kolsum) at the head of the Gulf of Suez.

 

[nPeace]

Yes.
When you have evidence, you have no need for faith.

No. This is not true. I already showed you it is not.
Christian faith is not blind. It is based on evidence. If it doesn't have evidence, it is not faith.
Please try to understand what is said to you, and be reasonable.
This is what I am trying to tell you guys as to why it makes no sense discussing certain things with you.
It is the same with all of you

Preaching, does not address the point

Not preaching. Praying... and yes it does help. It helps me keep this unruly thing in my mouth, in check.
So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze! The tongue is also a fire. The tongue represents a world of unrighteousness among our body members, for it defiles all the body and sets the whole course of life on fire, and it is set on fire by Gehenna. For every kind of wild animal and bird and reptile and sea creature is to be tamed and has been tamed by humans. But no human can tame the tongue. It is unruly and injurious, full of deadly poison. With it we praise Jehovah, the Father, and yet with it we curse men who have come into existence “in the likeness of God.” Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing.. . .(James 3:5-10)

...and what point? You haven't made any worthwhile.Why? Because you are missing all - probably not listening.

Evidence are those data points from empirical reality which fit into a particular model, hypothesis, theory, claim, idea... which can be independently verified and evaluated by third parties.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia


Yes, it can be kind of confronting, I imagine...

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."
What are we talking about here again?

<patiently, as if to a child>

Hee hee. Haaaaaa ha ha. Oh my. Actually, I like that. I appreciate people who allow themselves to be humbled by a little child, rather than continue along a path of arrogance, or 'I must get my own way' attitude. You're learning. Cool.
The Bible did say, a little child shall lead them.

Yes, wind can be corroborated by a third party. There is evidence for the wind; it’s measurable and tangible.

Yes. When we measure, analyze, test, etc., we can determine what the evidence supports.
Again, there is evidence. Whether evidence for the Cookie Monster, Batman and Robin, or Big Foot.
After we analyze, and measure, we can determine what the tug on the shirt is evidence of. We learn it is none of the above three. It is evidence of wind.

You may feel hungry, but there is no evidence that you’re hungry. Feelings and evidence aren’t the same thing. There’s nothing to put out there for others to perceive; no third party corroboration.

Again. There is evidence of something.
A sensation within my body, caused by hormones, or whatever, registered in my brain, is evidence something is happening in my body. I may not know what that something is, but if I can determine by analysis that it is hunger, then I have found out that it is evidence of hunger.
The same as if I have a pain in my backside. It's a sensation, a feeling being registered by my brain. I can find out what it is evidence of, after I analyze, etc.
It may be evidence of a thorn, or thorns stuck in there, or a lump, etc.
I will know after running my tests.

There is nothing to put out there for others to see where God is concerned. No third party corroboration of your experience.
.
Wind isn’t an interior intuition. It’s a thing.

Completely false. A bunch of sympathetic people don't need a cold blooded killer to feel sympathy, in order for it to be real. Similarly, no one needs to see something directly, in order for it to be.
You said so yourself, didn't you?
I don't think you should be blaming others for your lack of openness, and limited methods


I see your friend posted what is evidence above, and I am assuming, you agree with him.
I keep asking why persons who claim to know science, continuously refer to scientific evidence when they ask about God. Can you tell me why?

Link : Evidence
We see that evidence is a collection of facts, which we then examine, test, measure, in order to determine what they tell us.
There is direct and circumstantial.
With circumstantial, we do what has to be done at times - which allows you to come up with your whale evolution, actually the entire soup bowl of evolution from common descent. We make inferences.

The evidence can be interpreted in more ways than one.
So when you say, you have mountains of evidence for evolution, we say, there is indeed mountains of evidence... but not for evolution.
When you say, we have no evidence for God, we say, there is much, but you don't see it, because you interpret it to fit your theory.

So the one thing I hope you take away, is this... Evidence is gathered. It is then determined what it supports.
Is it objective?
“Objective evidence consists of qualitative or quantitative information, records, or statements of fact pertaining to the characteristics of an item or service or to the existence and implementation of a process element. It is based on observation, measurement, or test, and can be verified.”

 

[sojourner]

No. This is not true. I already showed you it is not.
Christian faith is not blind. It is based on evidence. If it doesn't have evidence, it is not faith.
Please try to understand what is said to you, and be reasonable.
This is what I am trying to tell you guys as to why it makes no sense discussing certain things with you.
It is the same with all of you

Not preaching. Praying... and yes it does help. It helps me keep this unruly thing in my mouth, in check.
So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze! The tongue is also a fire. The tongue represents a world of unrighteousness among our body members, for it defiles all the body and sets the whole course of life on fire, and it is set on fire by Gehenna. For every kind of wild animal and bird and reptile and sea creature is to be tamed and has been tamed by humans. But no human can tame the tongue. It is unruly and injurious, full of deadly poison. With it we praise Jehovah, the Father, and yet with it we curse men who have come into existence “in the likeness of God.” Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing.. . .(James 3:5-10)

...and what point? You haven't made any worthwhile.Why? Because you are missing all - probably not listening.


"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."
What are we talking about here again?




Hee hee. Haaaaaa ha ha. Oh my. Actually, I like that. I appreciate people who allow themselves to be humbled by a little child, rather than continue along a path of arrogance, or 'I must get my own way' attitude. You're learning. Cool.
The Bible did say, a little child shall lead them.


Yes. When we measure, analyze, test, etc., we can determine what the evidence supports.
Again, there is evidence. Whether evidence for the Cookie Monster, Batman and Robin, or Big Foot.
After we analyze, and measure, we can determine what the tug on the shirt is evidence of. We learn it is none of the above three. It is evidence of wind.


Again. There is evidence of something.
A sensation within my body, caused by hormones, or whatever, registered in my brain, is evidence something is happening in my body. I may not know what that something is, but if I can determine by analysis that it is hunger, then I have found out that it is evidence of hunger.
The same as if I have a pain in my backside. It's a sensation, a feeling being registered by my brain. I can find out what it is evidence of, after I analyze, etc.
It may be evidence of a thorn, or thorns stuck in there, or a lump, etc.
I will know after running my tests.


Completely false. A bunch of sympathetic people don't need a cold blooded killer to feel sympathy, in order for it to be real. Similarly, no one needs to see something directly, in order for it to be.
You said so yourself, didn't you?
I don't think you should be blaming others for your lack of openness, and limited methods


I see your friend posted what is evidence above, and I am assuming, you agree with him.
I keep asking why persons who claim to know science, continuously refer to scientific evidence when they ask about God. Can you tell me why?

Link : Evidence
We see that evidence is a collection of facts, which we then examine, test, measure, in order to determine what they tell us.
There is direct and circumstantial.
With circumstantial, we do what has to be done at times - which allows you to come up with your whale evolution, actually the entire soup bowl of evolution from common descent. We make inferences.

The evidence can be interpreted in more ways than one.
So when you say, you have mountains of evidence for evolution, we say, there is indeed mountains of evidence... but not for evolution.
When you say, we have no evidence for God, we say, there is much, but you don't see it, because you interpret it to fit your theory.

So the one thing I hope you take away, is this... Evidence is gathered. It is then determined what it supports.
Is it objective?
“Objective evidence consists of qualitative or quantitative information, records, or statements of fact pertaining to the characteristics of an item or service or to the existence and implementation of a process element. It is based on observation, measurement, or test, and can be verified.”

Your last sentence: that’s what I said: evidence is objective and can be apprehended by third party observation.

The rest of your sermon is incorrect.

 

[nPeace]

Your last sentence: that’s what I said: evidence is objective and can be apprehended by third party observation.

The rest of your sermon is incorrect.

All evidence is not objective. No. Not at all.

 

[nPeace]

The Account of Adam and Eve are literal, for the following reasons.
1. The Bible is ancient - older than any book about creation etc. (some claim older writings, but that makes no difference to the points I will make) Older than known scientific discoveries. Yet, the writers knew that the heavens - the celestial bodies, and constellations - and earth (the precise formation), had a beginning (were created). Even to this day, scientists cannot, and I believe they never will be able to tell us, when, or how, water formed on earth.
There are other things they knew - many things.
It is hard for me to see how one who reads about the creation, cannot reason that it is too detailed and exact, to be a story.
This is not how tales and myths are constructed.

2. The Bible is coherent from beginning to end - following a historical construct which can be traced accurately.

3. Centuries into the future, all of this history, from beginning to end was reported upon, and recounted.

This in my view, is too much strong evidence to deny. Imo, there is no excuse for dismissing this.
However, not everyone is given what is from God.
We can all have the physical, but the spiritual is too precious to waste.... according to Jesus Christ.
“To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear."
“Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to them."
“Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open."(Matthew 13:11, 16; Matthew 5:3; Matthew 7:6)


The fruit can be understood, by simply understanding God's purpose, and considering the conversation between Eve and the rebellious spirit in the garden.
What was God's purpose? (Genesis 1:26-31)
Adam and Eve were created to enjoy life on earth along with generations of offspring, taking care of the variety of animals that would multiply and fill the earth, and eat the foods just right for them, drink water - not salt water - to their satisfaction (Even this concept is true science - the bringing forth of offspring, and spreading throughout the land(s)), and to the delight of their other senses enjoy the beauty surrounding them.

For how long were Adam and Eve, to live, along with their offspring? (Genesis 2:15-17)
They were to enjoy life on earth without dying - forever. Under one condition, "Leave the fruit tree in the middle of the garden." (Interestingly, the Bible never described the tree of life,as having fruit)

So when the wicked angel approached Eve, he made only one offer. (Genesis 3:1-5)
The offer - Disobey God. How? By taking fruit from the tree God said not to touch.

Based on the above, it seems reasonable to understand the tree to be a symbolic representation of God's rightful authority to tell Adam and Eve what was good and bad, for them. Adam and Eve, leaving the tree alone, would be an indication that they submitted to that - God's right to rule his creation, on his own standards of right and wrong.
This evidently is confirmed by how both trees are described.
Tree of knowledge of good and bad = God's right to decide what is good ad bad for all his creation.
Tree of life = A physical representation of God's guaranteed promise of eternal life.

This evidently is confirmed by these words...
(Genesis 3:22) . . .Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever,..

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All evidence is not objective. No. Not at all.

Good evidence, is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Account of Adam and Eve are literal, for the following reasons.
1. The Bible is ancient - older than any book about creation etc. (some claim older writings, but that makes no difference to the points I will make) Older than known scientific discoveries. Yet, the writers knew that the heavens - the celestial bodies, and constellations - and earth (the precise formation), had a beginning (were created). Even to this day, scientists cannot, and I believe they never will be able to tell us, when, or how, water formed on earth.
There are other things they knew - many things.
It is hard for me to see how one who reads about the creation, cannot reason that it is too detailed and exact, to be a story.
This is not how tales and myths are constructed.


2. The Bible is coherent from beginning to end - following a historical construct which can be traced accurately.

3. Centuries into the future, all of this history, from beginning to end was reported upon, and recounted.

This in my view, is too much strong evidence to deny. Imo, there is no excuse for dismissing this.
However, not everyone is given what is from God.
We can all have the physical, but the spiritual is too precious to waste.... according to Jesus Christ.
“To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of the heavens, but to them it is not granted. However, happy are your eyes because they see and your ears because they hear."
“Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need, since the Kingdom of the heavens belongs to them."
“Do not give what is holy to dogs nor throw your pearls before swine, so that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open."(Matthew 13:11, 16; Matthew 5:3; Matthew 7:6)


The fruit can be understood, by simply understanding God's purpose, and considering the conversation between Eve and the rebellious spirit in the garden.
What was God's purpose? (Genesis 1:26-31)
Adam and Eve were created to enjoy life on earth along with generations of offspring, taking care of the variety of animals that would multiply and fill the earth, and eat the foods just right for them, drink water - not salt water - to their satisfaction (Even this concept is true science - the bringing forth of offspring, and spreading throughout the land(s)), and to the delight of their other senses enjoy the beauty surrounding them.

For how long were Adam and Eve, to live, along with their offspring? (Genesis 2:15-17)
They were to enjoy life on earth without dying - forever. Under one condition, "Leave the fruit tree in the middle of the garden." (Interestingly, the Bible never described the tree of life,as having fruit)

So when the wicked angel approached Eve, he made only one offer. (Genesis 3:1-5)
The offer - Disobey God. How? By taking fruit from the tree God said not to touch.

Based on the above, it seems reasonable to understand the tree to be a symbolic representation of God's rightful authority to tell Adam and Eve what was good and bad, for them. Adam and Eve, leaving the tree alone, would be an indication that they submitted to that - God's right to rule his creation, on his own standards of right and wrong.
This evidently is confirmed by how both trees are described.
Tree of knowledge of good and bad = God's right to decide what is good ad bad for all his creation.
Tree of life = A physical representation of God's guaranteed promise of eternal life.

This evidently is confirmed by these words...
(Genesis 3:22) . . .Jehovah God then said: “Here the man has become like one of us in knowing good and bad. Now in order that he may not put his hand out and take fruit also from the tree of life and eat and live forever,..

The species homo sapiens factually and demonstrably never consisted of just 2 humans.
That's just a genetic fact. It doesn't matter what your ancient mythology says. If it's wrong, it's wrong. And it is. Demonstrably so.

As for your rather stupid points:

1a. factually and demonstrably wrong. Not only are there older writings then abrahamic scriptures, there are older religions as well

1b. The bible is "too detailed"? Really? Ever read Lord of the Rings? Or the Star Wars books? Do you realise that these books have less plot holes then the bible?

2. it is not. already in the very beginning, you have two different and contradicting creation stories. The rest of the bible suffers from similar problems. Not even the 4 gospels agree with one another.

3. you mean: people believed in religious and then a roman emperor mandated it as the official religion for the entire empire and everyone had to believe it. That "centuries later" these stories are still told isn't any more impressive then muslims today recounting stories from mohammed. It is what is expected from a religion that stays alive. Worse still: we still tell the stories of greek and viking mythology and those religions are even already dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good evidence, is.

Creationists seem to think that any evidence that supports evolution is not objective. But then they simply cannot afford to understand the concept.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. This is not true. I already showed you it is not.
Christian faith is not blind. It is based on evidence. If it doesn't have evidence, it is not faith.

So you keep claiming.
Meanwhile, this supposed evidence is never presented AND we still have this definition of what "religious belief" really entails. And that definition is most certainly not "reasonable and tentative acceptance of a well evidenced idea".

Instead, it's more like "here's this book filled with unevidenced claims concerning the supernatural. just believe it please."

This is what I am trying to tell you guys as to why it makes no sense discussing certain things with you.
It is the same with all of you

You could easily resolve this by actually posting the evidence instead of just claiming that you have it.
How come you never do?

Not preaching. Praying... and yes it does help. It helps me keep this unruly thing in my mouth, in check.
So, too, the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it makes great brags. See how small a fire it takes to set a great forest ablaze! The tongue is also a fire. The tongue represents a world of unrighteousness among our body members, for it defiles all the body and sets the whole course of life on fire, and it is set on fire by Gehenna. For every kind of wild animal and bird and reptile and sea creature is to be tamed and has been tamed by humans. But no human can tame the tongue. It is unruly and injurious, full of deadly poison. With it we praise Jehovah, the Father, and yet with it we curse men who have come into existence “in the likeness of God.” Out of the same mouth come blessing and cursing.. . .(James 3:5-10)

Still preaching I see.
Yawn.

...and what point? You haven't made any worthwhile

I sure did. You might have missed it, what with all the denial and ostrich defenses going on...

.Why? Because you are missing all - probably not listening.

I'm not interested in your preaching. If you are ready to share the evidence you claim to have, I'm all ears.

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

What are we talking about here again? ​

Great, you managed to work your way through the very first sentence. Congratz I guess.

Now try and read the rest of the article.

​

“Objective evidence consists of qualitative or quantitative information, records, or statements of fact pertaining to the characteristics of an item or service or to the existence and implementation of a process element. It is based on observation, measurement, or test, and can be verified.”

Cool. Looking forward to you posting the evidence you claim to have and see if it is "based on observation, measurement or test and can be verified".

Somehow, I seriously doubt it.
Why else would you have a need for faith?

;-)

 

[sojourner]

It is hard for me to see

Well, that's for sure, based on these two sentences in the same reply:

The Account of Adam and Eve are literal

Based on the above, it seems reasonable to understand the tree to be a symbolic representation

Either it's literal, or it's symbolic. It can't, by definition, be both.

 

[sojourner]

All evidence is not objective. No. Not at all.

BZZZZZZZZZZT!!!

Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you, including the home version of our game.