Summations Only

The testimonies in the Bible are the evidence, Percy, they are the evidence that my faith is based on and the evidence I keep trying to persuade you all of, but alas, you keep throwing it away. You get the evidence and you throw it away. Oh well.

I think I understand where you are coming from. Once you accept that the Bible is an accurate record of past events, then statements in the Bible are facts that can be drawn on to prove that depicted events did occur. The idea the Bible can be accepted in such a way is reinforced by a history and tradition of people taking the Bible in exactly that way going back for centuries.On the other hand, a 30000 foot look down at such a process indicates to others that the entire process of accepting the Bible in such a way is completely self-referential. There is no logical reason to accept the truth of the Bible in the way you do without some outside confirmation. Non-believers insist on evidence before acceptance. Further complicating things is that quite a few Bible proclamations are internally inconsistent, and poor matches for what can actually be observed. Also, those long, historical traditions that believers adore include periods of persecution, superstition, suppression of science and playing loose with the text, and denouncing other long traditions, all perpetrated by believers. There are also lots of obviously invalid religions which have left various records behind.I think there are some differences in the definitions of evidence between you and others, but that such differences are minimal and inconsistent on both sides. But generally speaking, when people talk about the lack of evidence, they are referring primarily to the kinds of evidence that would cause someone to take the Bible as testimony despite clear obstacles to doing so.No amount of quoting the Bible is going to get your point across. If you find yourself grabbing at verses discussing the folly of leaning on human understanding, you have probably reached a frustration point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The arguments that it is not evidence are superficial and artificial and I simply hope at some point some might see through that.

I think the thing to remember is that you refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts the bible.Given that stand point and being aware that others cannot reconcile the words of the bible with the real world evidence (that you have accepted as being contradicted by the bible) are you surprised by the reactions of people on this site?And I find it significant that even other Christians on this site cannot reconcile parts of the bible with physical evidence.What are you thoughts about this?

I think it's a matter of knowing it's God's word, really truly is God's own communication to us. I think some people can yet come to that realization and then the evidence they think stands against the Bible will just be seen as some kind of illusion. But no, I don't expect people to get it unless they do have such a recognition, which would be really a conversion.This is what we always hope for. But to my mind it's just common sense anyway. The way evidence is demanded here is just a sort of odd habit, or like an irrational cultural practice with regard to the Bible and questions about the supernatural in general. It's an ingrained bias, not the rationally established position they think it is. This external evidence that is demanded is not needed but habit /bias makes them think it is. It's a kind of categorical thinking that gets in the way of really thinking it through. Yes I know that's a weird thing to say, but that is how I see it.The Christians have allowed themselves to apply a worldly standard instead of holding to faith as their standard. Depending on how far they've allowed themselves to reject parts of the Bible they may still be saved, but I think it's a very risky thing to do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Evidence is the foundation of the scientific method. Claims that the supernatural is an aspect of the real world must be supported with evidence, as must any claim.You also seem unaware that you've changed your tune. A few messages ago you were insisting that evidence is the foundation of faith ("You are wrong about faith, it MUST be based on evidence"). Now you're arguing that demands for evidence are an odd habit and an irrational cultural practice.You're much more preachy these days, no longer trying to convince people of what the facts support but instead berating people for not sharing your religious beliefs, which appear inconstant. Is your faith supported by evidence or not? If it is, what's that evidence, which for this thread would be evidence that the Bible is inerrant and is the word of God.--Percy

Hilarious. Asking for and providing evidence is among the most important rules here. Surely you've learned something after more than a decade of participation here. Perhaps a bit of introspection is in order.

So two fowl and seven fowl are the same number?

You know she won't answer you. Can we move on?This is from the first post, started by an EvC member long gone and forgotten:

quote:

---

So, is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
I would say it doesn't really matter.
I mean, even if it was god's exact words, just how far are you going to believe them?

​

Just take Jesus as an example. What do you think would have happened if he came and said "Your whole conception of how the world is and was made is wrong, let me tell you how it really is." ?

---

Were the authors inspired?

​

Is so, Is the Bible word for word literal or is it thought for thought literal?

​

If not, where did these authors get their information, insight, and story telling ability? What was the source of their inspiration?

​

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

​

Edited by AdminPhat, : clarification and redirection of topic

It evolved.

What about the testimonies of Muhammed and his followers which demonstrate that God dictated the Qu'ran to Muhammed?

Why would you do those works if you didn't have faith that they would save you?Why do you doubt the Qu'ran? If you believed it is true, then you would believe it was true, wouldn't you? Obviously, once you believe the Qu'ran is true then you will have all the evidence you need. How does being different result in being right?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The Bible IS evidence, I haven't changed that tune at all. Witness evidence IS evidence. It IS irrational to dismiss it by "scientific" standards. In fact they don't apply anyway because this is not a case of a single witness whose testimony needs to be corroborated outside his own testimony, this is a collection of many witnesses who do corroborate one another.What's irrational is asking for external evidence when sufficient evidence has already been supplied.It's the same as if you had a bound stack of testimonies of many witnesses from a trial and they all happen to agree on most of the particulars, it's not one testimony as you all love to say the Bible is, it's a collection of separate testimonies that happen to be bound together. An excessive number of them have been provided in the case of the Bible because extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It's been supplied.
\
It is truly irrational to dismiss all these separate testimonies. And again, God DID provide the physical evidence you all ask for, many instances of it at many times throughout history, but you do have to humble yourself to believe what the many witnesses said about it.Maybe I am getting more preachy, wasn't particularly aware of it, but good evidence fails to persuade around here. Hm, looks to me like I'm still trying to use evidence.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Much of the Bible is NOT "witness statements". Some of it is myth, some of it legend, some of it is fiction. All of it is partisan, much of it is credulous. None of it stands comparison with even the better ancient histories.And that is why the Bible is not good evidence.

None of it is myth or legend or fiction, none. Except the parables which are clearly identifiable. Where it is historical narrative it is true history. Otherwise there are devotional and poetic books and proverbs and prophets, and the letters of the New Testament that are theological or elaborate on instructions for living the Christian life, but even all those contribute to the overall witness testimony because they are by various personalities in the whole history and refer to other known personalities, as well as achoing other writers of the scripture.The specific witness accounts I was mostly referring to, such as of miraculous events, occur here and there throughout the books of the scripture. But it's all of a piece historically and theologically anyway. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.