"THE LORD'S DAY IS THE SABBATH DAY NOT SUNDAY ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURES

[3rdAngel]

There is no need to copy and paste. You ran away in the post of yours that I am answering right now.
Once again you demonstrate that you do not understand the burden of proof. And of course you ran away from the discussion again.

I think you are trolling, with your dishonest posts SZ. Perhaps it is time to put you on the ignore list. Your trolling here gets a little boring after a while, everyone can see it. Just take some correction and move on. I am feeling a little sorry for you now as you have lost quite easily in all of our discussions here because you cannot prove anything you say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are trolling, with your dishonest posts SZ. Perhaps it is time to put you on the ignore list. Your trolling here gets a little boring after a while, everyone can see it. Just take some correction and move on. I am feeling a little sorry for you now

I would suggest an apology. I keep showing that you are running away by repeating the questions and claims that you are afraid to deal with.

Why are you afraid to discuss the fact that much, if not all, of Genesis is mythical? And that takes away the basis of your argument.

But you will probably run away again.

Don't worry. If @samtonga43 can get up the nerve to ask proper questions I will answer her.

 

[3rdAngel]

I would suggest an apology. I keep showing that you are running away by repeating the questions and claims that you are afraid to deal with. Why are you afraid to discuss the fact that much, if not all, of Genesis is mythical? And that takes away the basis of your argument. But you will probably run away again. Don't worry. If @samtonga43 can get up the nerve to ask proper questions I will answer her.

Alright. I am sorry you are deflecting what you are doing onto other people here. I am sorry you do not address the scriptures and post content that has been provided to you that is in disagreement with you showing why your posts are in error. I am also sorry that you then falsely accuse others of things you do after being provided evidence that you make false claims and accusations that you are unable to prove and when challenged to prove what you say leading you to continue running away from the discussion here. I am sorry you have lost all your arguments in this thread. It must be embarrassing. I am sorry you will not listen to others that have joined in with this thread that have also tried to help you in this discussion and have pointed out the same things to you that I have been trying to help you with. I am sorry you will not take any help from others here in this thread and are unable to prove anything you say. I am truly sorry your posts have no truth in them even if they make me smile

Take Care SZ

 

[Subduction Zone]

Alright. I am sorry you are deflecting what you are doing onto other people here. I am sorry you do not address and scripture and post content that has been provided to you that is in disagreement with you showing why your posts are in error. I am also sorry that you then falsely accuse others of things you do after being provided evidence that you make false claims and accusations that you are unable to prove and when challenged to prove what you say you continue running away from the discussion here. I am sorry you have lost all your arguments in this thread. It must be embarrassing. I am sorry you will not listen to other that have joined in with this thread that have also tried to help you in this discussion and have pointed out the same things to you that I have been trying to help you with. I am sorry you will not take any help from others here in this thread and are unable to prove anything you say. I am truly sorry your posts have no truth in them even if they make me smile

No, deflection is what you do. I have been trying to get back on topic but you keep running away. The facts that I brought up refute the basis of your exegesis.

Are you done running away? Are you ready to address the problem that relying upon a myth presents to you?

 

[samtonga43]

Thanks sis. Happy others can see it. I am not sure why SZ cannot.

Well duh! This has already been explained to you. You need to work on your listening skills. I have already told you that my discussion is with 3rd on this topic. And you refuse to make your beliefs clear. If you clearly state your beliefs I would gladly include you too.

But of course I can support that positive claim.

Refusing to discuss something with a person too afraid to state their own personal beliefs is not running away.

1. False assumption.Yes, folks, another one!
2. The burden of proof (not 'support')rests with those making positive claims.

 

[Soapy]

Are you referring to yourself here in post # 1351 linked Mr Grammarly? (Matthew 7:1-5)

Lets be honest here Soapy. You have never proven anywhere in this thread that what I have posted to you from this OP and scripture is in error. This is why others on this website have been saying to you and pointing out that you simply make statements unsupported by any fact or evidence to support what you say than make personal claims and accusations you are also unable to support while not addressing any actual scriptures and post content that is in disagreement with you. This has been pointed out to you by others reading our discussions in this thread has it not?

Lets be honest please Soapy. You are making strawman arguments no one is talking about here as a distraction to something I have never requested from you. You know that I was asking you to address the posts and scripture content that are in disagreement to your claims that Gods' 4th commandment "seventh day Sabbath" is any day of the week from the posts you ignored and are unwilling to respond to in post # 1577 linked; post # 1578 linked; post # 1579 linked; post # 1580 linked; post # 1581 linked; post # 1582 linked and post # 1583 linked. The linked posts are the most recent. You have been ignoring my post and scripture content and unwilling to respond to them because they prove from the scriptures why what you claim is not biblical. The childishness therefore is your side not mine because you are unwilling to address the post and scripture content the prove what you say is not truthful. Others can also see this and have been pointing it out to you. Your response has been to get angry with everyone that is in disagreement with you rather than receiving helpful correction and moving on with the discussion here.

I do not know why you think it is evidence to support your view here by trying to appeal to someone that does the exact some things as you do in this discussion. Everything shared with you here has been proven with evidence and even other random people throughout this thread have told you the exact same things Soapy. You make claims unsupported by any evidence while ignoring all the evidence that is presented against what you say that is in disagreement with you proving what you say is untruthful. This is why it was pointed out to you earlier that you are being destroyed in our debate because your unable to prove what you say while the evidence shared against you proves what you say is untruthful.

To express something as truth you need to be able to support what you say with evidence and prove what you say is true. If you cannot provide evidence for your claims and accusations you make against others here than all you have provided are false claims and accusations you are unable to prove which is untruthful and being dishonest. Don't feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for yourself as many other people that are reading our discussions now have pointed this out to you but you are closing your eye refusing to receive correction so you can learn from your mistakes and move on. I feel sorry for you as I would much rather you learn and move on so we can discuss the OP.

Take Care

Just bullet point the things you want me to answer to you exactly as I’m not going to read through your humongous over burdening diatribe that you claim in your links.

For what reason are you unable to do that?

If you want answers then you need to provide the questions!

So far you have been incapable of supplying the questions I asked you to show me in the format I asked you to show me… Which points to the fact that EVEN YOU don’t know what those questions are.

You only know, like with SZ, to keep posting cut-and-paste and repetitive jargon and rhetoric.

How happy it is that your poor tactic fails so dramatically when put to the test.

 

[Soapy]

1. False assumption.Yes, folks, another one!
2. The burden of proof (not 'support')rests with those making positive claims.

Can you prove that?

 

[Soapy]

What do you want me to prove? What did I write that you have problems with? Let's go over it point by point. What I posted is fairly common knowledge so I did not think that any of it needed "evidence". But if you disagree just tell me where.

He’s too scared to answer directly. There is something very robotic about his responses almost like it’s auto-generated and therefore it’s a worthless debate since neither you nor I will ever receive anything sensible from a computer programmed auto-sentence/paragraph system.

Read back posts from 3rdAngel to you and me and see the same pattern …. I think 3rdAngel is not worth debating with and is only here to keep the thread open as a topic.

I’ve seen Bot postings before but this is the best I’ve seen yet. The others couldn’t even keep on topic. This one keeps on topic by just reposting the same thing over and over and over….

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. False assumption.Yes, folks, another one!
2. The burden of proof (not 'support')rests with those making positive claims.

Oh my! So full of fail. You have not found a single false assumption yet. Did you forget that you were supposed to support your claims? I don't even have to defend that claim to you now. By making such a claim you took on the burden of proof.

And your reading comprehension appears to be lacking as well. That I will discuss the topic with the person that the claim was aimed at is offering to provide my burden of proof.

Your reasoning is almost as bad as 3rd's.

You failed twice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you prove that?

Of course not. Even worse I told her when she threatened to "expose" me that she would need to support her claims. She does not appear to know how to do that. At least when it comes to her claims about me she has not done so.

 

[samtonga43]

No, not true. It has been the case here, but there have been only two people guilty of that behavior. Don't act like as if this thread was the whole website.

Oh, I don’t think for one second that this thread is the whole website. That would be silly. I have actually read quite a lot of the interactions in this forum...

Now it is rather clear that you cannot support your claim. In the future you need to respond right away.

I can’t always do this. I have a life to live.
But to remind you: You wrote, “What is so hard about being polite? Why do you think that it is a bad idea?”
Can’t you see that these are assumptions? And come to think about it, they are also examples of the loaded question fallacy.

I understand context. That is not an excuse for advocating slavery.

Rash assumption once more. Who is advocating slavery?

Sorry, now you are just spouting rhetoric. You need to do better than that. Either refute or admit that I had a point. So far you have not refuted. Now you only appear to be making excuses. My point still stands.

Sorry, but no. An epic failure, I’m afraid. Your point fails because you have taken no account of historical context, which includes the customs, laws, behaviour, circumstances etc. at the time of writing.

Don’t you understand? ‘Slavery’ in O.T. law is very different from anything that we commonly associate today with slavery. Israelite slaves could break their contracts by leaving their ‘master’. They entered into slavery voluntarily, and that slavery could be ended voluntarily.

*As to your last question what doctrine?

*Sigh…
Now you are not even paying attention to your own words, SZ. Here is what you said: ”I have never seen him advocate for slavery. I have never seen him support the false doctrine of substitutionary atonement”

And there is an epic failure. Sorry, you needed a specific verse. Now you are just playing the heads I win tails you lose game.

Again, you display a total misunderstanding of what context means. I did not 'need' a single verse. There IS no single verse. Stop thinking like a fundamentalist, SZ.

No, I am pretty sure it was you. But let's say it was someone else. Then I need to ask you: Do you believe the Noah's Ark myth?

You need to ask me? LOL! You appear to be obsessed with Noah and his ark. Were you taught that this was literally true when you were a Christian?

No, sorry, when it appears to be the case that means that an observation has been supported with evidence. It puts the burden of proof back upon you. But you seem to dodge that regularly.

Last sentence: please support this observation with evidence.

But you did. If you did not understand then you should have asked questions.

What are you talking about? I did understand. So why would I ask questions?

 

[samtonga43]

I would suggest an apology. I keep showing that you are running away by repeating the questions and claims that you are afraid to deal with.

Why are you afraid to discuss the fact that much, if not all, of Genesis is mythical? And that takes away the basis of your argument.
Why do you assume that he is afraid?

But you will probably run away again.

Don't worry. If @samtonga43 can get up the nerve to ask proper questions I will answer her.

LOL! You think I'm afraid of you too? What is there to be afraid of, SZ?
(Now there's a proper question; I wonder if you can answer?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, I don’t think for one second that this thread is the whole website. That would be silly. I have actually read quite a lot of the interactions in this forum...

I can’t always do this. I have a life to live.
But to remind you: You wrote, “What is so hard about being polite? Why do you think that it is a bad idea?”
Can’t you see that these are assumptions? And come to think about it, they are also examples of the loaded question fallacy.

Oh just the usual, personal attacks and garbage. Once again you demonstrated a reading comprehension fail. You do not just get to pick quotes out of context. The questions that you did not like were in reaction to a person being rude. There was no false assumption of someone being rude. That is a failure on your part. The second question is due to the fact that person had been corrected many times about being rude, I do not remember if it was you or 3rd. You both failed in that way countless times. So the question was not unjustifed

When you try to prove something, context matters. Just because you disagree with someone does not make a statement a "false assumption".

Rash assumption once more. Who is advocating slavery?

Sorry, but no. An epic failure, I’m afraid. Your point fails because you have taken no account of historical context, which includes the customs, laws, behaviour, circumstances etc. at the time of writing.

Don’t you understand? ‘Slavery’ in O.T. law is very different from anything that we commonly associate today with slavery. Israelite slaves could break their contracts by leaving their ‘master’. They entered into slavery voluntarily, and that slavery could be ended voluntarily.

*Sigh…
Now you are not even paying attention to your own words, SZ. Here is what you said: ”I have never seen him advocate for slavery. I have never seen him support the false doctrine of substitutionary atonement”

Again, you display a total misunderstanding of what context means. I did not 'need' a single verse. There IS no single verse. Stop thinking like a fundamentalist, SZ.

You need to ask me? LOL! You appear to be obsessed with Noah and his ark. Were you taught that this was literally true when you were a Christian?

Last sentence: please support this observation with evidence.

What are you talking about? I did understand. So why would I ask questions?

Wow! And you appear to be pretending that I am the ignorant one. There were two forms of slavery in the OT. One was very similar to indentured servitude in Colonial America. The other was a form of chattel slavery that was little different from the chattel slavery of the old south. There was some protection for the slaves, but then some of the states limited what a slave owner could do to slaves in the south. Do you need verses? You know that I can provide them. Oh, and here is a test for you:

How could a slave owner trick a fellow Hebrew that was an indentured servant type of slave into becoming a chattel slave? It is in the Bible.

Lastly, of course you needed a single verse. You don't get to take credit for a single quote and claim that comes from the Bible. If one did that almost any religion could claim that any decent quote "came from my religions". Just admit it, the quote "With great power comes great responsibility" is not biblical at all. You were caught with your pants down,. You made a claim and could not support it.


Oh my, another series of epic fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! You think I'm afraid of you too? What is there to be afraid of, SZ?
(Now there's a proper question; I wonder if you can answer?)

You keep demonstrating fear. Rudeness, false attacks, refusing to answer questions. Those all indicate fear. All that you have to do is to try to have a proper discussion. That would take away my l claim of you acting as if you are afraid..

Can you act in such a way that it does not look as if you are afraid? There is a direct question for you.

 

[samtonga43]

Oh my! So full of fail. You have not found a single false assumption yet.

Too funny! Sweet irony! I am exposing your false assumptions all the time, SZ. Open your eyes. You just made one when you said that “Refusing to discuss something with a person too afraid to state their own personal beliefs is not running away”. Did you forget this in such a short time? It surely cannot be that you don’t see the false assumption there! It is very obvious.

Your reading comprehension appears to be somewhat lacking, but take it slowly and I’m sure you will understand.

Did you forget that you were supposed to support your claims? I don't even have to defend that claim to you now. By making such a claim you took on the burden of proof.

Muddled prose. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Try again.

But of course I can support that positive claim.

Read slowly: The burden of proof (not 'support') rests with those making positive claims.
In this case – you.

You failed twice.

Someone lacking in comprehension would say so. No surprise there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Too funny! Sweet irony! I am exposing your false assumptions all the time, SZ. Open your eyes. You just made one when you said that “Refusing to discuss something with a person too afraid to state their own personal beliefs is not running away”. Did you forget this in such a short time? It surely cannot be that you don’t see the false assumption there! It is very obvious.

Your reading comprehension appears to be somewhat lacking, but take it slowly and I’m sure you will understand.

Muddled prose. I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Try again.

Read slowly: The burden of proof (not 'support') rests with those making positive claims.
In this case – you.

Someone lacking in comprehension would say so. No surprise there.

Oh my! Just because you cannot understand something or disagree with something does not make it a false assumption. It does not make it a rash assumption. Also, how do my personal beliefs that have nothing to do with the reasoning of this thread have anything to do with it? Once again, you seem to have a very hard time understanding points that you disagree with.

All that you have here are personal attacks. You have not demonstrated one false assumption yet.

I know this may be challenging for you, but see if you can focus on one claim and support it properly.

You can do it if you try.

And please. Learn what the phrase "the burden of proof" means. Here is a hint, the use of the word "proof" is somewhat colloquial.

 

[3rdAngel]

Hoping that we can get back to the OP now...

SUNDAY WORSHIP IS NOT THE LORD'S DAY

The term "the Lord's day" was used by some in the early Church as a reference to Sunday worship in celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. It comes from a scripture in the bible found in Revelation 1

• REVELATION 1:10 10, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet

The Greek words used for the day that JOHN was in the Spirit of is the for Lord's day are

• REVELATION 1:10 εγενομην εν πνευματι εν τη κυριακη ημερα και ηκουσα οπισω μου φωνην μεγαλην ως σαλπιγγος

The word "κυριακη" (translit. "kuriake") is an Adjective - Dative - Singular - Feminine. This means it is being used as a 'possessive' as ownership or belonging to ("of", see 1 Corinthians 11:20, "the Lord's supper"), which means the "day" in context belongs to "the Lord". It is literally "the Lord's (belonging to) day". This means, that the "day" in context is uniquely "the Lord's" out of all the 7 days of the week, for the day under consideration is that which exists within the week, as a day which repeats weekly. This is extremely important, as those who incorrectly assume it to mean "the first [day] of the week" in lieu of Jesus' resurrection, cannot get a weekly occurrence out of a one-time event, in fulfillment of typology of the Firstfruit/Wavesheaf in Leviticus 23:9-14, as made known in 1 Corinthians 15:20,23

The problem here however is that there is not a single scripture that references Sunday or the first day of the week (bible names for the days of the week) to being "the Lords day" in scripture.

According to the scripture "the Lords day" however can be referenced to "the Sabbath day" of Gods' 4th commandment found in Exodus 20:8-11.

Letting the scriptures answer this question

• WHAT DAY IS THE LORD'S DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?

• MATTHEW 12:8 FOR THE SON OF MAN IS LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY

This then promotes a bit of a dilemma for the Church as there is not a single scripture in all of the bible that days "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is Sunday. Yet there is many scriptures referencing "the Lords day" or Gods' specific claims to ownership of any particular day to the Sabbath day that he blessed and set aside as a holy day of rest for a memorial of creation (see Genesis 2:1-3) and made one of Gods' 10 commandments (Exodus 20:8-11).

God's "ownership" of the Sabbath day or "Lord's day is also repeated elsewhere as "MY" (ownership of the day as in the Greek used in REVELATION 1:10 κυριακη). Other scriptures in the bible pointing to "the Lords day" as being the Sabbath day...

• MATTHEW 12:8 FOR THE SON OF MAN IS LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY. (the Sabbath day is Lord's day)

• ISAIAH 58:13-14 [13], If you turn away your foot from the SABBATH, from doing your pleasure on MY HOLY DAY (God's claim to ownership of the Sabbath day); and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words: [14], Then shall you delight yourself in the LORD; and I will cause you to ride on the high places of the earth, and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken it.

• LEVITICUS 19:30 You shall keep MY SABBATHS, (God's claim to ownership of the Sabbath day)and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

• EZEKIEL 20:12 Moreover also I gave them MY SABBATHS, (God's claim to ownership of the Sabbath day) to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ used in Revelations 1:10 is in reference to the Lord's ownership of the day. It does not say that this day is in reference to μιά των σαββάτων which means the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.

............................

Your challenge here in this OP is to prove from the scriptures alone that the Lord's DAY is in reference to the First day of the week. If you cannot all you have is a teaching and tradition of men that is not supported in the scriptures. There is not a single scripture in all the bible that refers to Sunday as being "the Lords day".

May God bless you as you seek Him through His Word.

 

[Soapy]

Hoping that we can get back to the OP now...

SUNDAY WORSHIP IS NOT THE LORD'S DAY

The term "the Lord's day" was used by some in the early Church as a reference to Sunday worship in celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. It comes from a scripture in the bible found in Revelation 1

• REVELATION 1:10 10, I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet

The Greek words used for the day that JOHN was in the Spirit of is the for Lord's day are

• REVELATION 1:10 εγενομην εν πνευματι εν τη κυριακη ημερα και ηκουσα οπισω μου φωνην μεγαλην ως σαλπιγγος

The word "κυριακη" (translit. "kuriake") is an Adjective - Dative - Singular - Feminine. This means it is being used as a 'possessive' as ownership or belonging to ("of", see 1 Corinthians 11:20, "the Lord's supper"), which means the "day" in context belongs to "the Lord". It is literally "the Lord's (belonging to) day". This means, that the "day" in context is uniquely "the Lord's" out of all the 7 days of the week, for the day under consideration is that which exists within the week, as a day which repeats weekly. This is extremely important, as those who incorrectly assume it to mean "the first [day] of the week" in lieu of Jesus' resurrection, cannot get a weekly occurrence out of a one-time event, in fulfillment of typology of the Firstfruit/Wavesheaf in Leviticus 23:9-14, as made known in 1 Corinthians 15:20,23

The problem here however is that there is not a single scripture that references Sunday or the first day of the week (bible names for the days of the week) to being "the Lords day" in scripture.

According to the scripture "the Lords day" however can be referenced to "the Sabbath day" of Gods' 4th commandment found in Exodus 20:8-11.

Letting the scriptures answer this question

• WHAT DAY IS THE LORD'S DAY ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES?

• MATTHEW 12:8 FOR THE SON OF MAN IS LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY

This then promotes a bit of a dilemma for the Church as there is not a single scripture in all of the bible that days "the Lords day" from Revelation 1:10 is Sunday. Yet there is many scriptures referencing "the Lords day" or Gods' specific claims to ownership of any particular day to the Sabbath day that he blessed and set aside as a holy day of rest for a memorial of creation (see Genesis 2:1-3) and made one of Gods' 10 commandments (Exodus 20:8-11).

God's "ownership" of the Sabbath day or "Lord's day is also repeated elsewhere as "MY" (ownership of the day as in the Greek used in REVELATION 1:10 κυριακη). Other scriptures in the bible pointing to "the Lords day" as being the Sabbath day...

• MATTHEW 12:8 FOR THE SON OF MAN IS LORD EVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY. (the Sabbath day is Lord's day)

• ISAIAH 58:13-14 [13], If you turn away your foot from the SABBATH, from doing your pleasure on MY HOLY DAY (God's claim to ownership of the Sabbath day); and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shall honor him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words: [14], Then shall you delight yourself in the LORD; and I will cause you to ride on the high places of the earth, and feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken it.

• LEVITICUS 19:30 You shall keep MY SABBATHS, (God's claim to ownership of the Sabbath day)and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.

• EZEKIEL 20:12 Moreover also I gave them MY SABBATHS, (God's claim to ownership of the Sabbath day) to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the LORD that sanctify them.

κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ used in Revelations 1:10 is in reference to the Lord's ownership of the day. It does not say that this day is in reference to μιά των σαββάτων which means the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK.

............................

Your challenge here in this OP is to prove from the scriptures alone that the Lord's DAY is in reference to the First day of the week. If you cannot all you have is a teaching and tradition of men that is not supported in the scriptures. There is not a single scripture in all the bible that refers to Sunday as being "the Lords day".

May God bless you as you seek Him through His Word.

Well, we know that ‘Sunday’ was made the day to worship God because of the command by Emperor Constantine so that it merged with the worship of the Roman God of the Sun, ‘Sol’.

This, to me, implies that ‘Sunday’ was not the original day of worship of the Jewish God, Yahweh.

And since ‘Saturday’ was given over in contemporary times as a day of rest following Jewish beliefs, it was thus thrust upon the church society to retain Sunday Christian worship even while knowing that it did not follow the command of Sabbath Day worship but the Roman Catholic command (RC’s being the predominant Christian belief)

But, again, the question is about “The Lord’s Day”!

For me, the question is “Which Lord” is being referred to?

In all, for me, I have no concrete idea and nor do I find it a point of material consequence. From the scriptures, Paul is the only person making reference to that phrase and there is no other information - except an inference to the Sabbath - that we have!

I would stray away from Sunday as the Lord’s Day as there is no reference to God blessing the first day of the Jewish week.

However, some may say that theLord’s day refers to the resurrection of Jesus on the ‘First Day’ of the week - which is Sunday in contemporary times.

… Who knows?

 

[AdamjEdgar]

Might I suggest at this point that those here who think the Bible is a fairytale based upon what is clearly to them "urban myth" and "wives tales" go away from this thread for a few days and study the scholarly work of the agnostic Dr Bart Erhman.
Bart is a former Christian who lost his way, however he has written extensively in support of the Historical Jesus and has shown comprehensively and in a scholarly way that the man really existed.
Once you realise that part of the Bible that documents the life of a real man is true, please cross that part of the Bible fable out.
The lookup Pontius Pilot, a man atheists for a long time claimed never existed...until archeologists uncovered artifacts proving that story in the Bible is also truth. Now cross that off the list.
Christians can prove well beyond reasonable doubt that almost all of the new testament characters really existed using evidence outside of the Bible. Cross that off you fable list.

Let's move onto the old testament...did you know that for many years, the only evidence supporting the existence of the Hitittes was the Bible...until archeologists stumbled across archeological evidence proving they really existed? Cross that off your list.
Hexekiahs aqueducts in Jerusalem...clearly proven fact now that Hezekiah really existed. Cross that off your list.
Egypt...not even worth going into...it comprehensively supports the biblical narrative. Cross that off your list.

One could go on for days and thousands of pages of supporting evidence (extant to Bible writings) that on the balance of probabilities absolutely refute any claim the Bible characters are a myth.
When one adds all of this up, and then asks some simple questions:

Where did I come from?
Why am I here?
Where am I going...what comes next in the future? After I did is the life after death?

Genuinely think about those questions and consider this;

No one naturally wants to get sick or die. We resist those things...it doesn't make us feel good. Why is that?

The Bible clearly says, in order to be saved from eternal death, YOU MUST BELIEVE the gospel.
You cannot be saved if you do not believe.
So for those who say to Christians, "if God is true, come back and tell me and I'll change my mind and believe"

May I ask you to read the parable of the 10 virgins...they missed the wedding because their lamps went out and they did not carry spare oil. They went in search of oil and missed everything...they returned too late and banged on the door asking to be let in. As was the case with those killed in the flood who banged on the door of the ark pleading to be let in...it was too late. You cannot change your mind once the event starts. that event is close of probation and the second coming...or for those who did beforehand, when you die. You must make this choice now, not later.

Remember what Jesus said to doubting Thomas..."blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"

I implore the doubters to just start with the basics and confirm using history the characters in the Bible. It's easy to find a huge amount of conclusive evidence to prove they existed. Please do that. Then study the theological stuff with a historical foundation of the characters. Once you do that, the wives tale folklore bias is gone and you can look more genuinely at finding answer to the epistomolical questions that are really important ...what comes next...is there anything being offered by my current world view? If it turns out there really is a Christian God, can I be saved as a person who consciously denies He exists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Might I suggest at this point that those here who think the Bible is a fairytale based upon what is clearly to them "urban myth" and "wives tales" go away from this thread for a few days and study the scholarly work of the agnostic Dr Bart Erhman.
Bart is a former Christian who lost his way, however he has written extensively in support of the Historical Jesus and has shown comprehensively and in a scholarly way that the man really existed.
Once you realise that part of the Bible that documents the life of a real man is true, please cross that part of the Bible fable out.
The lookup Pontius Pilot, a man atheists for a long time claimed never existed...until archeologists uncovered artifacts proving that story in the Bible is also truth. Now cross that off the list.
Christians can prove well beyond reasonable doubt that almost all of the new testament characters really existed using evidence outside of the Bible. Cross that off you fable list.

Let's move onto the old testament...did you know that for many years, the only evidence supporting the existence of the Hitittes was the Bible...until archeologists stumbled across archeological evidence proving they really existed? Cross that off your list.
Hexekiahs aqueducts in Jerusalem...clearly proven fact now that Hezekiah really existed. Cross that off your list.
Egypt...not even worth going into...it comprehensively supports the biblical narrative. Cross that off your list.

One could go on for days and thousands of pages of supporting evidence (extant to Bible writings) that on the balance of probabilities absolutely refute any claim the Bible characters are a myth.
When one adds all of this up, and then asks some simple questions:

Where did I come from?
Why am I here?
Where am I going...what comes next in the future? After I did is the life after death?

Genuinely think about those questions and consider this;

No one naturally wants to get sick or die. We resist those things...it doesn't make us feel good. Why is that?

The Bible clearly says, in order to be saved from eternal death, YOU MUST BELIEVE the gospel.
You cannot be saved if you do not believe.
So for those who say to Christians, "if God is true, come back and tell me and I'll change my mind and believe"

May I ask you to read the parable of the 10 virgins...they missed the wedding because their lamps went out and they did not carry spare oil. They went in search of oil and missed everything...they returned too late and banged on the door asking to be let in. As was the case with those killed in the flood who banged on the door of the ark pleading to be let in...it was too late. You cannot change your mind once the event starts. that event is close of probation and the second coming...or for those who did beforehand, when you die. You must make this choice now, not later.

Remember what Jesus said to doubting Thomas..."blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed"

I implore the doubters to just start with the basics and confirm using history the characters in the Bible. It's easy to find a huge amount of conclusive evidence to prove they existed. Please do that. Then study the theological stuff with a historical foundation of the characters. Once you do that, the wives tale folklore bias is gone and you can look more genuinely at finding answer to the epistomolical questions that are really important ...what comes next...is there anything being offered by my current world view? If it turns out there really is a Christian God, can I be saved as a person who consciously denies He exists?

You are accusing others of making a black and white fallacy and then making one yourself.

I do not know of any atheists that say the the entire Bible is mythical. Parts of it clearly are. Some parts are somewhat historical, and parts are even fairly accurate.

But if you are going to rely on history to support the Bible, which it does at times, then you also need to acknowledge when history refutes parts of it. Otherwise you are merely cherry picking.

Also your reference to the flood is an error. That is part of the Bible that can be shown to be mythical.