Summations Only

So try being sensible, then.Why should I think that the Tower of Babel is anything other than a myth ?Why should I think that the story of Samson is not a legend ?

i can't think why any sensible reader would think otherwise. Just look at them. I mean God getting so worried by a mud brick tower that he curses people with different languages ? A hero who has superhuman strength so long as he doesn't have a haircut ?Really.

I notice that your argument amounts to asserting that I should just agree with you. You,ve presented no sensible reason to consider either story a "witness statement", or even any reason to reject the obvious assessment - the same assessment you would make if the stories were pagan.And no, the Babel story doesn't hint at any danger for mankind in the tower.

So now you're saying that many of the Bible stories don't count as witness statements. But OK let's try Exodus. Do you count that as a "witness statement". On what grounds?
Any that a reasonable person - an actual reasonable person - would consider adequate?And the reason I don't see the "implication" in the Tower of Babel story is because it isn't there. If you disagree show me - but don't forget that any assumptions from outside the story could invalidate your claim.

It seems more true to say that your evidence is based on faith.Certainly God hasn't done much to provide evidence to us. Poorly evidenced miracle stories are hardly as good as actual miracles.

DuplicateEdited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sigh. I said it would be nice if there was external evidence but every time someone brings up Josephus or Tacitus they are told it doesn't count

---

You do realise that at most Josephus and Tacitus are evidence that there was a historical Jesus ? You'd really need much better than that for your claims.

quote:

---

The whole point of the Biblical writings was to report the evidence God had provided of His existence and His character and His plan of Redemption, and then the New Testament reported the fulfillemnt of the Messianic prophecies. The whole Bible is INTENDED as evidence and it IS evidence. With multiple witnesses yet...

---

So this is another case where you claim that the evidence is good mainly because you assume that you must have good evidence.But the Gospels are lousy as witness statements. The authors aren't clearly identified (the three synoptics don't identify the authors at all). Two of them copy directly from a third. Luke, which everyone agrees was not written by a witness, fails to identify the sources used, unlike the better historians of the time. Luke and Matthew disagree quite violently in places... There's plenty more I could say about the Bible's failure to be really good evidence, but that's enough for a start.

quote:

---

According to you, not according to orthodox theologians and believers.

---

So "orthodox theologians and believers" deny the truth. That really isn't helping your case.

quote:

---

The Bible doesn't rest on a minor case like Elizabeth's pregnancy, but a reasonable person ought to be able to accept such an account because of its internal reasonableness and the fact that it's within a greater account of other fulfilled prophecy, the pregnancy of Mary for major instance, which fulfills OLD Testament prophecy, which is EXTERNAL to the New Testament account.

---

Except that Mary's pregnancy DOESN'T fulfill Old Testament prophecy.The Gospel of Matthew says that it does, but it takes the prophecy completely out of context. It takes a whole lot of faith to claim that as a prophecy fulfillment.So thanks for providing a clear example where your "evidence" is based on faith, rather than vice versa.

While I'm glad that you're admitting that the Bible as written by many human authors I think that you're overstating your claim by rather a lot.How many writers make clear and unambiguous references to the Christian idea of this "plan of Redemption" ? Citing chapter and verse ?

OK Faith, you've never claimed that God wrote the entire Bible. You've always admitted that the primary authors are all human. Right ?As for the rest, I think you can trust the audience to juge what is clear and unambiguous, but your choice of reference makes it rather clear. It's not that the Bible authors knew and wrote of the Christian "plan of redemption" it's all about interpreting the texts as referring or alluding to it, even though the such a reading rests on the assumption of Christian belief. In other words, it's just more "evidence" based on faith.

quote:

---

What?

​

You go from accusing me of denying that the Bible is a God-inspired whole, but now "admitting" it, to what exactly?

---

I merely point out that claiming that God is the author of the Bible contradicts the claim that it had multiple human authors.

quote:

---

But the evidence is incredibly strong and worthy of trust.

---

No, it isn't. That's why you can't come up with anything good.

quote:

---

Try believing it instead of criticizing it.

---

I did. Maybe you will one day. Or better yet, maybe you'll understand it instead of ising it as an excuse to justify your own prejudices.

quote:

---

But that's ridiculous. Of course it had multiple human authors, all moved by the Spirit of God.

---

Who said "Being inspired means God authored it" ?

quote:

---

As for the rest, Oh well.

---

Yeah, I guess you know that you don't have any decent evidence. That's why you won't discuss it.

quote:

---

I don't know how you are finding this difficult. God DID author it, by inspiring the human writers to write according to His inspiratiOn

---

I'm not having any trouble at all. You're the one with the problem. If the human authors aren't writing their words from their experiences they aren't making any sort of witness statement.

quote:

---

As I said, I have serious doubts that you would be persuaded by the excellent evidence there is.

---

You mean that you expect me to tell the truth rather than pretending that you're right.

quote:

---

But I haven't yet read the Scarlet Thread of Redemption. We'll see how that goes.

---

I've glanced at it. It's a sermon, not very long. And it says much less than you claimed. Not that I expect you to put the actual text ahead of what you want it to say. After your treatment of the Bible and Calvin I have no illusions on that score.

Which makes all books equally "inspired by God". I suppose Christians should be glad that Calvinism is not as Biblical as Faith pretends (even if she only means that her version of Calvinism agrees with her version of the Bible)